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.)
@thebewilderness – “I could be wrong but the issue seems to be the amount of time and effort these d00dz waste pretending to be decent human beings.”
It is, but they wouldn’t stop there, because they still wouldn’t be getting TEH SECKS.
@Amatyultare – *cheers* *applause*
Say, have you had your Official Manboobz Welcome Package yet?
“***Severus Snape, as written, is an ambiguous and interesting character. However, why so many fans have romanticized a guy who is basically an emotional Miss Havisham is frankly beyond me.”
The Alan Rickman factor?
Kitteh – I have gotten my welcome package! I bookmarked it, even. 🙂
And yeah…when you point it out, the Alan Rickman factor definitely plays a role in the character’s woobification.
Huzzah! I’d hate to think we’d been remiss in handing out the welcome package. 🙂
When the first Potter movie was being cast, there was a tiny article in the paper here saying AR would be playing Snape. I asked my mum “What actor would you choose to play Snape,” and without hesitation she said “Alan Rickman.” No, she hadn’t seen the article – but we’ve watched The Barchester Chronicles many times and after seeing him play the Odious Mr Obadiah Slope, who else could one choose?
Hmmmm…I’m happily married and have been since dinosaurs walked the Earth. Does this mean that I have to cheat on my lovely husband with all the “friendzoned” guys I’m friends with? Is it worse to cheat or not have sex with all my male friends? Seems I lose either way. If I stay faithful to my husband I commit a crime against all the men I’m friends with, if I don’t I’m a “slut” for cheating on my husband.
Someone please explain this to me, I haz a confused!
Spelling out Snape has a song stuck in my head.
VENGEANCE IS MINE!
@seranvali the “good news” is… that a good portion of “nice guys” tend to see women like they are property to be owned, so if you dutifully wear a wedding ring to indicate that you are already another man’s “property”, they will usually leave you the hell alone.
After all, the phrase: “Why won’t you cheat on your husband? I’m a nice guy!!!!” doesn’t even make sense to THEM.
Wedding rings are their kryptonite.
WonderWoman, not always true. I have more than a few married friends who have been told by “nice guys” that their husbands must obviously be abusive, cheating manipulating assholes and so they should leave their husbands at once and have sex with the “nice guy”. For most of these, the “nice guy” has never meet and knows nothing about the husband, other than he is married to the woman the “nice guy” wants.
Wonder Woman:
Generally you’re quite right, wedding rings are kryptonite, but I’ve had more than one man reply when I told him I was married that he didn’t mind and that I was making far too big a deal of it! I even had one guy demand kisses in return for doing me a small favor AFTER he’d done it, thinking that having accepted the favor I couldn’t refuse!
Could you imagine him proposing this idea to his congressman?
Congressman: Hello, you told me earlier you have a proposal for a bill?
Andre: Yes, this would make the world a much better place.
Congressman: So what would it be?
Andre: A law against friendzoning.
Congressman: Friendzoning?
Andre: Yeah, it’s how women manipulate-
Congressman: I know what it is, how would we go about doing this?
Andre: Well, we punish women who abuse suitors.
Congressman: Abuse suitors? How do we know that’s what they’re doing?
Andre: They’re definitely doing it. I say you should imprison them.
Congressman: But how do we know when it’s this “suitor abuse?”
Andre: Whenever he’s nice to her but she doesn’t return the favor.
Congressman: Just indulge me. To what extent?
*his secretary comes in with a coffee*
Congressman: Thank you.
Andre: See? You just thanked her but she didn’t return your favor with any intimacy!
Congressman: But I don’t really want to do any of that with her. And isn’t she the nice one for getting me the coffee?
Andre: I guess you could see it that way. So?
Congressman: Wouldn’t I be the one “manipulating” her by your logic?
Andre: But… you’re not… woman… sex… boner.
Congressman: I see you did not think this through. Now, please leave.
*Andre leaves, but holds door open for woman going into office. Andre points to crotch*
Andre: Well?
Congressman. Out. Now.
*waves hands excitedly*
katz! katz! Cthulhu’s Intern has just written the perfect Pierre script!
@Seranvali – that is just so gross, I don’t even …
@Ranter:
Yeah, not surprising considering how popular this is as a cultural trope: Women dates/is married to an asshole, nice guy enters the scene, eventually she realizes she ought to dump her current mate for the nice guy.
Actually, the only movie I can think of where the love interest of the hero is already coupled with a NICE (literally) guy, rather than an asshole, is Superman Returns. Superman comes back from a five-year-tour of space and finds Lois living with a boyfriend who seems a perfectly decent type whom she’s happy with. I thought that was really refreshing. I’m sure there must be SOME other movie/TV show/book like that, but I can’t think of any right now.
Sorry for nitpicking BUT it’s not “false premise” but “contradictory premise” which is a small subset of all false premises. Like, “Washington is the capital of Sweden” is also false, but you can’t conclude anything you want to from that.
In this weird, dystopian society envisioned by this guy, how would you recognize the actual nice guys (not the Nice GuysTM), who value their friendships with women even if there is no romantic or sexual attachment, or who are open to a romantic and/or sexual relationship, but want women to actually be, you know, comfortable with them?
Would these guys (or indeed, all women) start carrying around suitcases filled with legal forms? Every time they approach, or are approached by a member of the opposite sex (since the law only counts for heterosexuality) for some reason or another, would they whip out a form and a pen, saying: “This contract guarantees sexual favors are not expected in exchange for acts of kindness (see clause §12 in the Law Against Friendzoning, LAF, for all legal definitions). If you would kindly read through it and sign here, here, and here…” They would sign this contract, pass it to a civil law notary (who is making a fortune hanging out in bars and restaurants, btw), and then proceed with the normal dealings of normal people that were the standard anyway in the good ol’ days.
The Nice GuysTM would have to start signing these contracts to be able to talk to women at all (since women now know men who don’t do that are, in fact, expecting sex as a reward). Then they’d see the actual nice guys getting laid, complain about being “legally friendzoned”, and blame feminism.
The sssssstupid, it burnssssss! Since Grumpy’s law has already been invoked:
http://memegenerator.net/instance/30456324
@RadicalParrot: *LOL*
@zachpetrecca,
I’m going to respond to your offensive points in the hope that you might begin to appreciate how offensive and skeevy they are.
Is this a reasonable thing to do? Manipulate someone for your own ends?
Hey, this person actually thinks I like them for who they are! My manipulation powers are strong today!
SHE! SHE! That BITCH took my friendliness as just that! She’s still got all her clothes on! What in the heck is going on?!
Your tricks and manipulation failed. Good. Serves you right for using tricks and manipulation on someone who possibly thought of you as a friend. If you want sex with women without the possibility of making friends or developing a real relationship then just be honest from the start. Believe it or not some women actually enjoy sex and are happy to participate in one night stands. No one likes being manipulated.
It always fascinates me how the emotions these guys are going through are the exact emotions I feel when a new version of Pro Evolution Soccer comes out and I can’t fucking score for like two weeks.
I GET SO MAD.
Couple things about that, though.
1) Interacting with other people is not a video game.
2) Even if it were a video game, it’s actually completely irrational to be angry at a video game because you aren’t good at it.
So, yeah.
Sorry but you can. If you assume a false premise to be true, you can prove anything. No premise can be true and false at the same time.
Washington is the capital of Sweden
Stockholm is the capital of Sweden.
Therefore Washington = Stockholm
Therfore Washington and Stockholm are one place.
Washington and Stockholm are two places.
Therefore 2 = 1.
The Queen and are are two people, therefore we are one person.
Therefore I am Queen.
(“Who’s Queen?” – wanders off to watch Blackadder)
Manboobz – come for the laughing at misogyny, stay for the lessons in Logic.
The true Queen
@daintydougal: Long live the Queen!
titianblue: “Manboobz – come for the laughing at misogyny, stay for the lessons in Logic and the pictures of cute, fluffy things.”
FTFY.
Dammit, somehow my name changed and my comment was captured by the moderation monster. Anyway:
titianblue: “Manboobz – come for the laughing at misogyny, stay for the lessons in Logic and the pictures of cute, fluffy things.”
FTFY.
No he’s right. Generally, a false premise can lead to proving false things but it can’t prove *everything*. You need the false premise to actually contradict another premise (or conclusion from those premises), just like here where you assert two different capitals to Sweden, in order to be able to prove anything.
If however the false premise is orthogonal to the other premises and do not directly contradict any of them, you can’t construct this sort of argument from them. However, every proof constructed from that false premise is shaky, to say the least (their conclusions can still be true by pure chance, of course, if there’s some other path to a proof).
(Hmm, not sure about pronouns for Dvärghundspossen, replace “he” with whichever preferred pronoun.)
Washington is the capital of Sweden
Stockholm is the capital of Sweden.
Therefore Washington = Stockholm.
Therefore Washington and Stockholm are one place.
Washington and Stockholm are two places.
There’s a few hidden premises in here, like that there exists only one capital for each country, or possibly the entirety of natural numbers mathematics, which are the cause of the contradiction.