The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by LobsterJ » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:46 pm

by S.F. Jude Terror » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:04 pm

by Keb » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:05 pm

FBtron wrote:It's sad that so many men react with such hostility toward issues involving women's equality. There is too often an immediate dismissal of an issue at hand without even once considering the other parties' feelings. With this particular issue, it isn't just one woman, nor is it just an Internet issue for "ridiculous" feminists but an issue that many women and men are strongly speaking out against. This is not something that was created by women to bash men about but an issue created by insecure guys out there to refer to their "condition" of "entitlement" to a woman's body.

These men, whether teenagers or young adults, are indeed males who have befriended a woman specifically thinking that because he is a "nice guy" she'll put out and are angered when she doesn't. The term "friend zoned" is also used when a guy has been "let down" by a female friend and his male friend is putting down the girl who did it - instead of simply saying something positive, such as, "that bites, man, I feel for you, but you'll find someone else - besides, she may be right... You guys are tight, you wouldn't want to chance wrecking it," it goes like, "that bitch just friend zoned you. You're not going to let it slide are you?" Or, " you were even there for her when her sister died! She *hugged* you! She sent out the signals! She sooo friend zoned you!"

In general, the term is being used by dejected males who then proceed to very vocally bash the object of affection. Websites are being created by these males who gather their friends or strangers who agree with them to "call out" and put down these women for not having sex with them. It isn't just a crush or falling in love and then they're hurt, it's specifically about these guys believing they're entitled to the woman's body because they were nice to her and "understanding."

Because these guys "allowed" the women their shoulder to cry on, or to do something else "emasculating," such as telling the female her hair looked nice, they *expect* that the female will f--- them. Once the male has been rejected, they've been "friend zoned", which is as almost as bad, if not worse, than being murdered.

...

As for me, growing up as a *legitimate* "nice guy" I was disappointed and hurt at times to be rejected by someone I had romantic feelings toward but I got over it. If there was anger, it faded, and I never thought I should literally create havoc for the object of my feelings, and I certainly never felt I was owed anything. In addition, I look back on the times where "it would wreck the friendship" as times I'm now grateful for, as indeed it would have wrecked things - a deep emotional relationship with someone can be rewarding without romantic love or sex. It is disturbing then that young men are now creating such relationships as opportunities to be "owed" a woman's body and that there are those who believe this way of thought is not something to be concerned about.

by guitargod694 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:21 pm

FBtron wrote:It's sad that so many men react with such hostility toward issues involving women's equality. There is too often an immediate dismissal of an issue at hand without even once considering the other parties' feelings. With this particular issue, it isn't just one woman, nor is it just an Internet issue for "ridiculous" feminists but an issue that many women and men are strongly speaking out against. This is not something that was created by women to bash men about but an issue created by insecure guys out there to refer to their "condition" of "entitlement" to a woman's body.

These men, whether teenagers or young adults, are indeed males who have befriended a woman specifically thinking that because he is a "nice guy" she'll put out and are angered when she doesn't. The term "friend zoned" is also used when a guy has been "let down" by a female friend and his male friend is putting down the girl who did it - instead of simply saying something positive, such as, "that bites, man, I feel for you, but you'll find someone else - besides, she may be right... You guys are tight, you wouldn't want to chance wrecking it," it goes like, "that bitch just friend zoned you. You're not going to let it slide are you?" Or, " you were even there for her when her sister died! She *hugged* you! She sent out the signals! She sooo friend zoned you!"

In general, the term is being used by dejected males who then proceed to very vocally bash the object of affection. Websites are being created by these males who gather their friends or strangers who agree with them to "call out" and put down these women for not having sex with them. It isn't just a crush or falling in love and then they're hurt, it's specifically about these guys believing they're entitled to the woman's body because they were nice to her and "understanding."

Because these guys "allowed" the women their shoulder to cry on, or to do something else "emasculating," such as telling the female her hair looked nice, they *expect* that the female will f--- them. Once the male has been rejected, they've been "friend zoned", which is as almost as bad, if not worse, than being murdered.

Because of today's technology what might have been an isolated incident has spread to a "movement" by similar minded guys. What many men and women are trying to do to combat this is to educate that this type of thinking is wrong, and that a woman is not property. The reason why it is so misogynistic is because it is directly focused on women. Perhaps there might be a male who is gay who uses this now growing terminology, but the origin is directed to the heterosexual female by the heterosexual male.

In the comic referenced, CLARK KENT said this to Jimmy. Even as sexist as Superman has been written in the past, he would never ever have suggested that a guy was owed sex by a woman.

In the series of tweets, which aren't all shown in the article above, a reader, who happened to be female, expressed disdain to Daniel about this term. She was rudely dismissed. Someone stepped in and was trying to assist in conflict-resolution by asking Mr. Daniel to listen to this woman and to emphasize the misogyny involved in the term, but throughout it, both concerned parties were rudely dismissed before being blocked. (By the way, the sarcastic comments about Daniel's writing ability were only shared on the Tumblr devoted to Tony Daniel and not toward Daniel himself. )

What's also troubling about this incident is that Daniel is representing DC. Even "outside" the company, he is still very much representing the company where he works. This type of unprofessionalism is consistent throughout DC, which says much about the company and those who are quick to defend the offending parties.

Even if Daniel was incited to react in a hostile matter, being angered by certain comments, he shouldn't have acted on that. He could have tried to see what was wrong with the term, or at least why their was strong emotion against it, or at most, simply have answered with lip service, a "thank you for your concern; it's something to think about," if not just simply, "I disagree and I will not discuss it further; thank you for your understanding."

Whether or not you agree that this is a serious issue that is at least worthy of further thought and pondering, or acknowledge and accept that there are many hurt by this terminology, Daniel acted in an unprofessional manner and the continued unprofessionalism of some at DC should not be tolerated... Especially when readers and fans are paying customers of their product.

As for me, growing up as a *legitimate* "nice guy" I was disappointed and hurt at times to be rejected by someone I had romantic feelings toward but I got over it. If there was anger, it faded, and I never thought I should literally create havoc for the object of my feelings, and I certainly never felt I was owed anything. In addition, I look back on the times where "it would wreck the friendship" as times I'm now grateful for, as indeed it would have wrecked things - a deep emotional relationship with someone can be rewarding without romantic love or sex. It is disturbing then that young men are now creating such relationships as opportunities to be "owed" a woman's body and that there are those who believe this way of thought is not something to be concerned about.

by The Old Doctor » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:27 pm

guitargod694 wrote:
While all of the behavior you describe here is genuinely horrible behavior... it has fuck-all to do with the term "friendzone". Sure, some guys only do nice things for girls because they want to fuck them. And then that doesn't work out and they are pissed off about it. And yeah, maybe they use the term 'friendzone' to express their anger over the lack of sexual gratification they unjustly felt entitled to receive.

But that doesn't mean that every time someone says they were interested in a girl and she 'friendzoned' him or 'put him in the friendzone' that they think of that girl (or all girls) as sex objects that have unjustly denied them the blowjob they deserve for listening to her problems. It just means she doesn't feel the same way about him and it's disappointing. He then has to decide if he wants to continue seeing that person in a platonic fashion, or stop seeing them all together.

Going after terms like that doesn't solve the problem. It won't magically make these men you speak of less misogynistic assholes if we all agree to stop saying 'friendzone'. It'll just make it take longer to explain a situation that happens all the time to men and women.

by LoganRSA » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:54 pm

Keb wrote:Would you like a little cheese with that self-righteous misinformed crock of horse shit?

by guitargod694 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:59 pm

Cat-Scratch wrote:

by The Old Doctor » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:02 pm

guitargod694 wrote:
In case it isn't clear... that isn't my opinion, but rather the hypothetical view of the hypothetical guy who uses the term "friendzone" in the sexist or misogynistic way the person I quoted was referring to.

by Keb » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:03 pm

by guitargod694 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:04 pm

Cat-Scratch wrote:
Still...

If that were the rule...

by The Old Doctor » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:10 pm

guitargod694 wrote:
I know...
Apparently, as men, we all think it is. Or at least should be.
Which is why we so callously use terms like "friendzone'd" when our interest in a female is not requited.

by guitargod694 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 pm

Cat-Scratch wrote:
I guess it's a generational thing, as I never saw it that way. You were either just friends or not.

by Keb » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:44 pm

guitargod694 wrote:
Me neither. It was just a way of saying "she isn't into you".

In fact, if anything, I see it as more of a pejorative to the person who has been "friendzone'd".
These guys that think they are "nice guys" and they'll just be around and be supportive and sooner or later the girl will realize that he's the one that's always been there for her and she was in love with him the whole time and just too blinded to see it.

When in reality, he should just be open and direct about his feelings and intentions. If she shares that interest, great. If not... bummer.

And I've seen that scenario over and over from girls and guys.

by oogy » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:47 pm

dairydead wrote:I asked my friend, who is studying "Women's Studies" in college, and she said this is really honestly a huge topic among feminists right now.

by oogy » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:48 pm

alaska1125 wrote:
It's a totally ginned up fake topic to generate...what? Righteous anger?

Lewis Black wrote:"That’s something you’re gonna…worry about now? You need a hobby! ‘Cause on the list of things we have to worry about [this topic] is on page six after ‘Are we eating too much garlic as a people?’”

Lord Simian wrote: