What is the Friendzone? Does it really even exist?

Remove all ads!

With all due respect to Eleanor Roosevelt, no one can put you in the friendzone unless you let them. If you let them, though, they will keep you there forever. This romantic idea that you can "win someone over in time" works great in movies, and I'm sure that there are anecdotal cases of it working in real life, but I believe the vast majority of times it is merely a doomed situation with the object of desire taking unfair advantage of someone who is too smitten to realize that the romance is never going to happen.

Given my somewhat bitter mindset when it comes to women, I find that it is most frequently women who string men along. Western women have been conditioned by the media and even our education system to distrust men and seek dominance over them. They believe that if they do not establish dominance quickly, they will end up dominated and treated like a pre-1950s woman by these evil and disrespectful men. So they treat us like crap. Oh, that I could go back in time knowing what I know now about the true goals of women!

My bottom line is, if a person is not romantically interested in you within the first few months of your acquaintance, then don't try for such a relationship. Be friends, but don't be a doormat, toady, go-boy or bootlicker in the hopes the other person will change their minds on the romance issue. Seek out someone who finds you as attractive as you find them, and go forth as equals, neither in a position of dominance. I'm doing that now, and it's great.

 

While I think you're overgeneralizing, I suppose it makes sense with your bitter mind-set. And, despite being a woman, I completely agree about the media. I wouldn't say that all (and you didn't either, I note) Western women have been conditioned. There are still intelligent women out there, and we can think for ourselves. That said, the media is terrible. I can't begin to count the number of times that the media makes it okay or even desirable for women to treat men like trash. Drives me nuts, because it makes the rest of us look bad. I don't have any anecdotes about the friendzone, so I'm going off topic a bit, but I did want to reassure you that some of us do see what's going on and hate it as much as you do.

I also think that the equality-friendly method of dealing with issues like opening doors for women is that all people should just open doors for everyone. It's the polite thing to do. And if someone opens the door for you, you should say "Thank you," whether you're a man or a woman and whether the other person is a man or a woman. All this pseudo-feminist crap of "Don't open doors for me! I'm not weak!" is just ridiculous. But at the same time, men should allow women to open doors for them, too.

On a friendzone related note, I realized after reading one of the descriptions that I actually used to be in the friendzone with a male friend. I think we're no longer friends (his choice), and it saddens me. I guess this proves the point about women valuing friendship for its own sake. I'd rather be friends with him without romance (even though I'd prefer romance) than nothing at all. It probably also has to do with the fact that I don't have a lot of close friends, and I just miss having a friend that close, whether male or female, attractive or not. I feel like the only one I can really talk to these days is my mom, and that seems sad for a 36-year-old. Now, I'm wondering if he was trying to do the right thing and spare me the agony of the friendzone.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I still wish we were still friends.

 

To counter LKD, women may string men along more often than the other way around but men hit and otherwise abuse women on a much larger scale than the other way around.

Also, seriously LKD you should talk to someone about your bitterness. It can't be good for you. Hopefully you are using this forum to vent and go overboard because if what you write here are your actual views then you are dangerous. Life goes on and you are not a victim.

 

What part of what LKD wrote here was "dangerous?" The bit about going forth as equals and how great that is?

 

My post was a reply to the cumulative impression of LKD having a really low opinion of women and seeing himself as a victim of meanie beanies everywhere. If you start seeing other people as really bad, evil even and that you are a victim of them the step is not far from doing almost anything and view it as self defence.

 

Well, while I disagree with your analysis (and I have a fair amount of professional experience in the area of risk management and spotting risk-related identifiers in people, none of which I see in LKD), perhaps we'd be better off discussing that in another thread. Maybe one called "LKD: Dangerous? You Decide!" As for this one, I'd rather not discourage people from participating by pointing body snatcher fingers at them when they do so.

 

I am not dangerous for one simple reason: I have morals. I know right from wrong, and I truly believe in law and order. I have never once advocated violence of the vigilante sort against anyone, so the cumulative view referred to is based upon odd perceptions and not my actual posts.

Even if I were assured of avoiding punishment by the State or society, I would not engage in the dangerous behaviour insinuated because I have a conscience and need to look at myself in the mirror each day. The reason I call for severe punishment of violent criminals is that I believe they lack such a moral compass or conscience.

 

You are funny Gaear .

 

On that note ...

I had to think about what the media was doing to condition women for a bit, but then I remembered that most domestic setting commercials (at least those aired on US television these days) seem to portray men as bumbling fools who crash cars, destroy property, and generally fail at their traditional male role tasks like mowing the lawn, etc. They are saved from disaster only by the grace and good will of their smart and savvy wives or significant others. But this begs the question: are the media conditioning women or are women conditioning the media?

Well if it went down just like that, it would kind of by definition not have been the friendzone, as he wasn't keeping you there while you had no chance with him. However, men are just different with this whole thing. It may be tempting to think that he wanted to spare you the agony and so he sent you packing to save your feelings, and maybe he did, but more likely he just sent you packing because he wasn't interested. And as to your feelings ... well, whatever. Remember, most guys don't need or want women as friends.

 

Gaear, it's not just commercials. Look at any sitcom, and you'll see men are the ones who always have to "learn a lesson" from their wise, intelligent wives or girlfriends. They are invariably presented as emotionally immature boy-men, and if they do have a girlfriend, they are constantly walking on eggs, for one little error, one innocent word when she doesn't like it, and he's dumped. The woman is always portrayed as being totally in the right for this, but she shows compassion for him and takes him back, and he goes.

Guys who don't kowtow to women in these shows are almost always portrayed as slimy or even abusive.

I mean, look at one of the most popular shows on TV today: The Big Bang Theory. Leonard is constantly at Penny's beck and call, and when she finally deigns to commence a romantic relationship with him, he is the one who is perceived as being "lucky". I mean, really? Penny is not a great catch in any other terms than her looks. That's it. She's shallow, none too bright, totally unsuccessful in terms of work / finances, has a terrible dating history (mostly dates morons who treat her badly, established from episode 1 and reinforced throughout the show, notably by her own father), and she constantly degrades Leonard's entire lifestyle. If I were him, I'd run as fast as I could from such an ungrateful, useless woman, looks or no.

Yet the show constantly makes it out that he should just be grateful she talks to him. The amount of money he pours into her is astounding (which in a way is a defining characteristic of the friendzone, IMHO). It also portrays these high end scientists as utter morons in every other area of their lives, which I find difficult to believe that they could survive in the world of high academia if they were that socially inept and juvenile.

This is just one example -- I like sitcoms despite their man-hating bias, and I could go on and on about how men are denigrated in the media.

Now I know some will say that women were denigrated previously. Fair enough, that's pretty well based in fact. But NOW and other womens groups got together and made a huge fuss about how evil and dangerous that sort of denigration was to society. Also fair. So why is it not dangerous now?

I have read statistics that say that men are postponing marriage for a lot longer, in some cases choosing not to marry at all. Why? Because they don't want to be treated like dirt. They are opting to enjoy their lives and not be insulted for decades on end. They stay free, have fun, and if it gets unpleasant, they can just bail. That can't be good for society, but given how biased our society is in favor of women, treating them as if they do no wrong and even letting them get away with murder for pretty flimsy reasons, it's understandable.

 

We must look at different shows, most shows I see portray selfish, idiotic, overweight, older, inconsiderate men married to intelligent, attractive, caring, loving, younger women who put up with pretty much everything their husband does because he is a "good guy at heart". "King of Queens", "The Simpsons" and so on.

LKD, what many men do who don't like western women and their evil ways is to go get themselves a wife from another country who is so appreciative of being taken to a "rich" country or maybe so afraid to be sent back that she does everything for her husband.

 

Why is this though? Are women the true power brokers in Hollywood and elsewhere, creating the shows and portraying the roles they themselves want to see? is it a plot to condition women accordingly, or men? Is it a plot by male power brokers to condition women and men accordingly? If so, why would they do that? Or is it just a reflection of societal trends that producers think the majority want to see? (If so, that would be less 'conditioning' and more serving up your favorite dish.)

Or is it (gasp!) a reflection of reality? I don't think men are generally as incompetent and boob-like as they are usually portrayed on TV, but I do have to acknowledge our shortcomings. We have greater upper body strength, but women usually win out in every other category, which is why they will probably eventually eliminate us.

 

I work at an adult education center and we have plenty of "mail order" brides studying with us. Surprisingly often it seems to work ok but it is hard to look past the fact that both parts mutually take advantage of each other. The men take advantage of a desperate woman to get a very obedient housekeeper/sex toy and the women take advantage of the man leave generally awful situations in their home countries.

If the man is a total dick he kicks the woman out just before she is due to get her citizenship/residency and get a new one and if he isn't he shouldn't be surprised if the woman walks away as soon as she can without being kicked out of the country. Any part expecting love and to live happily ever after is in for some major heart ache.

But as I started several of the women I teach seems to be genuinely happy in their situations so I guess all "mail-order" brides aren't really "mail-order" but just people who have fallen in love who happen to come from different countries.