None of the men who say the things in panel 1 are the same ones who say the things in panel 3.
Men are not a monolith. The panel 1 men are on your side re the panel 3 men. Don’t push them away with sexist generalizations.
Also, women do this plenty as well (google “nice girls”), you just don’t hear about it as much, even though I suspect the % of women who do it is comparable to the % of men (if not more, which I think may be the case, based on the second bullet point below), simply because women experience a lower absolute number of rejections, as a sex, than men do, by virtue of the following:
They do the approaching far less often on average. Only the ‘approacher’ can be the one who gets rejected, after all
On the absolute scale, men are definitely less likely to reject a woman who approaches them, than the other way around
This means women in general have less experience with rejection, and that difference of ‘exposure’/experience likely leads to being less likely to handle it maturely, on average, as is the case with all sorts of things (I’m reminded of Christopher Titus’s quip about how dysfunctional people can handle anything, while ‘well-adjusted’ people are more likely to freak out over what’s trivial to the former demographic)
I’m also fairly sure men are also less likely to publicly ‘call out’ a woman, when she does react poorly to a rejection, than the other way around
And for a mini-anecdote along those lines: I’ve personally been called the f-slur for rejecting a woman who propositioned me while having a boyfriend I was aware of.
I’ve been ghosted when I expressed interest in a woman who was possibly scared of me
I’ve been incredibly upset about it
I still understand the comic and feel okay with the reaction
The thing is, I don’t blame women for valid self protective instincts. Ghosting is antisocial bullshit, but it’s the easiest solution available to a potential for real, serious harm, especially when you are only one of some dozen guys one woman might be dealing with on the subject.
I know the women who’ve ghosted me are making generalizations. I know they’re wrong, but I can’t blame them based on what they knew. It always feels personal, even when you’re seeing learned behavior by trends.
I agree problems would be solved if women did the approaching more often, but I get why that’s hard (for everyone), and I can see how they get used to the routine of being approached and deciding based on that.
The thing is, I don’t blame women for valid self protective instincts.
I don’t think labeling men hypocrites counts as a “self protective” act.
I feel like you and many others feel like my issue is simply that panel 3 is there at all, and that I’m indignant about the notion of men reacting poorly to rejection. But that’s not my issue at all. I explain below.
Ghosting is antisocial bullshit, but it’s the easiest solution available to a potential for real, serious harm, especially when you are only one of some dozen guys one woman might be dealing with on the subject.
You’re misinterpreting the core of my distaste with the comic.
All the comic had to do to not be shitty in the way I’m criticizing it for, is have the men in panels 1 and 3 not be the same person. That’s all. Then I could at least understand a message like what you describe: ‘this is a shitty thing to do in a vacuum, but I feel like I have to do it, to not risk an unpleasant reaction’. But by nonsensically making it the same guy, when it’s basically never the same guy doing both things (do you really think men who have those kinds of outbursts when they’re rejected, are the ones wishing women would reject them overtly? Think about it), the author is shitting on decent guys who have a reasonable desire to not be ghosted, which is not mutually exclusive with understanding why women do it.
I don’t think labeling men hypocrites counts as a “self protective” act.
It didn’t do that. There is but one man in this comic. This comic isn’t making a statement about something that all men do, it’s making a statement about something that all women experience
I mean, you can criticize the reaction, but be aware that much of the world is going to have it, as a natural human thing.
You’ve been lonely in your life, you feel like you’re getting along well with someone of the opposite sex (potentially misreading friendliness as romantic interest) and make an offer, working past many layers of butterflies in your stomach. The worst she can say is No, right?
No, turns out, the worst she can say is “Maybe. I’m kind of busy with finals and some other stuff going on, but we’ll see.”, which your mind takes as a Yes, getting you all excited - you then text them later, at a polite rate, to try to follow up and make something work. Only weeks later, after conflicting possibilities and doubts clash in your mind from a bunch of unreplied or vague messages, do you concede to the fact that not only were you not good enough, you were so scary and horrible to the person in question you weren’t even good enough to give a direct answer to. You’re a destructive, potentially murderous monster they needed to protect themselves from. All because you were just interested in spending time with someone attractive, as all of us are wired to try.
Not all of that is an honest, objective take, but that’s still how it comes across in the mind of the receiver. Similarly, there’s no legal requirement that each person say “Good morning!” to each other each day, but being denied basic pleasantries and human interaction, even as much as receiving an honest and flat rejection, can wear on someone, even if I fully understand (as I said) why it happens.
Any individual does not owe any one individual their attention. But each individual is owed some attention by someone.
adding another panel 1 man who doesn’t have the same bad reaction in panel 3
having the reaction in panel 4 contain a recognition that this particular man isn’t the norm, as opposed to absolutely asserting that it is, with her ‘this is just what I expected the guy who said that stuff in panel 1 to do’ reaction
you can’t reasonably argue that the comic is saying “some”. It’s absolutely equivocating the panel 1’s and the panel 3’s.
Thankfully, words used to imply quantities are reasonably good for estimating. If something occurs frequently enough to be expected - its not a particularly hard to gather it happens most of the time. Every is not most - sure… but that’s not what he said. He’s not forcing anything.
I’d put a significant wager on this specific thing (meaning, the events of panels 1-3, all with the same singular man) never having happened to this person.
To have the same person espouse the sentiment in panel 1, AND react badly to a rejection like in panel 3? The same guy?
No, that is absolutely not a common thing; even calling it “uncommon” is a massive understatement, I think. I’ve spoken to many women about that sort of thing (and shared stories of my own), and none who’ve ever shared screenshots with me of, or talked about, the ‘aggressive rejections’ they’ve experienced, has ever had it coming from a guy who also has voiced encouragement toward women directly/honestly turning men down. And I’ve spent entire afternoons having fun with a woman buddy who was going through her conversations on a dating app with me and showing me ‘highlights’ for us to laugh at together.
It’s never the same guy doing both things. Seriously, come on now.
And that anecdotal experience is what you’re basing this conclusion on? That it can’t reasonably have happened to someone else?
(Ah you’ve edited your comment but my point still stands. However I’ll add that I can personally attest that yeah, it often is the same person who will express support for me being straightforward in my interactions with them who then respond with hostility when I explain I don’t sext/cyber/cam/want-to-be-sexual/etc. Even on lemmy I still regularly get interactions like this. You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy. It is by no means all men, but it very much does happen.)
It’s like saying you’re confident there isn’t anyone who both advocates for polyamory and also insults people for being in a romantic relationship with more than one person at the same time.
Is it absolutely impossible that such a person exists? No, but it’s obviously going to be extremely rare, at best, because it makes zero sense for both characteristics to exist inside the same person. Therefore, I feel confident in saying ‘this is not a thing’, generally speaking.
It’s a 4 panel comic. You need to allow for some brevity in the format to get the point across. The point you still see me how managed to completely miss.
Making it longer and more complicated was not going to help with your ability to comprehend.
The comic could have cut the 4th panel and not lost the point. In fact the presence of the 4th panel is the problem here. It makes a implied sweeping generalization which is by and large what (as best I can tell) a fair number of people (likely in said generalized group) take issue with.
Nothing really difficult to comprehend as far as I can tell. Generalized negative statements about generalized groups are usually made in bad faith. Simple as that.
The ‘point’ they got across is that the author believes that men who express the desire for women to be more direct with them (presumably instead of ghosting them), are all hypocrites that react poorly to directness. At the very least, they unambiguously state that assuming that to be the case is the correct thing to do.
There’s no ambiguity about that. That is the message, and it’s inaccurate and sexist.
Even if this did happen to her, that doesn’t mean that it’s a common or expected behavior across all men. It could have still actually happened even with all of your other posts remaining completely true
Comic is ragebaiting. The artist isn’t looking for discussion and the people supporting it as some “truth” aren’t either.
Call a spade a spade and don’t bother engaging. The people that peddle this slop arent feminists… They are certified sexists that just want to retaliate against everyone and think they are somehow beyond reproach. Its shit behavior and it needs to stop being tolerated.
Idk man, I had a very reasonable discussion with the commentor you’re responding to yet I support the comic. If you look through the comments here, they’re absolutely chock full of people patiently explaining their perspective, and then comments like yours which are openly dismissing those people before ever engaging with them. You’re being unfair, in a way very similar to what you criticize the comic for doing.
The comic in a vaccum could just be a commentary on the aritists own experience… Sure. I’ve seen some of their other work - and on other subjects it’s perfectly fine. They “appear” to have had a pretty unfortunate experience with men and dating. That sucks, but presenting that opinion in the last panel is where it goes awry. It can be pretty easily interpreted as a blanket statement… And a quick glance around this post seems to confirm (some-not-all) are using it to push that blanket (bad faith) statement as if it were absolute.
Not all people are reasonable. Perhaps the author didn’t intend for it to be interpreted as such: But it’s very easy to see how it could be - and based on comments here… is.
Edit: coffee.
If you look through the comments here, they’re absolutely chock full of people patiently explaining their perspective
Yes. Two different perspectives - yet one is being maligned. By and large, there are reasonable commenters here. Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.
and then comments like yours which are openly dismissing those people before ever engaging with them.
Considering the reaponses I’ve made this far - I’d suggest I seem to be engaging quite a bit. I am dismissive of a number of logical falicies for what should be apparent reasons, though.
You’re being unfair, in a way very similar to what you criticize the comic for doing.
Its funny you say that. I bring up a similar point in a different response - where I believe the reception would be quite different if the sexes were reversed in the comic. Its not a wild observation to make. I think its worth discussing.
No that was a criticism of how you’re making the exact same kind of generalization that you are criticizing the comic for making. There’s no gender inversion, and indeed that discussion is being had elsewhere here and it’s quite interesting, but my comment there is just directly calling out your hypocrisy.
…And a quick glance around this post seems to confirm (some-not-all) …
I went ahead and bolded it. I’d recommend rereading that block of text again. It was composed when I was waiting for the caffine to hit but I’m absolutely certain I was being fair in my assessment.
That isn’t my point though - I’m highlighting how what you’re doing there is exactly what the comic is doing. That you explicitly rather than implicitly hedged your generalization has no bearing on this, because both were hedged.
Golly-gee… Those old warner / disney cartoons drawing those other silly cultures we were at war with were only social commentary! Whys everyone upset!
I’d like to think that people have the slightest ability to discern the obvious parallel here. But let’s feign ignorance and say its okay to generalize an entire sex because its only a comic / cartoon / opinion bro!
WTF are you on about? The only rage-baiter in here is you! If fact, you are a master of rage baiting. A real masteragebaiter, so to speak.
The artist doesn’t have to conform to any of your standards. Just turn it off if you don’t like it. The rest of your whine fest is pathetic work the refs nonsense, like your opinion matters when there’s no score kept and the speech is free.
you are a master of rage baiting. A real masteragebaiter, so to speak.
I admire the effort it took to really wedge that in. Not many would attempt that.
WTF are you on about?
I was pretty clear there. If you want to discuss it maybe turn your faux-offense down a notch eh?
The artist doesn’t have to conform to any of your standards. Just turn it off if you don’t like it.
You are literally making my point for me. Its almost comical. I drew a parallel to offensive media in the past disparaging multiple demographics… And that’s precisely the argument those people made. Just dont watch it. Get thicker skin. Etc.
The rest of your whine fest is pathetic work the refs nonsense, like your opinion matters when there’s no score kept and the speech is free.
I’d hope you see why this statement has … Em … Issues. If not let me pose a simple question. If somone made a comic where the sexes were reversed here… I don’t even need to imagine the moral outrage in the comments. So in effect you are implicitly saying it’s okay in only one direction? Am I getting that right? But yes. Wtf am I on about… Indeed.
I understand your point, but it does not matter whether men are panel 1 or 3, when the interaction is short you can’t tell which reaction it will be. The problem is that panel 3 men exist at all, and that society normalizes it to be like that. “Men will be men” and all that is the problem. I totally get why women would be guarded because of it. Our job as men is to point out toxic behavior when it happens. That’s it.
Panel 3 women do, too. Some people are just shitheads.
society normalizes it to be like that.
That’s simply not true. There is a reason neither men nor women are ever the ones willfully broadcasting this behavior: society absolutely does not justify this behavior. It’s invariably the one on the receiving end calling them out (and the fact that it is seen as “calling them out” in the first place is more evidence that it is not a socially acceptable behavior).
“Men will be men” and all that is the problem.
Can you find a single, solitary example of a man being shown to react immaturely to being rejected posted online somewhere, and anything even close to the majority of the response being anything resembling “men will be men”? I contend you’re fabricating this.
I totally get why women would be guarded because of it.
Do you also “totally get” why someone wouldn’t trust black people after having a bad experience with a person who is black? Because this is the exact same line of reasoning white supremacists use.
Our job as men is to point out toxic behavior when it happens.
It’s not men’s job to socially police men. It’s everyone’s job to socially police everyone. It’s ridiculous to insinuate that it’s any more a male’s responsibility to call out bad behavior, just because the one behaving badly is also male.
If you think that the appropriate answer to “women feel scared to reject men because of common toxic behavior” is “but its not all men”… I’m sorry to call you out but you’re part of the problem.
Instead of being defensive, try to see it from their point of view and accept that something is messed up where a lot of men are like this. And I don’t agree that women that are rejected react like this. Quite the opposite actually.
It’s an undeniable reality that women get unsolicited advances from men multiple times a day, whereas the opposite is not true.
My interpretation of the comic is that the woman’s first instinct was to feign interest to prevent any toxic behavior being directed to her. Then the man told her to disregard that and simply reject him which she does, then her instinct is proven right.
That to me signifies that she did not feel safe to reject him.
The way I understood your argument is that this fear of rejecting a man from panel 1, or assuming a bad reaction is “sexist” because “Men are not a monolith”. I’m not sure this is appropriate to the point the comic is trying to make.
If you need to misrepresent what he’s saying to make him look bad, then you should just not leave a comment. At no point did he monolithize men. That “none of the men” is immediately followed by “who say the things in panel 1”
Also, sometimes it’s men ignoring those actually interested in them. Be it too high standards or just incompatibly. I’m single, but I’m fairly certain I’ve friendzoned more people than who have friendzoned me, and I’m no Adonis or anything.
I have plenty of wishy washy reasons I did it at the time, but ultimately I probably just need therapy.
Odd. I see some examples of “ah yes, men always do just this” peppering the discussion. And if somone comments on the tone of it? We get some pretty harsh reaponses. Quite a bit of duality, don’t you think?
playing coy like this just makes you look like a redditor.
Insulting me for making an observation doesn’t strengthen your argument.
If you are going out of your way to make that your focal point… and avoiding the topics at hand you’re clearly out of your depth and flailing. But that was apparent when you defaulted to… Well… what youre doing again, hah.
… Or hey maybe you just sent the reply before getting to the actual discussion points? I eagerly await the rest of your post where you refute the actual talking points I made.
None of the men who say the things in panel 1 are the same ones who say the things in panel 3.
Men are not a monolith. The panel 1 men are on your side re the panel 3 men. Don’t push them away with sexist generalizations.
Also, women do this plenty as well (google “nice girls”), you just don’t hear about it as much, even though I suspect the % of women who do it is comparable to the % of men (if not more, which I think may be the case, based on the second bullet point below), simply because women experience a lower absolute number of rejections, as a sex, than men do, by virtue of the following:
And for a mini-anecdote along those lines: I’ve personally been called the f-slur for rejecting a woman who propositioned me while having a boyfriend I was aware of.
Sorry, pal, but:
The thing is, I don’t blame women for valid self protective instincts. Ghosting is antisocial bullshit, but it’s the easiest solution available to a potential for real, serious harm, especially when you are only one of some dozen guys one woman might be dealing with on the subject.
I know the women who’ve ghosted me are making generalizations. I know they’re wrong, but I can’t blame them based on what they knew. It always feels personal, even when you’re seeing learned behavior by trends.
I agree problems would be solved if women did the approaching more often, but I get why that’s hard (for everyone), and I can see how they get used to the routine of being approached and deciding based on that.
I don’t think labeling men hypocrites counts as a “self protective” act.
I feel like you and many others feel like my issue is simply that panel 3 is there at all, and that I’m indignant about the notion of men reacting poorly to rejection. But that’s not my issue at all. I explain below.
You’re misinterpreting the core of my distaste with the comic.
All the comic had to do to not be shitty in the way I’m criticizing it for, is have the men in panels 1 and 3 not be the same person. That’s all. Then I could at least understand a message like what you describe: ‘this is a shitty thing to do in a vacuum, but I feel like I have to do it, to not risk an unpleasant reaction’. But by nonsensically making it the same guy, when it’s basically never the same guy doing both things (do you really think men who have those kinds of outbursts when they’re rejected, are the ones wishing women would reject them overtly? Think about it), the author is shitting on decent guys who have a reasonable desire to not be ghosted, which is not mutually exclusive with understanding why women do it.
Does that make sense?
It didn’t do that. There is but one man in this comic. This comic isn’t making a statement about something that all men do, it’s making a statement about something that all women experience
Who tf cares if you get ghosted?
No one owes anyone anything. Including closure. Just move on.
You do in fact owe people for the time of theirs that you take. At the very least, send a “hey I’m not going to make it tonight, sorry”
I mean, you can criticize the reaction, but be aware that much of the world is going to have it, as a natural human thing.
You’ve been lonely in your life, you feel like you’re getting along well with someone of the opposite sex (potentially misreading friendliness as romantic interest) and make an offer, working past many layers of butterflies in your stomach. The worst she can say is No, right?
No, turns out, the worst she can say is “Maybe. I’m kind of busy with finals and some other stuff going on, but we’ll see.”, which your mind takes as a Yes, getting you all excited - you then text them later, at a polite rate, to try to follow up and make something work. Only weeks later, after conflicting possibilities and doubts clash in your mind from a bunch of unreplied or vague messages, do you concede to the fact that not only were you not good enough, you were so scary and horrible to the person in question you weren’t even good enough to give a direct answer to. You’re a destructive, potentially murderous monster they needed to protect themselves from. All because you were just interested in spending time with someone attractive, as all of us are wired to try.
Not all of that is an honest, objective take, but that’s still how it comes across in the mind of the receiver. Similarly, there’s no legal requirement that each person say “Good morning!” to each other each day, but being denied basic pleasantries and human interaction, even as much as receiving an honest and flat rejection, can wear on someone, even if I fully understand (as I said) why it happens.
Any individual does not owe any one individual their attention. But each individual is owed some attention by someone.
You’d have to have an incredibly meager sense of self, and frankly not be great at communicating, if you think a maybe is a yes.
If you need a yes then you can say “I’m sorry, but I’d like more certainty” and bounce or “yeah, cool” and see where it goes.
All of the stuff you wrote says to me “I need therapy very badly and I can’t communicate”.
No one owes anyone else anything.
“Not all men, also women are bad”.
Yeah, man, not all men. Some men though. Some men, definitely.
So we’re just lying now?
Some of the men in panel 1, will also act like the men in panel 3.
Without either
you can’t reasonably argue that the comic is saying “some”. It’s absolutely equivocating the panel 1’s and the panel 3’s.
Here’s the argument: people make comics about specific things that have happened to them.
Specific things that happen to people aren’t a problem. Having a message that literally says that specific thing is what always happens is not.
… that’s not what this says.
Somehow YOU DECIDED that the artist was saying this happens every time. Because you wanted to be mad about that thing that no one said.
The fact that this happens sometimes is why women feel they cannot be honest in these situations most of the time.
Holy shit. Your inability to interpret nuance is astounding.
Comic: “Yup, about what I expected”.
Does not mean it happens every time.
Why are you so hellbent on forcing a reason to feel a victimized here?
Thankfully, words used to imply quantities are reasonably good for estimating. If something occurs frequently enough to be expected - its not a particularly hard to gather it happens most of the time. Every is not most - sure… but that’s not what he said. He’s not forcing anything.
Victimised? XD
No, I’m calling out misandry.
I’d put a significant wager on this specific thing (meaning, the events of panels 1-3, all with the same singular man) never having happened to this person.
Have you ever asked any of the women in your life about their experience with this? It’s really not an uncommon nor abstract thing.
To have the same person espouse the sentiment in panel 1, AND react badly to a rejection like in panel 3? The same guy?
No, that is absolutely not a common thing; even calling it “uncommon” is a massive understatement, I think. I’ve spoken to many women about that sort of thing (and shared stories of my own), and none who’ve ever shared screenshots with me of, or talked about, the ‘aggressive rejections’ they’ve experienced, has ever had it coming from a guy who also has voiced encouragement toward women directly/honestly turning men down. And I’ve spent entire afternoons having fun with a woman buddy who was going through her conversations on a dating app with me and showing me ‘highlights’ for us to laugh at together.
It’s never the same guy doing both things. Seriously, come on now.
And that anecdotal experience is what you’re basing this conclusion on? That it can’t reasonably have happened to someone else?
(Ah you’ve edited your comment but my point still stands. However I’ll add that I can personally attest that yeah, it often is the same person who will express support for me being straightforward in my interactions with them who then respond with hostility when I explain I don’t sext/cyber/cam/want-to-be-sexual/etc. Even on lemmy I still regularly get interactions like this. You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy. It is by no means all men, but it very much does happen.)
As if this comic isn’t an anecdote by which the author judges everyone with.
It’s like saying you’re confident there isn’t anyone who both advocates for polyamory and also insults people for being in a romantic relationship with more than one person at the same time.
Is it absolutely impossible that such a person exists? No, but it’s obviously going to be extremely rare, at best, because it makes zero sense for both characteristics to exist inside the same person. Therefore, I feel confident in saying ‘this is not a thing’, generally speaking.
It’s a 4 panel comic. You need to allow for some brevity in the format to get the point across. The point you still see me how managed to completely miss.
Making it longer and more complicated was not going to help with your ability to comprehend.
The comic could have cut the 4th panel and not lost the point. In fact the presence of the 4th panel is the problem here. It makes a implied sweeping generalization which is by and large what (as best I can tell) a fair number of people (likely in said generalized group) take issue with.
Nothing really difficult to comprehend as far as I can tell. Generalized negative statements about generalized groups are usually made in bad faith. Simple as that.
The ‘point’ they got across is that the author believes that men who express the desire for women to be more direct with them (presumably instead of ghosting them), are all hypocrites that react poorly to directness. At the very least, they unambiguously state that assuming that to be the case is the correct thing to do.
There’s no ambiguity about that. That is the message, and it’s inaccurate and sexist.
Even if this did happen to her, that doesn’t mean that it’s a common or expected behavior across all men. It could have still actually happened even with all of your other posts remaining completely true
Comic is ragebaiting. The artist isn’t looking for discussion and the people supporting it as some “truth” aren’t either.
Call a spade a spade and don’t bother engaging. The people that peddle this slop arent feminists… They are certified sexists that just want to retaliate against everyone and think they are somehow beyond reproach. Its shit behavior and it needs to stop being tolerated.
You taking offense to this is your guilty conscience talking
Care to expand on how my statement implies a guilty conscience …? That’s quite a leap.
Idk man, I had a very reasonable discussion with the commentor you’re responding to yet I support the comic. If you look through the comments here, they’re absolutely chock full of people patiently explaining their perspective, and then comments like yours which are openly dismissing those people before ever engaging with them. You’re being unfair, in a way very similar to what you criticize the comic for doing.
The comic in a vaccum could just be a commentary on the aritists own experience… Sure. I’ve seen some of their other work - and on other subjects it’s perfectly fine. They “appear” to have had a pretty unfortunate experience with men and dating. That sucks, but presenting that opinion in the last panel is where it goes awry. It can be pretty easily interpreted as a blanket statement… And a quick glance around this post seems to confirm (some-not-all) are using it to push that blanket (bad faith) statement as if it were absolute.
Not all people are reasonable. Perhaps the author didn’t intend for it to be interpreted as such: But it’s very easy to see how it could be - and based on comments here… is.
Edit: coffee.
Yes. Two different perspectives - yet one is being maligned. By and large, there are reasonable commenters here. Lemmy does have more sane than most people present… But not everyone is. And that is what I was making an observation on.
Considering the reaponses I’ve made this far - I’d suggest I seem to be engaging quite a bit. I am dismissive of a number of logical falicies for what should be apparent reasons, though.
In what way?
So when you do it it’s perfectly justified, but if you were to write that exact sentiment down in a comic…?
Its funny you say that. I bring up a similar point in a different response - where I believe the reception would be quite different if the sexes were reversed in the comic. Its not a wild observation to make. I think its worth discussing.
No that was a criticism of how you’re making the exact same kind of generalization that you are criticizing the comic for making. There’s no gender inversion, and indeed that discussion is being had elsewhere here and it’s quite interesting, but my comment there is just directly calling out your hypocrisy.
And I quote:
I went ahead and bolded it. I’d recommend rereading that block of text again. It was composed when I was waiting for the caffine to hit but I’m absolutely certain I was being fair in my assessment.
That isn’t my point though - I’m highlighting how what you’re doing there is exactly what the comic is doing. That you explicitly rather than implicitly hedged your generalization has no bearing on this, because both were hedged.
Social commentary in comics? Can you imagine THE HORROR if Scott Adams criticized people who are bosses?
I’m all deep offend.
Golly-gee… Those old warner / disney cartoons drawing those other silly cultures we were at war with were only social commentary! Whys everyone upset!
I’d like to think that people have the slightest ability to discern the obvious parallel here. But let’s feign ignorance and say its okay to generalize an entire sex because its only a comic / cartoon / opinion bro!
… Go on. Tell me it’s different.
WTF are you on about? The only rage-baiter in here is you! If fact, you are a master of rage baiting. A real masteragebaiter, so to speak.
The artist doesn’t have to conform to any of your standards. Just turn it off if you don’t like it. The rest of your whine fest is pathetic work the refs nonsense, like your opinion matters when there’s no score kept and the speech is free.
I admire the effort it took to really wedge that in. Not many would attempt that.
I was pretty clear there. If you want to discuss it maybe turn your faux-offense down a notch eh?
You are literally making my point for me. Its almost comical. I drew a parallel to offensive media in the past disparaging multiple demographics… And that’s precisely the argument those people made. Just dont watch it. Get thicker skin. Etc.
I’d hope you see why this statement has … Em … Issues. If not let me pose a simple question. If somone made a comic where the sexes were reversed here… I don’t even need to imagine the moral outrage in the comments. So in effect you are implicitly saying it’s okay in only one direction? Am I getting that right? But yes. Wtf am I on about… Indeed.
I understand your point, but it does not matter whether men are panel 1 or 3, when the interaction is short you can’t tell which reaction it will be. The problem is that panel 3 men exist at all, and that society normalizes it to be like that. “Men will be men” and all that is the problem. I totally get why women would be guarded because of it. Our job as men is to point out toxic behavior when it happens. That’s it.
Panel 3 women do, too. Some people are just shitheads.
That’s simply not true. There is a reason neither men nor women are ever the ones willfully broadcasting this behavior: society absolutely does not justify this behavior. It’s invariably the one on the receiving end calling them out (and the fact that it is seen as “calling them out” in the first place is more evidence that it is not a socially acceptable behavior).
Can you find a single, solitary example of a man being shown to react immaturely to being rejected posted online somewhere, and anything even close to the majority of the response being anything resembling “men will be men”? I contend you’re fabricating this.
Do you also “totally get” why someone wouldn’t trust black people after having a bad experience with a person who is black? Because this is the exact same line of reasoning white supremacists use.
It’s not men’s job to socially police men. It’s everyone’s job to socially police everyone. It’s ridiculous to insinuate that it’s any more a male’s responsibility to call out bad behavior, just because the one behaving badly is also male.
If you think that the appropriate answer to “women feel scared to reject men because of common toxic behavior” is “but its not all men”… I’m sorry to call you out but you’re part of the problem.
Instead of being defensive, try to see it from their point of view and accept that something is messed up where a lot of men are like this. And I don’t agree that women that are rejected react like this. Quite the opposite actually.
It’s an undeniable reality that women get unsolicited advances from men multiple times a day, whereas the opposite is not true.
Wow, I’ve rarely seen such a robust straw man built in such a short amount of time!
Despite the impressive construction, it is a construction. I didn’t say that.
No point in reading the rest of your comment, since it all follows from the ridiculous premise quoted above.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding then.
My interpretation of the comic is that the woman’s first instinct was to feign interest to prevent any toxic behavior being directed to her. Then the man told her to disregard that and simply reject him which she does, then her instinct is proven right.
That to me signifies that she did not feel safe to reject him.
The way I understood your argument is that this fear of rejecting a man from panel 1, or assuming a bad reaction is “sexist” because “Men are not a monolith”. I’m not sure this is appropriate to the point the comic is trying to make.
Username checks out.
lol
If you need to misrepresent what he’s saying to make him look bad, then you should just not leave a comment. At no point did he monolithize men. That “none of the men” is immediately followed by “who say the things in panel 1”
might seem like a gotcha at first glance, but it was a logical statement akin to saying “none of the men with blonde hair have black hair.”
I present the album cover of Sia’s This is Acting as evidence.
deleted by creator
Except what you said is logically consistent, unlike what they said
Also, sometimes it’s men ignoring those actually interested in them. Be it too high standards or just incompatibly. I’m single, but I’m fairly certain I’ve friendzoned more people than who have friendzoned me, and I’m no Adonis or anything.
I have plenty of wishy washy reasons I did it at the time, but ultimately I probably just need therapy.
This is why I liked online dating. Those bullet points are almost eliminated.
Denial -> “not all men” -> whataboutism
BINGO!
Sorry, could you clarify what your point is?
In the game Bingo, when a player fills a row (or whatever the set goal is) they have won and have to call out “Bingo!” to signal to the other players.
I’m familiar with the game. I’m more looking for clarification on the collection of words you’d assembled there and how they related to the OP.
You appear to have been implying some sort of correlation?
Everyone here understands what they meant. If you wanna criticize just do it, playing coy like this just makes you look like a redditor.
Odd. I see some examples of “ah yes, men always do just this” peppering the discussion. And if somone comments on the tone of it? We get some pretty harsh reaponses. Quite a bit of duality, don’t you think?
Insulting me for making an observation doesn’t strengthen your argument.
If being called a redditor is what you think of as “harsh” you need to go back to reddit, you’ll never survive here.
If you are going out of your way to make that your focal point… and avoiding the topics at hand you’re clearly out of your depth and flailing. But that was apparent when you defaulted to… Well… what youre doing again, hah.
… Or hey maybe you just sent the reply before getting to the actual discussion points? I eagerly await the rest of your post where you refute the actual talking points I made.