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.
Anyone who thinks this is an echo chamber really hasn’t been paying attention… Oh, Budmin, go your own way already, clutching your copy of Shrugging Atlas (or whatever) to your heaving bosom.
I have more important things to worry about, like whether or not my cats are plotting my demise. Shoo.
8/10 for innovative punctuation, 1/10 for content.
“how I put myself through school?”
Huh what?
And as for pecunium talking about sex, scroll the fuck up, hit previous comments, see where you came in here talking about men being owed sex for favors, lest they become human dishrags.
Cassandra — and only know it’s him when somebody who personally knows him comments somewhere one of us sees it. We probably wouldn’t even know if, say, the Newtown shooter had been NWO (total ASSFAX to make a point, if that wasn’t clear)
Oh wait. He’s leaving? Usual standard applies, but I’ll grat it a 5/10 for all caps, if he returns in under 5 min, one point deducted for every min.
I can read, he managed a 5/10!! Will still loose a point if he returns though.
Shit, I finished my carrots but not my hummus. Fail.
Buddy-BiyYou’re whole outlook depends of casting aspersions on my intent, my motivation.
My, “outlook” (insofar as it pertains to you) is to read what you said, in the context in which you said it.
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.
That’s because you didn’t talk about them. I have been addressing what you said. That you are being stupid, and not talking about what you now say you were talking about isn’t my problem.
But I’ll play; it’s not the object of unrequited, and silent, affection to infer that such an affection/desire exists. It’s the job of the person who is pining to speak up.
If they don’t, the person they are fantasizing about is doing nothing wrong to take the favors they do at face value.
At one point you were spouting out misogynist, liar & hypocrite for the simplest of assertions.
I put them with the relevant texts. You are a misogynist. You are a liar. You are a hypocrite (all the more if you are a Randian).
How are you so poor at quoting me
I am not poor at quoting you, I do it directly.
but yet so skillful at interpreting what I do and don’t want from a partner or how I put myself through school?
I never said a thing about how you put yourself through school, I said you are ill-educated. I said that because the evidence of your errors in reason, ignorance of concept and misuse of terminology make it plain that any schooling you did attend you did no justice too.
As to what you want from a partner, you told us. I didn’t need to interpret it, unless there is some subtle meaning of, “sold desire” which means, “one desire of many” which has yet to make it to the wider world.
But at least Objectivism gives a sold foundation of how you would want to be treated *AS AN INDIVIDUAL!!!
You fail again. If one is expecting to be treated “AS AN INDIVIDUAL” than one is to be treated on the merits of what one expresses. If someone fails to express a desire, then they don’t get the cookie. If, on the other hand, I treat all men as a mindless group; who do nice things only to get laid, then… I’m not treating them *AS AN INDIVIDUAL* (this is why I say you are a poor thinker, who didn’t take full advantage of his educational opportunities; see above where you said this you were responding to, “the least vitriolic thing [I’d] said. You mistook my tone of politesse for a lack of passion, and didn’t notice the barbed comments, but I digress).
You think I “blame Women”? Wrong again. The other day I blamed men’s problems on Nihilism.
But you claim today that you aren’t a Nihilist, so it was a convenient excuse to duck the real issue; and to dodge the flaws in your argument. Looking at the summa of your writing here (not just the most recent comment), I think you hate women. Maybe not as much as Elam, but enough that it’s fair to say it’s a notable aspect of your personality. I won’t speculate on why, merely note the ways in which it presents itself.
You expect any woman you intend to sleep with to put your desires first. That’s selfish (and randian, “fuck you jack, I got mine). It’s also indicative of a lack of respect for the other person. They are means to your end. It’s abusive.
And it’s what you say is the base expectation. That’s a hatred of women.
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!
To whom am I sucking up?
Newsflash, I enjoy skewering idiots for it’s own sake. If I am getting validation from it, it’s because my honest opinions, and the way they are supported, gets a reaction from the targets.
Manboobz isn’t the only place I hang my hat. Mocking misogyny isn’t my only amusement. I get external validation from my partners, from my cooking, my spinning, my shooting, my photography, the royalty checks from my book, from my students, from drinking out of cups I made, from playing music.
Manboobz is fun, but it’s one fun thing, not the only fun thing.
Leave, or stay, either way I have fun.
“clutching your copy of Shrugging Atlas (or whatever) to your heaving bosom.”
That’s prolly why poor old Atlas is shrugging. “Eww, Budmin, get offa me!”
Aww man, is he gone? Damn, I hate it when people respond to me with the point hovering behind their heads while I’m asleep, then run away before I get back.
I do kinda get where he was coming from with his confusion over what he’d said though. I get that sometimes. Just yesterday I found an email I’d written three years ago, and I was amazed by what I’d written. Didn’t remember a word of it. I guess he just has the same issue, except with a three minute timer instead.
@kittehs
That link is perfect XD
@budmin
See, budmin, the problem, budmin, is that Athywren is taking everything you say in context, budmin, of what you have previously said, budmin. If you don’t believe me, budmin, utilize the scroll bar to the right, dear budmin, and try to merge together all your contradicting views, budmin.
Assuming you meant ‘mine’ instead of ‘mind’… nobody’s saying masculinity is a bad thing, and you seem to have missed the whole ‘toxic’ thing. Confirmation bias is good, toxic masculinity is good…what else will budmin tell us?
I…why on earth do you like this book? Because I don’t think anyone needs to find dates to feel a sense of achievement, so I feel this quote is kinda…not very good.
@kittehs
I (very very belatedly) vote bras. I need to wash my bra, but my danged guinea pig ‘travel cage’ is taking up the tub being dirty and stuff, and I’m too lazy to clean it, so atm my bra is just smelly. :/
@budmin
I…like how?
So…I’m taking it you didn’t go to a public school? Because those are paid for by taxes. Unless you’re talking about colleges, which I don’t know as much about.
I went through the thread this morning and picked out his entire contribution, so, if he comes back, he won’t even need to bother with the scrollbar – I’ll give him a single comment with all of his silliness at once. It’s actually some pretty funny reading.
The underlying theme seems to be that men who do favours for women in the hope of sex are pathetic, which is clearly the part he was focussing on most recently, but that women who accept favours from those men without giving the sex they have neglected to mention wanting are parasites. I’m sure there’s a way to twist that away from men being owed sex, but I’d be worried about snappage.
athywren: Don’t forget that what makes them pathetic is they persist in doing the favors when the sex isn’t forthcoming.
Marie – I had fun making that Cat Anger Consequences pic the other night, when we were talking about it on whichever thread it was. When athywren brought up “burning eyes” I had to use it! 😀
Bras! I went up a size lately and am chuffed. I’ve finally tried the moulded sort and really like them.
Now I just need more drawer space ‘cos they take up a lot of room. 😛
@athywren Thank you.
*tears of joy*
budmin, How can we miss you if you won’t go away?
Cloudiah: We don’t spend enough time at the range?
Is Budmin doing the thing where he’s like “aha! I’m not saying women owe men SEX if those men do them favours! I’m saying women owe helpful men RELATIONSHIPS.” Because that’s actually worse. That’s, like, sex (usually) plus 80 billion other things.
Ayn Rand was a hypocrite who called for a society of self-deluded sociopaths. Yes, I have read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, and only someone with serious narcissistic tendencies would fall for the blatantly obvious ego-stroking of egomaniacs in every fucking word she wrote.
And yeah, any of these so-called Nice Guys who insist that they’re only looking for TWUE WUV instead of a sexual partner are being entitled jerks who assume women are only looking for relationships and TWUE WUV. A relationship still involves sex, and it would take a massive leap of logic to assume that’s any more noble a cause than a one night stand. It’s actually worse.
Aha, name changing monster strikes again. Sorry about that.
Radical Parrot: I don’t think I’d say a relationship requires sex. That (IMO) is one of the fundamental failures of Farrell, Budmin, and their ilk.
The “repair friend” has a relationship with the woman. So does a dude in, “the friend zone”. The problem is they want there to be sex, and the woman apparently doesn’t. I have lots of relationships which don’t involve sex. Some of them used to. Some of them I’d have like to had sex in the mix (and a couple of them were the both of us being too obtuse to realise the other also would have liked some sex. Young and foolish we were).
This is all without the issue of asexuals.
People who interact (on a more than simple transactional level; e.g. the clerk at the hardware store who sold me a shovel and a hand-mattock), have relationships. Some of them have sex, but most don’t. budmin and The Warrell think that’s unfair to men; because they are morons, who don’t understand how people work.
Can’t speak for Radical Parrot, but when I said “relationships” I should have specified that I meant romantic relationships. Which of course don’t involve sex in all cases, but it’s a common element.
Still, even if the romantic relationship would be sexless, being obligated to enter into one is seriously unappealing.
Viscaria: I agree that some physical aspect is needed for a romantic relationship (it can be minor, but it’s some quirk of mental intimacy that I don’t know any romantic relationship; even one’s with no sex, which doesn’t have signs of affection which aren’t used with people outside that relationship).
Where The Warrell screws the pooch is assuming that there can’t be any “relationship” which isn’t “romantic”; and those are all based on what the man wants.
The single underscore to mark the beginning (but not the end) of a quote is a new one to add to the annals of ways to quote if you can figure out neither HTML nor quotation marks.
They don’t understand how affection works. See no joy, hear no joy, speak no joy. There’s always some hidden cost to your communication with other people! (No there isn’t)
Oh, hi – I just blundered in to this conversation.
@Budmin:
Obviously.
I mean – you just pick a cliche.
The important thing isn’t the underlying metaphysical interpretation of facts, it isn’t the metaphor you use to run your life, it’s not the thoughts you associate with a given situation – the important thing is always the men. The manly problems. They’re always the same (want sex, food, sex, money, looks, lift max, sex), but the reasoning why and how can change day to day depending on who I’m angry at! It’s brilliant!
I can’t open my car door? DAMN SOCIALISM!
I can’t work out how to talk to someone around a campfire? Damn you, Capitalism!
I can’t remember how to do calculus integration? Curse you, Anarchism!
I can’t tie down a tent in a storm? A pox on you, Nihilism!
I can’t instantly have an orgasm inside some willing meat puppet? Fie and foo and fish, Veganism!
So your attitude is that the attitude of “I didn’t make this world, I just live in it” is the problem.
Then that’s… your attitude. That’s neither feminism or nihilism or veganism or socialism or anachronomism but it is a good way of always being able to be angry at something, interchangably, because mens problems are important.
And I do note how while it’s men problems that can change, you can blame it on everything. So you’d think you were dealing with, well, human problems. Issues of existenance, of being a person in the world of today… but instead, no, it’s mono focus on the swarty, thew possessing manlies.
How very droll, Sir. How very droll indeed. And that’s why we’re semi confident in saying that you hate women… Because, well… You kind of do, man.
@RadicalParrot: “And yeah, any of these so-called Nice Guys who insist that they’re only looking for TWUE WUV instead of a sexual partner are being entitled jerks who assume women are only looking for relationships and TWUE WUV”
Worse than that, they assume it doesn’t matter who the woman wants a relationship with (if she wants one at all). It’s all about them. Holy hell, I wanted my true love relationship for yonks, but it wasn’t some abstract or hypothetical thing, it was about one unique person. These creeps talk as if “true love” is just something one summons out of thin air and personalities, individuals, have nowt to do with it.
@Fibinachi – “They don’t understand how affection works. See no joy, hear no joy, speak no joy.”
GODS that’s the best description of these cold creatures, it really is. It’s how I see them all the time – they have no feelings of tenderness or affection or liking in them at all, no feeling for other individuals, no empathy. They’re just horrible.
@Fibinachi
And yet they’re the ones who think that enthusiastic consent means making life dull and lifeless.