Okay. So the story goes something like this:
Summer is a young woman who don't need to man to tell her what she's worth. She's resorted to the idea that love isn't real and doesn't exist. Tom is a young man who resembles a puppy that's just found it's forever human. He clings onto Summer based on mutual likes and dislikes and makes himself believe "she's the one," (what does that even mean?!). She ends up telling him that she's not interested in a relationship and he accepts it. However, they hang out, go on dates, and engage in sexual behavior as if they were in a serious romantic relationship. And while each character is breaking gender stereotypes (Summer being strong, independent, and in control) and Tom (who is small-statured, emotional, and "weak") this whole idea isn't furthering our positive and equal representational rights as humans. We're still being fed lies that this is how relationships are and should be.
Okay, so I get it. Not every man is hunky, strong, muscular, blah blah blah. That's awesome! Tom is an awesome character in this perspective because he breaks those stereotypes. There's this "new normal" (oh no, normalization in the media!!!!) of a young man who is work, confused about life, small in stature, smart, intellectual, etc. Pretty much everything that wasn't there before has now appeared.
Now there's Summer. Non-typical beautiful girl who is smart, independent, intellectual, strong (but still surprisingly thin and petite) and she is, above all, not into a dating relationship. Very different than the woman who must have a man to be assured a "civil lifestyle."
Awesome. We're breaking stereotypes. Good job Hollywood.
HOWEVER: They're also creating new ones. Stereotypes that are just as detrimental as the ones prior, but they're wrapped in different paper and called something else because now the gender roles have switched.
**"Cue the term "Friend-Zoned."**
In the film, Tom gets angry with Summer about being friend-zoned. Where did this term even come from and why do people use it in a derogatory manner?
Rachel, it's not derogatory, it's just the way things are. We're progressive now and since gender roles have changed, so must the terms we use to describe the unfortunate (but inevitable) act of being rejected.
It is derogatory, though. I'm gonna point fingers at the men in the room and call you out. When you're interested in a girl but she doesn't return the feelings, you usually get sour and claim you've been friend-zoned. Ah. The victimization! The cruelty of it all! You claim she's done you an injustice by leading you on and making you believe that she was interested to whole time!
No. When did that become a proper defense for rejection? It's like a little boy whose mother wouldn't buy him the toy at the store. The little boy would throw a tantrum. Using the phrase "I've been friend-zoned," is like throwing a tantrum because you didn't get that thing you wanted. Not only does the term objectify women into prizes that can be won or obtained, it also insinuates that women are still not granted the right to free-choice in choosing whomever they want to be romantically engaged with.
It's an ancient way of thinking and if we want to progress feminism (remember the part where that's equal representation of men and women?) we have to accept that these kinds of terms and ways of thinking are prehistoric. By using phrases like that, we're backtracking and creating even more social issues for young people.
While I don't condone or encourage the type of behavior represented in the film, I believe young men, especially, have to realize how detrimental it is to think in the way of a victim when someone doesn't share the same feelings. Saying someone friend-zoned you isn't gravy. And it probably won't help you if you're trying to win someone's heart over. Heartbreak sucks. But everyone has to face the music at some point. Just don't throw a tantrum when it's your turn.
No comments:
Post a Comment