#team man

[dominion-of-fear]

[hereticallyeverafter]

I don't know if I'm phenomenonally ugly, or lucky, or both, but the whole Man Or Bear scenario is wild to me. I know I'm an outlier, and I'm not trying to discredit or belittle other peoples' experiences, so I believe my experience deserves equal respect too, but we'll see; spoiler alert: I'm not picking the bear lol.

My response depends on the phrasing of the question. Would you rather be in the forest knowing there's a bear in the vicinity, or a strange man? Man, hands down. Humans are stupid, not naturally territorial, fairly easy to shake off your trail versus a territorial, pissed off bear. Would you rather be pursued by a bear in the forest, or by a strange man? Still a man. Another human being is easier to kill. Or barter with. Bears are fast and will kill you dead. Also, how big is the woods?

Like, I get that the principle of the question is to demonstrate that the Monolith of Womankind™️ feel disempowered and predated upon by men, and if that is anyone's experience, I do truly sympathize and wish the best for your healing journey in whatever form that takes. I've just never felt *that* to that extent. I've experienced creepy men, my ex raped me, I've been followed, etc. Oddly enough, I've never gotten a random dick pic 🤔 but whatever. Idk.

And I'm pro-feminism, fuck the patriarchy, etc, but women actually aren't a monolith, and neither are men, and the viral popularity of this question- and the thinkpieces dragging men for being stumped or indignant- is only going to further entrench that binary, monolithic-thinking and build resentment, not just in men, but in feminists like me (ME, ME, glorious me! /jk) who are tired of having to explain that women don't /actually hate men. They just joke that they do. They act like they do, but that's a joke too. People- not just men, not just women- don't change because you didn't whip them hard enisn't.

But it really does feel like the man-bashing has started to blur the line from self-defense, irony, punching up, to just plain meanness and misandry- like, men are still people too. It feels like the reactive cultural shift has gone from "sigh not all men" to "fuck it, yes all men" in the same vein as ACAB meaning "yes all cops", but like, being a cop is a choice, being clocked as a man or being AMAB isnt.

I'm not saying either that men need to be babied. Complaints against creeps- REAL ones, not those fake "entrapment" main character syndrome gym videos- are all valid, sure. But this fake scenario does a bad job at presenting that, imo. Conversely, I do see the introspection on mens' parts, especially in regard to the "Loneliness Epidemic" as necessary even though it's been uncomfortable, and my sympathy does go out to men who genuinely are suffering or are just, like, frustrated, because that's valid too, and men's mental health is also important.

Also, can we just stop coming up with thought exercises that involve animals?! "Would you love me if I was a worm 🥺", "Bear or man?!" Animal-Planet-brain-having-ass 😒

[georgebailey2]

24/100

George Bailey - the ultimate team man.

[thediscourseblog]

Home of witty banter.

The self-appointed home of witty banter TV Channel Dave rebranded itself in 2007; before then it had been a same-as-anyone-else cable channel that screened some interesting content in a sea of nonsense crap, the kind that most people happen across for ten minutes at a time before happening on something else.

Its rebrand was an interesting one. At the time, I still owned a functioning TV and was quite happy to watch two Top Gears in a row, or some stand-up from Dara O' Briain; I could be uncritical, I could have a smile on my face, time would pass and it would be easy. Their relaunch came with several cute ideas: the name Dave, for a start. A shortened man's name, and an everyman at that. Immediately, the name Dave has connotations with Ali G, with the friend that everyone has; it's almost an electoral hashtag. Daves are kind, amiable, unintellectual, straight-talking. I cannot provide evidence. It is a tacit knowledge. When shrewdly naming a TV channel, whose audience consists of people named Dave, or their friends, who like a few beers, who like a clean car, whose relationships are great but going to the shops with the wife-or-girlfriend can be a bit a pain, Dave stands out. A beacon of normality as television becomes either insufferably worthy or downright crap.

They use Clarendon, which is always a good start. Decidedly homely, a vintage typeface with whiffs of the nineteenth century, one of the pioneering and most famous of woodblocks and retrofitted, throughout the 20th century, to fit anew. It's a face that, 160 years after its creation, still feels utterly modern, yet utterly ancient. Familiarity is its grace. They initially teamed it up with wallpaper patterns, which enhanced that homeliness. Nowadays, it is complemented on the webpage with some chunky Grotesk typeface, bold and condensed, and the canny use of off-white, borderline warm yellow vector graphics. Icons, like monster trucks and suitcases of money, that reflect the TV content. It's all laid against a 'texture', something like scratched matt black steel, perhaps trying to emphasise the prevalence of cars and engineering. Roughness, with softness added, just like a man, just like a Dave.

This article in the Guardian describes how Dave is now rather popular.. it has a growing audience share, which almost no other television channel can currently claim. Best of all, 42% of its audience are women. WOMEN? The article shows as much surprise as anyone would expect, but as one of Dave's producers says, women will watch a male-branded TV channel so it "makes sense to brand male".

A syllogism is a deduction made by false reasoning, and reader, I think we can describe it thus:

This channel was designed for men.

Women inexplicably watch the TV channel.

Aiming things at men attracts women.

Brand Male is a funny thing. Of course things are categorised into male and female-centric target audience, it is logical. Not in the case of Lego, many would argue, but as a rule, it happens. Is it a good thing? I am not sure, but whe n facts support it, the world of daft men looks suddenly less like a non-commercial act of silliness and something far more ruthless than first thought. Not quite a load of bollocks.

[georgebailey2]

I hope it’s a combination. I’ve always been a believer that the person is just as important as the cricketer.

George Bailey's response when asked: "What do you think team owners (in the IPL) would be looking at when considering you – your ability as a batsman or aptitude as a leader too?"

[eldritch-asmr]

Nebris: We can make invisibility potions, if we get potions.

Anderz: No but that doesn't work on armor, does it?

Nebris: No it doesn't work on armor, but we could strip naked... and...

Nebris: I'm sorry I forget where I was going with this.