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.’”
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.