Friendzone

I'm sure you've heard of the term "friendzone" by now. It's become quite a popular word in today's lexicon.

I've gotten pretty sick of this word and its many memes. It's basically guys complaining about how girls they like, don't like them back in that way.

This irrationally upsets guys for some reason.

I guess it's because they've put so much time and effort into actually being a good friend and even after ALL THAT, they get absolutely nothing out of it.

I mean, you would think the least she could do IS GIVE HIM A BLOWIE, right?


Uh. Hell No.

Women DO NOT owe you anything. If you're being nice and helping her out and doing whatever for her - that's your decision. I'm going to let you in on a little secret,

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. 

But, if you want to - that's great. It means you're a good person. Caring, kind, compassionate.


But that does not apply if you're expecting sexual favors in return. What is nice about only doing something for the results you expect to get in return?

Nothing.

So you can stop that shit about "I'm such a good guy."

Which also begs the question: What makes you think it's your manners that turn her off? I'm sure that you have a myriad of other personality traits that she doesn't like. Maybe it's the way you talk back to your mother. The way you don't pay your fair share of rent. The way you say you're going to do something and then don't. You think that the ONLY reason she doesn't like you is because she'd rather have a "bad" boy?

Pst. Please.

I also don't quite understand where the word comes from.

If you were both friends with each other and then you eventually liked her, well into the friendship, then you're in exactly the same place as before - both friends.

If, however, you went in wanting sex, but didn't tell her - then you're the one who's being untruthful.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to talk to a girl to see if you two are compatible. But it's super helpful if the girl in question knows what's up. Especially if the girl can tell you from day one that she isn't interested.

To go into a friendship, expecting a relationship is just plain stupid.

I'd also like to address the double standard and stereotype of the whole unrequited love thing. Why is it in movies & TV shows that girls are always crying hysterically when the guy doesn't like her and the guy's like "Whatever, next bitch!"  This whole friendzone thing is the equivalent to ugly crying in your pillow at night while eating ice cream straight from the tub. But I guess it's just somehow more "manly" to bitch about it when you've got a penis swinging.


Here are some people who know what's up when it comes to the whole friendzone thing.

Man Hater

I am a feminist. I believe that though women have made huge progress in being equal to men in certain areas, there are some that we still need to catch up on. I've written about it here on my blog. In daily life though, the subject doesn't come up that often. The people I hang out with are either feminist themselves or at the very least not complete assholes who oppose the idea. I mean, why would I want to surround myself with people who think my opinion is less than theirs?

So, I've never had an encounter where I found myself verbally defending women's equality or lack thereof.

Until a few weeks ago.

John and I were at a party with other people who were drinking, laughing, talking. I was talking to a friend of ours when a man in his 40s or 50s comes up to us and joins in on the conversation. I don't quite remember what the conversation was about initially but before long we were talking about dancing. And he believed that a woman could not lead.

"But," we asked, "what if the guy can't dance? Why would we want to follow a bad dancer, instead of showing them how to do it?" 

"The man always leads," the guy said.

And this was just the beginning of the night. Looking back, I think he might be one of those people who end up arguing and belligerent when they drink just for the hell of it, because it seemed as if he kept trying to instigate an argument.

Though we were on opposing sides of the discussion, things were getting expressed in a fairly calm manner.

Until more drinks were had.

Towards the end of the night, he apparently knew enough about me to come to the conclusion that I was a man-hater.

Yup. Me. This girl.

I was completely taken aback by it. I mean, I would never have thought someone would call me that in my entire life. Bitch? Yes. Rude? Totally. But a man-hater? This was new.

What made me most upset was the fact that he kept saying things in reference to my childhood, as if knowing me for a whole two hours was long enough for him to psychoanalyze my life.

Offhanded comments like "you must have had a really bad childhood to be so angry," only helps to support the claim that my opinion isn't as valued. My thoughts and opinions aren't, no, can't be correct because, obviously, I still resent the fact that my dad was an absentee father.

Newsflash old man. My dad is amazing. Not only was he there for me as a child, he's there for me now. But perhaps you're projecting your own mommy/daddy issues onto me. 

See, even writing this posts is hard because I so want to take those low punches that I know I shouldn't take.

But it got me thinking about the fact that culture, can come from a sense of duty and pride and can eventually become something more sinister.  The man was an older, Latino guy - it makes sense that he was taught (along with many other boys) that men have to be providers, have to be strong, have to protect their women.

The idea of providing for family; of strength in faith, body, mind; and a sense of protectiveness in loved ones are great traits to possess.

But they should not be men-only virtues. Nor should they be the only redeeming ones.

This idea that there are men-only traits and women-only traits are part of the problem everyone faces today.

The idea that feminism is an ideology based on hating and putting down men is not only wrong, it's causing more trouble.

I don't hate men. But as a woman I'm not sure I've paid enough attention to their issues. So I think it's time to have a look at the other side. I want to see what issues men are faced with and what steps people around the world are taking to help ensure that both genders are treated.

Which is why in the next few entries I'll be talking about how men play a role in feminism and how men have their own sets of gender roles that we need to be aware of.

The Hobby Lobby Case

On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 ruling that in the case of Burwell v Hobby Lobby: corporations can deny forms of birth control to their female employees with no monetary penalty, if it is "closely held". (Closely held in this case means that it has no more than five shareholders.)

And it's a horrible decision.

Hobby Lobby is not a person. Hobby Lobby is not a sentient being. I cannot go up to Hobby Lobby on the sidewalk and punch it in the face, give it a hug, or ask it for change. Hobby Lobby cannot have a religious preference. It is a business: a for-profit business which means that it has to follow the law and provide health care for ALL of its employees OR provide no health care but pay the fine.

That is the law. That's it. It's really not that hard. Do or do not. You cannot just simply pick and choose which forms of healthcare you don't agree with.

Hobby Lobby claimed that because they, the owners, are religious they don't believe their company should have to provide certain types of birth control.

And again I emphasize that it's not right.

Some people on comment threads all around the internetz claim that it's not that big a deal because birth control is not a right. Well, that's partially true. Being able to get free birth control is not an amendment but under the current law (Contraceptive Mandate) having access to birth control is actually something you should expect, should you have need of it. You should also expect that your employer would treat both men and women fairly when it comes to medications and healthcare costs...which surprise! birth control is a part of.

Now, if this is your way of thinking why don't we say that about ALL medications? Oh, you have a sinus infection but your employer doesn't want to pay for the antibiotics? No big deal. Why don't you pay for it out of your own pocket. I mean, hell yeah it's going to cost a lot more but hey, it's not like they're forcibly keeping you from obtaining it. If that is what you really think, then by all means, please opt out of all insurance and pay for everything out of your own pocket.

Then there are the "Go Find Another Job" people. This too is always an option. If you really don't agree with Hobby Lobby's views you are more than welcome to find another job. But to think that "just" finding another job in this economy is as easy as typing it - well you've obviously been living under a rock. The point still comes down to the fact that you should not HAVE to quit your job because your current employer is wanting special rights. Switching jobs doesn't solve the bigger problem at hand. It may be inconvenient for you to hear people discuss their health care concerns but ignoring it doesn't help the problem.

There were also many misinformed commenters. Those who sided with Hobby Lobby were calling those who wanted access to these certain types of birth control - abortionists. But that is not the case. IUDs and Plan B are not actually abortion-inducing. This is backed by science. Both IUDs and the Plan B methods work to stop ovulation. That means it prevents an egg from dropping. If however, you are already pregnant these methods will do nothing. And if nothing happens that means that your pregnancy was not aborted. IUDs are actually used in many other countries as long-term, effective, reversible birth control. They are 99% effective (so that should shut all the "Go Buy A Condom" people who know that condoms have a 12% failure rate) but can costs hundreds or thousands of dollars without insurance.

You can read the entire article here.

If you agree with Hobby Lobby, then I beg you to think of what the ruling implies for other companies as well. Nine out of 10 businesses are thought to be "closely held" which means that there very well may be other lawsuits coming against other types of medicine.

Some religions don't believe in blood transfusions, some don't believe in antidepressants, and the list goes on. The Supreme Court may have tried to write out any ambiguous wording against other types of religious views but that begs the question: if you have to specifically word the law so that other religions cannot also benefit, is it really an equitable law?

I shouldn't have to say that America is a nation without a religion. We do not have a national religion thrust upon us. So to favor a law that is Christian in nature goes against the First Amendment.

However, let's be clear: just because companies offer birth control or medicine that goes against your religion doesn't mean you have to take it. You have the choice to deny it. That is your religious freedom. It does not mean, however, that you have the right to deny me said medicine based on your beliefs. You are then hindering my religious (or nonreligious) freedom. Religion is not under attack. Your are able to abide and adhere to your own beliefs, but those beliefs have to stop with you. You are not able to decide how others believe.

This whole situation is just the tip of the iceberg. You should expect even more lawsuits coming under scrutiny based on this new verdict.

If you're interested in reading about what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg said about how terrible this decision was, you can read her 35 page dissent here.

Sons of Anarchy

John and I needed a new show to watch together so on the advice of a friend we started to watch Sons of Anarchy.

I was optimistic about the show. I know that many Facebook friends talk about it and like it. I know that it's supposed to be about some badass bikers but that was basically all I knew about it.

I did know, thanks to Lauren, that main character Jax played by Charlie Hunnam was supposed to be the main guy in the 50 Shades of Gray porn movie.

But then he backed out.

So, like I said I was optimistic but I have got to tell you...

I think it's a stupid show and after just IMDBing it I'm kind of surprised it's gotten six seasons.

Okay, okay, so I've only seen the first three episodes but seriously, I had a hard enough time getting through them.

First, let me say that I love anti-hero stories. I love underdog stories - the misunderstood, broody sexyman stories. Those are great. Characters like Walter White, Loki, and Dexter Morgan that have human emotions and motivations for doing what they do. I get, and love, those stories.

But Sons of Anarchy isn't that story.

In the first episode some Mexican gang rivals burn down the SoA gun house. And I'm left confused because I don't know if this is supposed to be the thing that gets me on their side. Am I supposed to feel bad for the biker gang? Am I supposed to be pissed that their illegal gun operation blows up in flames? Am I supposed to hate the Mexican "bad" guys but love these badboys?

I didn't. And I don't.

The show is also incredibly misogynistic. In the second (or third) episode when the SoA need a favor done they call upon a lady. Not because she's intelligent or good with tools. No, they need her simply because the guy they want that favor from...yeah he wants to get into her pants. Wow. Shocker. She has a vagina and it's obviously the only good she's for.

And instead of being insanely pissed, embarrassed, or offended she's like Ew, really? You want me to do that guy? Haha. 

But hey! She doesn't mind (and I quote) "I'll do him if you do me." This she says to Jax who everyone knows is the sexiest, manslut on the face of the planet and is obviously every girl's fantasy.

Fuck.that.shit. 



To me, the entire show comes off as men being men. And not in any way you'd want your son to emulate.


These are grown ass adults. They are (supposedly) men. Some have families, some don't, but whatever. They are supposed to be fully aware of their actions. But instead they are stupid, barbarous, teenage boys who act on their first impulse without thinking more than two seconds in the future.

For example, while on the road some douche cuts off Jax. That would make anyone angry, sure. You could yell at him, cuss him out, honk your horn, hell, give him the finger. All of those would be acceptable adult behavior.

What's not adult behavior? Finding the guy at a gas station and completely punching his face in.

WTF.

Again I'm left wondering,  am I supposed to swoon over Jax now? Am I supposed to, like that lady, want him to bed me because he's just so manly?

I didn't. And I don't. 

The rest of the gang isn't any better. One sleeps with some illegal women who end up dead in the arson fire and the gang has to dispose of them because the guy's semen will turn up when they do the autopsy.

I'd love to have that guy on my team. He sounds like a real winner.

The only guy who stood out to me was the guy with tattoos on his head because he kind of resembles this one guy I dated. Minus the tattoos.

Anyway, the whole deal is that I just cannot relate to, or care about, these characters. These men who have absolutely no redeeming qualities are made to be the heroes of the story and I just can't stand for that.

The one and only person I felt any sort of connection to was the wife of Opie.

Opie

Opie's Wife.

Opie is the only one who has gone to jail for things he has done. The other gang members have their mugshots on the wall as pseduo-trophies but Opie was away for five years. His wife, not only waited for him, but now wants him to quit that life and live a better one.

And it's hard. They have a car payment and food to buy for their kids. But she's trying her hardest to make it work, taking extra shifts or whatever needs to be done.

When she doesn't have enough money for groceries and Jax's mother offers them to her, she declines. She wants absolutely nothing to do with them even if it means having to go without.

Opie on the hand doesn't like anything that's not easy. He wants to get back with the gang to do whatever it is he does and make some money.

I feel for this woman because she seems to be the only one who understands that even though it's easy it's not right. She doesn't want to be without him (again). She's the one who supported her children, alone, for five years while Beardy pumped iron and yet she is the one who comes off as a naggy bitch?




Another thing I cannot understand in the show is this bullshit guilt card they pull all the time called "do it for the club".

No.

I've never understood the whole brotherhood dynamic of gangs and fraternities (and sisterhood of sororities). Things like people telling me that I have to dance to Lil Wayne's "Lollipop", buy a Tiffany necklace and then throw it in the river, or sit naked on a washing machine while girls circle my jiggly bits are not, and have never been, my definition of fun, family, friendship or camaraderie.

Once again I say...fuck.that.shit.

I don't care if the "club" or whatever told me to hug strangers at random. The point of the matter is that I don't do anything I don't want to do. This whole peer pressure shit should have been done in high school.

And yet, here are men who claim to be their "family" telling them that if they don't do exactly what they tell them to do...not only will they not be a real man, but they'll also be cast out.

I have two very conflicting thoughts and I don't know which one to say first:

So much for family. 

That doesn't even make sense. 

So yeah, I guess tons of people love Sons of Anarchy because they bang bitches, make shittons of money and are manly.

They may be manly but they aren't Men.


I give it 1 out of 5 popcorn.

Extra: This was an article I found on IMDB that I think sums up my thoughts on the show perfectly.

Bitchin' About: Mason Jars

I love Pinterest.

It is one of my favorite time wasters. But after a while you realize just how saturated some things have become in home décor that you just want to take them and smash them on the ground because no matter what anyone says they aren't snow globes, vases, or cups.


I'm talking of course, about the (un)mighty Mason Jar.


I simply don't like the look of mason jars. I don't think they look particularly cool or trendy, hip or stylish. They look like something your grandma gives you when she makes jam. Oh wait, she does, because that's what they're used for.

Mason jars came around in 1858 to preserve food. If you do the jam and the lids right then by the time the stuff cools it forms a tight, vacuum-like seal and the food is good for forever.

Apparently people who have loads of money and nothing to do with it, collect the older versions. 

  

But since vintage and cheap are in right now, there have been tons of Pinners who have found other uses for mason jars. With very little trouble (but some expense) you could have a house full of mason jar objects.

You're having a small party at your house; so you don't lose track of time why don't you look at your...mason jar clock.

You're guests have started to arrive so you serve them some mixed drinks. What better way to mix a drink than with...a mason jar cocktail shaker.

And once that drink is mixed and chilly why don't you just pour it into this fancy...mason jar glass.



Via

The guests are starting to get hungry though so you bring out their salad...in a mason jar.

Via

And of course their dessert...in a mason jar.

Via

But oh no! It's getting dark. Why don't you light up the room with some...mason jars.

Via

 

Your guests have had a lot to drink so when they go to the restroom why not let them see your beautiful...mason jar soap dispenser.



Via

And instead of that stupid plant in that stupid plastic pot why not put some nice flowers in a...mason jar vase.

Via

While your friends are sitting there talking, why not give them something to look at too like your...mason jar snow globe.

Via

Like I said, your guests have had a lot to drink so why not make their cups into...sippy mason jars. That way they won't spill anything.

Via

Ugh.

Bitchin' About: TVs in Restaurants

Ok. So I know that some of you are going to completely disagree with me on this one but I really hate TVs in restaurants.

And no, I'm not talking about McDonalds or sports bars.

I'm actually talking about fancier restaurants.


John and I went to eat somewhere and while we ate I started talking to him and I started to notice that he wasn't listening.

It's not the fact that I talk too much that he just tunes me out. (At least I hope not.) He was too busy watching the TV over my shoulder. But really, who do you know can just completely ignore a turned on TV?

Exactly. No one.

It bugs me because it's just as rude as being on your phone when someone is talking to you, but unlike your phone that you're able to turn off, the restaurant TV is on all the time.

And it's usually on some stupid sports game. Ugh. Gross.

Are we a society that can no longer go out for the fun of eating something tasty, with friends and family, and I don't know...enjoying their company?

John isn't even a sports guy! But he was facing the TV and I guess it's just more interesting that I am (probably).

I think it's complete overkill. I hate that it's there to appease the people who want to watch whatever game is on at the moment. If you care that much about the game (and I'm talking about smaller, not as important games because I know that when the Spurs play here they are on EVERYWHERE) stay home.

Or go to a place that will specifically air that.

I don't expect BJ's to air the Bachelor so I don't understand why they air ESPN 24/7. It's a restaurant! You're there to eat food and enjoy the company of whomever you're with. The constant flashes of the TV just take away from the ambience.


It's really annoying. I hate that so many places are doing it now. I wish that they would just do what they do - serve food. It's up to the people to make their experience worthwhile and if they can't have fun talking to whoever they came with, or eat in peace by themselves then maybe they need to learn.

R U Virgin?

Yesterday I got messaged from someone I didn't know. I had added them because we had two mutual friends in common.

He told me "Hi" and that I was beautiful. I told him "Thank you." I asked him then if I knew him as I didn't really know what else to talk about.

He said that we didn't know each other and he was from India.

After a few minutes of silence he asked if I was a virgin.

Cheers.

I told him to not talk to me again.

Before I could figure out the complicated way to block someone on Facebook (I mean Jesus! It's the easiest thing in the world to FRIEND someone but the BLOCK CREEPY PERV button is hidden in menus.) he whined and tried to show me a video of NYC.

I told him to stop talking to me. As if looking at vedeoo of NYC would change my mind about him.

I guess I hurt his ego or something so he then preceded to tell me to fuck off.

Wowee mister -- Your love is fleeting.

I have some questions.

First, who the hell asks someone that?! Especially after only minutes of interacting with them?

Men do some crazy things to show they are into women. (Granted so do women.) Some, like buying a drink or having a conversation, are examples of good getting-to-know-you tactics.

Things like wolf-whistling, trying to sexy dance on you, or asking your sexual history...are not.

They are gross, base, and completely degrading.

What men in their right mind thinks, "Wow. That girl sure is attractive. I wish she would look over at me ogling her. Maybe if I whistle at her, like a dog, her animal instincts will take over and we can sniff each other's butts."

Not.

Why would any respectable woman go up to you, be interested in you, after you've acted like a complete dick? Is it really that hard to try? Why do you think that creeping them is sexy? That is not sexy. Whistling at them like animals is not sexy. Getting behind them at clubs and rubbing your man junk on them without permission is not sexy.

You are humans. You are men. Act like you have an fbang brain.

What crazy thing goes through your mind to ask a woman you barely know her sexual history? Then, when she (rightly) disses you, you insult her by throwing a tantrum and saying "whatever you're not a virgin anyway".

Hey, guess what. Not being a virgin isn't an insult. I don't think that people who have sex before marriage are horrible, slutty creatures. If you want to do it, do it. If you want to wait, wait.

But don't you dare try to insult me simply because I'm not your ideal. That is your problem. Not mine. Don't you dare try to come at me and say that the way I've lived my life is wrong and I should be ashamed. I have nothing on that front to be ashamed of.

You, kind sir, on the other hand are a complete embarrassment to yourself. You can sure as hell be ashamed of your behavior.

Grow the fuck up. Learn to treat a lady with respect and maybe, just maybe, you'll get more than a blocked Facebook.