Search This Blog

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

The bro dudes and those women

(Originally written for Hitcoffee circa July 2016)

Nice guys like to think they're peculiarly disadvantaged when it comes to love, sex, and dating. And they're none too fond of the competition, either. But Nice guys aren't as nice as they think.
I used to think I was a nice guy. I was wrong. I used to think my only shortcoming was social awkwardness. I was wrong again.

My first mistake was not realizing how off-putting "mere" social awkwardness can be. The evidence was right before me. I knew people even more socially awkward than me, and I didn't like to be around them. If they were socially awkward enough, I might talk about them behind their back, or make fun of them, or not hang out with them. Awkwardness is unfair and difficult to shed. As the song says, "nobody wants to know you now and nobody wants to show you how." But I was just as guilty of acting against others' awkwardness as my dating interests were to mine. Why should I have expected more of them than I did of myself?

My second mistake was not realizing I had greater problems than social awkwardness. To be sure, I said and claimed to believe (and probably on some level did believe) all the right things. I believed it's wrong to objectify women, that gender discrimination is real, that sexual harassment happens, and that in most environments women disproportionately fear for their safety more than men do. All of that, I said/claimed to believe/(probably believed) ought to enter into the equation when it comes to such things as love, sex, and dating.

But in practice I objectified women without realizing--or more honestly, without admitting to myself--that I was doing it. More important, I also had and have anger issues and control issues. I won't go into them here. My point is that those qualities were potentially creepy and definitely not "nice." On the one hand, they can be chalked off to youth and inexperience. But on the other hand I had work to do and as long as I believed I was a nice guy that wasn't going to happen.

At the same time that the work wasn't happening because I still thought I was a nice guy, one convenient foil for my frustrations was the "bro dude," although I'm not sure I've ever used that exact term and probably didn't even encountered it until about a year ago. The bro dude is a jerk. He's crass, rude, and a bit of a slob....but women love him. He comes out ahead but doesn't deserve it while the nice guy finishes last.

But just as I was mistaken about myself, I was mistaken about "bro dudes," too.
My definition of "bro dude" was too broad. Pretty much anyone I didn't like and who had a girlfriend qualified. And "anyone I didn't like" often meant "anyone I perceived as competition."
Bro dudes weren't as boorish as I believed them to be. They evidently had something to offer the women who dated them. While women, like all people, sometimes make poor relationship choices, it's wrong to assume women aren't capable of living their own lives and making their own choices.

That assumption is inherent in anti-bro-dude'ism.

And boorishness isn't all bad. Maybe some of the behaviors I called boorish were just ways to be oneself and maybe some ways of me being myself seem boorish to others. What's more: Some behaviors I used to think were boorish were probably just the guy being willing to be honest with his emotions.

As an aside but not really an aside, boorishness--and being a "bro dude"--is often mistaken for stupidity. The "they're stupid" trope by itself is best kept at a distance. Nice guys love to imagine themselves as smart, but delicate flowers that need and deserve special treatment because of their alleged intelligence. They rarely stop to admit they may not be as smart, talented, or sensitive as they think they are. They even more rarely stop to think about the implications behind giving more intelligent people special treatment. There's an important sense in which "smart people should be given more respect (because they're smart)" is equivalent to "strong people should be given more respect (because they're strong)."

I guess my moral is "if you feel you're being especially oppressed because of how good you are, maybe you're not either oppressed or good." "Bro dudes" aren't to blame. They might not even really be "bro dudes."

Now, my parting caveats and CYA concessions.

I've overgeneralized. I admit it.

Yes, there probably really are guys who have a lot to offer and aren't as appreciated as they should be. There are definitely guys who are too controlling of their partners, and some are even more than just "too controlling." More likely, most men fall between those extremes, having something to offer but also having a full range of weaknesses and faults.

And yes, I still believe it's wrong to objectify women, that gender discrimination is real, that sexual harassment happens, and that in most environments women disproportionately fear for their safety more than men do. And I still believe all of that needs to be taken into account when it comes to love, sex, and dating.

And yes, I'm a straight, white, cisgender, upper-middle class, get the picture.
Finally, I don't want to deny anyone's feelings of loneliness or awkwardness. It's legitimate to feel sad or distressed or frustrated. I think it's also understandable that such feelings sometimes translate into categorical bitterness against entire groups of people. And while we must draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable ways of expressing those feelings, it is usually be a good thing to withhold judgment and listen first.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Thoughts on impeachment

I'm coming around to believe that the House should vote to impeach Mr. Trump.

I don't say that lightly. While I have believed from day one that Mr. Tump is unfit for office, I found calls for his impeachment, coming from about the day he won the election, to be overdetermined. There's nothing that delegitimizes impeachment more than saying you're going to do it because the target is probably going to be guilty of something. Even if all's fair in love and war and politics, that seems a stretch and not much different from Mr. McConnell dedicating himself to making Obama a one-term president.

While I'm indulging in whataboutism, how well did that work out for McConnell? Well, he's still a senator and his party still controls that house of Congress, even if its hold is precarious. But Mr. McConnell's chief aim, at least as he stated it, failed when Obama won his second term. I think an attempt to impeach Trump will likely have the same effect. The House impeaches. The Senate tries the impeachment and acquits, or declines to try the impeachment in the first place. Mr. Trump declares victory, and his base gets fired up just in time for November 2020.

There is, though, something to be said for doing the right thing. If Mr. Trump has done what he's accused of with the Ukraine incident, then to my mind that counts as a high crime or misdemeanor, whether one uses a strict standard for such determinations or whether one uses the looser and more convenient "impeachment is a political decision" standard.

Sometimes you have to do the right thing even when doing so is counterproductive. True, prudence is a virtue. Disregarding prudence enough to endanger your cause might often, even usually, be the wrong thing when the cause is right. Even so, there comes a time to register your objection, a time to take a stand. Success, by itself, doesn't make right any more than might does. And failure doesn't necessarily make wrong, any more than weakness does.

And maybe impeachment will work.