Heartiste and In Mala Fide were mentioned by Hugo Schwyzer at Jezebel on the topic of women being attracted to assholes. So I adapted an old post that is now up at Good Men Project (whorefinder cried).
I think Schwyzer is wrong to ignore what we see before our very own eyes: that many women tend to gravitate toward assholes and jerks. But I think the “Chicks Dig Jerks” argument can go a little bit further. It’s not that women dig the jerkiness, per se; they just prefer the agency, the assertiveness.
I’d argue that women prefer positive agentic men, but often settle for negative agentic men – assholes – because the most desired group is in short supply and high demand. Along an evo psych framework – much like the one offered by the National Review’s Kevin D. Williamson who I think must be reading Heartiste – I argue that women, in general, are attracted to men who will increase their pool of resources. Positive agentic men have access to resources and are more likely to share those resources with the women in their lives. Negative agentic men will get resources through more direct and assholish ways, but they’ll obtain resources nonetheless. Even if the negative agentic is selfish the woman he is with will benefit indirectly.
And then from there we have guys further down the ladder who sometimes pick up the wrong bits and pieces they see agentic men using. For instance, passive nice guys often struggle in the mate/date market because they think they must sanitize their personality of all sexuality. But dating guru Tony Clink summed this thought up well:
It’s not because women like jerks. Women prefer polite over rude, and attentive over distracted. The problem is the way nice guys present these positive characteristics. In order to appear friendly and romantic, these ‘nice guys’ think they have to turn off their sexuality. They hide their desires in order not to offend, presenting an androgynous, asexual persona. The first impression they give is one of emasculation, weakness, and lack of desire. At best, they confuse the woman as to whether they even find her attractive. That’s what jerks offer women that nice guys don’t: they’re not afraid to be sexual.
Comments there are appreciated.
Like this:
Like Loading...
I read your Good Man Project piece and saw no “sellout” in your writing. In fact, unlike Whorefinder, I see your presence at feminist-friendly sites as our emissary in hostile territory. You’re well suited for this: calm, even-tempered, intelligent but in that straightforward artless way.
To Whorefinder, the mere fact that you communicate with hostile audiences in thier den is a compromise of your integrity. Mind you, ambitious writers with an eye on their career can go the “you don’t change the devil you dance with — the devil changes you” route. Or, like Ferd’s beloved Ames (I like Ferd but not some of his idols), you can drop the iconoclast act when you hit big time, and pick Team Red or Team Blue.
But I see no signs of this tendency in your writing at GMP. Yet.
PS: I see how the metaphor in your response to Whorefinder could have been a red flag — you’re leaving “the tree fort”, being read as your leaving manosphere/alt-right principles behind.
Thanks. No, I’m not leaving the manosphere or alt-right principles. I’m leaving whorefinder’s tree house in the sense that his tree house is a very narrowly defined aspect of the Manosphere and alt-right.
The things I’ve learned in those realms will make up my core principles. I may not agree with every facet of every argument, but I still hold the basic tenets and merely want to tease them out a little and/or introduce them to a different audience.
“In order to appear friendly and romantic, these ‘nice guys’ think they have to turn off their sexuality. They hide their desires in order not to offend, presenting an androgynous, asexual persona. The first impression they give is one of emasculation, weakness, and lack of desire.”
Gee, I wonder why these “nice guys” think that bold and assertive expressions of male heterosexual desire are bad? Where on earth could they have gotten that idea?
his tree house is a very narrowly defined aspect of the Manosphere and alt-right
LOL – like calling PA and Kyle ‘lefties.’ Hell, even Tim isn’t a leftie — he’s more or less apolitical but with working class populist leanings. Of Whorefinder’s nemeses, only Grzlickson is a leftie.
Given the opportunity I would happily post even at Jezebel or Feministing – assuming I had total creative control. That would be great.
‘women prefer positive agentic men, but often settle for negative agentic men – assholes – because the most desired group is in short supply and high demand.’
So true. Think Viggo Mortensen in in LoTR for an example of “positive agentic.”
Your agentic theory has one small problem, or feature, in it’s attempt to sanitise the type of qualities females find worthy of pursuit. Said hole being the undeniably visceral attraction females have toward highly, even murderously, violent men, the vast majority of whom arguably display absolutely no agentic behaviour in anything other than their willingness to inflict violence on other people. Said hole including the fact that the more sadistic the violence, the greater the amount of female attraction.
There’s an old saying; maybe you’ve heard it — “nice guys finish last.”
I support Chuck getting his voice and message out through new avenues. The more we can have manosphere ideas out in the open the better. I’m constantly explaining Chateau + HBD ideas at each family wedding or divorce. My targets used to be my younger male relatives + friends. Now I discuss the ideas with anyone.
Agentic Nice Guys are the guys young married women wish their husbands were, and odler married women wish their sons would grow up to be.
@ tspoon
It could be said that, deep down, women are naturally drawn to men who are violent, or at least potentially so – i.e., men who demonstrate the will and the ability to use violence on others should the need arise. Which is probably why many women are sexually attracted to assholes – because in their hindbrains they see “asshole” behavior as an indicator for the will and ability to be violent (though this isn’t always the case).
These women will rationalize this, of course, by saying “I just want a strong man who can protect me” or “I just want a good man who’s not afraid to stand up for himself”, or something along those lines.
Also, you could also substitute “able to force his will on others” for “violent” and it still works. (e.g., successful businessmen, judges, other authority figures)
You sound like Abagond drawing these ridiculous parallels. Only one of the two procedures you describes has medical value, the other is harassment. You’re supposed to dislike government intrusion, remember?
^ sorry, wrong thread. should be re: testicular exam = abortion.
Dr. G, it is government intrusion; it isn’t rape or molestation. The debate about government intrusion has been going on since ’72 and before, but now they’re throwing in the rape twist in order to push the ball forward.
The GMP switched Hugo Schwyzer for our dear friend Chuck. Sounds like a good trade to me.
This is what progress looks like. This proves we’re winning the debate, slowly but surely. Too bad guys like whorefinder don’t get this, but he represents an angry, unreasoned minority. I suspect we’ll be better off without him.
I can’t think of anything better than getting some of these ideas out in more mainstream sites. Bravo for getting on the GMP.
This backs up my current “game” in that I’m an asshole, but I’m also a goofball. I balance out the bad with the good and chicks really seem to like it. Being an out and out asshole just isnt me, though I’ve dont it more than a few times in order to get what I wanted.
I think a lot of guys drift towards the negative agentic side simply because its easier. Being an outright dick is an extreme, and thereby very clearly defined in pop culture. Its easy to mimick.
*sigh*
More garage-band delusions – and fapping – from those with Stat-Counter Disease.
Replete with cooing approval from the sycophant gallery.
firepower,
you seem much more interested
in me than i
am in you
b/c you use many more
usernames than
I ever will
that, like everything
you say, doesn’t
make sense
Pingback: Being a Jerk is Easy, Hence Popular « Johann Happolati