Hey fellas! While we’re talking about the evils of the Friend Zone and possible legal sanctions against the women who so often and so maliciously put us there — and while the women are distracted by that picture of Scrooge McDuck above — I’d like to warn you of another kind of Friend Zone you need to be wary of: the “Repair Friend” Zone.
I learned of this danger from none other than Warren Farrell himself, in the pages of his book Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say (which amazingly does not have the subtitle “But It’s Not Like Angry Dudes On The Internet Are Going to Shut Up Any Time Soon”).
Here’s how old Warren explains it, perhaps exaggerating the innocence of the wily female Repair-Friend Zoners:
Single moms who rely on male friends for repairs — “he’s just a repair friend” — are often unaware that the man really isn’t sacrificing his Sunday afternoon in exchange for a Sunday night dinner. The truth is, if he’s making that type of sacrifice, it’s usually because he’s interested in her.
That’s right, ladies! Men never actually want to be just friends with you. Never. And when they act friendly, it’s just because they want to [insert weird creepy Warren Farrellesque euphemism for sex here]. Only instead of making a move on you they’d rather make a move on your car, and just sort of hope you’ll get the hint.
I’ve seen many single moms who have men who they claim are “just friends” work on their cars, do repairs, help them move. They think nothing of it. (Which says it all.) When she starts dating someone seriously, the “repair friend” feels hurt and her new boyfriend feels suspicious. And Mom feels caught between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.
Is Farrell making some sort of awkward boner joke here?
Anyway, for Farrell, this is somehow all the fault of women, and feminism, or misandry, or something.
This attitude rests on a deeper foundation. Just as women who are poor turn to the government as a substitute husband (in the form of welfare and AFDC payments), so women without husbands often unconsciously turn to substitute husbands, such as dads, “repair friends,”and male neighbors.
So, fellas, be careful out there. One moment you’ll be chatting casually over the fence with the former Mrs. Jones, and the next thing you know you’ll be in her basement buried deep in her washing machine trying to fix, I dunno, whatever is inside of washing machines that might need fixing, I’m not really very mechanical.
Come to think of it a female friend of mine had me change a light bulb the other day that she couldn’t reach. Granted, I don’t want to have sex with her, and also she’s fixed my bike on several occasions and sometimes brings me cake, but, still, I think I may have just been Light Bulb Friend Zoned.
Argenti – budtwit’s hardly even speaking intelligible English now, and it’s not just the rapidly-degrading spelling, either.
Say, wasn’t collapsing spelling one of Pell’s tells?
If David were to add the words “Ayn Rand” and the titles to her books to the spam filter… well, I would be okay with that.
Buddy-Boy: “I can’t believe you wrote that..WHAT PART OF OWED REASON went inside your cognitive abilities and was translated to OWED SEX? ”
Your entrée into this discussion was a complaint that women weren’t putting out for men who did them favors.
Then again, you said you didn’t want a woman who was using her reason, you want one who will subordinate all, having as, “her sole desire,” your pleasure.
But let’s put that aside and go back to the women/favors/sex/unrequited dude/Ayn Rand.
If I were to look at this from the viewpoint of a Randian Objectivist, the women who are exploiting the men are morally right. Anyone who doesn’t make their desires/requirements know is entering into an Altrustisc Endeavor. Altrusim is for proles and saps. Not for Objectivists. If the guy is just hoping she’ll put out, instead of making it requisite, then she’s correct to get what she can out of it; if she can get him to engage in “altruism”, and not have to pay him (be it in gas, grass, or ass), she is looking out for herself first (which is the first duty of Reason).
But that’s not what Randians do. They posture, and talk about how they are the productive members of society, and threaten to make everyone unhappy by, “Going Galt” and leaving us to our pathetic lives as proles.
Well, show us what a sincere Objectivist you are, leave us. Show us the error of our way by turning your back on us. Just imagine how miserable we will be.
Or you can stay, and continue to parade your inadequacies in education (e.g. that “conformation bias”[which I suspect you have, to go alongside the admitted confirmation bias the size of Texas] and your lack of awareness of what ad hominem is, coupled to your regular use of same; while decrying people who are merely insulting you), and the incoherence of both your (intellectually bankrupt) belief system, as well as your inability to live up to it.
The choice is yours.
That’s a great idea, cloudiah!
Should we do the “ignore attention-seeking troll” thing? Talk about makeup or kitties or bras or something?
Kitteh — I think they all degrade to gibberish eventually. Frankly, if this is Pell, he’s been here a surprisingly long time to have gone without Peltdown (h/t to whomever coined that)
Thank you though, needed to make sure my brain hadn’t completely turned to jelly.
Argenti: He’s citing Rand, and mangling the message:
Trading value for value is the point of the book (that everybody hates so much).
No, the point of the book is, “Capital is King”, married to, “fuck you Jack, I got mine”.
Altruism is specifically decried. So the person who doesn’t say, up front; I want this for that, is stupid, and (as with Willers) deserves to be sucked dry and kicked to the curb.
I think “Peltdown” was Pecunium’s – or else he added “Peltdown Man” to it. 😀
Yeah, this one’s taken the opposite tack of being all Uriah Heep creepy ‘umble, and has kept a lid on it (mostly) longer than Pell has in ages.
Nice pointer of his hypocrisy, Pecunium – exploitation is the morally right thing to do, except when it gives poor menz a sad boner. That’s MRAs all over.
“be it in gas, grass, or ass”
If I had a car, I’d have that bumper sticker…probably with grass underlined…
Anyways…
Ah, so he’s mangling a book, contradicting himself, and being a hypocrite. No wonder I can’t follow.
Pecunium — I promise not to abide by the Rand system of “ethics” if you don’t! (I’m still all SQUEE over the alpaca you sent)
I am still waiting for Cat Anger Consequences. It’s making me nervous.
cloudiah — yes, stay nervous, they won’t strike until you let your guard down, paranoia is the only preventation!
I looked at Buster earlier today and blurted out, “If you’re going to punish me, then DO IT.” And she just looked at me and purred.
Argenti: I can’t be a Randian; I like people. I also think that altruism is good (I get pleasure form doing it, ergo I am not cheated. If it comes around, it comes around; if not I made the world better, at that moment; and that’s a win).
That’s it. I can’t sleep ever again. Cats will get me.
You think you’re safe when the cats are asleep, but no. You’re never safe. They’re just faking to lull you into a false sense of security.
(funny how we still sound less paranoid and reality-challenged than bud.)
And since abusing altruism discourages it on the whole…yeah, haven’t read Rand, but count me out. Tangentially, isn’t that one theory on why we’re the remaining member of the homo genus? Altruism keeps us alive in times of need.
It’s a theory, but it relies in more AssData than John the Otter interpreting Elam’s explanations of Roissy expounding on Farrel’s. theories as understood by Chris from Oregon.
It’s not paranoia if your cats really are out to get you.
Lol, stop confusing me! Though I guess that’s the point this time. Point noted.
Cloudiah — whatever you do, do not fall for the “rub my belly” trap!
When my cat shows her belly it isn’t a trap, she really does want you to rub it. It’s confusing!
Both of mine let me rub their bellies all the time… OMG, I just realized IT’S THE LONG CON.
So since we’re at the anything but Rand stage of the conversation…that forum I posed a link to the other day where they were talking about GGG except he was called Strychnine then? He came back after 3 years to wank at them about his fiendish plan again! Also he admitted where he’s from (Balkans) and there are additional tales of dating woe. So it looks like he’s for real and not a Poe.
Now he’s one that scares me. Like, if there where a register him, he’d make the cut (seriously though, pictures are quite sufficient, nothing more is needed for “do not date, is potentially murderously dangerous”)
Interestingly, Rand actually contradicted herself in her own work. On the one hand, she is passionate about “rational self-interest,” but she draws the line a la Kant (someone she labeled as the most evil man to have ever existed – I’m not kidding) by saying that people’s rights should be respected.
Yep. I’m assuming that someday we’ll see him on the news after he’s gone postal. It seems like a when rather than if sort of thing.
@pecunium _Or you can stay, and continue to parade your inadequacies in education (e.g. that “conformation bias”[which I suspect you have, to go alongside the admitted confirmation bias the size of Texas] and your lack of awareness of what ad hominem is, coupled to your regular use of same; while decrying people who are merely insulting you), and the incoherence of both your (intellectually bankrupt) belief system, as well as your inability to live up to it.
The choice is yours.
Thank you, This last statement you made was the least vitriolic thing you’ve said about me since this discussion started and you’re still wrong.
You’re whole outlook depends of casting aspersions on my intent, my motivation. You never once assumed that I was talking about intimacy, you never assumed that I was referring to companionship you never once for a second thought that that I was talking about these so called nice guys wanting emotional validation from the person they were doing these favors for.
You had your narrative written on your hand from the beginning, “SEX”. That was the only thing you ever brought up. You repeated it over and over and over as if repetition was better then truth.
At one point you were spouting out misogynist, liar & hypocrite for the simplest of assertions.
How are you so poor at quoting me but yet so skillful at interpreting what I do and don’t want from a partner or how I put myself through school?
_If I were to look at this from the viewpoint of a Randian Objectivist, the women who are exploiting the men are morally right. Anyone who doesn’t make their desires/requirements know is entering into an Altrustisc Endeavor. Altrusim is for proles and saps. Not for Objectivists. If the guy is just hoping she’ll put out, instead of making it requisite, then she’s correct to get what she can out of it; if she can get him to engage in “altruism”, and not have to pay him (be it in gas, grass, or ass), she is looking out for herself first (which is the first duty of Reason).
Yes, This is exactly why Randian Objectivism fails because it cant overcome human exploitation just like Marxism. But at least Objectivism gives a sold foundation of how you would want to be treated *AS AN INDIVIDUAL!!!
You think I “blame Women”? Wrong again. The other day I blamed men’s problems on Nihilism. Pick a cliche that fits “I was given this world I didn’t make it”, “It is what it is” That’s my attitude.
_Well, show us what a sincere Objectivist you are, leave us…
HA! You miss your little echo chamber don’t you? You miss the external validation that this community lavished you with for being an attack dog don’t you? I’m so not surprised. You could have your Manboobz, I’m done. YOU SUCK’UP!