"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.

Hardly the same. Animals or trees aren't hurt or affected by comments made about them. People might be. Stereotypes (i.e. generalisations) can be harmful.

Hahaha, tbh it would be more like 8/10 are made of poo but you know #notallmen 🤮

Phew, luckily none of that applies here then

Why? Because you magically understand how to accurately extrapolate information from statistics now and how to accurately use them to enhance an argument?
or are you now doing the Narcs second favourite move - rewriting history?

I don’t agree that the majority of men are decent. Fair enough, most aren’t rapists and murderers but there’s definitely far, far more dickheads and perverts about than there used to be. I look at the guys my friends are with and out of 11, there’s only 2 I could call properly decent.

I wouldn't agree that women love spa days. I would perhaps say 'many women' or 'some women' love them, but to say 'women love spa days' is a generalisation and obviously untrue.

Well it's always been the former as my original post said.

So why are you comparing race to gender in a discussion about who causes harm to women when the facts speak for themselves?

because it’s not gypies or black people. It’s men.
and if you look at all the wars right now, it’s a specific type of man - old rich ones (Putin, trump, etc). Women are not starting these wars! And we don’t need protecting from ourselves and children

Not in my experience, unfortunately.

If she was saying ‘men love football’ would you need to add ‘not all men’ or would you assume the audience is intelligent enough to already get the nuance?

Agree OP. Unfortunately the patriarchy has come up with a really fucking annoying phrase that just deflects from the harm that men are doing in the world.

If somone said to me 'men love football' like a universal truth, i'd just think they were a bit dim tbh. Same as if someone insisted that women love spa days.

But what if they were quoting a study where theyd interviewed 10,000 men in the Uk who represented a larger sample, and in that sample 9,000 said they at least tolerated it if it meant they could socialise with their mates?

outside of this I agree though. It’s reductive and sexist to make sweeping claims

Conversely a very rough ballpark is that only a few percent of men (often ~1–5%) will ever commit a recorded violent offence in their lifetime and an even smaller group (around 1% or less) commit most of the serious or repeated violence. Conviction-based estimates suggest well under 1% of men are ever convicted of a sexual offence.
So it's not 'not all men', it's 'barely any men'.

And how many send a dick pic to a woman who’s not interested?
how many make a woman feel uncomfortable at work by a thoughtless comment?
how many benefited at work from the belief of ‘oh don’t promote her, she’ll be pregnant next year?’
how many have wives that do everything for them everyday because that’s how it’s always been and ‘I just didn’t realise?’
you want to be an ally? Check your privelege, you cannot seriously say as a man you’ve never benefitted from sexism.

OK, what about "Men in vans catcall teenage girls"? This is obviously not untrue, because we know it happens. It's a statement of fact. However it means something very different from
"All men in vans catcall teenage girls" which is a generalisation and obviously untrue.
The point of the thread is that people would be justified in saying 'not all men...' in respect of the second, but that it's superfluous in respect of the first, because 'all men' wasnt what was said.

And even the good ones let themselves down, they can’t help themselves. My piano teacher - a really nice guy, married to a woman with a phd, his daughter is exceptionally intelligent and capable…still sneers at female composers and doesn’t seem to understand that they were held back by the boys club system (and still are).

What really got through to my dh was saying that women are completely reliant on men choosing not to harm them and they have every right to be cautious about ALL men. Like the malteaser analogy.

• Public perception associates Gypsy, traveller and Roma settlements with increased local crime (generalisation).
• This leads to excessive police intervention and social victimisation (generalisation).
• However, police bodies do not support the criminalisation of trespass (generalisation, but 93.7% is virtually all).
• In self-reported offending behaviour, a minority of Gypsies and Travellers, 22%, said they had committed a crime in the last year (specific; 22% does seem pretty high).

I've just spent 25 minutes finding and reading grown-up sources on this. Buggered if I'm doing the same for black men/knife crime.

Most criminals are men but most men are not criminals. It's not the same thing. Actually barely any men are criminals.

There's a reason spa days are marketed to women.

Similarly with the Formula One comment above, which thought it was clever. F1 marketing teams are playing for multiple $ millions. If they find their target audience is men (not all men, not zero women, just 'men') they will invest their money in marketing to men. Which, I believe, they do.

I really hope some of these PPs are attempting faux ignorance and faking incapacity to think. The alternative's too depressing to contemplate.

Not many men are convicted. Why don’t you go and research how may women report sexual assault in their lifetimes (I think it’s 2 out of 3 but please correct me if I’m wrong) and tell me how you’d explain those figures.

Not all men, but always men.

Like I said. It’s the narcissists playbook. I think im
going to rest for the night now. I enjoy putting incels in their places but im not doing anymore research for male apologists. That’s them just labour digging AGAIN.

I was waiting for the "pick me" comment! Got to love a misogynistic insult!