"Not all men” replies are ridiculous

Some people on this thread are really getting on their knees for the men folk aren't they.

They aren't going to save you and they don't give a shit you're here defending them. They are statistically more likely to walk on by if you're getting assaulted.

There's nothing at all complicated about it. Pretty much everybody who can read and understand stats is in agreement that it's not all men but its nearly always men.
The reason this basic truth becomes complicated, is that some people are unable to accept it. Either because they don't like it, or because they don't understand it.
Yet they are unable to argue against it because there is too mych evidence to refute. So instead, they try to divert attention from it by creating straw men, arguing its not all men, when no one said it is.
Its not 'really important' to state not all men are child molesters, rapists and murderers. Because no one in their right mind thinks this. To tell people something so obvious is irritating and distracting.

I don’t like sweeping statements of any kind.

That is fine if the generalisation is blatantly untrue. We use the categories men and women in categories for good reason.

Such as
Women shouldn’t run in marathons because their uterus’s will fall out.
Blatantly untrue.

But...
Women face more barriers to sport due to their menstrual cycle
True and fine generalisation even though many women don’t get periods and young female runners may not yet have periods and older women the same. But we understand the generalisation. I don’t hear men shouting not all women have periods…...

Men’s mental health and well being is in decline.
True and fine generalisation. We know the sentence is referring generally to men, not all men but more men than women are facing mental health crisis and we also know it’s a minority. Nevertheless we generalise because women aren’t suffering to the same degree.

We have a problem with men raping and being violent towards women.

Not all men!!!!!!!

No not all men but ONLY men rape women and it’s prevalent. 1 in 4.

Yes, it's terrible when an oppressed demographic generalises about the oppressor class. It's so dreadfully damaging and vengeful, and totally undermines their expectation of having equitable rights 🙄 It totally makes the oppressed class worse than their oppressors.

You sound ridiculous.

Because it’s unnecessary and done in bad faith.
Women understand the damage it has done (and still does) when false generalisations are made about them.
Doing the same back is just vengeful and unnecessary, and actually undermines the women’s cause.

Men's generalisations have resulted in patriarchy, oppression, and abuse. Women's generalisations have resulted in....?

So how on earth would generalising about men make women worse than men?

And often they are there to protect people.

The only generalisation that are bad are incorrect stereotypes such as fat people are lazy. Which is blatantly untrue.

However men pose a risk to women that women don’t pose to women. It is a useful, accurate and important generalisation.

When biology text talk about women’s reproductive cycle they don’t then go into a whole new sentence about how not all women get periods.

I’m not talking about making ‘fair and accurate judgments’. I’m talking about about making generalisations in the absence of more information or knowledge of the people than the broad description given.

I would still generalise that child molesters are much more likely to be men.
I wouldn’t be generalising that men are child molesters.

A generalisation needs to nod towards the majority. The majority of men are NOT child molesters.
But, the majority of child molesters are men.

It is REALLY important to differentiate between the two.

I don’t understand what is complicated about this!

You win today's award for the post that makes and demonstrates its point most succinctly.

Intelligent people recognise their biases, check them and use them in ways that benefit others.
eg. Poor children do worse at school - pupil premium. Not all children need it. But we do it anyway.
do you see why your argument isn’t landing?

I agree.

It is just their way to try to shut down the discussion.

Everybody knows it is not all men. But it is an awful lot of men...

There is a massive, widespread issue with toxic masculinity: violence against women and girls, aggression on social media, objectification of women and a refusal to see them as equals or even human beings...

The "what about the men" and "not all men" are part of the issue because they are trying to gaslight everyone into thinking there is no problem with men's behaviour and shut down the debate.

Personally I am done with worrying about these men's bruised ego. A healthy reaction from them would be to accept that there is problem and that it is not limited to a tiny minority of men and help call their behaviour rather than try to shut women up.

And of course there are always going to be some women who are so eager to please that they will jump in to say " my husband and/or my son is great" rather than looking at the bigger picture and supporting women and girls...

Actually we generalise to protect ourselves for survival purposes and other purposes. Every intelligent person understands these generalisations
Actually, I telligent people understand that generalisations do more harm than good.

It's like those shouting that breath milk is significantly much better than commercial milk and so mums who don't breastfeed do harm to their children. Yes, as a statistic, taking hundred of thousand of children, breast milk is healthier. However, that doesn't mean that if you look like k at two children, the one who was breastfed is going to be healthier, more intelligent etc...

Sadly, this is what not so intelligent people will conclude, and that leads to harm. Mothers who can't breastfeed, or just don't want to ending up beating themselves up because they think they are terrible mums and not doing the best for their kids.

Generalisations are often based on very very low statistical risks yet are glorify fear and paranoia.

No. No you can't. When you chose the 35 year old female babysitter over the 50 something man, you are not making a fair and accurate judgement based in those two people. Not all 50 something single men who want to be babysitters pose a risk to children. Not all 35 year old women are a safer choice. So why do you choose the woman if you are not generalising?

What generalisations would we need to make about women, old people or other nationalities to keep us safe though? There is no evidence at all there is a link between being a member of these groups and a greater likelihood they
will commit an act of violence. If there were stats that 90% of a particular incident involved a certain group, it would be reasonable to see membership of that group as representing a higher risk. Just as insurers do when setting premiums based on age.

But it's not a minority! It's the structure. Men who behave badly face so little consequences that they only behave well if they really want to. That's not the same for women. There's social pressure for us to behave well. In other words, the standards, the bar, it IS higher for us.

We're not taking about individual men, but the mechanisms of society...

Nobody has said all men are rapists. They’ve said rapists are 99.9% likely to be men. Why don’t you understand the nuance?

Of course not, and you can reach all of the correct answers to those ‘quandries’ by using accurate generalisations about where danger lies, rather than inaccurate generalisations about men.

You remind me of a teenager, caught out in black and white but still denying it.

So given the choice, in an emergency you'd leave your children with a single man in his late 50s rather than a 35 year old woman, if you knew neither?
If I knew them bith, I'd go with who I trusted most as INDIVIDUALS. Indeed, I think my ability to analyse people is much more reliable than generalisations.

Actually we generalise to protect ourselves for survival purposes and other purposes. Every intelligent person understands these generalisations.

Late a night, if there’s a carriage on the train with a man in it and a bit further up one with plenty of women. Instinct tells us to generalise about that man because as a sex class they pose a danger to women. he might be lovely but we will generalise that because he is a man he might not be safe.

Men even generalise themselves.

Walking home late at night some men will cross the road away from a woman in front so they don’t feel scared that they are being followed. They are generalising because they are male they will be seen as a threat even if they are not. Because we have to generalise to keep ourselves safe.

Car insurance companies generalise based upon sex too as we know women are safer drivers generally. So state your sex is male and your insurance premium will be slightly higher on that factor.

We all understand these generalisations.

The correct riposte to NAMALT is "But ALOMALT".

A lot of men are like that.

I've spent a fair amount of time in majority male groups. Sometimes they've forgotten I'm there, or forgotten that I'm female. I've heard them talk unguardedly. I know ALOMALT.

Edited for clarity

I beg to differ. There are a lot of false generalisations made on here, and a lot of them are about men.
It’s very simple - I gave three examples above of false, and then the sentences flipped to make correct, generalisations.

A more generic example:
Grass is green - correct generalisation.
If something is green it is grass - false.

The NAMALT brigade turn up because of false generalisations, and although this is actually the first time I’ve ever typed out ‘NAMALT’, I think those posters are right to correct the narrative. It’s insidious and actually quite dangerous.

Not all women! My aunt Barbara and sister Jasmine are lovely 🙄
nowhere in this thread has anyone said women are angels.
now also please show me your statistics for your disgusting generalisations - it’s not all women!!!! 😂😂😂

So given the choice, in an emergency you'd leave your children with a single man in his late 50s rather than a 35 year old woman, if you knew neither?
Would you prefer your teen DD to accept a lift home at night from a random man or a random woman?
Would you rather buy a house next door to an HMO full of young single men, or a house share of retired women?
If you're walking down an otherwise deserted tow path, would you feel more comfortable if the stranger behind you was a woman or a man? (Assuming you're a woman)