Cartoon: HE would never do that!

If you enjoy these cartoons, please help me make more by supporting my Patreon. A $1 pledge really matters!


This cartoon has four panels, plus an additional tiny “kicker” panel below the bottom of the cartoon.


Three people – a dark-haired woman in a skirt and blouse, a bald man with a tie, and a somewhat hipster-looking guy with a largish beard but no mustache, are walking through a park. The woman is in front; the two men are talking to each other.

NECKTIE: Maybe she’s bitter because he didn’t call her the next day.
BEARD: She could be saying it for attention.

The same three people walking; we can see the woman looks annoyed as she listens to the two men talk. Necktie is looking up into the air a bit and scratching his chin thoughtfully; Beard is enthusiastic.

NECKTIE: Maybe she was drunk and imagined the whole thing.
BEARD: Yes! She could be delusional.

In the foreground, a tire swing hangs from a tree branch, and there’s a stream. In the background, the same three people continue their walk. Teh woman looks really annoyed now; Necktie is holding his arms out in a declaratory fashion as he makes his point; Beard is holding up a forefinger to make a point.

NECKTIE: Maybe she made the whole thing up in a jealous rage!
BEARD: It could be a conspiracy.

The woman has stopped walking and turned back to address the two men. The two men are infuriated, yelling, Necktie actually jumping up and pointing.

WOMAN: Maybe he raped her.

A small panel below the bottom the strip shows the three of them; the woman is rolling her eyes, Necktie is speaking a bit angrily, and Beard, looking a bit smug, makes a point.

NECKTIE: It’s wrong to ruin someone’s life with unproven smears!
BEARD: Unless that someone is a woman.

This entry posted in Cartooning & comics, Feminism, sexism, etc, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

103 Responses to Cartoon: HE would never do that!

  1. 101
    desipis says:

    J. Squid,

    1 – That doesn’t contain the text messages, it contains a journalists’s interpretation of the text messages with some cherry picked quotes. Without the actual text messages, along withing knowing who sent them, in what context and at what times, it’s not possible to have any reasonable idea whether they support the things claimed.

    2 – Kavanaugh’s responses were often non-specific, vague and evasive. The fact that one possible interpretation was false doesn’t make his statements perjury.

    3 – The context in which Kavanaugh made the comments about “connections” was specifically “Yale Law”. His grandfather didn’t go to Yale Law, he was an undergraduate. Is there evidence that shows that the undergraduate status of his grandfather would have influenced his entry to Yale Law, as law schools tend to view themselves as quite elite within the university? Is there evidence that Kavanaugh was aware of and used his grandfather to aid his entry to the Law school?

    4 – The aid has corrected themselves, and there’s no other evidence other than speculation.

  2. 102
    LimitsOfLanguage says:

    Here is a relevant paper about the consistency of testimony for traumatic events. They found that 88% of the veterans changed at least one answer about traumatic experiences between 1 month after their return and 1 year afterwards. It was more common for the questions to change from no to yes, which is consistent with both:
    – Initial denial and long term recovery of memories
    – (More) initial accuracy and the creation of false memories in the long term
    The ability to create provably false memories in various ways suggests that the latter possibility is likely to happen (as well).

    They also found that the more traumatized the veterans, the more that their answers changed, which is consistent with my earlier claim of PTSD making memory worse.

    Furthermore, there is this paper about how retelling and/or re-experiencing trauma can change memories, including by adding details. That paper has a very good overview of the scientific evidence in general.

  3. 103
    J. Squid says:

    3 – The context in which Kavanaugh made the comments about “connections” was specifically “Yale Law”. His grandfather didn’t go to Yale Law, he was an undergraduate.

    Talk about giving the benefit of the doubt. You had to bend over backwards so far that I’m surprised you’re not in traction.

    Note: I’ve realized I can no longer remember who I’m not interacting with. So, forgive me if I promised not to interact with you before.

    As we can’t even come close to agreeing on a shared reality, I can now safely ignore you forever. That will free up quite a significant amount of comment reading time for me.

    Farewell, dear desipis, may your journeys bring you joy.

    Note: After writing this, I realized I have forgotten who I’ve decided not to interact with. If I’ve already said farewell to you, desipis, please forgive my error.