That’s very nice and all - I don’t disagree - but I don’t know what it has to do with what I said.
If anyone assumes they are being personally targetted by a woman’s response to the question as being on “side bear” … They should stop thinking that they are the main character of the story. Though tbh, they are probably telling on themselves since they are in fact the ones without empathy in this equation.
You meant they should stop having emotions? Rather than stop defending themselves?
The statement is making a large generalisation about a group that they’re part of. With every single other group it’s socially acceptable to find that offensive, yet these men are expected to “to take it like a man” and not get upset?
I’m not saying they’re right assuming it’s about them, but it’s easy to see how the mistake can happen.
No, and I don’t know how you’re getting that from what I’ve said.
In the scenario there is a hypothetical man and a hypothetical bear. There’s no reason to self-insert oneself as the man, except as an excuse to get outraged in a #notallmen fashion. A (real, non-hypothetical) man taking offense to the answer by assuming they are being indicted is just showing his own narcissism by making the hypothetical about himself.
That’s very nice and all - I don’t disagree - but I don’t know what it has to do with what I said.
If anyone assumes they are being personally targetted by a woman’s response to the question as being on “side bear” … They should stop thinking that they are the main character of the story. Though tbh, they are probably telling on themselves since they are in fact the ones without empathy in this equation.
You meant they should stop having emotions? Rather than stop defending themselves?
The statement is making a large generalisation about a group that they’re part of. With every single other group it’s socially acceptable to find that offensive, yet these men are expected to “to take it like a man” and not get upset?
I’m not saying they’re right assuming it’s about them, but it’s easy to see how the mistake can happen.
No, and I don’t know how you’re getting that from what I’ve said.
In the scenario there is a hypothetical man and a hypothetical bear. There’s no reason to self-insert oneself as the man, except as an excuse to get outraged in a #notallmen fashion. A (real, non-hypothetical) man taking offense to the answer by assuming they are being indicted is just showing his own narcissism by making the hypothetical about himself.
The literal title of this post forces anyone who doesn’t already understand the issue, to then view themselves as said man