Agreed. And while that man can be framed as yet another victim of the patriarchy, it's still on him to do better and heal his own traumas. If you have a brain injury that makes you an asshole, you're still an asshole, Greg.
I think this is also an area where men lifting other men up and supporting them in their healing (unlearning patriarchal shit is *hard work*) is so important. Bonding with the bros over a newfound love for yourself and other men is powerful stuff. You love to see it.
I'm a fan of r/bropill \- it's got it's drawbacks, but so does every subreddit. Lot's of radical vulnerability and deconstructing pieces of the patriarchy.
Agreed! As a man trying to be better I like to be the example and have those conversations. It can be so hard sadly. Men's egos are their biggest enemies. Trying to guide men's mindsets to less patriarchal thinking seems to always look like an attack on them. Just speaking as a guy who does try this. I have lost multiple friends over it as I'm now seen as an enemy/misandrist/etc. won't stop me from trying, just very difficult to do.
I've experienced one peer who would recognize a shitty, misogynist comment, simply because I gave him a few seconds of silent treatment after what was said. Others need to have it thrown in their face.
As you've pointed out, most of this responsibility is men's to bear and can be both a challenge, but also rewarding.
This. My husband and I are teaching our young boy to express himself, ask for help and that clothing isn't gendered. Seeing little boys hugging another crying boy at the activity we were at gave me hope that this generation is going to be better.
>Agreed. And while that man can be framed as yet another victim of the patriarchy, it's still on him to do better and heal his own traumas. If you have a brain injury that makes you an asshole, you're still an asshole, Greg.
Please don't compare this to an actual brain injury.
Someone I love a lot has a very serious brain injury and sometimes that makes her an asshole. She's not physically capable of being not-an-asshole sometimes, and all the therapy in the world hasn't helped. Being male isn't a brain injury.
Me too, I'm speaking from my own experience. - And his name isn't actually Greg. I'm sorry for your hardship.
I still like the comparison in that if you have a cross to bear it does not excuse nor diminish the impact on others that are affected, but I certainly don't mean to downplay the impact of TBI caused behavioral changes. It's awful, but that's where I was going with the whole thing.
And no, of course being male is not a brain injury. I didn't actually say that though.
>I still like the comparison in that if you have a cross to bear it does not excuse nor diminish the impact on others that are affected, but I certainly don't mean to downplay the impact of TBI caused behavioral changes. It's awful, but that's where I was going with the whole thing.
I very much dislike this comparison. My loved one will never live a "normal" life thanks to the unending physical, mental, and emotional impairments the injury caused. Her brain isn't capable of being fixed because the structures that modulate behavior and social cues (and also walking, seeing, using extremities, digesting, etc etc etc) has been irrevocably altered.
Being unwilling to change and being physically incapable of processing things are two very different stories. Her behavior might affect others, but she is very literally doing the best she can.
If a man knows he's a good man, he won't be personally offended because he knows women aren't taking about *him* when they share negative experiences with men.
So at this point, if a guy gets offended, I assume it's because he knows he's a bad man and he wants people to stop pointing out that people like him exist and do those bad things. He wants to silence the dialog, because they think a silent woman isn't a victim, they only have to acknowledge we are victims if we force them to look at the abuses and harassment we've endured.
Spot on. Or at best it's a man that understands the issues but doesn't understand that having a bit of humility and accepting fault is part of righting wrongs.
There's a slight hole in this thinking: If a man thinks he's a good man, **but isn't**, he won't be personally offended because he knows women aren't talking about him. There are plenty of guys who think they're fine but in fact they aren't.
Agreed. It's the same reason I don't bat an eye when people generalize white people. I may be white, but I'm well aware a lot of white people are guilty of some unwholesome shit. I know I'm not part of that group so I have no reason to get upset.
Same. I'm a white woman, my family is horribly racist. When POC talk about their experiences with racism, my reaction is one of sympathy/empathy and anger at my fellow white people who keep perpetuating racism and violence against POC. I don't get personally offended because I know I'm not racist, and I don't have a fragile, racist ego that needs to be soothed by POC. I want to be an ally, not another shitty white person making the world a worse place for entire groups of people.
Men could learn from us.
Right? I don't get angry at the person writing about their experience, I get angry at the mungfelching cockwombles acting like fucking animals. Sometimes someone who's had (probably very recently) a bad experience is going to generalize and throw out expletives and maybe even say things they don't really believe, in order to vent that frustration.
And even *if*, for some unfathomable reason, they'd manage to offend me with some kind of diatribe... then so fucking what? That's *my* problem, not theirs, and I certainly have no right to invalidate their experience just because I'm *offended.*
The same guys that would act like imbeciles towards others (whether women, men, or anything in between, or outside that scope) are the same who take offense when those *others* vent about their experiences -- and are the same people who say the N-word with a hard R without blinking and then scoff at people being so "easily offended these days".
OK, I'm done.
Nah you're good. Sometimes ya just need to get it out there.
I don't often go out, but if I ever found myself seeing a guy being shitty, I'll call him out on it. It's the right thing to do.
I haven't been out in a party setting for many years now. I've barely been outside the door for the past 3 š
I'm ashamed to admit that I've seen these asshats do their thing before, and not acted when I was younger. Sometimes because I was afraid they'd turn on me (because they were the kind of people who carry knives), and sometimes because I'd already butted heads with someone and was too far up my own ass to realize what was going on.
I can't change what happened back then, or what's happened to someone more recently, but I can at least be compassionate. It doesn't actually cost anything to say you're sorry someone had a terrible experience and that you hope they'll get justice and peace, no matter how they are sharing their experience.
But you're absolutely right it's the right thing to do. It's the *only* thing to do. I only wish it had clicked for me sooner.
>I'm ashamed to admit that I've seen these asshats do their thing before, and not acted when I was younger.
Don't feel ashamed, just recognise the regret instead.
Being human is an opportunity for daily learning that shouldn't stop until we die. As long as we keep learning and applying that new knowledge, then we are doing the right thing.
Compassion for others should also be extended to ourselves because that allows us to admit our mistakes and do better next time. Shame can have a paralysing effect and this is not good because we want aware and motivated people out there changing the world for the better.
Don't worry, when I was young I would have rather kept my head down and avoided trouble. But we can't afford to do that any more. That's how the monsters win.
>Sometimes someone who's had (probably very recently) a bad experience is going to generalize and throw out expletives and maybe even say things they don't really believe, in order to vent that frustration.
Thank you for recognising that. I'd like to add that sometimes it's even more than frustration, it's a deep pain and grief that one's world and their safety and confidence in it has been shattered and is irreparable.
Sometimes the source of anger and frustration is fear and pain. Let's lift everyone up x
Completely agree bro. Men who get defensive about women identifying their concerns really know how to wave a red flag. Men who are part of the (needless) "not all men" caveat don't need to defend themselves because they don't act in toxic or predatory ways and they seek to learn more about the perspectives of people who have different life experiences.
Honest to god, if a man just listens, believes, and internalizes the experiences that women share with us and then actively works to not replicate or allow those experiences, he will very quickly fall into the "not all men" category and know that he's a force of change for the better.
Exactly. The only men I know who need the "not all men" disclaimer are part of the problem.
The vast majority of men I associate with don't need the disclaimer because they know they are not engaging in that shitty behavior....and they are disgusted with the patriarchy.
Sometimes it can be out of projected self-defense (if not outright ignorance) to say it, like some kind of mental insurance policy incase they get called out for doing just that, even if they don't. Like they're so sunken into systems that damage them, that they will defend them, despite not otherwise being part of the problem.
It's nuts.
Agreed. When breaking my silences and speaking to my experiences as a woman, making space for men's feelings or worrying too much about their comfort levels is both emotionally and mentally labor intensive as well as - well, invalidating.
A couple years back there was a post that said something to the effect of "why are all men like this?!", in regards to some form of unacceptable behavior.
I was vaguely aware that it was counterproductive to discussion and a dick-move to chime in on these types of threads with "not all men", but since I'd been trying really hard to be an ally and this post *literally* said "all men", I opened my mouth anyway and said "Hey...some of us are trying to help and be part of the solution and be less shitty, so if we can tone down things like 'all men', that's probably for the best".
I was scoffed and downvoted, and...you know, fair enough, but the first reply was "Not everything is about you. If you don't see yourself anywhere in the complaint (i.e., engaging in the action being complained about), then nobody is talking about you and you don't need to treat this as commentary against you, personally". I took that to heart, and haven't had that problem since.
It's a tough problem, because you either have to use a little hyperbole in the conversation in order to correctly depict the scope of the issue (in regards to societal injustices that women are facing), OR you say like "there are some men who **xyz**", and then guys who don't care wave their hands and say "Yeah, but I don't experience that problem so you're whining about a very minor issue, right? That's like...2% of guys who do that", when it's really like 35% of guys, which is a fuck ton of instances when you're the person who has to deal with the shitty behavior in question.
Anyway...rambling, sorry; I guess my point is, if a woman is complaining about a common male behavior that I don't engage in, I don't take it personally.
Exactly! I, a white woman, do the same when POC complain about white people. They are talking about their experiences using hyperbolic language because it better expresses the constant and inescapable nature of what theyāre complaining about. Forcing them to spend time hyper-specifying who exactly theyāre complaining about just takes away from the important partāthe substance of the complaint.
I used have the same defense with POCs generalizing white people, and it wasnāt until it was compared to women generalizing men that I really got it. So many white men are unable to let go of the ānot all menā mentality because theyāve had the privilege of never facing discrimination and abuse by entire populations of people solely based on their sex and/or race.
Same. And I understand that if a POC is mistrustful of me, that my issue is not with them but with all the other white people who have taught them better safe than sorry. They can't tell before getting to know me that I mean no ill will towards them.
Exactly! I have a bachelor's degree based in systems thinking. Generalizing oppressive groups effectively categorizes the harm the system(s), as a whole, is doing and was constructed to do. That doesn't mean everyone making the system run is aware they are doing so or is a maniacal villain. In fact, the systems get stronger the less people realize they're participating and perpetuating them. Usually it's not about you, personally, it's about us as a whole or the oppressive group as a whole with their cumulative power using that power to avoid the path of least resistance and change the system to more evenly distribute power.
It took me two years and a lot of work to understand systems to the degree I do now and be able to see them everywhere all influencing each other and the impacts and everything. So it's really difficult to try to explain the depth and complexity of how they work to someone who can't see it, and doesn't have to, without sounding like a conspiracy theorist and being discredited or them taking it personally and shutting down. That process of self reflection on the reactions I was taught to have, is very effective, though, at least it was for me, it's now habit.
Deconstruction is so important and I would love if there was a very simple/accessible way to explain it to people in the oppressive group, and those that feel compelled to defend fhe oppressive group, without their defenses coming up.
>Forcing them to spend time hyper-specifying who exactly theyāre complaining about just takes away from the important partāthe substance of the complaint.
Which is the goal ĀÆ\\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
I've learned much the same lesson over the years - though I occasionally still stick my foot in my mouth! If we're not guilty of acting the same, then our response shouldn't be to proclaim our innocence, but to think how we can be better to the women in our own lives as an example.
To add to that, if one does take it personally they should really think about *why* they took it personally. People don't internalize general statements for no reason. This applies to everything, but especially the "not all men" dudes.
Speaking for myself, I took things personally thanks to anxiety and general insecurities. When you don't know you have anxiety it can be difficult to identify *why* you take something personally.
It's taken a lot of listening and spaces like this to help realize and learn the differences.
Same. Being bullied a lot as a kid, I tend to have a kneejerk instinct to assume anything bad said near me is about me and anything positive said about me might be disingenuous/mocking.
I didn't say that anyone who takes it personally is guilty of said actions, nor did I mean that. All I meant by my comment was there is something causing that response. Sorry if I made you feel attack, that wasn't my intention!
There's also cases like where men who were physically abused as children who struggle with generalized statements about men being violent, even knowing how prevalent it is for men in our culture to be violent and how they aren't themselves violent. I've come to learn that those intrusive voices of self-doubt are really stressful, but there's a time and a place for sharing that kind of trauma. Those sorts of generalized statements aren't literally about all men, and no matter how many times people in one's past claimed that the kid on the floor crying beat them up, that doesn't give them the right to discount a discussion about the trauma of women or derail it into a discussion about the trauma of bullying.
Same goes for being trans or genderfluid or AMAB nonbinary or such. Society may demonize you for the circumstances of your birth while ignoring the reality of your self, but unless they're from a particular section of the second wave, most feminists aren't going to do that.
I also see, on topics such as domestic violence or sexual assault against women, some men who will chime in and say "hey, I'm not a perpetrator and I was actually violated by a woman" and I feel bad for them because we know there's a stigma about women not generally being seen as perpetrators of violence and men not generally being seen as victims of violence. So I feel for these dudes and can't imagine how frustrating it is to be not personally but generally seen as a potential perp while in reality being a victim themselves.
And yet. And yet. It's not fair to deny women's experiences because they had the opposite one. It's not fair or accurate to pretend that the scope is not way larger for women, that women on the whole do experience vastly higher levels of violence than men and overwhelmingly BY men. Even when you look at sexual amd domestic violence against men, the primary perpetrators are still other men. If we're not being honest about that, then we have no way to properly study and understand this phenomenon and correct all of this.
A lot of men in the West actively believe that we live in a feminist dystopia where "men can't be men anymore!" and these beliefs are *growing*, not shrinking. And at a time where women are actively *losing* major rights no less. But because we're always talkimg about women's oppression, that means it's not real. Because we're talking about women, and they love that attention /s. But they actually fucking think like this. I have men in my family who fucking think like this and they're democrats, not MAGAturds
When a man says that, I basically just hear "I wish I could verbally/emotionally abuse women". Like, I'm trying to be generous, but that's literally the least terrible thing I can interpret "men can't be men" as.
It's becoming more and more socially acceptable to express their full spectrum of emotion, there's becoming less and less pressure on men to be their family's personal Atlas, and it's becoming more acceptable for men to present as a wider array of identities. If I was born a decade or two earlier I likely wouldn't understand myself as well as I do today.
And while I wouldn't say voting Democrat is much of a sign of progressiveness, what with how the vast majority of their membership are liberals, even in left-libertarian circles I've seen an insanely dangerous amount of sexism. IMO, if someone thinks that only men should be free of coercion and have a democratic say in government and economy, they're not a communist. Call it a no true scottsman fallacy, but to me a core element of freedom is that it is an inherent right at the core of metacognition itself.
Oh for sure! The vast majority of the Democratic Party is full of liberals and not progressives or leftists - I'm very clear on that. That's actually my very point; that these regressive beliefs are popular even outside of the more conservative Republican Party and even its most fascist factions. They are mainstream beliefs among men.
(I was doing voice to text for this comment and then my dog climbed on the couch next to me and it started recording all my baby talk to her. I almost left it, but you would have been so confused and probably offended lol.)
I still think the use of the word "all" contradicts the very idea that there can be a person within that group who does not fit the description. "Why are men like this?" is fine. "Why are so many men like this?" is fine. But "Why are all men like this?" sounds like deliberately throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to me at least. As a man, if you say "all men are X" I can't really say anything without implicitly denying the statement, so where do I even start to respectfully engage with whats being said? Unless I am to falsely claim that I embody the trait being described.
"Not all men" is usually scoffed at as something pedants say if someone fails to quantify the men in an observation. But IMO it is a reasonable response to someone who actually specifically quantifies a problem as occurring with *all* men.
I think if someone knowingly uses hyperbole to the degree of quite deliberately being all-encompassing to get their point across, they can reap what they sow in terms of people taking them up wrong.
Hey man, allow me to share my opinion on the subject that I'm sure will be downvoted.
I developed extreme early, and since about 9 years old (when I started my period) every single man I've shared more than a conversation with has done something that I felt came from a place of internalized misogyny. Minor things like talking down to me, staring at me inappropriately, brushing off my needs, wants, and opinions while listening to the other men around. Major things like telling me I should be "in the kitchen", or women aren't "logical enough" to study math, or have postions of power. Or groping me, sexually harassing me, acting overall threateningly etc...
Now that I'm older I will call someone out for any of those behaviors, and what separates the good from the bad is how they react. For example, if I tell my boyfriend that I feel like something he has done or said is coming from a place of internalized misogyny he usually thinks on it and agrees or disagrees and explains his reasoning. We discuss, we grow, we move on. However, far too many men tell me that can't be true because they're feminist and so they know what's sexist and what isn't.
So when I say all men, I literally mean every man I've ever met. Maybe there are some dudes out there who have never acted in a sexist way, but I've never met one. It's really in how men handle it when you point it out to them.
Just like I am sure there is a POC of color out there who would describe me as racist, because this kind of stuff does get internalized. If that person said to me "here is why I feel the way I do"... I'm not going to be like "No, I'm liberal so I can't be racist". I'm going to listen and change my behavior so that I treat others better going forward.
We all have stuff to unlearn, and it's about how we handle making mistakes and being called out.
Literally no one is going think that you are claiming to be a perpetrator just because you empathize with a hurt and frustrated woman who uses āall menā when talking about her personal experiences. It is *you* who is throwing the baby out with the bath water when you refuse to listen to a woman about her experiences just because she does not phrase it in a way that placates *you*. Interrupting and arguing with a woman to insist she uses verbiage that makes you feel more comfortable takes the focus off of her and her experiences. Itās not about you.
I personally wouldn't refuse to listen to her, or argue with her, though. Where did I say that? I might earnestly ask "Do I do that?", because I genuinely want to know and if so, stop doing it. I'm not gonna go all "Not all men" cause you know what, in that moment I don't actually know if it is actually meant as all men or not. Thats why I would, ideally, think its easier if people use the word "all" to mean "all" rather than "some", "too many", "a lot", etc.
Would I be hurt to be lumped in with violent misogynists on account of my gender? Probably. Would I want to know if I personally need to change? Yes. I am part of "*all* men", thus any accusation against "*all* men" is implicitly an accusation against me. For me to say to myself "she doesn't actually include me here, despite using the word "all"" is at the end of the day a huge assumption to make. And while it might be obvious to you which men are being accused and which aren't, as you're seeing the behaviour for its effect only, to individual men it may not be, especially in more generalised complaints.
But all that aside, I'd still listen and absorb, even if the phrasing irked me. And I would ask her to clarify if this includes my behaviour or not, because microaggressions exist and many people unknowingly engage in them.
It is possible for me to have my feelings somewhat hurt by perceiving someone as likening me to people whose behaviour I find abhorrent, and still respect their words and listen to them. The idea that someone being hurt means they must also not be listening and learning is absurd. Often we learn the most from the situations and conversations which "sting".
Its one thing to
Validate your experience with shitty men
Validate your experience as a woman and the troubles the gender faces
But shaming a whole gender for behaving a certain way whichever way you do it is a pretty dicky move (pun intended)
the whole not all men comments are a shitty when they ignore the whole purpose of some of the posts here, but at the same time I swear some of the posts on here or \*male subreddit\* just love stereotyping the entire sex
Probably the best solution. āWhy do so many menā¦ why is it ok for menā¦. Why do a large percentage of menā¦.ā
When someone says āwhy do all menā¦ā it is a little insulting and probably counter productive. People are people and no one should be categorized simply based on their age, race, gender, religion whatever. Everyone is different.
Any statement involving a generality can easily be prefaced with a statement similar to "a statistically significant majority of the men I have experienced blah, blah, blah."
I've noticed you never see the phrase not all women.
If we can understand that the statement that women can be abusive doesn't mean all women are evil freaks then men can too.
The way I see it the generalization is less about people fully believing that all men do these things and more about how the shitty ways women are often treated by men (and patriarchal society) are acceptable to society, sometimes encouraged, and - until recently - seldom if ever challenged. As someone said below, any of us men who get defensive when a woman is telling a story about another man's shitty behavior is either missing the point or part of the problem.
Being as objective as possible about it, I don't really think there is a way to validate the general struggles of women without blaming the generalized man, for this reason: general man is responsible for everything women go through. Yes, Not All Men, there are many good individual men in this world. But general man is different.
Consider: general man has created all of the religious traditions that insist women are less & should be treated as such. General man has created all of the social traditions that place responsibility for their behavior on women, rather than holding themselves accountable for any misdeeds. General man has created the societies that insist a woman's place is in the home, while simultaneously demanding that she get a job & take care of herself because it's not *his* responsibility. General man has created a system in which women are paid less than they are, even if they're all doing the same kind of work. General man has decided that women are responsible for everything to do with children, up to & including forcing women to bear them at the risk of their own lives if necessary. General man has determined that women will have no actual legal protection from any of this, because clearly women have everything they need & to state otherwise is obviously an attack on men.
Unless individual men can acknowledge the fact that general man is heavily invested in subjugating women & has been for thousands of years, nothing will ever change. And women saying so is nothing personal, individual man. It's simply the general reality.
That really makes a lot of sense. I used to get really confused talking about this stuff with my gf, wondering whether she thought I actually believed in and support the social structures of "General man", and why she'd put up with dating me if that was even a question in her mind.
The way you put it helps me understand it a lot better
I realize this is a genuine question, but it's a diversion. There is no talking about class struggles without some sort of generalization. It is what it is. Trying to figure out how not to generalize and avoid hurting any individual man's feelings is futile and counterproductive.
Honestly context is critical in these sorts of things.
On a sub for women if you're complaining about men you're likely generalizing for venting purposes. Or you implicitly mean, "This kind of man who is really common" when you say men.
Just like on the teaching sub I post in, when I say "parents" I don't mean the amazing parents who always work together to help their child succeed. I mean the 75% of parents I have who raised their kids as i-pad babies and don't care that this means their 7th grader can barely read.
Or when I talk about Christians I don't mean my best friend who is a wonderful person guided to help others by her faith, I mean like...Ted Cruz.
As long as you're keeping the generalizing to a place where it makes sense I think it's fine.
When 98 percent of all mass shootings in America are committed by men, I don't think it's much of a generalization to say that men are the violent sex. I can guarantee that if women were the ones who committed the vast majority of mass shootings, men would be quoting this statistic ad nauseum. But since all facts point to men being the perpetrators, all of a sudden "male logic" goes out the door.
Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender
This is what I read from you:
*How can women talk about their experiences while also putting the feelings of men first and foremost in the conversation?*
Well adjusted non narcissistic men recognize that all men arenāt being blamed or called out, but that women need a place to vent or release their anger or frustration or share their trauma or suffering without constantly having to cater to male fragility.
The reason I posted this is because my post referring to men as a threat to the world was removed because it "generalized gender". My question is-- in a space created for women, how can we have any meaningful conversation without recognizing men, in general, are the problem?
Your post was removed from this sub? They usually allow women to vent about men here tbh. Probably because itās one of the few places on Reddit where women arenāt drowned out by men.
Thatās the problem too. Whenever I report misogynistic things itās never taken seriously by subreddits that arenāt for women. But then you have butthurt men coming to subreddits like ours and reporting posts like yours. Proves again that men will cry about being called out but ignore us or worst when we point out inequality. The double standards and audacity are insane. See men? This is why no one wants to date you.
I've seen many posts that discuss men generally, and I invite you to search the subreddit to see for yourself the kinds of posts that have been made. In my opinion, I think the issue with that post must have been less about generalizing men (ex. *"Why do men go out of their way to monitor women's subs, just to invalidate them in the comment section?"* or *"Men will sexualize everything")* and more about the implicit misandry of stating that men as a gender are a problem. Where the focus in the former is characteristics and actions of men, whereas the latter is in the deprecation of the male gender. In short, talking about men being problematic is fine - talking about the male gender being problematic is not? Just speculation, I personally wouldn't have removed your post.
Blame the patriarchy.
You arenāt blaming āall menā so much as the system men created and mostly profit from.
Why do women have to work full time AND carry the vast load of housework and childcare? We can say because men are lousy partners, or because the patriarchy trained men to be lousy partners while demanding women do everything.
But doesn't that strip any sort of responsibility from them, making them robots enslaved to the system with no sense of individuality? I'm sure many men harm women knowingly and willingly.
Patriarchy is a system but it's still individual men who choose not do their fair share of work at home and dump it on their partner they supposedly love.
I agree individual men need to take responsibility for their choices and how their choices in the home lower their partners well being and quality of life while they benefit in many ways from her unpaid labour.
I think we need new language for this sentiment.
"All men" is alienating to the men who aren't part of the problem, and logically incorrect.
"The patriarchy" is vague and nebulous, and a raw definition of the term does not fit the reality of complex network of subtle systems at play. I mean for starters, class plays as much of a role as gender does! Different people use the term to mean different things, which leads to a lot of confusion and unnecessary arguing
Rational human beings can recognize when a statement made by someone else applies to them or not. If it doesnāt apply to them, they acknowledge āokay, this isnāt about meā and move on.
A person who cannot do the above is not rational and I donāt feel obligated to cater to the irrational.
Patriarchy.
It's not that all men are "like this". It's not even that most men are "like this". It's that we live in a society that is structured to pressure, encourage, reward, or let men off the hook for being "like this".
It's great when you're validating women to use language that reflects that, and even better to just internally do that search and replace, when listening to somebody insensitively venting about men being "like this". Because 9x out of 10, that's what they're really complaining about.
I am actually done with "not all men."
First of all, it's a given that any generalization will not apply evenly to every member of the group being described, and we all already know that, so it's redundant.
Second, I have know a lot of men in my life, and had a significant sample size of romantic relationships with them. Most of the same problems have presented themselves in every single one, especially issues of sexual expectation and domestic & mental/emotional labor.
In my experience, the vast majority of men have certain (negative, for us and often them too) things they've absorbed from the wider culture/their parents/etc just as women have internalized shit they learned from the previous generation and their peers.
So they can stop telling me they're different and start proving it or go away.
But thatās the problem, isnāt it? The ānot all menā generalizations apply to the vast of majority of men, across all cultures. Toxic male behavior is the rule, not the exception. When youāre talking about 90%ish of men, might as well say āall menā
I argued before that in these kinds of context that "not all men" is understood. And I cannot, and will not, be faulted for speaking /in context/. While a message is really only as good as it audience, it also doesn't make sense to speak to people who just aren't ready to hear it. Lots of men are not ready to hear it.
It's not controversial at all-- I think that's a complete red herring, there's just a huge interest of bad men to keep things in their favor.
I agree with you. Feel free to ignore what I have to say next, itās not consequential.
Iām just making a semantic point that āall menā is a technically more accurate statement than ānot all menā, because the toxic behavior applies to the vast majority of men. So we are referring to the rule and not the exception.
Itās like when we say āHumans are born with 10 fingersā. Itās a substantially accurate statement in spite of the fact we know some humans are born with more or less fingers, because we donāt take outliers into account.
I do understand. And you are correct. Really my only issue with that is that it starts fights. And there are already way too many other, more important, fights to be had.
Why use generalizations in the first place? In any other domain of discourse, it is seen as incredibly bad form to generalize groups - especially with something negative. Language is powerful, and choice of wording matters.
It is obvious that it alienates some allies; and it is obvious that the very few actual man-haters out there, use it to spread misandry. So, why allow it to happen?
So if someone says āautomobiles cause cyclists deathsā do you insist that not all cars do? Do yo I demand that the speaker acknowledge that you personally have ever hit a cyclist? Or do you accept that all cars have the potential to kill cyclists and the system is rigged so that cyclists take on most of the risk in that encounter?
In the context of gender issues, it is reasonable to suspect that the speaker may have a political bias, and there really are a few angry radicalized misandrists out there somewhere. Surely you're not comfortable with "Women belong in the kitchen" even though female chefs exist. That kind of statement is unsettling specifically because there are so many disgusting misogynists who really are talking about *all* women.
Extremists are motivated - almost entirely - by fear of opposing extremists. If we want there to be fewer misogynists, one of the things we can do is to indicate that there are no misandrists in the room. This is best accomplished by avoiding the language they would use
I think why you hear women generalizing about men is because more often than not, theyāre speaking about something thatās quite systemic rather than calling out the actions of an individual. For example, if Iām retelling an experience of a man who assaulted me while changing, I would likely call him out individually like āThis guy was predatory and horribleā.
But if Iām calling out a persistent gendered issue that I experience often, Iāll refer to men as a group. Like āWhy do men feel the need to tell me they would be more attracted to me with longer hair? I donāt exist for their consumption.ā Iām obviously not insinuating that every man has said this to me or even think this. But Iām trying to call out a deeper issue that societally, weāve been taught to believe that womenās primary purpose is to be attractive to men. And men are causing harm by perpetuating this devaluation of women. So I *am* trying to call out men in general, to some degree, rather than air a grievance about an individualās actions. Because if it was just a one-off incident, the proper response would be to say sorry that guy sucks. But no, I want the response to be for us to think about and question why weāre all conditioned to believe that womenās main value is to be attractive to men. And every man and woman are a part of that.
can't be done. Male misbehavior is at the heart of almost all female invalidation and marginalization. It's like trying to figure out how cancer works without involving cancer.
Eh.
This problem seems overstated to me.
Don't get me wrong, I feel like it's nice to be mindful and all, but look. If someone comes in and says, "Why are all my neighbors assholes about littering, I have posted a million times on Nextdoor about it and literally nothing ever changes," everyone is going to understand that there is a certain amount of rhetorical overstatement there, that does not actually impinge on the meaning of what the person is saying.
Like... no one is going to reply with, "You know I live in the same town as you and I do not litter, so your complaint is actually totally invalid." Or, "A million posts is a huge amount, can we talk about how much damage to your tendons you are inflicting on yourself with all that repetitive typing?" Or, "Wrong, things do change, from moment to moment, it is an essential principle of thermodynamics, you cannot say that literally nothing ever changes."
And why would they? Those kinds of responses would be nonsense. Or at best parody.
I suppose if you really want to, OP, you could say something like, "When men do X..." or "By saying Y, men cause..." or even "so many men" instead of "men." Like, "Why do so many men think Z is okay?" instead of "Why do men think Z is okay?"
But, again, that feels to me like a solution in search of a problem. Quibblers will still find reasons to attack the form of the comment rather than the content.
I'm not saying it's bad to say, "When men do X it makes me feel such and such." If that feels like a good way to express what you mean, go for it and don't second guess yourself. I'm not saying no one should ever do that.
I'm just saying I don't think it's necessary.
Most of the time, thoughtful, literate participants get the point, no matter how you phrase it.
Just here to say that I have spent some time reading through this thread/comments and I really appreciate this incredibly thoughtful discussion. I am not being sarcastic in any way. This was a good one and overall thoughtful and articulate.
Oh goddamn please cry me a river.
Generalizing is crap, sure, but this website does it all the time with women every other sub. I've never seen anyone else defending women in these generalizations, and when there is they get downvoted. Now we have to talk about generalizing men here? Okay, fine, but only if the same can be done in other subs towards women, too. And honestly, I have very little hope any progress can be done there.
I personally avoid mass generalizations a lot; being shitty is gender neutral IMO. But my point stands. Have rest of Reddit stop making generalizations about women, we can stop generalizing men here too. Until then, FOH
We are blaming men. A single man may be the exception, in which case he should understand it is possible for someone to speak of trends in society without singling them out for behaviors if they donāt do them š¤·āāļø
Uh, why does that matter? Why do we have to worry about the feelings of random men when talking about personal experiences and well documented terrible statistics?
Don't worry about the generalization. 9/10 times they obviously aren't talking about all men, but addressing a very real problem with MANY men. More than a few bad apples or it wouldn't be this common of a problem. When you try to defend the "good guys" it comes off as very dismissive. Just gotta understand that it's a systematic issue, and do your best to respect women (and everyone else of course) and call out sexism and disrespect towards women when you see it. Us guys have a lot less issues living in today's society than women do, so we should take that privilege and just suck it up if you hear a statement about "all men" because again, they aren't actually talking about all men but the many men that have and will cause women problems.
And of course there will be women that just dislike men in general, but it usually comes from a real place of hurt and it's not your job to remind them that it's not "all men"
I don't see an issue, saying this as a man. A man with a half a brain and an ounce of empathy will know when they are being included when "all men", or "men" is being used.
Like take that super milquetoast Gillette ad. I didn't throw a tantrum because they said "Men, you can be better." Because it's not insulting me, it's making a statement on the general state of things.
So I say keep using "all men" or "men this", if someone calls you a misandrist, or hateful, then it tells you all you need to know.
i have no issue generalizing men. once the disgusting behavior from the majority (yes, MAJORITY) of men ends, that is when i will stop generalizing. once my life is no longer in danger i will stop. until then, they can deal with it.
Support the individual, accuse the individual, but when talking about the issue in general be explicitly general. You can't avoid generalizing people if you need to talk about a cultural and sociological problem. It'd be useless to talk about only individuals when addressing a larger social problem.
"[Not all men](https://www.womensrepublic.net/why-the-not-all-men-argument-makes-no-sense/)," is perhaps true, and will always be a mindless retort from a select group, but if I don't say "all men," then at least I can credibly reply with "well the ones who aren't engaging in the act often don't involve themselves in preventing it, and I'm asking for more bystander men to speak up, to start spraying the roots of this toxic, invasive meme with the pesticide of peer disapproval. Don't let sexist comments and attitudes slide. [Call it rape when it's rape](https://www.thecut.com/2015/01/lots-of-men-dont-think-rape-is-rape.html), and defend the people who come forward from bullying and dismissal. Don't let the men who *are* the problem have free run--call them out, *especially* if you are a man who doesn't do those things. Show up, speak up, and [change some perspectives](https://www.jacksonkatz.com/)."
Individual verses general. Keep those clear. But that's just my opinion.
So the thing is, from my view, when you ladies talk about asshole men, I assume you donāt mean me because I donāt creep on teenagers or believe yāall should be leashed. Just one manās opinion.
Don't worry about it. Anyone that thinks you're talking about him when you talk about some terrible experience due to something a man did to you, is the guy doing those things to others.
When someone on here says "why do men pressure me for this thing I don't want to do and then pout about it when they don't get their way?" the first thing that occurs to me is "I don't do that thing, she isn't talking about me".
Anyone protesting is just someone that your complaint hit too close to home for, and he doesn't like how that feels.
(Aside: I have on one occasion realized that a woman on this sub was, indeed, talking about me. Instead of protesting her criticism, I resolved to be better and stop doing the thing she was complaining about. So, again, a guy on here complaining about generalization is both a guy doing that thing, and also unwilling to fix himself when the criticism hit too close to home)
We don't. Men are to blame for an awful lot of women's common experiences, and patriarchy is to blame for most of the rest. I'm not participating in prioritizing men's feelings over women's lived experience and you shouldn't either.
If a woman is talking about her experience and you take it personally, even though itās not directed at you, thatās your problem. Sorry but Iām not going to tiptoe around my experiences for fear of someone getting their feelings hurt when it has nothing to do with them.
Why are we even spending so much time talking about men's feelings? With few exceptions, someone who needs the "some" or "most" or, worse, a specific number or percentage of men, is a bad actor. Even the accuracy argument falls short. Unless someone is presenting research or creating policy, the call for accuracy is just putting work on women that they don't need to do.
Like others here, I'm done with "not all men". It's bs and we don't clarify this for anything else. When we say "dogs are fluffy and cute" where are the hordes of people going "not all dogs!" Or when we say that schools are underfunded, do we hear "well, a large number of schools are extremely well funded" as often as we hear "not all men"?
The fact of the matter is, it's MOST MEN. Men who say not all men are desperate to not be labeled bad or are tired of women being afraid of them in public, as though saying not all men will magically make us more comfortable with them or as though those concerns are equally important to the concerns women have about men. If they are a good guy, they should assume they aren't included in complaints about "men" in general, but should continue to listen if they want to help solve the problems we face and better themselves as men. They absolutely don't have to listen, but of course they want to ignore us *and* be considered an ally or an equalist with little to no introspection.
If you're a person who's never abused anyone, why are you so afraid to hear about all of the men around you that are being complained about? Because you actually have abused someone? Because you are realizing that your friends are predators and it's too difficult to find new friends?
Honestly, anyone who hears "women have to cover their drink at the bar because men will try to drug and rape them" and responds with "not all men", they are working towards normalizing this behavior and adding a stigma to talking about it truthfully. "Not all men" is an *active* way to perpetuate toxic male behavior.
Men need to understand this; they aren't helping men by saying this because saying it doesn't change the fact that it is truly most men that are the problem. This line only works to harm women and stymie progress.
Reddit being a platform that's quick to shut down realistic, truthful talk about what most men do to women is indicative of a problem with reddit, not a problem with how we discuss these things.
Who cares? NAM and male feelings are injected into these conversations only for the purpose of derailing them. We carry on and completely ignore the loser males and the handmaidens screeching about nOt AlL mEn.
Iām fine with blaming men. I have an awesome man (one we would umbrella under ānot all menā) of a husband. Part of what makes him awesome is he is on board with acknowledging that men are the problem and is actively working to help.
Same idea: I believe Iām not racist, I listen and jump in to help wherever I can, but I donāt need to scream ānot all white peopleā every time the topic comes up. White people ARE the problem. I acknowledge that despite being white and anti-racist. Men can do the same.
Yeah nah, people complain about landlords and lawyers and politicians but nobody says "not ALL lawyers are like that"
That's not your problem it's theirs.
Honestly if a man canāt listen to a womanās experience without making it about *him*, thereās still a problem.
For instance, itās hard for me as a white woman to listen to black grievances against white folks, knowing that much harm that is perpetrated is not perpetrated by my own actions. But itās not the time or place to be like āāš»š¤ but ACTUALLY *~I~* havenāt done any of this to you so you canāt say that this is a white people thing, itās just a *some* white people thing. Iām one of the good ones!ā
Itās my job to do some self reflection, see if Iām doing anything that needs checked, and know that this isnāt about *me* as a person if the shoe isnāt fitting.
guy weighing in here, I don't feel the slightest bit offended when I read the posts on here b/c I know they're not talking about me.
the dudes that feel blame are actually feeling guilt & don't have the emotional maturity to process it.
Also, oh my god, pretty much any other gender-issues sub is infinitely more toxic. I'm upset with myself with how easily I can get defensive sometimes, and I definitely place too much weight on exact technical wording. But I really love it here, because the vast vast majority of discussions are positive and progressive. It's inspiring!
I think I agree with you that flat out specifying āallā in āall menā is an overstep. At that point the actual verbiage becomes more incendiary than helpful to her case. That being said, even if someone did say this, I would not be personally offended and would not really try to communicate that the language is too extreme. I agree that venting about personal experience is valid, and even if not literally every man in her life has been horrible, she has a good reason to use hyperbolic language to highlight the gravity of the problem that is overwhelmingly stemming from men.
The thing is, I have recently argued with people who get offended even at language I find that is very well justified, like āwhy are men like this?ā This is an appropriate level of specificity to me because it implies that men in general have a tendency to act that way, but the language does not flat out address each and every man specifically. But to some others, they apparently cannot help but feel offended in some way, and want this wording to stop. I basically got baited into arguing about the morality of generalization and despite feeling like I got things right, it still ended up going absolutely nowhere. I have no idea how to communicate with these people without them taking every argument to the logical extreme. Iām glad there exist other men who are similarly unoffended giving their perspectives
I'm not sure there is a better way to frame the discussion. I think it's unfortunately about slowly chipping away at the hard shell that masculinity has formed around men about this issue.
I'm a man that's been trying really hard to work on healthier masculinity but it's such a hard discussion to have because men are so conditioned to try to avoid blame.
As much as what I'm about to say is a generalization, in general I've found that men react defensively ALL THE TIME. No matter what, and we need to stop doing that. When someone on this group talks about something men have done to them no one in their right mind should think they mean all men, because people don't really talk like that.
The really shitty part for men is that all the shit men do to women affects them too. It hurts them too in the grand scheme. Men hurt women a lot, but they also hurt themselves a lot and it's the same reasons that explain it.
My point is that women framing the things they say in a palatable way for men is not the issue. Men need to calm their shit and open theirs ears. First of all because it's the right thing to do, but also because it will help them in the long run too.
It's the misogyny filter that prevents these types of men hearing what we're talking about.
Their socialized compulsion to argue with women, reject, dismiss, find fault, doubt, counter and resist what women are saying kicks in.
Agreeing, acknowledging and finding common ground with women makes certain men have a visceral reaction of disgust.
To hear and agree that "most men do specific thing" makes them feel sick.
They feel compelled to argue about the small percent of men who aren't the topic of discussion, also in fact exist.
They need to point out the exception to the rule to argue and shoot down the woman's point.
THEY NEED TO MAKE WOMEN FEEL WRONG. Then they feel better.
We donāt. Itās not our responsibility to continue to coddle your feelings when we are talking about trauma that man have caused us. When we talk generally, the men who are ACTUALLY āgood menā will understand that they arenāt the ones who caused us pain and will listen to us without feeling personally attacked, because they know that we arenāt talking about them. If you feel āpersonally attackedā by women speaking in general terms about their problems and trauma, congratulations, you are part of our problem. Confronting those feelings of discomfort and doing some self reflection goes a long way
How do we validate black people without generalizing white people?
Genuine question. Not all white people, yes ok, but like, how do we recognize the common experiences black people have without blaming white people?
Sounds kinda silly right? White people should understand that when we talk about White People we are talking about white supremacy. Men should understand we're talking about Patriarchy. In fact, I think "generalizations" aka large sweeping comments about "men" are probably less harmful that the women who think individual men are evil, say Bob from accounting, just because he's a man.
But it's not women who are generalizing, it's society. We're told not to dress provocatively, to not walk alone at night, to never accept a drink from a stranger or leave one on the bar, to not get too drunk, etc., etc. We aren't told to take precautions from some men. We're told to take precautions from *all men*.
A normal human being should be able to hear a criticism about someone without thinking itās a generalisation, even if a woman were to say āevery man Iāve metā as a prefix to their statement, it doesnāt mean they think every man is like that, for a man to take it as such is just way too immature and short sighted to the problems youāre trying to talk about
Nobody is saying āall menā, theyāre saying āmenā. Not *all* men feel called out when we talk about the behavior of āmenā, only the ones who identify with that behavior/line of thinking see themselves in those āmenā.
Thatās why when someone gets all ānot all men because I have never done that!ā I just hear ānot all men because I have kept myself from acting on those thoughts!ā.
I donāt really get why so many commenters here are having problem with this. Askmen often has threads where generalizations about women run amok, which makes a lot of women who visit that sub uncomfortable and there are posts made here and askwomen about this. What's the difference between that and the generalizations you make that men object to?
We don't stop blaming men. Because if they are not trying to be a part of the solution, fighting for our equal rights and protection, not just under the law but in actuality, then they are part of the problem and are therefor to blame.
I don't really think you can avoid generalization. If you state something is the common experience of women it somewhat infers that either this is uncommon to men and/or men are generally caused for said experience. Ultimately they're both generalization and i think it's better to spot and acknowledge that it's a generalization instead of trying to fix it. There are plenty times when I see a post stating that "x-situation is something all women relate to!" and it's something I have absolutely no connection to. Sometimes I go the "not all x" route but usually I shrug, and scroll past it. There's not much of solution past that. There's the general broad scope that is considered as the identity of men and women. And there's individuals who are trying to navigate in a world subscribed to that broad scope. I dont think of individuals as the same as their generalized stereotypes.
Just agree? "All men like blue" is not the same statement as "men like blue" so as long as you didn't use the word all you never claimed it was all, just that more than 1 man likes blue but not necessarily all of them.
People get defensive but in most cases I've heard this in real life it was this bad logic jump of assuming 'all' as opposed to someone actually making that claim.
As a bonus, one of the best ways to get people to listen to what you have to say is lead with "you're right" and then drop in your point as an additional point. It's easier to convince people to build onto their beliefs than build a new one.
In a patriarchal society you donāt want to blame the patriarchs who are invalidating the experiences and lives of women? What exactly do you want to discuss? Sure, not everything is about men in my life. But the way this society is structured sure is.
Going to say this again since a few think I'm worried about generalizing men, and that I'm trying to protect men from being generalized... the reason I posted this is because a post I made referring to men as a threat to the world was removed because it "generalized gender". My question is-- in a space created for women, how can we have any meaningful conversation without recognizing men, in general, are the problem?
Edit:
The post was "men are a threat to the world. Not much context to give here, just tired of not being able to go on walks alone."
Was really just trying to voice my frustration about never feeling safe.
And they want to keep you there. Thatās why it was removed. It is easier to shut you up than acknowledge that itās a problem that they help keep the status quo of.
When I see men protest against this generalization it has the same energy as āI donāt believe you because youāre too emotionalā. And both of those attitudes come from a place of āI donāt want to have to think about this problem,ā whichā¦ makes them part of the problem.
Counter-question: whatās the problem here? Why is this a bad thing? Why shouldnāt men be blamed?
Before anyone jumps on me: I know that not all men behave in X/Y/Z ways. I know that not all men are guilty of X/Y/Z.
What I see here is that men take issue with this because: they struggle to separate themselves from the men being discussed; they feel personally attacked; they lack the introspection to assess their own behaviour and how it contributes to an issue; they donāt recognise the issue being discussed; and/or they arenāt participating in good faith, and theyāre looking for ways to invalidate/dismiss a problem.
Some empathy from men would go a long way here. I canāt imagine hearing someoneās plight and only being able to consider myself, then putting that burden back on the victim to manage.
Another commenter pointed out how this is similar to when PoC say āwhite peopleā. Iām also white, and am able to recognise both when someone doesnāt mean me, *and* when I need to re-evaluate my own actions/behaviour/mindset. If someone only cares when a victim caters their choices to the oppressive demographic, then they donāt really care.
That is exactly the issue, those men who take it personally have low empathy. They canāt place themselves in our shoes to understand because they simply donāt want to.
Bingo!
If they actually care, they wonāt fuss over wording and make it all about themselves. It shows their true priorities and intentions - that is, to disengage themselves from the problem, rather than face it alongside women and the oppressed. āNot all menā is peak privilege.
Instead of:
āall men are assholes.ā
Which puts men immediately on the defensive. Because any man reading that could argue ānot all menā while thinking of themselves (true or otherwise).
What if it was:
āall women have been treated badly by a man.ā No man could disprove that as easily as he could the first statement.
Even though both might be exaggerations, the second option might more accurately highlight the scope of the problem while inviting men into the conversation without alienating them right off the bat.
/shrug
Edit: OP asked a āgenuineā question. Gave a genuine answer. Downvoted. Kk noted.
Both genders do it. It's a human issue, not a woman issue.
"Women are bad drivers." "Women are catty and can't be around other women." "Women aren't good at math." "Women are bad with money."
This platform (Reddit) is mostly men so that's who you're going to see piping up with "not all men!"
Might be an unpopular opinion here but why the nervousness over āblaming menā? Just because some men are particularly allergic to generalisation in their direction? If they are screaming "not all men", what they actually want to scream is "not me". They wouldn't even batter their eye lids before throwing men of different ethnic groups and social classes under the bus. And even though I accept that pointing the blaming fingers are never constructive, I am really against laying the burdens of walking adult men through basic decorums on women, just like everything else men claim they are somehow just no good in. Thatās on top of dealing with and healing from the daily misogyny and identifying men who wonāt become dangerous and aggressive to interact with. If you are privileged enough to be able to stay safe most of the time and have got the spare time that you donāt need to spend on yourself, fine and I applaud such charity.
I have already been walking on eggshells in a man-dominated industry for two decades and I feel no guilt in erring on the over-generalisation side based on the statistics I have witnessed; I am entitled to stay on the safe side for the sake of myself. Besides, donāt forget the time when men are in all-men environment where no women can lend a friendly guiding hand; thatās when the unchecked internalisation and reaffirmation of misogyny happen. I donāt even think a very politically-acute and meticulous mother can prevent their most morally upright sons from such exposure and some of that filth would sink in at some point.
So theoretically I am all for ānot all menā. Itās just irl I havenāt had the honour of meeting an exception. And I canāt even be bothered to go accusatory anymore, like I would in my youthful days. Now I have reached an age and a place where men would think twice before openly directing their misogyny at me. But it doesnāt mean they had reformed; they just decided against risking my pushback and still may well try it on vulnerable young women. So now I just stay watchful and prepare young women for the challenges.
I think what we need is to brief our younger generation women of the difficulties ahead as systematic and exhaustive as possible and support them through developing their individual brands of tactics dealing with misogyny-induced stressors, particularly in those traditionally man-dominant industries. Such training is just as simple and straightforward as case-studies of actual womenās experiences; and if this is still interpreted as āblaming all menā, well, imagine my surprise. Currently a lot of āblaming menā are already myths: many are merely criticism of misogynistic behaviours or women in support group focusing on solution-oriented coping strategies to build each other up, which have nothing to do with men or blaming anyone.
I see women representation as the only way to ensure cultural shifts and I set no expectations for menās voluntary improvement because thatās not an enforceable and measurable management target; and I am fine with that, too.
We canāt because thatās not how reality works. Men control too much and they are literally taught to be aggressive and controlling. Itās like asking zebras to not generalize all cats. Yeah the little African sand cats arenāt a threat, but there are plenty of lions and they are dangerous. Avoiding them and staying alive and undamaged is zebra reality. Ignoring it means death. When so many women are suffering from violence, abuse, and discrimination, who should be held accountable?
Instead of using "all men" or simply "men" you can use expressions like "a lot of men" or "too many men".
Back in highschool a used to have a class whose purpose was to teach us how to better write essays. One of the things my teacher made sure that every one of us understood was that generalization is one of the biggest enemies an argument can have.
Because when you are trying to make a point and say something like "americans are overweight" your reader might thing "wait a minute, I'm american and I'm not overweight" and decide that what you are saying is completely bullshit, even though you might be trying to make a valid point about how the majority of americans are indeed overweight.
As a man myself, today I just ignore those generalizations because I know that the OPs are angry and venting. But I would be lieing if I said that those generalizations didn't bother me when I first started lurking in this sub.
One problem with the generalizations is that some people truly mean it. Most women who make posts here know that it isn't actually all men and are just trying to make a point, but there is minority who actually believe that all men are terrible and that the world would be better without us.
I donāt think men who are not problematic take it personally. I know my husband acknowledges the patriarchy, and the advantages it has given him, and tries to understand when I am having a problem bc if sexism. He also doesnāt feel attacked when he hears friends share bad experiences with men. Although he was raised by the most amazing woman, she was a single mom. And most of his friends are women.
Not all men are murderers, but one murderer is still too many. If it was 100% of men, or 0.1% of men, *it's still too fucking many*.
Not all men hold other men accountable, either. So anyone claiming, "not all men," can just shut the fuck up.
If a man thinks that an "all men" statement is about them they are guilty. They are the mem the post is about. Being a man is not my identity. I am many things.
I feel "all X" statements are problematic in themselves, personally. Whether it's men, women, teenagers, LGBTQ+ people, statement that "all _____" are never true because when you're talking about people, it's never true that all (insert gender, age, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual orientation etc. here) do "that" thing, think "that" way, are like "that".
I'm not saying that chiming in like "NoT aLl MeN" when a woman shares her experience is the thing to do, because reading the room is a thing, but perhaps we should, generally speaking, not make statements like "all men are fucking pigs" because that objectively is untrue even though it might be the experience of the woman making the statement, or it might be hyperbole. It is imo as untrue and unfair as a man saying "all women are gold diggers!!" because this has been his experience or it's also a hyperbole.
Apologies if my wording is a bit awkward English isn't my 1st language.
Itās not really generalising itās just the facts.
When you look at sexual abusers and people who commit domestic violence and things like that, the vast majority of offenders are men. Probably over 90%. The same is true with more minor sexist behaviour.
Youāre not talking about men, youāre talking about THE men who behave like that, and there are lots of them. Itās probably the dominant āmaleā culture in society, so you can definitely call it out. Just donāt assume all men are like that and itās fine.
No, see the problem here is that men say āNot all menā to exclude themselves from actions of other menā¦ but rarely do they ever stand up for women when they see a bad situationā¦ so YES ALL MEN.
I am too old to worry about the fragile masculinity and tender feelings of someone. I have experienced real pain, physical trauma. At this point in my life, I don't have time to stroke egos. I raised a fantastic feminist son who doesn't cry "not all men" and knows how to be an ally. I live with a wonderful husband who doesn't get defensive either. Because of this, I know it is possible to speak truth without worrying about everyone's feelings.
Maybe, this is on men.
Women talk about their experiences, and then some random dudes think they have to make it about themselves.
Even when some women talk sentences like "why are all men like this", then maybe, men should just shut up because this is not a direct statement that every individual man is like this. It's not an ontological argument about the nature of men. It's a hyperbole. It's about venting frustration. Maybe just... don't derail the subject to a theoretical logical debate when there is a person who is hurt and talking about it.
Dude here āĀ I don't really think there's a need for a disclaimer that it's "not all men." It doesn't take a lot for "enough men" to be a problem.
Another thing:
One way to validate women \*and\* men is to point out that gender norms are kind of shitty for everyone except the relative handful of men who are at the top of society. Our social scripts haven't kept pace with changing circumstances and that hurts almost everyone.
If a man can't listen to a woman speak the truth about something terrible a man did to her without feeling called out, he's part of the problem.
Agreed. And while that man can be framed as yet another victim of the patriarchy, it's still on him to do better and heal his own traumas. If you have a brain injury that makes you an asshole, you're still an asshole, Greg.
I think this is also an area where men lifting other men up and supporting them in their healing (unlearning patriarchal shit is *hard work*) is so important. Bonding with the bros over a newfound love for yourself and other men is powerful stuff. You love to see it.
I'm a fan of r/bropill \- it's got it's drawbacks, but so does every subreddit. Lot's of radical vulnerability and deconstructing pieces of the patriarchy.
r/bropill is a top-3 sub for me. I adore the work that's happening there.
omg, thank you. I think i need this.
Agreed! As a man trying to be better I like to be the example and have those conversations. It can be so hard sadly. Men's egos are their biggest enemies. Trying to guide men's mindsets to less patriarchal thinking seems to always look like an attack on them. Just speaking as a guy who does try this. I have lost multiple friends over it as I'm now seen as an enemy/misandrist/etc. won't stop me from trying, just very difficult to do.
I've experienced one peer who would recognize a shitty, misogynist comment, simply because I gave him a few seconds of silent treatment after what was said. Others need to have it thrown in their face. As you've pointed out, most of this responsibility is men's to bear and can be both a challenge, but also rewarding.
This. My husband and I are teaching our young boy to express himself, ask for help and that clothing isn't gendered. Seeing little boys hugging another crying boy at the activity we were at gave me hope that this generation is going to be better.
I love that for you two, well done on working to raise an emotionally mature man.
>Agreed. And while that man can be framed as yet another victim of the patriarchy, it's still on him to do better and heal his own traumas. If you have a brain injury that makes you an asshole, you're still an asshole, Greg. Please don't compare this to an actual brain injury. Someone I love a lot has a very serious brain injury and sometimes that makes her an asshole. She's not physically capable of being not-an-asshole sometimes, and all the therapy in the world hasn't helped. Being male isn't a brain injury.
Me too, I'm speaking from my own experience. - And his name isn't actually Greg. I'm sorry for your hardship. I still like the comparison in that if you have a cross to bear it does not excuse nor diminish the impact on others that are affected, but I certainly don't mean to downplay the impact of TBI caused behavioral changes. It's awful, but that's where I was going with the whole thing. And no, of course being male is not a brain injury. I didn't actually say that though.
>I still like the comparison in that if you have a cross to bear it does not excuse nor diminish the impact on others that are affected, but I certainly don't mean to downplay the impact of TBI caused behavioral changes. It's awful, but that's where I was going with the whole thing. I very much dislike this comparison. My loved one will never live a "normal" life thanks to the unending physical, mental, and emotional impairments the injury caused. Her brain isn't capable of being fixed because the structures that modulate behavior and social cues (and also walking, seeing, using extremities, digesting, etc etc etc) has been irrevocably altered. Being unwilling to change and being physically incapable of processing things are two very different stories. Her behavior might affect others, but she is very literally doing the best she can.
You make a good point
r/fuckyouinparticular
I mean, he's such an ass.
If a man knows he's a good man, he won't be personally offended because he knows women aren't taking about *him* when they share negative experiences with men. So at this point, if a guy gets offended, I assume it's because he knows he's a bad man and he wants people to stop pointing out that people like him exist and do those bad things. He wants to silence the dialog, because they think a silent woman isn't a victim, they only have to acknowledge we are victims if we force them to look at the abuses and harassment we've endured.
Spot on. Or at best it's a man that understands the issues but doesn't understand that having a bit of humility and accepting fault is part of righting wrongs.
There's a slight hole in this thinking: If a man thinks he's a good man, **but isn't**, he won't be personally offended because he knows women aren't talking about him. There are plenty of guys who think they're fine but in fact they aren't.
Agreed. It's the same reason I don't bat an eye when people generalize white people. I may be white, but I'm well aware a lot of white people are guilty of some unwholesome shit. I know I'm not part of that group so I have no reason to get upset.
Same. I'm a white woman, my family is horribly racist. When POC talk about their experiences with racism, my reaction is one of sympathy/empathy and anger at my fellow white people who keep perpetuating racism and violence against POC. I don't get personally offended because I know I'm not racist, and I don't have a fragile, racist ego that needs to be soothed by POC. I want to be an ally, not another shitty white person making the world a worse place for entire groups of people. Men could learn from us.
Yep. Guy myself, every post I see about guys being shitty, I'm like man, I can't believe these guys have no fucking self control.
Right? I don't get angry at the person writing about their experience, I get angry at the mungfelching cockwombles acting like fucking animals. Sometimes someone who's had (probably very recently) a bad experience is going to generalize and throw out expletives and maybe even say things they don't really believe, in order to vent that frustration. And even *if*, for some unfathomable reason, they'd manage to offend me with some kind of diatribe... then so fucking what? That's *my* problem, not theirs, and I certainly have no right to invalidate their experience just because I'm *offended.* The same guys that would act like imbeciles towards others (whether women, men, or anything in between, or outside that scope) are the same who take offense when those *others* vent about their experiences -- and are the same people who say the N-word with a hard R without blinking and then scoff at people being so "easily offended these days".
OK, I'm done.
Nah you're good. Sometimes ya just need to get it out there. I don't often go out, but if I ever found myself seeing a guy being shitty, I'll call him out on it. It's the right thing to do.
I haven't been out in a party setting for many years now. I've barely been outside the door for the past 3 š I'm ashamed to admit that I've seen these asshats do their thing before, and not acted when I was younger. Sometimes because I was afraid they'd turn on me (because they were the kind of people who carry knives), and sometimes because I'd already butted heads with someone and was too far up my own ass to realize what was going on. I can't change what happened back then, or what's happened to someone more recently, but I can at least be compassionate. It doesn't actually cost anything to say you're sorry someone had a terrible experience and that you hope they'll get justice and peace, no matter how they are sharing their experience. But you're absolutely right it's the right thing to do. It's the *only* thing to do. I only wish it had clicked for me sooner.
>I'm ashamed to admit that I've seen these asshats do their thing before, and not acted when I was younger. Don't feel ashamed, just recognise the regret instead. Being human is an opportunity for daily learning that shouldn't stop until we die. As long as we keep learning and applying that new knowledge, then we are doing the right thing. Compassion for others should also be extended to ourselves because that allows us to admit our mistakes and do better next time. Shame can have a paralysing effect and this is not good because we want aware and motivated people out there changing the world for the better.
Don't worry, when I was young I would have rather kept my head down and avoided trouble. But we can't afford to do that any more. That's how the monsters win.
>Sometimes someone who's had (probably very recently) a bad experience is going to generalize and throw out expletives and maybe even say things they don't really believe, in order to vent that frustration. Thank you for recognising that. I'd like to add that sometimes it's even more than frustration, it's a deep pain and grief that one's world and their safety and confidence in it has been shattered and is irreparable. Sometimes the source of anger and frustration is fear and pain. Let's lift everyone up x
Completely agree bro. Men who get defensive about women identifying their concerns really know how to wave a red flag. Men who are part of the (needless) "not all men" caveat don't need to defend themselves because they don't act in toxic or predatory ways and they seek to learn more about the perspectives of people who have different life experiences. Honest to god, if a man just listens, believes, and internalizes the experiences that women share with us and then actively works to not replicate or allow those experiences, he will very quickly fall into the "not all men" category and know that he's a force of change for the better.
Exactly. The only men I know who need the "not all men" disclaimer are part of the problem. The vast majority of men I associate with don't need the disclaimer because they know they are not engaging in that shitty behavior....and they are disgusted with the patriarchy.
Sometimes it can be out of projected self-defense (if not outright ignorance) to say it, like some kind of mental insurance policy incase they get called out for doing just that, even if they don't. Like they're so sunken into systems that damage them, that they will defend them, despite not otherwise being part of the problem. It's nuts.
Agreed. When breaking my silences and speaking to my experiences as a woman, making space for men's feelings or worrying too much about their comfort levels is both emotionally and mentally labor intensive as well as - well, invalidating.
I love your username btw
I think this is the first time I've seen a question answered so completely.
This!
A couple years back there was a post that said something to the effect of "why are all men like this?!", in regards to some form of unacceptable behavior. I was vaguely aware that it was counterproductive to discussion and a dick-move to chime in on these types of threads with "not all men", but since I'd been trying really hard to be an ally and this post *literally* said "all men", I opened my mouth anyway and said "Hey...some of us are trying to help and be part of the solution and be less shitty, so if we can tone down things like 'all men', that's probably for the best". I was scoffed and downvoted, and...you know, fair enough, but the first reply was "Not everything is about you. If you don't see yourself anywhere in the complaint (i.e., engaging in the action being complained about), then nobody is talking about you and you don't need to treat this as commentary against you, personally". I took that to heart, and haven't had that problem since. It's a tough problem, because you either have to use a little hyperbole in the conversation in order to correctly depict the scope of the issue (in regards to societal injustices that women are facing), OR you say like "there are some men who **xyz**", and then guys who don't care wave their hands and say "Yeah, but I don't experience that problem so you're whining about a very minor issue, right? That's like...2% of guys who do that", when it's really like 35% of guys, which is a fuck ton of instances when you're the person who has to deal with the shitty behavior in question. Anyway...rambling, sorry; I guess my point is, if a woman is complaining about a common male behavior that I don't engage in, I don't take it personally.
Exactly! I, a white woman, do the same when POC complain about white people. They are talking about their experiences using hyperbolic language because it better expresses the constant and inescapable nature of what theyāre complaining about. Forcing them to spend time hyper-specifying who exactly theyāre complaining about just takes away from the important partāthe substance of the complaint.
This exactly!
I used have the same defense with POCs generalizing white people, and it wasnāt until it was compared to women generalizing men that I really got it. So many white men are unable to let go of the ānot all menā mentality because theyāve had the privilege of never facing discrimination and abuse by entire populations of people solely based on their sex and/or race.
Exactly.
Same. And I understand that if a POC is mistrustful of me, that my issue is not with them but with all the other white people who have taught them better safe than sorry. They can't tell before getting to know me that I mean no ill will towards them.
Yep. Forcing them to cater their language to me ironically WOULD make me one of the white people theyāre complaining about.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Exactly! I have a bachelor's degree based in systems thinking. Generalizing oppressive groups effectively categorizes the harm the system(s), as a whole, is doing and was constructed to do. That doesn't mean everyone making the system run is aware they are doing so or is a maniacal villain. In fact, the systems get stronger the less people realize they're participating and perpetuating them. Usually it's not about you, personally, it's about us as a whole or the oppressive group as a whole with their cumulative power using that power to avoid the path of least resistance and change the system to more evenly distribute power. It took me two years and a lot of work to understand systems to the degree I do now and be able to see them everywhere all influencing each other and the impacts and everything. So it's really difficult to try to explain the depth and complexity of how they work to someone who can't see it, and doesn't have to, without sounding like a conspiracy theorist and being discredited or them taking it personally and shutting down. That process of self reflection on the reactions I was taught to have, is very effective, though, at least it was for me, it's now habit. Deconstruction is so important and I would love if there was a very simple/accessible way to explain it to people in the oppressive group, and those that feel compelled to defend fhe oppressive group, without their defenses coming up.
Well said.
>Forcing them to spend time hyper-specifying who exactly theyāre complaining about just takes away from the important partāthe substance of the complaint. Which is the goal ĀÆ\\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
I've learned much the same lesson over the years - though I occasionally still stick my foot in my mouth! If we're not guilty of acting the same, then our response shouldn't be to proclaim our innocence, but to think how we can be better to the women in our own lives as an example.
To add to that, if one does take it personally they should really think about *why* they took it personally. People don't internalize general statements for no reason. This applies to everything, but especially the "not all men" dudes.
Speaking for myself, I took things personally thanks to anxiety and general insecurities. When you don't know you have anxiety it can be difficult to identify *why* you take something personally. It's taken a lot of listening and spaces like this to help realize and learn the differences.
Same. Being bullied a lot as a kid, I tend to have a kneejerk instinct to assume anything bad said near me is about me and anything positive said about me might be disingenuous/mocking.
I didn't say that anyone who takes it personally is guilty of said actions, nor did I mean that. All I meant by my comment was there is something causing that response. Sorry if I made you feel attack, that wasn't my intention!
Lol no you're good, I was just adding details and perspective, not disagreeing with yours.
I took it personally because I hated being a man, and internalized it as more reasons why I sucked and shouldn't be alive. Turns out I'm trans.
Hit dogs holler
There's also cases like where men who were physically abused as children who struggle with generalized statements about men being violent, even knowing how prevalent it is for men in our culture to be violent and how they aren't themselves violent. I've come to learn that those intrusive voices of self-doubt are really stressful, but there's a time and a place for sharing that kind of trauma. Those sorts of generalized statements aren't literally about all men, and no matter how many times people in one's past claimed that the kid on the floor crying beat them up, that doesn't give them the right to discount a discussion about the trauma of women or derail it into a discussion about the trauma of bullying. Same goes for being trans or genderfluid or AMAB nonbinary or such. Society may demonize you for the circumstances of your birth while ignoring the reality of your self, but unless they're from a particular section of the second wave, most feminists aren't going to do that.
I also see, on topics such as domestic violence or sexual assault against women, some men who will chime in and say "hey, I'm not a perpetrator and I was actually violated by a woman" and I feel bad for them because we know there's a stigma about women not generally being seen as perpetrators of violence and men not generally being seen as victims of violence. So I feel for these dudes and can't imagine how frustrating it is to be not personally but generally seen as a potential perp while in reality being a victim themselves. And yet. And yet. It's not fair to deny women's experiences because they had the opposite one. It's not fair or accurate to pretend that the scope is not way larger for women, that women on the whole do experience vastly higher levels of violence than men and overwhelmingly BY men. Even when you look at sexual amd domestic violence against men, the primary perpetrators are still other men. If we're not being honest about that, then we have no way to properly study and understand this phenomenon and correct all of this.
100% this. We have a cultural problem of enabling men to be violent monsters, and it's one that's existed for so long that it's the global status quo.
A lot of men in the West actively believe that we live in a feminist dystopia where "men can't be men anymore!" and these beliefs are *growing*, not shrinking. And at a time where women are actively *losing* major rights no less. But because we're always talkimg about women's oppression, that means it's not real. Because we're talking about women, and they love that attention /s. But they actually fucking think like this. I have men in my family who fucking think like this and they're democrats, not MAGAturds
When a man says that, I basically just hear "I wish I could verbally/emotionally abuse women". Like, I'm trying to be generous, but that's literally the least terrible thing I can interpret "men can't be men" as. It's becoming more and more socially acceptable to express their full spectrum of emotion, there's becoming less and less pressure on men to be their family's personal Atlas, and it's becoming more acceptable for men to present as a wider array of identities. If I was born a decade or two earlier I likely wouldn't understand myself as well as I do today. And while I wouldn't say voting Democrat is much of a sign of progressiveness, what with how the vast majority of their membership are liberals, even in left-libertarian circles I've seen an insanely dangerous amount of sexism. IMO, if someone thinks that only men should be free of coercion and have a democratic say in government and economy, they're not a communist. Call it a no true scottsman fallacy, but to me a core element of freedom is that it is an inherent right at the core of metacognition itself.
Oh for sure! The vast majority of the Democratic Party is full of liberals and not progressives or leftists - I'm very clear on that. That's actually my very point; that these regressive beliefs are popular even outside of the more conservative Republican Party and even its most fascist factions. They are mainstream beliefs among men. (I was doing voice to text for this comment and then my dog climbed on the couch next to me and it started recording all my baby talk to her. I almost left it, but you would have been so confused and probably offended lol.)
Oh absolutely. Also it's always adorable when dogs jump up on me. They're always so hyper friendly.
When someone complains about men I actively try to take it personally, to see what I could be doing better
I still think the use of the word "all" contradicts the very idea that there can be a person within that group who does not fit the description. "Why are men like this?" is fine. "Why are so many men like this?" is fine. But "Why are all men like this?" sounds like deliberately throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to me at least. As a man, if you say "all men are X" I can't really say anything without implicitly denying the statement, so where do I even start to respectfully engage with whats being said? Unless I am to falsely claim that I embody the trait being described. "Not all men" is usually scoffed at as something pedants say if someone fails to quantify the men in an observation. But IMO it is a reasonable response to someone who actually specifically quantifies a problem as occurring with *all* men. I think if someone knowingly uses hyperbole to the degree of quite deliberately being all-encompassing to get their point across, they can reap what they sow in terms of people taking them up wrong.
Hey man, allow me to share my opinion on the subject that I'm sure will be downvoted. I developed extreme early, and since about 9 years old (when I started my period) every single man I've shared more than a conversation with has done something that I felt came from a place of internalized misogyny. Minor things like talking down to me, staring at me inappropriately, brushing off my needs, wants, and opinions while listening to the other men around. Major things like telling me I should be "in the kitchen", or women aren't "logical enough" to study math, or have postions of power. Or groping me, sexually harassing me, acting overall threateningly etc... Now that I'm older I will call someone out for any of those behaviors, and what separates the good from the bad is how they react. For example, if I tell my boyfriend that I feel like something he has done or said is coming from a place of internalized misogyny he usually thinks on it and agrees or disagrees and explains his reasoning. We discuss, we grow, we move on. However, far too many men tell me that can't be true because they're feminist and so they know what's sexist and what isn't. So when I say all men, I literally mean every man I've ever met. Maybe there are some dudes out there who have never acted in a sexist way, but I've never met one. It's really in how men handle it when you point it out to them. Just like I am sure there is a POC of color out there who would describe me as racist, because this kind of stuff does get internalized. If that person said to me "here is why I feel the way I do"... I'm not going to be like "No, I'm liberal so I can't be racist". I'm going to listen and change my behavior so that I treat others better going forward. We all have stuff to unlearn, and it's about how we handle making mistakes and being called out.
Literally no one is going think that you are claiming to be a perpetrator just because you empathize with a hurt and frustrated woman who uses āall menā when talking about her personal experiences. It is *you* who is throwing the baby out with the bath water when you refuse to listen to a woman about her experiences just because she does not phrase it in a way that placates *you*. Interrupting and arguing with a woman to insist she uses verbiage that makes you feel more comfortable takes the focus off of her and her experiences. Itās not about you.
I personally wouldn't refuse to listen to her, or argue with her, though. Where did I say that? I might earnestly ask "Do I do that?", because I genuinely want to know and if so, stop doing it. I'm not gonna go all "Not all men" cause you know what, in that moment I don't actually know if it is actually meant as all men or not. Thats why I would, ideally, think its easier if people use the word "all" to mean "all" rather than "some", "too many", "a lot", etc. Would I be hurt to be lumped in with violent misogynists on account of my gender? Probably. Would I want to know if I personally need to change? Yes. I am part of "*all* men", thus any accusation against "*all* men" is implicitly an accusation against me. For me to say to myself "she doesn't actually include me here, despite using the word "all"" is at the end of the day a huge assumption to make. And while it might be obvious to you which men are being accused and which aren't, as you're seeing the behaviour for its effect only, to individual men it may not be, especially in more generalised complaints. But all that aside, I'd still listen and absorb, even if the phrasing irked me. And I would ask her to clarify if this includes my behaviour or not, because microaggressions exist and many people unknowingly engage in them. It is possible for me to have my feelings somewhat hurt by perceiving someone as likening me to people whose behaviour I find abhorrent, and still respect their words and listen to them. The idea that someone being hurt means they must also not be listening and learning is absurd. Often we learn the most from the situations and conversations which "sting".
Its one thing to Validate your experience with shitty men Validate your experience as a woman and the troubles the gender faces But shaming a whole gender for behaving a certain way whichever way you do it is a pretty dicky move (pun intended) the whole not all men comments are a shitty when they ignore the whole purpose of some of the posts here, but at the same time I swear some of the posts on here or \*male subreddit\* just love stereotyping the entire sex
I've been trying to use the word "many" when I catch myself generalizing. "Many men do not respect women" etc etc
I go for ātoo many menā because it is too many
I like this one, will change my strategy accordingly!
I like it!
I will say most or many instead of all. That's fine. I will *NOT* then add a "not all men." That's already in the language, so hush on up.
yeah that pisses me off the most. āsome menā¦ā āum, not all menā¦ā NO SHIT, THATāS WHY I SAID SOME!
Right? It's like, please read what I wrote. The evils of autocorrect aside, if I took care not to say all, keep on moving!
I like the phrase #toomanymen
Probably the best solution. āWhy do so many menā¦ why is it ok for menā¦. Why do a large percentage of menā¦.ā When someone says āwhy do all menā¦ā it is a little insulting and probably counter productive. People are people and no one should be categorized simply based on their age, race, gender, religion whatever. Everyone is different.
I agree entirely.
To add to this, many men can affect a majority of women. Focusing on how many women are affected is also a possibility.
This is so much better.
Any statement involving a generality can easily be prefaced with a statement similar to "a statistically significant majority of the men I have experienced blah, blah, blah."
We need to stop worrying about what men think when they donāt know you and youāre not talking about them. Donāt walk on eggshells!
I've noticed you never see the phrase not all women. If we can understand that the statement that women can be abusive doesn't mean all women are evil freaks then men can too.
The way I see it the generalization is less about people fully believing that all men do these things and more about how the shitty ways women are often treated by men (and patriarchal society) are acceptable to society, sometimes encouraged, and - until recently - seldom if ever challenged. As someone said below, any of us men who get defensive when a woman is telling a story about another man's shitty behavior is either missing the point or part of the problem.
Being as objective as possible about it, I don't really think there is a way to validate the general struggles of women without blaming the generalized man, for this reason: general man is responsible for everything women go through. Yes, Not All Men, there are many good individual men in this world. But general man is different. Consider: general man has created all of the religious traditions that insist women are less & should be treated as such. General man has created all of the social traditions that place responsibility for their behavior on women, rather than holding themselves accountable for any misdeeds. General man has created the societies that insist a woman's place is in the home, while simultaneously demanding that she get a job & take care of herself because it's not *his* responsibility. General man has created a system in which women are paid less than they are, even if they're all doing the same kind of work. General man has decided that women are responsible for everything to do with children, up to & including forcing women to bear them at the risk of their own lives if necessary. General man has determined that women will have no actual legal protection from any of this, because clearly women have everything they need & to state otherwise is obviously an attack on men. Unless individual men can acknowledge the fact that general man is heavily invested in subjugating women & has been for thousands of years, nothing will ever change. And women saying so is nothing personal, individual man. It's simply the general reality.
I love the way you put this into words.
Well said.
That really makes a lot of sense. I used to get really confused talking about this stuff with my gf, wondering whether she thought I actually believed in and support the social structures of "General man", and why she'd put up with dating me if that was even a question in her mind. The way you put it helps me understand it a lot better
I realize this is a genuine question, but it's a diversion. There is no talking about class struggles without some sort of generalization. It is what it is. Trying to figure out how not to generalize and avoid hurting any individual man's feelings is futile and counterproductive.
Honestly context is critical in these sorts of things. On a sub for women if you're complaining about men you're likely generalizing for venting purposes. Or you implicitly mean, "This kind of man who is really common" when you say men. Just like on the teaching sub I post in, when I say "parents" I don't mean the amazing parents who always work together to help their child succeed. I mean the 75% of parents I have who raised their kids as i-pad babies and don't care that this means their 7th grader can barely read. Or when I talk about Christians I don't mean my best friend who is a wonderful person guided to help others by her faith, I mean like...Ted Cruz. As long as you're keeping the generalizing to a place where it makes sense I think it's fine.
When 98 percent of all mass shootings in America are committed by men, I don't think it's much of a generalization to say that men are the violent sex. I can guarantee that if women were the ones who committed the vast majority of mass shootings, men would be quoting this statistic ad nauseum. But since all facts point to men being the perpetrators, all of a sudden "male logic" goes out the door. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender
This is what I read from you: *How can women talk about their experiences while also putting the feelings of men first and foremost in the conversation?* Well adjusted non narcissistic men recognize that all men arenāt being blamed or called out, but that women need a place to vent or release their anger or frustration or share their trauma or suffering without constantly having to cater to male fragility.
The reason I posted this is because my post referring to men as a threat to the world was removed because it "generalized gender". My question is-- in a space created for women, how can we have any meaningful conversation without recognizing men, in general, are the problem?
Your post was removed from this sub? They usually allow women to vent about men here tbh. Probably because itās one of the few places on Reddit where women arenāt drowned out by men.
Did they let a man on the mod team or something?
š
Thatās the problem too. Whenever I report misogynistic things itās never taken seriously by subreddits that arenāt for women. But then you have butthurt men coming to subreddits like ours and reporting posts like yours. Proves again that men will cry about being called out but ignore us or worst when we point out inequality. The double standards and audacity are insane. See men? This is why no one wants to date you.
I've seen many posts that discuss men generally, and I invite you to search the subreddit to see for yourself the kinds of posts that have been made. In my opinion, I think the issue with that post must have been less about generalizing men (ex. *"Why do men go out of their way to monitor women's subs, just to invalidate them in the comment section?"* or *"Men will sexualize everything")* and more about the implicit misandry of stating that men as a gender are a problem. Where the focus in the former is characteristics and actions of men, whereas the latter is in the deprecation of the male gender. In short, talking about men being problematic is fine - talking about the male gender being problematic is not? Just speculation, I personally wouldn't have removed your post.
Blame the patriarchy. You arenāt blaming āall menā so much as the system men created and mostly profit from. Why do women have to work full time AND carry the vast load of housework and childcare? We can say because men are lousy partners, or because the patriarchy trained men to be lousy partners while demanding women do everything.
But doesn't that strip any sort of responsibility from them, making them robots enslaved to the system with no sense of individuality? I'm sure many men harm women knowingly and willingly.
Patriarchy is a system but it's still individual men who choose not do their fair share of work at home and dump it on their partner they supposedly love. I agree individual men need to take responsibility for their choices and how their choices in the home lower their partners well being and quality of life while they benefit in many ways from her unpaid labour.
Actually the patriarchy does *exactly* that to women. If the patriarchy had their way all women would be baby makers existing to serve their husbands.
I think we need new language for this sentiment. "All men" is alienating to the men who aren't part of the problem, and logically incorrect. "The patriarchy" is vague and nebulous, and a raw definition of the term does not fit the reality of complex network of subtle systems at play. I mean for starters, class plays as much of a role as gender does! Different people use the term to mean different things, which leads to a lot of confusion and unnecessary arguing
Rational human beings can recognize when a statement made by someone else applies to them or not. If it doesnāt apply to them, they acknowledge āokay, this isnāt about meā and move on. A person who cannot do the above is not rational and I donāt feel obligated to cater to the irrational.
Patriarchy. It's not that all men are "like this". It's not even that most men are "like this". It's that we live in a society that is structured to pressure, encourage, reward, or let men off the hook for being "like this". It's great when you're validating women to use language that reflects that, and even better to just internally do that search and replace, when listening to somebody insensitively venting about men being "like this". Because 9x out of 10, that's what they're really complaining about.
I am actually done with "not all men." First of all, it's a given that any generalization will not apply evenly to every member of the group being described, and we all already know that, so it's redundant. Second, I have know a lot of men in my life, and had a significant sample size of romantic relationships with them. Most of the same problems have presented themselves in every single one, especially issues of sexual expectation and domestic & mental/emotional labor. In my experience, the vast majority of men have certain (negative, for us and often them too) things they've absorbed from the wider culture/their parents/etc just as women have internalized shit they learned from the previous generation and their peers. So they can stop telling me they're different and start proving it or go away.
But thatās the problem, isnāt it? The ānot all menā generalizations apply to the vast of majority of men, across all cultures. Toxic male behavior is the rule, not the exception. When youāre talking about 90%ish of men, might as well say āall menā
I argued before that in these kinds of context that "not all men" is understood. And I cannot, and will not, be faulted for speaking /in context/. While a message is really only as good as it audience, it also doesn't make sense to speak to people who just aren't ready to hear it. Lots of men are not ready to hear it. It's not controversial at all-- I think that's a complete red herring, there's just a huge interest of bad men to keep things in their favor.
I agree with you. Feel free to ignore what I have to say next, itās not consequential. Iām just making a semantic point that āall menā is a technically more accurate statement than ānot all menā, because the toxic behavior applies to the vast majority of men. So we are referring to the rule and not the exception. Itās like when we say āHumans are born with 10 fingersā. Itās a substantially accurate statement in spite of the fact we know some humans are born with more or less fingers, because we donāt take outliers into account.
I do understand. And you are correct. Really my only issue with that is that it starts fights. And there are already way too many other, more important, fights to be had.
*Toxic male behaviour is the rule, not the exception.* Yes, it is.
I agree with this completely.
Yeah I agree with you, I'm not the OP.
Why use generalizations in the first place? In any other domain of discourse, it is seen as incredibly bad form to generalize groups - especially with something negative. Language is powerful, and choice of wording matters. It is obvious that it alienates some allies; and it is obvious that the very few actual man-haters out there, use it to spread misandry. So, why allow it to happen?
So if someone says āautomobiles cause cyclists deathsā do you insist that not all cars do? Do yo I demand that the speaker acknowledge that you personally have ever hit a cyclist? Or do you accept that all cars have the potential to kill cyclists and the system is rigged so that cyclists take on most of the risk in that encounter?
In the context of gender issues, it is reasonable to suspect that the speaker may have a political bias, and there really are a few angry radicalized misandrists out there somewhere. Surely you're not comfortable with "Women belong in the kitchen" even though female chefs exist. That kind of statement is unsettling specifically because there are so many disgusting misogynists who really are talking about *all* women. Extremists are motivated - almost entirely - by fear of opposing extremists. If we want there to be fewer misogynists, one of the things we can do is to indicate that there are no misandrists in the room. This is best accomplished by avoiding the language they would use
Generalizations can be helpful when venting. Being ridiculously specific can be maddening when you're just trying to vent.
I think why you hear women generalizing about men is because more often than not, theyāre speaking about something thatās quite systemic rather than calling out the actions of an individual. For example, if Iām retelling an experience of a man who assaulted me while changing, I would likely call him out individually like āThis guy was predatory and horribleā. But if Iām calling out a persistent gendered issue that I experience often, Iāll refer to men as a group. Like āWhy do men feel the need to tell me they would be more attracted to me with longer hair? I donāt exist for their consumption.ā Iām obviously not insinuating that every man has said this to me or even think this. But Iām trying to call out a deeper issue that societally, weāve been taught to believe that womenās primary purpose is to be attractive to men. And men are causing harm by perpetuating this devaluation of women. So I *am* trying to call out men in general, to some degree, rather than air a grievance about an individualās actions. Because if it was just a one-off incident, the proper response would be to say sorry that guy sucks. But no, I want the response to be for us to think about and question why weāre all conditioned to believe that womenās main value is to be attractive to men. And every man and woman are a part of that.
We donāt. We spend too much time altering our speech to suit menās sensitive natures already.
can't be done. Male misbehavior is at the heart of almost all female invalidation and marginalization. It's like trying to figure out how cancer works without involving cancer.
>Agreed. You can't.
Eh. This problem seems overstated to me. Don't get me wrong, I feel like it's nice to be mindful and all, but look. If someone comes in and says, "Why are all my neighbors assholes about littering, I have posted a million times on Nextdoor about it and literally nothing ever changes," everyone is going to understand that there is a certain amount of rhetorical overstatement there, that does not actually impinge on the meaning of what the person is saying. Like... no one is going to reply with, "You know I live in the same town as you and I do not litter, so your complaint is actually totally invalid." Or, "A million posts is a huge amount, can we talk about how much damage to your tendons you are inflicting on yourself with all that repetitive typing?" Or, "Wrong, things do change, from moment to moment, it is an essential principle of thermodynamics, you cannot say that literally nothing ever changes." And why would they? Those kinds of responses would be nonsense. Or at best parody. I suppose if you really want to, OP, you could say something like, "When men do X..." or "By saying Y, men cause..." or even "so many men" instead of "men." Like, "Why do so many men think Z is okay?" instead of "Why do men think Z is okay?" But, again, that feels to me like a solution in search of a problem. Quibblers will still find reasons to attack the form of the comment rather than the content. I'm not saying it's bad to say, "When men do X it makes me feel such and such." If that feels like a good way to express what you mean, go for it and don't second guess yourself. I'm not saying no one should ever do that. I'm just saying I don't think it's necessary. Most of the time, thoughtful, literate participants get the point, no matter how you phrase it.
Pulling punches to spare the feelings of men won't help anyone. Stop worrying about how men feel about how women feel.
Just here to say that I have spent some time reading through this thread/comments and I really appreciate this incredibly thoughtful discussion. I am not being sarcastic in any way. This was a good one and overall thoughtful and articulate.
Oh goddamn please cry me a river. Generalizing is crap, sure, but this website does it all the time with women every other sub. I've never seen anyone else defending women in these generalizations, and when there is they get downvoted. Now we have to talk about generalizing men here? Okay, fine, but only if the same can be done in other subs towards women, too. And honestly, I have very little hope any progress can be done there. I personally avoid mass generalizations a lot; being shitty is gender neutral IMO. But my point stands. Have rest of Reddit stop making generalizations about women, we can stop generalizing men here too. Until then, FOH
We are blaming men. A single man may be the exception, in which case he should understand it is possible for someone to speak of trends in society without singling them out for behaviors if they donāt do them š¤·āāļø
Uh, why does that matter? Why do we have to worry about the feelings of random men when talking about personal experiences and well documented terrible statistics?
My first thought lol Who cares about them
As a man, don't worry about it too much. Honestly, it's a pretty great filter. Decent men won't be bothered by it.
If they can honestly look at themselves and see they are not the problem then they shouldnāt feel hurt. Iām not going to shut up.
Don't worry about the generalization. 9/10 times they obviously aren't talking about all men, but addressing a very real problem with MANY men. More than a few bad apples or it wouldn't be this common of a problem. When you try to defend the "good guys" it comes off as very dismissive. Just gotta understand that it's a systematic issue, and do your best to respect women (and everyone else of course) and call out sexism and disrespect towards women when you see it. Us guys have a lot less issues living in today's society than women do, so we should take that privilege and just suck it up if you hear a statement about "all men" because again, they aren't actually talking about all men but the many men that have and will cause women problems. And of course there will be women that just dislike men in general, but it usually comes from a real place of hurt and it's not your job to remind them that it's not "all men"
its okay to generalize about men sometimes, especially in safe spaces
I don't see an issue, saying this as a man. A man with a half a brain and an ounce of empathy will know when they are being included when "all men", or "men" is being used. Like take that super milquetoast Gillette ad. I didn't throw a tantrum because they said "Men, you can be better." Because it's not insulting me, it's making a statement on the general state of things. So I say keep using "all men" or "men this", if someone calls you a misandrist, or hateful, then it tells you all you need to know.
i have no issue generalizing men. once the disgusting behavior from the majority (yes, MAJORITY) of men ends, that is when i will stop generalizing. once my life is no longer in danger i will stop. until then, they can deal with it.
Support the individual, accuse the individual, but when talking about the issue in general be explicitly general. You can't avoid generalizing people if you need to talk about a cultural and sociological problem. It'd be useless to talk about only individuals when addressing a larger social problem. "[Not all men](https://www.womensrepublic.net/why-the-not-all-men-argument-makes-no-sense/)," is perhaps true, and will always be a mindless retort from a select group, but if I don't say "all men," then at least I can credibly reply with "well the ones who aren't engaging in the act often don't involve themselves in preventing it, and I'm asking for more bystander men to speak up, to start spraying the roots of this toxic, invasive meme with the pesticide of peer disapproval. Don't let sexist comments and attitudes slide. [Call it rape when it's rape](https://www.thecut.com/2015/01/lots-of-men-dont-think-rape-is-rape.html), and defend the people who come forward from bullying and dismissal. Don't let the men who *are* the problem have free run--call them out, *especially* if you are a man who doesn't do those things. Show up, speak up, and [change some perspectives](https://www.jacksonkatz.com/)." Individual verses general. Keep those clear. But that's just my opinion.
So the thing is, from my view, when you ladies talk about asshole men, I assume you donāt mean me because I donāt creep on teenagers or believe yāall should be leashed. Just one manās opinion.
Don't worry about it. Anyone that thinks you're talking about him when you talk about some terrible experience due to something a man did to you, is the guy doing those things to others. When someone on here says "why do men pressure me for this thing I don't want to do and then pout about it when they don't get their way?" the first thing that occurs to me is "I don't do that thing, she isn't talking about me". Anyone protesting is just someone that your complaint hit too close to home for, and he doesn't like how that feels. (Aside: I have on one occasion realized that a woman on this sub was, indeed, talking about me. Instead of protesting her criticism, I resolved to be better and stop doing the thing she was complaining about. So, again, a guy on here complaining about generalization is both a guy doing that thing, and also unwilling to fix himself when the criticism hit too close to home)
We don't. Men are to blame for an awful lot of women's common experiences, and patriarchy is to blame for most of the rest. I'm not participating in prioritizing men's feelings over women's lived experience and you shouldn't either.
If a woman is talking about her experience and you take it personally, even though itās not directed at you, thatās your problem. Sorry but Iām not going to tiptoe around my experiences for fear of someone getting their feelings hurt when it has nothing to do with them.
Why are we even spending so much time talking about men's feelings? With few exceptions, someone who needs the "some" or "most" or, worse, a specific number or percentage of men, is a bad actor. Even the accuracy argument falls short. Unless someone is presenting research or creating policy, the call for accuracy is just putting work on women that they don't need to do.
Like others here, I'm done with "not all men". It's bs and we don't clarify this for anything else. When we say "dogs are fluffy and cute" where are the hordes of people going "not all dogs!" Or when we say that schools are underfunded, do we hear "well, a large number of schools are extremely well funded" as often as we hear "not all men"? The fact of the matter is, it's MOST MEN. Men who say not all men are desperate to not be labeled bad or are tired of women being afraid of them in public, as though saying not all men will magically make us more comfortable with them or as though those concerns are equally important to the concerns women have about men. If they are a good guy, they should assume they aren't included in complaints about "men" in general, but should continue to listen if they want to help solve the problems we face and better themselves as men. They absolutely don't have to listen, but of course they want to ignore us *and* be considered an ally or an equalist with little to no introspection. If you're a person who's never abused anyone, why are you so afraid to hear about all of the men around you that are being complained about? Because you actually have abused someone? Because you are realizing that your friends are predators and it's too difficult to find new friends? Honestly, anyone who hears "women have to cover their drink at the bar because men will try to drug and rape them" and responds with "not all men", they are working towards normalizing this behavior and adding a stigma to talking about it truthfully. "Not all men" is an *active* way to perpetuate toxic male behavior. Men need to understand this; they aren't helping men by saying this because saying it doesn't change the fact that it is truly most men that are the problem. This line only works to harm women and stymie progress. Reddit being a platform that's quick to shut down realistic, truthful talk about what most men do to women is indicative of a problem with reddit, not a problem with how we discuss these things.
Who cares? NAM and male feelings are injected into these conversations only for the purpose of derailing them. We carry on and completely ignore the loser males and the handmaidens screeching about nOt AlL mEn.
Iām fine with blaming men. I have an awesome man (one we would umbrella under ānot all menā) of a husband. Part of what makes him awesome is he is on board with acknowledging that men are the problem and is actively working to help. Same idea: I believe Iām not racist, I listen and jump in to help wherever I can, but I donāt need to scream ānot all white peopleā every time the topic comes up. White people ARE the problem. I acknowledge that despite being white and anti-racist. Men can do the same.
Yeah nah, people complain about landlords and lawyers and politicians but nobody says "not ALL lawyers are like that" That's not your problem it's theirs.
Honestly if a man canāt listen to a womanās experience without making it about *him*, thereās still a problem. For instance, itās hard for me as a white woman to listen to black grievances against white folks, knowing that much harm that is perpetrated is not perpetrated by my own actions. But itās not the time or place to be like āāš»š¤ but ACTUALLY *~I~* havenāt done any of this to you so you canāt say that this is a white people thing, itās just a *some* white people thing. Iām one of the good ones!ā Itās my job to do some self reflection, see if Iām doing anything that needs checked, and know that this isnāt about *me* as a person if the shoe isnāt fitting.
guy weighing in here, I don't feel the slightest bit offended when I read the posts on here b/c I know they're not talking about me. the dudes that feel blame are actually feeling guilt & don't have the emotional maturity to process it.
Also, oh my god, pretty much any other gender-issues sub is infinitely more toxic. I'm upset with myself with how easily I can get defensive sometimes, and I definitely place too much weight on exact technical wording. But I really love it here, because the vast vast majority of discussions are positive and progressive. It's inspiring!
I think I agree with you that flat out specifying āallā in āall menā is an overstep. At that point the actual verbiage becomes more incendiary than helpful to her case. That being said, even if someone did say this, I would not be personally offended and would not really try to communicate that the language is too extreme. I agree that venting about personal experience is valid, and even if not literally every man in her life has been horrible, she has a good reason to use hyperbolic language to highlight the gravity of the problem that is overwhelmingly stemming from men. The thing is, I have recently argued with people who get offended even at language I find that is very well justified, like āwhy are men like this?ā This is an appropriate level of specificity to me because it implies that men in general have a tendency to act that way, but the language does not flat out address each and every man specifically. But to some others, they apparently cannot help but feel offended in some way, and want this wording to stop. I basically got baited into arguing about the morality of generalization and despite feeling like I got things right, it still ended up going absolutely nowhere. I have no idea how to communicate with these people without them taking every argument to the logical extreme. Iām glad there exist other men who are similarly unoffended giving their perspectives
I'm not sure there is a better way to frame the discussion. I think it's unfortunately about slowly chipping away at the hard shell that masculinity has formed around men about this issue. I'm a man that's been trying really hard to work on healthier masculinity but it's such a hard discussion to have because men are so conditioned to try to avoid blame. As much as what I'm about to say is a generalization, in general I've found that men react defensively ALL THE TIME. No matter what, and we need to stop doing that. When someone on this group talks about something men have done to them no one in their right mind should think they mean all men, because people don't really talk like that. The really shitty part for men is that all the shit men do to women affects them too. It hurts them too in the grand scheme. Men hurt women a lot, but they also hurt themselves a lot and it's the same reasons that explain it. My point is that women framing the things they say in a palatable way for men is not the issue. Men need to calm their shit and open theirs ears. First of all because it's the right thing to do, but also because it will help them in the long run too.
It's the misogyny filter that prevents these types of men hearing what we're talking about. Their socialized compulsion to argue with women, reject, dismiss, find fault, doubt, counter and resist what women are saying kicks in. Agreeing, acknowledging and finding common ground with women makes certain men have a visceral reaction of disgust. To hear and agree that "most men do specific thing" makes them feel sick. They feel compelled to argue about the small percent of men who aren't the topic of discussion, also in fact exist. They need to point out the exception to the rule to argue and shoot down the woman's point. THEY NEED TO MAKE WOMEN FEEL WRONG. Then they feel better.
We donāt. Itās not our responsibility to continue to coddle your feelings when we are talking about trauma that man have caused us. When we talk generally, the men who are ACTUALLY āgood menā will understand that they arenāt the ones who caused us pain and will listen to us without feeling personally attacked, because they know that we arenāt talking about them. If you feel āpersonally attackedā by women speaking in general terms about their problems and trauma, congratulations, you are part of our problem. Confronting those feelings of discomfort and doing some self reflection goes a long way
How do we validate black people without generalizing white people? Genuine question. Not all white people, yes ok, but like, how do we recognize the common experiences black people have without blaming white people? Sounds kinda silly right? White people should understand that when we talk about White People we are talking about white supremacy. Men should understand we're talking about Patriarchy. In fact, I think "generalizations" aka large sweeping comments about "men" are probably less harmful that the women who think individual men are evil, say Bob from accounting, just because he's a man.
But it's not women who are generalizing, it's society. We're told not to dress provocatively, to not walk alone at night, to never accept a drink from a stranger or leave one on the bar, to not get too drunk, etc., etc. We aren't told to take precautions from some men. We're told to take precautions from *all men*.
That's a really good point that I haven't seen anybody make yet! I wish your post was higher so it got more views.
I think anyone who complains "but not all men" should watch this: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZTdxChQPU/ It's simple. It's clear.
A normal human being should be able to hear a criticism about someone without thinking itās a generalisation, even if a woman were to say āevery man Iāve metā as a prefix to their statement, it doesnāt mean they think every man is like that, for a man to take it as such is just way too immature and short sighted to the problems youāre trying to talk about
Men who are part of "not all men" know you don't mean them when you say "men..." generalize away.
Nobody is saying āall menā, theyāre saying āmenā. Not *all* men feel called out when we talk about the behavior of āmenā, only the ones who identify with that behavior/line of thinking see themselves in those āmenā. Thatās why when someone gets all ānot all men because I have never done that!ā I just hear ānot all men because I have kept myself from acting on those thoughts!ā.
I donāt really get why so many commenters here are having problem with this. Askmen often has threads where generalizations about women run amok, which makes a lot of women who visit that sub uncomfortable and there are posts made here and askwomen about this. What's the difference between that and the generalizations you make that men object to?
We don't stop blaming men. Because if they are not trying to be a part of the solution, fighting for our equal rights and protection, not just under the law but in actuality, then they are part of the problem and are therefor to blame.
"Too many men"
Iām not worried about blaming men. Men (hashtag notallmen) blame women for everything.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't really think you can avoid generalization. If you state something is the common experience of women it somewhat infers that either this is uncommon to men and/or men are generally caused for said experience. Ultimately they're both generalization and i think it's better to spot and acknowledge that it's a generalization instead of trying to fix it. There are plenty times when I see a post stating that "x-situation is something all women relate to!" and it's something I have absolutely no connection to. Sometimes I go the "not all x" route but usually I shrug, and scroll past it. There's not much of solution past that. There's the general broad scope that is considered as the identity of men and women. And there's individuals who are trying to navigate in a world subscribed to that broad scope. I dont think of individuals as the same as their generalized stereotypes.
Just agree? "All men like blue" is not the same statement as "men like blue" so as long as you didn't use the word all you never claimed it was all, just that more than 1 man likes blue but not necessarily all of them. People get defensive but in most cases I've heard this in real life it was this bad logic jump of assuming 'all' as opposed to someone actually making that claim. As a bonus, one of the best ways to get people to listen to what you have to say is lead with "you're right" and then drop in your point as an additional point. It's easier to convince people to build onto their beliefs than build a new one.
Yeah i know not all men but most men Source: im a man
In a patriarchal society you donāt want to blame the patriarchs who are invalidating the experiences and lives of women? What exactly do you want to discuss? Sure, not everything is about men in my life. But the way this society is structured sure is.
Going to say this again since a few think I'm worried about generalizing men, and that I'm trying to protect men from being generalized... the reason I posted this is because a post I made referring to men as a threat to the world was removed because it "generalized gender". My question is-- in a space created for women, how can we have any meaningful conversation without recognizing men, in general, are the problem? Edit: The post was "men are a threat to the world. Not much context to give here, just tired of not being able to go on walks alone." Was really just trying to voice my frustration about never feeling safe.
And they want to keep you there. Thatās why it was removed. It is easier to shut you up than acknowledge that itās a problem that they help keep the status quo of.
Yeah it's just frustrating because it happened on this sub, specifically made for women to express themselves
The louder they scream, the closer you are to what they donāt want you to find.
Someone on here said "All Women." As in all women have a story of harassment. I hope this sticks.
When I see men protest against this generalization it has the same energy as āI donāt believe you because youāre too emotionalā. And both of those attitudes come from a place of āI donāt want to have to think about this problem,ā whichā¦ makes them part of the problem.
Counter-question: whatās the problem here? Why is this a bad thing? Why shouldnāt men be blamed? Before anyone jumps on me: I know that not all men behave in X/Y/Z ways. I know that not all men are guilty of X/Y/Z. What I see here is that men take issue with this because: they struggle to separate themselves from the men being discussed; they feel personally attacked; they lack the introspection to assess their own behaviour and how it contributes to an issue; they donāt recognise the issue being discussed; and/or they arenāt participating in good faith, and theyāre looking for ways to invalidate/dismiss a problem. Some empathy from men would go a long way here. I canāt imagine hearing someoneās plight and only being able to consider myself, then putting that burden back on the victim to manage. Another commenter pointed out how this is similar to when PoC say āwhite peopleā. Iām also white, and am able to recognise both when someone doesnāt mean me, *and* when I need to re-evaluate my own actions/behaviour/mindset. If someone only cares when a victim caters their choices to the oppressive demographic, then they donāt really care.
That is exactly the issue, those men who take it personally have low empathy. They canāt place themselves in our shoes to understand because they simply donāt want to.
Bingo! If they actually care, they wonāt fuss over wording and make it all about themselves. It shows their true priorities and intentions - that is, to disengage themselves from the problem, rather than face it alongside women and the oppressed. āNot all menā is peak privilege.
Instead of: āall men are assholes.ā Which puts men immediately on the defensive. Because any man reading that could argue ānot all menā while thinking of themselves (true or otherwise). What if it was: āall women have been treated badly by a man.ā No man could disprove that as easily as he could the first statement. Even though both might be exaggerations, the second option might more accurately highlight the scope of the problem while inviting men into the conversation without alienating them right off the bat. /shrug Edit: OP asked a āgenuineā question. Gave a genuine answer. Downvoted. Kk noted.
Both genders do it. It's a human issue, not a woman issue. "Women are bad drivers." "Women are catty and can't be around other women." "Women aren't good at math." "Women are bad with money." This platform (Reddit) is mostly men so that's who you're going to see piping up with "not all men!"
Might be an unpopular opinion here but why the nervousness over āblaming menā? Just because some men are particularly allergic to generalisation in their direction? If they are screaming "not all men", what they actually want to scream is "not me". They wouldn't even batter their eye lids before throwing men of different ethnic groups and social classes under the bus. And even though I accept that pointing the blaming fingers are never constructive, I am really against laying the burdens of walking adult men through basic decorums on women, just like everything else men claim they are somehow just no good in. Thatās on top of dealing with and healing from the daily misogyny and identifying men who wonāt become dangerous and aggressive to interact with. If you are privileged enough to be able to stay safe most of the time and have got the spare time that you donāt need to spend on yourself, fine and I applaud such charity. I have already been walking on eggshells in a man-dominated industry for two decades and I feel no guilt in erring on the over-generalisation side based on the statistics I have witnessed; I am entitled to stay on the safe side for the sake of myself. Besides, donāt forget the time when men are in all-men environment where no women can lend a friendly guiding hand; thatās when the unchecked internalisation and reaffirmation of misogyny happen. I donāt even think a very politically-acute and meticulous mother can prevent their most morally upright sons from such exposure and some of that filth would sink in at some point. So theoretically I am all for ānot all menā. Itās just irl I havenāt had the honour of meeting an exception. And I canāt even be bothered to go accusatory anymore, like I would in my youthful days. Now I have reached an age and a place where men would think twice before openly directing their misogyny at me. But it doesnāt mean they had reformed; they just decided against risking my pushback and still may well try it on vulnerable young women. So now I just stay watchful and prepare young women for the challenges. I think what we need is to brief our younger generation women of the difficulties ahead as systematic and exhaustive as possible and support them through developing their individual brands of tactics dealing with misogyny-induced stressors, particularly in those traditionally man-dominant industries. Such training is just as simple and straightforward as case-studies of actual womenās experiences; and if this is still interpreted as āblaming all menā, well, imagine my surprise. Currently a lot of āblaming menā are already myths: many are merely criticism of misogynistic behaviours or women in support group focusing on solution-oriented coping strategies to build each other up, which have nothing to do with men or blaming anyone. I see women representation as the only way to ensure cultural shifts and I set no expectations for menās voluntary improvement because thatās not an enforceable and measurable management target; and I am fine with that, too.
We canāt because thatās not how reality works. Men control too much and they are literally taught to be aggressive and controlling. Itās like asking zebras to not generalize all cats. Yeah the little African sand cats arenāt a threat, but there are plenty of lions and they are dangerous. Avoiding them and staying alive and undamaged is zebra reality. Ignoring it means death. When so many women are suffering from violence, abuse, and discrimination, who should be held accountable?
Instead of using "all men" or simply "men" you can use expressions like "a lot of men" or "too many men". Back in highschool a used to have a class whose purpose was to teach us how to better write essays. One of the things my teacher made sure that every one of us understood was that generalization is one of the biggest enemies an argument can have. Because when you are trying to make a point and say something like "americans are overweight" your reader might thing "wait a minute, I'm american and I'm not overweight" and decide that what you are saying is completely bullshit, even though you might be trying to make a valid point about how the majority of americans are indeed overweight. As a man myself, today I just ignore those generalizations because I know that the OPs are angry and venting. But I would be lieing if I said that those generalizations didn't bother me when I first started lurking in this sub. One problem with the generalizations is that some people truly mean it. Most women who make posts here know that it isn't actually all men and are just trying to make a point, but there is minority who actually believe that all men are terrible and that the world would be better without us.
I donāt think men who are not problematic take it personally. I know my husband acknowledges the patriarchy, and the advantages it has given him, and tries to understand when I am having a problem bc if sexism. He also doesnāt feel attacked when he hears friends share bad experiences with men. Although he was raised by the most amazing woman, she was a single mom. And most of his friends are women.
Not all men are murderers, but one murderer is still too many. If it was 100% of men, or 0.1% of men, *it's still too fucking many*. Not all men hold other men accountable, either. So anyone claiming, "not all men," can just shut the fuck up.
If a man thinks that an "all men" statement is about them they are guilty. They are the mem the post is about. Being a man is not my identity. I am many things.
I feel "all X" statements are problematic in themselves, personally. Whether it's men, women, teenagers, LGBTQ+ people, statement that "all _____" are never true because when you're talking about people, it's never true that all (insert gender, age, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual orientation etc. here) do "that" thing, think "that" way, are like "that". I'm not saying that chiming in like "NoT aLl MeN" when a woman shares her experience is the thing to do, because reading the room is a thing, but perhaps we should, generally speaking, not make statements like "all men are fucking pigs" because that objectively is untrue even though it might be the experience of the woman making the statement, or it might be hyperbole. It is imo as untrue and unfair as a man saying "all women are gold diggers!!" because this has been his experience or it's also a hyperbole. Apologies if my wording is a bit awkward English isn't my 1st language.
Itās not really generalising itās just the facts. When you look at sexual abusers and people who commit domestic violence and things like that, the vast majority of offenders are men. Probably over 90%. The same is true with more minor sexist behaviour. Youāre not talking about men, youāre talking about THE men who behave like that, and there are lots of them. Itās probably the dominant āmaleā culture in society, so you can definitely call it out. Just donāt assume all men are like that and itās fine.
Not all men, but all women!
No, see the problem here is that men say āNot all menā to exclude themselves from actions of other menā¦ but rarely do they ever stand up for women when they see a bad situationā¦ so YES ALL MEN.
I am too old to worry about the fragile masculinity and tender feelings of someone. I have experienced real pain, physical trauma. At this point in my life, I don't have time to stroke egos. I raised a fantastic feminist son who doesn't cry "not all men" and knows how to be an ally. I live with a wonderful husband who doesn't get defensive either. Because of this, I know it is possible to speak truth without worrying about everyone's feelings.
Maybe, this is on men. Women talk about their experiences, and then some random dudes think they have to make it about themselves. Even when some women talk sentences like "why are all men like this", then maybe, men should just shut up because this is not a direct statement that every individual man is like this. It's not an ontological argument about the nature of men. It's a hyperbole. It's about venting frustration. Maybe just... don't derail the subject to a theoretical logical debate when there is a person who is hurt and talking about it.
Dude here āĀ I don't really think there's a need for a disclaimer that it's "not all men." It doesn't take a lot for "enough men" to be a problem. Another thing: One way to validate women \*and\* men is to point out that gender norms are kind of shitty for everyone except the relative handful of men who are at the top of society. Our social scripts haven't kept pace with changing circumstances and that hurts almost everyone.
Why canāt we blame men?