It’s a bit of an overgeneralization to act like men are sex-obsessed and view relationships as a transaction where they can purchase sex by being nice.
It’s human to want love and care, but so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.
Likewise, if a man is kind to a woman he’ll generally be regarded with suspicion, like “what are you trying to get out of this?” Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them. It seems it’s impossible to be a man in the vicinity of women without opening oneself to being labeled as a misogynist, no matter what you do.
The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.
Meanwhile all the studies showing numbers (and reason behind them) of women who view relationship and sex as a transaction and trade sex for something, including a man being nice to them: Am I a joke to you?
Likewise, if a man is kind to a woman he’ll generally be regarded with suspicion, like “what are you trying to get out of this?”
Maybe it is just me, but I don’t think I’ve been viewed with suspicion because of simply being nice. If you’re sincere and nice, then this typically doesn’t happen. If you’re known as kind of a dick and you switch to being nice, people will take notice. If you’re being seen as love-bombing, you will be seen as suspect. While I agree men should not be typecast as only sex driven, I’m curious how this part of your argument came into it…
Ah, then you must also have the privilege of being either conventionally attractive, endowed with good social skills, well-integrated into an accepted social group, or some combination of the above.
But go ahead and say anyone who has none of the above is probably a dick if he faces ostracization cause he probably deserves it.
The comic doesn’t talk about ‘all men’ or even ‘men’ at all. There are all sorts of people acting like this and if you don’t, you don’t have to defend yourself or attack your imagined adversary.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. What wonderingwanderer says is true as well, but honestly not relevant to this comic. Comics with this type of messaging often very explicitly call out men (even those that don’t treat women as such), which leads to a hostile counter response. This one just says “you’re a dummy if you treat women like this”, which yeah. You probably are, if not worse. But unlike many other examples it could literally also apply to other women, (eg. lesbians), non-binary, or other folks who objectify women. They are exceedingly rare I would bet, but things like TERFs exist too sadly.
Within context, it was very clearly directed towards men. If it were implicitly directed at any other demographic, it would be called a dogwhistle. So how is it not a dogwhistle?
You’re right, men who act like that are pigs. Or perhaps more charitably, sheltered and clueless how social interaction work with anyone, especially social interactions with women.
But there’s a lot of ground between “male with poor social skills tries to be nice and struggles with constant rejection” and “male demands sex as payment for basic pleasantries,” the former of which seems more like a caricature than anything based in reality, and anyone who actually behaves like that would be shunned into oblivion.
In any case, the implication that anyone lacking social skills is a chauvinist pig is worn-out and unwelcome.
So if someone makes a comic titled “Men: a guide for dummies” and the two slides are “Not this way: (picture of a vending machine where “sex” is the input and “money/free dinner/free drinks” is the output)” and “this way: (picture with a man that says “complex, conscious human being that you can’t program to buy you things”),” would that be any different?
Because in my view, both are exploiting harmful stereotypes by making an overgeneralization about the implied opposite gender. You’re defending OP’s example, but somehow I expect you wouldn’t be too happy about the one described above…
And by the way, if I had simply replied “not all men” to OP’s comic, then I would have been mocked and ridiculed by people claiming that’s just a manosphere dog whistle. But now it’s okay for you to say it doesn’t apply to all men when you’re backtracking and attempting to diminish the concern that this plays on a harmful stereotype that’s not-so-subtly directed towards men as a general category?
“Don’t worry, not all women are golddiggers. If you’re not one then you don’t need to defend yourself or attack your imagined adversary when you see a post titled ‘Dilbert Creator’s insta thot wife disappears with prenup pension.’”
so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.
Precisely.
Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them.
Not only that, but that will mean that the only men remaining, who haven’t stopped, are that minority that are being transactional, which further distorts women’s perception of men as a whole.
The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.
Back around 2010, my girlfriend of the time ended up on someone’s page detailing how to pick up girls, and shortly prompting readers to buy their pheromone based product (obvious scam, but that’s not the point now). She got super upset. Outraged, even. She went on a rant about how she’s not a fucking moth that can just be lured by silly simple stuff like that.
About a year later we took part in a competition where two attendees (2 girls, maybe a year or two younger) were desperately looking for accommodation. One of our rooms was empty that day, so we offered that to them with another flatmate (my GF wasn’t around that day).
When she had heard about the whole thing, she got rather jealous. Didn’t matter how much I explained it to her that I am boringly faithful, that I only love her and I didn’t care about the girls romantically, or that I have always been like this: in her mind, if a guy is “alone” with 2 girls for the night (daytime is fine, but mystically, horny zombification happens at full moon), he will be as easy to seduce as it gets, not matter what (like any of those two girls wanted anything, anyway).
Unfortunately, the vocal 20% on the internet tend to create an echo chamber effect, which then bleeds into real-world social interactions.
That’s why it’s not unheard of for a man to say hi to a woman at a bar, only for her friends to immediately butt in and go “Stop trying to rape her!” as if simply saying hello is synonymous with attempted rape nowadays…
And it doesn’t help actual victims of rape either, because it desensitizes people to the word. How is anyone supposed to “believe victims” by default if it’s become normal to cry “rape” at the slightest misstep?
It’s a bit of an overgeneralization to act like men are sex-obsessed and view relationships as a transaction where they can purchase sex by being nice.
I sincerely hope you are a woman overreacting in defense of the other gender. Because if you’re a man, you need to learn to appreciate some self-depreciating humor without getting butthurt. I could chuckle at the comic, because as usual, there is a (big) grain of truth in it.
So you’re saying my argument is only valid if I’m a woman? And if I’m a man, I just need to learn to be more self-deprecating? What kind of double-standard is that?
Good luck trying to tell women to “appreciate some self-deprecating humor without getting butthurt.” I’m sure that will turn out well for you.
Or is it only men who need to be self-deprecating? Cause again, that would be a double standard.
And if you find it self-deprecating to laugh at “men think sex is transactional,” then you’re telling on yourself. This comic is about you, so don’t act morally superior to men who don’t identify with it.
It’s a bit of an overgeneralization to act like men are sex-obsessed and view relationships as a transaction where they can purchase sex by being nice.
It’s human to want love and care, but so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.
Likewise, if a man is kind to a woman he’ll generally be regarded with suspicion, like “what are you trying to get out of this?” Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them. It seems it’s impossible to be a man in the vicinity of women without opening oneself to being labeled as a misogynist, no matter what you do.
The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.
Meanwhile all the studies showing numbers (and reason behind them) of women who view relationship and sex as a transaction and trade sex for something, including a man being nice to them: Am I a joke to you?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4875790/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6217550_The_Factors_Influencing_Transactional_sex_Among_Young_men_and_Women_in_12_Sub-Saharan_African_Countries
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953609004651?via=ihub
(And more studies on “sugar daddy”, e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33433242/ )
Tldr: it’s not even overgeneralization, it’s diminishing the female agency in the trade. Which I think is worse.
Maybe it is just me, but I don’t think I’ve been viewed with suspicion because of simply being nice. If you’re sincere and nice, then this typically doesn’t happen. If you’re known as kind of a dick and you switch to being nice, people will take notice. If you’re being seen as love-bombing, you will be seen as suspect. While I agree men should not be typecast as only sex driven, I’m curious how this part of your argument came into it…
Ah, then you must also have the privilege of being either conventionally attractive, endowed with good social skills, well-integrated into an accepted social group, or some combination of the above.
But go ahead and say anyone who has none of the above is probably a dick if he faces ostracization cause he probably deserves it.
The comic doesn’t talk about ‘all men’ or even ‘men’ at all. There are all sorts of people acting like this and if you don’t, you don’t have to defend yourself or attack your imagined adversary.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. What wonderingwanderer says is true as well, but honestly not relevant to this comic. Comics with this type of messaging often very explicitly call out men (even those that don’t treat women as such), which leads to a hostile counter response. This one just says “you’re a dummy if you treat women like this”, which yeah. You probably are, if not worse. But unlike many other examples it could literally also apply to other women, (eg. lesbians), non-binary, or other folks who objectify women. They are exceedingly rare I would bet, but things like TERFs exist too sadly.
Within context, it was very clearly directed towards men. If it were implicitly directed at any other demographic, it would be called a dogwhistle. So how is it not a dogwhistle?
You’re right, men who act like that are pigs. Or perhaps more charitably, sheltered and clueless how social interaction work with anyone, especially social interactions with women.
But there’s a lot of ground between “male with poor social skills tries to be nice and struggles with constant rejection” and “male demands sex as payment for basic pleasantries,” the former of which seems more like a caricature than anything based in reality, and anyone who actually behaves like that would be shunned into oblivion.
In any case, the implication that anyone lacking social skills is a chauvinist pig is worn-out and unwelcome.
So if someone makes a comic titled “Men: a guide for dummies” and the two slides are “Not this way: (picture of a vending machine where “sex” is the input and “money/free dinner/free drinks” is the output)” and “this way: (picture with a man that says “complex, conscious human being that you can’t program to buy you things”),” would that be any different?
Because in my view, both are exploiting harmful stereotypes by making an overgeneralization about the implied opposite gender. You’re defending OP’s example, but somehow I expect you wouldn’t be too happy about the one described above…
And by the way, if I had simply replied “not all men” to OP’s comic, then I would have been mocked and ridiculed by people claiming that’s just a manosphere dog whistle. But now it’s okay for you to say it doesn’t apply to all men when you’re backtracking and attempting to diminish the concern that this plays on a harmful stereotype that’s not-so-subtly directed towards men as a general category?
“Don’t worry, not all women are golddiggers. If you’re not one then you don’t need to defend yourself or attack your imagined adversary when you see a post titled ‘Dilbert Creator’s insta thot wife disappears with prenup pension.’”
Same shit, different direction.
Precisely.
Not only that, but that will mean that the only men remaining, who haven’t stopped, are that minority that are being transactional, which further distorts women’s perception of men as a whole.
Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
Back around 2010, my girlfriend of the time ended up on someone’s page detailing how to pick up girls, and shortly prompting readers to buy their pheromone based product (obvious scam, but that’s not the point now). She got super upset. Outraged, even. She went on a rant about how she’s not a fucking moth that can just be lured by silly simple stuff like that.
About a year later we took part in a competition where two attendees (2 girls, maybe a year or two younger) were desperately looking for accommodation. One of our rooms was empty that day, so we offered that to them with another flatmate (my GF wasn’t around that day).
When she had heard about the whole thing, she got rather jealous. Didn’t matter how much I explained it to her that I am boringly faithful, that I only love her and I didn’t care about the girls romantically, or that I have always been like this: in her mind, if a guy is “alone” with 2 girls for the night (daytime is fine, but mystically, horny zombification happens at full moon), he will be as easy to seduce as it gets, not matter what (like any of those two girls wanted anything, anyway).
Am I a fucking moth, then? It goes both ways.
Whoa, when I posted this I didn’t expect anyone to actually agree with me. Thanks for renewing my hope in the world!
Many do, wondering wanderer, many do.
Try to remember the 80/20 rule (may not be accurate with those exact numbers) 80 % of people on here are invisible and rarely make themselves noticed.
The vocal minority skews perceptions but are often rather noisy about their opinions…which is just like my opinion, man
Unfortunately, the vocal 20% on the internet tend to create an echo chamber effect, which then bleeds into real-world social interactions.
That’s why it’s not unheard of for a man to say hi to a woman at a bar, only for her friends to immediately butt in and go “Stop trying to rape her!” as if simply saying hello is synonymous with attempted rape nowadays…
And it doesn’t help actual victims of rape either, because it desensitizes people to the word. How is anyone supposed to “believe victims” by default if it’s become normal to cry “rape” at the slightest misstep?
I sincerely hope you are a woman overreacting in defense of the other gender. Because if you’re a man, you need to learn to appreciate some self-depreciating humor without getting butthurt. I could chuckle at the comic, because as usual, there is a (big) grain of truth in it.
So you’re saying my argument is only valid if I’m a woman? And if I’m a man, I just need to learn to be more self-deprecating? What kind of double-standard is that?
Good luck trying to tell women to “appreciate some self-deprecating humor without getting butthurt.” I’m sure that will turn out well for you.
Or is it only men who need to be self-deprecating? Cause again, that would be a double standard.
And if you find it self-deprecating to laugh at “men think sex is transactional,” then you’re telling on yourself. This comic is about you, so don’t act morally superior to men who don’t identify with it.
okay never mind, this topic is clearly going way over your head.