Untitled

So I just wanted to bring this up because there are so many people complaining how they keep getting "frienzoned" by certain people and they are tired of being nice. The term "friend zone" came from the Friends sitcom simply meaning that Ross is stuck in a friend zone with Rachel because she will never about him that he does about her (which if you follow the show that's completely incorrect). Anyway, friend zone has now escalated into something someone does to a person. It has evolved from a noun (a metaphorical place) to a verb ("She friend zoned me"). The issues I really want to dissect about friendzoning are the logical issues and ethics behind the friend zone and friendzoning and the difference between friendzoning and being in the friend zone.

Let's start from the bottom up. If I am to say I am in the friend zone with someone I am interested in, in the original Friends context, I am simply saying that the person I am romantically interested in do not return the same feelings. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with saying, "I am in the friend zone" or "she put me in the friend zone" because there is no negativity attached to it. I am simply stating "she does not feel the same about me as I do her." (I am just using she because I am a hetereosexual male). The difference between friendzoning and the friend zone is that friendzoning is an action. It is a verb in which a person places someone in the friend zone. To say, "She friendzoned me," would be synonymous as "She put me in the friendzone." except in one context friend zone is a verb and in another a noun. 

HOWEVER, the logical issue arises when I say, "She friendzoned me so she's ungrateful." If we were to break the first argument where I stated "She friendzoned me so she's ungrateful," I am discarding any other probabilities that she "friendzoned" me. She could have friendzoned me because she has a boyfriend/girlfriend. She could have friendzoned me because she is simply not interested in me romantically. Just because she friendzoned me does not equate to her being ungrateful. She could be plenty grateful. She could have been grateful by paying me for babysitting her dogs. She could be grateful by returning favors. Hell, she could even be grateful by giving me a major organ if needed I needed it. Just because someone friendzones me does not equate them to being anything else. 

The ethical issue would begin when I start saying, "Why won't she give me a chance? I'm a nice guy. I'm always there for her when her boyfriend isn't and I always do favors for her. Why does she always have to friendzone me?" The issue here is I'm telling someone else how to feel. "She should feel romantic towards me and not her boyfriend." I'm stripping away her individuality to think and feel and telling her how she should think and feel. Just because I'm always there for her does not entitle her to want to have sex with me. Just because I'm nice to her does not make me a better person or a better potential boyfriend than her boyfriend. If I feel someone owes me something because I've been nice to them then I wouldn't really be nice. If I donate to charity and expect that charity to pay me back with someone materialistic or other I wouldn't really be donating. I'd simply be putting the other person in debt to me. Another ethical issue about the nice argument pertains to treating someone like an object. Say I find a woman attractive and I find that she's not dating anyone. I cater to her every whim and when I find out she's not romantically interested with me I use the argument stated above (excluding the boyfriend part). From the get go my main goal was to have sex with this woman. From the very beginning I have seen her as an object for sexual satisfaction and when she does not become that object I question why. I am not seeing her as a person who should be treated as a person, but I am seeing her as a means towards sexual satisfaction so I start to cater to her every whim. From the get go I have already committed and ethical wrong and then I accuse her of committing an ethical wrong when she does not meet my ethical wrong.

Collectively, there is nothing wrong with saying "I am in the friendzone" or "I have been friendzoned by (insert name here)," but when some sort of entitlement plays in the argument or a negative trait that becomes a logical issue and/or an ethical issue. If a woman does not find me as a romantic partner that does not mean she equates to being a bitch, ungrateful, bad, malicious, etc. And even if I start complaining when a girl as friendzoned after being so nice to her what gives me the right to tell her how to feel and think? Nothing. This friendzone thing needs to stop because no one owes anyone anything especially if it pertains to sex. We are attracted to who we feel attracted to and not even we can control that.

Let's start with definitions first from the online Oxford dictionary.

misandry - noun - dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex)

feminism - noun - the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

(I got these definitions directly from the Oxford online dictionary. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

So, now that we have gotten that out of the way let's expand because it seems many people get very confused between these two definitions.

A feminist is a person who advocates women's rights "on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." A feminist can be a woman or man (or any other sex). Feminists do not hold any hostility or prejudice against the male population. Advocating for women's rights DOES NOT make you a misandrist.

A misandrist is a person who holds prejudice against men. To put it into simpler terms a misandrist is basically a misogynist. Many people think that misandry does not exist simply because women are socially oppressed. While it is true that women are socially oppressed misandry does exist. What makes a feminist a misandrist is when the "feminist" says something along the lines of "men are oppressing us so we ought to dethrone them and enslave the entire male population." 

Feminists attack the institutionalized policies that are unfair to women which is basically the entire social hierarchy. Misandrists may be attacking the institutionalized policies, but they take it a step further saying "all men should (insert malicious verb here)."

America, being known for its independence and "fair opportunities," could be considered one of the most sexist countries. Women are often thrown into a misogynist work environment where her competence and her physical appearance are either questioned or objectified. In some businesses women possess an extremely slim chance in entering and even when they do they are often criticized and belittled for their contribution to the work.

One of the most sexist and misogynist work environments could be the comic book industry. I love comic books. I have grown up watching their cartoon shows and I'm an avid comic book reader, but it's absolutely disgusting how women are treated in the comic book industry. Of course not all men that read comics or are in the industry are sexist, but the amount of men who question women's adequacy about their knowledge of comics or even their writing and art is massive. 

Both articles, when stripped down to the very core, informs women how to succeed in a “man’s world.” In Levy’s chapter she focuses on women who use the objectification of their bodies to succeed. A female chauvinist pig, as defined by Levy, is a woman who objectifies other women and/or themselves and act like a “man” in society. To an FCP being a feminine female (those who shave their legs and apply makeup) are girly girls and an FCP mocks them. Ironically and hypocritically, FCPs often purchase Maxim magazines and Playboy in order to gawk at the girly girls.

The lifestyles the FCP are highly debatable  On one side FCPs enforce the idea of objectifying women and treating them like sex tools, but on the other side some FCPs are fully aware of the objectification and often use that to their advantage in order to get ahead in the business world.

Bruce Bechdel, Alison Bechdel's father, has been a closeted homosexual until the day he died. He would engage in coitus with young men while tending to his hobbies and serving his role in his household. Bruce Bechdel, in many ways, lived two lives. As Alison Bechdel was growing up, Bruce Bechdel would try to shape her to become a "princess" with flowery dresses and pins in her hair. This could possibly be due to Bruce Bechdel's repressed homosexuality. Because of the fact that gays were ostracized and ridiculed, Bruce Bechdel could not put on dresses as a child (which he wanted to as he revealed later in the book) therefore he tried to dress his only daughter in dresses. The only downfall, however, was that Alison Bechdel did not want to wear dresses or conform in the female gender role.

One of the main themes in the graphic novel is the hidden sexuality. Alison Bechdel and Bruce Bechdel both are homosexuals (although Alison Bechdel does not identify herself as one until later in her life), but unlike Bruce Bechdel was too scared to practice it freely so he did it on the "down low."

Chauncey's article circulates around the working class and the Bowery. Homosexual men and male prostitutes are hardly scarce and these men are often referred to as fairies or male degenerates. Sexual performances were uncensored and explicit. Chauncey often used the term fairy. The term fairy has often been constructed and reconstructed to have its definition fluctuate depending on the situation. Fairies can be used as a disparaging slang for gay men or it could be used to describe a homosexual man who acts more feminine. However, in Chauncey's context, it seems the term fairy is used to describe a male prostitute along with a male degenerate.