Is the "Not-all-men" meme making us look silly? (self.TwoXChromosomes)

{TwoXChromosomes}

188 ups - 133 downs = 55 votes

As I opened my mouth to respond to "all women are horribly manipulative" with "hey, that's not true of most wo..." it dawned on me that we might be the problem here.

Not-all-men seems to be framed as a derailment argument but is it possible we just hide behind that rhetoric to allow ourselves to say "men" instead of "around 0.0001% of men". If that's the case then perhaps it's us that need to change.

243 comments submitted at 12:36:27 on May 19, 2014 by readdingit

  • [-]
  • Feyle
  • 105 Points
  • 12:49:57, 19 May

No, because the "not all men" meme is based on people saying that in response to someone saying things like "I experience street harassment by men every day". Clearly that statement is not equivalent to saying "all men are street harassers". So it's unnecessary for people to interject with "not all men are like that".

  • [-]
  • darwin2500
  • 56 Points
  • 13:39:42, 19 May

I disagree. The front-page article about the 'not all men' memes from 2 days ago defined the problem using examples which were universal statements about all men. The popular comic features the statement 'I'm sick of how men', not 'I'm sick of how I've experience men who' or "I'm sick of how some men.' The memes themselves are certainly too simplistic to make this distinction. The typical argument against 'not-all-men' is that it's derailing, not that's it's a non sequitur because no one said 'all men'.

I agree you paint a picture of what the argument against 'not all men' should look like. However, my experience here is that in reality, this meme is being used to dismiss people who object to universal statements, or is being talked about in such a hyperbolic way that an observer would naturally assume that this is how it is meant to be used.

  • [-]
  • Feyle
  • 9 Points
  • 13:47:31, 19 May

From your first link:

>2) What is "Not all men"?

>Let's say a post is written on the internet about how men do not listen to women when they speak and interrupt them more often than men, an observation borne out by empirical research. At a blog or site of sufficient size, it's practically inevitable that a commenter will reply, "Not all men interrupt."

>This phrase "Not all men" is a common rebuttal used (most often) by men in conversations about gender in order to exempt themselves from criticism of common male behaviors. Recently, the phrase has been reappropriated by feminists and turned into a meme meant to parody its pervasiveness and bad faith.

This seems to be in line with what I was saying.

Having said that I will admit that I've not been paying a great deal of attention to the meme and responded mostly on the basis of my experience with the issue that generated it.

  • [-]
  • darwin2500
  • 14 Points
  • 17:55:25, 19 May

Yes, in point 2 and later in the article she says something more in line with your formulation. However, point 1, where she actually defines the problem, says this:

>Some additional notes about men:

> A man is someone who pays his female employees less.

> A man is someone who interrupts a woman when she's in the middle of saying something.

> A man expects his wife to do all the cooking and cleaning.

>What's that you say? Not ALL men pay their employees less? Not ALL men interrupt women?

>Thanks for pointing that out. You're who this meme is about.

And I think this perfectly represents the problem I'm trying to point out: later in the article she clarifies the situation and makes very reasonable points, but the first thing she says is a hyperbolic over-statement which clearly implies that objecting to universal statements is considered part of the problem. Very often, this hyperbolic representation is the only impression people get about the topic, and the more nuanced explanation doesn't come out until they are challenged on it (as is happening in this thread). I feel like this clearly leads to misunderstandings and problems, and I don't think you can ever get past those problems if you're relying on memes and short-form comics to make your points.

  • [-]
  • Feyle
  • 9 Points
  • 18:02:10, 19 May

> Very often, this hyperbolic representation is the only impression people get about the topic, and the more nuanced explanation doesn't come out until they are challenged on it (as is happening in this thread). I feel like this clearly leads to misunderstandings and problems, and I don't think you can ever get past those problems if you're relying on memes and short-form comics to make your points.

This is an excellent point.

  • [-]
  • readdingit
  • 5 Points
  • 12:58:32, 19 May

I guess in that sense we're cool, although that interjection is a non-sequitur as the opening comment never implicitly included the responder.

  • [-]
  • Feyle
  • 20 Points
  • 13:01:42, 19 May

But that's the point. People complain about it be used to derail because of the context in which it's being said.

  • [-]
  • Shaper_pmp
  • 3 Points
  • 14:10:49, 19 May

That seems like a pretty pathetic attempt to derail, though:

>>> "Many men do X"

>> "Not all men - I don't do X!"

> That's fine then, but I wasn't talking about you and I didn't say all men do - just many of them.

<end of derailing>

  • [-]
  • Feyle
  • 20 Points
  • 14:13:35, 19 May

Perhaps if it's just the one person doing it and who then accepts the given response but if it's a whole bunch of people doing it then the ratio of responses to the issue being raised compared to responses like this makes it derailing.

  • [-]
  • Show-Me-Your-Moves
  • 53 Points
  • 13:52:18, 19 May

It's kind of funny because one of the most common circlejerks across every damn subreddit is "feminists are bad." There's almost never any nuance to it, it's just "attack feminism for karma." As soon as you say "not all feminists believe that," you get a million would-be logicians screaming about No True Scotsman.

  • [-]
  • ritebkatya
  • 12 Points
  • 17:43:19, 19 May

Just to clarify (as someone who is basically a professional logician, ha) "No true Scotsman" is used in a different context. It follows the argument "well, if they believe/behave that way, then they aren't a real feminist." The Scotsman argument applies since this is a convenient redefinition of a group of self-identified people to your own beliefs and not theirs. Asking a few people with slightly different opinions would basically reduce the set of "true feminists" to zero making this argument moot.

Scotsman does not follow the argument of "Not all feminists..." since it allows people to self-identify instead of being slave to a particular person's definition. It's not that there's anything special about self-identification for a set of people when it comes to logic, but rather that there's no logical fallacy in that the set you're talking about can at least be consistently agreed by all parties involved to be non-zero (ie. you're not talking about no-one).

Edit: clarity

  • [-]
  • ghastlyactions
  • 5 Points
  • 16:18:18, 19 May

I think you get the no true Scotsman thing more when you say "that's not what feminists believe" or "well those radicals who hate men aren't feminists." I've never heard it applied to "not all feminists" before. I often hear people actually applying the no true Scotsman fallacy to extreme feminism and get called out for it.

  • [-]
  • legrac
  • 1 Points
  • 17:50:35, 19 May

Came here to say this exact thing.

  • [-]
  • ArchangelleBonerEnvy
  • 1 Points
  • 18:33:57, 19 May

This would be relevant in response to someone saying "men who sexually assault are not real men". I've never seen someone say "all feminists have x opinion", rather it usually starts with "a feminist said x to me" or something, and then someone replies "then they're not a real feminist!" or "that's not a real feminist opinion". That is absolutely a fallacy, you're right.

But I don't think anyone believes that all feminists have extremist opinions, just that there are some who do. However, there are indeed people out there who claim that all men are horrible rapists/pedophiles/molesters/etc-- to reply to what with "not all men are like that" is an absolutely rational response to an outrageous claim.

  • [-]
  • thermidorian
  • 28 Points
  • 15:09:40, 19 May

So you're saying that "not all feminists believe that" is a valid statement, but "not all men" is not? That's pretty unfair.

  • [-]
  • sweet_firefly
  • 9 Points
  • 15:35:15, 19 May

I think what /u/Show-Me-Your-Moves means is that you see the "feminists are bad" rhetoric way, way more often than the phrase "not all men" on reddit. In a way, it makes sense since there are far more men than women on reddit, but that doesn't mean one is more correct than the other. They are both used far more liberally than is warranted.

  • [-]
  • bebeschtroumph
  • 14 Points
  • 15:54:03, 19 May

That's probably a factor that is down to population. There are far more males than females on reddit in general, so your more likely to see men talking about feminism than women talking about men.

The 'not all (group x)...' pops up all the time. Not all thin people are anorexic, not all women are baby obsessed, not all conservatives are young earth creationists...

Guess what? Not all men are rapists. As a women, it makes me uncomfortable that we're generally taught to be wary of men.

As an aside, I especially hate the way men are treated around playgrounds. Not every man is perving on your kids! I was meeting my niece and nephew at a park, and my boyfriend and I arrived before them. He got some serious side-eye as we waited on a bench near the playground. Watching kids play is nice, but it's not something adults can do anymore without causing worry, so we don't. Sad times!

I understand why men get upset about being lumped in with terrible people because of their gender. And we do tend to generalize, especially in terms of advice for staying safe, like crossing the street etc etc etc. I get why that would feel hurtful. I'm still going to do it, but I understand why it would offend the vast majority of men who have no intention of cat calling/attacking/harassing me. I get that they're probably just starting off into space and didn't even notice that it looked like they were creepily starting at my ass. But, there are true creeps out there. So, we do our best to avoid being blamed for making ourselves into victims.

Victim blaming is so interesting as well. It rises out of a desire to keep ourselves safe. 'Oh, but she did that, and got attacked, so if I don't, I won't', though the reality is, some things are completely out of our control. That's a hard reality to accept, so we shift blame to the victim, rather than saying, 'the attacker could have been a normal human and not done that'. Very sad, and it's an attitude we all have to work on as a society!

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 10 Points
  • 15:58:03, 19 May

I never see anyone saying that "all men are rapists" though

  • [-]
  • PM_ME_QUESTIONS
  • 8 Points
  • 17:58:41, 19 May

I know someone who genuinely believes 95% of men are rapists. For this reason she chooses to be single. CHOOSES DAMN YOU. She got mime this shortly after her introduction to tumblr. She encouraged my girlfriend to stay away from me. Because one day in would snap...

  • [-]
  • anillop
  • 1 Points
  • 19:15:46, 19 May

"Teach men not to rape" infers that all men are potential rapists unless they are taught not to rape. Have you never heard that phrase before?

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:21:13, 19 May

Do you have a problem with the slogan "Only you can prevent forest fires" because it infers that all campers and outdoorsmen are potential arsonists?

  • [-]
  • Ohmanthrowaway
  • 1 Points
  • 19:38:08, 19 May

Smokey the bear is a total misandrist. :)

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:38:42, 19 May

NOT ALL CAMPERS START FOREST FIRES!! I'm offended as someone who loves to camp.

  • [-]
  • Ohmanthrowaway
  • 1 Points
  • 19:39:46, 19 May

As an arsonist, I'm offended by the whole campaign.

  • [-]
  • discardoMontobon
  • 1 Points
  • 19:44:10, 19 May

They are hardly the same. The forest fire slogan is aimed at people who would unintentionally start a fire.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:45:40, 19 May

You think all rapists think "I'm going to rape today"??? A lot of them do not see what they do as wrong.

  • [-]
  • Noble_toaster
  • 1 Points
  • 19:51:31, 19 May

But the "teach men" part precludes women from being rapists. Smokey isn't singling anyone out.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:56:30, 19 May

He certainly singles out campers and outdoorsmen otherwise he wouldn't be directing his message toward them.

  • [-]
  • Noble_toaster
  • 1 Points
  • 20:05:03, 19 May

Who is going to start a forest fire in the middle of the ocean? Smokey isn't singling out any one race, gender, religion, etc. You're still missing the point that "Teach men not to rape" implies that women can't rape.

  • [-]
  • bebeschtroumph
  • 8 Points
  • 16:14:57, 19 May

It's the way the advice we get is framed. 'If you see a man walking down the street at night, and you're alone, cross the street.' This is when you get people chiming in saying, 'not all men...'

Yeah, it's true, and I understand why people want to object and point out they wouldn't harm someone, because the vast majority of people wouldn't. However, because we want the world to be rational and in our control, we look at what we can do to keep ourselves safe. We see a situation a friend was in that ended up badly and say to our selves, 'ah, but she didn't cross the street, ah but she didn't sick with a buddy, ah but she had a bit too much to drink... If I don't, I'll be okay.' We want to believe we could prevent something terrible from happening to us, when the reality is a lot of the time we can't. So blame gets shifted onto the victim, and we look at most strangers as potential attackers.

I mean, the other day, I was walking down a street in the early evening, and got completely freaked by a guy walking a bit too close to me. Took my headphones out, keys in hand, ready to stab. Guy was just walking slowly, in his own world, probably stoned. I went into full on panic mode. He honestly probably had no clue he even made me uncomfortable, and I felt bad for assuming he was some psycho that was going to attack me. But if the same situation arose again, I would probably react in exactly the same way.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 4 Points
  • 16:17:35, 19 May

I don't think the feminist-leaning women on TwoX are the ones engaging in victim-blaming.

  • [-]
  • bebeschtroumph
  • 4 Points
  • 16:30:54, 19 May

I think acting as if every man is going to attack you and being hyper-vigilant is a form of victim blaming. It's putting control on the person who might be attacked, rather than on the attacker.

The reality that there might be nothing we can do to prevent harassment/rape is frightening. So we look for practical examples. We look at how attacks happen. 'Oh, she was alone. I won't do that. Oh, she was out really late. I won't do that. Oh, she accepted a ride home. I won't do that.' We give ourselves all these little rules to follow, so that we won't become a victim. But in doing so, we've set up a culture that blames victims, because we always want to believe there would be something we could do to prevent becoming a victim, when there frequently isn't.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 2 Points
  • 16:35:07, 19 May

Yes, hyper-vigilance around strangers is a product of victim-blaming. That doesn't mean the people who try to protect themselves according to rape culture myths are calling all men rapists. It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Try to protect yourself, you're a man-hater; don't try to protect yourself, you're asking for it.

  • [-]
  • bebeschtroumph
  • 5 Points
  • 16:53:51, 19 May

I respectfully disagree with your premise.

I don't think victim blaming is what comes first.

It happens with all crimes, regardless of their nature, even natural disasters. We look to examples and try and think about how we could have acted differently and protected ourselves. We say 'don't live in a flood plain, don't leave valuables in your car, don't leave your drink unattended'. It's our natural response, trying to impose some control on the inherently chaotic system we inhabit. It's horrifying to think that something bad could happen to us, regardless of the precautions we take to prevent it. It makes victims of crimes/accidents go over what happened to them over and over, blaming themselves for not preventing it from happening to them. It's a very hard instinct to let go of, and makes so many people willing to blame the victim of a crime rather than the actual perpetrator. We don't want to think it could happen to us, so we look to what the victim could have done to prevent the crime. We dissect the incident and say, 'oh, this happened because that person did x y z. If I don't, I'll be fine.' This mental process gets shifted into blaming the victim. We say, 'oh, but you shouldn't have brought your expensive camera into that part of town, you were asking for it to get stolen!' 'Oh, but they shouldn't have rebuilt that town there without improving flood defenses! What were they thinking?' 'Oh, she was walking home alone? At midnight? Well, that was a mistake.'

  • [-]
  • ignitious
  • 1 Points
  • 18:11:38, 19 May

I hope you don't mind me asking, mainly because I haven't spent much time on this subreddit. I'm a guy and used to date a very prominent feminist leader in the group at my college.

My understanding is that feminism is almost a misnomer, it sounds like it's advocating exclusively for women's rights. But it is in fact just seeking equality for men and women, so that they are paid equally assuming equal experience, education, performance, etc, as well extending to being treated like equals in conversation and day to day. A feminist wants women to be treated better, not to see men mistreated and "brought down" to how some women are treated in hostile environments. It's about treating everyone equally well, not equally poorly.

So my question I guess is this: Is there a theme on this subreddit that feminism means more the mistreatment of men in order to equalize their position in society? As for my(male) opinion, I see myself as a feminist - I want everyone to have the same opportunities assuming the same backgrounds regardless of race or gender, and I am pretty happy to peacefully discuss the topic.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 18:12:32, 19 May

> Is there a theme on this subreddit that feminism means more the mistreatment of men in order to equalize their position in society?

Nope. That that I've noticed.

  • [-]
  • ObieKaybee
  • 4 Points
  • 16:07:27, 19 May

Spend enough time on Reddit and you will

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 6 Points
  • 16:13:51, 19 May

Yes, Reddit, a haven of misandry!

  • [-]
  • ObieKaybee
  • 5 Points
  • 16:24:18, 19 May

More like a haven of assholes who love to attack everyone that's not part of the group they are in, but that kinda comes with being on the internet.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 3 Points
  • 16:25:46, 19 May

I have browsed women-dominated subs like TwoX and AskWomen (with a number of reddit accounts) for several years and have literally never seen anyone say that "all men are rapists." Ever.

  • [-]
  • soybean
  • 2 Points
  • 16:33:13, 19 May

I've never seen it in those places either, but I've seen it in other places. On SRS, if I'm not mistaken, it was though, heavily downvoted.

  • [-]
  • XiaomaoDeTuzi
  • 1 Points
  • 16:43:14, 19 May

But in social situations, some women act like they are. Right or wrong, said or unsaid - it's less that all men are rapists and more that all men could be racist.

Of course, all people could be psychotic killers, but somehow that doesn't frighten us as much...

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 4 Points
  • 16:46:16, 19 May

Anyone has the potential to be a criminal. It is a reality that a woman is more likely to be attacked by a man than by a woman, though assault by strangers is less common than assault by a friend, acquaintance, partner, or family member. You can accept these things without thinking that "all men are rapists."

  • [-]
  • XiaomaoDeTuzi
  • 5 Points
  • 16:57:50, 19 May

Absolutely. But while I, and others, have actually seen the statistics and research on the proportions of rapes committed by strangers vs. people known to the victim, some (let's face it, a lot) either don't know, don't believe, or choose to ignore the truth of the matter. And those women tend to live life with an uneccesary amount of fear and/or treat men unfairly if they are simply being nice. (I'm ignoring the legitimately creepy men for the purposes of this conversation.)

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 17:02:06, 19 May

But if a woman happens to be wrong about a guy and he turns out to be a terrible creep, someone will inevitably blame her for it. By being perhaps overly cautious, she is not saying anything about "all men," but responding to larger society's treatment of rape victims.

  • [-]
  • XiaomaoDeTuzi
  • 1 Points
  • 18:56:36, 19 May

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of that as a possibility.

That being said, imagine you're in that situation. Are you going to be thinking "If I get raped, I don't want to be blamed. So let me be overly cautious." Or are you going to be thinking "I really don't want to be raped, so let me be overly cautious."

I'm betting it's the latter.

  • [-]
  • lightfarming
  • 1 Points
  • 17:56:27, 19 May

"men" are all types of horrible things. hence the meme "not all men..."

  • [-]
  • VocePoetica
  • 2 Points
  • 17:10:28, 19 May

I agree I think the problem is assuming anyone truly represents more than themselves. How about this persons a jerk and if you know anyone who thinks this jerk-like thought you should let them know it makes them a jerk whatever race or sex or creed they are a part of.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 7 Points
  • 15:43:07, 19 May

Generalizations happen everywhere and they happen all the time. They happen when talking about race, countries, sports, gender, etc. The likelihood that someone will come along and say "hey, but not ALL _____" is higher when talking about things like racism and sexism, usually because people get defensive and uncomfortable.

  • [-]
  • Show-Me-Your-Moves
  • 14 Points
  • 15:31:12, 19 May

I have found that sweeping generalizations about the feminist movement tend to be a lot more common than sweeping generalizations about the male gender on reddit.

  • [-]
  • STR33TL16HT
  • 5 Points
  • 16:51:01, 19 May

Additionally, the generalizations about the feminist movement are frequently based on foaming-at-the-mouth feminists that don't really represent feminists as a whole. In those cases, it really does make sense to say "guys, not all feminists consider penetration a form of rape..." (or whatever ridiculous notion is being used as an example of how crazy feminists are).

The "not all men" argument is used in response to articles detailing super common issues like street harassment, sexist hiring practices, or examples of mansplaining. These are issues that women face all the time, so dismissing the issues because "not all men!" is just... rude?

  • [-]
  • Ohmanthrowaway
  • 1 Points
  • 19:36:55, 19 May

This is a really good point.

I've never, ever actually met a "frothing at the mouth" feminist of the kind described by Reddit, and I run in pretty liberal circles. Maybe a few overly-enthusiastic activists in college, but honestly, they were usually strident but not crazy. I've never met anyone who thinks sex is rape. Or that men are all rapists. Or any of the other horseshit that reddit imagines feminists believe.

Street harassment, though, happens to just about every woman I know, many friends of mine have told me about being raped or assaulted, and everyone in the country is affected by institutional sexism. So, you know, maybe it's not the same thing.

  • [-]
  • thermidorian
  • 10 Points
  • 15:46:20, 19 May

I have found the opposite. The only common anti-feminist thing I see is the trend to complain about bitches (not really feminists, but sometimes described as such) who yell at men for holding the door for them. This is more of a complaint about behavior, not the feminism movement. How many posts have you ever seen upvoted to the front page that say that women aren't equal to men and deserve the same rights and opportunities as men. That opinion already flows through most males minds, but they might disagree on how much women are oppressed still in our culture.

However, look at the other side. The most prominent movement in feminism, and in gender politics today, is "Don't teach girls how to not get raped, teach men not to rape" or the "Real men don't...". These are both incredibly generalized statements. The first implies that all men are inherently rapists and we must stop them by teaching them not to rape. But let's change the words around a little and see how it would be in different situations.

"Don't teach soldiers how to avoid hitting IEDs, teach Muslims not to blow up Americans." Here you have a group that is incredibly vulnerable to a specific form of violence and you tell them not to try and protect themselves, but that it's more important to generalize about another group and assume all Muslims are blowing them up. That would be racist and misguided.

As for the other saying. What if we started saying, "Real Black people don't steal." Would that be an effective campaign or would it immediately be decried as racist? Then how is "Real men don't rape," not sexist?

If we stand for equality and freedom from prejudice for everyone (yes, including males), how can we use these arguments?

But those sayings are everywhere in our society today, especially all over college campuses. So while men might make generalizations about feminists in private conversation or in the occasional meme, some feminists are making generalizations about men in the public arena and those generalizations (especially the sexist ones) are catching on like wildfire.

  • [-]
  • deadlast
  • 6 Points
  • 16:24:55, 19 May

>I have found the opposite. The only common anti-feminist thing I see is the trend to complain about bitches (not really feminists, but sometimes described as such) who yell at men for holding the door for them.

No offense, but what subreddits do you read? Because anti-feminism and using the noun feminists as a negative is fairly endemic. I've seen the bitching about people who bitch about people "holding the door" thing a handful of times, but see anti-feminist comments much more often -- many times a day.

  • [-]
  • thermidorian
  • 5 Points
  • 16:48:10, 19 May

I could be missing the ones you're talking about, or maybe I'm not going deep enough in the comments to see them, but in the major, askreddit, adviceanimals, politics, atheism, subreddits like that, the prominent gender issues I see discussed are from the feminist point of view, with the few exceptions I've already said. One other really pervasive anti-feminist thing I see is the college liberal hippie meme but it is only occasionally used against feminists, more likely against vegans and environmentalists.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 4 Points
  • 17:26:52, 19 May

The "feminist point of view" dominates in /r/adviceanimals? Are you serious?

  • [-]
  • thermidorian
  • 2 Points
  • 17:32:04, 19 May

Ok, yeah I worded that wrong. Adviceanimals is probably the worst offender about being anti-feminist outside of mensrights or theredpill. I was just trying to put out what major subreddits I subscribe to.

However, the main gender issue I see represented in the news, politics, and other major subreddits is about the "rape epidemic" and "women getting paid 70 cents on the dollar". I put those in quotes because they are poor representations of the problems in our country and the issues facing women. But those misrepresentations are the most common issues I see put forward in the mainstream.

  • [-]
  • Ohmanthrowaway
  • 1 Points
  • 19:32:59, 19 May

> "rape epidemic" and "women getting paid 70 cents on the dollar". I put those in quotes because they are poor representations of the problems in our country

Especially when compared to the real issues. Like women not being grateful enough when you hold the door open for them, and the fact that the tavern down the street has Ladies Night on Tuesday.

  • [-]
  • neptunewasp
  • 1 Points
  • 19:13:40, 19 May

I just had to interject and say I laughed when I read that gem.

  • [-]
  • Ohmanthrowaway
  • 1 Points
  • 19:31:32, 19 May

>bitches (not really feminists, but sometimes described as such) who yell at men for holding the door for them.

Because this happens like, all the time! Those durn feminists, always with the door-yelling. No wonder they aren't taken seriously when asking for basic equality.

  • [-]
  • anillop
  • 1 Points
  • 19:12:14, 19 May

I thought the idea was that sweeping generalizations are wrong and should not be used. But apparently some are ok and others are not. SO if you are making it about someone else then its ok, but if someone is making it about you then it is objectionable. Isn't that just another form of hypocrisy?

  • [-]
  • AwesomeNameGenerator
  • 8 Points
  • 15:06:15, 19 May

Two wrongs don't make a right ;)

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 3 Points
  • 14:28:07, 19 May

Because I don't think that really works. No True Scotsman is saying you are in the group, but the others aren't. "Not all men" speakers aren't saying creeps/catcallers/jerks etc aren't men.

Whilst saying "not all feminists are like that" is fine, saying the person isn't a feminist would be a fallacy. So it really depends upon how the "not all feminists believe that is said" because it slightly implies that the original feminist is not a feminist, because you are the feminist with completely differing views on an objective equality. (I have a feeling I could have worded this better so apologies for bad syntax, I also may be wrong, my fallacy knowledge is pretty poor)

  • [-]
  • MuddieMaeSuggins
  • 8 Points
  • 15:00:26, 19 May

You've got the No True Scotsman a bit off. In that fallacy you make a claim about how a group behaves, and when someone points out a counter example you declare that they're not a Real [X].

I find it easy to remember with the little story that gives the fallacy it's name: I claim that Scots don't put sugar on their oatmeal. You mention that you know a number of Scots that put sugar on their oatmeal. Harrumph, those aren't true Scots.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 2 Points
  • 15:03:33, 19 May

That's exactly what I said. Nobody ever says the creeps aren't really a man because they're a creep. So it can't be a No True Scotsman.

  • [-]
  • MuddieMaeSuggins
  • 7 Points
  • 15:15:51, 19 May

Sure, re-reading I see that. The re-definition part was a bit glossed over so I missed it.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 3 Points
  • 15:21:53, 19 May

No worries, as I said my syntax was TERRIBLE XD

  • [-]
  • Show-Me-Your-Moves
  • 6 Points
  • 15:18:17, 19 May

It seems like half the people who bring up No True Scotsman just assume it's a catch-all refutation of feminism or something.

My point is that it's kind of rich to see this influx of new commenters who feel super victimized by the negative reception to their "not all men" type comments...when people have been getting absolutely trashed for "not all feminists" type comments in almost every other default sub.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 3 Points
  • 15:31:49, 19 May

I see the point, but the issue is more feminism is an ideology based on a position "to get equality between the genders". If you say not all feminists think that women can't rape dudes. You are essentially saying that thinking women can't rape dudes isn't a feminist standpoint, and therefore they aren't a feminist, but they'd vehemently disagree and say the same about you. You can't really say the same about a biological trait, "Not all men" doesn't imply he isn't a man. Though to be fair not all feminists isn't a clear cut expression that they aren't a feminist either.

I heard this idea once, called the man covered in faeces. Which shows how the worst seems to ruin it for the group.

You can have the best idea in the world, the answer to world peace, but if a man covered in faeces stands next to you and says he agrees with everything you say, you're gonna be the person who is on side with the guy covered in faeces. And people are not gonna take that information seriously.

  • [-]
  • aspmaster
  • 2 Points
  • 16:29:12, 19 May

You can't apply the No True Scotsman to feminists if the state of being a feminist is being defined by behavior.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 2 Points
  • 16:56:47, 19 May

Well it depends. A feminist will think what they're doing is best for the equality of both genders. E.g. saying all PiV sex is rape and is a gender issue which should be confronted (I know extreme but go with it). They would think themselves a feminist. Another feminist says "That's not what feminism is, I'm a feminist and I don't believe that". The extreme feminist would disagree with the moderate and say "That's not what feminism is, I'm a feminist and I think it's correct."

This goes along with being Christan, for example. One Christian can say a Christian that promotes the illegality of gay marriage is not a true christian and is acting unchristian. The non-equality Christian would say that of the moderate who was allowing sin into the world.

Whilst equality between the genders hopefully could be objective, not everyone agrees. And therefore the definition is broad enough to allow for differences of opinion.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 67 Points
  • 13:01:53, 19 May

The "not-all-men" is rarely a response to someone making a statement literally about all men. That's why it's considered obnoxious and derailing. "Not all men do that!" Well, no shit.

  • [-]
  • mileylols
  • 16 Points
  • 15:39:58, 19 May

uh... not all men make not-all-men responses to statements that are not literally about all men

come on

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • -3 Points
  • 16:01:07, 19 May

Are you doing that on purpose?

> ...rarely...

>> ...not all...

  • [-]
  • mileylols
  • 24 Points
  • 16:08:56, 19 May

> come on

was supposed to indicate the comment was a joke

it's getting harder and harder to just have fun in twox these days

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 10 Points
  • 16:11:35, 19 May

THANK GOD

it's hard to tell with the rest of the comments on TwoX in the past couple of weeks...

  • [-]
  • kezinch
  • 1 Points
  • 19:35:23, 19 May

You're right, most of the time statements like that are aimed at a specific group. Still, when people hear generalizations like that and they don't fit into it their immediate response is defensiveness. This just creates hostility and the impression that the person making these statements is blaming an entire group for things a much smaller subset of that group contributed to. I think it would help a lot if we tried to be more specific with our wording to explicitly say which group we're talking about rather than having everyone assume you don't mean all when your wording somewhat implies it.

Anyway, I know I'm guilty of generalizations just like most people but I think an effort to stop it goes a long way. Also those comments off "not all ____" are just attempts at getting rid of generalizations, not detailing arguments.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:37:41, 19 May

Maybe they should take a moment to just listen instead of barging into the discussion. This goes for a lot of groups, not just men in women's discussions.

  • [-]
  • kezinch
  • 1 Points
  • 19:47:50, 19 May

I'm not arguing that. All I'm saying is making an effort to not generalize goes a long way in helping people be more receptive to your message. Both sides can help this situation. One by making less generalizations and there other by trying to look past them.

When you get into the whole blame game people who would have otherwise been on your side end up going on the defensive.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:49:10, 19 May

What generalizations? No one says "all men do THIS BAD THING."

  • [-]
  • kezinch
  • 1 Points
  • 19:52:11, 19 May

This combative attitude you have is exactly what I'm taking about. It doesn't invite discussion at all.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:54:49, 19 May

Fancy that, neither does "not all men!!!"

  • [-]
  • notallaway
  • 29 Points
  • 14:18:56, 19 May

Yep! Hypocritical even. I'm starting to become ashamed of crap like this.

I honestly don't see "not all men" used frivolously all that often, and I hang out here and in the other femme subs pretty regularly.

This is a bad trend, and it makes the movement look childish. It's not hard to involve the use of adjectives and adverbs.

I really hate it when certain men generalize about me and think I'm a manipulator or a liar. It's stupid and ignorant. It's not much different when women rant in the same manner.

  • [-]
  • Round2VNichols
  • 22 Points
  • 13:03:04, 19 May

Yes. I don't know how no one has not yet turned that around and realized how slippery of a slope that is. I hate "all women do x" or "all women like x" because those statements are usually terrible generalizations.

We need to focus on the behavior, not the gender. "I experience harassment everyday on the street by idiots/douchebags/sexists/etc" is much much better than "I experience harassment everyday on the street by men".

  • [-]
  • Serendipities
  • 33 Points
  • 14:42:44, 19 May

>"I experience harassment everyday on the street by men".

This statement does not imply that ALL men street harass, just that it is ONLY men who have street harassed this particular writer. I have been street harassed before, by men, and have never been street harassed by a woman (or even seen a woman shout shit on the street). If I say "I experience harassment on the street by men" that is simply a true statement. If I say "all men harass people on the street" that's just bullshit.

Nitpicking is important, but I don't think it applies in the case you've used.

  • [-]
  • Round2VNichols
  • 5 Points
  • 15:15:42, 19 May

Good point.

  • [-]
  • m-e-k
  • 2 Points
  • 17:24:26, 19 May

This is some solid LSAT logic.

  • [-]
  • corgilosophy
  • 3 Points
  • 17:04:07, 19 May

This statement does not imply that ALL black people commit muggings, just that it is ONLY black men who have mugged this particular writer. I have been mugged before before, by black men, and have never been mugged by a white person (or even seen a white guy shout shit on the street). If I say "I experience mugging on the street by black men" that is simply a true statement. If I say "all black men mug people on the street" that's just bullshit.

Nitpicking is important, but I don't think it applies in the case you've used.

How would you respond if I said something like that to you? You'd probably say something like "that's just obscene racism because it's denigrating by association", right?

Think about what you're saying.

  • [-]
  • Serendipities
  • 1 Points
  • 17:56:24, 19 May

Honestly it all really depends on context. Firstly, codeverity's comment has some good points. Secondly, the gender of a harasser may actually be relevant while the race of the mugger is very probably not an important detail to the story. Thirdly, if the statement "I have been mugged by a black guy" was said, devoid of other racist statements or fear-mongering, then yes, I would be okay with that.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 0 Points
  • 17:24:08, 19 May

You can't use a group of people who is a minority and oppressed (black men) to make a comparison to a group of people who are not a minority and oppressed (men overall).

Not only that but 'black men' is a subset of a bigger group or term that could have been used ("men" in general) so of course someone is going to say 'not all men are like that'. Whereas if I'm just talking about men in general it should be perfectly obvious that I'm not including every single man in the world.

  • [-]
  • lightfarming
  • 0 Points
  • 18:04:15, 19 May

First, why does whether the described group is a minority or oppressed or a subset of another group have anything to do with the semantics?

Men is a subset of a bigger group or term that could have been used ("people" in general). When I say "people suck", it should be perfectly obvious that I'm not including every single person in the world.

No. No it is not.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 1 Points
  • 18:11:49, 19 May

It matters because quite often generalisations about minorities are used to vilify and further the oppression that they face. "Black people are criminals", "Jews are money hungry", etc. There ARE differences in the language that we use about majorities vs minorities because of how it feeds into how the world views and reacts to them.

If you said people suck and someone actually felt the need to say "but not ~all~ people suck' to you then I would roll my eyes. You actually perfectly demonstrated my point, there, because I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually say 'not all people suck'. We know that some people suck or engage in behaviour that sucks and we don't feel the need to get defensive about it. It's like when someone says that their faith in the human race is vanishing, nobody feels the need to get all uptight and argue with them that not all of the human race is bad.

  • [-]
  • lightfarming
  • 1 Points
  • 18:22:30, 19 May

When someone says people suck, I assume they mean all people. I won't defend "people" not because I feel defensive, but rather because I agree. Also, the person is including themselves within the criticism, so I cannot exactly feel defensive about an all inclusive statement.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 1 Points
  • 18:45:35, 19 May

That may be how you read it, but imo that's a bit unusual. I think it's just common sense to be aware of the fact that when you're talking about large groups and you make a statement you're not going to cover all of them.

  • [-]
  • lightfarming
  • 1 Points
  • 19:02:20, 19 May

When people say Mexicans are lazy, do you assume they don't mean all of them? Does it even matter what you assume? Does your assumption make it a less racist statement?

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 1 Points
  • 19:09:00, 19 May

That would fall into what I said up above: making a blanket statement about minorities or oppressed groups furthers their oppression and quite often is being used to vilify them. There is a huge difference between that and making a comment about a majority. You're trying to make analogies that don't work because you're ignoring other factors like racism and bigotry.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 28 Points
  • 14:11:35, 19 May

Let's recognize when an issue is gendered, though. Street harassment certainly is.

  • [-]
  • lightfarming
  • 4 Points
  • 18:05:40, 19 May

Let's recognize when an issue is raced, though. Street muggings certainly are.

Does that sound right to you?

  • [-]
  • Patissiere
  • 35 Points
  • 13:55:01, 19 May

Uh, what? This happens all the time. We fight all the time against "all women want to just get stuff from you", "all women are manipulative bitches" and "don't trust women, they all lie and cheat".

Most of the arguments where I see the not-all-menners are things like "Men catcall me every day when I go to work" and "This guy won't leave me alone on the bus" or "Men on average, get paid more than women in the same line of work."

None of those are assuming that all men do those things, yet these commenters feel the need to completely dismiss the point and MAKE SURE nobody thinks that THEY are the ones doing it. When that happens, it's no longer about the woman and her experience or issue. It's about how this man doesn't do that, so her issue is invalid.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 1 Points
  • 14:15:39, 19 May

Not all not-all-menners reply to non generalizing commenters/arguements.

  • [-]
  • m-e-k
  • 5 Points
  • 16:21:49, 19 May

But if you experience street harassment from only men "I experience harassment everyday on the street by men" is accurate. All your harassers are men, but not all douchbags/idiots/sexists are men.

The issue is importantly gendered - women are subjugated by men. Maybe not ALL women, and obviously not ALL men subjugate, but that's not the point of discussing it. The not all men "argument" is not a valid argument structure. It fails to address the issue and instead derails to conversation to defend some men who don't participate in said issue.

  • [-]
  • lightfarming
  • 1 Points
  • 18:08:23, 19 May

men harass women on the street all the time.

women manipulate men to do what they want all the time.

Do both, neither, or only one of these seem right to you?

  • [-]
  • m-e-k
  • 1 Points
  • 18:29:11, 19 May

Neither. I don't think manipulating people is right whether you are a man or a woman, although I don't see how that is relevant. Also the comparison of harassment vs. manipulation is not necessarily sound. Harassment makes women feel unsafe, manipulation (of men by women) probably makes the man feel dumb.

  • [-]
  • Timthetiny
  • 1 Points
  • 19:25:59, 19 May

that is not the limit of manipulation.

  • [-]
  • Shaper_pmp
  • 15 Points
  • 14:05:13, 19 May

Very interesting point, and one I would agree with.

Not only do we have something of a double standard here (where we expect to be able to say "all/most men do X" but at the same time criticise men for doing the equivalent and/or complaining when we do it), but we're so incredibly emphatic about rejecting the equivalent applied to women that we often do it even when it's not actually remotely applicable.

We take it so ludicrously far that someone can say something perfectly qualified, general and unarguable in 2XC (like "women are generally shorter than men" or "women tend to have larger breasts than men"), and it's almost guaranteed to pick up multiple upvoted replies on the theme "nuh-uh, I'm an eight-foot amazon with A-cups and my boyfriend is double D".

The thing is that the response is a complete non-sequitur to the initial post - no overall general statement about averages or trends (rather than "absolutely all women...") invalidates the existence of a minority who doesn't fit it, and no individual or small group of data points invalidates a general, overall trend about the entire population as a whole.

So yes - I think we should generally tone down the thoughtless reflexive contradiction of general statements that don't apply directly to us as individuals anyway, and I think we should definitely do it if we're going to criticise men for thoughtless generalisations and/or complaining when we do exactly the same thing.

I don't think we're the problem here (generalisation and stereotyping are an automatic and inherent part of human cognition, so it'd not like 2XC causes young guys to negatively stereotype women), but we're definitely of hypocrisy as a community for criticising it in others but complaining about and trying to dismiss others for pulling us up on exactly the same fault.

Edit : Smaller->larger. Good catch /u/mister-spock. ;-)

  • [-]
  • Mister-Spock
  • 4 Points
  • 14:17:51, 19 May

> "women tend to have smaller breasts than men"

I think you made a typo here? :-)

  • [-]
  • Shaper_pmp
  • 1 Points
  • 14:29:15, 19 May

Oops - right you are!

Fixed now, and thanks for spotting it. ;-)

  • [-]
  • mundabit
  • 11 Points
  • 12:52:10, 19 May

Yes and no.

When someone says "all women" or "all men" before they make their statement then yes, we do need to allow people to stand up and say 'Not-all wo/men", because the original statements inclusiveness invites it. and to make fun of them is rude and dismissive.

But to say "men do x" and "Women do x" is slightly different, Its less inclusive and in context implies that we are not talking about all people that identify as a gender, we are actually talking about the people taht fall within a stereotype of a gender.

"all women wear make up" is a statement that would evoke a reply of "not all women"

But "women wear make up" is less presumptive.

  • [-]
  • freppers
  • 15 Points
  • 14:38:22, 19 May

> But to say "men do x" and "Women do x"

I'd feel bad saying "women do x" and would rather say "some women do x". If I'm using "women do x" I wouldn't be surprised if someone jumped in and said "Not all women...", and they'd be right.

  • [-]
  • darwin2500
  • 14 Points
  • 13:44:18, 19 May

So you're saying that if the person OP is talking about had simply said 'women are horribly manipulative,' you would have no reason to object to that statement, and it would be a perfectly fine, acceptable sentiment? And if other men come into TwoX and make statements along those lines about 'women,' they should experience no push-back or objections from the community?

  • [-]
  • Lil_Boots1
  • 4 Points
  • 14:27:12, 19 May

It can get a little hairy depending on tone and context, but something like "women are manipulative" is different from "I'm sick and tired of women manipulating me" in that one is completely generalizing and the other is talking about personal experiences. On the other hand, if we say, "Men are taught that sex is a reward for good behavior," or "Women are taught that it's rude to be assertive when someone is making them uncomfortable," then we're talking about what message our culture sends a gender, so just because you're a legitimately good guy who doesn't think women owe him sex or a woman who is assertive doesn't mean you aren't bombarded with that message every day. The "not all men" or even "not all women" line is nonsense there, because actually, all men are being sent the same message, and just because you had good parents who made sure you understood that everyone, including women, have a right to their own personal space and their own bodies doesn't mean you weren't being hit with that message every day.

  • [-]
  • bearsnchairs
  • 8 Points
  • 14:36:30, 19 May

> "Men are taught that sex is a reward for good behavior," or "Women are taught that it's rude to be assertive when someone is making them uncomfortable," then we're talking about what message our culture sends a gender, so just because you're a legitimately good guy who doesn't think women owe him sex or a woman who is assertive doesn't mean you aren't bombarded with that message every day.

I really don't even know what to say to this. I'm not sure if you are a man or a woman but your experience is not universal in the slightest. It would quite fair to say "not all men" in this case because you are erasing individual's experiences.

  • [-]
  • Lil_Boots1
  • 3 Points
  • 14:43:43, 19 May

I'm a woman, but this is something my boyfriend and guy friends and I have discussed. It's not that we outright teach boys that they deserve sex as a reward for being nice or good or helping women, but it is a common theme in the media from romantic comedies to sitcoms to action movies. So it's fair to say that our culture and the media send this message, which can be very harmful. Really they send it to both boys and girls because they're all watching the same shows and plot lines and everything, but the message to girls is that you owe someone sex if they're exceptionally nice to you or if they buy you an expensive dinner. Also harmful in it's own right, for sure. Just because not everyone is receptive to this message doesn't mean that it isn't being sent every day in many movies, books, and shows and even in some common porn plots.

  • [-]
  • bearsnchairs
  • 2 Points
  • 14:54:39, 19 May

You are entitled to your analysis, but that isn't the only one out there. I can't think of any movies right now that a character had sex with someone else solely for being nice and not changing some other character trait, but I will admit they might be out there. Maybe you have some good examples?

I think those themes are used because it can be an effective way to portray some forms of romancing on the big screen. Women are more likely to like someone who treats them well and helps them.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • -3 Points
  • 14:36:40, 19 May

Indeed, and women are taught to be mean to each other. Still doesn't sound good to say out loud to be honest, especially since each person's environment in which they grow up could widely differ. One could be lad's mags and strip clubs followed by jersey shore. The other could be church on Sundays, early nights and reading the latest novel. Even then it's hard to say how that really teaches anyone anything.

But I do agree a lot of it is based on context on how it is said, but then again I'd assume that context would also base on whether a not a person would reply, it's a lot less likely a person will reply "not all men" to a non-generalized statement in general, because people tend to notice it isn't generalized.

  • [-]
  • Lil_Boots1
  • 3 Points
  • 14:50:07, 19 May

The media is like a source of (mis)information for children. How many guys today learned everything they knew about sex from porn and sucked for a long time before they figured out that porn is as fake as any other movie? How many people would tell you that some fictional character or another from their childhood influenced them a lot? I know I was a church on Sunday reading a book kid, and those messages were in quite a few of the books I read. They aren't limited to movies and TV, and just because many individuals have involved families who made sure that the right messages were reinforced and the wrong ones were discussed or at least played down doesn't mean the message wasn't still aimed at them all day every day.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • -1 Points
  • 15:02:12, 19 May

I agree the media is a source of information, but the only generalization you can do is for the media, not for the people the media is targeting. "The media portrays sex to be a reward for men", "The media portrays women as being bitchy to each other". Is better than "Women are taught to be bitchy". I still think it's difficult to say even then how it affects a person. One show has an example of sex being a reward, whilst the other bit of media has sex as a special occurrence in a long term relationship. It's just a complicated large scale overload of information and only focusing on one, whilst the opposite also occurs could be somewhat disingenuous.

  • [-]
  • Shaper_pmp
  • 17 Points
  • 14:16:02, 19 May

> But "women wear make up" is less presumptive.

And yet, try making that comment in 2XC and you'll immediately have multiple upvoted replies jumping down your throat about how "I'm a woman and I don't wear makeup", as if you were somehow invalidating them or dismissing their existence merely because you made an accurate statement about a majority trend that doesn't happen to personally match their beliefs or lifestyle choices.

I mean I agree completely with what you said, but as a community we're really, really shitty about applying it to general statements about women, so it seems somewhat hypocritical of us to expect men to automatically resist the same temptation and allow us to get away with loose/ambiguous phrasing that we criticise or condemn in other contexts.

  • [-]
  • lightfarming
  • 1 Points
  • 18:11:26, 19 May

women always manipulate men.

that sit okay with you?

  • [-]
  • HarpySnickersnee
  • 1 Points
  • 18:42:03, 19 May

As others have pointed out... the "not all men" meme is based on responses to stories/comments that never suggest that all men do a certain thing, it is often just that A man has done that thing.

  • [-]
  • SquareIsTopOfCool
  • 5 Points
  • 17:30:40, 19 May

>As I opened my mouth to respond to "all women are horribly manipulative" with "hey, that's not true of most wo..." it dawned on me that we might be the problem here.

Oh jeez. First off, responding to that is never going to end well. People who say things like that are generally not open to sane and reasonable conversation. Second, you're not responding with a "derailment argument" - you're responding to a person who just flat-out insulted all women.

If I say something like "all men are disgusting pigs," then I certainly hope some one would respond with "look, I know that may be true of some men, but that's still a terrible generalization to make." If I say something like "men enjoy male privilege," then some one responding "but not all men because my life was hard" is derailing the conversation and missing the point.

  • [-]
  • kennyko
  • 1 Points
  • 18:33:43, 19 May

> If I say something like "men enjoy male privilege," then some one responding "but not all men because my life was hard" is derailing the conversation and missing the point.

Except that's precisely the point. When you say "Men enjoy..." you're asserting a statement of fact, for when someone corrects you on this they are not "missing" anything. How obnoxious is it to hear some tool say "Women just nag nag nag!"? If you corrected him on this, what if he said "Oh you're missing the point! Of course not ALL women nag!".

Privilege is associated with far, far more things than your gender. It includes your geography, demographic, social class, etc.

  • [-]
  • R0607ninja
  • 7 Points
  • 15:05:26, 19 May

As a guy who found this sub when it became a default, I have to admit I felt I was being attacked just for being a man when I started reading some threads. My initial reaction was to point out that "not all men" are like that, etc. (Although I never actually replied to anything).

I tried to read through the threads about why that reply wasn't helpful and to understand that position, but I don't feel any different. When I am grouped in with bad people based solely on sharing a gender with them, it makes me feel defensive, and I want to stick up for myself.

I'm not sure why I feel this way, but I do. I'll try and continue to remind myself that "not all men" is supposed to be a given, but if I'm being honest, it still makes me feel attacked, and I'm sure a lot of other men feel that way too.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 13 Points
  • 15:49:58, 19 May

The thing is, to be honest, most logical and rational people KNOW that it's not "all" of whatever group that they're talking about. And I kind of think that most people in the group that's being talked about too. It's just that whatever is being discussed is so uncomfortable for them that they feel the need to clarify that it's not all _, ie they're not like that. But it doesn't actually add anything to the conversation other than suddenly change the topic of conversation and necessitate "yes, we know not all ____", which can be highly annoying when to be honest, people generalize all the time. It's only when bigotry, sexism and racism come up that people feel the need to be defensive.

This is what I've gathered from my experience as a white woman talking to POC. I've come to realise that I don't need to jump in all the time, instead I can just think "yeah, not all of us, but damn, a lot of us do this" and continue listening or partake in the conversation without needing to derail.

  • [-]
  • kennyko
  • 1 Points
  • 18:45:32, 19 May

> It's only when bigotry, sexism and racism come up that people feel the need to be defensive.

Can you blame them??????

I'm gay, so if I happen to see a post that said "safe sex is important, especially because gay guys have HIV" -- how in the hell do you expect me to respond? Am I suppose to avoid "derailing" the conversation on sex by mentioning the important fact that only a small segment of gay men have HIV?

You have to be specific otherwise no one will take you seriously (other than the people who already agree with you of course). The onus is on you to be specific. If the front page had a title that read "Women are so [insert negative statement here]", you'd be equally as upset.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 1 Points
  • 18:55:38, 19 May

I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it here as well: it's highly different when a minority or oppressed group is generalised about than when a majority or dominant group is. Blanket statements about minorities or oppressed groups tend to contribute to or further their oppression, whereas blanket statements about majorities tend to just highlight the problems with their behaviour. You're perfectly in the right to speak up and say that only a small segment of gay men have HIV because you're fighting stigma and bigotry. A man telling us that not all men are rapists isn't doing any such thing.

Not only that, but when a dominant group or majority comes into a conversation like that, they have the affect of turning the conversation from the subject of their behaviour back to them, and put the other group in the position of having to reassure them. That's why it's called derailing.

It's human nature to use blanket statements. "Canucks fans are so whiny." "Harry Potter fans are so crazy." "Cooks are so grumpy."

I think that it's silly that in a sub for and about women we're actually spending so much time analysing and worrying about how we come across if we occasionally make a statement without being careful to include a qualifier, as though men aren't smart enough to sit back, take a breath and realise that they don't need to defend themselves.

I think this is especially clear when there are threads out there where quite often you'll actually see one commenter say "Ugh I hate how some men ______" and someone will still come in to say "Well not all men are like that". It's more about the topic at hand and how uncomfortable they feel than about the qualifier.

  • [-]
  • kennyko
  • 1 Points
  • 19:12:12, 19 May

How about "blanket statements are bad, period"? You go back to calling it "derailing" because you feel the group in question (i.e., men) are in "power" (whatever that is suppose to mean). The reason no one cares when you call cooks grumpy or Harry Potter fans crazy is because it's different than calling people rapists. Rape is a very, very serious thing; it's an awful and horrendous thing and the onus is on YOU to qualify what you mean.

Are all of us in /r/Harvard "snobby"? Are we just the offspring of multi-millionaire entrepreneurs? Generalizations are bad and they make people feel bad so why do you insist on doing it?

>"Ugh I hate how some men ______" and someone will still come in to say "Well not all men are like that".

Except they wouldn't, because the initial statement was "some men", keyword: some.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 1 Points
  • 19:18:58, 19 May

Has anyone even said "Men are rapists"? As far as I can tell that's an extreme example that is being brought up when it didn't even happen. Usually it's something like "Ugh I hate it when men harass women on the street" and someone feels the need to clarify that not all men do that or whatever. Or "Men talk over women a lot". Situations where it should be pretty clear that the person speaking isn't even talking about every single man walking the planet. I sure hope that you're as intent on making sure that people don't ever naturally make blanket statements in all the other subs on Reddit where it happens on a daily basis.

I think you missed the part where I said that I've seen that happen. It's not something for you to argue and say it 'wouldn't' happen, because it has.

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • -3 Points
  • 16:55:28, 19 May

>I have to admit I felt I was being attacked just for being a man when I started reading some threads.

Most of the threads discuss women's personal experiences. If hearing women speak about how men have treated them makes you feel attacked, then you've got some issues.

  • [-]
  • Octolamadonoron
  • 3 Points
  • 17:23:17, 19 May

> If hearing women speak about how men have treated them makes you feel attacked, then you've got some issues.

That's a really mean-spirited and dishonest thing to say to another human being. Why are you misrepresenting what he said? He was very clear that some of the threads made him feel attacked and you immediately assumed he meant the example that made him look the worst. Why be like this?

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • -3 Points
  • 17:33:09, 19 May

Nope, I'm being completely honest. I'm a man and have never felt attacked reading posts or comments on this subreddit. I just explained that if he's responding to women talking about their own experiences, then that's pretty fucked up that he feels personally attacked as a man simply by hearing about how men treat women. That's neither a healthy nor helpful response for him to have.

  • [-]
  • Octolamadonoron
  • 6 Points
  • 17:40:40, 19 May

> Nope, I'm being completely honest.

No you aren't. You are attributing emotions you have reportedly never felt to reasoning you couldn't possibly know is accurate. That is dishonest. He could easily feel attacked by this subreddit, and it have nothing to do with "hearing women speak" - but rather it have to do with being genuinely attacked. I point out that you attacked him in your comment while claiming no attacks happen.

> I'm a man and have never felt attacked reading posts or comments on this subreddit.

I'm a woman and I have felt attacked reading posts and comments on this subreddit. Your experience is not definitive for others

> I just explained that if he's responding to women talking about their own experiences, then that's pretty fucked up that he feels personally attacked as a man simply by hearing about how men treat women.

And all of these are either assumptions or you placing motivation and emotions on him that he didn't express. Either way, you are being the asshole here.

> That's neither a healthy nor helpful response for him to have.

You are again misrepresenting what was said for your own gain, and that's disrespectful to other people and also just generally hurtful.

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • 1 Points
  • 18:06:01, 19 May

> I'm a woman and I have felt attacked reading posts and comments on this subreddit.

I'm sad to hear that a woman would hold such a staunchly patriarchal viewpoint (welcome to reddit, by the way! I hope your four days on this site have been fruitful), and I'm surprised that as a women you would feel attacked by hearing other women talk about men -- but I'll take your word for it.

Please explain to me what do I stand to gain, because I certainly don't see it.

The reason I don't have much concern for the original commenter's feelings is that those feelings come from a lack of understanding and sympathy for the people commenting and posting on this subreddit, which are absolutely representative of women's experiences. He can't overcome his own selfishness to take even the smallest steps to empathize.

  • [-]
  • Octolamadonoron
  • 1 Points
  • 18:10:08, 19 May

> I'm sad to hear that a woman would hold such a staunchly patriarchal viewpoint (welcome to reddit, by the way! I hope your four days on this site have been fruitful), and I'm surprised that as a women you would feel attacked by hearing other women talk about men -- but I'll take your word for it.

So you just did the exact same thing you did to that guy to an actual woman... you are actually trying to misrepresent what is being said here as

"I feel attacked by what women have to say"

That isn't what is being said and you're acting like a child.

> Please explain to me what do I stand to gain, because I certainly don't see it.

You very clearly draw a large part of your self esteem from arguments on the internet. A quick browsing of your comment history shows that.

> those feelings come from a lack of understanding and sympathy

False. You do not know what they come from, and you didn't ask. You again merely assumed you knew the answers and told him that's what it was.

> He can't overcome his own selfishness to take even the smallest steps to empathize.

This is again misrepresenting what is being said and I don't understand why you are insisting upon doing this, and why you think it is not transparent.

  • [-]
  • johnbentley
  • 4 Points
  • 14:51:14, 19 May

The lack of a quantifier (All, most, half, some, some I met at a party last week, one) in front of a group designator (Women, men, blacks, whites, ducks, eagles, Palestinians, Israeli's, Tribe A, Tribe B) can cause a great deal of mischief.

At its worst the omitted quantifier kills.

A member of Tribe A, Alice, kills the the sister of a Tribe B member, Bob.

Bob laments "A TribeAer killed my sister!". This may well be a factually true claim but some of the loose thinking types in Tribe B, in spreading the news, report the group membership as important.

There are cases where the group membership was not a motivating factor, for example when Alice killed the sister because she loved the sister but was jealous of her attentions elsewhere. There are cases where the group membership was a motivating factor, if Alice is killing the sister as a revenge attack from a previous killing by a member of Tribe B.

Loose thinking types, first of all, might not be sensitive to whether group membership was a motivating factor, but they'll emphasise the group membership in their report nevertheless. That is, they might repeat Bob's lament that it was "A TribeAer that killed the innocent member of our tribe". So one problem is, relevant or not, group membership gets pushed as relevant.

But let's say that it can be established that group membership was a motivating factor, that Alice is killing the sister as a revenge attack from a previous killing by a member of Tribe B, and Alice herself desires to have people know that she is doing so as a member of Tribe A.

Then TribeBers have better grounds to report the event as "A TribeAer killed an innocent member of our tribe". But even with this properly quantified group designator, "A TribeAer", the news can understood, by loose thinking types, as the news that this constitutes an act for which the whole of the Tribe A is morally responsible. All and any TribeAer's can become held to be morally responsible. All and any TribeAer's, in the worse circumstances, can be therefore be understood, by these loose thinking types, to be legitimate targets of reprisal attacks.

The claim "A TribeAer killed an innocent member of our tribe" gets very easily turned into "TribeAers' killed an innocent member of our tribe". This misattribution is certainly not helped with when quantifier is committed from the start. That is, when the first report is "TribeAers' killed an innocent member of our tribe".

Of course, not all used and abused reports entailing claims of group membership will have such dire consequences. But they can nevertheless lead to the kinds of unjust discrimination that deserves to be eliminated.

The same can be said of the other quantifiers. "Some TribeAers killed an innocent Sister" (which might be factually true) can be truly rendered as "TribeAer's killed an innocent Sister". But now it's not clear how many of that group are held to be responsible. It very easily becomes understood as "All and any TribeAer's killed an innocent sister" or "All and any TribeAer's have a special tendancy to kill innocents, so we better take precautions against all of them".

The implicit slide between quantifiers occurs in with respect to all sorts of claims involving group membership.

  • "A women I met at a party was horribly manipulating" can very easily turn into, in the reporting of it between people, as "Some women are horribly manipulating", then into "Women are horribly manipulating", then "All women are horribly manipulating".
  • "A feminist at a party wanted women to dominate over men socially" becomes "All feminists want women to dominate over men".

So too with

  • "Some men are bastards" and "All men are bastards".

Although there will be plenty of exceptions, in general, a person wanting to clarify what group quantifier a speaker genuinely intends to assert ("All men?", "All women?") is going to be aiding conversation rather than derailing it, and as a proper precaution against loose thinking, the perpetuation of prejudice and the unjust discrimination that flows from it.

  • [-]
  • C18H24O2
  • 1 Points
  • 15:18:42, 19 May

While I agree in discussions of measurement of quantity of a single, group, you're missing some typical context. If we're talking to TribeB about TribeA, and TribeA jumps in claiming misinterpretation (eg: "Not All TribeAers are murderers.") this can seem completely ridiculous to the TribeBers when the missing word in "TribeAers are murderers" is "only".

The case of "only" is invalid through only a single counterexample were it that the logic of natural language fell into formal rules, however more often than not the implied "only" in this case is a comparison by proportion or likelihood. Eg: "[Only] TribeAers are TribeB-phobic" would more likely be true for a random sampling of TribeAers than TribeBers. In this context of implied comparison of groups, which I'll admit doesn't always serve a useful purpose, it's derailing to discuss proportions of TribeA that fit the statement. A more fitting argument is to examine whether TribeB is also TribeA-phobic, and what (if anything) this comparison means about society.

Sometimes the hidden word is "most" or "all" which can be totally bonkers if believed, and I expect is the reason why people are so confused in this thread, but language involves a lot more subtlety than people are giving it credit for.

ps: Additionally, I've heard the "not ALL men" derailment used even when proper quantifiers are included, eg: "Some men are rapists", "Many men are murderers", etc. Even when the scope is limited, people do not want to be implied to be part of the group discussed and make the argument about themselves rather than the collective. The pragmatics in this case show the "not all men" to mean "not me" without drawing the scrutiny to a single (self) target.

  • [-]
  • Ohmanthrowaway
  • 3 Points
  • 16:01:24, 19 May

As an outside observer and a man, the answer is NO. It's making you look smart.

It's a humorous depiction of a current problem, and the only reason it makes men so mad is because it so accurately describes their actions.

  • [-]
  • RedErin
  • 3 Points
  • 14:59:39, 19 May

"Not all men" is the actual derailment. If you talking about a subject and a person interrupts to let us know that not all men do that, then they are keeping you from discussing your previous subject and must now talk about men.

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 10 Points
  • 15:18:04, 19 May

your post implies that derailing someone from making a negative, blanket statement about 50% of the population is a bad thing.

if you said "black people are criminals" and someone points out "not all black people are criminals", is it bad that they just "derailed" your racist rant?

  • [-]
  • satxmcw
  • -1 Points
  • 17:17:36, 19 May

If you say not all black people are criminals it sounds like you're agreeing that most black people are criminals

  • [-]
  • thermidorian
  • 9 Points
  • 15:15:40, 19 May

That's not true, they are forcing you to use more clear language instead of vague generalizations that can be misandrist or misunderstood. This is good for the discussion because it pushes you to better refine your language and your argument. If you let this derail the discussion, you aren't very good at having a discussion.

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 2 Points
  • 15:12:31, 19 May

Think about it like this. You read a thread with the subject on "how women hit men in relationships and that women also root for the females as the male probably had it coming". Would you go "not all women are like that, I'd abhor the sight of female on male violence", or would you just go ahead and agree with it, because otherwise it'd be derailing?

  • [-]
  • notsoinsaneguy
  • 1 Points
  • 17:14:24, 19 May

What is the "not-all-men" meme? Are we referring to that one comic that was posted here a few days ago? If having a single silly comic on the frontpage of twox has the potential to make everyone subscribed to it look bad, we are being held to a much much harsher standard than the rest of reddit.

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 1 Points
  • 18:15:38, 19 May

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

  • [-]
  • notsoinsaneguy
  • 1 Points
  • 19:05:39, 19 May

The only time I've seen the not-all-men thing mentioned recently in this sub is that comic and this post now. Perhaps I'm not observant enough.

  • [-]
  • TimeDoesDisolve
  • 1 Points
  • 20:01:47, 19 May

These threads usually devolve into two extremes, one saying that anything a man says is already misogynist and that all men should just shut up forever. That no man has a valid opinion about their own sex because all they do is rape and holler at women on the street. The other is that femnazi's are going to take over our culture and cut off every man's penis and make sure that their "oppressors" never draw another breath. That women are already in power and just want to make more misandry in the world and get more from their alimony so that the poor man has to labor for his woman overlord.

Where we should stay in this "conversation" is that everyone is human, everyone should be treated fairly and that we should treat everyone with the respect they deserve. Yes, of course, rapists are a huge minority among men. Yes, women are disproportionately under represented in the media and the workforce.

Just remember that when you do call a man a "sexist piece of shit" or maybe "you just love rapists don't you?" that they are highly likely to not be a rapist, not rape ever, and probably love women just as much as you love men (if you're straight, sorry LGBTQ).

Just remember that when you try to invalidate a woman's complaint's about "How much I get felt up at work" or "I get stared at constantly and it makes me uncomfortable" or "A man just asked if I wanted to fuck in a dirty bathroom then tried to get me drunk and ask again." that this shit does happen and happens more then a probably uneducated (about the matter at hand at least) man like you would know.

As reddiequitte would say "Remember the human"

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • -2 Points
  • 15:29:08, 19 May

if there were a /r/whitepeople subreddit and they spend most of their time talking about how bad black people are, then if you were a black person it'd be a pretty shitty place to visit. if someone points out all the racism people say "of course we don't mean all black people, now stop derailing our racist rants". or "well i've never been robbed by someone who wasnt black, so i'm simply saying that only robberies happen from black people. which is a totally ok generalization to make".

or they just bat their eyes and say "no, we are here to talk about sunscreen and whole foods, stop trying to make this white person subreddit about black people". which is dumb because if you make a club to actively exclude a certain group, then your club is implicitly about the group you're excluding.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 8 Points
  • 15:59:47, 19 May

White supremacy is not analogous to women's issues.

  • [-]
  • NUMBERS2357
  • 1 Points
  • 16:46:22, 19 May

I don't think r/whitepeople is analogous to this sub either...but if generalizations are bad on the former, what exactly is different about r/twox that they're ok here? It's not enough to just say it's different...

3 possible differences come to mind. 1, that r/whitepeople is malicious towards black people, and I guess the argument is that generalizations about men on this sub aren't malicious towards men. But it's impossible to know that's true, and people can be motivated by more than one thing, plus in the context of generalizations about women, people will usually say "intent doesn't matter..."

2, that r/whitepeople is only about hating black people, whereas r/twox does other things then make generalizations about men. But if some subreddit was racist, and that racism was one small part of what they did, would that change anything?

3, the idea that r/twox is "punching up" and r/whitepeople "punching down", that black people are oppressed and men aren't. But I don't think the differences between men & women's treatment in society, is analogous to black & white people. Basically every time black and white people are treated differently in society, for something non-trivial, white people have it better. But that's not the case for men and women, even if men, on balance, have it better.

To take another example (which I think is more like men/women than black/white)...do you think it's OK for Israeli Jews to make generalizations about Arabs, or Arabs to make generalizations about Jews?

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 4 Points
  • 16:48:22, 19 May

That's the thing - people here are rarely making generalizations along the lines of "all men..." The entire point is that the "not all men" protests are irrelevant and derailing. Women should be able to discuss their experiences as women without it being all about men. That is not sexist and therefore not comparable to the racist /r/whitepeople sub.

  • [-]
  • NUMBERS2357
  • 1 Points
  • 16:57:07, 19 May

People who make these sorts of generalizations might not say "all", but they will say "men do X." If Israeli Jews say "Arabs do Y" or "Arabs are like Z", would you say it's OK because they didn't explicitly include the word "all"?

And "discussing their experiences" is kind of a copout. That Israeli guy would defend his statement by saying it's about his "lived experience". Are Arabs just unfairly "derailing" and "making it about them" when they protest sweeping statements about how Arabs are violent?

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 16:59:41, 19 May

Saying something like "when I am walking down the street after work, men shout degrading things at me" is not a generalization but it is typical of the venting you'll see on TwoX about "men." That's not comparable to "Arabs do Y." It is comparable to, say, a Palestinian discussing the settlement of Israelis on contested territory ("Not all Israelis!!" is not useful discussion in this situation either).

  • [-]
  • NUMBERS2357
  • 1 Points
  • 17:06:25, 19 May

OK last comment from me...I don't think that's an accurate characterization of many of the generalizations about men you'll see (though certainly some). But even then, an Israeli saying "when I visit my family in Sderot, Arabs fire rockets at us" would rub lots of people the wrong way.

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • -6 Points
  • 16:07:16, 19 May

you're using loaded words to try to re-frame and derail this conversation.

just because people want to get together and have a safe place to discuss avacados, priuses, and mayonnaise does not! mean that they are "white supremacists". where else should people talk about sunscreen? it's white people's issues. one of those issues just happens to be how to deal with all the bad things that all black people do to white people.

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 7 Points
  • 16:10:57, 19 May

> talking about how bad black people are

This is how you described a hypothetical /r/whitepeople sub...

TwoX is not a sub where women spend most of their time talking about how bad men are. It is a sub where many women feel (or felt, before it went default) that they could discuss issues that disproportionately affect women, including issues that involve men who do engage in bad behavior.

Also, comparing men to black people, a group that is actually marginalized in North America and historically on the receiving end of a lot of mistreatment, is ludicrous.

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • 3 Points
  • 16:53:27, 19 May

It sounds as if you're describing a men's rights subreddit, because male privilege and white privilege actually go together, whereas no such female privilege in society exists for women.

  • [-]
  • munky82
  • 1 Points
  • 18:17:20, 19 May

Forgot about divorce and child custody?

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • 1 Points
  • 18:42:20, 19 May

No, what about them?

>But is this actually true? “There’s a real perception—even women share it—that courts are unfair to fathers,” says Ira Ellman, a custody expert at Arizona State University. But in fact the great revolution in family court over the past 40 years or so has been the movement away from the presumption that mothers should be the main, or even sole, caretakers for their children. Individual cases like Patric’s may raise novel legal issues, but on the whole, courts are fair to men, particularly men who can afford a decent lawyer.

  • [-]
  • Octolamadonoron
  • 1 Points
  • 18:53:15, 19 May

> Seventy-five percent of children with divorced parents live with their mother.

From this

> About 1 in 6 custodial parents were fathers (17.8 percent).

And

> 57% of women were awarded child support. 42% of men (who were awarded their children 1 out of every 6 times they asked) were awarded child support

And

> In 34.4% of cases parents chose not to pursue child support awards as their children's other parents already provided amply.

And before you say most things aren't decided by the courts

> The percentage of custodial parents with a court order or some type of agreement to receive financial support.... was 50.6 percent in 2010

The trend is going towards the courts deciding these things, and the courts are biased. As feminists we should take the time to campaign about things that benefit us.

And you can't say the women were more deserving,

> Custodial fathers were more likely than custodial mothers to hold a full-time job by 12%

Stats from http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 0 Points
  • 16:57:43, 19 May

how is your comment relevant to anything i said?

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • -1 Points
  • 17:09:43, 19 May

Are you attempting to draw an analogy? If not, how is your comment relevant to this post?

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 2 Points
  • 17:16:30, 19 May

replace 'white people' with 'women' and 'black people' with 'men'. then try to understand how this relates to the author's subject.

if you say "all black people are (something bad)" then a valid response is "not all black people are ___". furthermore, in the context of race, people who say "all X are X" are considered racists.

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • -1 Points
  • 17:25:49, 19 May

And this is why my comment is precisely relevant to your point:

You can't equate black people with men because unlike white privilege, no such female privilege in society exists. Men have little to fear because women are not coming from a position of power -- likewise white people have little fear from people of color making anti-white statements; there is no systemic racism against white people in this society.

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 2 Points
  • 17:35:30, 19 May

you're failing to understand the relevant part of my analogy.

  • [-]
  • scrod
  • 0 Points
  • 17:49:31, 19 May

Except that it doesn't have a relevant part for the reasons I just outlined; you're implying that men are being victimized by women (who are almost always speaking about their own experiences), likening the discussion to racism against blacks. This analogy doesn't work because women are already on the other side of gender privilege in our society. They have an absolute right to speak up about how they experience that oppression.

It is ludicrous to claim that women speaking out about how they have been victimized in their daily lives is in any way systematically or institutionally harmful to men as a group.

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 0 Points
  • 17:50:13, 19 May

well that's how you feel, but i disagree completely.

  • [-]
  • Octolamadonoron
  • -1 Points
  • 17:59:46, 19 May

Female privilege absolutely exists.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 18:10:20, 19 May

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 18:11:08, 19 May

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 18:13:52, 19 May

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 18:59:40, 19 May

Your analogy doesn't work because you are not comparing analogous groups.

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 1 Points
  • 19:06:53, 19 May

ok, since you're getting caught up on this, i'll change the analogy in order for my point to remain the same, but all your grievances to be addressed:

if there were a /r/blackpeople subreddit and they spend most of their time talking about how bad white people are, then if you were a white person it'd be a pretty shitty place to visit. if someone points out all the racism people say "of course we don't mean all white people, now stop derailing our racist rants". or "well i've never seen a black person defraud investors. so only white people defraud investors. that's a totally ok generalization to make".

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:19:47, 19 May

People on TwoX do not "spend most of their time talking about how bad men are."

  • [-]
  • 4agfdd
  • 1 Points
  • 19:42:22, 19 May

you're being completely frivolous. if i said "people spend some of their time talking about how bad X are", the analogy would still stand.

when somebody makes an imperfect analogy, the intellectually honest thing to do is decide whether or not the problem with the analogy actually matters. otherwise there is no point in using analogies since all analogies are imperfect. since you do not make these allowances in any discussion we've had so far, i'm left with the conclusion that you are being willingly intellectually dishonest in order to 'win' your argument. but you aren't anywhere near winning because nothing you've responded to me with in any reply has been a valid criticism of my original point. you've done nothing but focus on irrelevant details, go off on tangents, and instantly downvote everything i say.

now that i think about it, i get the feeling that you're probably some guy trolling me. this subreddit really has gone downhill since it went to default...

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 1 Points
  • 19:48:00, 19 May

It's a shitty analogy because it does not parallel TwoX at all. The entire basis of your comparison is wrong because it implies that TwoX "spends all their time talking about how bad men are." If you're implying something different, please be clear and drop the bs about "intellectual dishonesty."

  • [-]
  • Tasadar
  • 1 Points
  • 16:13:20, 19 May

I find comics/memes that make fun of men defending their own gender as really obnoxious and childish. Even if men do have less gender equality/issues and do hold a more privileged position doesn't mean they should be mocked for defending their gender.

Defending one's gender can be unnecessary or disruptive to the conversation when the fact that "this doesn't apply to all men" is implied. But even in this situation it's still a person who perceives gender inequality defending their own gender. Which is at worst a fairly reasonable position. Viewing men as unable or undeserving to defend themselves at prejudice, even if you think they don't receive any, is a short ticket to hatred, and hatred derails and ends the discussion. Viewing the opposing gender as your enemy is not conducive to helping gender relations.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 2 Points
  • 16:21:39, 19 May

To be honest I find it ironic that we are so concerned about making sure that we don't generalise when it happens in pretty much every topic. Sports fans, people from certain countries, race, jobs, fans of shows, etc, etc. We generalise ALL the time. It's just human nature.

The problem I have with this whole conversation is that when you read a sentence that says "_______ do this", 99% of the time you're going to know that the person is using hyperbole and doesn't actually mean all of those people. Like if I say 'Harry Potter fans are weird' most people are going to know that I don't actually mean that every single Harry Potter fan is weird or whatever.

The instant you bring up bigotry, racism or sexism, though, it's suddenly incredibly important to point out that it's not ALL of those people. I've been guilty of this myself, mostly as a white woman talking to POC - I'd read about racism that people had experienced and I felt guilty and defensive. "Not all white people are like that," I reassured them, in part because I was worried about being perceived that way.

The problem? Well, most of all, it 'derails' the conversation. Before we were talking about the experiences that Group A had with Group B, most often in a situation where Group A is a minority or oppressed. Suddenly we're having a conversation about how not all of Group B is 'like that'. It completely changes the tone of the conversation and moves it away from the original topic

I also think that there is a huge difference between a group that is a minority or faces oppression or sexism saying that not all of them are like that and a group that is a majority or in a dominant position saying that. Is that fair? No, but things aren't fair yet. That's the whole point.

Lastly, the way I look at it is this: generalisations are going to happen, it's human nature. Do we want the mods to have to watch 260k people to make sure they always say 'some men' or 'certain men', etc? Really? I think it'd be easier to just put a note in the sidebar like this: "Yes, we know that not all men are like that, please keep this in mind when commenting." It's far easier to keep an eye out for things that go overboard like "men are abusive assholes' (clearly going too far) and something like "I wish that men didn't harass me".

  • [-]
  • lisq
  • -5 Points
  • 13:36:17, 19 May

I think that anyone with half a brain realizes that generalizations are generalizations. When someone says something about how "all men" we realize that they don't actually mean "all of the male gender identifying humans" ... they probably are referring to a pretty specific observation group, or cultural identity.

It's a FIGURE OF SPEECH. It's hyperbolic, and we know it is... we wouldn't argue that there are no exceptions to our "all men" statement, but the act of undermining our statements because "not all men" reflects that the person either was not paying attention to what the major point of our "all men" statement was, or that they want to play the devil's advocate against what we have experienced.

I think the "not all men" meme is just satire. If you read the faux outrage in the meme as anything more than garden variety frustration, then you've really got to go back to school and learn about basic comedic concepts.

  • [-]
  • Ohmanthrowaway
  • 7 Points
  • 16:11:19, 19 May

It's like saying "California votes liberal." We all know you don't mean EVERYONE in California.

On reddit, it's ok to generalize black people, women, roma, jews, poor people, women, etc.

But not men. That's where the line is drawn. Hence all the downvotes for your well made point.

  • [-]
  • freppers
  • 4 Points
  • 14:40:02, 19 May

> It's a FIGURE OF SPEECH. It's hyperbolic, and we know it is...

Then say "some men".

  • [-]
  • lisq
  • 5 Points
  • 15:07:08, 19 May

I'm not going to stop using colorful and exaggerated speech just to make myself mild enough to never offend anyone's excessive sensitivity.

"I'm having the WORST DAY!"

"...really? Is it as bad as December 7th, 1941?"

"Oh my god! This cake is the best!"

"My grandma made the best cake, and she passed away! You're undermining how good my grandmother's cake is, and that hurts my feelings!"

"Isn't it funny how all cats love to be on top of tall things?"

"Not all cats love to climb. I met a cat once that didn't climb. You're being dismissive of cats who don't climb"

"Okay....maybe you should take a chill pill"

  • [-]
  • scaleybabey
  • 1 Points
  • 15:21:00, 19 May

.....wow. I....I....I'm stumped. "Not all men" aren't offended by being overly sensitive, they are fact checking when false information could harm people. Saying "The cake is the best cake the world ever made" is fine, no harm caused, can be corrected by others if they want, "E.g. nah my nan's cake is better". Saying "Gay people just want to have sex with me 24/7" is just lies and truly offensive, and would need to be corrected. Same with "All women need a man". It actually is offensive, not from the hyperbole but from the misinformation it is spreading. And if you don't see the difference, wow.

  • [-]
  • lisq
  • 2 Points
  • 15:35:41, 19 May

Calling them "the gays" is what I find offensive. It's a derogatory term.

If someone said "all gay men want to have sex with me 24/7" I would probably say "you are sooooo full of yourself"

I don't get offended when someone says "all women" ... I automatically know their statement means "not every single woman. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but you know where I'm coming from"

The point being: if you don't get that words and phrases have connotation, then "wow," yourself.

  • [-]
  • freppers
  • -1 Points
  • 17:04:22, 19 May

Who says people replying with "not all men" in reply to "men are x" are offended? They're just rightfully correcting someone.

  • [-]
  • codeverity
  • 1 Points
  • 17:27:31, 19 May

Corrections usually only come from someone who was bothered by the statement in the first place.

I don't see why we're trying to say that people in this sub should bend over backwards to make sure they always use a qualifier when generalising happens everywhere, both online and offline.

  • [-]
  • MarioJumper
  • 1 Points
  • 18:42:47, 19 May

I hate this subreddit.

  • [-]
  • tbeysquirrel
  • 1 Points
  • 17:54:56, 19 May

I'm mixed about it. I feel like "not all mean" is definitely unhelpful and a pointless thing to say in certain discussions but at the same time I feel like constantly mocking it is pretty unnecessary.

Because as humans, it is our natural instinct to defend ourselves if we're feeling like we're being attacked. This includes identity. I wouldn't be happy if someone defined all white people as racist.

I guess it really depends on context whether it's appropriate or not? Cause I would definitely not blame someone who threw a "not all men" at a comment like "all men are such pigs". But I see other comments where apparently they say that in response to venting i.e. "I'm sick of men harassing me" and obviously "not all men..." is pretty useless. I'm really not sure which situation is more common so...

  • [-]
  • Hypergnostic
  • -3 Points
  • 16:13:22, 19 May

While I understand that it is impossible not to categorize and generalize, I never can quite understand why any aspect of a person (race, gender, religious sect, etc.) is elevated to the point of identity. What is the purpose of categorizing ourselves beyond person? How does it help us as a race to sort ourselves into categories? Of course we all are what we are, but are not all the worst human problems the result of pointless subdivision and fractionation? Is it not ideal to understand each person or each behavior or each event on an individual case by case basis? It is so obviously wrongheaded and inaccurate to make generalized statements, yet we persist at it because we have poor mental and linguistic habits, no?

  • [-]
  • chancala
  • 7 Points
  • 16:15:10, 19 May

Because factors like race and gender deeply shape how we experience the world and how other people treat us. You might as well ignore history.

  • [-]
  • TorontoMike
  • -2 Points
  • 17:16:59, 19 May

I think it is projection because I have never seen it , except from feminists trying to derail a conversation . Where you might criticize feminism or a feminist and the immediate response is ..not all feminists are like that, or That is not feminism and then start posting dictionary definitions or Wikipedia articles.

  • [-]
  • el_crunz
  • -4 Points
  • 14:06:38, 19 May

Not to me because I've never seen this meme.