So the Men’s Rightsers over on Reddit are getting worked up over the evils of women “friend zoning” men, and one especially angry fellow by the name of andreipmbcn has a warning for the ladies: if they don’t watch themselves, the men’s rights movement might just rise up and make friend zoning illegal:
What this means is not exactly clear to me. Would women actually be required to have sex with all men who are aggressively “nice” towards them? Who knows. But judging from the dozens of upvotes andre’s comment got, Reddit MRAs like the sound of it.
(Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely comment.)
Zach is a bot, right? He’s set up a Google alert for “friend zoning” and automatically poops that same turd in a comment section where it’s mentioned?
I guess it’s meant to be a law against woman “manipulating” men – and by “manipulating,” I of course mean having female parts and not sleeping with any man who holds the door.
Incidentally, a quick perusal of Mr. andreipmbcn’s post history on Reddit suggests that he’s really shopping this “suitor abuse” thing around. Here’s how he defines it:
So basically, he wants to lock up every woman he met who said she wanted a “nice guy” and then refused to recognize his obvious superiority by sleeping with him. I would love to see that trial.
Oh, and this quote might be instructive as well:
Yeah, why won’t you marry me just because you don’t like me?
@freemage: Maybe he wants other women to shame them?
That guy has no idea how marriage works, or why people get married.
Are these guys aware that sometimes women have unrequited feelings for men? When that happens, is that called “the friendzone”? Or would they laugh at her for not being hot enough for the guy, who is clearly out of her league? Would they also use the term “friendzone” for times when someone is LGBT and being strung along by someone else? I bet they only care about the feelings of straight men when it comes to relationships. For everyone else, they assume everything is hunky dory all the time.
Sorry Zach, but your bizarre attempt to combine feminism and pickupartistry… well, it looks something like this:
No, I’m not a bot lol
Just trying to help out any guys who need it, who might stop by here and see my comment.
If you don’t like it that’s cool, to each their own.
The nerve of some women, wanting to marry people that make them happy. How dare they! The correct thing to do is marry someone that makes you miserable, and hope the other person is happy in spite of your misery.
He should write a book to sell this brilliant relationship advice. I don’t see how this plan could ever go wrong.
If it becomes against the law for a woman to have any positive interaction with a man without any sexual promises, then women would have to have sex with pretty much every man she comes into contact with. But that sort of thing is shamed all the time.
So the best solution to accommodate both those ideas would probably be to completely isolate the genders. Women-only restaurants, bars, gyms, grocery stores, hotels, etc. But I think those same schmucks would be unhappy with that too.
Why can’t they just be honest and say, “I want all attractive girls and women to belong to me?”
Yeah, try to force me to have sex and you’ll be missing a few pieces. How about I just be a b!tch to everyone? Really, this is such a stupid idea.
I was recently kind of “friendzoned” by a guy. I thought he was flirting with me, he talked constantly, until he confided his attraction for another woman. What do MRAs have to say about that?
Or it just doesn’t happen in their world view? Which frankly… I can’t understand very well.
How about we shun PUAs instead of women who commit the terrible crime of not having sex with men who were nice to them? I’ve been making an informal attempt at this policy for years and it’s working great so far.
Actually I think that if a law like that was put in place women would instead go out of their way to avoid any of the interactions which had been deemed to require sex as a response. So basically the result would be that women would stop being friendly to men, and it would be all the fault of PUA dudes. Also it would become really, really hard for a man to convince a woman to go on a date with him, since she’d have to be 100% sure in advance that she was willing to fuck him.
I meant *we talked constantly
There are some interesting ideas there, like saying the so-called friend zone exists only because Nice Guys believe it’s real and create it themselves, but the way the links are worded make it look like the usual PUA nonsense; indeed, I clicked on the links because I wanted to mock them. I see now that the questionable wording is meant to attract Nice Guys and PUAs to get them to examine themselves and what’s wrong with their outlooks. However, like the other “real man” sites I’ve seen that say that a “real man” must have integrity, courage, compassion, conviction, etc., I disagree; those qualities are what make a real human being and apply to all people of any gender, not just a good man.
So, a day in a life of a married woman:
1. Forced to bang that random nice guy who held the door for her, because required by law.
2. Stoned to death for cheating on her husband, because required by law.
This should at least be put in categories according to the severity of friendzoning. If you hang out with a guy a lot, but talk about your asshole boyfriend to him while you hang out, that would be 1st degree friendzoning, a felony offense with a minimum sentence of 5 years of community service. If you watch movies together or play video games, and you tell him “Why can’t I find a nice guy like you?”, that would be second degree friendzoning, a misdemeanor offense with fines up to $5000. However, if you are convicted of friendzoning but then later go on dates with the guy, you will get a pardon from Obama and your criminal record will be expunged.
This is how the law would work in the US, at least. Other countries can determine their own codes and penalties for this dastardly crime.
Guy on the train says “lovely day, isn’t it?”. Woman says “it really is”. Next day woman leaves her newspaper on the seat, man says “hey, you forgot this!” and hands it to her. Woman smiles, thanks him, and leaves. Then her schedule at work changes and she starts taking a different train.
A month later, a court summons for failure to complete sexual contract arrives in the mail. She decided never to go out in public again, which means she has to quit her job. MRA utopia achieved! Thanks, PUAs!
Well, those laws will put paid to young men helping old ladies across the road ….
You just know what kind of world this Andre is living in, inside his head. Of course, everyone is heterosexual. There are no unattractive women there (because any woman who doesn’t give him a boner is invisible to him) and no naturally nice, attached, monogamous men.
I’d love to read that:
Any woman who is guilty of friend zoning a man with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, and who had attained the age of eighteen years at the time of the friend zoning, may be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5 years. Whoever is guilty of friend zoning in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in state prison for 2 years.
Ooo.
Quote from a book I loved when I was younger: “If I marry you knowing you’ll be miserable, it’s my fault you’re miserable…..I can’t marry you and make you miserable. “~via Close Kin
Here’s a thought, if someone is sending you mixed signals, either ask them outright how they feel or move on.
You might be surprised to find someone you were treating platonicly for a year actually thinks you’re pretty awesome but assumed, based on your actions, that you weren’t into them.
Or yeah, maybe that person is a manipulative asshole. This unfortunately happens sometimes because the world unfortunately has a lot of manipulative people, no matter what the gender. There’s something else you can do that’s much easier than trying to get a law passed to force someone who you feel has used you to bang you (like, seriously, do these dipshits pay attention to politics at all? I’m not sure how it is in other countries, but in the US getting a law passed and enacted isn’t exactly easy or quick). You can tell her to get lost. You don’t owe anyone a spot in your life. If it really is so terrible hanging out with someone you can’t bang, then you don’t owe her time out of her life anymore than she owes you a pity fuck.
The only good thing about mra posts like this is that it shows their true colors. They can go on and on about how they “only want equality” and “just want to help men”, but then they let shit like this slip out that shows what they really want (women as their property/their sex slaves).
Part 2 : The Office
Today is Susie’s first day at her new job. A man who she doesn’t know says hi to her in the break room and offers to show her where the K-cups and sugar are kept. Does she a. accept, and risk entering into a sex contract if the man is interested in her and tells her how to get to the bathrooms later, b. refuse, and risk getting a reputation for being rude, or c. give up and just hide in her office, only coming out to get coffee in the future when everyone else looks really busy.
Gor meets “No Exit”. Oh dear.
Part 3 : College
I really don’t think they thought this plan through very well.