Feminist Author Demands that Men Pay Her for Being Their Friend

Jess Zimmerman, who writes for the Guardian, has a brilliant idea: why don't people pay her for being their friend? In an article titled, "“Where’s My Cut?”: On Unpaid Emotional Labor," Zimmerman makes the case that she deserves cold hard cash for being there for people.

Zimmerman begins her article by summarizing a recent case of a psychic swindling a man out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by telling him she could make a woman fall in love with him. The psychic wasn't completely at fault, Zimmerman writes, because men treat women like property and the hopelessly in love man should have realized that. And women never chase after men who aren't interested, she implies.

Eventually, Zimmerman writes that she helps men with their problems sometimes. "Why not get a Rolex out of the deal?" she then asks.

"People are disturbed by the very notion that someone would charge, or pay, for friendly support," she writes. "It’s supposed to come free. Why?"

Zimmerman then starts to talk about #GiveYourMoneytoWomen, which demanded that men give money to women for free. "Men like to act as if commanding women’s attention is their birthright, their natural due, and they are rarely contradicted," she writes, as if men don't ask other men questions. "It’s a radical act to refuse them that attention. It’s even more radical to propose that if they want it so fucking much, they can buy it."
The concept of "emotional labor" is the problem, according to Zimmerman. "We are told frequently that women are more intuitive, more empathetic, more innately willing and able to offer succor and advice," she explains. "How convenient that this cultural construct gives men an excuse to be emotionally lazy. How convenient that it casts feelings-based work as “an internal need, an aspiration, supposedly coming from the depths of our female character.”"

House work, sex work, and being a friend is all very similar, Zimmerman argues, saying, "Housework is not work. Sex work is not work. Emotional work is not work. Why? Because they don’t take effort? No, because women are supposed to provide them uncompensated, out of the goodness of our hearts."

And why do women not charge men for being their friend? The Patriarchy; Zimmerman writes, "We let this happen because patriarchy is so good at training women as its proxies; we’ve internalized the idea that our effort is men’s birthright.

"Enough of that. We don’t necessarily need to insist that men just give us their money – though you should, if that works for you, and write down what they say because I bet it’ll be funny. But we absolutely get to recognize that the constant labor of placating men and navigating patriarchal expectations is exhausting because it’s work."

Zimmerman concludes, "I don’t expect to get $700,000, now that I’m trying to remember that emotional labor has value. I don’t expect to get anything, really. But at least now I know that when I get nothing, I’m being cheated. That’s a start."


Founder and editor of the Social Memo

  • Facebook
  • Image
    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment


  1. No. She's a "head shaver," probably loaded with all kinds of nonsensical baggage. She should have to pay me, and I don't come cheap.

  2. Oh come on. This has to be satire. Clumsy satire at that.

    Otherwise I'd have to accept that somebody really is that much of a narcissist.

  3. I assume she's equally willing to pay her male friends when they come over to fix her computer or car or unplug the toilet or sink. Any of the multitude of jobs men are expected to do for women for free.

    Also, women aren't paid for housework? If she doesn't have a job outside the home how is she paying her room and board? How she is paying for her clothes and other necessities? How about entertainment and vacations? How is she paying for all that? With the money from the job she doesn't have?

    Apparently a woman should be paid for everything she does while paying nothing for everything she gets.

  4. Men pay 2/3rds of taxes. Women withdraw 2/3rds of benefits. Men give more money to their wives than the reverse. Men already subsidise women massively.

    Men would be able to emotionally support each other more if feminists would stop dismantling male-only safe spaces.

    1. http://www.cultural-misandry.com/female-only-programs/

    2. 61% of Federal Entitlements go to women, 49% go to men. So you are absolutely right.


  5. We are really starting to have a serious Narcissism issue in this world.
    We need to start hunting them and removing them for any position of power, they are dangerous.

    1. Not remove them, hold them up to the same standards as everyone else. The good-hearted ones will get a chance to reform, and the worst cases will fizzle out by demanding too much form others.

  6. "feminist" That word alone gave me the impression this person is a nutter.

  7. Hard to believe someone that blatantly ugly and stupid could be so narcissistic. It is believable that they could be so poor and needy that they would try and beg for money from their friends though.

  8. I'd rather pay her to go away....but not very much.....

  9. I'm searching for any qualities she has that anyone would actually pay for. If it's not her brain or looks, what else could she possibly think anyone would want to pay for?

  10. Why shouldn't children pay parents for the 'care' a.k.a. 'safe services'?
    Why shouldn't parents pay children for the 'joy' a.k.a 'emotional goods'?
    Why shouldn't a husband pay his wife for the intercourse at a mutually agreed rate?
    Why shouldn't a wife pay her husband for ...
    Oh well ... forget it. Life in the modern decadent west is all about consumerism.
    You go grrrl! You deserve that bag ...
    and you deserve that 'douchebag', who will pay you for being a 'friend'.

  11. wonder what she would have to say about prostitutes

    1. I was thinking the same thing. Men do pay women for some loving. Those women are called prostitutes.

  12. OK.... I read her childish ramblings..... Where's MY Check ??