"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 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?

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I didn’t even mention Muslim countries. The USA is a pretty terrible example right now.
and I have just shouted someone down earlier for bringing race into it.

in every country, in the world, where men are in charge (patriarchy) women get hurt. It doesn’t matter what their religion is, what their skin colour is, where the country is based.

it is probably usually always a man.

But just because SOME men are bad, and as as a result we have to base safeguarding on the grounds that we cannot know which are which, does NOT mean all/most of men are like that. That is misandry, not safeguarding.

I am out of this thread. Should have kept away as it is clearly just a rage baiting clarion call.

But a lot of ‘men’ generalisations are incorrect

Men are arseholes is wrong. Most men aren’t.
Men are sexual predators is wrong. The vast majority are not.
Men are misogynists is wrong.

You get my drift…

The sentences need to be reversed to make correct generalisations:

Arseholes are men. Correct.
Sexual predators are men. Correct.
Misogynists are men. Correct.

You’re not understanding. The point is we know it’s not all of them - but it’s usually one of them. To say ‘not all men’ dismisses this by assuming the audience lacks the intelligence to understand the nuances.

im not talking about safeguarding. Im talking about women’s rights. Historically, and even now, patriarchy harms women and benefits men. Yes, not all of them - WE KNOW. Don’t insult our intelligence. Don’t dismiss the issue.

What about patriarchy harms women and benefits men? Like can it not just be that simple? Why argue with something so obvious and widespread?

I'm sure the men will appreciate your ardent defence of them. The poor dears desperately need protection from the disapproving wariness of women – it's so brutal and oppressive.

Correct, it does.

The reason to argue the point is that it’s important. We don’t like it when men make generalisations about women; indeed, the patriarchy is built upon false ‘women’ generalisations.
To make false generalisations about them makes us as bad, if not worse than them because we understand the harm it does.

Are you seriously trying to argue that if women say 'men are abusers', it makes them worse than actual rapists and abusers??

Wow. Patriarchy in action, right here.

But how do you talk about this without making generalisations? You need to to make protective laws. You can’t be like no walk outside any time you like drunk because women would probably get hurt. You have to make generalisations at this level to find what works and how to improve it.

For god's sake, you use generalisations all the time. Everyone does. Life couldn't function without them.

Er, no?

Us generalising about them makes us worse than them generalising about us.
Who mentioned abuse?

Are you OK?

I don’t understand what you are trying to say, sorry.

I’ve already said that reversing the sentence can give correct generalisations. I’m not saying we shouldn’t generalise at all, just that we should make them correct.

This. There are good and bad people in the world. Of both sexes. 🙄

I worked in a child protections services - and not all women are nurturing Earth Mothers. Some abuse and neglect and neglect their children.

Both genders can be bloody awful.

The difference between me and the male apologists is I don’t need to shout at you saying NOT ALL WOMEN!!! We know not all women abuse their children and can talk about abusive mothers without shouting about it.
the facts speak to for themselves.

Right but what are you actually correcting here? Nobody is making false generalisations. For an internet forum, this has been incredibly well researched - people are giving statistics and facts to support their generalisations.

what is your issue?

Not all dog owners hang dog poo on trees but only dog owners.

Not all men rape but only men rape.