The Friend Zone

[crayzz]

The friend zone could be a useful concept, I think. Being friends with someone you feel romantic feelings for can certainly suck. I wouldn't want to avoid them, since they've done nothing wrong (they have every right to reject me). But I wouldn't want to be with them too much, since they bring up hopes and emotions that I feel unable to act upon. Shitty pace to be. I think it's probably fairly common, and I think it's useful to talk about common social situations; we can learn from them, figure out how to get around them or through them, and figure out how to avoid them entirely if we have open conversations about this stuff.

The problem is that it's turned into "let's blame the women" for far too many guys. I've seen women asking for dating advice get "check your friendzone" as a serious response. I've seen men go on dumbass rants about how all women only date assholes; their only evidence, of course, is that they were polite and respectful and that didn't win the women over. There seems to be this expectation that men should get sex or romantic relationships simply by not being assholes, rather than actually appealing to a women's interests. It seems a fairly obvious point to me: friendships aren't based purely on politeness and respect, so why would you expect sex or romantic relationships for just that? But I see a lot of men fucking up that simple point.

How many men, exactly, I have no idea. Assholes are easier to see than non-assholes. Never-the-less, too many men do it.

[Alex Starkiller]

that the only lifestyles aimed exclusively at women are those related to the family sphere and romance (see: the romance genre, toys for girls, TV channels; anything that is geared towards women almost always plays into one or both of the two patriarchal archetypes for women: the nurturer and the temptress).

I'm going to avoid everything else you said, after this, as it's pretty obvious that the friendzone is a real thing, even if most of the guys whining about it are in fact just putting the blame on the woman. Like crayzz said, not all guys blame the women, it's just either uncomfortable or painful to be rejected but remain friends.
To what I quoted, this is one of the big reason so many people like the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. For the most part, most of the characters don't fit those tropes, or at least don't solely fit them [referring to the nurturing part, of course, if woodland critters count towards that.] They empower the female characters by making them people who happen to be women, not women who's sole purposes are to be females [stereotyped females], if that makes any sense.

[crayzz]

To what I quoted, this is one of the big reason so many people like the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. For the most part, most of the characters don't fit those tropes, or at least don't solely fit them [referring to the nurturing part, of course, if woodland critters count towards that.] They empower the female characters by making them people who happen to be women, not women who's sole purposes are to be females [stereotyped females], if that makes any sense.

Oh man, bronies get up to some horrible bullshit sometimes. I'm not saying that you or even most MLP fans are like that; I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to be as effective at communicating equality as you say.

But maybe go read Shadowknight's tl;dr. It has some great points, even if I disagree with the initial assertion.

[Alex Starkiller]

To what I quoted, this is one of the big reason so many people like the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. For the most part, most of the characters don't fit those tropes, or at least don't solely fit them [referring to the nurturing part, of course, if woodland critters count towards that.] They empower the female characters by making them people who happen to be women, not women who's sole purposes are to be females [stereotyped females], if that makes any sense.

Oh man, bronies get up to some horrible bullshit sometimes. I'm not saying that you or even most MLP fans are like that; I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to be as effective at communicating equality as you say.

But maybe go read Shadowknight's tl;dr. It has some great points, even if I disagree with the initial assertion.

Yes, and so do Christians, atheists, people who like video games, conservatives, liberals, feminists, misogynists, and avid book readers. It doesn't matter that you put a mollifying qualifier on there, it's still an invalid point. As for my second point, those involved in the "scandal" are not characters in the show, morals in the show, or even creators of the show. As such, they have nothing to do with anything the characterizations the show portrays. Seriously, where did you get that leap in logic?

And I read it, albeit begrudgingly. I don't see why you're telling me to do it [again]. There are indeed good points, but they're all laced with "Male Guilt" or what have you.

[crayzz]

It doesn't matter that you put a mollifying qualifier on there, it's still an invalid point.

I think you're right.

As such, they have nothing to do with anything the characterizations the show portrays. Seriously, where did you get that leap in logic?

I didn't.

I don't see why you're telling me to do it [again].

My apologies. To me, "avoid" meant "will not read".

There are indeed good points, but they're all laced with "Male Guilt" or what have you.

"Patriarchy" is not "male guilt".

[Alex Starkiller]

Yay.

Okay?

No, I was/will avoid(ing) responding to it, not reading it. Gah, sorry for the tense troubles.

I... don't know what you mean. My definition of patriarchy doesn't mesh with what you wrote there. He certainly doesn't seem to be the type to support a man being the only one allowed as ruler of a country or household.

[crayzz]

There two factors in communicating: the speaker and the audience. Usually we take both roles, during dialogue, but with a TV show the roles are locked. and a shitty audience can render communication useless. In other words, HCl is a powerful solvent, but inneffective wrt to lead(II) sulphate.

"Patriarchy" has a meaning outside what you described, at least among gender discussions. A proper explanation requires more than what a crappy touchscreen keyboard allows me to do.

-EDIT-

"Patriarchy" is the term used for cultural assumptions that limit women. Among these are the assumption that women should be demure and passive, that women should be nurturing and caring, that women are something for men to compete for, etc. It's called "patriarchy" because the net effect is similar to that of explicit patriarchy. Look at all the women presidents/prime ministers in Canada and the US. There's one, Kim Cambell, who was prime minister for about a year. Look at all the women nobel laureates. Again mostly men, some of whom won their nobel based on the work of women. The cultural attitude Shadowknight12 was describing (the idea that men deserve women for simple things like not being shitty to them) is part of what's referred to as "patriarchy" , and it does not necessitate "male guilt".

[Shadowknight12]

I'm going to avoid everything else you said, after this, as it's pretty obvious that the friendzone is a real thing, even if most of the guys whining about it are in fact just putting the blame on the woman. Like crayzz said, not all guys blame the women, it's just either uncomfortable or painful to be rejected but remain friends.
To what I quoted, this is one of the big reason so many people like the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. For the most part, most of the characters don't fit those tropes, or at least don't solely fit them [referring to the nurturing part, of course, if woodland critters count towards that.] They empower the female characters by making them people who happen to be women, not women who's sole purposes are to be females [stereotyped females], if that makes any sense.

Well, let's agree to disagree on the friend zone thing, then. To me, it's just another type of rejection.

Other than that, good for MLP. It's not what I'd watch, but if what you say is true, I am definitely glad it exists.

"Patriarchy" is not "male guilt".

Indeed.

I... don't know what you mean. My definition of patriarchy doesn't mesh with what you wrote there. He certainly doesn't seem to be the type to support a man being the only one allowed as ruler of a country or household.

You are confusing patriarchy as a form of government with patriarchy as a social construct. We can all agree that aristocracy is no longer a form of government, but it still exists as a social construct.

While I don't want to derail the thread with an argument about feminism, a succinct definition of patriarchy is "the power wielded by men as a social class." The last bit ("as a social class") is very important, as the kneejerk reaction of most men is to go "But my life isn't perfect!" and that shows that they are not actually grasping what patriarchy means. It's an institutionalised form of social power, and it informs and pervades society as a whole. All the "male guilt" you refer to is my refusal to make excuses for my gender and my acknowledgement of the patriarchy.

[Alex Starkiller]

I'm going to avoid everything else you said, after this, as it's pretty obvious that the friendzone is a real thing, even if most of the guys whining about it are in fact just putting the blame on the woman. Like crayzz said, not all guys blame the women, it's just either uncomfortable or painful to be rejected but remain friends.
To what I quoted, this is one of the big reason so many people like the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. For the most part, most of the characters don't fit those tropes, or at least don't solely fit them [referring to the nurturing part, of course, if woodland critters count towards that.] They empower the female characters by making them people who happen to be women, not women who's sole purposes are to be females [stereotyped females], if that makes any sense.

Well, let's agree to disagree on the friend zone thing, then. To me, it's just another type of rejection.

Other than that, good for MLP. It's not what I'd watch, but if what you say is true, I am definitely glad it exists.

It can be. But the phenomenon kind of has to exist, given it's definition. It really depends on the way the rejected person reacts to it and deals with it. It might be a negative thing in someone's eyes, in which case they're in the wrong. If they view it as just "being", as it were, and they deal properly with the rejection, then it just is. No more, no less. And this is all assuming that the reject-er isn't oblivious or taking advantage of the rejected. Those happen too. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify. I don't expect you to suddenly change your mind and you have every right not to, as long as you don't act unsympathetically to people describing their relationship situation like this [unless they're the negative type, in which case they probably deserve it.]

I understand. Most view it as a sort of cherry on top. I won't discuss its merits or anything, since it doesn't belong in this thread outside of its well-developed characterizations.

You are confusing patriarchy as a form of government with patriarchy as a social construct. We can all agree that aristocracy is no longer a form of government, but it still exists as a social construct.

While I don't want to derail the thread with an argument about feminism, a succinct definition of patriarchy is "the power wielded by men as a social class." The last bit ("as a social class") is very important, as the kneejerk reaction of most men is to go "But my life isn't perfect!" and that shows that they are not actually grasping what patriarchy means. It's an institutionalised form of social power, and it informs and pervades society as a whole. All the "male guilt" you refer to is my refusal to make excuses for my gender and my acknowledgement of the patriarchy.

Well that... and his phrasing made it seem like you were in support of it, not talking negatively of it. The clarification helps immensely.

[crayzz]

To me, it's just another type of rejection.

It is. It's rejection + established friendship. At least, that's how I think it should be used.

Well that... and his phrasing made it seem like you were in support of it, not talking negatively of it.

Ah, k. You said his Shadow's post was laced with male guilt. I figured you were referring to the parts explaining about what we think of as patriarchy. So Shadow's post was laced with references to patriarchy.

EDIT: Borked code