Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Incels?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

I've met plenty of people who did just that. I did it myself in high school (and "friendzoned" more than one girl - because I was dumb at the time).
And there was totally a "window" with my partner and the mother of my son. We've joked about it many times, because she was quite oblivious to my courtship at first (despite my lack of subtlety), and could totally have started seeing me as a friend.

I think you should avoid grand pronouncements about male-female relationships. You don't know how everyone works.

I'm comfortable saying what I said, because the action you're talking about is for individuals, not 'as a whole'. Your example of your partner is a good one - where she apparently thought you weren't interested in her and then changed her mind. That's the whole point that friendzoning isn't a thing! The point is that things change!

Hell, the example where this originated - the show Friends - is about Ross and Rachel. 

The point is that people can be seen as friends, as lovers, as fuckbois, and those things can change. The friendzone bucket has been used as a thing to avoid at all possible costs by incels and other assholes who view being friends with those who they want to fuck as the worst possible thing that must be avoided. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

Cheers. Couldn't have said it better. Got no problem with other people having different interpretations, just not going to be told by someone else how I or others have to use the word.

You might not state that an entire nation uses it the way that you (and apparently a small minority of others) also use it.

And you might not dismiss other people's experiences with the bullshit as not being germane to your whole nation either.

[maarsen]

As a shy person, due to temperament and a bad stutter, I suppose I "friendzoned' a few women as I did not pick up the signal that she was interested or was too tongue tied to actually talk to her. On the other hand I have made more than a few female friends and I would not ever exchange their friendship for a chance to boink them.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Okay, there are obviously two meanings of the term "friendzone" term. The one I used (and seen used by both women and men around me) was always "I've liked them, but they weren't' interested in me romantically, but rather as a friend" sort of way - and since that was too long of a construct to repeat every time, it was shortened to "friendzoned". Simple, honest acknowledgement of a situation without any malice or entitlement involved. Which is fine.

It's not particularly fine if you're using a word without understanding the misogynistic undertones of it, no. 

7 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Other people here had different experiences, involving entitlement, resentment or frustration on the part of freindzoned party. And that's fine as well. Were we to communicate, we'd undoubtedly have some misunderstandings, but with some goodwill and clear communication we would have been able to understand what each other thinks. Simple as that.

Ideally, that's what would have happened. Instead, what we have here is de facto lingustical imperialism, forcing everyone else to conform to your meaning of the word and your meaning of the word only. And what's even better, it's lingustical imperialism coupled with accusations of either intellectual deficiency ("you're ignorant") or of moral deficiency ("You're ignoring the plight of women"). And ll that combined with utter inability to even imagine that different people might have different - and equally valid - experiences with said term. Brilliant.

Linguistic imperialism is an amusing thing to trot around. I'm sorry that y'all were ignorant of its fairly negative and misogynistic uses, but that's what it was - ignorance. It's not my 'meaning' of the word any more than using the N word is using some specific thing. You're choosing to dismiss the harm of a term as some kind of 'well I disagree' thing. Which is really common! That's almost always what people called out for their bigotry do. It's what I did too! 

You're feeling the sting, and that sucks, but you're being told that you fucked up by people who take the brunt of that pain. Deal with it and learn from it.

[BigFatCoward]

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

 On the other hand I have made more than a few female friends and I would not ever exchange their friendship for a chance to boink them.

You can do both. I've got multiple very close friends who I was friends with for years before we hooked up and have been friends with for years after. As long as there are no weirdos in the equation its very easy. 

[BigFatCoward]

3 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

 

I'm claiming you're wrong. You're claiming you're right about how the UK uses it, which doing a basic search indicates that you're wrong.

I'm claiming you're wrong. You're claiming you're right about how the UK uses it, which doing a basic search indicates that you're wrong.

Yes I did mean just to copy and paste that. 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

I'm claiming you're wrong. You're claiming you're right about how the UK uses it, which doing a basic search indicates that you're wrong.

I literally proved otherwise, including the Oxford dictionary definition! You elided the example that shows exactly how wrong you were from the actual Oxford dictionary definition!

But hey, keep with the personal attacks and keep digging that hole when you discover you're wrong. It's definitely the thing that will make you be a better person. 

[maarsen]

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

You can do both. I've got multiple very close friends who I was friends with for years before we hooked up and have been friends with for years after. As long as there are no weirdos in the equation its very easy. 

Due to shyness, I really don't have a huge group of friends and as such I treasure those that I do have and try to be just what they expect. I suppose at heart I am really a monogamist.

[BigFatCoward]

Just now, Kaligator said:

I literally proved otherwise, including the Oxford dictionary definition! You elided the example that shows exactly how wrong you were from the actual Oxford dictionary definition!

But hey, keep with the personal attacks and keep digging that hole when you discover you're wrong. It's definitely the thing that will make you be a better person. 

The line you quoted showed no evidence of entitlement whatsoever.

You can try and twist it as much as you want but it absolutely did not say what you wanted it to. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

The line you quoted showed no evidence of entitlement whatsoever.

You can try and twist it as much as you want but it absolutely did not say what you wanted it to. 

k.

Good luck with your poultry!

[Heartofice]

Well im in the Uk and I think both uses of the word are used, but mostly it’s as BFC uses it. But am I surprised that certain board members over react to the use of language… no. 

[DaveSumm]

20 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

I'll say it another way - I'm saying that the term has a lot of misogynistic background.

Genuine question, what do you mean by ‘background’ here?

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

There's a really good word to describe someone you are friends with that you've been sexually attracted to at some point, it's "friend".  

 

That's right, friend!

[sologdin]

the significance of the zone grapheme is more interesting than the friend- prefix. the ancient world conceived it from greek zōnē "a belt, the girdle worn by women at the hips."

as we know from lear, 'Down from the waist they are centaurs, though women all above. But to the girdle do the gods inherit; beneath is all the fiends' (IV.vi.121 ff.)--above the girdle--above the zone--one thing, but below the zone its opposite--within the zone however, what?  shakespeare's lear does not answer what happens in the zone, because in the zone there is no order that he can perceive.  lear is likely in the zone himself (the misogyny of his position is manifest) and therefore subject to something analogous to mannheim's paradox--determining the limits and rules of the zone is likely not possible from inside it.

this is because any such zone is a liminality wherein oppositions coincide without remainder and prior rules are suspended.   the 'friendzone' would therefore be an anomic interpersonal space, wherein the regular constitution of social relations is suspended.  as the great philosopher pynchon explains, such zones arise, after the prior order has been destroyed and thus opened, from the impulse "to leave it open. We want it to grow, to change. In the openness of the [Friend] Zone, our hope is limitless." whether it's european wastelands after WW2 or the insinuation into the confidences of some vulnerated disconsolate, the principle is the same--expropriation of perceived disorder.

on the one hand, persons in the zone are "as properly constituted a state as any other in the Zone these days. Not paranoia. Just how it is," the mental condition a matter of course in the zone, rather than an irregularity.  if subjective paranoia is the indicia of being in the zone, we should therefore expect the purportedly friendzoned person to have dissociated interpretations--thus lear's seeming bewilderment, and thus the incel's aberrant practice.

on the other, of course, "hidden inside the [Friend] Zone, the Rocket is waiting," a transcendental signifier that overcomes the dissociation.  despite the subjective paranoia, the hypervigilant and self-oriented interpretations common to those in the zone, there is nevertheless an objective set of material conditions giving rise thereto.  

 

[horangi]

1 hour ago, Kaligator said:

I'm sorry you've not been on the internet or watched any popular culture for the last 30 years then

To be fair to BFC and Davesumm, these last couple pages have been illuminating for me as well, as I was close to asking the same question.  The 'Friends' reference is what came to mind.  Granted neither I nor any of my close friends have been in the dating market for the better part of that 30 year time frame (and the last coming-of-age/dating movie I've seen was probably from the Molly Ringwald era). 

My general thoughts (not @ kal) to this thread has been- good lord some of the folks here intersect with some pretty toxic communities!  Out of curiosity, are things like clubs and activity groups no longer a thing in high school/college? Whats new in society thats driving this sense of isolation?  Growing up with D&D and Anime, me and my buddies were never going to get invited to the cool kids house party, but we cared a lot more about getting that paladin the next level anyways.  I always saw the rise of folks like Gates and Jobs and such as a vindication and acceptance of geekiness as a socially acceptable part of society.  At my better half's university, being a part of RP or table gaming group seems to be the norm rather than the exception, but based on the previously cited article, I'm guessing there must be some significant self-sorting going on through choosing to pursue a degree. 

[DaveSumm]

15 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the significance of the zone grapheme is more interesting than the friend- prefix. the ancient world conceived it from greek zōnē "a belt, the girdle worn by women at the hips."

as we know from lear, 'Down from the waist they are centaurs, though women all above. But to the girdle do the gods inherit; beneath is all the fiends' (IV.vi.121 ff.)--above the girdle--above the zone--one thing, but below the zone its opposite--within the zone however, what?  shakespeare's lear does not answer what happens in the zone, because in the zone there is no order that he can perceive.  lear is likely in the zone himself (the misogyny of his position is manifest) and therefore subject to something analogous to mannheim's paradox--determining the limits and rules of the zone is likely not possible from inside it.

this is because any such zone is a liminality wherein oppositions coincide without remainder and prior rules are suspended.   the 'friendzone' would therefore be an anomic interpersonal space, wherein the regular constitution of social relations is suspended.  as the great philosopher pynchon explains, such zones arise, after the prior order has been destroyed and thus opened, from the impulse "to leave it open. We want it to grow, to change. In the openness of the [Friend] Zone, our hope is limitless." whether it's european wastelands after WW2 or the insinuation into the confidences of some vulnerated disconsolate, the principle is the same--expropriation of perceived disorder.

on the one hand, persons in the zone are "as properly constituted a state as any other in the Zone these days. Not paranoia. Just how it is," the mental condition a matter of course in the zone, rather than an irregularity.  if subjective paranoia is the indicia of being in the zone, we should therefore expect the purportedly friendzoned person to have dissociated interpretations--thus lear's seeming bewilderment, and thus the incel's aberrant practice.

on the other, of course, "hidden inside the [Friend] Zone, the Rocket is waiting," a transcendental signifier that overcomes the dissociation.  despite the subjective paranoia, the hypervigilant and self-oriented interpretations common to those in the zone, there is nevertheless an objective set of material conditions giving rise thereto.  

 

Either that or it’s a play on ‘end zone’, hard to say.

[Soylent Brown]

The Friends example is 25 years old, and has obviously been twisted into something grotesque by the online incel community, so isn't it reasonable to move away from that original meaning in a thread that's actually about incels?

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Kaligator said:

I'm comfortable saying what I said, because the action you're talking about is for individuals, not 'as a whole'.

And you get to say how things are "as a whole" because... ?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't see how you can be so sure you're right. I certainly am not. I've seen all kinds of couples, relationships, plot twists and everything, and I'm not talking about fiction or the internet. Life is quite inventive. So I don't know what the rule is supposed to be, or even if there is a rule.

Anyway, whether a term can be "tainted" by douchebags and should no longer be used is quite the question. Partner had an interesting suggestion. If someone talks of the "friendzone" as something that can happen or has happened at times, they're probably trying to be rather factual. If they're trying to present it as a rule (either for themselves, or for women), they're probably bitter, resentful, and slightly misogynistic.
BTW, partner also suggests it may be a bit sexist to see it as a misogynistic term since women can be friendzoned too.

[Knight Of Winter]

17 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

...so isn't it reasonable to move away from that original meaning in a thread that's actually about incels?

Genuine question: why? For what reason?

Yes, there are toxic individuals around the world and yes, often they have their own independent meanings for words. But why should we (we=the rest) allow them to define the language we all use? I mean - there are no incels here in this thread. Everybody knows there are no incels here. Everybody knows that everybody knows that there are no incels here. So for what reason are we so insecure and fearful not be be perceive as incels when it's clear as day that we're using the term "friendzone" in its original, non-toxic meaning?

Sometimes I feel as if genuinely toxic people and groups have wa(aaa)y too much power over common language. They can (and oftentimes do) use whichever word they want in whatever meaning they want - and the rest of the society is expected to take their new usage as a given and frightfully avoid it as to not be perceived the wrong way. Then the society thinks of a new word, free from any stain and starts to use it; until of course bigots pollute this new word as well - and so on.

[Soylent Brown]

5 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Genuine question: why? For what reason?

Yes, there are toxic individuals around the world and yes, often they have their own independent meanings for words. But why should we (we=the rest) allow them to define the language we all use? I mean - there are no incels here in this thread. Everybody knows there are no incels here. Everybody knows that everybody knows that there are no incels here. So for what reason are we so insecure and fearful not be be perceive as incels when it's clear as day that we're using the term "friendzone" in its original, non-toxic meaning?

Sometimes I feel as if genuinely toxic people and groups have wa(aaa)y too much power over common language. They can (and oftentimes do) use whichever word they want in whatever meaning they want - and the rest of the society is expected to take their new usage as a given and frightfully avoid it as to not be perceived the wrong way. Then the society thinks of a new word, free from any stain and starts to use it; until of course bigots pollute this new word as well - and so on.

I can't say I've ever been so attached to a word that it would caused me grief to stop using it.

But anyway, I wasn't suggesting that we stop using the word - though I can't say I've really noticed anyone using it since the 90s, outside of incel types - just that, for the people arguing about its meaning, the incel community has given us a very clear modern definition.