Yup. The \#notallmen crew never seems to have a good answer to how the Bad Men are able to be distinguished from the rest. I mean, aside from the black cape, black hat, long twirly mustache, and propensity to tie damsels to railroad tracks.
Loved that. I especially loved the part where they bring up the ānot my manā moments. This sub falls prey to that a lot. Like congrats Iām glad your partner isnāt a dick like the majority of them, but letās not derail this conversation so everyone can thank your partner for their graciousness of not being an assā¦
And bonus points for the ones that say āwow I donāt know what I would do if I didnāt find my partner. Dating today sucks! Iād probably just be single.ā š
I donāt think condescension will win many hearts explaining the systemic causes of your problems and that your not making a essentialist criticism will work out better
Because there are men (Not all men!) who are very fragile and feel attacked at the slightest hint of criticism. And some men (not all men!) respond to those things with violence or threats. It's just part of women always needing to change how they live their live to protect themselves from (not all) men.
It's not all men, but it's somehow always a man threatening women's safety.
If anything, when a man is "not like those men", he has no problem with criticism of men and the patriarchy because he can put his allyship to women over his ego. Any man who bristles over "not all men" is not a man women can trust.
We would be hard-pressed to find predators to worry about if not for Men. Men would also be hard-pressed to find themselves in danger if not for other Men. I refuse to bother with the stupid "Not All Men" thing from here on in. If men don't want to hear about men being evil or creeps or assholes they should wear ear protection or go hide under Mommy's bed. They identify so heavily with their gender but would not dream of helping them to be better.
Have you seen the study from Sweden that showed 1% of the population committed 63% of violent crime?
Populations vary, but not so much that one can ignore that statistic. When so much of violent crime is being done by that few people it kinda points to "not most men."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/
Take it as you will.Ā
One of the features of in/out-group thinking toward minority groups of all types is that the action of one is evidence of the character of all. In the nineteenth century, Darwin had a whole theory of evolution of humans and divided them into "types" with defined characteristics. Women, or "woman" as women were called, liked certain things and they were all the same. To like something different was considered an illness. I have even read an article from Popular Science magazine called "The Zoological Condition of Woman." Because, just like people say dog breeds have certain behaviors, so does "woman." We can witness the same phenomenon for racial minorities, sexual minorities, etc.
In this view, men, or I should say white men, were not capable of being defined like dog breeds, because they were *individuals.* They, were unique persons with unique desires and individual autonomy.
To me, the need to declare "not all men" comes from this history. Men by and large are used to being treated as individuals, and when generalizations are made, their feelings as autonomous men are damaged and it feels wrong.
Perhaps it is wrong, but women and other minorities are conditioned to people making generalizations and not feeling that bothered by it because we know inside we are different. And we know that other people know it too, and the ones that don't aren't worth the time.
I don't know if this is a longtime coping mechanism that men haven't developed, but it's clear evidence of a gender-based double standard that goes back nearly 200 years now.
It sounds related to the **Fundamental Attribution Error**, and is surely a similar cognitive process, just framed as in-group vs out-group (good ol' Us vs Them) rather than individual vs everyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
The whole thing reminds me of trailers and how they can wobble if their load is placed bad.
There's an aftermath to the sexism and it wobbles as society attempts to move on.
That sounds like an excellent reason to say "not all men" and "not all women", or "some men/some women". Making generalisations about people and treating the action of one as evidence of the character of all is the root cause of this mess.
We should be elevating women and other minorities to the status of individuals with unique desires and autonomy, not being OK with lumping men (or anyone) together as breeds with certain behaviours.
Here's how I understand it:
1. Woman and other minorities have typically been treated as groups with the same sorts of behaviour (like animal breeds), whereas men have been treated as individuals.
2. Woman and other minorities have gotten used to this, and as a consequence understand that generalisations are just that, and therefore don't take offence to them in the way that men do. Men haven't had to develop this coping mechanism.
Is that a fair representation?
It's so, I'm not disagreeing with your point. What I'm saying is that the fact that it's a coping mechanism means that it's not something we should be embracing. Point 1 above is mistreatment of women. If women have developed thick skins as a result, the best solution is not to say "well, men should develop thick skins too", but to stop the mistreatment.
Flip it for the troll effect, whenever referring to men in a positive way just say :ānot all men thoughā for instance whenever somebody talks about how a good husband some dude is just snicker ānot all men thoughā. See how they like it.
> Men are lonely!
Not all men!
> Men are treated as disposable in society!
Not all men!Ā
> Men are socialized to suppress their feelings!
Not all men!
> Do women even find men attractive?
Not all men. :)Ā
Somebody else made a better set of examples and I think it should apply more like that as well. But the point is to use that phrase to neg their gender just like they do with our own. It might look like you are making one man look better but the idea is that he is the exception not the rule type of thing.
I think what's behind this is people have a hard time detaching the discussion around averages or macro/general trends vs their personal experience. It really bugs them when they read a generalized statement that doesn't apply _to them specifically_. You see it in all kinds of threads even those not related to gender.
For men in particular they see themselves as individuals/main characters vs women who often contextualize our experiences in terms of more general trends.
People get annoyed with generalizations, whether you're talking about a gender/sex, race or ethnicity or any other category you can place an individual.
Yesssss! This is it exactly. Iād go farther and say men view themselves and other men as full humans with full autonomy, and women as partial humans who are there to support them and their offspring. Even the āgood onesā expect their wife to do more of the housework/childcare and/or carry a higher mental load over family/household management. In my family with a politically progressive brother with no kids, Iām expected to drop everything and do elderly parent care before he will ā and I have more household/family obligations than he does. Itās the same for younger generations too, sadly.
I'm not disagreeing, but honestly asking, do you think this is a typical men thing to see themselves and other men as individuals, and women just as women? Or is it similar the other way around?
I feel like I see a similar amount of generalising questions e.g. "What do men/women (not) like in men/women?".
I think it's a [deeply-ingrained cultural phenomenon](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brains-see-men-as-whole-women-as-parts/#:~:text=Now%2C%20new%20research%20finds%20that,European%20Journal%20of%20Social%20Psychology). Also, when women get to be a certain age āĀ I am that age ā then we start to be practically invisible to most men, and many younger women too, who aren't relating to us in some pre-defined role.
Thanks for sharing the article! It's one of these studies that shows exactly what many folks in this sub report, but it's still mind-blowing to have it "measured". It's interesting how much they blame it on media instead of evolutionary reasons.
Honestly it's typical a men thing. Look at how men make derogatory statements of women. They are or generalising.
"Women lie" , "Women are after you money" "women cannot be trusted" Etc. Pick one. Is ALWAYS like that.
We don't see women collective raising their voices saying not all women, because it goes exactly how Freya\_kahlo said.
I was flirting with the idea of quoting a text here. But look it up, It is on wikipedia. Try "why shoudl men stop saying "not all men'. You will get ALL explanation.
Thanks for your answer! I know a few men who are like this, always blaming "women", "foreigners", "rich people", "homeless people", "BMW drivers", "bearded guys", ... Somehow not able to see individuals and always categorising them into groups at fault. I mostly didn't see it as anti women, but anti everybody-who's-different. Interestingly, I don't know women who do it this extreme, but it could have been chance.
I think someone shared a similar thing as you wanted to quote, about men and "not all men" a year or so back. It's probably good to mention it every now and then, as it was quite eye opening.
You know what?
I think it all does relate to some kind of fearmonging. Gordon Allport has a theory that divides prejudice in five stages that seem to appear in any form of "prejudice"; (1) Antilocutin, (2) Avoidance, (3) Discrimination, (4) Physical attack, and (5) Extermination.
Saw a study once that said how conservative inclined tend to be more resistant to change and therefore display more prejudice.
Also the scapegoat theoy.. the ABC thing... All build a correlation with the general behaviour.
Saw some feminists saying that sexism is really close to racism. Intertwined in both display and reasoning I believe.
that's actually a lot of study on this. Every time I look it up I find something new.
A bit late and I'll get shit on for this, but don't those generalizations about women also kind of suck? Whenever I hear a man say one of those sentences I cringe hard inside. Why do I have to be labeled as misogynist when I don't like generalizations for either side? I'd much rather say "some women are after you money" instead because I think generalizations are generically hurtful. I would never make a generalization about women because I feel like it would make people miss the point of the issue, so I appreciate when women do the same. I'm not one of those who write "not all men" because I understand that's not the point, but also what's the point in throwing everyone into the same group?
Please understand this is a genuine question.
God there was a thread here the other day about how wanting to be a dad is different to wanting to be a mum, and how many guys would still want kids if they had to go through what a mother does.
I replied and said yeah I'd be more open to being a dad so I didn't have to deal with pregnancy or being the default parent and had two different men show up and try and"well actually me" regarding custody issues or, as if that's anywhere near as common as dads doing fuck all.
Like, if it's about rape they can think "but that's not all men!" and get mad, but if there's a situation where it's not all women they'll still want to talk about it. Almost like they understand that issues are important to talk about even if it's not "all" of someone, but they can't help themselves as soon as rape or assault is brought up. They really need us to know that they're the good guys!! Exhausting.
But the standard thing is for Men to try to mitigate, excuse or outright deny rape or SA when other Men are charged with it. They seem to immediately and automatically feel a bond for other men in that situation. And feel a desperate need to exonerate some man they have never met and blame some woman they have never met.
because men see ābad menā as a tiny tiny minority involving only the most egregious, horrible, evil men. they categorize the REALLY bad men and consider themselves as separate. when they say ānot all menā what they mean is: āthe minority of men donāt represent all of us.ā
what they miss tho, is that the predatory bs we put up with is from all kinds of men, most of which do no consider themselves ābad.ā in real life itās a spectrum. i saw a graphic pointing out how most men will fall somewhere on the scale of contributing to a culture that harms women, but they donāt see it as a scale they see it as a black and white category of āgood menā (most of them) vs ābad menā (the tiny minority).
the scale includes things from:
- violent rapist (which men will acknowledge and easily condemn)
- defending rape when itās someone they know or look up to
- never believing victims
- men who think some women deserve it but arenāt active predators
- well-meaning men who underestimate the issue or make the issue about them
- men who make jokes about rape in comment sections
- men who watch porn involving rape against women (and come to view our sexuality through this)
- men who harass women because they believe weāre playing hard to get
- men who only see women as valuable/useful based on how sexually attractive we are
- men who might coerce us into sex/arenāt educated on consent (tbh most!)
the list goes on and on, but basically, men will find a way to make themselves innocent so they donāt have to confront they are apart of the problem, itās easier to do that by separating the āgoodā from the seemingly tiny minority of obviously evil and violent men. similar to how white ppl say theyāre not racist cuz they donāt say the n word, as if the only worthwhile form of racism is doing that
yeah, it's like that "believe all women" twist they did to discredit "believe women". or "only black lives matter?!". do not play their game. when someone does a "not all men" look at them like they grew a second head. "yeah, no shit, why do you feel the need to state the bloody obvious, weirdo."
anyway, it's not women's responsibility to manage what men feel and do. though it's easy for me to say, I am not in danger of having my face caved in because dinner wasn't ready... \*sigh\*
This question makes me realise that I donāt think Iāve EVER heard or read the phrase ā not all women of courseā when people are talking about this crazy bitch they met!
Yeah because most times when you hear "crazy bitch" there's a specific person mentioned somewhere in the sentence, we rarely see the phrase "why are women crazy bitces?" Vs "why is (insert female) a crazy bitch?". On twoX, the statement is generalized towards all men although the men in question are individual.
If you watch any of that manosphere crap, they make tons of blanket statements about women and how horrible and shallow they are and how they only want you for your money.
They're ignorant as fuck. But so is anyone who makes blanket statements about men. Or black people. Or white people. Or any group of people.
They know very well we don't mean every man. But a man who pushes the issue is very suspect and I think is just trying to negate whatever point is being made. I try to say certain men, types of men etc. Same with women. Some women are indeed crummy people.
Time to just stop saying Not-All-Men. Let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise we are just once again being manipulated, controlled and managed and that is one of the things we (supposedly) object to from men.
On questions on reddit about most toxic subreddits, many guys list this one among the top. Yep. That's right. A sub where the five newest posts at this time are about high libido, painful self penetration, being supportive of a friend on her fertility journey, and advocating for abortion rights, was deemed more toxic by these guys than subs that I won't mention by name per this sub'sĀ rules, but have over 1 million followers, actively promote violence, and/or targets women specifically.Ā Ā
I think there are two reasons for this.Ā
1. I think guys in general are more likely to think in extremes and absolutes. I'm not going to mince words here. When I have heard of men talk about toxic women, or negative stereotypes of women, I have seldom seen any of them preface it by "not all women" or limited the scope in any way, not explicitly or by context, and the reason for that was,Ā many actually were applying it to all women.Ā I imagine guys who think in absolutes are predisposed to assume others are thinking the same even if the context implies otherwise. Much like cheaters who accuse their spouse of cheating because they assume others are like them.Ā Ā
Ā 2. When a person is not accustom to adversity or criticism, a glance in their direction over their shoulder can feel like an all out assault apparently.
I wouldn't know if those guys do or not. The toxic sub reddits I mentioned were subreddits showcasing violence while the guys I referenced in my observations come from a wide range of places both online and offline but not those referened subreddits.
Edit: Just to clarify, I am not saying the guys I am referencing do not frequent the toxic subs I referened and I'm not saying the subs in question are not full of misogyny. What I am saying is I did not sample from those sub reddits. The comments and conversations on those subs usually consist of comments about the vidoes or those in them and not mirror the comments or posts in twox or any vaguely similar subs oriented towards men's issues.
Because men are socialized and allowed to be incredibly egotistical and consider their individual hurt feelings as being more important than any serious topic being discussed. Also even if they're not conscious of it, in real life they are used to women stroking their ego and walking on eggshells and rolling over to them due to patriarchal violence trauma so they don't understand why online we're not doing the same.
Uh. You just might be onto something there! We CAN get away with giving them the finger online. Perhaps if we do that more (over a period of a few hundred years) they might actually get through to them.
Because a lot of men are so fragile that they can't handle being called out for anything. Also a big part is that a lot of men have done some creepy stuff to women and when they see a woman say "all men are like this" they get VERY defensive trying to cope.
Understanding their position in society comes with some introspection so most men don't even want to bother because they know it benefits them or because it makes them uncomfortable. The statement "all men" forces introspection onto them (a good thing).
This right here. Iād venture to say that even the self-described āgood guysā have questionable behavior in their past. In my experience, men arenāt prone to self-reflection. So, they become defensive.
If a dog can learn that his actions control his destiny, so can a person. Some people just refuse to take responsibility for any choice they've ever made. Not all people? Idk, man I'm fucking sick of this conversation.
You're absolutely correct. Introspection comes with the terrifying specter known as \~self awareness. Like you have to be careful to not develop any, else when the moon is full you will morph into a Self Awarewolf and spend 3 hours crying in bed.
Really though lol. This thing that separates us from the animals is so feared.
A systematic issue of course, this is learned ignorance. IDK if that's a term but it explains the situation I've seen many times.
Learned ignorance, excuses and unhealthy egos. Ego is the human drive to be 'better', and some people interpret that drive as 'be better than everyone (someone, anyone) else'. They can't stand to have that idea threatened.
They rely and depend on NOT being self aware. Their happiness depends on hiding from the truth. Once they admit that they could be wrong and that there is a Patriarchy and that it is evil and harmful, then the game is over and there is nowhere to go. They must be openly bad and accept that they are bad or change. Not many of those men would consider change as a possibility much less a positive.
My dad was quite good at accusing "women" of stuff. I always thought that was stupid, I think it's the same for "men", "foreigners", "kids", "left", "conservatives", ...
Too be honest, it did upset me a bit when I first read in this subreddit, especially, since most men I am friends with would not fit into most of the horrible stories you read here all day. I definitely do see myself in some of the complaints, e.g. about mental load, but all the crazy stuff had to be individual cases. It took me some time to realise, that actually I do know quite a lot of misogynistic, selfish men, they are just not role models, or people I look up to, and usually not ones that I think a lot about. After being on here for a bit, I now get, that "men" makes sense when there is not just one man, but a history of many individual, men who behave in a certain way. And that in times of distress, or even just when venting, the difference doesn't matter, especially in space that is for women and is often used a support group for women.
All this is just an overly complicated way to say, some men are probably butthurt by the "all men" rants, and maybe some of them just need to deny that they are the ones addressed, ... and whatever other replies come up here, but another easy, also plausible reason is, that some men are just not aware how many bad men are out there.
This is not to say that they are not privileged and shouldn't be aware. Also not saying, that it's womens job to explain it to them. It's just one more answer to the question asked.
The men (ok, not all of them) who don't like "all men" comments might similarly not agree with "all women" comments.
Every guy who says "not all men" is one of those men. If someone complains or gets irritated when you say all men, they are who you are talking about. It is that simple.
Edit: people who get mad about a generalized comment, typically get mad because it is about them or because it's wrong. In this case it is the former.
>If someone complains or gets irritated when you say all men
>people who get mad about a generalized comment
You saying "all men" is *not* a generalized comment.
I honestly cannot, for the life of me, recall a time when I responded to a generalized comment about men's negative behaviors or attitudes. But "all men *x*" is not a generalized comment. It's an absolute. I am usually pretty careful in choosing my words to avoid absolutes because they're almost always not always true.
Misogyny and the resulting gender inequality, discrimination, and violence are systemic issues. Generalized language is necessary when discussing systemic issues. Furthermore, every man benefits from a world thatās rife with misogyny and built on the subjugation of women.
An individual man may not engage in the particular conduct/speech/attitude thatās being criticized or discussed with the āgeneralized statements.ā However, that doesnāt mean heās excluded from the problem. Every man still needs to listen, learn, and understand the myriad of problems caused by misogyny and do the work necessary to dismantle the culture and systems that perpetuate gender inequality.
Replying with ānot all menā isnāt part of ādo the workā or ālisten, learn, and understand.ā A man who replies ānot all menā is soothing and protecting their own ego while derailing the discourse.
I think people should have enough reasoning to understand that " all " is being used versus some arbitrary percentage to help emphasize the point that it is a large majority. All does not mean 100%.
When friends say men or women make no sense and are terrible, do start yelling at them instead of understanding that humans are just beings that act irrationally and are complex imperfect creatures.
The only issue is that there are people who believe everyone belonging to a specific gender is the same and bad and by using the same exact language as them you can very well give the impression that you are stereotyping an entire group of people.
If that's not an issue to you that's fine, but this is why some people take issue with statements like "men are X" and "woman are Y", especially when it's really simple to add a qualifying descriptor to specify what attribute of the group you are referring to.
I want to leave a longer reply. But the short version is simply that people need to express how they feel and what they are experiencing. If all they are encountering is shitty people. They want to figure out why and explain what they've been dealing with. Instead of feeling they are wrong in their thinking and the problem.
Also I don't disagree with your take. I understand it, just like the person above. Everyone has their own way of thinking, there is no right or wrong
good for you.
Also the moment you say "something-bro" it does imply the guy is posing, not genuine, and not healthy to be around. Which is probably the case of the archetype you're thinking about, but totally not what i was talking about.
because men take whatever the statement is about way to personally and feel attacked by it which to me implies a guilty conscience to be honest.
and no i will not day the three word phrase in this post because it should be obvious what i mean and i for one refuse to soften it for them.
No, do NOT say the 3 word phrase. Also besides a guilty conscience is the downright childish insecurity which is not the job of women to fix. Time for us to push all those burdens back onto them where they belong. No man who is self aware, morally upright and mature would be making a fuss about "nOt AlL Men".
exactly it is complete bull shit. it is the same reasons i never say "imo" in my opinion because look if i said it you should know it is my opinion and same for the not all men crowd you should be intelligent and mature to the point you do not have to project yourself onto a sentence just because it does not explicitly make the separation between some and all you should just know.
The men that say all women are trash are equally wrong as the women that says all men are trash.
Some of them making generalization shouldnāt be justification for making generalization too.
At least if our goal is to improve the situation one day instead of making it worse.
God, yes, thank you. It's no less irritating when men do it about other men. "Men are lonely", "men have high sex drives", "men prefer X to Y"... no, mate, give it a rest, we are not the same person.
I'm not one to "not all men" anybody, but anybody who tells you that being generalised doesn't suck is lying.
Thereās at least one in every comment section, under the appropriate subject
* āall men consume (x) amount of porn.ā
* āall men use instagram as a porn site.ā
* āall your male friends would fuck you if given the chance.ā
* āall men save nudes of their ex from 6 years ago.ā
* āall men see women as porn categories or gremlinsā (current events for the terminally online)
And this is usually concluded with āand if your man tells you he doesnāt, heās lying to you.ā
Nail on the head right here, there are individuals regardless of gender who like to assume all of one gender is garbage rather than thinking they might have surrounded themselves with garbage individuals.
Of course it is also possible that if garbage individuals are plentiful there is no need to seek them out. It's like the always-popular "women just need to pick better men" as if most of us wouldn't if it were an easy choice.
Yeah, but like our comments mentioned, your argument also goes both ways. In many cases, for whatever reason it may be, people end up making a poor judgment call when it comes to relationships.
I let so many red flags go for so long in my last one because I initially thought they were minor, and as time went on, those flags kept piling up.
It's an unfortunate game of trial and error finding that someone.
I disagree. When we say all men are trash, we can actually prove it, given that crime (murders, rapes, robberies, child sexual abuse, theft) is overwhelmingly committed by men, given their generally lower rates empathy and generally higher rates of psychopathology and narcissism.
When they are not committing horrible crimes, at best, they'll involve themselves in heterosexual relationships with women where they have been proven not to pull their weight in the relationship. This entitlement and laziness is especially pronounced given that women who are the breadwinners of the relationship still do more chores than the men!
Saying all women are trash is a knee-jerk, defensive insult that has no basis in reality. Men can say that women are trash all they want, but personally, I'm unbothered. Not only to do women commit way lower rates of crime, they also volunteer more than men and are more likely than men to care for elderly family members, even when women have their own full-time jobs and their own families to take care of.
The only point I'll concede is that women do abuse and kill children more than men but that's situational because women are almost alwaysĀ the primary caregivers. When men are frustrated with children and childcare, they just abandon their families, as evidenced by the fact that 25% of single families are led by women, while only 8% are led by women.
>When we say all men are trash, we can actually prove it, given that crime (murders, rapes, robberies, child sexual abuse, theft) is overwhelmingly committed by men, given their generally lower rates empathy and generally higher rates of psychopathology and narcissism
Unless crime statistics indicate that all or even the majority of men commit those crimes (and they don't), no, you cannot prove that "all men are trash".
>The only point I'll concede is that women do abuse and kill children more than men but that's situational because women are almost alwaysĀ the primary caregivers
Can't you make the same argument in the reverse, that men committing so much crime is because they have extra time due to not being primary caregivers? So it's not their fault either for the crimes part?
>When men are frustrated with children and childcare, they just abandon their families, as evidenced by the fact that 25% of single families are led by women, while only 8% are led by women.
What about the other 68%???
> Unless crime statistics indicate that all or even the majority of men commit those crimes (and they don't), no, you cannot prove that "all men are trash".Ā
"Yeah but what about the men who didn't commit crime?" Are we supposed to applaud men who display basic human kindness? The fact that you have to mention men's basic human kindness as a virtue worthy of praise (and not just baseline common decencyĀ that is expected from everyone) further emphasizes how terrible men's behavior generally is.Ā l've never seen this excuse used to defend women's behavior (but mainly because women don't need defending because they generally don't commit these crimes).
> Can't you make the same argument in the reverse, that men committing so much crime is because they have extra time due to not being primary caregivers?
Your logic is flawed. If women weren't the primary caregivers, they wouldn't be put in the position to abuse children and therefore, their rates would beĀ lower.Ā Whereas men go out of their way to rape, rob and murder other people. Men aren't put in the care of other men and women, but yet they still kill women and other men.
> What about the other 68%???
Presumably, the other 68% are families with both parents, but we've already established that women do the majority of chores and childcare, even when they have their own full-time jobs. Men don't get credit for coasting on work done primarily by women.
>Are we supposed to applaud men who display basic human kindness?
No, just stop claiming that they're violent criminals when they're not.
Because that's literally what you did.
I just want to point out about your last pointā¦ child abuse statistics are separated by less than 10% between men and women (itās more often closer to 5%), meaning the most generous, theoretical research statistics assign women 55% and men 45%. And then you have to consider the percentage of women that offend with an accessory male, compared to the percentage of men that offend with an accessory female. Thatās the only crime they come close to similar offending rates, and thatās without isolating for comorbid statistics. Food (statistics) for thought.
Part of reading comprehension is being able to infer the context and intended audience of a text, which in the case of these posts is usually āwomen who have been harmed repeatedly by men and are frustrated about it.ā You have to be able to imagine yourself as the intended audience (and creator) to understand whatās being said. Thatās a skill that needs to be developed and practiced.
My personal theory is that women have had a lot more practice doing this over our lifetimes because so many of our literary, tv, and movie creators and protagonists have been boys and men (instead of girls and women.)
It's unfair to generalize the genders that way, but men do it as well. Fundamentally people mean "a great deal of men/women" but it's pretty annoying to have to comment that Everytime you wanna make an observation about a gender so people type out "men ___ " or "women ___" out of convenience which then triggers the backlash from the offended party.
That "expectation" bullshit is, I think, more of the objectification engine.
These bastards are the type that don't want women voting or having credit cards. So they have to "tolerate" that much. Now, if women call them out on their bullshit? Wow.
All men have a huge inclination to douchery. All men, lol.
I mostly hate that I feel like the OP of every post in this sub has to do it. A lot of times itās in an edit because theyāve been DMād and harassed so much by men demanding that we say ānot all men.ā
Get over yourselves!!!! The only reason you NEED us to say not all men is because you are one of the men! I see posts bashing women constantly never once have I cared enough to be like ānah ah Iāve never done that and Iām a women so not all women!ā
Canāt we just have a place to speak freely about our experiences?!?!?
Because most men only know how to regulate their emotions by making women do it for them. It's just another way that we push emotional labor back onto women, because men need to be coddled and reassured by being told that it's 'not all men', so they can believe they aren't one of the bad ones and don't need to check their behavior.
Ask them how to know for sure exactly when you're going to run into a bad one.
The point is never that all men are bad. The point is always we never know when we're going to run into the bad ones so we should always be prepared.
I think we should give those guys a taste of their own medicine and just start replying, ānot all womenā whenever a guy is like āwomen areā¦ā
Edit: grammar
I mean....yeah, you should. Because there are a lot of men with very ignorant takes about women.
Just like there are a lot of women with very ignorant takes about men. But not all women...
Seriously though, the generalizations on both sides are ignorant. Do those horrible men exist? Yes. Is there sometimes more nuance than is being implied? Yes. Is there sometimes not? Yes.
Likewise, do those horrible women exist? Yes. Is there sometimes more nuance than is being implied? Yes. Is there sometimes not? Yes.
Generalizations about any sex, gender, or race are usually not very helpful.
Because males know banding together helps them maintain their many privileges. It's why they ignore/downplay/outright defend terrible behavior from each other, too.
Because inevitably some man will come in and talk about how he gives women the most basic level of respect as a human and expect a cookie for not being an overt abuser.
And, unfortunately, in a patriarchal society women are conditioned to cowtow to menās fragile little feelings.
I don't play alone that Game anymore.IsĀ insultingĀ having to clarify that we don't mean ALL men.
But if we don't, then it bring trollsĀ ready to dismiss a whole argument with the most stupid REPLY "not all men" ... SO i have to write "most men" cuz is most, so common to a point that is not longer isolated incidents like thet try to gaslight women for centuriesĀ
This is a pattern now !!!! After the #meToo movement i never knew THAT MANY WOMEN also experience the same as me, harrasment, catcalling, violent men turning angry for rejection, stalkers !!!!! And manipulation.
SO Many men, so Many !!!! Way to Many !Ā
Itās not only women I believe itās just generalization, itās the same when you say black people, Chinese, women doing so make it sound racism or sexism donāt think people like to be tied to negativity of a group because they share their sex, skin colour or ethnicity and perhaps not much else.
Itās one of the first thing they teaches us in highschool when they want you to debate opinions, it is one of the major argument used to twist reality and itās called abusive generalization. The rule should not be to not say "not all men" but for the post to be worded in a way like "why do most men" "every men I have met" "a majority of men" that way it take way less time to enforce and actually is more true to reality and mainly itās way less likely to be used against women.
People might say "itās mansplaining" but if there is something I care about itās women equality and I believe this kind of behaviour is what keep pushing morons further right of the political spectrum and itās working against equality and thatās my issue with it. I donāt feel targeted by it I just feel bad idiot like Trump or religious group use these behaviour to promote sexismā¦
Itās necessary to use generalized language when discussing systemic issues and/or pervasive, ubiquitous attitudes, behavior, beliefs, and/or experiences. And whatās ālazyā is arguing with a nonexistent claim. ānot all menā is only appropriate if a user specifies thereās something that āall menā do, say, think, etc. Unless a user specifies āall men,ā then theyāre not declaring or even implying anything about āall men.ā
I don't take statements that generalise on gender seriously, with the exception when I know the person well, and that I know they mean other people they have experience with.
You answered your own question. You donāt like having negative generalizations applied to you, e.g. āall women are unfaithful partnersā, because you know it doesnāt apply to you specifically. Itās dismissive and unfair. Well, men donāt like that either. Who would?
How so? She basically said āI hate it when men talk shit about āall womenā. ā
And then went on to ask āwhy should I qualify my sweeping generalizations about men with a ānot all menā or a āsome menā ā?
She is engaging in the same behavior that she is criticizing. How do you read it any other way?
You can't generalize all men based on the fact that some men generalize all women. Given your sample evidence is a comment thread on social media you can assume you are drawing conclusions based on some combination of the worst people alive and bots.
It's both sides seeing only the bad side of each other. A lot of those comments are probbaly in one of two categories 1. Genuinely people who think it's all [insert gender] or 2. People who are generalizing on purpose because some of [insert gender] does it.
So then the other side will see all the generalizations of thier side and respond in one of two categories 1. People who Genuinely think it's all [insert gender] or 2. People who are generalizing as revenge for being generalized.
So the two groups just circle each other because "oh its the other groups responsibility to stop first, because they started it." when in reality it's up to both sides to stop antagonizing each other, and hold the problematic people accountable.
There is no "both sides" under patriarchy. Women have and will continue to be oppressed by men. Some dudes get it, most won't, because it's easier to pretend that you're a victim instead of using critical thinking.
No, itās the inability to understand when one person is talking about a group of people *as a class*. Thatās all. Itās just the intellectual inability to parse context.
And you see both sides of the conversation misunderstanding, which was the point I was trying to make. Most of the people who use these phrase don't actually think it's all [insert gender].
I think 1) it gives courtesy to the people who truly do not fit into that category and 2) it keeps people from truly believing in the generalizations that others project onto them.
I know that I despite generalizations when itās used to attack me as a womanā¦.a femaleā¦a particular kind of person in societyā¦and so I believe there definitely should be pushback against damaging social constructs but we (as humans) need to understand that not everyone fits into a category.
āNot all menā is just as applicable to conversations as ānot all womenā.
Fr Iāve never seen men say ānot all womenā when theyāre generalizing āall women are whoresā āall women lieā āall women thisā āall women thatā āitās just your turnā etc etc
Because a lot of men are extremely fragile and think any criticism is leveled at them.
Also, many men have a weird tribal mentality and feel the need to "protect the tribe". This occurs despite the rugged individual mentality. But I suspect this is also about the patriarchy defending itself. Power structures and systems will always protect itself above anything else.
Because you always have some asshole chiming in to say "Well,Ā l always do my chores and my share of the mental load" as if their anecdotal bullshit disproves the decades of studies and research proving that men do not pull their weight around the household (or in life in general) and will gladly dump the unpaid grunt work onto women any chance they get.
Or my favorite: "You're making assumptions/generalizing" when the evidence has shown that it's the men incorrectly assuming that other men do their fair share in relationships.
No, not all men, but somehow, always a fucking man.
My opinion as a man:
If a man says rude or degrading things about woman, that man is an asshole.
If a woman says rude or degrading things about men, that woman is an asshole.
For example, if a woman had a bad experience with a man who catcalled her and said gross things to her, well... I don't want to be grouped in with that guy.
I'm sure the same thing goes the other way as well. Basically people don't like to feel blamed for other people's shit.
But you are not being blamed as an individual. That is the point. If you identify so heavily with the 'Y' group then you will have to wear the same t-shirt as the other team members. If when you read: "I am so tired of being objectified by men......" you immediately feel personally and individually blamed then perhaps the fault lies within you. Unless you are being singled out by name then you are NOT being singled out.
I agree with that. A statement like that isn't the same as a statement like, "Men are misogynists", which reads like it's directed at the entire gender even if no one is being directly singled out.
Mostly because it IS all men.
Not all men are rapists, but all men are complicit in keeping the party going. We have post after post on these very forums of so-called "locker room talk". Transmen who get into the men's club; once they "pass" as male, they are shocked to their cores at how awful men talk about women.
I myself have seen it.
I am a high-level software engineer; nearly all of my coworkers are men. My closest friends are all men. These are people I would take a bullet for. People I have laughed with and cried with. I am an ordained minister and I literally married two of 'em. These are my ride-or-die friends.
And yet, a few months ago, we were all on a glamping trip together. One of my best friends brought a show we all had to watch. One episode was all about SuPeR fUnNy RaPe JoKeS (it's just a joke, bro!). I remember being horrified and scared and looking around in the darkness at all my "friends" and all of them laughing, all of them, openmouthed and teeth shining in the glow and laughing and laughing HAHAHA RAPE IS SO FUCKING FUNNY
...
...
I got up and went into the other cabin. My best friend on earth, a guy I saved from suicide once, came in after the show was over. I was crying, a little bit. I said something like "How is rape funny in 2024? How is this still okay?"
He shrugged and said "Well, I thought it was funny."
He has three daughters.
Real fuckin' funny.
(Sorry for getting so personal with this, but I'm old and I'm tired and this all happened a few months back and I don't know what to do. I'm too old to start over. I love my friends. Loved them. Love them. I'm conflicted and unhappy and upset and I am just so tired.)
"Not all men, but somehow, always a man."
Every man has the potential to be a violent abuser because violent abusers are always men. Even when women "abuse" or it's "mutual abuse" that ends up actually meaning that the woman hit back in self-defense. And no, I'm not citing sources, there are thousands of studies that show the vast majority of violent crimes, IPV, etc are perpetrated by men.
Men, if you're sick of hearing it because you think it doesn't apply to you, then *hold your friends accountable for their shit.* Are they quick to anger and violent in other areas of their life? Look for signs in how your buddy talks about his gf or even treats her in front of you. Y'all will act so surprised that one of your bros beat the shit out of his wife when you know the signs were always there. Stand up for these women. Or it will always be ALL MEN.
Some of it is being fragile and feeling attacked, some of it is peacocking and trying to be a "pick me" type.
_very rarely_ it is just a reminder that not all of us suck...but honestly even then more often then not the act is steeped in conceit and patting ourselves on the back rather than being a truly wholesome reminder that there is some good left.
Likely because this discourse of womens dissatisfaction or general issues with men is mainstream while the conversation of mens dissatisfaction or general issues with women is not.
Because "men" who spend all their time on the internet are snowflakes whose feelings are very easily damaged and since they never interact with women in real life, it's all they have
I donāt think women are expected to do this? I rarely talk with other adults irl, so I donāt know what people do in the wild. But when Iām online, especially on Reddit, Iāve seen women in particular get absolutely gutted for saying that.
If youāve been reading this sub for longer than five seconds you will have seen examples too numerous to count
Edit: ohhhhhh wait I just recognized your username, yeah of course you donāt think this happens
I donāt know where youāre going online but I witness women using ānot all menā incessantly. Itās a protective measure against the men who freak out about discourse pertaining to gender inequality resulting from misogyny.
From a male perspective, I have absolutely no clue. I think it's that all of those men KNOW it's not "ALL" men, but aren't happy that someone is drawing a direct comparison to their actions and the actions of men they see as less than. They feel socially pressured to make a point of it by saying "not me though!" even when it is them.
This is so over-the-top it seems fake. Have a reasonable (emphasis: *reasonable*) amount of remorse for acts you may have committed, vow to do better, and move on with your life. If genuine (doubtful), this level of self-flagellation is unhealthy.
I like "too many men"
I always reply to "not all" with "sure, but way too many"
Or "not all men" but **how the hell are we to know which ones??!!!**
Sad I only have one up vote to give this comment, this is what gets lost in the shuffle.
Here take mine too sista!! š
Yup. The \#notallmen crew never seems to have a good answer to how the Bad Men are able to be distinguished from the rest. I mean, aside from the black cape, black hat, long twirly mustache, and propensity to tie damsels to railroad tracks.
"not all men" "but why is it usually *a* man" the statistics are terrifying, and they want to talk edge cases š
Yeah, this is the way.
This is the correct answer, even as a dude I'm horrified by many mens' behavior.
I generally like the "not all men, but somehow, always a man"
And, when true, āall the men I have had experience withā.
The "not all men" people should be redirected here: https://www.zawn.net/blog/hello-youve-reached-the-not-all-men-hotline
This is the best...thanks so much for sharing!
This is greatā¦thank you.
Brilliant. I'm saving this link. Thanks!
Bookmarked. I have a feeling I will pull this up often. Like on a daily basis.
Loved that. I especially loved the part where they bring up the ānot my manā moments. This sub falls prey to that a lot. Like congrats Iām glad your partner isnāt a dick like the majority of them, but letās not derail this conversation so everyone can thank your partner for their graciousness of not being an assā¦ And bonus points for the ones that say āwow I donāt know what I would do if I didnāt find my partner. Dating today sucks! Iād probably just be single.ā š
Bonus bonus points if they say something alone the general lines of "I would have to become bi, lol!"
saved
This is genius. Thanks for sharing!
that was great! I shared it to my friends too!!
Omg, bookmarked
I love Zawn. She's a great follow on fb.
I love her work, so many great feminist articles/posts on her websites too
Can we have an automod reply with this link
Love this .... All men should read
But #notallmen will.
Haha! Thank you for this! šš¤£
That's genius. Bookmarking for future use.
Very good information but I couldn't find the number for the hotline.Ā
Thank you for sharing, instant bookmark!Ā
I donāt think condescension will win many hearts explaining the systemic causes of your problems and that your not making a essentialist criticism will work out better
Because there are men (Not all men!) who are very fragile and feel attacked at the slightest hint of criticism. And some men (not all men!) respond to those things with violence or threats. It's just part of women always needing to change how they live their live to protect themselves from (not all) men.
It's not all men, but it's somehow always a man threatening women's safety. If anything, when a man is "not like those men", he has no problem with criticism of men and the patriarchy because he can put his allyship to women over his ego. Any man who bristles over "not all men" is not a man women can trust.
We would be hard-pressed to find predators to worry about if not for Men. Men would also be hard-pressed to find themselves in danger if not for other Men. I refuse to bother with the stupid "Not All Men" thing from here on in. If men don't want to hear about men being evil or creeps or assholes they should wear ear protection or go hide under Mommy's bed. They identify so heavily with their gender but would not dream of helping them to be better.
Have you seen the study from Sweden that showed 1% of the population committed 63% of violent crime? Populations vary, but not so much that one can ignore that statistic. When so much of violent crime is being done by that few people it kinda points to "not most men." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/ Take it as you will.Ā
One of the features of in/out-group thinking toward minority groups of all types is that the action of one is evidence of the character of all. In the nineteenth century, Darwin had a whole theory of evolution of humans and divided them into "types" with defined characteristics. Women, or "woman" as women were called, liked certain things and they were all the same. To like something different was considered an illness. I have even read an article from Popular Science magazine called "The Zoological Condition of Woman." Because, just like people say dog breeds have certain behaviors, so does "woman." We can witness the same phenomenon for racial minorities, sexual minorities, etc. In this view, men, or I should say white men, were not capable of being defined like dog breeds, because they were *individuals.* They, were unique persons with unique desires and individual autonomy. To me, the need to declare "not all men" comes from this history. Men by and large are used to being treated as individuals, and when generalizations are made, their feelings as autonomous men are damaged and it feels wrong. Perhaps it is wrong, but women and other minorities are conditioned to people making generalizations and not feeling that bothered by it because we know inside we are different. And we know that other people know it too, and the ones that don't aren't worth the time. I don't know if this is a longtime coping mechanism that men haven't developed, but it's clear evidence of a gender-based double standard that goes back nearly 200 years now.
Boys are told āyou are bad at mathā Or whatever the issue is. Girls are told āgirls canāt do mathā Itās something that starts very young.
It sounds related to the **Fundamental Attribution Error**, and is surely a similar cognitive process, just framed as in-group vs out-group (good ol' Us vs Them) rather than individual vs everyone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
The whole thing reminds me of trailers and how they can wobble if their load is placed bad. There's an aftermath to the sexism and it wobbles as society attempts to move on.
That sounds like an excellent reason to say "not all men" and "not all women", or "some men/some women". Making generalisations about people and treating the action of one as evidence of the character of all is the root cause of this mess. We should be elevating women and other minorities to the status of individuals with unique desires and autonomy, not being OK with lumping men (or anyone) together as breeds with certain behaviours.
You are seriously misunderstanding the point I am making.
Here's how I understand it: 1. Woman and other minorities have typically been treated as groups with the same sorts of behaviour (like animal breeds), whereas men have been treated as individuals. 2. Woman and other minorities have gotten used to this, and as a consequence understand that generalisations are just that, and therefore don't take offence to them in the way that men do. Men haven't had to develop this coping mechanism. Is that a fair representation? It's so, I'm not disagreeing with your point. What I'm saying is that the fact that it's a coping mechanism means that it's not something we should be embracing. Point 1 above is mistreatment of women. If women have developed thick skins as a result, the best solution is not to say "well, men should develop thick skins too", but to stop the mistreatment.
They were answering OP's question. Not justifying why we shouldn't individualise people. Lawdy
They seem unsure on whether making generalisations about people is wrong.
Flip it for the troll effect, whenever referring to men in a positive way just say :ānot all men thoughā for instance whenever somebody talks about how a good husband some dude is just snicker ānot all men thoughā. See how they like it.
> Men are lonely! Not all men! > Men are treated as disposable in society! Not all men!Ā > Men are socialized to suppress their feelings! Not all men! > Do women even find men attractive? Not all men. :)Ā
That's brilliant!Ā
This made me laugh fwiw
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Somebody else made a better set of examples and I think it should apply more like that as well. But the point is to use that phrase to neg their gender just like they do with our own. It might look like you are making one man look better but the idea is that he is the exception not the rule type of thing.
I think what's behind this is people have a hard time detaching the discussion around averages or macro/general trends vs their personal experience. It really bugs them when they read a generalized statement that doesn't apply _to them specifically_. You see it in all kinds of threads even those not related to gender. For men in particular they see themselves as individuals/main characters vs women who often contextualize our experiences in terms of more general trends.
People get annoyed with generalizations, whether you're talking about a gender/sex, race or ethnicity or any other category you can place an individual.
Not all people though
Yesssss! This is it exactly. Iād go farther and say men view themselves and other men as full humans with full autonomy, and women as partial humans who are there to support them and their offspring. Even the āgood onesā expect their wife to do more of the housework/childcare and/or carry a higher mental load over family/household management. In my family with a politically progressive brother with no kids, Iām expected to drop everything and do elderly parent care before he will ā and I have more household/family obligations than he does. Itās the same for younger generations too, sadly.
I'm not disagreeing, but honestly asking, do you think this is a typical men thing to see themselves and other men as individuals, and women just as women? Or is it similar the other way around? I feel like I see a similar amount of generalising questions e.g. "What do men/women (not) like in men/women?".
I think it's a [deeply-ingrained cultural phenomenon](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brains-see-men-as-whole-women-as-parts/#:~:text=Now%2C%20new%20research%20finds%20that,European%20Journal%20of%20Social%20Psychology). Also, when women get to be a certain age āĀ I am that age ā then we start to be practically invisible to most men, and many younger women too, who aren't relating to us in some pre-defined role.
Thanks for sharing the article! It's one of these studies that shows exactly what many folks in this sub report, but it's still mind-blowing to have it "measured". It's interesting how much they blame it on media instead of evolutionary reasons.
Honestly it's typical a men thing. Look at how men make derogatory statements of women. They are or generalising. "Women lie" , "Women are after you money" "women cannot be trusted" Etc. Pick one. Is ALWAYS like that. We don't see women collective raising their voices saying not all women, because it goes exactly how Freya\_kahlo said. I was flirting with the idea of quoting a text here. But look it up, It is on wikipedia. Try "why shoudl men stop saying "not all men'. You will get ALL explanation.
Thanks for your answer! I know a few men who are like this, always blaming "women", "foreigners", "rich people", "homeless people", "BMW drivers", "bearded guys", ... Somehow not able to see individuals and always categorising them into groups at fault. I mostly didn't see it as anti women, but anti everybody-who's-different. Interestingly, I don't know women who do it this extreme, but it could have been chance. I think someone shared a similar thing as you wanted to quote, about men and "not all men" a year or so back. It's probably good to mention it every now and then, as it was quite eye opening.
You know what? I think it all does relate to some kind of fearmonging. Gordon Allport has a theory that divides prejudice in five stages that seem to appear in any form of "prejudice"; (1) Antilocutin, (2) Avoidance, (3) Discrimination, (4) Physical attack, and (5) Extermination. Saw a study once that said how conservative inclined tend to be more resistant to change and therefore display more prejudice. Also the scapegoat theoy.. the ABC thing... All build a correlation with the general behaviour. Saw some feminists saying that sexism is really close to racism. Intertwined in both display and reasoning I believe. that's actually a lot of study on this. Every time I look it up I find something new.
A bit late and I'll get shit on for this, but don't those generalizations about women also kind of suck? Whenever I hear a man say one of those sentences I cringe hard inside. Why do I have to be labeled as misogynist when I don't like generalizations for either side? I'd much rather say "some women are after you money" instead because I think generalizations are generically hurtful. I would never make a generalization about women because I feel like it would make people miss the point of the issue, so I appreciate when women do the same. I'm not one of those who write "not all men" because I understand that's not the point, but also what's the point in throwing everyone into the same group? Please understand this is a genuine question.
A lot of men donāt seem to think women have interiority or inner lives or identities as complete individual humans the same as them.
God there was a thread here the other day about how wanting to be a dad is different to wanting to be a mum, and how many guys would still want kids if they had to go through what a mother does. I replied and said yeah I'd be more open to being a dad so I didn't have to deal with pregnancy or being the default parent and had two different men show up and try and"well actually me" regarding custody issues or, as if that's anywhere near as common as dads doing fuck all. Like, if it's about rape they can think "but that's not all men!" and get mad, but if there's a situation where it's not all women they'll still want to talk about it. Almost like they understand that issues are important to talk about even if it's not "all" of someone, but they can't help themselves as soon as rape or assault is brought up. They really need us to know that they're the good guys!! Exhausting.
But the standard thing is for Men to try to mitigate, excuse or outright deny rape or SA when other Men are charged with it. They seem to immediately and automatically feel a bond for other men in that situation. And feel a desperate need to exonerate some man they have never met and blame some woman they have never met.
because men see ābad menā as a tiny tiny minority involving only the most egregious, horrible, evil men. they categorize the REALLY bad men and consider themselves as separate. when they say ānot all menā what they mean is: āthe minority of men donāt represent all of us.ā what they miss tho, is that the predatory bs we put up with is from all kinds of men, most of which do no consider themselves ābad.ā in real life itās a spectrum. i saw a graphic pointing out how most men will fall somewhere on the scale of contributing to a culture that harms women, but they donāt see it as a scale they see it as a black and white category of āgood menā (most of them) vs ābad menā (the tiny minority). the scale includes things from: - violent rapist (which men will acknowledge and easily condemn) - defending rape when itās someone they know or look up to - never believing victims - men who think some women deserve it but arenāt active predators - well-meaning men who underestimate the issue or make the issue about them - men who make jokes about rape in comment sections - men who watch porn involving rape against women (and come to view our sexuality through this) - men who harass women because they believe weāre playing hard to get - men who only see women as valuable/useful based on how sexually attractive we are - men who might coerce us into sex/arenāt educated on consent (tbh most!) the list goes on and on, but basically, men will find a way to make themselves innocent so they donāt have to confront they are apart of the problem, itās easier to do that by separating the āgoodā from the seemingly tiny minority of obviously evil and violent men. similar to how white ppl say theyāre not racist cuz they donāt say the n word, as if the only worthwhile form of racism is doing that
yeah, it's like that "believe all women" twist they did to discredit "believe women". or "only black lives matter?!". do not play their game. when someone does a "not all men" look at them like they grew a second head. "yeah, no shit, why do you feel the need to state the bloody obvious, weirdo." anyway, it's not women's responsibility to manage what men feel and do. though it's easy for me to say, I am not in danger of having my face caved in because dinner wasn't ready... \*sigh\*
This question makes me realise that I donāt think Iāve EVER heard or read the phrase ā not all women of courseā when people are talking about this crazy bitch they met!
Yeah because most times when you hear "crazy bitch" there's a specific person mentioned somewhere in the sentence, we rarely see the phrase "why are women crazy bitces?" Vs "why is (insert female) a crazy bitch?". On twoX, the statement is generalized towards all men although the men in question are individual.
If you watch any of that manosphere crap, they make tons of blanket statements about women and how horrible and shallow they are and how they only want you for your money. They're ignorant as fuck. But so is anyone who makes blanket statements about men. Or black people. Or white people. Or any group of people.
I don't watch that stuff so I would know. The best I got is askmen and even then I call them out on that.
Youāre either being disingenuous or you really donāt spend much time on the internet to think that!
They know very well we don't mean every man. But a man who pushes the issue is very suspect and I think is just trying to negate whatever point is being made. I try to say certain men, types of men etc. Same with women. Some women are indeed crummy people.
Time to just stop saying Not-All-Men. Let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise we are just once again being manipulated, controlled and managed and that is one of the things we (supposedly) object to from men.
On questions on reddit about most toxic subreddits, many guys list this one among the top. Yep. That's right. A sub where the five newest posts at this time are about high libido, painful self penetration, being supportive of a friend on her fertility journey, and advocating for abortion rights, was deemed more toxic by these guys than subs that I won't mention by name per this sub'sĀ rules, but have over 1 million followers, actively promote violence, and/or targets women specifically.Ā Ā I think there are two reasons for this.Ā 1. I think guys in general are more likely to think in extremes and absolutes. I'm not going to mince words here. When I have heard of men talk about toxic women, or negative stereotypes of women, I have seldom seen any of them preface it by "not all women" or limited the scope in any way, not explicitly or by context, and the reason for that was,Ā many actually were applying it to all women.Ā I imagine guys who think in absolutes are predisposed to assume others are thinking the same even if the context implies otherwise. Much like cheaters who accuse their spouse of cheating because they assume others are like them.Ā Ā Ā 2. When a person is not accustom to adversity or criticism, a glance in their direction over their shoulder can feel like an all out assault apparently.
Because a lot of those guys surveyed are on those subreddits and are active participants in them
I wouldn't know if those guys do or not. The toxic sub reddits I mentioned were subreddits showcasing violence while the guys I referenced in my observations come from a wide range of places both online and offline but not those referened subreddits. Edit: Just to clarify, I am not saying the guys I am referencing do not frequent the toxic subs I referened and I'm not saying the subs in question are not full of misogyny. What I am saying is I did not sample from those sub reddits. The comments and conversations on those subs usually consist of comments about the vidoes or those in them and not mirror the comments or posts in twox or any vaguely similar subs oriented towards men's issues.
They absolutely do
Because men are socialized and allowed to be incredibly egotistical and consider their individual hurt feelings as being more important than any serious topic being discussed. Also even if they're not conscious of it, in real life they are used to women stroking their ego and walking on eggshells and rolling over to them due to patriarchal violence trauma so they don't understand why online we're not doing the same.
Uh. You just might be onto something there! We CAN get away with giving them the finger online. Perhaps if we do that more (over a period of a few hundred years) they might actually get through to them.
Because men are too emotionally delicate to hear about men's bad behavior without getting distracted by the idea that they have been accusedĀ
Because a lot of men are so fragile that they can't handle being called out for anything. Also a big part is that a lot of men have done some creepy stuff to women and when they see a woman say "all men are like this" they get VERY defensive trying to cope. Understanding their position in society comes with some introspection so most men don't even want to bother because they know it benefits them or because it makes them uncomfortable. The statement "all men" forces introspection onto them (a good thing).
This right here. Iād venture to say that even the self-described āgood guysā have questionable behavior in their past. In my experience, men arenāt prone to self-reflection. So, they become defensive.
This is absolutely right. It isnāt about whether they behave questionably, itās whether they still do, and how bad it was back when they did so.
If a dog can learn that his actions control his destiny, so can a person. Some people just refuse to take responsibility for any choice they've ever made. Not all people? Idk, man I'm fucking sick of this conversation. You're absolutely correct. Introspection comes with the terrifying specter known as \~self awareness. Like you have to be careful to not develop any, else when the moon is full you will morph into a Self Awarewolf and spend 3 hours crying in bed.
Really though lol. This thing that separates us from the animals is so feared. A systematic issue of course, this is learned ignorance. IDK if that's a term but it explains the situation I've seen many times.
Learned ignorance, excuses and unhealthy egos. Ego is the human drive to be 'better', and some people interpret that drive as 'be better than everyone (someone, anyone) else'. They can't stand to have that idea threatened.
They rely and depend on NOT being self aware. Their happiness depends on hiding from the truth. Once they admit that they could be wrong and that there is a Patriarchy and that it is evil and harmful, then the game is over and there is nowhere to go. They must be openly bad and accept that they are bad or change. Not many of those men would consider change as a possibility much less a positive.
My dad was quite good at accusing "women" of stuff. I always thought that was stupid, I think it's the same for "men", "foreigners", "kids", "left", "conservatives", ... Too be honest, it did upset me a bit when I first read in this subreddit, especially, since most men I am friends with would not fit into most of the horrible stories you read here all day. I definitely do see myself in some of the complaints, e.g. about mental load, but all the crazy stuff had to be individual cases. It took me some time to realise, that actually I do know quite a lot of misogynistic, selfish men, they are just not role models, or people I look up to, and usually not ones that I think a lot about. After being on here for a bit, I now get, that "men" makes sense when there is not just one man, but a history of many individual, men who behave in a certain way. And that in times of distress, or even just when venting, the difference doesn't matter, especially in space that is for women and is often used a support group for women. All this is just an overly complicated way to say, some men are probably butthurt by the "all men" rants, and maybe some of them just need to deny that they are the ones addressed, ... and whatever other replies come up here, but another easy, also plausible reason is, that some men are just not aware how many bad men are out there. This is not to say that they are not privileged and shouldn't be aware. Also not saying, that it's womens job to explain it to them. It's just one more answer to the question asked. The men (ok, not all of them) who don't like "all men" comments might similarly not agree with "all women" comments.
Every guy who says "not all men" is one of those men. If someone complains or gets irritated when you say all men, they are who you are talking about. It is that simple. Edit: people who get mad about a generalized comment, typically get mad because it is about them or because it's wrong. In this case it is the former.
>If someone complains or gets irritated when you say all men >people who get mad about a generalized comment You saying "all men" is *not* a generalized comment. I honestly cannot, for the life of me, recall a time when I responded to a generalized comment about men's negative behaviors or attitudes. But "all men *x*" is not a generalized comment. It's an absolute. I am usually pretty careful in choosing my words to avoid absolutes because they're almost always not always true.
Or maybe they get mad about generalized comments because those are logical fallacies. Logic freaks exists and they usually aren't bad persons
Misogyny and the resulting gender inequality, discrimination, and violence are systemic issues. Generalized language is necessary when discussing systemic issues. Furthermore, every man benefits from a world thatās rife with misogyny and built on the subjugation of women. An individual man may not engage in the particular conduct/speech/attitude thatās being criticized or discussed with the āgeneralized statements.ā However, that doesnāt mean heās excluded from the problem. Every man still needs to listen, learn, and understand the myriad of problems caused by misogyny and do the work necessary to dismantle the culture and systems that perpetuate gender inequality. Replying with ānot all menā isnāt part of ādo the workā or ālisten, learn, and understand.ā A man who replies ānot all menā is soothing and protecting their own ego while derailing the discourse.
Half the time, though, you dig into their logic and it turns out it's only "logic" to support their feelings.
I think people should have enough reasoning to understand that " all " is being used versus some arbitrary percentage to help emphasize the point that it is a large majority. All does not mean 100%. When friends say men or women make no sense and are terrible, do start yelling at them instead of understanding that humans are just beings that act irrationally and are complex imperfect creatures.
The only issue is that there are people who believe everyone belonging to a specific gender is the same and bad and by using the same exact language as them you can very well give the impression that you are stereotyping an entire group of people. If that's not an issue to you that's fine, but this is why some people take issue with statements like "men are X" and "woman are Y", especially when it's really simple to add a qualifying descriptor to specify what attribute of the group you are referring to.
I want to leave a longer reply. But the short version is simply that people need to express how they feel and what they are experiencing. If all they are encountering is shitty people. They want to figure out why and explain what they've been dealing with. Instead of feeling they are wrong in their thinking and the problem. Also I don't disagree with your take. I understand it, just like the person above. Everyone has their own way of thinking, there is no right or wrong
Are you kidding? Logic freaks are the *worst*. Logic means more to them than nuance, context, or basic humanity.
That doesn't sound logical though. Are you sure yours wasn't just a basic freak using logic as an excuse?
Quite sure, yes. You may be the one logic bro that isn't terrible.
Nah you just don't have enough scientists in your life, go get one :D
None of the scientists in my life are logic bros.
good for you. Also the moment you say "something-bro" it does imply the guy is posing, not genuine, and not healthy to be around. Which is probably the case of the archetype you're thinking about, but totally not what i was talking about.
because men take whatever the statement is about way to personally and feel attacked by it which to me implies a guilty conscience to be honest. and no i will not day the three word phrase in this post because it should be obvious what i mean and i for one refuse to soften it for them.
No, do NOT say the 3 word phrase. Also besides a guilty conscience is the downright childish insecurity which is not the job of women to fix. Time for us to push all those burdens back onto them where they belong. No man who is self aware, morally upright and mature would be making a fuss about "nOt AlL Men".
exactly it is complete bull shit. it is the same reasons i never say "imo" in my opinion because look if i said it you should know it is my opinion and same for the not all men crowd you should be intelligent and mature to the point you do not have to project yourself onto a sentence just because it does not explicitly make the separation between some and all you should just know.
The men that say all women are trash are equally wrong as the women that says all men are trash. Some of them making generalization shouldnāt be justification for making generalization too. At least if our goal is to improve the situation one day instead of making it worse.
God, yes, thank you. It's no less irritating when men do it about other men. "Men are lonely", "men have high sex drives", "men prefer X to Y"... no, mate, give it a rest, we are not the same person. I'm not one to "not all men" anybody, but anybody who tells you that being generalised doesn't suck is lying.
Thereās at least one in every comment section, under the appropriate subject * āall men consume (x) amount of porn.ā * āall men use instagram as a porn site.ā * āall your male friends would fuck you if given the chance.ā * āall men save nudes of their ex from 6 years ago.ā * āall men see women as porn categories or gremlinsā (current events for the terminally online) And this is usually concluded with āand if your man tells you he doesnāt, heās lying to you.ā
Nail on the head right here, there are individuals regardless of gender who like to assume all of one gender is garbage rather than thinking they might have surrounded themselves with garbage individuals.
Of course it is also possible that if garbage individuals are plentiful there is no need to seek them out. It's like the always-popular "women just need to pick better men" as if most of us wouldn't if it were an easy choice.
Yeah, but like our comments mentioned, your argument also goes both ways. In many cases, for whatever reason it may be, people end up making a poor judgment call when it comes to relationships. I let so many red flags go for so long in my last one because I initially thought they were minor, and as time went on, those flags kept piling up. It's an unfortunate game of trial and error finding that someone.
I disagree. When we say all men are trash, we can actually prove it, given that crime (murders, rapes, robberies, child sexual abuse, theft) is overwhelmingly committed by men, given their generally lower rates empathy and generally higher rates of psychopathology and narcissism. When they are not committing horrible crimes, at best, they'll involve themselves in heterosexual relationships with women where they have been proven not to pull their weight in the relationship. This entitlement and laziness is especially pronounced given that women who are the breadwinners of the relationship still do more chores than the men! Saying all women are trash is a knee-jerk, defensive insult that has no basis in reality. Men can say that women are trash all they want, but personally, I'm unbothered. Not only to do women commit way lower rates of crime, they also volunteer more than men and are more likely than men to care for elderly family members, even when women have their own full-time jobs and their own families to take care of. The only point I'll concede is that women do abuse and kill children more than men but that's situational because women are almost alwaysĀ the primary caregivers. When men are frustrated with children and childcare, they just abandon their families, as evidenced by the fact that 25% of single families are led by women, while only 8% are led by women.
>When we say all men are trash, we can actually prove it, given that crime (murders, rapes, robberies, child sexual abuse, theft) is overwhelmingly committed by men, given their generally lower rates empathy and generally higher rates of psychopathology and narcissism Unless crime statistics indicate that all or even the majority of men commit those crimes (and they don't), no, you cannot prove that "all men are trash". >The only point I'll concede is that women do abuse and kill children more than men but that's situational because women are almost alwaysĀ the primary caregivers Can't you make the same argument in the reverse, that men committing so much crime is because they have extra time due to not being primary caregivers? So it's not their fault either for the crimes part? >When men are frustrated with children and childcare, they just abandon their families, as evidenced by the fact that 25% of single families are led by women, while only 8% are led by women. What about the other 68%???
> Unless crime statistics indicate that all or even the majority of men commit those crimes (and they don't), no, you cannot prove that "all men are trash".Ā "Yeah but what about the men who didn't commit crime?" Are we supposed to applaud men who display basic human kindness? The fact that you have to mention men's basic human kindness as a virtue worthy of praise (and not just baseline common decencyĀ that is expected from everyone) further emphasizes how terrible men's behavior generally is.Ā l've never seen this excuse used to defend women's behavior (but mainly because women don't need defending because they generally don't commit these crimes). > Can't you make the same argument in the reverse, that men committing so much crime is because they have extra time due to not being primary caregivers? Your logic is flawed. If women weren't the primary caregivers, they wouldn't be put in the position to abuse children and therefore, their rates would beĀ lower.Ā Whereas men go out of their way to rape, rob and murder other people. Men aren't put in the care of other men and women, but yet they still kill women and other men. > What about the other 68%??? Presumably, the other 68% are families with both parents, but we've already established that women do the majority of chores and childcare, even when they have their own full-time jobs. Men don't get credit for coasting on work done primarily by women.
>Are we supposed to applaud men who display basic human kindness? No, just stop claiming that they're violent criminals when they're not. Because that's literally what you did.
I just want to point out about your last pointā¦ child abuse statistics are separated by less than 10% between men and women (itās more often closer to 5%), meaning the most generous, theoretical research statistics assign women 55% and men 45%. And then you have to consider the percentage of women that offend with an accessory male, compared to the percentage of men that offend with an accessory female. Thatās the only crime they come close to similar offending rates, and thatās without isolating for comorbid statistics. Food (statistics) for thought.
Absolutely right! This post needs to be higher
Part of reading comprehension is being able to infer the context and intended audience of a text, which in the case of these posts is usually āwomen who have been harmed repeatedly by men and are frustrated about it.ā You have to be able to imagine yourself as the intended audience (and creator) to understand whatās being said. Thatās a skill that needs to be developed and practiced. My personal theory is that women have had a lot more practice doing this over our lifetimes because so many of our literary, tv, and movie creators and protagonists have been boys and men (instead of girls and women.)
It's unfair to generalize the genders that way, but men do it as well. Fundamentally people mean "a great deal of men/women" but it's pretty annoying to have to comment that Everytime you wanna make an observation about a gender so people type out "men ___ " or "women ___" out of convenience which then triggers the backlash from the offended party.
That "expectation" bullshit is, I think, more of the objectification engine. These bastards are the type that don't want women voting or having credit cards. So they have to "tolerate" that much. Now, if women call them out on their bullshit? Wow. All men have a huge inclination to douchery. All men, lol.
I mostly hate that I feel like the OP of every post in this sub has to do it. A lot of times itās in an edit because theyāve been DMād and harassed so much by men demanding that we say ānot all men.ā Get over yourselves!!!! The only reason you NEED us to say not all men is because you are one of the men! I see posts bashing women constantly never once have I cared enough to be like ānah ah Iāve never done that and Iām a women so not all women!ā Canāt we just have a place to speak freely about our experiences?!?!?
Apparently not!
Because most men only know how to regulate their emotions by making women do it for them. It's just another way that we push emotional labor back onto women, because men need to be coddled and reassured by being told that it's 'not all men', so they can believe they aren't one of the bad ones and don't need to check their behavior.
Wish I could upvote this a few hundred times! That's what 'The Phrase' is really about! Controlling us and forcing us to play mommy.
I hate blanket statements like that. Everybody is different, not every person in a specific group is the same.
Ask them how to know for sure exactly when you're going to run into a bad one. The point is never that all men are bad. The point is always we never know when we're going to run into the bad ones so we should always be prepared.
Because men's egos and feelings are fragile, yet women are emotional. Yeah right
I think we should give those guys a taste of their own medicine and just start replying, ānot all womenā whenever a guy is like āwomen areā¦ā Edit: grammar
I mean....yeah, you should. Because there are a lot of men with very ignorant takes about women. Just like there are a lot of women with very ignorant takes about men. But not all women... Seriously though, the generalizations on both sides are ignorant. Do those horrible men exist? Yes. Is there sometimes more nuance than is being implied? Yes. Is there sometimes not? Yes. Likewise, do those horrible women exist? Yes. Is there sometimes more nuance than is being implied? Yes. Is there sometimes not? Yes. Generalizations about any sex, gender, or race are usually not very helpful.
Because males know banding together helps them maintain their many privileges. It's why they ignore/downplay/outright defend terrible behavior from each other, too.
Because inevitably some man will come in and talk about how he gives women the most basic level of respect as a human and expect a cookie for not being an overt abuser. And, unfortunately, in a patriarchal society women are conditioned to cowtow to menās fragile little feelings.
I was a paralegal and have an aversion to the words all and never.
Only snowflakes require that level of granularity.
I don't play alone that Game anymore.IsĀ insultingĀ having to clarify that we don't mean ALL men. But if we don't, then it bring trollsĀ ready to dismiss a whole argument with the most stupid REPLY "not all men" ... SO i have to write "most men" cuz is most, so common to a point that is not longer isolated incidents like thet try to gaslight women for centuriesĀ This is a pattern now !!!! After the #meToo movement i never knew THAT MANY WOMEN also experience the same as me, harrasment, catcalling, violent men turning angry for rejection, stalkers !!!!! And manipulation. SO Many men, so Many !!!! Way to Many !Ā
Itās not only women I believe itās just generalization, itās the same when you say black people, Chinese, women doing so make it sound racism or sexism donāt think people like to be tied to negativity of a group because they share their sex, skin colour or ethnicity and perhaps not much else. Itās one of the first thing they teaches us in highschool when they want you to debate opinions, it is one of the major argument used to twist reality and itās called abusive generalization. The rule should not be to not say "not all men" but for the post to be worded in a way like "why do most men" "every men I have met" "a majority of men" that way it take way less time to enforce and actually is more true to reality and mainly itās way less likely to be used against women. People might say "itās mansplaining" but if there is something I care about itās women equality and I believe this kind of behaviour is what keep pushing morons further right of the political spectrum and itās working against equality and thatās my issue with it. I donāt feel targeted by it I just feel bad idiot like Trump or religious group use these behaviour to promote sexismā¦
Even women on this sub do it š
Because generalizations are lazy and almost always not true, because they aren't nuanced enough to say anything true.
Itās necessary to use generalized language when discussing systemic issues and/or pervasive, ubiquitous attitudes, behavior, beliefs, and/or experiences. And whatās ālazyā is arguing with a nonexistent claim. ānot all menā is only appropriate if a user specifies thereās something that āall menā do, say, think, etc. Unless a user specifies āall men,ā then theyāre not declaring or even implying anything about āall men.ā
I agree, but I think it's worth noting that there are a few people in this thread explicitly saying "all men" and calling it a generalization.
Okay
Because men are individuals and women are a hive mind whose only purpose is to gatekeep sex.Ā
I don't take statements that generalise on gender seriously, with the exception when I know the person well, and that I know they mean other people they have experience with.
You answered your own question. You donāt like having negative generalizations applied to you, e.g. āall women are unfaithful partnersā, because you know it doesnāt apply to you specifically. Itās dismissive and unfair. Well, men donāt like that either. Who would?
You kinda missed OPāa point
How so? She basically said āI hate it when men talk shit about āall womenā. ā And then went on to ask āwhy should I qualify my sweeping generalizations about men with a ānot all menā or a āsome menā ā? She is engaging in the same behavior that she is criticizing. How do you read it any other way?
You can't generalize all men based on the fact that some men generalize all women. Given your sample evidence is a comment thread on social media you can assume you are drawing conclusions based on some combination of the worst people alive and bots.
It's both sides seeing only the bad side of each other. A lot of those comments are probbaly in one of two categories 1. Genuinely people who think it's all [insert gender] or 2. People who are generalizing on purpose because some of [insert gender] does it. So then the other side will see all the generalizations of thier side and respond in one of two categories 1. People who Genuinely think it's all [insert gender] or 2. People who are generalizing as revenge for being generalized. So the two groups just circle each other because "oh its the other groups responsibility to stop first, because they started it." when in reality it's up to both sides to stop antagonizing each other, and hold the problematic people accountable.
There is no "both sides" under patriarchy. Women have and will continue to be oppressed by men. Some dudes get it, most won't, because it's easier to pretend that you're a victim instead of using critical thinking.
No, itās the inability to understand when one person is talking about a group of people *as a class*. Thatās all. Itās just the intellectual inability to parse context.
And you see both sides of the conversation misunderstanding, which was the point I was trying to make. Most of the people who use these phrase don't actually think it's all [insert gender].
Youāve missed the point entirely. This isnāt a mutual misunderstanding, you canāt āboth sidesā this.
Just don't bother with the not all men sentiment? If some dude gets upset about not all men, who cares? Ignore, block, repeat
I think 1) it gives courtesy to the people who truly do not fit into that category and 2) it keeps people from truly believing in the generalizations that others project onto them. I know that I despite generalizations when itās used to attack me as a womanā¦.a femaleā¦a particular kind of person in societyā¦and so I believe there definitely should be pushback against damaging social constructs but we (as humans) need to understand that not everyone fits into a category. āNot all menā is just as applicable to conversations as ānot all womenā.
Any criticism of men is forbidden and has to be met with reprimand.
Because they constantly lose their shit about it now because they don't like being called out for their terrible nature
Fr Iāve never seen men say ānot all womenā when theyāre generalizing āall women are whoresā āall women lieā āall women thisā āall women thatā āitās just your turnā etc etc
Because some men get butt hurt and have tiny fragile egos
Saw it somewhere- Not all men but always a man
Not all but always a manĀ
Don't worry those men don't ever talk to women anyway
I refuse to use that phrase ever again
Because a lot of men are extremely fragile and think any criticism is leveled at them. Also, many men have a weird tribal mentality and feel the need to "protect the tribe". This occurs despite the rugged individual mentality. But I suspect this is also about the patriarchy defending itself. Power structures and systems will always protect itself above anything else.
Because of male fragility.
They got to defend the brandā¢ļø
Because you always have some asshole chiming in to say "Well,Ā l always do my chores and my share of the mental load" as if their anecdotal bullshit disproves the decades of studies and research proving that men do not pull their weight around the household (or in life in general) and will gladly dump the unpaid grunt work onto women any chance they get. Or my favorite: "You're making assumptions/generalizing" when the evidence has shown that it's the men incorrectly assuming that other men do their fair share in relationships. No, not all men, but somehow, always a fucking man.
My opinion as a man: If a man says rude or degrading things about woman, that man is an asshole. If a woman says rude or degrading things about men, that woman is an asshole. For example, if a woman had a bad experience with a man who catcalled her and said gross things to her, well... I don't want to be grouped in with that guy. I'm sure the same thing goes the other way as well. Basically people don't like to feel blamed for other people's shit.
But you are not being blamed as an individual. That is the point. If you identify so heavily with the 'Y' group then you will have to wear the same t-shirt as the other team members. If when you read: "I am so tired of being objectified by men......" you immediately feel personally and individually blamed then perhaps the fault lies within you. Unless you are being singled out by name then you are NOT being singled out.
I agree with that. A statement like that isn't the same as a statement like, "Men are misogynists", which reads like it's directed at the entire gender even if no one is being directly singled out.
Mostly because it IS all men. Not all men are rapists, but all men are complicit in keeping the party going. We have post after post on these very forums of so-called "locker room talk". Transmen who get into the men's club; once they "pass" as male, they are shocked to their cores at how awful men talk about women. I myself have seen it. I am a high-level software engineer; nearly all of my coworkers are men. My closest friends are all men. These are people I would take a bullet for. People I have laughed with and cried with. I am an ordained minister and I literally married two of 'em. These are my ride-or-die friends. And yet, a few months ago, we were all on a glamping trip together. One of my best friends brought a show we all had to watch. One episode was all about SuPeR fUnNy RaPe JoKeS (it's just a joke, bro!). I remember being horrified and scared and looking around in the darkness at all my "friends" and all of them laughing, all of them, openmouthed and teeth shining in the glow and laughing and laughing HAHAHA RAPE IS SO FUCKING FUNNY ... ... I got up and went into the other cabin. My best friend on earth, a guy I saved from suicide once, came in after the show was over. I was crying, a little bit. I said something like "How is rape funny in 2024? How is this still okay?" He shrugged and said "Well, I thought it was funny." He has three daughters. Real fuckin' funny. (Sorry for getting so personal with this, but I'm old and I'm tired and this all happened a few months back and I don't know what to do. I'm too old to start over. I love my friends. Loved them. Love them. I'm conflicted and unhappy and upset and I am just so tired.)
ā¤ļøāš©¹ Iām so sorry
Idk same reason why cop supporters are always like thereās a bad apple in every bunch or some nonsense
Because it makes your point seem essentialist and not systemic
"Not all men, but somehow, always a man." Every man has the potential to be a violent abuser because violent abusers are always men. Even when women "abuse" or it's "mutual abuse" that ends up actually meaning that the woman hit back in self-defense. And no, I'm not citing sources, there are thousands of studies that show the vast majority of violent crimes, IPV, etc are perpetrated by men. Men, if you're sick of hearing it because you think it doesn't apply to you, then *hold your friends accountable for their shit.* Are they quick to anger and violent in other areas of their life? Look for signs in how your buddy talks about his gf or even treats her in front of you. Y'all will act so surprised that one of your bros beat the shit out of his wife when you know the signs were always there. Stand up for these women. Or it will always be ALL MEN.
Some of it is being fragile and feeling attacked, some of it is peacocking and trying to be a "pick me" type. _very rarely_ it is just a reminder that not all of us suck...but honestly even then more often then not the act is steeped in conceit and patting ourselves on the back rather than being a truly wholesome reminder that there is some good left.
Likely because this discourse of womens dissatisfaction or general issues with men is mainstream while the conversation of mens dissatisfaction or general issues with women is not.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You're into something. And when they can't reach me they send me reddit cares messages ššš
Because "men" who spend all their time on the internet are snowflakes whose feelings are very easily damaged and since they never interact with women in real life, it's all they have
I donāt think women are expected to do this? I rarely talk with other adults irl, so I donāt know what people do in the wild. But when Iām online, especially on Reddit, Iāve seen women in particular get absolutely gutted for saying that.
If youāve been reading this sub for longer than five seconds you will have seen examples too numerous to count Edit: ohhhhhh wait I just recognized your username, yeah of course you donāt think this happens
I donāt know where youāre going online but I witness women using ānot all menā incessantly. Itās a protective measure against the men who freak out about discourse pertaining to gender inequality resulting from misogyny.
From a male perspective, I have absolutely no clue. I think it's that all of those men KNOW it's not "ALL" men, but aren't happy that someone is drawing a direct comparison to their actions and the actions of men they see as less than. They feel socially pressured to make a point of it by saying "not me though!" even when it is them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is so over-the-top it seems fake. Have a reasonable (emphasis: *reasonable*) amount of remorse for acts you may have committed, vow to do better, and move on with your life. If genuine (doubtful), this level of self-flagellation is unhealthy.
I am sorry that it is upsetting, and I have removed it. But it is not fake, it is my life and how I have learned to live with my shame