It sounds like a rehearsed answer designed to diffuse a situation. Also, politely and plainly describing any issue you have with a man is certainly going to elicit better response than vaguely hinting and getting mad when they don't fix the issue.
On the second part I agree- absent of gender even- telling people when we are upset and why is generally more helpful than hinting and hoping they figure it out. I suppose I will say that in close relationships like romantic partnerships there is perhaps wiggle room- people we spend lots of time with and perhaps want or expect would have a certain even of knowledge and understanding as well as attentiveness to not need be told our inner workings in the way a stranger or acquaintance might.
But generally I agree that many pro works can be solved or prevented through open communication.
To the first part- I’m 50/50. I do agree it could sound rehearsed or what I’ll call a “canned answer,” but so are things like “sorry” and when one learns various conflict resolution or avoidance tools such as through therapy- these too are often practiced responses and not spontaneous and natural. Learning something like how to argue without blaming or insulting or how to phrase criticisms constructively is often for many a difficult and conscious effort. I mean- I often ponder which has more “weight” or “truth,” a person who is naturally a healthy communicator, or a person who has to put in effort? The natural and intuitive person doesn’t have to try to be healthy and in fact may not be putting any effort in. A person who such things come with rehearsal or practice and effort is not only trying (often for the primary benefit of others,) but the fact that they are trying shows they want to do better even if they weren’t naturally inclined to that way vs. defaulting to their nature
So is it a “canned” reply? Maybe? I think it could be genuine- I mean, some people are more eloquent or less so, some are more precise or technical with language. If one accords getting hostile or defensive when others bring up perceived flaws, even if one doesn’t agree in that moment, one can still acknowledge that there is possibly an objective flaw in self their bias blinds them to or a subjective flaw specific to the perceptions and processing of this one person. An ex once told me I had a “poor sense of urgency.” In general that is not true, and I could cite proof, but specific to the issue they were discussing, one which I did not see as a time critical issue and thusly assigned it no urgency- they were correct. In that case I merely told them that they were correct, and that while I had seen no practical need for urgency, that the matter obviously created an emotional need for urgency for them- that it bothered them it was not done. So I told them I would make it a priority…
.. because not that I was aware that it was their priority, I would reassess my urgency on the issue. This satisfied them after some further discussion and a release of their emotions on the issue- but in time there were other non critical tasks they believed were urgent and no practical urgency existed and so they were not treated urgently. They ended up saying that my priorities were skewed- I did not agree with that but I did agree we should part. The fact that what was important to me was not important to them and vice versa in these matters could be worked through, but they were highly emotionally invested and would become very emotional where my general response to their trivializing what was important to me was that it obviously wasn’t important to them and not everything I found important would be.
So it is entirely possible to have discussions where people admit flaws or fault where it is valid, or at least admit the possibility wether they personally see it or not, but it is, as this meme and the fact that a person doing so seems odd or indicate indicate- sadly not the norm. I will say that one generally should follow up an acceptance of fault with some sort of concrete and specific action or commitment to avoid the issue in the future. “I’m sorry” or the phrase above may be just used to deflect confrontation or accountability as you point out. “I’m sorry I forgot this thing, I will add a reminder to my calendar and will not let it happen again” is one simple example. Better still of you acknowledge why you are sorry- that you understand the reason you need to apologize- the harm or issue created by your actions.
“I’m sorry I forgot this thing. I understand you are under a tremendous amount of pressure and rely on me to help. When I don’t I feel like I am causing you more work and stress and not holding up my end. I will add a reminder to my calendar and it will not happen again…” that sort of deal. Though one shouldn’t lie- if you cannot commit to “not doing it again” it is a tad weak and non committal to say “I’ll try not to…” but saying that you cannot promise to never make the mistake again but will not make it again next time or under XYZ circumstances etc. is honest and offers some commitment.
So I feel the man in the meme could have done more to express sincerity and phrase his reply to show it was specific to the situation and showed an understanding. Not just to satisfy an emotional need by the receiver to feel understood. But also because showing you understand the underlying issue helps assure the person that in that specific case and possibly similar cases you are less likely to make the mistake- of course that is where understanding is a two way street. If a person speaks from a place of privilege or ignorance to the potential harm etc. of another and they unknowingly cross a line- there may be other areas they aren’t aware of various social or other issues and thusly may not realize that their words or actions feed a particular “trigger,” so understanding that commenting on a persons cultural article is a “micro aggression” doesn’t necessarily mean you’d then never commit any other “micro aggression” etc. as you first must realize that hurts another person.
I find nothing wrong with "canned" answers. They, generally, can be very helpful in giving someone that's not so loquacious a good response. Plus there is the added benefit of it being less likely to insult the person you are speaking to. Can they be really corny? Sure. Sound a bit like a robot? Sure. But like you said, it doesn't mean the person doesn't actually mean what they're saying. I do think that the line seemed rehearsed. I have no real way to describe it other than it doesn't sound like something someone would say in a natural manner.
The catch 22 is this- the world has many countries and many cultures and religions and groups with diverse histories and languages. There are many diseases and traumas and differences in people. It isn’t possible to know them all and know how every person specific at wants them handled, the words they prefer be used, things that might be insensitive due to specifics of their culture or gender, language, group or individual history. So we hit the catch 22 that the myriad of people and circumstances require that we we broaden our perspectives and knowledge to try and be courteous and inclusive to all sorts of people- BUT- at the same time people live in their own lives- a “bubble” that may or may not include exposure to certain types of people or circumstances.
The old adage of that which we know, that which we know we do not know, and that which we do not know we do not know.
The nation of Myanmar has many ethnic groups- Burmese are one majority group. The nation was formerly called Burma. The people of that nation are not called by default “Burmese” even when the nation was called Burma. Of course, some people will never meet a Burmese person or Mon or Karen etc. they will not travel far beyond their door and statistically are unlikely to need to know anything about the nation or it’s people to help their lives and interactions. The average European or even the average Us resident doesn’t need to know that parts of the country call a heated “sub sandwich” a “grinder” and other parts are often unfamiliar with the term. Driving to work in Denmark if one never travels those areas of America and/or they don’t order sandwiches… why would they know, and why would they think to look up such a thing? So there is this sort of… gray area where…
.. at least in my opinion we do have to give some wiggle room for people to not know everything and for different cultures and environments. That isn’t to say we allow all sorts of behavior or “forget it” based on that- more that if the person correcting the action does so respectfully and without malice or hostility and the person being corrected keeps open to learning about others and trying to be civil, so respectfully and appreciatively receives the correction, it doesn’t have to be anything but a straight forward level thing. No one needs to be attacked and no one needs to get defensive when ignorance is without malice. Though yes- a more solid commitment and specific response would be better.
But generally I agree that many pro works can be solved or prevented through open communication.
The nation of Myanmar has many ethnic groups- Burmese are one majority group. The nation was formerly called Burma. The people of that nation are not called by default “Burmese” even when the nation was called Burma. Of course, some people will never meet a Burmese person or Mon or Karen etc. they will not travel far beyond their door and statistically are unlikely to need to know anything about the nation or it’s people to help their lives and interactions. The average European or even the average Us resident doesn’t need to know that parts of the country call a heated “sub sandwich” a “grinder” and other parts are often unfamiliar with the term. Driving to work in Denmark if one never travels those areas of America and/or they don’t order sandwiches… why would they know, and why would they think to look up such a thing? So there is this sort of… gray area where…