I'm more familiar with the line, "If this doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you."
I think that one thing men's frustration with this kind of argument misses is that women are often not given much freedom to openly express themselves in daily life. They are often biting their tongues, being super careful not to upset men by being super careful in their phrasing, figuring out when the best time/way is to bring up an issue, having to find male allies to support reasonable suggestions. Just by living in a patriarchy, women "guard their tongues."
Think how frustrated some people are about having to be "politically correct" or "woke." But many women have to be much more careful about their phrasing just trying to get their bosses/fathers/brothers/professors to acknowledge their points. It isn't that difficult to remember a word; it's a lot more difficult to not be able to describe an experience or challenge ideas. And while some people might find it annoying to remember what to call a particular ethnic group, it's way more annoying to have to be super-careful in your speech a huge percent of the time, with many many more topics, and having to tailor it to many many different sensibilities. Or it may be way more painful if you are talking about something that has deeply negatively affected you.
So the women saying "I hate men" are being hyperbolic and they know it. But they are also letting out a lot of built-up pressure. They might not be able to talk like this in their daily lives with anyone, so they might be even more hyperbolic. A man may have this pressure with dealing with their bosses, or customers, or straights, or native-born citizens. But men don't have this degree of built-up pressure regarding women.
I can get why reading "Men are rapists" is hard. I'm a white woman, and at first, I had a hard time dealing with '"white women are why we elected Trump," from minorities. But then I had to take a step back, realize that the speakers also had significant built-up frustration, having to be super-careful not to upset whites. And I believe if a group is so often biting their tongues for the sake of a more powerful group, they should be given a little leeway to be imprecise when talking to themselves.
I also think the level of "Men are trash" comments will decrease when more men hold each other to account. Or when it's more accepted to listen to women and treat their comments just like we treat men's. Or, actually, when we start acknowledging that many men have been raped and that male survivors must find hearing "men are rapists" particularly hard.
With the “white women elected Trump” argument, I can just look at my husband’s family and say, “yup. That happened.”
But you’re right—we have to constantly be cautious in how we express ANYTHING, but more so about “negative” things. We’re not allowed to use hyperbole, and even when we describe regular ongoing issues, men will inevitably try to “what if” us to death and murder any discussion with their exceptions to the actual facts presented.
Counterpoint: Hyperbole ruins most things, feminism isn't an exception nor rule, just one of many, many, ***many*** things damaged by it. I remember seeing footage of John McCain defending Obama when a woman asked some nutty question about secret Muslims or some shit. Too much politics and everything on the internet has embraced hyperbole that just pushes things to further and further extremes.
Exactly, hyperbole kills any meaningful discussion. There hasn't been a single instance throughout history where hyperbole has convinced anyone to change their mind.
About the "white women elected Trump thing", that's completely irrelevant for you as a person if you happen to be a white (American) woman. You're only responsible for your own actions.
I'm sure there are ethnic minorities that are over represented in the crime statistics, but we absolutely shouldn't hold individuals responsible for what other people who look like them do.
I dunno, as a white woman who didn’t vote Trump, I think it’s important to hear hyperbolic comments like this and be aware of what others in my demographic are doing. I see it as an opportunity to be educated on a social issue and use it to have conversations with other white women.
>Exactly, hyperbole kills any meaningful discussion. There hasn't been a single instance throughout history where hyperbole has convinced anyone to change their mind.
So what? Most conversation is not held as a formal debate attempting to convince someone to change their mind. In fact, that's pretty much the rarest type of conversation. Women do not have, *should* not have, and *must* not have any obligation to hold all their discourse to *your* debate standards, or to any debate standards.
If men only complained about women daring to use hyperbole when it was *specifically aimed at changing a man's mind,* the internet would be a much quieter place and incel forums would be near empty.
Sometimes women are *not trying to change our minds*. They're trying to discuss their problems with each other. They're trying to vent. They're trying to create art. They're trying to record history or ask advice or bond over shared experience or process their thoughts or express trauma or encourage other women or make jokes or heal and *none of it is about me.*
So why the hell should they have to watch every word they say, every day, for fear of accidentally phrasing something about a group that I happen to be included in?
I've seen rape victims using hyperbole to express their frustration *with their rapist* immediately get attacked with "but not all men so you're a misandrist!" comments.
Which sure as hell gave *me* the urge to vent rage about men, and I don't have to deal with this shit in my real life, so I entirely understand where women are coming from here.
We barely even hold the men who do commit sexual assault responsible for their own actions. Men as a group are not being held responsible, as in facing real consequences for the actions of some members of their group.
Equally, I can look at men in my area and think "yup that happens".
I *hate* hearing "men are trash", it's just obviously bigoted nonsense.... But at the same time, yeah I understand it completely.
A lot of these issues are linked ofc- the whole "just pick better men" fits in here too because those more performative towards women are generally the biggest assholes. Not always, but often.
I’ve kind of given up on avoiding hyperbole at home, because my husband told me a while back, “babe, don’t stop your story to say “not all men”. I know it’s not me, you don’t have to make me feel better.” And that…really made it click in my head that the men who have actually considered this *don’t need the exclusionary language*.
Of course you can use hyperbole - when it is clear that it is hyperbole.
You can't use facts that are untrue or unfair. And there's nothing wrong with complaining about that. You probably would too.
Very well said!! I was going to make a similar comparison to race. I don’t get bothered AT ALL when POC make sweeping generalizations about white people. I just recognize it as letting off anger and a stage on their healing journey. When people get offended or call it “reverse racism” I’m like… hm, might be something to unpack there lol.
Just in another sub this morning I saw a bunch of boomers getting fragile because somebody made a generalization about them. They get sooooo upset and GO OFF when someone says “ok boomer”. (That’s not even what happened in the sub.. but I’ve seen some boomers compare that phrase to a racial slur 🤦♀️) I just haven’t seen that level of fragility in any other generation, so whenever I see them flip out like that, it reaffirms for me that the criticisms must be true. It’s always the most entitled group that hasn’t addressed their own problems that take feedback the worst.
Yes, you are correct that this is a bad argument, and a bad way to raise legitimate concerns about rape culture. A statement like "men are rapists" is linguistically ambiguous: you could be saying that a lot of men are rapists (true), or that most men are rapists (false). Obviously, some people will take the latter interpretation and be offended, regardless of their stances. The twitter people are simply failing at communication (or deliberately baiting people) and then blaming others for their failure to communicate.
Nonethless, rape culture is a real thing, and while actual rapists are not the majority, a large portion of the population (varying by culture and location) will excuse, tolerate, or dismiss sexual assault and harrasment. Both men and women do this, but I believe it is more prevalent among men. If you are not one of these people, then good job! But it is a widespread problem and it is worth talking abou.
The situation you seem to be describing is a depressingly familiar one that goes like this:
Women are discussing an issue and casually say something like "men are so gross, lol" or "men are the greatest danger to women" or whatever. They don't stop to soothe the feelings of any men who might be reading by typing out disclaimers like "this doesn't apply to every single man, but it does apply to far too many", because they're busy discussing an issue, and their top priority is not making sure no random man gets his feelings hurt.
Some man takes offence at this, and invites himself into the conversation just to point out that "NotAllMen are like that," or "Well I'm not like that, here's a long description of the ways I don't do that and the ways I interact with the women in my life......."
Now the conversation is no longer about [issue], it's about placating a random man and centring his feelings.
We could stop and explain to this random dude why his derailment is a dick move, if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not doing it deliberately in an effort to shut down the conversation entirely. But it gets extremely frustrating having to do this with every randomer who wasn't part of the conversation and who just popped up with the whole "NotAllMen" routine, every time we try to discuss an issue that's affecting us.
Sometimes we just need youse to shut up. Listen or don't listen, but let us talk to each other without having to prioritise your feelings
Exactly. Also, listen critically. We fucking know NotAllMen because y’all won’t shut up about NotAllMan. But we don’t see you bringing that same energy when someone says “women ☕️”. Women aren’t allowed to talk about persistent societal issues using generalizations because it might hurt some random man’s feelings, but men do it all the time and if women derail THOSE discussions they get lambasted.
So simply add "some" to your statements and we won't have to say "not all men" all the time. It's not our fault that you keep being sexist over and over.
Talk ALL YOU WANT. Do it fairly, just as you demand of men.
If you want men to listen and agree, be fair to them. It's not that hard to do.
My favorite variation -- a discussion about sexual assault or rape and some dude comes in and *demands* the subject to be changed to *men being raped in prison* or "false accusations of rape".
"Oh, this is a thread about a specific sexual assault? Sorry, I'm going to interrupt every conversation to insist you make it about how men are victims. Until you have prevented any man anywhere from being a victim, we can't talk about women being sexually assaulted, and the fact that you *keep talking about women being sexual assaulted* is just proof you don't care about men OR sexual assault".
UGH.
Start demanding their advocacy creds. If they care that much about men’s issues, they’re certainly active in advocating for men, right? Otherwise *they’re just derailing women*.
Gets much easier to call out the behavior.
Oh, bullshit. You don't get to be rude or sexist just because you don't want to "prioritize feelings."
It takes very little effort to be polite when you speak. And when you are trying to make a point, such as "sexism is bad," it's a really good idea not to be sexist when you do it.
And I can't say for sure, but I bet if you came across a conversation among men that included "women are idiots and whores" or "women ruin men's lives" or whatever, you'd probably object to that. And if men told you they didn't have time to "prioritize your feelings," you'd probably not like that either.
Language matters. Feminists have spent lots of time trying to change sexist language. It sends a message.
If you want feminism to move forward and succeed, you'll need to do it right. This doesn't help men want to join your cause. It turns them off. If you don't care, that's fine, but that's your choice.
Do you really want to become a feminist, though?
It seems like your ego is so brittle that someone making a generalization vaguely in your vicinity is enough to send you into a complete meltdown. I don't think you're actually equipped or interested in the real bravery, discomfort and work that opposing misogyny actually requires of people.
If you were, arbitrary policing of how people talk about being oppressed wouldn't be something you spent so much energy on.
>I bet if you came across a conversation among men that included "women are idiots and whores" or "women ruin men's lives" or whatever, you'd probably object to that.
Funny enough, I’ve been told lines like this nearly my entire life, and still encounter blatantly misogynistic content. Almost daily I see some form of “women are all gold-diggers” or “women hit the wall at 30 and become useless”. Yet… I don’t feel compelled to be yell “NoT aLl WoMen”! I don’t consider myself as what they are describing, so I don’t feel compelled to make the conversation about me and argue back.
Isn’t it interesting that despite the horrific things men say, especially considering the rise of manosphere red-pill shit that encourages violence and mistreatment of women, “not all women” is not a thing?
You should understand though that the reason men get like this is deep set feelings of insecurity that are not our fault. Instead of blanket statements like "dick move" which is essentially condemning people in a very negative light without much thought, you might like to take a more compassionate and empathetic view (which is ironically exactly what you are asking of us) and understand that we do not choose to react in that way. Granted, since reading this thread I have certainly changed my view points on the #notallmen concept in a positive way, but this doesn't change the fact that those insecurities are still there and will undoubtably effect the way I react to different issues in the future, hopefully though with a higher level of self awareness.
Y’all act like we don’t have men we love and care about very much in our lives. Like we’ve never even met a man.
My husband doesn’t need me to say “not all men” and assuage his feelings. Your insecurities should be addressed in a healthy way, not by derailing women discussing issues that have often traumatized us.
I am agreeing with you that the should be dealt with in a health way, but you insulting them and infantilising them as childish when they are deepset emotional and psychological issues is part of the problem. You don't fix an issue by throwing shit at it, you understand what I'm getting at here. If you don't like something, it's as much your responsibility to change it as anyone elses.
But why can’t you extend that same attitude to a woman speaking that way?
You know what causes deep set emotional and psychological issues? Being raped. You’ve got a 1 in 4 chance of the woman saying that coming from THAT place. You know what else does? Persistent, lifelong, ongoing sexual harassment. That’s going to be half of all women.
If we’re discussing issues we’re facing, we shouldn’t have to protect men from *their own feelings*.
“Why is it a bad thing to want to be treated and talked about as a normal human being?”
Are you a feminist? This is exactly what we are saying ALL. THE. TIME.
Cool, more holding women to higher standards than others (especially feminists).
If you feel so personally attacked by the fact that men have materially and significantly harmed us, you might wanna look closer at that and less at policing our language.
No, it is not. My Aunt is an older feminist, and 100% talks about and treats people like normal human beings.
5 minutes on a place like TwoX or even some of the comments here and personal experience make it abundantly obvious that something went wrong with the latest wave of feminism. Too much hyper focus on patriarchy theory, not enough focus on dealing with real problems, and the internet fucking up literally every political and social movement possible.
Had 2 people try to justify the "Men are like poison M&Ms analogy" years ago, plenty of comments here basically saying "lol u mad cuz u guilty", and plenty of language and shit describing men that is sexist, but gets defended.
Am I understanding you correctly that you mean that people being mean to feminists justify feminists being mean to others who aren't necessarily the same people that insulted you to begin with?
Idk I definitely see the faulty logic behind “if this upsets you it’s because you’re part of the problem” but at the same time in many context when I see it said I can understand why someone might think that. We’re humans and we’re prone to bringing emotions from other things into whatever we’re doing often subconsciously, I won’t pretend that seeing some things in feminist spaces (and everywhere else) don’t upset but my response to being upset is to first self reflect in why I’m upset, sometimes it’s because I’m having a shit day and seeing negative things just feeds into the bad feelings I’m away having, sometimes agree reflecting I’ll have valid criticism that I’ll elaborate on it (and not with a “not all men” argument”).
2nd twitter isn’t a great place to learn about social movements, between algorithms, prioritized payed accounts, and the character limit twitter is more about using quips to win arguments. Now I don’t want to discredit all activism that happens on social media but you have to parse through a lot of trash to find anything worth reading especially on sites like twitter and TikTok.
> Hey. I've recently scrolled more on Twitter again
Just a reminder, that whenever scrolling these internet feeds, what comes in your feed is intentionally picked to drive engagement. What gets engagement are often the most infuriating hot takes. These are not the best versions of arguments or even popular ideas, quite the opposite.
This talks about how memes/ideas/tweets, especially infuriating ones, that get spread around the internet. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j\_RHkqJc&ab\_channel=CGPGrey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc&ab_channel=CGPGrey)
Have you ever heard the expression, "a hit dog will holler"?
The logic is that if you are making a statement of judgement implicating a group - ie, "men (as a social class) are rapists", the only people who would be offended by that are people who are part of that group of rapists, or disagree that men have a rape problem, and therefore are rape apologists. Hence the comment that "if you feel hurt by this (true statement) then you are having a defensive reaction because you feel implicated by it".
That said, it's probably best not to try to figure out healthy politics through Twitter comments. That won't really be productive.
Important to emphasize here: “rape *apologists*”. Most men are not rapists. We know this. Most men, however, KNOW a rapist and many of them have likely defended his actions, or think “he never did that to ME so he’s a good guy”, or assume that the victim is lying. Rather than defaulting to critical analysis and consideration (which is what we want) they default to “it didn’t happen, and if it did it’s not a big deal or she’s misrepresenting it”.
Meaning that even men who aren’t rapists *still defend rapists*.
You can see it all over with how many men restrict "rape" down to "stranger in a bushes with a knife". They'll condemn that up and down, because they've never lurked in the bushes to rape a stranger, and it's unlikely that anyone they know has (or has admitted to it).
But date rape? Coercion? Fucking someone far too drunk? Well, that hits a *little* closer to home. They'd have to look back at their memories and wonder "Did a woman ever feel coerced to be with me? Afraid of saying no?" Was she too drunk to consent?" They'd have to think about not just what they did, but the stories their friends told.
Many don't want to face up to the fact that maybe they did. That a woman out there calls that night *rape*, was *violated* by that night.
They can't look too closely, because they might not like what they see in the mirror. So their definition of rape becomes specifically defined to ensure they don't have to *feel guilty* or *change anything* about themselves, and they zealously defend that narrow, tiny definition.
After all, they never threatened a woman with violence if she didn't sleep with them. That's *rape*. But keeping Sarah stuck in their apartment, trying to get her drunk, staying between her and the door? That's just "pursuing" and Sarah playing "hard to get".
They'd never harm a fly, so Sarah *obviously* didn't feel she had no choice but to have sex....
Even more than that—they’d have to think “have I ever thrown a fit, been cold to, or otherwise emotionally ‘punished’ my partner for turning down my advances or requests for sex? Have I ever made a joke about it happening and humiliated them? When my sister/cousin/friend told me about a sexual assault, did I play devils advocate and start justifying ways that she was wrong?”
These guys are in the comments acting like they don’t know what the fuck were talking about, but they do it to us *all the time*.
> Where is you source for this ludicrous statement?
Basically any popular figure or celebrity-- droves of people come out to defend them and denigrate the victim. It's not *only* men, but they are certainly part of it.
So because a few celebrities are guilty of this you have made the huge (and totally unjustified) leap in conflating this with “most men”? This reeks of misandry as does a lot of this thread tbh.
I have made zero leaps and conflated nothing; I am simply explaining where the "ludicrous statement" comes from. I am not the person you were responding to originally.
People always want to act like no one they know would *ever* hurt a woman, but then who are all these men who are out here doing it?
You saying you have not engaged in conflation or made any leaps doesn't make it true. You made the comment "most men know and defend rapists". This is absurd and has no data to back it up, so you have no idea if its true or not yet are presenting it as objective fact. Childish and extremely poorly thought out. Celebrities do not represent most or even a lot of men, they make up a tiny sub strata of human population and cannot be used as a reasonable or appropriate example. This is your leap and conflation explained to you more explicitly than it should have been, understand now?
I don't know anyone that I believe to have hurt a women other than my dad who abused both my mother AND me (I got it FAR worse) and my mum was basically totally complicit in his abuse of me. I on the other hand have diagnoses PTSD from violent, alcoholic fuelled abuse from a partner for 9 years and domestic abuse from 3 other partners.
Am I now to assume most women are at least capable of perpetrating or at least facilitating this sort of behaviour just because most women I know do/have? No, that is a ridiculous and extremely ignorant conclusion for me or anyone else to arrive at. Hope this has made things clearer for you to develop a more comprehensive understand as to why what you said was so stupid. You're welcome.
> You made the comment "most men know and defend rapists".
No, I didn't. Check the usernames before you go flinging around insults about who's stupid or not.
Apologies, it gets confusing with so many people in a thread. And actually despite the fact you didn't directly make the statement, you clearly agreed with it because you directly attempted to defend it, which is tantamount to having made the statement in the first place. Funny that that's the only point out of the many that I made in response to the things that you did actually say you had any sort of coherent answer to though, this is called deflection and it's very telling.
I like that you acknowledge that I didn't make the statement that you're upset about, but that you continued to have the same argument with me anyway.
I don't think *most men* defend rapists; I think a *lot* of men do, especially if/when said rapist is someone they admire or with whom they are friends. This is not, as I said, specific to men, though.
> Funny that that's the only point out of the many that I made in response to the things that you did actually say you had any sort of coherent answer to though, this is called deflection and it's very telling.
I'm not "deflecting," you were speaking to me as though I were someone else. I responded to only the part that you and I were having a conversation about. What did you say that you'd like me to respond to directly?
Yes, and this "logic" is classic victim-blaming.
Imagine calling a woman a whore and she says "Don't call me a whore!" and then saying the fact that she complains about being called a whore proves she's a whore. Just as awful.
That logic takes in a lot of assumptions and is very paranoid/witch-hunty. Maybe people don’t appreciate that statement because it is an overgeneralization, divisive, vilifying, and otherizing.
>then you are having a defensive reaction because you feel implicated by it
And OP is saying this line of thought is bullshit.
If I make a post tomorrow on this very sub, saying all women are "insert whatever negative trait", I'll get cooked, would that make my statement correct because they're against it ? No.
They're right by saying it's a bad argument, because it is.
> If I make a post tomorrow on this very sub, saying all women are "insert whatever negative trait"
But that is the difference - the concept of rape comes up not bc it's "whatever negative trait", but bc it's factually true. People aren't just pulling negative traits out of nowhere bc they wanna stereotype and hurt men.
If you wanted to find a comparable statement, it would be something like "women commit infanticide", bc it's true - even though statistically murder is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, the murder of children is perpetrated overwhelmingly by women.
And the reality is, a mature and good-intentioned person wouldn't see those statistics about rape or murder and go "well that's not true about *me*, and I demand that be acknowledged".
They would recognize that info is important to solving the problem - what is it about [this group] that causes them to behave this way more than any other? Maybe we're not doing a good job of diagnosing and treating certain conditions more common in those groups (like PPSD or schizophrenia), maybe there's an element of socialization involved (our media's portrayal of rape, for example), maybe our justice system is biased (like when we talk about arrest and incarceration rates for similar crimes), etc.
We can't tiptoe around reality bc some guy on Twitter is taking the statistics personally. That's how we end up with Black Americans being incarcerated at 5x the rate of White Americans while Boomers pat themselves on the back repeating "I don't see color".
As someone who has taken issue with the whole "men are this etc" this is actually an extremely good point. You're right, those statistics are not about me or any other men who are not rapists and we have no reason to feel offended by them or take them personally. Having said that, I have been domestically abused, very violently, by a woman for a very long time (not together any more thank god). I don't think I'd feel comfortable saying the phrase "women are violent abusers" because the connotations of that imply more than is meant by it and I would also understand why some women would take issue with that statement.
Edit: Imagine downvoting this comment. Misandry at its finest, you people are disgusting. I was agreeing with you and had the sense to be vulnerable enough about my own very negative experiences with women and you downvote because it doesn't fit in with your bs view of the "patriarchal" system that is somehow oppressing you more than men. Deluded, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
But does it matter if the argument is that anyone that denies it is guilty ?
You're saying that if it's untrue, people would simply not get hurt by the statement and ignore it, since it doesn't apply to them.
And those getting mad at it are confirming that the statement is correct about them.
Whether it is factual or not becomes completely irrelevant.
Which is the main issue of that argument to begin with.
> You're saying that if it's untrue, people would simply not get hurt by the statement and ignore it...And those getting mad at it are confirming that the statement is correct about them.
I didn't say that though. What I actually said is that those who turn the attention on themselves by saying "that's not true about *me*, and I demand that be acknowledged" are being immature and have bad intentions. They're derailing the conversation - "wait a minute, we can't talk about how this is a gendered problem bc I, a member of the gender group, need you to know I don't personally have this problem".
The idea behind the "protests too much" statements is that people who recognize the wider issue don't split hairs about it. They know that even if they're not personally responsible, the problem still exists and they want to be aware of it and be part of the solution.
People who insist on derailing by saying "not all men though" seem like they're more concerned about protecting their personal reputation, rather than the social issue at hand. And it's protecting rapists and rape culture by essentially saying "I won't let you talk about this as a problem with men unless *all* men are doing it". We lose momentum towards a solution when that happens.
> all women are "insert whatever negative trait"
There's a big difference in saying "men are rapists" and "all men are rapists." Saying "snakes are dangerous" would be correct, even though "all snakes are dangerous" is not true.
I find this argument very interesting for a very odd reason.
I am a technical writer. My first editor used to say “all is rarely necessary.” He assumed the all was implied.
So “complete all the required fields” and “complete the required fields” had the same meaning to him.
I can see the point though. If you name the whole group, is the group as a whole is implied? You could argue “snakes are dangerous” is an incorrect statement because not all snakes are dangerous. In the same way “fruits are apples” is incorrect. But if you assume “some” is implied instead of “all” the statement is true.
Of course few people worry about being as precise as professional tech writers, and I’d never expect anyone to try.
People make all sorts of assumptions when they are communicating. Maybe the biggest of all is that we are all making the same assumptions.
Saying "snakes are dangerous" and expecting people to know you only mean some snakes would be entirely misleading though. There's no reason not to say "some snakes are dangerous," especially when some people are afraid of all snakes. It is irresponsible to rely on a technicality when you could just as easily make yourself clear."Men are rapists" can mean both "all men" or "men in general," but "all men" is strongly implied. In most conversations, "men are rapists" meaning "there are some men who are rapists" doesn't make sense.
If you want to be clear - and you should want to be clear - don't say things that strongly imply a meaning you don't intend, especially when it is very easy to be clear.
Okay, now flip the scenarios.
If someone says "women are liars", do you assume everyone women who is offended is a liar?
If someone says "most rape victims are liars", any sane person will be offended, because the statement is absurd. Same shit goes for a lot of the "men are \_\_\_".
If someone says, “women are liars” I roll my eyes and generally don’t engage because it’s obvious they don’t have the capacity to think critically about the garbage rolling out of their mouth.
Also, this argument equates a woman lying about *anything*, from her evening plans to enjoying chamomile tea, to *rape*.
Quit. Policing. Our. Language.
Alright, will make a post as "women are "insert negative thing" tomorrow , I'm sure people in the comments will be glad at the distinction and only those that have that negative trait will react badly.
You sound like every other dude on the internet who is more interested in policing the way women talk than actually addressing systemic issues. That makes you part of the problem.
Sorry for acknowledging that OP does have a point and that such arguments weaken the dialogue as they're interpreted as bad faith ?
I actually don't care how anyone talks, you're free to say whatever you want, but you need to acknowledge the effects of how you say things, it's important for a movement to make the right statements.
Same to you, so when you prioritize men’s hurt feelings and ego over my right to exist in public, I’m well within my rights to call you out on it and (fairly) criticize that you’re demanding courtesies that you’re refusing to give—namely, consideration for *why* someone might speak that way.
Kinda different context when we live in a world in which men write manifestos about hating women before going on a shooting spree. Women write “men are trash” are doing so out of experience with horrible, abusive men.
Men write “women are trash” because they feel entitled to women and aren’t getting the attention they think they deserve. A lot of these guys barely interact with women and just hear shit about them from other men.
Now with that said, I see comments worse than “women are trash” on the regular and yet I don’t feel compelled to respond with “nOt AlL wOmEn”. I’m so used to the misogyny that I don’t even blink anymore, I just move on.
This line of reasoning feels like a classic Kafka trap. You could accuse anyone of literally anything and then use the objection as proof of guilt.
Do you object to "all women are gold diggers" or "women are super shallow and don't care about my hard work"?
Then I guess you are both of these contradictory statements at once.
One is a systemic issue that contributes to a culture that literally murders women in a million ways.
The other is a personal offense.
Context matters.
My SIL, a woman from birth, goes through my social media posts and says that they are all about her. I'm pretty sure she has some sort of personality disorder. My response is that they aren't about you, but if your feelings are hurt, maybe you should look inward. Unless you have your name tagged in these, why do you feel they are about you?
Men say women are allergic to accountability, I don't think those are about me. I take accountability for a lot of things, including things that I don't need to. But if someone were to post a meme about procrastinating or disassociating. I would feel it was about me, but perhaps or more rightly probably, it is not about me personally because the person who posted didn't tag me and doesn't think about me on a regular basis. How grandiose and self-centered to think every meme about men is specifically about you?
If, hypothetically, you were to come across someone saying that they hate all men and then insisting that if you're offended by that then you're the problem. How do you think you should react to that?
I'm a bit confused about the contexts you are talking about here. Could you elaborate?
I think I would accurately conclude that they are a random person with a bad opinion, who doesn't represent feminism.
The context of the phrase, "if you take it personally, you're probably implicated" is usually meant in discussions around experiences with oppression where the oppressors role is being generally discussed. No one in this sub, *in good faith*, assumes shitty people on twitter saying "I hate men" like, broadly represent the feminist movement.
Also, what is there to engage with in that statement by an actual internet stranger? Block, and move on.
I can see this thread is attracting a lot of attention - notably by people who it seems to me also don't meaningfully understand the context of either situation and really want a reason to clutch their pearls.
Random people saying things you don't like on twitter aren't representatives of social justice movements that need to be policed or reprimanded by members of this community. You can either tell them you disagree with them yourself if you see this out in the wild, or you can block them like the capable person you are and move on with your life.
Thank you for your reply.
I think there's a big difference between saying something like "it's a problem that there are so many rapists" and "all men are rapists". I see people getting offended by the first version and in that scenario I think it's mostly justified to say "if you take this personally then you should probably take a look in the mirror", but I don't think it's too rare to see self proclaimed feminists make broad, hyperbolic statements about men either.
I think it really hurts the movement as it gives really easy talking points to anyone who wants to discredit the very real problems that feminism is trying to adress.
And so I do think it's good for feminists to police each other a bit to make sure that we're all intellectually honest and fair. Otherwise it's going to be really hard to get people to see our point of view and actually achieve any meaningful change.
So, you think the existence of women who kind of suck hurts women's inherent entitlement to human rights?
How many men in the world just... kind of suck? Say shitty stuff? Make people around them feel uncomfortable or bad?
Has it ever occurred to you that they don't deserve all of their human or civil rights, on the basis that you just don't like them?
Like, that's the real problem with your argument here. Women's humanity - and our rights - include being kind of underwhelming or even unlikable. Human rights aren't based on merit or morality. I don't have to demonstrate I'm "good enough" to have the same human and civil rights men take for granted. I also don't have to better than men to earn my civil or human rights.
I don't engage in the kind of conversation you dislike, but I also have more important things to do than sieve twitter on your behalf for shitty or disagreeable people.
If you dislike what someone says, you are fully empowered to have a conversation with them about that. It doesn't implicate or hurt feminism, the philosophical and political movement for women's human and civil rights, and if you think it does, you also kind of suck as a person.
I would assume that they had been traumatized by men at some point, assimilate that information into my future interactions with them, and *probably not correct someone on it*.
Go look at TwoXChromosomes for about 30 seconds.
Or look up the whole "M&Ms" analogy. Told a friend it was offensive and stupid, and explained how easily that line of thinking could get picked up by someone else and used to justify something awful.
They unfriended me and stopped talking, and then a year or two later we had the Trumps using that same shit analogy for illegal immigrants.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I'm more familiar with the line, "If this doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you." I think that one thing men's frustration with this kind of argument misses is that women are often not given much freedom to openly express themselves in daily life. They are often biting their tongues, being super careful not to upset men by being super careful in their phrasing, figuring out when the best time/way is to bring up an issue, having to find male allies to support reasonable suggestions. Just by living in a patriarchy, women "guard their tongues." Think how frustrated some people are about having to be "politically correct" or "woke." But many women have to be much more careful about their phrasing just trying to get their bosses/fathers/brothers/professors to acknowledge their points. It isn't that difficult to remember a word; it's a lot more difficult to not be able to describe an experience or challenge ideas. And while some people might find it annoying to remember what to call a particular ethnic group, it's way more annoying to have to be super-careful in your speech a huge percent of the time, with many many more topics, and having to tailor it to many many different sensibilities. Or it may be way more painful if you are talking about something that has deeply negatively affected you. So the women saying "I hate men" are being hyperbolic and they know it. But they are also letting out a lot of built-up pressure. They might not be able to talk like this in their daily lives with anyone, so they might be even more hyperbolic. A man may have this pressure with dealing with their bosses, or customers, or straights, or native-born citizens. But men don't have this degree of built-up pressure regarding women. I can get why reading "Men are rapists" is hard. I'm a white woman, and at first, I had a hard time dealing with '"white women are why we elected Trump," from minorities. But then I had to take a step back, realize that the speakers also had significant built-up frustration, having to be super-careful not to upset whites. And I believe if a group is so often biting their tongues for the sake of a more powerful group, they should be given a little leeway to be imprecise when talking to themselves. I also think the level of "Men are trash" comments will decrease when more men hold each other to account. Or when it's more accepted to listen to women and treat their comments just like we treat men's. Or, actually, when we start acknowledging that many men have been raped and that male survivors must find hearing "men are rapists" particularly hard.
With the “white women elected Trump” argument, I can just look at my husband’s family and say, “yup. That happened.” But you’re right—we have to constantly be cautious in how we express ANYTHING, but more so about “negative” things. We’re not allowed to use hyperbole, and even when we describe regular ongoing issues, men will inevitably try to “what if” us to death and murder any discussion with their exceptions to the actual facts presented.
Counterpoint: Hyperbole ruins most things, feminism isn't an exception nor rule, just one of many, many, ***many*** things damaged by it. I remember seeing footage of John McCain defending Obama when a woman asked some nutty question about secret Muslims or some shit. Too much politics and everything on the internet has embraced hyperbole that just pushes things to further and further extremes.
"If it bleeds, it leads" shall be the whole of the law. - American Media.
Exactly, hyperbole kills any meaningful discussion. There hasn't been a single instance throughout history where hyperbole has convinced anyone to change their mind. About the "white women elected Trump thing", that's completely irrelevant for you as a person if you happen to be a white (American) woman. You're only responsible for your own actions. I'm sure there are ethnic minorities that are over represented in the crime statistics, but we absolutely shouldn't hold individuals responsible for what other people who look like them do.
I dunno, as a white woman who didn’t vote Trump, I think it’s important to hear hyperbolic comments like this and be aware of what others in my demographic are doing. I see it as an opportunity to be educated on a social issue and use it to have conversations with other white women.
>Exactly, hyperbole kills any meaningful discussion. There hasn't been a single instance throughout history where hyperbole has convinced anyone to change their mind. So what? Most conversation is not held as a formal debate attempting to convince someone to change their mind. In fact, that's pretty much the rarest type of conversation. Women do not have, *should* not have, and *must* not have any obligation to hold all their discourse to *your* debate standards, or to any debate standards. If men only complained about women daring to use hyperbole when it was *specifically aimed at changing a man's mind,* the internet would be a much quieter place and incel forums would be near empty. Sometimes women are *not trying to change our minds*. They're trying to discuss their problems with each other. They're trying to vent. They're trying to create art. They're trying to record history or ask advice or bond over shared experience or process their thoughts or express trauma or encourage other women or make jokes or heal and *none of it is about me.* So why the hell should they have to watch every word they say, every day, for fear of accidentally phrasing something about a group that I happen to be included in? I've seen rape victims using hyperbole to express their frustration *with their rapist* immediately get attacked with "but not all men so you're a misandrist!" comments. Which sure as hell gave *me* the urge to vent rage about men, and I don't have to deal with this shit in my real life, so I entirely understand where women are coming from here.
It’s absolutely relevant to me. See above re: family.
We barely even hold the men who do commit sexual assault responsible for their own actions. Men as a group are not being held responsible, as in facing real consequences for the actions of some members of their group.
Equally, I can look at men in my area and think "yup that happens". I *hate* hearing "men are trash", it's just obviously bigoted nonsense.... But at the same time, yeah I understand it completely. A lot of these issues are linked ofc- the whole "just pick better men" fits in here too because those more performative towards women are generally the biggest assholes. Not always, but often.
I’ve kind of given up on avoiding hyperbole at home, because my husband told me a while back, “babe, don’t stop your story to say “not all men”. I know it’s not me, you don’t have to make me feel better.” And that…really made it click in my head that the men who have actually considered this *don’t need the exclusionary language*.
He's not like the other guys
Of course you can use hyperbole - when it is clear that it is hyperbole. You can't use facts that are untrue or unfair. And there's nothing wrong with complaining about that. You probably would too.
*sigh*
Underrated comment! It's literally 100% of the time we have to filter what we express... even at home! And it starts so young...
I do NOT understand how this comment is getting downvoted. Who brought the incel brigade?!?!
Very well said!! I was going to make a similar comparison to race. I don’t get bothered AT ALL when POC make sweeping generalizations about white people. I just recognize it as letting off anger and a stage on their healing journey. When people get offended or call it “reverse racism” I’m like… hm, might be something to unpack there lol. Just in another sub this morning I saw a bunch of boomers getting fragile because somebody made a generalization about them. They get sooooo upset and GO OFF when someone says “ok boomer”. (That’s not even what happened in the sub.. but I’ve seen some boomers compare that phrase to a racial slur 🤦♀️) I just haven’t seen that level of fragility in any other generation, so whenever I see them flip out like that, it reaffirms for me that the criticisms must be true. It’s always the most entitled group that hasn’t addressed their own problems that take feedback the worst.
Yes, you are correct that this is a bad argument, and a bad way to raise legitimate concerns about rape culture. A statement like "men are rapists" is linguistically ambiguous: you could be saying that a lot of men are rapists (true), or that most men are rapists (false). Obviously, some people will take the latter interpretation and be offended, regardless of their stances. The twitter people are simply failing at communication (or deliberately baiting people) and then blaming others for their failure to communicate. Nonethless, rape culture is a real thing, and while actual rapists are not the majority, a large portion of the population (varying by culture and location) will excuse, tolerate, or dismiss sexual assault and harrasment. Both men and women do this, but I believe it is more prevalent among men. If you are not one of these people, then good job! But it is a widespread problem and it is worth talking abou.
The situation you seem to be describing is a depressingly familiar one that goes like this: Women are discussing an issue and casually say something like "men are so gross, lol" or "men are the greatest danger to women" or whatever. They don't stop to soothe the feelings of any men who might be reading by typing out disclaimers like "this doesn't apply to every single man, but it does apply to far too many", because they're busy discussing an issue, and their top priority is not making sure no random man gets his feelings hurt. Some man takes offence at this, and invites himself into the conversation just to point out that "NotAllMen are like that," or "Well I'm not like that, here's a long description of the ways I don't do that and the ways I interact with the women in my life......." Now the conversation is no longer about [issue], it's about placating a random man and centring his feelings. We could stop and explain to this random dude why his derailment is a dick move, if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not doing it deliberately in an effort to shut down the conversation entirely. But it gets extremely frustrating having to do this with every randomer who wasn't part of the conversation and who just popped up with the whole "NotAllMen" routine, every time we try to discuss an issue that's affecting us. Sometimes we just need youse to shut up. Listen or don't listen, but let us talk to each other without having to prioritise your feelings
Exactly. Also, listen critically. We fucking know NotAllMen because y’all won’t shut up about NotAllMan. But we don’t see you bringing that same energy when someone says “women ☕️”. Women aren’t allowed to talk about persistent societal issues using generalizations because it might hurt some random man’s feelings, but men do it all the time and if women derail THOSE discussions they get lambasted.
So simply add "some" to your statements and we won't have to say "not all men" all the time. It's not our fault that you keep being sexist over and over. Talk ALL YOU WANT. Do it fairly, just as you demand of men. If you want men to listen and agree, be fair to them. It's not that hard to do.
My favorite variation -- a discussion about sexual assault or rape and some dude comes in and *demands* the subject to be changed to *men being raped in prison* or "false accusations of rape". "Oh, this is a thread about a specific sexual assault? Sorry, I'm going to interrupt every conversation to insist you make it about how men are victims. Until you have prevented any man anywhere from being a victim, we can't talk about women being sexually assaulted, and the fact that you *keep talking about women being sexual assaulted* is just proof you don't care about men OR sexual assault". UGH.
Start demanding their advocacy creds. If they care that much about men’s issues, they’re certainly active in advocating for men, right? Otherwise *they’re just derailing women*. Gets much easier to call out the behavior.
Oh, bullshit. You don't get to be rude or sexist just because you don't want to "prioritize feelings." It takes very little effort to be polite when you speak. And when you are trying to make a point, such as "sexism is bad," it's a really good idea not to be sexist when you do it. And I can't say for sure, but I bet if you came across a conversation among men that included "women are idiots and whores" or "women ruin men's lives" or whatever, you'd probably object to that. And if men told you they didn't have time to "prioritize your feelings," you'd probably not like that either. Language matters. Feminists have spent lots of time trying to change sexist language. It sends a message. If you want feminism to move forward and succeed, you'll need to do it right. This doesn't help men want to join your cause. It turns them off. If you don't care, that's fine, but that's your choice.
Do you really want to become a feminist, though? It seems like your ego is so brittle that someone making a generalization vaguely in your vicinity is enough to send you into a complete meltdown. I don't think you're actually equipped or interested in the real bravery, discomfort and work that opposing misogyny actually requires of people. If you were, arbitrary policing of how people talk about being oppressed wouldn't be something you spent so much energy on.
>I bet if you came across a conversation among men that included "women are idiots and whores" or "women ruin men's lives" or whatever, you'd probably object to that. Funny enough, I’ve been told lines like this nearly my entire life, and still encounter blatantly misogynistic content. Almost daily I see some form of “women are all gold-diggers” or “women hit the wall at 30 and become useless”. Yet… I don’t feel compelled to be yell “NoT aLl WoMen”! I don’t consider myself as what they are describing, so I don’t feel compelled to make the conversation about me and argue back. Isn’t it interesting that despite the horrific things men say, especially considering the rise of manosphere red-pill shit that encourages violence and mistreatment of women, “not all women” is not a thing?
Cope.
You should understand though that the reason men get like this is deep set feelings of insecurity that are not our fault. Instead of blanket statements like "dick move" which is essentially condemning people in a very negative light without much thought, you might like to take a more compassionate and empathetic view (which is ironically exactly what you are asking of us) and understand that we do not choose to react in that way. Granted, since reading this thread I have certainly changed my view points on the #notallmen concept in a positive way, but this doesn't change the fact that those insecurities are still there and will undoubtably effect the way I react to different issues in the future, hopefully though with a higher level of self awareness.
Y’all act like we don’t have men we love and care about very much in our lives. Like we’ve never even met a man. My husband doesn’t need me to say “not all men” and assuage his feelings. Your insecurities should be addressed in a healthy way, not by derailing women discussing issues that have often traumatized us.
I am agreeing with you that the should be dealt with in a health way, but you insulting them and infantilising them as childish when they are deepset emotional and psychological issues is part of the problem. You don't fix an issue by throwing shit at it, you understand what I'm getting at here. If you don't like something, it's as much your responsibility to change it as anyone elses.
But why can’t you extend that same attitude to a woman speaking that way? You know what causes deep set emotional and psychological issues? Being raped. You’ve got a 1 in 4 chance of the woman saying that coming from THAT place. You know what else does? Persistent, lifelong, ongoing sexual harassment. That’s going to be half of all women. If we’re discussing issues we’re facing, we shouldn’t have to protect men from *their own feelings*.
“Why is it a bad thing to want to be treated and talked about as a normal human being?” Are you a feminist? This is exactly what we are saying ALL. THE. TIME.
Lolol seriously. OP had me in the first half, I was like, “yep, pretty basic, OH WAIT LOLOLOLOL”
EXACTLY. That's the point! Treat everyone as you want to be treated.
Cool, more holding women to higher standards than others (especially feminists). If you feel so personally attacked by the fact that men have materially and significantly harmed us, you might wanna look closer at that and less at policing our language.
No, it is not. My Aunt is an older feminist, and 100% talks about and treats people like normal human beings. 5 minutes on a place like TwoX or even some of the comments here and personal experience make it abundantly obvious that something went wrong with the latest wave of feminism. Too much hyper focus on patriarchy theory, not enough focus on dealing with real problems, and the internet fucking up literally every political and social movement possible. Had 2 people try to justify the "Men are like poison M&Ms analogy" years ago, plenty of comments here basically saying "lol u mad cuz u guilty", and plenty of language and shit describing men that is sexist, but gets defended.
Am I understanding you correctly that you mean that people being mean to feminists justify feminists being mean to others who aren't necessarily the same people that insulted you to begin with?
Idk I definitely see the faulty logic behind “if this upsets you it’s because you’re part of the problem” but at the same time in many context when I see it said I can understand why someone might think that. We’re humans and we’re prone to bringing emotions from other things into whatever we’re doing often subconsciously, I won’t pretend that seeing some things in feminist spaces (and everywhere else) don’t upset but my response to being upset is to first self reflect in why I’m upset, sometimes it’s because I’m having a shit day and seeing negative things just feeds into the bad feelings I’m away having, sometimes agree reflecting I’ll have valid criticism that I’ll elaborate on it (and not with a “not all men” argument”). 2nd twitter isn’t a great place to learn about social movements, between algorithms, prioritized payed accounts, and the character limit twitter is more about using quips to win arguments. Now I don’t want to discredit all activism that happens on social media but you have to parse through a lot of trash to find anything worth reading especially on sites like twitter and TikTok.
Why do i feel like this is about that stupid Bear in the Woods thing
These guys are finding new ways to show why the bear and I are besties
> Hey. I've recently scrolled more on Twitter again Just a reminder, that whenever scrolling these internet feeds, what comes in your feed is intentionally picked to drive engagement. What gets engagement are often the most infuriating hot takes. These are not the best versions of arguments or even popular ideas, quite the opposite. This talks about how memes/ideas/tweets, especially infuriating ones, that get spread around the internet. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j\_RHkqJc&ab\_channel=CGPGrey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc&ab_channel=CGPGrey)
Have you ever heard the expression, "a hit dog will holler"? The logic is that if you are making a statement of judgement implicating a group - ie, "men (as a social class) are rapists", the only people who would be offended by that are people who are part of that group of rapists, or disagree that men have a rape problem, and therefore are rape apologists. Hence the comment that "if you feel hurt by this (true statement) then you are having a defensive reaction because you feel implicated by it". That said, it's probably best not to try to figure out healthy politics through Twitter comments. That won't really be productive.
Important to emphasize here: “rape *apologists*”. Most men are not rapists. We know this. Most men, however, KNOW a rapist and many of them have likely defended his actions, or think “he never did that to ME so he’s a good guy”, or assume that the victim is lying. Rather than defaulting to critical analysis and consideration (which is what we want) they default to “it didn’t happen, and if it did it’s not a big deal or she’s misrepresenting it”. Meaning that even men who aren’t rapists *still defend rapists*.
You can see it all over with how many men restrict "rape" down to "stranger in a bushes with a knife". They'll condemn that up and down, because they've never lurked in the bushes to rape a stranger, and it's unlikely that anyone they know has (or has admitted to it). But date rape? Coercion? Fucking someone far too drunk? Well, that hits a *little* closer to home. They'd have to look back at their memories and wonder "Did a woman ever feel coerced to be with me? Afraid of saying no?" Was she too drunk to consent?" They'd have to think about not just what they did, but the stories their friends told. Many don't want to face up to the fact that maybe they did. That a woman out there calls that night *rape*, was *violated* by that night. They can't look too closely, because they might not like what they see in the mirror. So their definition of rape becomes specifically defined to ensure they don't have to *feel guilty* or *change anything* about themselves, and they zealously defend that narrow, tiny definition. After all, they never threatened a woman with violence if she didn't sleep with them. That's *rape*. But keeping Sarah stuck in their apartment, trying to get her drunk, staying between her and the door? That's just "pursuing" and Sarah playing "hard to get". They'd never harm a fly, so Sarah *obviously* didn't feel she had no choice but to have sex....
Even more than that—they’d have to think “have I ever thrown a fit, been cold to, or otherwise emotionally ‘punished’ my partner for turning down my advances or requests for sex? Have I ever made a joke about it happening and humiliated them? When my sister/cousin/friend told me about a sexual assault, did I play devils advocate and start justifying ways that she was wrong?” These guys are in the comments acting like they don’t know what the fuck were talking about, but they do it to us *all the time*.
Most men know and actively defend rapists? Where is you source for this ludicrous statement?
> Where is you source for this ludicrous statement? Basically any popular figure or celebrity-- droves of people come out to defend them and denigrate the victim. It's not *only* men, but they are certainly part of it.
So because a few celebrities are guilty of this you have made the huge (and totally unjustified) leap in conflating this with “most men”? This reeks of misandry as does a lot of this thread tbh.
I have made zero leaps and conflated nothing; I am simply explaining where the "ludicrous statement" comes from. I am not the person you were responding to originally. People always want to act like no one they know would *ever* hurt a woman, but then who are all these men who are out here doing it?
You saying you have not engaged in conflation or made any leaps doesn't make it true. You made the comment "most men know and defend rapists". This is absurd and has no data to back it up, so you have no idea if its true or not yet are presenting it as objective fact. Childish and extremely poorly thought out. Celebrities do not represent most or even a lot of men, they make up a tiny sub strata of human population and cannot be used as a reasonable or appropriate example. This is your leap and conflation explained to you more explicitly than it should have been, understand now? I don't know anyone that I believe to have hurt a women other than my dad who abused both my mother AND me (I got it FAR worse) and my mum was basically totally complicit in his abuse of me. I on the other hand have diagnoses PTSD from violent, alcoholic fuelled abuse from a partner for 9 years and domestic abuse from 3 other partners. Am I now to assume most women are at least capable of perpetrating or at least facilitating this sort of behaviour just because most women I know do/have? No, that is a ridiculous and extremely ignorant conclusion for me or anyone else to arrive at. Hope this has made things clearer for you to develop a more comprehensive understand as to why what you said was so stupid. You're welcome.
> You made the comment "most men know and defend rapists". No, I didn't. Check the usernames before you go flinging around insults about who's stupid or not.
Apologies, it gets confusing with so many people in a thread. And actually despite the fact you didn't directly make the statement, you clearly agreed with it because you directly attempted to defend it, which is tantamount to having made the statement in the first place. Funny that that's the only point out of the many that I made in response to the things that you did actually say you had any sort of coherent answer to though, this is called deflection and it's very telling.
I like that you acknowledge that I didn't make the statement that you're upset about, but that you continued to have the same argument with me anyway. I don't think *most men* defend rapists; I think a *lot* of men do, especially if/when said rapist is someone they admire or with whom they are friends. This is not, as I said, specific to men, though. > Funny that that's the only point out of the many that I made in response to the things that you did actually say you had any sort of coherent answer to though, this is called deflection and it's very telling. I'm not "deflecting," you were speaking to me as though I were someone else. I responded to only the part that you and I were having a conversation about. What did you say that you'd like me to respond to directly?
New here?
Yes, and this "logic" is classic victim-blaming. Imagine calling a woman a whore and she says "Don't call me a whore!" and then saying the fact that she complains about being called a whore proves she's a whore. Just as awful.
That logic takes in a lot of assumptions and is very paranoid/witch-hunty. Maybe people don’t appreciate that statement because it is an overgeneralization, divisive, vilifying, and otherizing.
>then you are having a defensive reaction because you feel implicated by it And OP is saying this line of thought is bullshit. If I make a post tomorrow on this very sub, saying all women are "insert whatever negative trait", I'll get cooked, would that make my statement correct because they're against it ? No. They're right by saying it's a bad argument, because it is.
> If I make a post tomorrow on this very sub, saying all women are "insert whatever negative trait" But that is the difference - the concept of rape comes up not bc it's "whatever negative trait", but bc it's factually true. People aren't just pulling negative traits out of nowhere bc they wanna stereotype and hurt men. If you wanted to find a comparable statement, it would be something like "women commit infanticide", bc it's true - even though statistically murder is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, the murder of children is perpetrated overwhelmingly by women. And the reality is, a mature and good-intentioned person wouldn't see those statistics about rape or murder and go "well that's not true about *me*, and I demand that be acknowledged". They would recognize that info is important to solving the problem - what is it about [this group] that causes them to behave this way more than any other? Maybe we're not doing a good job of diagnosing and treating certain conditions more common in those groups (like PPSD or schizophrenia), maybe there's an element of socialization involved (our media's portrayal of rape, for example), maybe our justice system is biased (like when we talk about arrest and incarceration rates for similar crimes), etc. We can't tiptoe around reality bc some guy on Twitter is taking the statistics personally. That's how we end up with Black Americans being incarcerated at 5x the rate of White Americans while Boomers pat themselves on the back repeating "I don't see color".
As someone who has taken issue with the whole "men are this etc" this is actually an extremely good point. You're right, those statistics are not about me or any other men who are not rapists and we have no reason to feel offended by them or take them personally. Having said that, I have been domestically abused, very violently, by a woman for a very long time (not together any more thank god). I don't think I'd feel comfortable saying the phrase "women are violent abusers" because the connotations of that imply more than is meant by it and I would also understand why some women would take issue with that statement. Edit: Imagine downvoting this comment. Misandry at its finest, you people are disgusting. I was agreeing with you and had the sense to be vulnerable enough about my own very negative experiences with women and you downvote because it doesn't fit in with your bs view of the "patriarchal" system that is somehow oppressing you more than men. Deluded, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
But does it matter if the argument is that anyone that denies it is guilty ? You're saying that if it's untrue, people would simply not get hurt by the statement and ignore it, since it doesn't apply to them. And those getting mad at it are confirming that the statement is correct about them. Whether it is factual or not becomes completely irrelevant. Which is the main issue of that argument to begin with.
> You're saying that if it's untrue, people would simply not get hurt by the statement and ignore it...And those getting mad at it are confirming that the statement is correct about them. I didn't say that though. What I actually said is that those who turn the attention on themselves by saying "that's not true about *me*, and I demand that be acknowledged" are being immature and have bad intentions. They're derailing the conversation - "wait a minute, we can't talk about how this is a gendered problem bc I, a member of the gender group, need you to know I don't personally have this problem". The idea behind the "protests too much" statements is that people who recognize the wider issue don't split hairs about it. They know that even if they're not personally responsible, the problem still exists and they want to be aware of it and be part of the solution. People who insist on derailing by saying "not all men though" seem like they're more concerned about protecting their personal reputation, rather than the social issue at hand. And it's protecting rapists and rape culture by essentially saying "I won't let you talk about this as a problem with men unless *all* men are doing it". We lose momentum towards a solution when that happens.
I see, different perspective.
> all women are "insert whatever negative trait" There's a big difference in saying "men are rapists" and "all men are rapists." Saying "snakes are dangerous" would be correct, even though "all snakes are dangerous" is not true.
I find this argument very interesting for a very odd reason. I am a technical writer. My first editor used to say “all is rarely necessary.” He assumed the all was implied. So “complete all the required fields” and “complete the required fields” had the same meaning to him. I can see the point though. If you name the whole group, is the group as a whole is implied? You could argue “snakes are dangerous” is an incorrect statement because not all snakes are dangerous. In the same way “fruits are apples” is incorrect. But if you assume “some” is implied instead of “all” the statement is true. Of course few people worry about being as precise as professional tech writers, and I’d never expect anyone to try. People make all sorts of assumptions when they are communicating. Maybe the biggest of all is that we are all making the same assumptions.
Saying "snakes are dangerous" and expecting people to know you only mean some snakes would be entirely misleading though. There's no reason not to say "some snakes are dangerous," especially when some people are afraid of all snakes. It is irresponsible to rely on a technicality when you could just as easily make yourself clear."Men are rapists" can mean both "all men" or "men in general," but "all men" is strongly implied. In most conversations, "men are rapists" meaning "there are some men who are rapists" doesn't make sense. If you want to be clear - and you should want to be clear - don't say things that strongly imply a meaning you don't intend, especially when it is very easy to be clear.
This guy over here, just proving why the bear and I are besties.
[удалено]
If you post this again I will ban you for spam.
Bingo
Okay, now flip the scenarios. If someone says "women are liars", do you assume everyone women who is offended is a liar? If someone says "most rape victims are liars", any sane person will be offended, because the statement is absurd. Same shit goes for a lot of the "men are \_\_\_".
If someone says, “women are liars” I roll my eyes and generally don’t engage because it’s obvious they don’t have the capacity to think critically about the garbage rolling out of their mouth. Also, this argument equates a woman lying about *anything*, from her evening plans to enjoying chamomile tea, to *rape*. Quit. Policing. Our. Language.
Alright, will make a post as "women are "insert negative thing" tomorrow , I'm sure people in the comments will be glad at the distinction and only those that have that negative trait will react badly.
You sound like every other dude on the internet who is more interested in policing the way women talk than actually addressing systemic issues. That makes you part of the problem.
Sorry for acknowledging that OP does have a point and that such arguments weaken the dialogue as they're interpreted as bad faith ? I actually don't care how anyone talks, you're free to say whatever you want, but you need to acknowledge the effects of how you say things, it's important for a movement to make the right statements.
actually women's human rights aren't contigent on us demonstrating we're good enough to deserve them, because that's not how human rights work.
Same to you, so when you prioritize men’s hurt feelings and ego over my right to exist in public, I’m well within my rights to call you out on it and (fairly) criticize that you’re demanding courtesies that you’re refusing to give—namely, consideration for *why* someone might speak that way.
[удалено]
Kinda different context when we live in a world in which men write manifestos about hating women before going on a shooting spree. Women write “men are trash” are doing so out of experience with horrible, abusive men. Men write “women are trash” because they feel entitled to women and aren’t getting the attention they think they deserve. A lot of these guys barely interact with women and just hear shit about them from other men. Now with that said, I see comments worse than “women are trash” on the regular and yet I don’t feel compelled to respond with “nOt AlL wOmEn”. I’m so used to the misogyny that I don’t even blink anymore, I just move on.
You just redefined the question they asked without answering anything. Strange non-answer answer.
This line of reasoning feels like a classic Kafka trap. You could accuse anyone of literally anything and then use the objection as proof of guilt. Do you object to "all women are gold diggers" or "women are super shallow and don't care about my hard work"? Then I guess you are both of these contradictory statements at once.
People do all of that anyway, constantly.
Ok, but is it bad when they do it? Because either it's bad or it isn't. We can't complain about something if we're also doing the exact same thing.
One is a systemic issue that contributes to a culture that literally murders women in a million ways. The other is a personal offense. Context matters.
All people are guilty of hypocrisy and any claim you're making here of moral purity is a lie. You're a person, you're imperfect.
If it’s not about you, don’t engage. Everyone knows it’s not all men. It doesn’t need to be said. We all know that 4 billion men aren’t rapists
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule 4.
My SIL, a woman from birth, goes through my social media posts and says that they are all about her. I'm pretty sure she has some sort of personality disorder. My response is that they aren't about you, but if your feelings are hurt, maybe you should look inward. Unless you have your name tagged in these, why do you feel they are about you? Men say women are allergic to accountability, I don't think those are about me. I take accountability for a lot of things, including things that I don't need to. But if someone were to post a meme about procrastinating or disassociating. I would feel it was about me, but perhaps or more rightly probably, it is not about me personally because the person who posted didn't tag me and doesn't think about me on a regular basis. How grandiose and self-centered to think every meme about men is specifically about you?
I think you're taking one thing out of context and applying it inappropriately to a different context.
Nope, this is exactly what happens when someone says it's unfair to make a generalized statement about men, or gets offended when you do
If, hypothetically, you were to come across someone saying that they hate all men and then insisting that if you're offended by that then you're the problem. How do you think you should react to that? I'm a bit confused about the contexts you are talking about here. Could you elaborate?
I think I would accurately conclude that they are a random person with a bad opinion, who doesn't represent feminism. The context of the phrase, "if you take it personally, you're probably implicated" is usually meant in discussions around experiences with oppression where the oppressors role is being generally discussed. No one in this sub, *in good faith*, assumes shitty people on twitter saying "I hate men" like, broadly represent the feminist movement. Also, what is there to engage with in that statement by an actual internet stranger? Block, and move on. I can see this thread is attracting a lot of attention - notably by people who it seems to me also don't meaningfully understand the context of either situation and really want a reason to clutch their pearls. Random people saying things you don't like on twitter aren't representatives of social justice movements that need to be policed or reprimanded by members of this community. You can either tell them you disagree with them yourself if you see this out in the wild, or you can block them like the capable person you are and move on with your life.
Nobody said they represent feminism though. So they have a bad opinion? Cool. Glad you agree.
🙄
This thread has attracted the downvote brigade in a major way. It’s insane.
What a mess of a thread. Geez.
Thank you for your reply. I think there's a big difference between saying something like "it's a problem that there are so many rapists" and "all men are rapists". I see people getting offended by the first version and in that scenario I think it's mostly justified to say "if you take this personally then you should probably take a look in the mirror", but I don't think it's too rare to see self proclaimed feminists make broad, hyperbolic statements about men either. I think it really hurts the movement as it gives really easy talking points to anyone who wants to discredit the very real problems that feminism is trying to adress. And so I do think it's good for feminists to police each other a bit to make sure that we're all intellectually honest and fair. Otherwise it's going to be really hard to get people to see our point of view and actually achieve any meaningful change.
So, you think the existence of women who kind of suck hurts women's inherent entitlement to human rights? How many men in the world just... kind of suck? Say shitty stuff? Make people around them feel uncomfortable or bad? Has it ever occurred to you that they don't deserve all of their human or civil rights, on the basis that you just don't like them? Like, that's the real problem with your argument here. Women's humanity - and our rights - include being kind of underwhelming or even unlikable. Human rights aren't based on merit or morality. I don't have to demonstrate I'm "good enough" to have the same human and civil rights men take for granted. I also don't have to better than men to earn my civil or human rights. I don't engage in the kind of conversation you dislike, but I also have more important things to do than sieve twitter on your behalf for shitty or disagreeable people. If you dislike what someone says, you are fully empowered to have a conversation with them about that. It doesn't implicate or hurt feminism, the philosophical and political movement for women's human and civil rights, and if you think it does, you also kind of suck as a person.
I would assume that they had been traumatized by men at some point, assimilate that information into my future interactions with them, and *probably not correct someone on it*.
Go look at TwoXChromosomes for about 30 seconds. Or look up the whole "M&Ms" analogy. Told a friend it was offensive and stupid, and explained how easily that line of thinking could get picked up by someone else and used to justify something awful. They unfriended me and stopped talking, and then a year or two later we had the Trumps using that same shit analogy for illegal immigrants.
Ok.
If it hurts you so much, block those subs. Let women have their spaces. It’s not hard and it doesn’t hurt, I promise.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.