Is that also what I can expect from the book, or did I come to conclusions too quickly?
The men's rights stuff tells them they've been sold a lie/raw deal by society, and that they can get power, success, etc. by rejecting that narrative that didn't work for them. Yes, this involves a lot of fear, misogyny, etc. but at it's core there is the message that it's your own fault, and you need to take responsibility: learn to set boundaries, work hard, prioritize and communicate your own needs, develop vulnerability and emotional intelligence, etc. Old self help books that really work are extremely popular in these communities, and these men support and coach each other in working hard to apply these lessons in their own lives. Those books predate "incel" or "mens rights" stuff and themselves have nothing to do with it.
I grew up with these same issues, and found advice that helped me because it had been popularized and made visible by these "men's rights" groups. I wholeheartedly reject the misogyny, narcissism, and fear based manipulation these groups use, but I also wholeheartedly accept the idea that most of my problems were caused by myself, and I can do the work to fix them by doing the internal emotional work, learning to set boundaries, etc.
I think that's it in a nutshell. Selling a narrative of undeserved victimhood is very powerful. I think a lot of men stop at convenient victimhood and do not follow through and to learn how to be resilient, reliable, and genuinely put others' interests ahead of their own.
If you're being a "nice guy" just to get something, then you're not actually a "nice guy", you're just play acting in order to get what you want. People recognize that almost immediately, and do not trust people like that with relationships or responsibility. Peers will trust you when you accept that you cannot trick the world into trusting you, and you start building trust through actions.
This is contrasted with clearly setting, communicating, and enforcing boundaries: e.g. I choose to only have relationships with other people that treat me with dignity and mutual respect. I will let people know if they are violating my boundaries, and if necessary, I will move on from the relationship.
I do take issue with your idea to "put others' interests ahead of their own." Often, that is actually part of the problem these "nice guys" have- they are afraid to put their own interests first, which leads them them silently tolerate abuse, etc. and just constantly seethe with resentment. We are each responsible for our own needs and interests, and it is childish to put others first at the expense of yourself, and then silently expect other people to somehow take care of your interests for you. Good leadership, for example involves a type of enlightened self interest: e.g. I am mentoring young people because it brings me joy to see them succeed, I can relate to them, and it makes the world I also live in better. This is because it's good for me, I would not mentor young people if I hated it and it made me miserable, just because I think they need it, and I am putting their needs first, nor would I do it for some covert/unstated reward or repayment. Life isn't a zero sum game- your own best interests will very often align with those of others.
I don't believe that putting "others first at the expense of yourself, and then silently expect[ing] other people to somehow take care of your interests for you" is actually "put[ting] others' interests ahead of [your] own". That's still self interest, it just utilizes the Covert Contracts you mentioned.
I think good leadership is self sacrifice. Being able to adjust or set aside your expectations without resentment will not help you win a war or run a country, but it will help your marriage, friendships, and children. Once I learned to adjust my expectations for people, I let go of a lot of bitterness and I was able to focus energy elsewhere. This is more of a personal outlook for me--I'm not arguing with you, I just wanted to clarify my position.
I would argue that the type of leadership you are talking about is still ultimately self interest- it is still putting your own ideals or goals first, and being willing to endure hardship or difficulty to accomplish them. Wanting your family, relationships, etc. - things you care deeply about- to thrive is hardly self sacrifice.
This is a philosophical argument as old as the hills... but it seems that often what one calls altruism, another calls self interest, and they can be talking about the same thing. For example, in Ayn Rands books she emphasizes "selfishness" as a virtue, and yet her "selfish heros" are usually people working on some hard technical problem that would mostly benefit other people, and her "altruistic villans" are doing some type of empty posturing to make themselves look good, to gain personal social status and power. So her concepts are pretty muddled as well- was Stalin really evil because he put others needs before his own? That seems like a pretty silly take for someone mass-murdering their political opponents while living in multiple palaces.
Ultimately, I don't find the dichotomy of selfishness vs altruism to be a very meaningful distinction- it seems like people can easily categorize anything into either category. Things I think are "good" usually involve taking seriously both your own and others needs, looking for good solutions with creativity and an open mind, and being willing to endure hardship to make things better.
That said, the rest of the book is skippable. Most of the advice is ok but is a lot of the same stuff that I assume appears in every other self-help book (in short: attempt to find internal satisfaction with your life and to actively work on doing so). There's plenty of anecdotes of men the author claims to have helped, but those stories seem to be more filler than effective illustration.
The book comes off the rails when he talks about why "nice guys" exist. He says that boys spend too much time with their mothers and in the "female dominated educational system". Because of this, boys internalize that they need to spend all of their time attempting to please women. "Radical feminism" is also to blame for making men feel worthless. There's also a strange portion where he says that nice guys are petrified of sex and premature ejaculation in these cases is caused by a desire to finish coitus as quickly as possible to get it over with. That said, Glover mostly sticks to the advice rather than these "causes", likely to let his book appeal to a broader audience. However, I'm not at all surprised that Glover has appeared on both Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh's talk shows.
My take on the book is that Glover is targeting dissatisfied men who are getting in their own way and who feel like their life is stagnating. Any advice - good or bad - that gets these men to make a change is likely to feel like a massive improvement to them.
Had you read this stuff without first conceiving the notions that you did conceive, you would have risked being radicalized by the hateful, racist, misogynistic, islamaphobic, homophobic, Bidenophobic ideas contained in such literature.
It's a good thing that today we have both corporate and state-sponsored mass media available to create and attach these kinds of labels to dangerous information for us. It not only saves us time, but keeps us safe from exposure to harmful information.
I'm glad you were able to catch yourself before being exposed to these dangerous and radicalizing ideas.
Which is not a stereotype that I associate with compulsive people-pleasing, exactly... Compulsive self-pitying and limerence, more like.
Top of the morning to both of you!
Codepedency is a genderless phenomenon.
From Wikipedia:
Psychologist Dorothy Tennov coined the term "limerence" for her 1979 book, Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love, to describe a concept that had grown out of her work in the mid-1960s, when she interviewed over 500 people on the topic of love.[1]
Limerence, which is not exclusively sexual, has been defined in terms of its potentially inspirational effects and relation to attachment theory. It has been described as being "an involuntary potentially inspiring state of adoration and attachment to a limerent object (LO) involving intrusive and obsessive thoughts, feelings and behaviors from euphoria to despair, contingent on perceived emotional reciprocation".