For most men, ‘I’m a nice guy,’ means, ‘I’ll always be a loser’

By David McElroy · June 14, 2021

I’m as nice to people as their behavior will allow me to be. But I’m not a “nice guy.”

All my life, I’ve heard men complain that women don’t like them because they’re too nice. In a few rare cases, this is even true. In my early 20s, I dated a woman a few times and things didn’t work out. Her best friend told me the woman was so accustomed to being abused by men that she didn’t know how to accept the decent way in which I treated her.

But in most of the cases when I hear this, I quietly judge things to be very different. These guys might think they’re “nice,” but I can think of better words.

Weak. Uninteresting. Subservient. Even loser.

I have this on my mind lately because of a situation I’ve watched play out involving a man and a woman. The guy is “nice.” The woman is strong-willed and aggressive. She’s the sort who you would see as a winner in all that she does.

He’s crazy about her. She really wants a good relationship with him. He meets a lot of her objective criteria. But she can’t get past something she has trouble putting her finger on.

He’s weak. He’s a “nice guy.” He’s a loser.

I know this sounds harsh, but I don’t know a better way to put it. In human cultures, there are hierarchies. It’s built into our DNA. You can even see it in children from a young age. Some little kids lead others or at least go their own way.

On the opposite end of the scale are those with no ambition. No spark of charisma or leadership. No desire to step up and be first at something. No burning desire to win.

There’s nothing wrong with these guys, either as kids or as adults. They serve important roles in the economy, in social structures, and in family life. But no matter how you look at it, these men will always be the generic average (and less) of any culture. They’re never going to be leaders or winners.

Humans love winners. That’s not my value judgment. It’s not something terrible that my culture taught me. It’s built into human nature to love winners. We want to associate with those who have status and power in the groups we care about, whether we like to admit that to ourselves or not.

When it comes to relationships, women are typically the ones who do the choosing. Men can make a great show of going after a woman, but in the end, it’s almost always the woman who decides the answer to one unspoken question.

“Is he good enough for me?”

The women with the highest status — the smartest, most beautiful, most successful — tend to get to choose the winners. Unless there are other compensating factors, men and women pair off at roughly equal levels of desirability. It’s always been this way and always will be.

And here’s what the “nice guys” don’t understand. The women whose attention they seek are the ones who are beautiful, smart and successful. Those are the women with the most choices — and it’s very rare when this sort of woman chooses a self-proclaimed “nice guy.” He’s out of her league.

When most of these “nice guys” complain that women don’t like them because they’re nice, what they really mean is that they don’t like the choices that are available to them. They’re left to pair off with less-attracted and lower-status women — when they had their eyes on someone prettier and higher-status.

People don’t consciously make these choices, but it seems to be the way we’re wired.

I intend to be as nice and courteous and empathetic toward others as their behavior makes it wise for me to be. I’m more loving and decent to others than I might have been when I was younger and more callous. But I’m not “nice.” Not in the way that phrase implies.

A man who wants to win in the world has to be dangerous, not nice.

I don’t mean that a man should be nasty or conniving or Machiavellian. But a man has to have a dangerous side — and others need to know that he could be dangerous if it’s required.

I know that I can be dangerous, but I choose not to be dangerous to others. Not to show them what I can do. At least not today. Not unless it’s required.

The self-proclaimed “nice guy” is never going to be dangerous to anyone except himself. He might be a very decent man. He might be loving and kind. He might serve a wonderful role in his community.

But he’s going to be a loser, as human societies define that. And if that’s what he is, he’s smarter to accept what he is — instead of whining that the women who are unattainable to him simply don’t understand how nice he is.

We humans like to see ourselves as civilized, but this is one of the brutal truths that are hidden just underneath the civilized veneer.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts