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.
Are both 'parts' within the DMs with that person, or is '1' in a regular post/comment, and then '3' is in the DMs?
If the latter, I don't think I can realistically verify at all if they've posted any significant amount, but with the former, I probably could.
Ah you’ve edited your comment
Sorry, I'm quick to revise if I think I could have written something better, or found supporting information, etc. I don't think the content has really materially changed, though.
You can just go and look to confirm this, DMs aren’t private on lemmy.
I don't know how to do this, nor am I really inclined to dig through someone's stuff like that (and even if I did, I'd expect only the 'panel 3' part to be in the DMs, not the 'panel 1' part too). Can you link to one example of the same person doing both (panel 1 and panel 3) things? I'm genuinely interested to see.
Did you just link to yourself?
Yes, why write the same comment twice?
Thought that argument was so good you came over here to point at it, let me know?
It's not an "argument", anymore than "apples are fruits" is an "argument". It's stating a simple fact. It's fallacious to conflate panels 1 and 3, and imply (via the 4th panel having the woman say she was correct to expect both characteristics in the same man) that the men who express the sentiment in panel 1 are the same ones who should be expected to react immaturely to honest/direct rejection.
If you write a comic where a person sees someone else do two things one after the other, and then expresses that they correctly expected them to do the second thing after seeing them do the first, that is a very obvious endorsement of assuming that people who do the first thing also do the second thing.
If it was a black guy who said he liked sports in panel 1, then she asked in panel 2 what sport was his favorite, and then he said basketball in panel 3, and panel 4 was identical ("Yup, that's about what I expected!"), would you really think it was some crazy outlandish interpretation to read that as 'the artist is saying that it's correct to assume that black guys who like sports favor basketball'?
this isn’t an argument, nor a statement. For all we know, it’s an anecdote. Perhaps, even a dream.
You're just being deliberately obtuse now.
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”…
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.
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.
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.
Permanently Deleted
When you’re talking about gay folk and same sex attraction conceptually, you don’t call it “homosexualism” or “gayology”. You would use the term homosexuality or same sex attraction.
Okay, so if I want a single word, "transgenderality"? That really just sounds bizarre, I have to say. Not to mention I've never seen any person talking about trans issues ever say/write that.
The issue is explicitly the “ism”. The -ism suffix is used to denote political and ideological beliefs
That's only one way that suffix is used, and it's assumption on your part that when you see that suffix, that that's the way it's being used. In other words, I think you should allow for the possibility that it ain't that deep. Was it not obvious from the context of what/how I was writing that I wasn't coming from a transphobic place?
-ism is used for all sorts of nouns that simply describe a state of being (e.g. autism, alcoholism, absenteeism), and that's all I aimed for. And from what you said in your comment, it seems like this is uncharted territory, if there's no actual single word term regularly employed for this particular state of being—all of your examples are multiple words.
P.S. By the way, I'm not at all dissuaded by something that is inherently benign being popular among shitty people—in my opinion, all the more reason to take it away from them, by using it benignly more often than they use it pejoratively. It was successfully done with "queer", I say keep that train running!
I literally made NO REFERENCE to people with social anxiety whatsoever.
Yes, I am aware that you painted "incel" with only the stereotypical brush strokes.
Everyone who mentions incels in the internet is talking about the ones we see in the fucking internet.
Not everyone. This is the same as someone denigrating "feminists" by talking about all of the stereotypical man-hating behavior, and then when someone replies "hey, there are plenty of feminists who don't act like that, most even, you shouldn't generalize", that person responds saying "everyone who mentions feminists on the internet is only talking about the stereotypical ones".
'I just meant the bad ones' is not justification for generalizing, period.
Permanently Deleted
part of identity is our relationships to other people.
I wouldn't agree, simply because I consider relationships as existing between people, not within them individually, and more as 'facts of the matter', as opposed to immutable aspects of individuals themselves. But again, this is simply a disagreement on the definition of "identity". I'm not saying your definition is wrong, but it obviously is different.
A familial connection is a fact about someone's lineage, but it is no more a part of someone's identity than to the extent that that individual chooses to make it so. If I was adopted and have never met the woman who birthed me, then yes, she's still my mother even though I never knew her. But that being a fact has no inherent relationship to my identity. The same is true if I was raised by my birth mother but am now estranged, and she has no part of/in my life—she'll always literally be my mother, but in this case, her existence is no part of my identity any longer.
Nonconsensual trauma that alters one's sense of self against one's will is the only thing that muddies this water at all, I think, but even in a case like that, it is only from within that whatever degree (whether zero or nonzero) those events shape one's identity, can change.
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.
"When I call 'women' pieces of shit, I'm only talking about the bad ones"
Why do I get the impression you wouldn't find something like the above convincing if you were on the other end of it?
This is the mentality of a racist who calls a black friend 'one of the good ones'.
'I only meant the bad ones' is not justification for making generalizations about any demographic.
Permanently Deleted
You can indeed become a completely different person when afflicted with Alzheimer's, dementia, or a brain tumor. It doesn't retroactively change who you were before, of course...but it can absolutely fundamentally change you.
I never asserted that identity is immutable, nor that only that it is not defined by outside perception of other people.
it says this was an expectation, not an assertion.
The comic ends not with an expectation, but with the statement that an expectation that already existed was correct. In other words, 'it was correct of me to expect a man who says women should directly/honestly reject someone, to react badly when I directly/honestly reject him'
She is absolutely indirectly asserting that it is correct to expect 'panel 1 men' to hypocritically exhibit 'panel 3 behavior'.
Permanently Deleted
Also, “transgenderism” is a term popular with transphobes, because it frames trans people as a belief/ideology, rather than acknowledging their identity.
What am I supposed to call it, when talking about this as a concept, outside of referring to a specific person. Transgendericity? Transgenderology?
Throw me a bone here, don't just insinuate I'm a transphobe just because I casually tossed 'ism' onto the end of a word to noun-ify it in a sentence, without even offering a correction.
nowhere does it make the claim that all men who say “Women need to be more honest [etc]” are hypocrites
It shows the same man saying two hypocritical things, followed immediately by the woman saying that the panel 3 behavior is what she expected from the man saying the panel 1 statement.
Yes, it absolutely does make the claim that 'panel 1 men' are hypocrites. It could not be more obvious.
Permanently Deleted
Every person who knows you has a concept of you in their minds.
Yes, of course.
This is a part of your identity
I don't agree with calling that concept "identity". Others' "concept of you" is just that, their idea of you. That does not define you, in any way.
It’s why people are negatively affected when others misgender them.
Actually, I think this bolsters my point, not yours. The whole reason being misgendered is a negative experience is because that person's "concept of you" is wrong. They see you that way, but that is not the way you are. Your identity comes from you, and you alone.
In the end, it's obvious we have different definitions of "identity" and that's what our disagreement is rooted in. I define identity as the sum of what comprises one's sense of self.
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.
But they were so prolific that their ‘body count’ was pretty high.
...are we still talking about incels, here? Because 'incel with a high 'body count'' is kind of like saying 'triangle with four sides', lol.
EDIT: Hm, maybe I mixed up what comment chain I was in, oh well.
So we're just lying now?