Yes the first panel which is immediately contradicted by the third and fourth, implying that women should never trust men or speak their mind to men and instead fear them.
The first panel is relevant. The first character(who looks more androgynous than anything) implies women haven’t been honest with them, proceeds to validate why women haven’t been honest with them by reacting poorly to honesty.
Surely, we all have experience with people who feel like they need to demand truth, like that isn’t the default.
It doesn’t even mention men, it’s about self awareness and maturity.
Super weird that a lot of people just glossed over that first panel like it wasn’t a fucked up thing to say.
It’s incredible that you can see how this artist portrays women in this very comic and still deny that the other character here is a man.
I’m waiting for the part that excuses the misandry or in any way contradicts what I said. The first panel just exasperates the untrustworthiness and hypocrisy of the fictional character in the latter panels.
Perhaps your inability to convey your message is a problem specifically with your literacy.
So you don’t know what media literacy is, either, hey? Generally, it involves reading a whole narrative in order to interpret the relationship between the different things being said as well as how the message is portrayed.
Paying attention to choices the artist makes like, when they’ve drawn very masculine figures before, why they didn’t do that with this particular character. Choices like how men aren’t even mentioned… Unless there’s some new kind of literacy I don’t know about where you invent things and double down on them extra hard — because you can’t identify rejection sensitivity for the same reason it’s hard to see what a house looks like from inside of it.
So you don’t think the literacy in media literacy is the same as in general? Funnily enough, you’ve actually been using “media literacy” incorrectly lmao.
So you didn’t read the first panel?
Yes the first panel which is immediately contradicted by the third and fourth, implying that women should never trust men or speak their mind to men and instead fear them.
Media literacy is dying.
The first panel is relevant. The first character(who looks more androgynous than anything) implies women haven’t been honest with them, proceeds to validate why women haven’t been honest with them by reacting poorly to honesty.
Surely, we all have experience with people who feel like they need to demand truth, like that isn’t the default.
It doesn’t even mention men, it’s about self awareness and maturity.
Super weird that a lot of people just glossed over that first panel like it wasn’t a fucked up thing to say.
It’s incredible that you can see how this artist portrays women in this very comic and still deny that the other character here is a man.
I’m waiting for the part that excuses the misandry or in any way contradicts what I said. The first panel just exasperates the untrustworthiness and hypocrisy of the fictional character in the latter panels.
Perhaps your inability to convey your message is a problem specifically with your literacy.
So you don’t know what media literacy is, either, hey? Generally, it involves reading a whole narrative in order to interpret the relationship between the different things being said as well as how the message is portrayed.
Paying attention to choices the artist makes like, when they’ve drawn very masculine figures before, why they didn’t do that with this particular character. Choices like how men aren’t even mentioned… Unless there’s some new kind of literacy I don’t know about where you invent things and double down on them extra hard — because you can’t identify rejection sensitivity for the same reason it’s hard to see what a house looks like from inside of it.
So you don’t think the literacy in media literacy is the same as in general? Funnily enough, you’ve actually been using “media literacy” incorrectly lmao.
No, I haven’t.
No, media literacy is not the same thing as literacy.
Lmao
Not what I asked
Media literacy stands for a person’s ability to understand what is and is not a reliable source of news, and their proclivity to read good sources.
I initially assumed you made a typo until you doubled down on thinking it was a different word entirely and also interchangeable lmfao