"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.

So let’s try your theft argument because there is truth in your statement.

Most petty theft is done by women
Most house burglary is done by men.
Most armed robbery is done by men.

So in fact you have sort of proved the point that men are violent.

For god's sake, you use generalisations all the time. Everyone does. Life couldn't function without them
And those who try to reduce them in their lives are living much better for it. How would life not function without them?

Both genders can be bloody awful
I also work in a job where impartiality is at the core of the work. I certainly see some very poor behaviour and thinking on both sides. Differently maybe but harmful nevertheless.

It's much more useful to try to better understand why individuals think and act the way they do rather than stick labels on them without any effort to get them as a person.

did you generalise about men there?

Not all bad men manage to get partners.

Bit of an own goal 😂

That's a simple but effective way of making your point lol

Not really

Not all people create post worth reading.

Not all men but if I gave you a box of 10 malteasers and told you one was actually made out of poo, you’d be wary of them all
That would apply to all generalisations, that's the problem. You could use that same analogy for women, old people, people of certain nationality etc... Hence toxic!

So when someone starts thread about racism, do you pop in to post "not all white people"? If not, why not?

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)

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!!!! 😂😂😂

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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...

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.

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?

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.

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...

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?

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