This is a piece that I authored partially in response to another, similar question which posed a paragraph on nice guys and jerks, which I felt missed the point. Well, here goes:
First, even using the terms “nice guy†and “jerk†is using euphemisms and dysphemisms to imply a gender, a dichotomy, and a presumptive opinion, where none of these are necessarily valid (these people come in female as well as male, they aren’t the only two types of people in the world, and “nice guys†aren’t necessarily any better than “jerksâ€Â). So, to broaden the application, I’ll describe both of these types of people in detail, and introduce many applicable terms for both so as to dispel the opinion-laden language.
To understand either of these extreme types of people, it’s necessary to first understand the well-adjusted person which is neither of these. Well-adjusted, confident people can be described as kind, observant, friendly and helpful to most individuals, but (in accordance with the entire meaning of the term ‘justice’) are NOT friendly toward people who in some way or another don’t merit it. That is to say, they’re capable of making value judgments so as to avoid being walked on by people who would abuse their kindness. “Jerks†and “nice guys†are two variants of people who can not or will not apply part of this algorithm of behavior.
The first type of person is the “jerk.†As I’ve mentioned above, this term implies both a negative opinion and a male gender; other dysphemisms include “a**hole†(for males) and “b*tch†(for females). Euphemisms are a bit more complicated, but usually emphasize ‘assertiveness’ or ‘confidence’ in both genders. Basically, this is a sort of person who looks at the world like a battlefield, and is nasty and confrontational with basically everyone regardless of whether they’re kind to the ‘jerk’ or not. For them, friends are people who need to be bullied into usefulness, employees could always use a little humiliation to keep them in line, and SOs are people who either need to be intimidated into subordination or abandoned.
The second type of person is the “nice guy.†Again, this term implies an opinion (this time a positive one) and a male gender; euphemisms for both genders generally include “nice,†“sweet,†or “proper,†while dysphemisms typically emphasize timidity or lack of opinion or intellectual definition (‘wimp,’ ‘airhead,’ ‘coward,’ etc.). This sort of person often exhibits things like kindness, but generally out of fear, which can be of either direct threats, like job loss or physical harm, or emotional threats, like abandonment or failure to please. That is, the kindness of this sort of person is not out of strength of character, but rather out of fear of what will happen if they’re not kind. Generally, this sort of person can be identified if they’re rudely told to do something by someone with no authority over them (they will unquestioningly and often cheerfully obey), or if someone is otherwise openly rude and hostile to them (they will tend to pretend it’s not happening, and often seek to escape the situation rather than address it).
Both of these people are equally unappealing; one because they are incapable or unwilling to be a decent human being, and the other because they are incapable or unwilling to stand up to the former sort of person (and because the decency they do exhibit is out of fear rather than out of actual decency).
Both will try to convince you that the only types of people in the world are their types and the other types (the jerk/b*tch will tell you that it’s either them or one of the wimps/cowards, and the wimp/coward will tell you that the only ones who will stand up for anything are jerks/b*tches), pretending that the well-adjusted people who are kind to good people and who also stand up to nasty people don’t exist. Of course, such people do exist, and that’s precisely why the others would like to convince people of this false dichotomy - because such well-adjusted people are obviously more desirable than either of these types.
Comments/opinions? :)
Tags: