"Not all men” replies are ridiculous

You can bet there are not groups of men proclaiming NAWALT to each other.

Yes - my family are Iranian asylees having escaped the regime when the Shah was deposed. No need to patronise me. My muslim male family members are also NLT. Cos, like, not all Muslims are like that, either.

Generalisations exist for a reason
Which is? Sadly, those keen on making generalisations are also those likely to apply them to anyone without descrimination.

This is why they need to be pointed to the fact that generalisations don't concern everyone.

Generalisations are toxic and needless. Judge individuals from what you observe, it is much more likely to be accurate.

Misogyny absolutely does include insults that were only created for women, to put women down. If it has no use against men at all, then it is a misogynistic insult. I would expect someone ranting about misogyny to understand that.

People say it because there is a tendency on MN to proclaim all men are abusers, wasters, liars and cheats. That the ‘good ones’ are the exception. And they really aren’t.

My partner is one of the good ones. He's none of those things you describe. Does he always have full empathy with women? Has he never made a comment or held an assumption about women that I've never had to challenge? No.

Because he's not a woman. Because he's never lived in this world as a woman. Because he takes his rights and protections as a man for granted and hadn't considered, until the abortion stuff in the USA, that women can't do that.

There are low level prejudices and asunptions that even good men hold about women. There are women who hold them too. Precisely because its so universal.

Do you understand you live in an incredibly progressive country and do not represent the average female experience worldwide?
becuase Nigel is not the average man.

No, it’s the ‘dog owners who hang poo bags on trees’ not dog owners as a universal class - because not all dog owners are like that? NADOALT 🤣

Though, as a dog owner who is constantly collecting abandoned poo bags and even clearing up other dogs poo to avoid my dogs walking in it - and children encountering it - I would say that there are far too many of them!!

I agree - the NAMALT comments are intended to point out that it is the minority of men who are an issue, not that ‘my Nigel is the exception’. People say it because there is a tendency on MN to proclaim all men are abusers, wasters, liars and cheats. That the ‘good ones’ are the exception. And they really aren’t.

I’ve encountered a couple of utter bastards in my life: one of my step fathers was a violent narcissistic bully, so I witnessed DV for years… but 90+% of the men I have worked with, dated, known are absolutely lovely, kind men. And yes, my DH, FiL and DS are amongst those men.

Misandry doesn’t counter misogyny.

I once said on a Facebook group that dog owners were filthy cretins. For hanging sacks of shit on bushes.

Everyone came back with the “it’s not all dog owners…”.

Yeah, but it IS dog owners, right?

Exactly. This.

As a demographic, men have always held power over women. Humans enjoy power, so men don't want to disadvantage themselves by relinquishing it, and the patriarchy and physical strength mean that men are the ones who almost always ultimately hold the power over both an individual woman, and women as a demographic.

Whether or not men choose to use that power to inflict harm or control women, and to what extent they do so, will vary - from Afghanistan-levels, to Norway-levels. But that imbalance of power always impacts negatively on women to some degree, shaping our societies, and all men benefit from that - and I think most men will use it, even if only in subtle ways.

If the vast majority of men are "decent" why are crimes against women, large and small, so prevalent as to be essentially woven into the fabric of most if not all societies

It's the 'woven into the fabric' element I was referring to, too. A lot of people.just don't see it bcause It's so normalised.

So the burden of responsibility falls to women to avoid it rather than men to not do it.

Your dog and ice-cream examples do not help your argument as dogs do have 4 legs and ice cream is cold 😂

If this is true, how do your explain FGM? And countries where men are legally permitted to beat their wives? Porn? The popularity of Andrew Tait? The gender pay gap.....

If the vast majority of men are "decent" why are crimes against women, large and small, so prevalent as to be essentially woven into the fabric of most if not all societies

Taking away from crime stats to just the everyday experience, I think a lot of it is driven by fairly low expectations of men overall and different understandings of what 'decent' means, if I'm really honest.

And many men and women have both absorbed those.

So you get women on here who talk about their husband being one of the good ones, thus acknowledging that many aren't. I know several men who I'd consider as being some of the good ones - as well.as many more who aren't! But it depends what metric women are using. If their base expectations of men are low, then their acceptance of what qualifies as 'decent' will similarly be low.

A lot of our society is immersed in misogyny. Not in the outright hatred of women but in applying expectations to men and women very differently. A lot of women have also internalised the misogyny and it makes some women very uncomfortable to hear men criticised.

I suppose the simplest example.i have is when avoiding rape is discussed. When it's suggested that women don't go out alone after dark, don't catch public transport alone, don't get drunk, watch what they wear, consider how their behaviour will be interpreted etc, its largely regarded as a positive and common sense as a means of avoiding rape. But when its reversed and people pose hypothetical solutions such as well maybe men shouldn't go out alone, mbe men shouldn't go out after dark, maybe men should avoid using public transport etc, it's feels disproportionate, unreasonable and oppressive. It feels instinctively wrong.

Yet these men manage to get partners who hang off their every pore

To extended the malteaser analogy further...
Box of 10:
1 has glass in (causing you physical harm)
3 are 100% poo inside (severe psychological harm/sex assault)
4 have varying levels of poo mixed with biscuit (misogynistic views)
2 have trace elements of poo only (probably from having to hang out with the others in the box)

90+ % of violent crimes are men

…and this neatly illustrates the problem. Because it doesn’t mean that 90% of men are violent.

So when generalisations are made along the lines of ‘men are violent’, it’s perfectly valid to say ’not all men’.

Try this….

Most shoplifting is done by women. Women are thieves.

…do you not have an impulse to point out that NAWALT?

I always was of the attitude that most men are decent. I’m now approaching 60 and I have a wonderful decent husband so I know many many men are decent but I’m starting to think far more men, if given the opportunity and anonymity are nowhere near as decent as I used to believe.

As more cases come out of abuse against women and children and we see the numbers of men involved and the types of men involved, I’ve sadly come to belief that many men given the opportunity in circumstances would not be even close to what I considered decent.

whether it’s by actively being involved or by being a facilitator or by turning a blind eye or by having the attitude that it’s not that bad oh that it’s partly her fault or 100 other justifications

The statistic shows that an unacceptable level of men rape women

You are showing yourself up with your posts.

embarrassing really

I always think it comes from a place of fear that their Nigel might in fact act like a misogynist when she's not there.

Which do we think is more verbally threatening? An angry woman, or an angry man? Which sex causes more actual, serious harm? Who is more likely to inflict injury? Who is murdering who at a higher rate? Who commits more physical and sexual violence?

In that study:

"Women were significantly more likely to experience physical or sexual IPV and abuse of power and control alone; the prevalence of physical IPV alone was 13.3% for women and 5.8% for men, while sexual IPV alone was 4.3% for women and 0.2% for men. Women were less likely to report verbal abuse alone, and the prevalence of psychological IPV alone was 12.1% for women and 17.3% for men, respectively."

In addition, you can see insights in this study of adolescents:

"Boys and girls reported similar frequencies of overall violence, but girls reported experiencing more moderate and severe forms of violence along with more acute physical consequences. In terms of reactions, over half of boys reported “laughing” in response to physical IPV, and a third of boys ignored it. A third of the girls reported defending themselves against IPV, and 40% cried. Girls were much more likely to perceive assaults against them as serious with damaging physical and psychological effects. Boys perceived less negative impact on themselves and the relationship. The data suggest much of girls’ violence against boys may be to defend against sexual aggression."

The majority of men are part of the problem.

A man who turns down the opportunity to rape an unconscious woman but not report it as in the Majorca case.
The multiple ‘normal’ family men who took part in rape Gisele Pelicot and the ones who turned down the offer of raping her also didn’t report it.

Even then those men who did take her and got caught made excuses “I’m just a family man, her husband said I could rape her so I thought it was ok”

Nor all men. But effing hell, it is too many of them.

That being said, there earlier in the thread their is a conflation between representation in crime statistics and representation in the population (divided by gender)

As has been pointed out:

90+% of violent crimes were committed by men
=/=
A majority of men are violent.

70,000 men did a bad thing (out of 4 billion)
doesn't prove that a majority of men are bad

Likewise the posters who have listed all of the (mostly) minority groups of men who think bad things or admit to wrongdoing. There is a tendency to add up these percentages. 15% think this, 30% think this, 20% think this, 56% think this.. and then assume it = all men. When the data can't show this because the high likelihood is that these groups overlap. And being a man in one immoral group, makes it far more likely you are multiple.

Does any of this mean that we shouldn't generalize when it comes to safety? No... of course not. It doesn't matter if it is all men, as long as it is enough, the safe course of action is to act as if it were "any" man. (E.g. not walking home alone at night, not going alone to a mans house that you don't yet know/trust) etc. etc.

Both of those can be, and are true.

The majority of men are (somewhat) decent. If they weren't, society couldn't function in the manner it does.

But We are also right to be fearful and act as if the majority are bad (generalizing), because it makes no difference whether it is actually a majority or not, when one bad man can ruin many lives.