I think there’s two other problems with some “nice guys”; the first, as you point out here, is that there’s a very transactional, “point-based” mindset at work. “I do X, Y, and Z, and therefore I have earned romantic potential; this other guy doesn’t do those things, and therefore he hasn’t.”. Life usually isn’t so easy to narrow down to putting numbers or grades on specific factors.
The other problem, of course, is that they often value niceness that they don’t actually have. If they’re doing X, Y, and Z because they want a romantic relationship, that’s not niceness, that’s trying to pass a quiz to get a prize.
I once read a novel in which a woman was described as “the kind of woman you’d take along if you went out stealing horses”. A few months later, I had to go to the hospital for some physical therapy, and I immediately sized up my therapist as the kind of woman I’d take along stealing horses. I can’t describe it, but you know it when you see it.
I was in total agreement with you until I got to the very last sentence.
I think the self-proclaimed “stong confident woman” is like the first kind of nice guy: a jerk claiming from either ignorance or cunning self-interest that they’re full of good qualities when they’re actually mostly full of bad ones.
Like this explanation:
Both of which are not saying that “strong” and/or “confident” are bad / unattractive traits in women. I (we?) are saying that the term “strong confident woman”, like the term “nice guy”, is a euphemistic idiom that doesn’t mean what the words it’s made from mean.
ETA: I just figured out the disconnect here. I’m leaving my first draft above to show my *a ha *moment. Poster **monstro **says the first kind of “nice guy” is a jerk. The second “nice guy” is clueless. She also says the first “nice guy” is fooling others while the second “nice guy” is fooling himself. All of which are IMO true.
The self-proclaimed “strong confident” woman, at least as I parse the idiom, is both a jerk, *and *fooling herself not others. So in one aspect (jerk/not jerk) she’s like the first “nice guy”. But in the second aspect (fooling others / fooling self) she’s like the second “nice guy”.
Poster kunilou’s “Wallflower” is the clueless + fooling herself character.
There’s really 4 squares on monstro’s diagram for each gender. Plus probably a spot in the center for the sensible healthy ones amongst us. Two of the corner spots are flavors of nice guys as she said, and one other corner is the so-called “MRA / Alpha” who’s both a jerk *and *fooling himself.
How does the saying go? “If you go through your day and meet an asshole, well, you met an asshole. If you go through your day and everyone you meat is an asshole, then YOU’RE probably the asshole”.
Colorful phrase, that is.
But yes. Anytime someone laments that they can’t get a date despite their amazing qualities, they usually need to look in a (figurative) mirror to see why. No sex/gender/orientation qualifiers needed.
OR they manifest traits that people in general tend to find attractive in the opposite sex, but less often find attractive in THIS sex. And find this confusing because they often admire the opposite sex and identify with them due to having a lot of the same traits.
(I actively seek out women who identify as strong and confident and preferably have some other traits more commonly associated with males)
I have to go with AK84 here. I work with a woman who is text book describes herself as “strong, confident woman”. I find her obnoxious and off-putting as hell. We have plenty of other women in leadership positions at my firm who actually project strength and confidence without coming across as mean or nasty.
In contrast, I don’t think I would necessarily describe someone as having some horrible character flaw if they couldn’t get dates. Nor would I necessarily blame a particular character flaw or socioeconomic factor. Plenty of poor, ugly, shy or jerky people manage to date.
The premise here is that a person has trouble finding a partner, and attributes it to a good trait(s) that other people are too foolish to appreciate, when in reality, the person has negative traits that he/she is either unaware of or unwilling to admit to.
I definitely think that many abrasive/obnoxious women like to think that they are “strong” and “confident” rather than obnoxious, just as Nice Guys like to think they’re “sweet” rather than socially inept.
I do think **kunilou **makes a good point in that personality-wise, the equivalent of the Nice Guy is the Wallflower Girl. However, most women I know who have difficulty voicing their own opinions or drawing attention to themselves can absolutely acknowledge that they lack certain social skills. It’s the Nice Guys and Strong, Assertive Women that place the blame firmly on other people and will not acknowledge their own shortcomings.
I was wondering about which ‘nice guy’ definition was being used. You forgot the ‘nice guys’ who are just shy or dull and once they get over it everything will be fine. But anyway, I think your conclusion is correct, there is a similarity in condescending behavior. Both think or act like they are too good for anyone not attracted to them even though that is what makes them unattractive.
So now we’re gonna have to distinguish between “strong, confident” women and strong, confident women? Someone who is really strong and confident doesn’t have to tell anyone that’s what they are. I can see that some men would be intimidated by the ones without italics. They probably wouldn’t want to date those men anyway. A nice, quiet, unassuming guy may have trouble in the romance department (trust me, I know), but niceness isn’t the reason he’s not dating. It isn’t a turnoff, but it’s not enough by itself. I’m thankful that my wife was confident enough to approach me, because my confidence level was barely above zero (talk about turnoffs).
There are Nice Guys who admit they have shortcomings, but seems to me their problem is that they want to blame women for being bothered by these shortcomings. A woman is a big meano if she decides she’d rather be with someone who is more confident and emotionally healthy, because only “Stacies” care about such trivial things. Similarly, a Strong, Confident Woman will often be able to admit they rub people the wrong way. She’ll (proudly?) talk about how she can be a pain in the arse sometimes. But she expects the man she’s with to deal with whatever butthurt she inflicts…since she’s just that awesome and he should just love her no matter what.
The especially annoying part is the “everybody is out of step but me” thinking. Yes, we’re each individuals. But at the same time we collectively form a bell curve. An aware person knows the shape of the curve and his/her place on it. A clueless twit doesn’t. You (any you) can change yourself (some) or you can move the entire rest of the curve none. Your choice.
========
IMO jerez is spot on and thereby raises an interesting question. …
In the age of ruthless self-promotion on social media and also of online date- / mate-searching, I wonder how we’ll learn to distinguish “I am” in the advertising from “I am” in the flesh. Said another way, if someone is not an “I am” person in the flesh, how do they *successfully *advertise that on Facebook or match.com? Or is that not actually a desirable trait nowadays?
I have a couple of female “friends” who perfectly fit that description. I put the word in quotes because their strong confidence rubs me, as well as everyone else, the wrong way. They may call it strong confidence but in many cases it’s a declaration not to be ignored under any circumstances.
This message board seems obsessed with this topic, but honestly, I can’t remember the last time I heard someone describe himself as a “nice guy,” nor a woman herself as “strong and confident.”
I think occasionally I hear these terms used by a third person. What am I missing here?
Dime de qué presumes y te diré de qué careces - tell me what is it you boast about and I’ll tell you what do you lack.
Often used to describe, not people whose faults are complementary to their virtues (say, someone whose virtues include being a good eater… who needs to be careful not to eat too much), but those whose supposed virtues are no such thing: the “good eater” who never finds anything to eat in any restaurant or kitchen. The obnoxious asshole who claims to be assertive (you don’t know the meaning of that word). The jerk who claims to be nice (that word doesn’t mean what you think it means). The materialist who claims to be interested in “a spiritual connection” (involving organic Nepalese salt, because ordinary NaCl isn’t spiritual enough and anybody can buy it).
Specifically, because the concept of a “strong, confident woman” has come to represent a stereotype-shattering progressive person, many women have trouble in drawing the line. Their “strong, confident” behavior is less checked by societal forces in the way that a man’s similar behavior might be, because they are apt to interpret negative societal feedback as being the reaction of a patriarchal society. As a result, they’re more apt to cross the line between being “strong, confident” and simply being a jerk.
It may also be the case that, in order to bust boundaries, you may have sometimes to be a jerk, and/or be labeled as a jerk by those who want to retain the boundaries.
It does not seem to me that genuinely strong, confident women lack for partners, any more than genuinely considerate men do. I tend to disbelieve, therefore, women who say they can’t get dates because men are intimidated by them, just as I do men who say they can’t get dates because women want Bad Boys. I suspect there’s generally more to it than that.
Of course I haven’t been in the dating pool since late in the Cretaceous period, and I am married to a woman who could clearly be labeled strong, confident, and a boundary-buster. Hell, sometimes she intimidates me. But FWIW.
