Once upon a time, I mused on my blog about the quiet force of nature known as The Nice Guy™. You doubtless know one; the guy who’s spoken of highly by all who know him yet remains strangely solo in a duet world. Why is that, one wonders. Could it be that far too many women are addicted to their built-in bastard radar to give The Nice Guy™ a shot? Naah. Couldn’t be that. Thankfully, one Rosemary Ribner from the immortal website Grumpy Sloth (no, I’d never heard of it before either) has come along to clear up all possible misconceptions regarding this puzzlement.

It’s all The Nice Guy™’s fault.

Ms. Ribner starts her philippic with a revelation so overwhelmingly astonishing in its utter obviousness it boggles the mind anyone would bother writing it down: guys who play-act at being The Nice Guy™ in order to try and attract women, then vociferously complain at remaining dateless, aren’t actually A Nice Guy™. What, doing a bottom drawer beta male move isn’t genuine niceness? Gee. Who knew. Maybe next Ms. Ribner will tell us water is quite often wet.

From this Captain Obvious moment, Ms. Ribner launches into other reasons why, in her estimation, The Nice Guy™ is highly suspect to spending Saturday nights grocery shopping in lieu of leavin’ ‘em stacked like cordwood on the killing floor. They don’t try hard enough, this manifested by their taking “no I don’t want to go out with you” as meaning … brace yourself … no, I don’t want to go out with you. They keep reaching out of their lane and out of their league (more on this in a bit). They’re not sufficiently imbued with masculinity, this flying in the face of how toxic masculinity is the sin above all sins for feminists but whatever. They’re too agreeable. They’re boring; apparently women holding the mindset set forth in this article prefer the thrill of being treated like toilet paper. And, they claim to be feminists, this coming as news to Nice Guys™ who to a one would rather play solitaire for fun with a deck of fifty-one than hassle attempting to date any woman identifying herself with screeching, strident, manbashing feminism. This includes any woman signing off on the points in Ms. Ribner’s article as gospel truth.

Returning to the aforementioned assertion that Nice Guys™ spend too much time trying to date over their head — because, after all, there isn’t a single single woman out there not brushing off great guys because she’s holding out for Justin Timberlake or reasonable celebrity equivalent thereof — it is more than interesting to note women seizing upon this as Holy Writ. Why can’t The Nice Guy™ go ask out that Nice Girl™ over there? She’s much more his type than me. Translation: “I deserve so much better than that boring bozo, what with his manners and consideration and such. Besides, my built-in bastard radar is pinging. Make me cry, big boy!” It could be noted how utterly condescending this is to all women sloughed off as being second tier, but there isn’t a woman alive who’d do that to another woman, now is there …

Behind Ms. Ribner’s thinly veneered manbashing exercise lies the unspoken yet plainly stated belief that women who date assholes have only The Nice Guy™ to blame. Not themselves, oh no never ever ever. If The Nice Guy™ would have just filled in on the checkboxes on my must have list, they would have saved me from myself! Sorry, ladies who think this way. There’s only one Guy capable of saving you from your own shallow, narcissistic mindset. And He’s not available for dating. You date a known bastard, it is entirely on you. Own it.

PS: Laying sarcasm aside, I know several truly wonderful women who wound up dating, and sometimes marrying, bastards not through any fault of their own. In these cases, every single time the bastard managed to keep his true nature — usually mental issues manifested by abuse on one or more levels — sufficiently hidden until it was too late for an easy exit. The woman is not at fault in these scenarios, and often emerges from these living nightmares far more appreciative of what nice guys have to offer. They deserve a nice guy. Prayerfully, they will find one.

PPS: God loves bastards too and offers them the way out from their bastard-ness:

A person my age or older would be familiar with the term “Shotgun Wedding”. The idea being that a man who got a girl pregnant would be forced by the father of the girl, Shotgun in hand to the altar for the wedding. That line of thinking is in keeping with the idea Stacy McCain advanced about the the economics of love. Roxeanne DeLuca in comments also advanced this very Judeao-Christian idea:

These days, men think there’s just women you sleep with, that’s it. And pardon me if I think that, as a WOMAN, I should have the grounds to say, “If this isn’t emotional for you, if you could do this with any woman, or any woman with the right equipment and the right attitude, then I don’t want it from you.”

As it is, though, we’re expected to act like prostitutes, without the benefits and without the emotional reserve. When sexually loose women are “nice girls”, or tell you that they are, men WILL expect ALL nice women to be sexually loose.

The 60’s revolution ended this bigtime and some are still paying the price but there is one thing about this way of thinking that needs to be pointed out.

The entire idea of the shotgun wedding or the threat of the shotgun wedding is to protect the women and restrain the man. The idea being the man might think twice before trying to be a player if he know that it means he will have to follow through.

In this age of contraception and abortion those restraints are gone and the feminists of the left cheer this abandonment of the traditional Judeao-Christian meme as a triumph for women no matter the result.

There is however another side of the coin that the feminist left isn’t too loud in condemning.

Afshan Azad, 21, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the teenage wizard, in the blockbuster Hollywood films based on JK Rowling’s children’s books, feared for her life during the three-hour ordeal, Manchester Crown Court heard.

She was punched, dragged around by her hair and strangled by her brother Ashraf Azad, 28, who threatened to kill her after he caught her talking on the phone to her Hindu boyfriend on May 21 last year, the court was told.

During the row at the family home in Longsight, Manchester, which also involved her mother and father, she was branded a ”slag” and a ”prostitute” and told: ”Marry a Muslim or you die!”

Note the cultural difference here. The threats are not against the man, they are against the woman. The threat of violence is not against the man for the advances, it is against the woman. Either way the Judge hearing the case decided to make a statement about violence against women:

Judge Thomas added: ”This is a sentence that is designed to punish you for what you did and also to send out a clear message to others that domestic violence involving circumstances such as have arisen here cannot be tolerated.”

And so he sentenced the guy to….for six months after he pleaded guilty to the assault.

As Cubachi points out:

This is attempted murder, and he’s only getting six months? Azad’s case is well known throughout the world due to her celebrity status, however, this is occurring to young Muslim girls throughout the world who are deemed too “Westernized” or a betrayer to Islam.

Some on the right have highlighted this kind of thing, the left…not so much. Why the difference in reaction to the Judeao-Christian cultural norm and not the Islamic one? Why is one a sign of repressive patriarchy and the other just a cultural difference and any objection Islamaphobia?

It’s a good question and I’d love to hear the answer.