I read an article about friend-zoning the other day, which I found to be, I'll say interesting. The title of the article is, "Gender Block: Why the 'nice guy' stereotype is so dangerous," and was written by feminist Hillary Di Menna of This Magazine. When reading the article, I found myself to be in a peculiar position - for most people would regard me as a feminist, yet I've also been cast as the "nice guy" more times than I can count.
Ms. Di Menna starts her article with this:
"Nice guys always finish last. Whenever they treat a woman like a friend, it doesn't end up in sex! Sometimes, the guy will buy flowers and gifts for the woman, despite the fact she has expressed zero interest romantically, and again - no sex! This woman often becomes re-classified as an ice queen, a b**ch, a friend zoner - even when, in reality, she may feel betrayed or confused, having thought her friend was actually, well, her friend. And the guy - who, to recap is upset because he couldn't buy sex from a woman through acting like a decent friend - is justified in saying: 'It is because I am nice. Girls only like jerks.' This isn't an issue of outright rejection, a guy has immediately expressed a desire to date - we've all been there. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing type of deal, where acting like a friend is seen as putting in the time to obtain what is rightfully his."
Hmm... So, according to this writer, these "nice guys" aren't so nice after all. The reason they run the risk of making themselves vulnerable by expressing their care for their friend/crush is because they want to get down their pants. Is that it? That's interesting. Also, why does this writer not mention the possibility that this hypothetical woman did express some romantic interest in the guy? Once the guy buys her flowers, in hopes of finding a way to move the relationship forward, should this woman not act like, you know, a friend, and be honest with him about how she feels? At the first hint that the guy has stronger feelings for her than she does for him, should she not, once again, act like a friend by being upfront and honest with him?
The writer then continues by saying the following:
"This sense of entitlement is dangerous. It enforces the all-to-popular notion that a woman's purpose is found solely in her body and how she lets others control it. Relationships based on this type of mind-set are doomed to fail, but also build a rocky foundation for future relationships, screwing up social circles everywhere."
Who said anything about a sense of entitlement? These "nice guys" feel entitled to sex from women simply because they purchased them something? What kind of "nice guys" has this writer been hanging around? I've been friends with several such guys and I've not heard one of them say they felt like they were entitled to sex from a woman simply because they bought her something or another. I purchased something for a crush of mine a few years ago. She was flirtatious with me, complimentary, and I even heard from a fairly reliable source that she admitted to having feelings for me. So, I bought her something in hopes of being able to move things forward. The last thing on my mind was sex when buying this thing for her. I simply wanted to show I cared, that I listened, and sincerely hoped that it would help spark something and move the relationship forward. It didn't, and I later found out that she had "friend-zoned" me. Never at any point did I feel I was entitled to sex from her due to my actions. The only thing I felt I was entitled to was her honesty - and unfortunately, she delayed that blunt honesty for about as long as she could milk it - in hopes I'd send more gifts.
The article then begins going off the deep end with this bit:
"'Girls gave their affection and sex and love to other men, but never to me ... it's not fair.' This is a sentiment heard in some gatherings of guys, whining about how even though they are so wonderful girls don't like them because girls are stupid - a.k.a. can't force attraction to a dude just because he wants them to. We also see this sentiment echoed in countless Hollywood romcoms, and seen on many a 'witty' meme. And another place, too: the video of 'supreme gentlemen' Elliot Rodger, the MRA who killed six people in California this past weekend because, as he put it, girls are sluts for not having sex with him."
She's seriously going to compare "nice guys" to this lunatic? Once again, I have to question these "nice guys" she's gotten to know through the years...
She continued the crazy comparison with this:
"It may sound extreme to compare the average nice guy griping to a murderer and yet the message being sent is the same. Sociologist Michael Kimmel writes in his book, Angry White Men, 'Men are angry and restless because of what they experience as the erosion of their 'rightful' privilege, and they have convenient targets for their rage ... They're angry at women, who, they argue, are beautiful, sexy, and sexually available - yet turn them down with contemptuous sneers.'"
It MAY sound extreme to compare the two? An average "nice guy" complaining that he can't find "the one" (or isn't given a chance by a crush of his) to a man that killed six people and injured several others in a shooting rampage? Yeah, that's exactly the same thing. I wonder what judges or the victims' families would think about that asinine logic...
Ms. Di Menna then followed up the Critical Thinking failure with this:
"In other words, hetero males are being taught that as the superior sex, females owe them. And females are taught to be passive, accommodating people pleasers. Such a culture justifies the notion that if a guy is nice to a girl, and she doesn't pay up, she is taking advantage of him. This way, the male is the victim and doesn't need to admit to the fact that she isn't attracted to him. The fact that women have a choice in whom they have sex with isn't even considered. This cycle continues and sex turns into a right and not a pleasurable experience shared between consenting parties. The same entitlement mentality is often used to justify rape, as well, and it starts at elementary schools where stuff like 'friend zone' is a real thing."
Why does it seem like everything revolves around sex to this person? Where does it say that the male sex is the superior of the two? Where does it say that women owe men sex? On what page in a college Logic book does it discuss the slippery slope between elementary school "friend zoning" and the justification of rape? This writer falsely generalizes nice guys to be nothing more than sex-obsessed males, giving the illusion to women that they're nice, when in fact they just want sex. Some may be like this, but nobody I personally know. A woman doesn't owe a man anything just because he's nice to her. However, if after he's nice to her, she leads him on to believe she's interested in him, and continues to do this to receive gifts and such, before rejecting him, then I'm sorry, but she was taking advantage of him. It would be the same thing if the roles were reversed. If the guy led the woman on, as she did nice things for him, only to reject her in the end, he was taking advantage of her. It goes both ways.
The writer then closes with this:
"'The Friend Zone is a bulls**t, misogynistic, make-believe land Nice Guys have come up with to demonize women for not wanting to date them,' writes Alisse Desrosiers in Feminspire. 'They use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that there are actual reasons behind their decision to not pursue a relationship or have sex with this guy. You know, like not being physically attracted to them. Or not being able to connect with them. Or seeing through their crap and realizing that the only reason these guys are even friends with them in the first place is so they can get laid.'
Actual good people are the way they are for the sake of pure goodness, not to 'get some.'"
I'm sorry, but in appearing to fight against sexism, this article is extremely sexist itself. "Nice guys" aren't all about sex. "Nice guys" don't just do kind things for women thinking this entitles them to sex. Also, this "friend zoning" concept goes both ways, which isn't mentioned in the one-sided article. Just as I've heard "nice guys" say things such as, "Why do those jerks always get the girls I like?," I've heard "nice girls" say, "Why do all the guys I like go after the b**ches?" It also goes both ways as far as entitlements go. I've been bought drinks before by women, and then they asked me to go home with them. I said thank you for the drink, but no on the proposition. Does this mean I should generalize women as being sex-obsessed, that they feel entitled to my body after buying me something, and lay down the crazy claim that they have a similar mindset to Elliot Rodger? No, because that would be ludicrous of me to do so. The only thing I (and others) feel entitled to is a woman's honesty (or man's honesty). If I buy her something or open up to her and she's not interested, then let me know. If that makes me one of these perverted "nice guys" in thinking people (you know, friends) should be honest with one another and not lead each other on, then so be it...
http://this.org/blog/2014/05/27/gender-block-why-the-nice-guy-stereotype-is-so-dangerous/
Ms. Di Menna starts her article with this:
"Nice guys always finish last. Whenever they treat a woman like a friend, it doesn't end up in sex! Sometimes, the guy will buy flowers and gifts for the woman, despite the fact she has expressed zero interest romantically, and again - no sex! This woman often becomes re-classified as an ice queen, a b**ch, a friend zoner - even when, in reality, she may feel betrayed or confused, having thought her friend was actually, well, her friend. And the guy - who, to recap is upset because he couldn't buy sex from a woman through acting like a decent friend - is justified in saying: 'It is because I am nice. Girls only like jerks.' This isn't an issue of outright rejection, a guy has immediately expressed a desire to date - we've all been there. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing type of deal, where acting like a friend is seen as putting in the time to obtain what is rightfully his."
Hmm... So, according to this writer, these "nice guys" aren't so nice after all. The reason they run the risk of making themselves vulnerable by expressing their care for their friend/crush is because they want to get down their pants. Is that it? That's interesting. Also, why does this writer not mention the possibility that this hypothetical woman did express some romantic interest in the guy? Once the guy buys her flowers, in hopes of finding a way to move the relationship forward, should this woman not act like, you know, a friend, and be honest with him about how she feels? At the first hint that the guy has stronger feelings for her than she does for him, should she not, once again, act like a friend by being upfront and honest with him?
The writer then continues by saying the following:
"This sense of entitlement is dangerous. It enforces the all-to-popular notion that a woman's purpose is found solely in her body and how she lets others control it. Relationships based on this type of mind-set are doomed to fail, but also build a rocky foundation for future relationships, screwing up social circles everywhere."
Who said anything about a sense of entitlement? These "nice guys" feel entitled to sex from women simply because they purchased them something? What kind of "nice guys" has this writer been hanging around? I've been friends with several such guys and I've not heard one of them say they felt like they were entitled to sex from a woman simply because they bought her something or another. I purchased something for a crush of mine a few years ago. She was flirtatious with me, complimentary, and I even heard from a fairly reliable source that she admitted to having feelings for me. So, I bought her something in hopes of being able to move things forward. The last thing on my mind was sex when buying this thing for her. I simply wanted to show I cared, that I listened, and sincerely hoped that it would help spark something and move the relationship forward. It didn't, and I later found out that she had "friend-zoned" me. Never at any point did I feel I was entitled to sex from her due to my actions. The only thing I felt I was entitled to was her honesty - and unfortunately, she delayed that blunt honesty for about as long as she could milk it - in hopes I'd send more gifts.
The article then begins going off the deep end with this bit:
"'Girls gave their affection and sex and love to other men, but never to me ... it's not fair.' This is a sentiment heard in some gatherings of guys, whining about how even though they are so wonderful girls don't like them because girls are stupid - a.k.a. can't force attraction to a dude just because he wants them to. We also see this sentiment echoed in countless Hollywood romcoms, and seen on many a 'witty' meme. And another place, too: the video of 'supreme gentlemen' Elliot Rodger, the MRA who killed six people in California this past weekend because, as he put it, girls are sluts for not having sex with him."
She's seriously going to compare "nice guys" to this lunatic? Once again, I have to question these "nice guys" she's gotten to know through the years...
She continued the crazy comparison with this:
"It may sound extreme to compare the average nice guy griping to a murderer and yet the message being sent is the same. Sociologist Michael Kimmel writes in his book, Angry White Men, 'Men are angry and restless because of what they experience as the erosion of their 'rightful' privilege, and they have convenient targets for their rage ... They're angry at women, who, they argue, are beautiful, sexy, and sexually available - yet turn them down with contemptuous sneers.'"
It MAY sound extreme to compare the two? An average "nice guy" complaining that he can't find "the one" (or isn't given a chance by a crush of his) to a man that killed six people and injured several others in a shooting rampage? Yeah, that's exactly the same thing. I wonder what judges or the victims' families would think about that asinine logic...
Ms. Di Menna then followed up the Critical Thinking failure with this:
"In other words, hetero males are being taught that as the superior sex, females owe them. And females are taught to be passive, accommodating people pleasers. Such a culture justifies the notion that if a guy is nice to a girl, and she doesn't pay up, she is taking advantage of him. This way, the male is the victim and doesn't need to admit to the fact that she isn't attracted to him. The fact that women have a choice in whom they have sex with isn't even considered. This cycle continues and sex turns into a right and not a pleasurable experience shared between consenting parties. The same entitlement mentality is often used to justify rape, as well, and it starts at elementary schools where stuff like 'friend zone' is a real thing."
Why does it seem like everything revolves around sex to this person? Where does it say that the male sex is the superior of the two? Where does it say that women owe men sex? On what page in a college Logic book does it discuss the slippery slope between elementary school "friend zoning" and the justification of rape? This writer falsely generalizes nice guys to be nothing more than sex-obsessed males, giving the illusion to women that they're nice, when in fact they just want sex. Some may be like this, but nobody I personally know. A woman doesn't owe a man anything just because he's nice to her. However, if after he's nice to her, she leads him on to believe she's interested in him, and continues to do this to receive gifts and such, before rejecting him, then I'm sorry, but she was taking advantage of him. It would be the same thing if the roles were reversed. If the guy led the woman on, as she did nice things for him, only to reject her in the end, he was taking advantage of her. It goes both ways.
The writer then closes with this:
"'The Friend Zone is a bulls**t, misogynistic, make-believe land Nice Guys have come up with to demonize women for not wanting to date them,' writes Alisse Desrosiers in Feminspire. 'They use it as an excuse to ignore the fact that there are actual reasons behind their decision to not pursue a relationship or have sex with this guy. You know, like not being physically attracted to them. Or not being able to connect with them. Or seeing through their crap and realizing that the only reason these guys are even friends with them in the first place is so they can get laid.'
Actual good people are the way they are for the sake of pure goodness, not to 'get some.'"
I'm sorry, but in appearing to fight against sexism, this article is extremely sexist itself. "Nice guys" aren't all about sex. "Nice guys" don't just do kind things for women thinking this entitles them to sex. Also, this "friend zoning" concept goes both ways, which isn't mentioned in the one-sided article. Just as I've heard "nice guys" say things such as, "Why do those jerks always get the girls I like?," I've heard "nice girls" say, "Why do all the guys I like go after the b**ches?" It also goes both ways as far as entitlements go. I've been bought drinks before by women, and then they asked me to go home with them. I said thank you for the drink, but no on the proposition. Does this mean I should generalize women as being sex-obsessed, that they feel entitled to my body after buying me something, and lay down the crazy claim that they have a similar mindset to Elliot Rodger? No, because that would be ludicrous of me to do so. The only thing I (and others) feel entitled to is a woman's honesty (or man's honesty). If I buy her something or open up to her and she's not interested, then let me know. If that makes me one of these perverted "nice guys" in thinking people (you know, friends) should be honest with one another and not lead each other on, then so be it...
http://this.org/blog/2014/05/27/gender-block-why-the-nice-guy-stereotype-is-so-dangerous/
Comments
Post a Comment