How do we know which one is Cueball and which one is “guy”?
126.96.36.199 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing. Is there some kind of assumption that Cueball is always the "smart" stick figure? 188.8.131.52 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
First of all we dont know that the first guy has been recently rejected, that is actually an assumption made by the second guy. Also, the "they choose jerks over nice guys" argument is wrong not because it lacks judgement and self awareness, it is wrong because it belittles the woman's judgement and self-awareness. 184.108.40.206 08:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the first guy is a jerk and the girl rejected him because he's a jerk. The second guy is quite blatantly pointing out that the first guy's a jerk, but the first guy is so self-absorbed that he just doesn't get it - and probably never will. This is indicates a personality disorder/character flaw. The first guy is incapable of accepting that he is a jerk and therefore has to blame the girl by falling back on a cliche about girls only wanting nice guys. This is OK for the first guy because he thinks nice guys are losers.220.127.116.11 09:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Uhm... Some of the above may be correct - but not the last sentences. The first guy thinks he is a nice guy, and he is about to use this to explain why he has been rejected since girls only say they want nice guys but really want something else. She probably doesn't want a jerk! But may rather go for a sporty/strong/hansom type without considering how nice he is. So the guy she chooses may or may not be nice to her (and may even be a real jerk). All this is of course just part of the stereotyping of women. Kynde (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble editing the article. I am trying to change the explanation to:
In popular culture women supposedly go for jerks instead of "nice guys". The guy on the left in this picture is frustrated and complaining as he has just been (presumably) rejected by a girl, and thinks it's because he's the "nice guy" type. However, there are many other reasons why a woman might reject a guy who isn't a jerk. (Though this guy just might be a jerk.) Cueball is trying to tell this guy that there are many, more complicated, reasons, and that saying "women don't like nice guys" and presuming to know what women "really want" is showing a rejection of that woman's agency, which might be the real that reason she rejected him.
The Alt Text continues the "conversation", with Cueball implying that he believes that the first guy is bad at taking hints, offering a sarcastic "crash course" in hint taking, with Cueball outright saying that he is trying to end the conversation while the first guys continues to follow him.
but it won't save. Can someone help me or copy/paste my changes themselves? 18.104.22.168 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Found the captcha check while posting the above. 22.214.171.124 10:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What is particularly interesting is the assumption by Randall that ALL woman are self aware enough to know what they really want in a man. The cartoon generalizes that self proclaimed "nice guys" are in error and whining needlessly and cluelessly about their situation. But it is this exact sort of generalization that has lead to the popular cultural conception of woman going for "jerks" over "nice guys." In reality, there are men who are rejected by woman who have poor judgement in men, as well as men who perceive themselves to be "nice guys" but do not have the introspection and awareness to respect a woman's judgement, even if it could be poor. Tardyon (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In fairness, if your judgment is poor your judgement shouldn't be respected regardless of gender. It should be pointed out to you, such as is happening here. That being said the primary issue the generalization."Guy" can speak about only one person, the woman he knows. And it'd still be estimation, but it'd probably be a deeper insight into the girl than all women everywhere. 126.96.36.199 17:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Rheios
Consider a parallel comic: "Harvard says they want well-rounded students, but what they really want are - " "Applicants who respond to rejection letters by belittling Harvard's judgment?" Suddenly it's not so amusing.188.8.131.52 20:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Suddenly? I actually find that equally amusing. Your parallel is a bit off thou, as guy talks about women generally rather than a specific one, so rather than Harvard it would be universities and then cueball's response would be more helpful, as in that guys current response won't help him and perhaps he need to self analyze to find out why he failed and change to do better with the next application (or woman).184.108.40.206 16:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I actually don't see your point. Are you saying Harvard doesn't want well-rounded students? I'm sure they do; if you go there with a 5.0 GPA but nothing else to recommend you, you probably won't get in, and if you do get in you won't be successful.
When girls say they want "nice guys", they want someone who will treat them well. What would something like that look like to Harvard? Maybe - someone who respects the institution, the staff and the property, someone who won't plagiarize, who won't use the facilities for illegal or unethical activities. Someone who isn't going there just so they can say "I'm going to Harvard". Can you measure these things ahead of time? No, probably not. Even if you could measure them, by themselves, would they make you attractive to Harvard, or likely to succeed there? No, they would not. Harvard wants intelligent, well-rounded, hard-working individuals who can actually demonstrate that they are worthy of acceptance. So yes, of course they want "nice guys", but that doesn't mean shit unless you bring everything else too.
1. Yes, girls want guys who will treat them well, instead of badly. And they shouldn't really have to say it.
2. Being a "nice guy" has almost nothing to do with getting the girl. You have to bring more than that.
3. It is necessary, but not sufficient. 220.127.116.11 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)