Both scenarios are real. As in there are guys who just want girls to be forward and not give vague mixed messages. Then there are also guys who feel entitled to women.
People from scenario A are usually not the same kind of people who do scenario B. Yet this comic portrays both to be the exact same person and then just blames “guys” in general for it.
Edit: this is not the first time I’ve seen comics from this creator, and they mostly seem to involve this exact pattern.
The point of the comic is that there is a number cases who are actually the same people in scenario A and scenario B. Not all the people, but those people do exist, and the number is so high, every woman who dated for some time had those encounters, every single one.
There will always be outlyers. But the “yup, about what I expected” at the end of the comic draws this behaviour as something universal you can just expect, which is simply untrue.
The number being high is just plain nonsense. Obviously everyone who has done dated will at least have met one such person. That a statistical inevitability.
Should I regard women as spoiled, entitled brats simply because I have happened to meet two or three in my life? Should I consider black people as untrustworthy, dirty swindlers because I met ONE who was?
Should I make a comic about how hypocritical all people are because I met a few that were nice, but also a few that just sucked?
If you have any rational bone in your body the obvious answer would be “no”.
draws this behaviour as something universal you can just expect
Not universal, ubiquitous enough that you can fear it and expect it. This inability of understanding the difference between “all” and “a lot” is quite common both in general, and especially in this scenario. Especially prevalent in the form of “well, I’m not like that, therefore people like that are exceptionally rare”, regardless even of the correctness of this statement.
Let’s demonstrate this on an example that will not trigger your innate misogyny:
I live in a country where trains are notoriously unreliable. I come to a station, and my train is late. I write a post “damn, my train is late again, just as I expected”. You come to this post, and say “You’re stupid because not all trains are late, and by the way my trains are always on time, so you’re lying actually, and also it’s your fault because sometimes people miss their trains”.
That’s… Not the point I’m making at all.
The top two panels are scenario A.
The bottom two panels are scenario B.
Both scenarios are real. As in there are guys who just want girls to be forward and not give vague mixed messages. Then there are also guys who feel entitled to women.
People from scenario A are usually not the same kind of people who do scenario B. Yet this comic portrays both to be the exact same person and then just blames “guys” in general for it.
Edit: this is not the first time I’ve seen comics from this creator, and they mostly seem to involve this exact pattern.
The point of the comic is that there is a number cases who are actually the same people in scenario A and scenario B. Not all the people, but those people do exist, and the number is so high, every woman who dated for some time had those encounters, every single one.
There will always be outlyers. But the “yup, about what I expected” at the end of the comic draws this behaviour as something universal you can just expect, which is simply untrue.
The number being high is just plain nonsense. Obviously everyone who has done dated will at least have met one such person. That a statistical inevitability.
Should I regard women as spoiled, entitled brats simply because I have happened to meet two or three in my life? Should I consider black people as untrustworthy, dirty swindlers because I met ONE who was?
Should I make a comic about how hypocritical all people are because I met a few that were nice, but also a few that just sucked?
If you have any rational bone in your body the obvious answer would be “no”.
Not universal, ubiquitous enough that you can fear it and expect it. This inability of understanding the difference between “all” and “a lot” is quite common both in general, and especially in this scenario. Especially prevalent in the form of “well, I’m not like that, therefore people like that are exceptionally rare”, regardless even of the correctness of this statement.
Let’s demonstrate this on an example that will not trigger your innate misogyny:
I live in a country where trains are notoriously unreliable. I come to a station, and my train is late. I write a post “damn, my train is late again, just as I expected”. You come to this post, and say “You’re stupid because not all trains are late, and by the way my trains are always on time, so you’re lying actually, and also it’s your fault because sometimes people miss their trains”.
There is no “a lot”.
Invalidating other people’s experiences is also something that is expected in this conversation.
Anecdotal evidence fallacy also “invalidates” them. Try less fallacies & more sound logic.
I see absolutely nothing wrong invalidating someone with prejudice.
Yep, that’s about what I expected
As it should be towards prejudice. If you were expecting anything else, you’re an asshole at best, a fascist at worst.