Nice Guys are a very amusing topic and IMO, although it's now been over 13 years since the term was first popularized there is a lot of confusion about it from both sides that just keeps getting repeated over and over.

For everyone wondering why feminists are so hostile to Nice Guys, why it sometimes seems to go beyond indifference to outright mocking (although nothing justifies mocking guys whose only problem is romantic lack of success and lack of understanding) there is a post over at TRP that explains it quite well. The Hungarian in this incident wants women to be seen treated as instruments for creating children and has the support of the Hungarian government in expressing this view. This is the same view that has existed at least since the beginning of agricultural civilization.

Traditionally, women were seen as property or resources for sex and birthing children. The following passage in Exodus is typical:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

In this passage, why neighbor's "wife" is equated with his "house", his "manservant", "maidservant", "ox", "ass", and "any thing that is why neighbor's" -- in other words, an object or property. It was the same throughout Biblical times and across different civilizations. Women were seen as resources for the sake of reproducing. Until the last 100 years or so (a miniscule amount of time when considering the thousands of years preceding) women were seen as the property of their husbands. Even today, women who do not have children are insecure about it.

Hence when nice guys express sexual relations in terms of deserving, it's very threatening to feminists. Because they are fighting for a woman's independence, and her status as an agent/actor as opposed to resource to be handed out, any suggestion that a woman's body is something that can be "deserved" is threatening. When the nice guy says that he "deserves a relationship for being smart, hardworking, playing by the rules, a gentleman, etc." the same way a student deserve an A+ for studying hard and writing a good paper or acing a test, the feminist only sees the equation of womens' bodies with good grades (objects that are distributed or that people are entitled to). After all, the student who aced the test is entitled to an A+. To give her a B would be an injustice. The nice guy doesn't think of his expression in terms of entitlement, but that's how the feminist sees it.

The feminist then points out the logical fallacy in the nice guy's reasoning by saying, "You are not entitled to sex. Attraction is orthogonal to justice. And if you're being mean now you're not really nice."

However, although this answer is never logically refuted, the nice guy keeps coming back, year after year after year.

This is because the nice guy does not consist of the reasoning as described by the nice guy himself, but an emotion.

The real nice guy is the single dad who works a minimum wage job, has pinched his pennies the entire year, and has just had to refuse to buy a Christmas gift for his son because he needs to pay the rent instead.

As he walks down the street with the blowing in his face, he sees another guy driving down the street in a Bentley with gold plates, windows rolled down, shades over his eyes and a cigar in his mouth. And in the backseat the other guy's kid is throwing a tantrum because he didn't get the horse he wanted.

When he sees it, though he already knew the other guy lives in town and made $1 million last year to his $25,000, his stomach churns in knots and he feels sick. The spoiled kids, the gold plates, the Bentley, remind him of his lower value, emphasizes it, and rubs it in his face. Just as the asshole player's ability to be an asshole reminds the nice guy of his lower sexual value, emphasizes it, and rubs it in his face.

"He can abuse her, go to prison, and cheat on her, and she still wants him more than me?? Gee, I knew she didn't want me before, but is it that bad?? I was nice! It's not fair!"

You can't get rid of this emotion by pointing out that logically, a guy earning $1 million can afford more than a guy earning $25,000, and that earning money has nothing to do with how much you penny pinched. You won't get rid of it by pointing out that if single dad could behave like the man in the Bentley he would. The root of the problem is single dad's poverty. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Emotionally the problem will continue to burn, and burn, and burn.

I say we should embrace the fact that feminists will never like the Nice Guy and that his complaint lies in a logical fallacy, but that he'll still keep coming back over and over again anyway. He needs no justification for his existence. He just is. He stalks the woods behind your house, and he'll come out and frustrate you whenever he feels like it.