The New Singularity

angels-and-angles:

As defined by urban dictionary, the friendzone is…

“When you are expected to support a girl you really like while she searches for a smarter, richer, and more handsome boyfriend. There is little you can do without feeling like a dick. All in all, one of the meanest things a girl can do, whether they mean it or not.”

and ”The perennial location of nice guys everywhere.”

Although this hypothetical situation could work both ways, friendzone is almost always applied to a man who is rejected by a woman. Therefore, there is something inherently unequal, something inherently sexist about the term “friendzone”. But what and why?

From my experience, this is what friend zone is. A “nice guy” pursues a woman, but isn’t forward with his intentions from the get-go like, say, a “jerk”. The woman is pleased to see a man who is interested in her not as a sexual object but as a human being and wishes for things to stay that way. The man is not satisfied with seeing the woman as a human being because being “expected to support a girl” is a bad deal if she’s not putting out.

Before I delve into the sociological aspects of this, I just want to point out that ”friendzone” is no more pleasant for a woman than it is a man. First, that is to say unrequited love works both ways, but the person who doesn’t return affections is considered mean only when she’s a woman. And second, what option does the woman have in a traditional “friendzone” situation? Just stop talking to a close friend to avoid “leading him on”? In high school, I found out my best friend of 2 years liked me. Having to tell him I didn’t feel the same way and being immediately ex-communicated via Facebook status (“Thanks for wasting my time”) was one of the worst things that ever happened to me. Were our two years of friendship invalid because I didn’t want anything more? Was all our time together really wasted because there was no hypothetical pay off?

Guys who do this and claim to be “nice guys” are the worst misogynists because of their sense of entitlement toward a woman. They make investments in property and expect their dividends. They are fake friends. They are selfish. And they will jump at the chance to vilify you and victimize themselves when their attempts at manipulation don’t work. Clearly, “friendzone” is the remnant of a phenomenon that has plagued women since the beginning of time: women are not independent creatures. Our love lives exist only in the context of a man’s desire. When we make independent decisions, we are subject to a host of derogatory terms. “Slut” is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say “yes”. “Friendzone” is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say “no”.

No, look … the guys who really believe in this (as opposed to the guys who use this as some weird way of ragging on women to sleep with them - and both types certainly exist) have entirely swallowed the paradigm that men work for womens’ affections.  They believe that women are the gatekeepers.

Is that a damaging paradigm? YES.

But on the other hand is the sexism inherent in the “friend zone” concept itself?  I don’t know about that; the sexism occurs in the PREMISE that gives rise to “friend zoning”: the gender role division that makes women objects and men pursuers.  Friend zoning is, shall we say, a symptom of the underlying disease.

Also, the guys who “friendzone” girls?  They’re known as “heart-breakers” or “ladykillers.”  Or, perhaps what they withhold is not physical intimacy but commitment and emotional intimacy.  This is no less irritating.  And yes, such terms are used amongst men as words with positive connotations - but again that really goes back to the implicit gender role construction.  (Lest we forget, there are also women who withhold emotional intimacy and commitment, but don’t withhold physical intimacy; those women are not called “mean” but rather described as “having issues.”)  

(via sharibear)