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.
“And yet they’re the ones who think that enthusiastic consent means making life dull and lifeless.”
Because it would mean they never have sex again, and have no inner resources for any other joy in life?
To misquote Charlie’s Angels (the flim, not the tv series upon which the film was based), “DAAAMN YOOOU SALAD BAAAAAR!!”
What I think is unfair to men is denying them the right to have fulfilling relationships with women that don’t revolve around sex or sammiches. Don’t get me wrong, I like sex and sammiches, but I can live without sex, and man cannot live on sammich alone, but friendship is far more pleasurable when comparing averages over significant time periods.
Uh huh? For what?
That, and because “NOW WE NEED A CONTRACT BEFORE HAVING SEX” and so on. >____>
@kittehs
You made it? ::is impressed::
This was the first related topic my MRA friend brought up with me, the first thing he said that made me question his rationality on the topic of feminism. He characterised it as turning passionate hookups into stale business agreements, devoid of any spontaneity… sign on the dotted line, initial here. Bleh. How do they get such a backward view of it?
“Bleh. How do they get such a backward view of it?”
Because they have to bend around so far to get their heads up their arses?
It says something that he doesn’t get how passionate spontaneity and enthusiastic consent kinda sorta go together. Or that someone (of any gender! Imagine that!) can change their mind and want to stop, or simply not want to do a particular thing, and the other person has to stop. Because that’s what decent people do.
“You made it? ::is impressed::”
Aww, thank you! It wasn’t anything fancy, just pinching the pic of the Net and adding the caption. The fiery eyes of Cat Anger were already like that. 🙂
It seems Ayn Rand was a bit of a ‘moocher’ in Objectivist parlance:
In 2011, news broke that notorious libertarian/objectivist Ayn Rand had accepted Social Security and Medicare in the 1970s after she was diagnosed with lung cancer (unsurprisingly she was a cigarette-cancer connection denier). Among liberal circles, a lot of attention was paid to the hypocrisy angle of all this (and much more to taking SS cheques than enrolling in Medicare). A person who spent her life railing against collectivism and dependency accepting the benefits of the very programs her beliefs called “evil.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/16/1121029/-If-Ayn-Needed-Medicare-How-Can-We-Do-Without
Another tin god with feet of clay…
“But the sex might not be as fun,” much like “but I might not get laid as often,” is both untrue and totally irrelevant to the importance of consent. If you actually believe that possibly raping someone is preferable to maybe having less exciting sex you should not be having sex with anyone ever.
@Viscaria – and if they think that sex with someone who doesn’t want it is more exciting than knowing that person really does (which seems a real implication here) then they’re really wannabe rapists, whether they use the term in their maggotty little brains or not.
@Kittehs
And what fiery eyes they were! 😀
Plus – what’s the bet this comes back to their resentment at having to have a conversation with a woman at all? Not just to talk to her (they’re fond enough of talking at us or over us, goodness knows) but listening to her. Yeah, that’s not something they want to have to do at any time, let alone when it means they might not get to do exactly what they want to her sexually. (“Do to” rather than “do with” is a deliberate choice of words here.)
“And what fiery eyes they were! ”
LOL weren’t they just! Perfect for Cat Anger.
That explains a lot, actually…
Whaaaat? I thought we were feminazis? Hail women! Stone men! All that kind of stuff? …So we’re supposed to be egalitarian, huh? Damn. I guess I’d better clear out the dungeon then.
Hey, even if they’re not a decent person, surely the twin thoughts of, “I want to have more sex with this person,” and, “if I ignore their wishes and continue having sex with them without their consent, I probably won’t be allowed any more sex with this person,” would serve to make them stop?
::dings self on head::
Damn, my hivemind chip musta come loose again.
Does the “I won’t be allowed” bit register with them? Or would they admit it if it did – these are the “has erection = must orgasm inside someone, it is physically impossible to think or stop” excuse creeps after all.
I always find strange that MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, etc. get angry at the idea of enthusiastic consent simply because sometimes people say no when they really mean yes. They’re effectively helping feminists by saying “Look, here’s an instance of ambiguity!” Unfortunately, they also bring with that message the idea that erring on the side of caution is a bad thing.
Their basic premise seems to be that women are never allowed to say no to them. (We’re required to say no and mean it with every other man, of course, and anything non-heterosexual-binary doesn’t count, ‘cos that only exists to turn men on.) No means yes and yes means yes, though it also means you’re a slut. Complete access and the ability to blame whatever the situation is what they want.
Dafuq? I mean… I get that I’m not like them (I’m pretty sure being neutral makes me a great big pussy beta, or even a gamma) but I’ve never found that erections affected my thought process. Comfort process? Yeah, but not thought. Why do they want to make out that they’re mindless animals?
WTF is going on with WordPress? That’s twice I’ve tried to answer and it’s eaten my post. Nothing about moderation, either.
Whatever’s going on, it’s clearly misandry!
*pokes WordPress with a stick*
Okay, let’s try breaking this thread to see what’s being caught in the filter:
These guys buy into what Cliff Pervocracy calls the Myth of the Boner Werewolf. It’s part of r*pe cultre generally, not just the MRM, sadly. It suits these guys very well to pretend that they have no control and that everything sexual is essentially the woman’s responsibility – or fault, rather.
Aha. It doesn’t like the link to that article for some reason. Weird, given that The Pervocracy is listed in the Antidotes to Boobery sidebar.
The other thing I was trying to say (x 4 and counting!) is the irony that the whole “uncontrollable sex beast” thing contradicts their other favourite trope about how Real Menz are the rational, logical and totes reasoning humans, and women are just animalistic sexthings. Cognitive dissonance, they haz it.
::pokes wordpress: Stoopid thing!
Yuck.
Also, thinking about that has just sparked a concern of mine. My little sisters already have low self-esteem. And that makes me worried about them easily internalizing misogyny and slut-shaming when they enter their teenage years. I wish I could actively do something to steer them away from that crap. All I can do at this point is try my best not to validate or reinforce any of their problematic attitudes.
Luckily, I was already browsing Pervocracy and just had to type “boner werewolf” into the search box. I like how the first anonymous commenter is whining about men are being demonised in an article specifically aimed at humanising them, and holding the [I really hope it’s a] minority that refuse to control themselves accountable. I have to admit, though, I find it odd, considering that most MRAs I know are raging Islamophobes, that they’ve embraced one of the tropes of fundamentalist Islam: Show ankle? Inevitable rape. And you asked for it. For having arousing skin.
I honestly can’t decide what’s more worrying… that I’ve been unaware of this subculture and their views on the world for so long, or that I’m becoming aware of them. Well, in fairness, I’ve been aware of PUAs for years, probably as long as I’ve been an interneteer, I just didn’t realise just how creepy they were.
Good luck with that. Hopefully, with you and others supporting them, they’ll be able to shake that stuff.
Speaking of which, are there any tips or resources around the place for making sure that your language or behaviour doesn’t contribute to low self-esteem in others? I mean, I know I do better than MRAs, but I can’t help but be concerned that I still do accidentally douchey things (such as, for example, call people bat shit crazy, which never occured to me as an insensitive phrase until posting here.)
Much the same story here, athywren. I’d never heard of MRAs before I hit this site (I’d recently read the acronym and thought it meant Male Rape Apologist, which isn’t so far out, really). I’d heard the term “pick-up artist” for years but had no idea it was an acronym or there was some supposed system and books written about it: I thought it was just a term for some bloke who was pretty successful in a rather skeevy way at getting casual sex.
I’m just freaking grateful I don’t know anyone like this in meatspace. There are times when having a nonexistent social life is a plus! 😛