I think the writer made exactly the default presumption I'm challenging here -- that everyone would understand that when we talk about romance, attraction, masculinity, and men getting laid, we obviously only mean *men's* experiences and perspectives on that topic unless we say otherwise.
And I think that unexamined presumption is what is leading to the unexpected pushback he's getting, and why his instinctive reaction -- and yours -- is that people are being unfair by not obliging him by narrowing their explicit context to match his implicit context.
I think it's perhaps more not being wise to the fact that a single post of three can go viral and in doing so lose vital context. Which, in fairness, is exactly the same mistake I made - assuming three posts I had read as a triptych would always be read as such and so the context of each preserved.
I don't think so. Read his three skeets again and tell me where he explicitly says that he's focusing on men's experiences within these topics and the advice given to them.
Which isn't really surprising. I mean, nobody expect to glean the full nuance of an entire think piece from the headline or opening precis para. But if that's all you have to go on then yes, I understand that that's all you have to go on.
Regardless, it's gone 3.30AM in the UK so I'm gonna crash. Thank you for the discussion and taking the time. It's appreciated :)
They're an advert though. You're then meant to read the article and it's literally about teen boys etc. I don't think it's so much an underlying presumption as just benefiting from the context of the article If you've read it you'll understand. If not, then you may well not.