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.