The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Flashback: Feminists Hate ‘Nice Guys’

Posted on | July 4, 2018 | 1 Comment


Amanda Marcotte has been lately busy promoting her book Troll Nation: How The Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set on Rat-F*cking Liberals, America, and Truth Itself, which is perhaps the most unnecessarily far-fetched explanation of why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Even more weird than the “Russians hacked the election” conspiracy theory, Marcotte wants us to believe that #GamerGate (and the phenomenon of online “trolling” in general) explains what happened in 2016. Asking a feminist to familiarize herself with Occam’s Razor is probably sexist — “Logic is a tool of the oppressive heteropatriarchy!” — but why can’t Marcotte simply accept the ordinary nature of Hillary’s defeat? Isn’t it obvious that a substantial number of working-class white voters were simply tired of politics as usual? Prior to 2008, we’d had 20 years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, and the idea of electing Hillary in 2016 seemed to strike many people as a step backwards.

Barack Obama had represented a departure from the past, and if many people who voted for “Hope and Change” were disappointed by the result — no one could claim the industrial heartland had experienced a miraculous economic revival during Obama’s presidency — why did so many pundits assume these voters would buy the argument that they could improve their lives by voting for Hillary? There is no doubt that Trump was sharply different, both in terms of policy and personality, than any nominee in the GOP’s history. Something about him appealed to voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in a way that no Republican presidential candidate had been able to do in more than two decades, and this was sufficient to defeat Hillary Clinton. You don’t need any conspiracy theory to explain what happened in 2016, and so Marcotte’s argument about “Trump-Worshipping Monsters” is as superfluous as anything in the Steele dossier about Kremlin agents.

If someone asked me to write a book about what happened in 2016, I might call it Blame Yourself: How Lunatic Feminists and Other Crazy SJW Weirdos Cost Hillary Clinton the Election. My theory is that a lot of Americans got a close look at the kind of extremist wackjobs who were supporting Hillary and said to themselves, “No way I’m voting to put those people in charge of the federal government.” But I digress . . .

Amanda Marcotte came to my attention today while I was searching for something else and stumbled onto a column she wrote in 2012. A writer for Cracked, Jason Pargin (a/k/a “David Wong”), wrote an article with a pro-feminist theme, “5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women.” This article was widely popular, and many people emailed to Marcotte, who was so annoyed by it that she wrote an entire column denouncing it:

The [Cracked] piece starts off on a good foot, explaining that men are taught from the cradle that they’re entitled to women’s affection, and he even touches on how women who aren’t considered beautiful are often not considered at all. He’s 100% right on this. This is the underpinning of the Nice Guy® complaint. They say that “women” overlook the “nice” guys because they’re not as attractive or whatever, but if you scratch them, you’ll find that they exclude a huge percentage of women from the category “women” for not fitting their beauty standards. Thus, the whine only makes sense if you assume that men are entitled to beauty, but women should settle for “nice”, and give up on physical attraction.
The rest of the piece is based on the iffy theory that only men really know what it’s like to feel horny. This is why liberal dudes were licking it up, since it was a purportedly anti-sexist piece, but it still had a soothing message that men still somehow are more than women, because they are more alive, you know. They have more desire. They really like sex, in a way that you women can never understand. . . .
I think men become misogynists not because their intense horniness short circuits their brain. It’s because they feel entitled to have women in a submissive position to them. . . . They want to control women sexually, not because they’re more horny, but because sexual control is just one more form of control. . . .
More importantly, men get to feel hornier because they’re socially supported in this. The whole of society is geared toward titillating men and discouraging female sexual desire. It’s inherent to the Nice Guy® complaint, where men are entitled to feel physical attraction, but a woman who wants more than “nice” is shallow.. . . Men seem hornier in no small part because their sexuality is celebrated and codified. It’s easy for men to know right away how to be sexual, whereas women are still largely expected to figure it out for themselves — and even that’s a recent invention, because pre-feminism, women were mostly just expected to do what men wanted. . . .

You can read the rest of that dispatch from Planet Marcotte, which is rather like a science-fiction alternative universe.


As weird as her argument is, the more important point is that, like every other feminist, Amanda Marcotte cannot stand to let a man have the last word about anything, including his own sexual feelings.

No, only feminists possess the omniscient psychic power to discern men’s real motives, so that very simple things — e.g., guys wanting to have sex with good-looking women — get twisted into a complex argument about how our unjust society is built on “discouraging female sexual desire” because men crave “sexual control” over women.

Remember that Marcotte’s rant was inspired by an article written by a liberal guy who was trying to make a pro-feminist argument. Notice how she takes a sharp jab at “liberal dudes” who endorsed this “purportedly anti-sexist piece” which — using her feminist psychic powers — Marcotte perceives as actually expressing male-supremacist beliefs.

And what about her repeated shots at “nice guys”? Is Marcotte correct in saying that such men “exclude a huge percentage of women from the category ‘women’ for not fitting their beauty standards” because society makes these men feel “entitled” to beautiful women? Having spent some time pondering the “nice guy” phenomenon, my general belief is that such men are mostly clueless, incapable of accurately assessing their own attractiveness, and thus don’t understand why they keep striking out. Suppose that a guy rates a “6” on a 10-scale of overall attractiveness. It is unlikely that he will have any luck chasing women who rate “8” or higher. Why would a highly attractive woman date a mediocre scrub? The “nice guy” is too clueless to recognize his own mediocrity, however, and clueless guys are also prone to paying more attention to what women say than what women actually do. This is a key difference between losers and winners, and it’s what guys in “Red Pill” forums are at least trying to develop into a useful body of knowledge about female behavior.

While I’m always willing to listen to women talk about sex, only a fool would imagine that women are always honest in such discussions. It is a natural human tendency to justify our own selfish behaviors by rationalizations. Because feminist influence is so pervasive in our culture, many women believe that their own desires are inherently moral (whatever she wants is always good) whereas male sexuality is always viewed negatively, as being tainted by “sexism,” “privilege,” etc.

“SJWs Always Project,” as Vox Day says, and what should we therefore intuit about Amanda Marcotte’s accusation that men (all men, especially including “nice guys”) secretly crave “sexual control” over women? Shouldn’t we deduce that Marcotte desires to sexually control men?

Indeed, isn’t this the basic agenda of feminism? Isn’t it the case that what feminists hate most about men is their independence?

Feminism isn’t about equality, it’s about power — an authoritarian impulse on the part of emotionally warped women who crave the power to inflict sadistic punishment on men. This explains why feminists despise “nice guys” so much. The well-meaning man who hopes to ingratiate himself with the feminist only inspires her with contempt for his weakness. The feminist takes pleasure in humiliating the “nice guy,” because his niceness — as a strategy aimed at gaining sexual access — marks him as desperate and undesirable to other women: “If he could get laid by anyone else, he wouldn’t bother being nice to me.”

Feminists have zero pity for the luckless loser, and enjoy mocking male failure. Insofar as any feminist is heterosexual (which is seldom a safe assumption) she is only sexually attracted to men who are viewed as desirable by other women. In other words, she’s trophy-hunting, seeking the interest of a high-status male as validation of her own attractiveness.

Anyone who expects Amanda Marcotte to provide an honest explanation of her own motives is a fool. Even if she were cognizant of her underlying psychological motivations (which I doubt she is), she knows she would not enhance her reputation by telling the truth about herself. Nobody who actually knows Marcotte likes her, because she is not a likable person. She is a very bad person, even by liberal standards, and is only tolerated because she is somewhat useful as a Democrat propagandist.

If you want to understand people, watch what they actually do, and don’t let yourself be deceived by their self-justifying explanations.

Notice that when I write about feminists, I avoid making generalizations about women. Obviously, there are many different types of women, and certainly not all women are feminists. Many women are decent, honest and kind, whereas feminists . . . Well, finish that sentence yourself, you “Trump-Worshipping Monsters.”



One Response to “Flashback: Feminists Hate ‘Nice Guys’”

  1. FMJRA 2.0: Day Late & A Dollar Short With Astrix : The Other McCain
    July 8th, 2018 @ 10:57 pm

    […] Flashback: Feminists Hate ‘Nice Guys’ EBL […]