Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 23-27 May 2011 (1931-1935)
Kugai:
--- Quote from: BlueMark on 26 May 2011, 16:54 ---Stop making excuses for illiteracy!
If we put up with that crap we'll end up with leaders unable to refudiate the terriers that misunderestimate the need to put food on your family.
--- End quote ---
Helloooooooo George Dublya
themacnut:
--- Quote from: Tiogyr on 26 May 2011, 05:24 ---
--- Quote from: Mr_Rose on 26 May 2011, 05:01 ---It's entirely possible that she's just that scatterbrained before her morning espresso and has the beans ready but just totally blanked that she was supposed to fork 'em over now.
--- End quote ---
Oh, come on, now. How long have you been reading this comic?
It is obviously going to be the worst case scenario where she not only didn't roast beans for Jim, she didn't even roast beans for her own store that day.
--- End quote ---
Yep, I think that's exactly what's going on. Dora's reaction was too extreme for it to be as simple as her forgetting she needs to hand over the already roasted beans now. I don't think she roasted any either, or at least not enough for her and Jim. Looks it's it's time for mike837's emergency scenario (hand over what she has now and start roasting, deliver the rest later etc.) but she may not even work that out yet, seeing as how this whole partnership thing is so new to her.
morrigan:
Their business arrangement stated that the baked goods/bean exchange take place on Mondays. Presumably, this particular Monday is the Monday after the Smif party. Something is probably on Dora's mind...
cuzsis:
--- Quote from: tomart on 25 May 2011, 22:33 ---What if this is Tai exposing Marten to all those available Smifettes, like I hoped would happen by now? The Dora angle just makes it more dramalicious; what if Dora sees him surrounded by eager beavers? Maybe Tai thinks that would get her off the guilt hook... This party could have 13 kinds of drama, boosted and complicated by recreational substances. :psyduck:
--- Quote from: BlueMark on 25 May 2011, 21:43 ---Tai ... is looking for approval from Marten, but doesn't realize that as a guy Marten is immune to nuance and needs to be asked simply and directly without any circumspection.
A two by four might help.
Marten is a reasonably smart and sensitive guy, but guys get confused by circumlocutions and indirect questions - they know something else is going on, but have been burned enough times not to even try to guess, so they just go with the most literal interpretation.
--- End quote ---
This is retreading old forum ground, but many of us guys readily verify this; it's SO nice your brains are at home processing devious, indirect, vague hints and concealed intents, but the genders really do think, feel, and talk differently.* Just say what you mean, please??
* I could provide a bibliography if you care.
--- End quote ---
Yes, it's true most girls do that vague/concealed intent thing.
You know what happens when you finally meet a girl that doesn't?
It doesn't matter.
I'm female. I don't do the whole "devious undercover thing" except when I'm making a joke. When I need/want something. I'm pretty direct. See a cool present for my birthday? I point it out and politely ask for it for a birthday gift. No subtle hints or guessing games. Just: "I like *this*, if possible, I would like it as a birthday gift." That's it. Done.
General conversation? Same thing. Ask the direction question. Look for the direct answer. Build the conversation from there.
Want to know why this fails so hard? Because guys have programmed themselves to expect devious indirect vague bs from their grandmas/moms/aunts/sisters/cousins girlfriends ect....who, being typical females, did stuff like this. So when you actually speak directly they immediately think the opposite and try to figure out what your *real* intent is. Do you know how long it takes someone to unlearn that sort of training?
Years....
Believe me, in a very strange way, I share your frustration! :psyduck:
eternalluna:
It's pretty frustrating to see the whole "exceptional woman" idea here (exceptional as in 'not in accordance with the rule', not 'amazing'- where we are to congratulate someone for not being like all *those* other women). Sure, women overall might be more periphrastic in their approach to things than men, but do you know what happens to little girls who ask for things? They get told that they shouldn't by parents and other figures of authority. And women who dare to say they want or don't want something? They get called "bitch" or are subject to a myriad of other negative responses, sometimes violent ones (and I am speaking entirely from my own experience and the experiences of women that I know). And how long does a lifetime of this kind of conditioning from all sides take to unlearn? Usually a whole lot longer than a couple of years.
But sure, we should blame women for their own subjugation. :psyduck:
(I'm not trying to attack anyone here because, hell, I've done it too- the whole trying to avoid the oppression by making a deal with the dominant culture and trying so hard to not be the things I was told were "bad"; and while it can be a survival mechanism, it doesn't work, and I was never seen fully as a person. It's a pretty shitty way to feel. Anyway, I'm sorry to come off all ranty, but I feel this needs to be pointed out. It's not as simple as "Oh, those crazy wimmen, they are so strange and illogical.")
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version