"Not all men” replies are ridiculous

[GarlicFound]

Generalisations exist for a reason. There's no need to point out that there are exceptions. When you want to highlight that your comment's universal, you say "All children", for instance. Generalising to "Children" implies "Children in general, for the most part, usually".

Everybody knows this. So there's no need to specify "NOT ALL MEN" each and every time anyone makes a general observation about men, goddamit!

You don't say "Not all dogs [have four legs]" or "Not all ice-cream [is cold]".

Having a penis doesn't make you especially vulnerable to generalisations. So grow up, please, and accept that YOU or your DH are not "all men" - general comments aren't intended to single you out. And if you feel like they are, you're a bit thick, not to mention narcissistic.

I don’t like this. I personally think it should be changed. I also don’t like how there isn’t statutory rape - there are loads of cases where people can’t consent and to not call it what it is dismisses experiences.
i hate that im having to defend men here 🤢

Yeah I don’t like this. I’m not saying it’s endemic but it happens.

There is - under s9 of the act. Also s7, and s8

I’m tired and not a legal expert.
so what would happen in the case of
a teacher and student
a dr and patient
etc?
why not call it what it is? Rape - having eex with someone who can’t consent?

Men as a class do X. This does not mean all men do X. It does mean that men are the category of person who is likely to have done X when X occurs.

I'm afraid the thread is divided into those who understand this and those who don't. The first group have tried many times in many ways to explain this to the second group. The second group just keep repeating "But it's not ALL men though..."

No,not ALL men,but whatever it is it nearly always IS men. Perpetrators of serious crime are predominantly men. I was astounded to discover that there is just under 88000 men in prison in the UK compared to just over 3500 women. Says it all really. I don't believe for one minute that the law is harder on men than it is on women,I think it has been proven that it is actually harder on women.

I'm afraid the thread is divided into those who understand this and those who don't. The first group have tried many times in many ways to explain this to the second group. The second group just keep repeating "But it's not ALL men though..."
You can refer to 'men' as a classification. That's fine, but OP is talking about generalisation. The definition of generalisation is: the act of forming broad principles or conclusions from specific facts, often applying a general rule to many cases.

That's what posters have an issue with. The classification is: men are more sexually violent than women.

The generalisation is: men as a classification are more violent and so that applies to the men I work with and I'm going to treat them accordingly.

No. Men as a class are more violent than women. Because of this, the men I work with are more likely to contain a violent individual than the women, so I will risk assess accordingly.

The OP is saying that when we say "men commit rape" there is no need for you to say "not all men commit rape" because we obviously know this already. If we laboured under the misapprehension every man in the world committed rape, we would say "all men commit rape."
The OP is ever so straight forward. All she's saying is unless you see 'all' in front of the word 'men' you don't need to NAMALT.
You are correct to generalise that men are more dangerous. Stats support this. If in that knowledge you treat your male colleagues with more caution than your female ones until you know them enough to have built a relationship of trust, that's probably very sensible of you.

No. Men as a class are more violent than women. Because of this, the men I work with are more likely to contain a violent individual than the women, so I will risk assess accordingly
So what does risk assessing accordingly means in day to day behaviour?

Hard to believe you asked this immediately after 10+ posts giving examples of the ways women modify our behaviour and constrain our own freedoms in order to reduce risk (from men).

You're still not getting it, sweetheart.

Women sexually assault men. As a generalisation, this is true. It's not an especially widespread phenomenon, but it certainly happens.

Men rape women. As a generalisation, it's true. It is, sadly, a widespread phenomenon and one that women have to keep in mind when making certain decisions.

Can you really not see that neither of these statements says "ALL"?

There's no need to dive in yelling "Not all!" because the statement never said it in the first place.

English law defines rape as a specific offence of penetration by penis.

It defines several more specific sexual crimes, which may carry the same sentence as rape. These include some crimes against children. (We have what Americans call a Romeo and Juliet easement.)

Other crimes such as sexual abuse and harassment are defined in ways that leave some scope for judicial interpretation.

Ah ok. Makes sense if you’re defining it by something else and the laws for similar offences have the same penalties.

This is an interesting read for those interested in this discussion.
The table below shows

1. The vast majority of arrests are men.
2. More importantly the crimes women commit are far less serious

TV licence evasion was the offence with the highest proportion of female defendants in 2023.
In 2023, 74% of those prosecuted for TV licence evasion were female. This offence accounted for 12% of all female prosecutions.

Theft from shops was the most common indictable offence for female defendants in 2023.
Theft from shops accounted for 27% of all female prosecutions for indictable offences, compared to 12% for males.

3) But more women are actually prosecuted and convicted

Figure 1.01: Proportions of males and females throughout the CJS, 2023/2024, England and Wales

You can then see that females are massively under represented in the prison population despite higher conviction rates because their crimes are generally petty theft and therefore sentences are shorter.

Honestly, I think females should get a tax reduction.

The chart didn’t upload but it’s here

Figure 1.01: Proportions of males and females throughout the CJS, 2023/2024, England and Wales

Hard to believe you asked this immediately after 10+ posts giving examples of the ways women modify our behaviour and constrain our own freedoms in order to reduce risk (from men)
And none of them apply to work settings. So what behaviour would a woman do differently around male colleagues only on the basis that they are men.

I would share a room with a female colleague if that was the only way of attending an important conference or meeting. I would not share a room
with a male colleague in the same circumstance and would rather cancel the conference or meeting even if it was important.

Avoid being alone with them in the office at night if you didn't know them well.
Make sure any meetings that might cause heightened emotions were done in a place where others were close and that you sit nearest the door.
Avoid giving or accepting lifts home after work events.
Be alert for inappropriate attention (especially from those with power over you) tread the line between friendly and not too friendly.
Avoid giving out personal details like home number, address or getting into conversations that are too personal.

You are wrong in how you assess your two underlined statements. They are both false generalisations. They are both FACTS, but cannot be generalised.
‘I stubbed my toe on Monday’ may be true, but is a false generalisation because I don’t habitually stub my toe on Mondays.

We’re getting into semantics, but those semantics are important if you want to win an argument, which we do (as women), to retain and reinforce our rights to protection against violent men.

Oh, didn’t know women don’t commit any crime whatsoever.

All of this for me, too.

I think you may have mixed 'generalisation' up with something else?

‘I stubbed my toe on Monday’ is not a generalisation of any sort, it's specific.

I don’t habitually stub my toe on Mondays is a generalisation. You've actually stressed the general nature of your statement by including 'habitually'. The sentence tells me that, if it's Monday, you're unlikely to have stubbed your toe.

A generalization is a statement that seems to be true in most situations or for most people, but that may not be completely true in all cases.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/generalization

I had to finish a comment the other day with NAMALT because otherwise I would have be launched at by the NAMALT brigade 🙄 so I had to quantify it in advance.