There was no mention of more sex or bungee jumps. A palliative nurse who has counselled the dying in their last days has revealed the most common regrets we have at the end of our lives. And among the top, from men in particular, is ‘I wish I hadn’t worked so hard’.

1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

Why do gynocentrists have such vile and seemingly disproportionate hatred of self-proclaimed “nice guys”? Now, some of the things that gynocentrists give as arguments are kinda true. They say things like “Guys who whine about not getting laid despite being “nice guys” are not truly nice, they just act nice to get something from women, they are not genuine.”

Well sure, that statement is partly true. But it’s also true that most men in general also do things in order to be liked by women, not because they genuinely feel like doing those things. In the MRA we call that behavior ”pussy-begging”. Most men on this planet are pussy-beggars. Most men on this planet do things in order to be liked by women in the courting process. So how can this characteristic be something that makes the nice guy different? It doesn’t.

The only thing that makes the “nice guy” different that the average guy, is that the nice guy is proudly admitting the fact that he does nice things for women. That’s it. He doesn’t do more or less nice things than the average guy. He’s no more or less sincere or doing it more or less spontaneously.

So if this doesn’t explain the hate, what does?

In my estimate, most femmie hatred of self-proclaimed “nice guys” borders on schizophrenia. It’s vile, it’s hysterical, it’s over the top, and it makes you think “wtf is going on here?”. Femmies’ hatred of self-described-”nice guys” is astonishingly disproportionate to what they cite as their reasons for said hatred.

While I (or the average man and woman) look at self-proclaimed “nice guys” and feel bad for them (in a “you poor naive sucker” kinda way) – people like Marcotte literally get full of rage when talking about “nice guys”. You imagine them actually smashing furniture while they write their rage-filled rants on “nice guys”.

So yes, I can see the logic of why femmies can dislike self-proclaimed “nice guys”. Heck, I can go so far as even understand a “strong dislike” of “nice guys” even just going off of the official story that gynocentrists give us. However, the actual level of rage, hysteria and downright paranoia about “nice guys” doesn’t add up or fit the official story. There has to be more to the story…

The only flimsy theory I ever had over the years, went something like this:

Well, maybe it has to do with the fact that “nice guys” point out the hipocrisy of most women. Most women say they want one thing, but then go for another. And sure, “nice guys” are doing nice things as an “act”, but most women still go for the guy acting badboy, and not the guy acting nice. The point is, “nice guys” are still right in pointing out the insane contradictions and lies that women tell when they talk about what they like.

Women are still lying their ass off when they diagnose why you failed at getting a date. They’ll say a lie like “oh, you probably weren’t nice enough” or “oh, you probably got rejected coz you were a jerk” or “the only reason a guy is not getting laid is if he’s not nice enough”. All of those things are things that most women say, and all of them are implying that niceness is the main determinant of being attractive to women.

So, even if you (rightfully so) point out that “nice guys” are just acting nice, you still haven’t disproven the nice guy’s claim. The point still stands – women (as a group) are in fact lying their ass off about niceness. Women are NOT attracted to “nice guys”.

Self-proclaimed “nice guys” are the first group to call women out on this massive collective lie. It’s a lie that has allowed women to get many many favors, freebies and all around comfortable lives, all in the name of men beliving the lie. So I guess maybe femmies hate “nice guys” because they endanger all the freebies? “nice guys” are calling the emperor naked, and the emperor is very, very pissed.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with “nice guys” either. 

I don’t actually believe the idiotic belief that says “women like jerks”.

What I am saying is that “nice guys” are right when they point out how women are lying about attraction to niceness. Women lie when they say they’re attracted to niceness per-se. It is a lie that niceness is a FACTOR in being attracted to a man. Sure, if she’s already attracted to him, she’d prefer he were nice.

On the flip-side, it doesn’t matter how attracted she is, if he’s too much of a jerk, she’ll dump him no matter how attracted she is. The point however,  is that neither is major factor in getting attraction or killing attraction.

So, the “nice guys” keep pointing out a major lie among women, one that women (at a collective unconscious level) use to get a bunch of freebies, goodies and nicer life in general. Maybe that’s why the femmies hate “nice guys” so much?

Today Scarecrow came out with an even better theory:

From here:

2. The femmie point is – you, as a man,  are not allowed to morally judge your own character. It is up to a woman to point out all of your flaws. How dare you not constantly put yourself down – or let others judge you (i.e. put women in a position of moral authority above yourself).

I think that right there answers the core of it. Femmies are obsessed with self-proclaimed “nice guys”, because they’re upset with the idea of guys having non-pussy-centered referential value and labeling. Most of female privilege is based on pussy power, and pussy power is based on men deriving their personal sense of value and worth from women’s reactions and interests and judgement.

The moment that guys as a group stop needing female approval and validation to see themselves as good people is the moment pussy power disappears. A lot of people have said that pussy-power is based on sex, but it’s really not. In fact, when we use the term pussy-begging (and I’m guilty of this) we’re implying the wrong thing. We’re implying that the primary begging is for sexual intercourse.

But it’s not. Pussy-beggars (most men on the planet) are begging to be validated by a female as a person, to have one’s character positively appraised by a female. They are begging for validation, approval and positive reactions from females. The actual sex is a smaller part of pussy power and pussy-begging.

Here’s a comparison of two hypothetical scenarios to prove this:

In which scenario do you imagine pussy power would drop more? In fact, in the A scenario, I would posit pussy power would decrease only by a very tiny margin. Whereas in scenario B pussypower would all but disappear. Doesn’t that right there prove that pussy power is primarily based on men seeking female approval and trying to get judged favorably by women?

Maybe that’s why femmies are so incredibly disproportionately hysterical about “nice guys”? These are guys who actually (believe it or not) break the mold of not using the woman as a referential point of character assessment. Sure, “nice guys” still pussy-beg like nobody’s business – but at least they don’t blame themselves when a woman treats them badly. Pussy power is based on you blaming yourself when women disrespect you. If women don’t approve of you, the matriarchy demands that you feel bad and try to do whatever it takes to be approved by women.

“nice guys” might be doing all sorts of things to be liked by women, but they ACTUALLY blame the woman. “nice guys” don’t blame themselves. They go “hey, women say they like good men, but I’m a good guy, and women don’t like me. Women lie.”.

The key right there are the “I’m a good guy” and “women lie” bits. The “women lie” part is an obvious capital sin in femmie-ville, but the part about calling yourself a “good man” is even worse. This is where a man dared judge his own character using his own criteria. It wasn’t based on approval from women. A lot of matriarchal power is based on women’s monopoly in handing out “real man” and “good man” labels. It’s a monopoly they’d rather not give up.

On the other hand however, a lot of the studies on hookups show a very direct link between a man’s muscularity (v-taper) and the number of sexual partners. In fact, the shape that’s ideally sexy to women, the 1.6 V-ratio also happens to be the natural muscular peak for most men. If you don’t know what 1.6 guy looks like, see guy in the picture at bottom.

That literally means you have to have the conditioning and muscularity of a natural bodybuilding champion to get as much attention as an average skinny chick. That means busting your ass off and punishing your body daily for 5-6 years, without fail, consistently and without excuses. This all assuming you are also shredded and have no bodyfat on you (you actually have to eat less food than a skinny chick, while punishing your body like a pro).

To that you might respond “oh well, but that’s just the ideal body, can’t you just be moderately fit and get physical attention from women?”. Well, from my personal experience and that of most people in the adonis community – physical attraction seems to start in the 1.55 range. In fact, it seems to be sudden… When you’re a 1.4 or 1.45 guy, women don’t even check you out in that physical way. And then, when you get to a 1.5 taper, women all of a sudden start checking you out and approaching you in that physical way. But still, even getting to a 1.5 range still involves 3-4 years of busting your ass in the gym.

Now, you might be going “but alek, I don’t even exercise, and women approach, hit on me and check me out”. And to that I would respond “Well I did too even before I got buff”. In fact, even when I was chubby I managed to get a high-level of female attention. I had developed my confidence and charisma so much that women were checking me out, approaching me, bumping into me, rubbing my crotch in clubs and swooning – even though I was below average physically. So I definitely know the power of “inner game” and behaviour-based attraction. I had personally achieved a level of female attention and attraction that even most naturally cute guys don’t get.

Here’s the difference though, all of that attraction back then was personality-based. I was getting female attention and attraction on a personal, not physical level. Anyone who tells you that looks don’t matter is full of shit, and has never seen the difference that a change in physique makes. It’s only when you transform your physique that you GET how differently women respond to athletic men. The kinds of checking out that I get right now is PHYSICAL in nature. In fact, today I can be in the worst and crappiest mental state, and women still check me out AS IF i’m charismatic or “on”. Before, I had to be “on” and “in state” to get attention from women. Today all I need to do is leave the house.

And it’s not just that being 1.55 lowers the confidence and personality requirements – the checking out is completely different. I don’t think I can describe it in words, but trust me, it’s different. Women literally check you out in a PHYSICAL way. You literally feel that they’re checking you out as a physical package. It’s not the same kind of “vibe” that you get when women check you out for being the most charismatic guy in the room.

From: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/04/opinion/bennett-men-in-trouble/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

(CNN) – For the first time in history, women are better educated, more ambitious and arguably more successful than men.

Now, society has rightly celebrated the ascension of one sex. We said, “You go girl,” and they went. We celebrate the ascension of women but what will we do about what appears to be the very real decline of the other sex?

The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women’s earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.

William J. Bennett

In 1950, 5% of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20% were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.

The warning signs for men stretch far beyond their wallets. Men are more distant from a family or their children then they have ever been. The out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than 40% in America. In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers. In 2010, that share had risen to 27%. Men are also less religious than ever before. According to Gallup polling, 39% of men reported attending church regularly in 2010, compared to 47% of women.

If you don’t believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I’ve heard too many young women asking, “Where are the decent single men?” There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind.

This decline in founding virtues — work, marriage, and religion — has caught the eye of social commentators from all corners. In her seminal article, “The End of Men,” Hanna Rosin unearthed the unprecedented role reversal that is taking place today. “Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed,” writes Rosin. The changes in modern labor — from backs to brains — have catapulted women to the top of the work force, leaving men in their dust.

Hanna Rosin: Are women leaving men behind?

Man’s response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men?

So what’s wrong? Increasingly, the messages to boys about what it means to be a man are confusing. The machismo of the street gang calls out with a swagger. Video games, television and music offer dubious lessons to boys who have been abandoned by their fathers. Some coaches and drill sergeants bark, “What kind of man are you?” but don’t explain.

Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.

For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction. It is true in all ages. Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children, and what do we teach them? Each generation of men and women have an obligation to teach the younger males (and females of course) coming behind them. William Wordsworth said, “What we have loved, others will love, and we will teach them how.” When they fail in that obligation, trouble surely follows.

We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.

The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement. We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, “Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married.” It’s time for men to man up.

• Dismissing someone’s comments because he’s bitter because he can’t get laid is like dismissing the owner of a crappy car when he complains that the car is a piece of shit. DUH, when else are you supposed to complain, when the car runs well? The most natural response to a crappy situation is to complain about it, so if a guy complains about women because he “can’t get laid” then maybe, just maybe it’s because there are many women who create situations which make it very difficult to meet or hook up with them, and hence they are crappy. A good indicator of their crappyness is that you can’t get anywhere with them, from a simple hello to getting a date, to having sex.

• We are all descended from twice as many women as men. There’s a statistic measured from genetic data that 80% of women historically passed on their genes, but only 40% of men did. This means that we are descended from the most “fit” men, and men walking around today are themselves descended from the most alpha men. So it’s ridiculous when PUAs say how inept the vast majority of men are when it comes to meeting women, since modern men can only be descended from the most sexually successful men of the past. This is a very under appreciated and unacknowledged fact about men. So it is absurd when PUAs say that the average man supposedly has so much to learn when it comes to meeting women, and that acting “normal” just doesn’t cut it with the modern woman. This is in direct odds with the fact that the male ancestors of the average man did just fine acting “normal”. The truth is that women, especially attractive western women, have become more narcissistic and demanding than their historical birthright would dictate, so to these women it only seems that very few men are good enough for them, when in fact their ancestral genetic record indicates otherwise. Hence, raising the bar on what men should deliver in order to please the modern woman is completely artificial, let alone ridiculous.

• Sex is something men buy and women sell, which is an economic representation of the history of male and female relations.But in times past the seller respected the buyer much more than today, and the system was much more functional.However, in the modern dating scene in western societies, the buyer-seller model still applies, but is cleverly disguised with fake courtship rituals and relationship quid pro quo, with the added insult that the sellers (the women) often disrespect the buyers (the men).It’s like walking into a store, and instead of being greeted by the merchant you are ignored, and even scorned just for being there. You are starting from a negative position which you must climb out of somehow. In other words, you have to prove yourself worthy before even ATTEMPTING to buy.

• Men, at least in this part of the world, lack backbone with women. The degree to which women have gotten the upper hand is not a testament to the strength of women, but to the weakness of men. In fact, it is very easy to recognize when a woman is scheming or manipulative, but it is only that men are so easily blinded by their sexual impulses that women are allowed to get away with what they do.

• Western women always say they want confident men, but when you confidently approach a woman in a public venue she brushes you off with the cold shoulder, and that’s because it is a social taboo to meet strangers in public. But really, it takes a lot of balls to cold approach someone in public, which is precisely what women say they want in a man. Unfortunately, such behaviour is not rewarded, no matter how gutsy it is. So in actual fact, women are only receptive to meeting “confident” men who operate within societies guidelines and restraints, which usually means meeting someone through their peer group, which is a chicken shit standard a man must adhere to in order to meet women.

• In the west, men hating on women is mostly a response to their shitty behaviour towards men.But women hating on men is mostly due to their indoctrination and socially downloaded negative programming towards men.

• If a woman flakes on you and you call her on it she will become very upset, not because you’re falsely accusing her, but because in her mind you cannot possibly know that her flake excuse is bogus. So she’s upset at your arrogance at assuming something to be true when you have no proof, and it doesn’t matter that you are in fact right.

• Being picky is not a virtue. So many women act like being highly selective is a good thing, so it’s almost as if, to them,the act of rejecting is done just to feel better about themselves.This is certainly true in club environments where many women see men as bowling pins which you can knock down for self-esteem points.

• The fact that women are “everywhere” does not necessarily mean that your odds of meeting them will increase, just like having more people witness someone in distress will not necessarily mean that the odds of someone helping will increase. In fact, the exact opposite happens. This is known as the Bystander Effect, a proven yet counterintuitive phenomenon.

• In magazines and in online articles which show a picture of a man and woman, such as in a relationship context, the man is often shown looking at the woman while the woman is shown looking at the camera. This basically means that the man’s focus is on her, while her focus is on the camera. It’s almost as if the man is shown as an accessory to make her look good.

• Some men don’t like prostitutes because the woman doesn’t actually like them, and is just doing it for money.To me that wouldn’t matter, anymore than I would care if my mechanic likes me as a person. As long as he can properly service my car, that’s all I really want. I’m not paying him to like me.I’m paying him to service my car, the same way I would pay a woman to satisfy me sexually. However, I would want her to respect me. That is important, the same way it’s important that my mechanic respects my wishes with respect to my car.

• When men complain about hard to meet women they are often called whiny or defeatist. But the defeatist argument is often used as a shield against deeper and more truthful examinations. And it’s also a double standard to accuse men of being negative or defeatist when they complain about unapproachable hard to meet women. What about all the women who walk around with cold bitchy looks on their faces. Aren’t they being negative and self-defeating too? How can you expect to meet someone when you carry around a fuck-off vibe?But when men refuse to approach these women because of their bad vibe they are the ones who are accused of being defeatist or lacking boldness.

• From my own experience, a woman who doesn’t open up quickly is a lost cause. Yes it’s possible to get some kind of positive response from her using wit and funny banter (such as by using PUA material), but unless she decides from the get-go that she wants to know you better you are wasting your time and you will get no where with her. Another point to make is that it is 10x easier for someone to make themselves approachable than it is for you to approach someone who is unapproachable. As a result, the burden should be on women to make themselves approachable rather than men having to overcome their resistance to being approached. So it makes no sense to approach a woman who avoids eye contact and has a fuck-off vibe.

• Attractive white anglo women are generally the worst. They are the British inspired, stiff upper lip, snooty, cliquish, stone-faced women whom the media sees as the gold standard of beauty. They are icy and cold in their demeanor and are highly adept at ignoring the shit out of you, especially if you’re a man. You can almost marvel at this ability they have to completely and consistently ignore men in public, but only if you think in terms of how hard it would be for you (a man) to do the same thing towards them. The truth is that it’s not an ability they have but rather a lack of something which enables them to treat men as invisible as well as they do. You can call it a lack of wonder, or even curiosity about the opposite sex, which is replaced instead with total indifference. This is hardly an ability worth crowing about in my book. So we shouldn’t act so amazed at their ability to do this any more than we should marvel at the ability of a hamster to keep running on it’s wheel for hours on end. It’s nothing more than a symptom of a weak non-curious mind.

• Men have their faults too, no doubt. But when modern westernized women complain about men it mostly comes across as higher quality complaints about problems that you encounter when you already have the upper hand, and those below you are not measuring up to your standards. It is not that different from how a royal would complain about the misbehaviour of his subordinates and servants – oh look, they dropped the fruit tray again, those idiots. If you look closely at the general complaints men and women have about each other the following pattern emerges:

Women’s complaints are generally that men don’t measure up in some way. For example, all he wants to do is drink beer and watch sports, or he did X when he should have done Y. The complaints are often just vague descriptions, with not too much detail, and with focus on men’s shortcomings (real or perceived).

Men’s complaints are generally that they can’t connect with women, that they aren’t given the time of day, that they can’t make progress, that they aren’t meeting women’s expectations, that they aren’t getting positive responses despite putting in the effort.

Women’s complaint format: “He’s not good enough”.

Men’s complaint format: “No matter what I do I’m not good enough”.

One group is focused on self-improvement and the other isn’t.One group is forced to be introspective, and the other isn’t.Therefore, which group is most likely to be humbled and realistic in their expectations?Which group is most likely to gain feelings of entitlement and narcissism?