Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument

[boston bean]

The "not all men" defense against feminist arguments is infuriating and unhelpful, but it also represents a weird kind of progress

On April 10, artist Matt Lubchansky updated his popular webcomic series, Please Listen To Me, with a new comic called “Save Me.” It features a presumably mild-mannered fellow in a polo shirt who spots the “Man Signal” and barrels into a phone booth to emerge as a fedora-masked Not-All-Man, “defender of the defended” and “voice for the voiceful.” He catches the whiff of misandry in the air — a pink-haired woman in the middle of saying “I’m just sick of how men…” — and smashes through a plate-glass window to play devil’s advocate.



It’s a sharp, damning satire of a familiar kind of bad-faith argument, the one where a male interlocutor redirects a discussion about sexism, misogyny, rape culture, or women’s rights to instead be about how none of that is his fault. And it struck a nerve.

The comic was retweeted and reblogged tens of thousands of times. Nerd hero Wil Wheaton, comedian Paul F. Tompkins, and comics artist Matt Fraction were among its Tumblr boosters. Within a few days, science fiction writer John Scalzi, who frequently wades into feminist discussion, ranted about the “not all men” defense and followed up by posting the comic. Clearly, Not-All-Man is the antifeminist antihero for our times.

http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

[boston bean]

1. here's another..

[Squinch]

2. .

[Supersedeas]

154. there's a name for him and for that.

[Enrique]

3. putting "every dude" in the headline looks like bait

i fell for it for example.

I suppose there is something wrong with me posting here, it's like I'm crashing through a wall into a private chat right? Well then pardon me I'll leave now.

[el_bryanto]

4. Well it's the title of the Article

Which I am guessing was selected to drive people to read it? Kind of understandable.

Bryant

[Enrique]

9. that's what I was talking about

the Salon headline.

[winter is coming]

133. Actually, it robs it of any chance of credibility before the first sentence.

"Not All Men" implies that it's an argument against broad brush statements. "Every Dude's Favorite Argument" is in itself a broad brush. Implication: reading the article is likely a waste of time.

[On the Road]

153. It is Truly Amazing, Isn't It

[boston bean]

5. .

It's not my headline, but I think the author probably did it on purpose...

[Nye Bevan]

6. Why say "all men" when "many men" would actually be much closer to the truth,

and would piss off a lot less people?

[boston bean]

7. who says all men?

Do you think the mention of the word "men" means all men, when feminists are discussing issues that are important to them?

[Nye Bevan]

10. I have been told here that "all men benefit from rape", for example.(nt)

[boston bean]

12. In some fashion they do.

They need not fear like a woman does walking or taking a run. Or coming out of a bar. Or getting roofied.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen to men, but on the average, these are not fears that men have to deal with. So, in that way they are privileged.

See, you gotta understand the concepts first.

[Thor_MN]

15. Most men probably dislike "All Men...." as much as most women probably dislike being generalized.

So unless it makes one feel better in a revenge sort of way, it doesn't help anyone.

[boston bean]

16. Again, you are ignoring the context of the statement.

Women fear rape. Why because of rape culture, which, btw, we are also told is offensive to men.

We aren't allowed to state our experience and how we feel, because men don't like it?

Sorry, we are allowed and will tell our stories in a way that is real.

To a woman who is in a place where she fears for her safety, any man can be seen to her as a potential rapist. If you don't like that or the reasons for that, how about you help change the culture instead of trying to dictate how women verbalize these very real experiences.

It's not a case of generalizations, it's a truth women live with.

[Thor_MN]

34. Trying to tie absolutes to humans is a fool's errand.

You can say anything you want, but do not be surprised to find that when you accuse all men of being rapists, you feel some backlash.

Men are not allowed to say they are not rapists and how we feel, because some women like to accuse all men of being rapists?

Sorry we are allowed and will tell our stories in a way that is realistic, not generalized.

If a woman is alone in a place with me, she is perfectly safe. Safer than if she were alone. I get to feel her fear as she moves away and am powerless to alleviate that fear, because she isn't afraid of ME, she is afraid of ALL MEN, which she has been told to do.

I can not do anything about the context of one's absolute fears, if one is truly afraid of all men (not just in a parking garage, as men do not change upon entering a parking garage) then the only rational course of action is to never, ever be anywhere near any man, he might be a rapist.

If one is truly fearful of all men, I feel sorry for that person. If one merely likes to argue with all men, I hope I have made one's day a littler brighter.

[boston bean]

39. There was nothing absolutist stated. You would be trying to make it into that.

However, that is not the case.

God, it's like you haven't even read the article. LOL

[Thor_MN]

137. I get the concept/context that you want to use to justify your stereotyping.

All I am saying is why are you surprised to find that stereotyping, even if it only exists in a magical parking lot, isn't appreciated. I thought you might understand when I used your own words to justify it back at you, but apparently it's OK to stereotype all men as rapists, because there are some men that are rapists.

Turn the argument around and ask if it is OK to use the same process elsewhere. There are groups people that are less than stellar in some way or another. I guess there's now a green light to call everyone every derogatory name in the book as some of those people exist. In any case, have a nice day in that one sided world where it is OK for some people to stereotype, while it's absolutely abhorrent to for those same people to be stereotyped.

[DesertDiamond]

68. Thor_MN, I appreciate that you're not a rapist! But it's not just because of fear that women may

view you as a potential rapist. First of all, I send you a cyberhug for not being one of the bad guys! But historically, if a woman is alone with a man and is raped, courts --and public opinion -- will say that it was her fault, she should have known better than to be alone with a man. Hence, the implication that ALL MEN are potential rapists, and that women are just to accept that. Hence, in this sense, it is our legal system and society in general that has made "All Men" the culprit. Nothing to do with you. Just the history of courts, and public opinion.

[Thor_MN]

138. Thank you. I guess that it takes multiple generations to remove a concept from public consciousnes

Especially when the concept is held onto/perpetuated by multiple sides of the issue.

[pintobean]

18. Bingo!

I think it all started with someone using the phrase "many women".

[boston bean]

20. It started with pointing out a sexist/stereotpyical comment.

Let's get that straight, ok?

Ie, MANY women trap men into marriage by getting pregnant.

You don't think that is a sexist comment? You think that is true?

You disagree with the real life experience of women and how they fear rape and the reasons for it?

[pintobean]

31. Yes, I think that is a true statement

and I don't think it's sexist/stereotypical. "Many" is a relative term. I would use "some" or "a relative few", but I don't have the perspective of the woman who made that statement. Also, she didn't use the word "trap". You used it in your reply to her.

[boston bean]

36. And in response to my question of whether she was agreeing with a poster above this is what I got.

Many women deliberately get pregnant to get their boyfriends to marry them

Why don't you ever tell the whole story there pintobean?

[pintobean]

45. I linked to the comments

in the thread. Anyone can read it in context and make up their own mind. Should I have started with the OP and quoted it and every reply that lead to that exchange? Maybe I should have also included a history of pregnancy discussions on DU.

[boston bean]

48. In your summary, you left off some mighty important info.

Just pointing that out.

[pintobean]

52. Not in my opinion. /nt

[rrneck]

71. All this controversy is over THAT?

[Kali]

42. so the cartoon is familiar to you in some way?

[el_bryanto]

26. Those aren't ways that men benefit from rape

Unless I don't understand the word benefit. Those are ways in which men benefit from rape culture I suppose because Rape Culture doesn't target them. But just being able to walk around safely is something everybody should be able to do.

Bryant

[boston bean]

27. ah, what did I say...

The act of rape perpetuates rape culture... surely you can see that.

[el_bryanto]

30. Is there a difference between rape culture and a culture of sexism?

I'm looking at the end of the article where it talks about the 5 stages - the fifth being "Sexism happens, I benefit from it, I am unavoidably sexist sometimes because I was socialized that way, and if I want to be anti-sexist I have to be actively working against that socialization."

That's a harder argument to make if you replace sexism with rape culture, and if we are specifically talking about rape culture than the "not all men" guy seems a lot less ridiculous, because who wants to associate themselves with rape.

Then again it could be that the two arguments are getting conflated.

Bryant

[boston bean]

38. No one is associating any individual male with rape.

Gawd, this is really not a hard concept. It is an experience of women and their feelings based on culture. And their verbalization of those fears and why they feel a certain way.

[AverageJoe90]

37. I for one, think you understand it *perfectly*.

And yes, EVERYBODY deserves the right to be able to walk home without living constantly in fear of being targeted, whether women by rapists, People of Color by corrupt cops or Klansmen or skinheads, LGBTs by crazed Fundies, etc.

[Major Nikon]

58. It would be equally true to say all women benefit from homicide and suicide

It would be equally true to say all women benefit from the other 12 out of the top 15 leading causes of death.

It would be equally true to say all women benefit from selective service.

Actually it would be more true since all women are exempt from selective service yet not all men are exempt from rape.

You can go on and on with this one.

[Fumesucker]

8. Because it would piss off fewer people

[boston bean]

11. You really think that "many" men would be better?

Hell, I look at what is being discussed within context and make conclusions as to what someone means.

Feminists need not curtail their speech to the likings of men. Hell, we've done that long enough, don't you think?

[Nye Bevan]

13. I guess that depends on your goal.

If you want to spark controversy and annoy people, saying things like "all men are potential rapists" is an excellent approach. But if your goal is a civil and constructive debate, then not so much.

[boston bean]

14. To women walking alone in a parking garage

all men to them are potential rapists. They don't know you from adam, or what you are or who you are. But the fear of rape in our society does lead to limited public space for females. But these are things you don't have to deal with, so it may seem foreign to you.

See, what you do is take a statement that is perfectly valid and twist it into what you think is misandry. You don't really want to view it in the feminist means it. It's really not that controversial statement nor is it bigoted, if you actually think about it.

[sabrina 1]

19. Do you think that all women 'fear walking into a garage' and view every man there as a potential

rapist? I know lots of women who do not. Some might, eg, consider that there might be men in the garage who would come to their aid SHOULD they find themselves being threatened in any way. Some men might call the police on their behalf should they be attacked.

I remember a friend who was attacked by a group of women, eg. She ran out into the street, where she found both men and women who helped her get away from them. She could, from then on, have had a fear of 'all women'. However, she didn't. She understands that not all women form gangs for the purpose of attacking and robbing people.

So if you are saying 'all women' fear 'all men' that is not correct. If I think a place might be a place where danger lurks I just don't go there. Yes, I know, 'I have the right to go wherever I choose'. All I can say to that argument is I have the right to walk under a moving train, but I don't for obvious reasons.

[boston bean]

22. If you fear a place where there is danger,

you are in fact limited in your access to public spaces, that men are not.

Jessum chrissum, that is the point. Yes, many women do curtail their activities due to fear of rape. What's the reason for that?

I am not saying all women fear all men all the time, for Christ sakes.

[sabrina 1]

28. So men don't face danger at all then? I don't curtail my access to public places any more than any

man I know. If I see a threat by going to some place, the likelihood is that men will be threatened in the same place.

Iow, the fact is it isn't wise to look for danger whether you are a man or a woman. Why would any sane man want to walk into a dangerous place when he can choose not to?

This is how I interpret your 'point'. ONLY women have to avoid certain places! That is ludicrous to be honest.

Take African American men in NYC eg. They KNOW to try to stay away from the NYPD even if they are simply trying to get to work or college. Many mothers warn them that if they are stopped by the police not to even say a word for fear they will be beaten or falsely arrested.

This is a FACT. I can provide you with proof. Men unable to get to work without fear of being arrested simply because they are young and Black. White women don't have to fear that.

This is a ridiculous theory as are all theories that include the world 'all men' and/or 'all women'.

[boston bean]

32. Of course men can fear spaces, but not usually rape.

a small percentage may.

You want to deny that there is such a thing of women who limit their activities due to this.

That's up to each individual woman, I suppose. You want to state you've never ever experienced this, then I guess I got to believe you. And good for you.

But women who do aren't claiming any victimhood or lying, they are relaying real fears and experiences. No one said ALL women feel the same way. Gosh, maybe a cartoon should be made to say, "Not all woman" that works just as good for derailing feminist topics.

The statement in the context it is meant is true. To a woman who is in fear of being raped in a situation as I described is true. She doesn't know a good guy from a rapist. She still feels a fear and is uncomfortable.

You want to come up with a bunch of other types of scenarios, by all means go for it, and try to say that because men feel some type of fear as well, that makes a womans experience null or untrue, go for it.

I'm not going to play the games that this OP so greatly outlines above.

[redqueen]

60. Someone should create a "Not All Woman" character...

Someone to leap in and claim that Not All Women mind being sexually harassed in the street, are attacked by men because some are attacked by women, worry about rape, etc.

[polly7]

101. LOL!!

I have no idea why it bothers some here so much that not every woman cowers in fear and considers all men potential rapists - but it sure does! We're not all quivering victims, even those of us who've dealt with abuse and, yes, rape.

Cool story, Bra ...... translation: I have nothing intelligent to add.

[bettyellen]

104. Translation: that post is fucking hilarious, makes me quiver

With delight at the stories some people pull out of their asses to dismiss the very real problem of violence against women.
Noted your mocking tone directed towards genuine victims of violence. How lovely.

[polly7]

107. Translation.

Be as uncivil and rude as you fucking like, because that's all you've got.

Sabrina cares about ALL women and victims of violence everywhere. She chooses not to cower in fear - you laugh at that - good for you. Thank gawd not all women choose to think of themselves as victims the second they walk out the door - we'd be back barefoot in the kitchen.

I am a 'genuine' survivor of violence - violence that almost killed me - and rape. And your comment is fucking sick. I have to laugh my ass off at someone that claims such superiority when it comes to victims of abuse and can state such a disgusting thing - reason no. 114 I ignore any 'education' you and yours think you're supplying to adults here. Fucking hypocrisy ....... it makes me sick.

[bettyellen]

111. I laugh at the idea that either of you give a damn about women, with these crazy

Anecdotes of girls gone wild, beating up "woman I know". The lengths some will go to, in order to dismiss other women is just bizarre.
Sad you both repeat the RW crap that women who discuss violence are weak victims. That burying your head in the sand while pointing at a roving gang of violent girls is akin to anything except a bizarre deflection.

[polly7]

112. I've helped more women in crisis in my life than you've probably even met.

I think you're so full of hate you're willing to laugh at women who've admitted they've lived through abuse, yet because they don't bow down to your authoritarian, bullying bullshit theories, we don't care about other women!?! You don't even make sense.

Sad? - look in a fucking mirror.

[sabrina 1]

136. First Polly, I am truly sorry for what you have been through but so proud of you for not just

surviving but for your compassion and strength and caring for others to whom I am certain you have been a wonderful example.

And thank you for your other post above. I have to say I was pretty stunned at the response, the accusation that the story I used was not true. It is true, it happened in NYC but I know you are not the type to try to cast doubt on other people without any reason whatsoever.

And third, the response to you a survivor of what has been claimed to be the 'most important issue' for them, was truly sickening. But it does show perfectly why most women on DU do not engage in this subject here.

I have zero doubt that you have helped more women in your life than all those who seem to do nothing but denigrate other women even those it now appears, who are survivors of violence.

Thanks for all you do

[polly7]

149. Aww ... Sabrina, you're always so kind.

Thank you, I certainly don't post here for sympathy - I just thought adding my own experience might let her know I 'do' understand violence against women, but I appreciate your kind words more than you know. Though this is the third time I've been laughed at and insulted after revealing something here that certain people have made their life work to protest on a message board, and claim they're the only ones who 'get' 'genuine' violence against women. With the ambulance in Calgary, Regina and here, I've helped victims of domestic violence, rape and assault on the way to emerg, dealing with their wounds, holding their hands and listening to stories that were so much like my own. I've been involved with crisis centers in Calgary and Regina, and now that I'm back living in rural SK I do what I can every few months to round up blankets, toys, clothes ... whatever I think these centers might need, and I get them to Regina. I take in a little neighbour girl here every time her parents fight and she's scared and crying .... she knows this is her safe place. But I 'don't care' about other women and children. It's funny to me how brave people are on the internet when they say such nasty things ... and laugh about it.

You're the last person here who would lie about something so serious, or anything else for that matter. How clueless does someone have to be to not believe that women are cruel to other women - hell, she just needs to read her own posts. I bet I could google up hundreds of cases of girls/women beating up another woman. Reena Virk's murder comes to mind for me instantly. "Cool story, Bra" - just shows ignorance and the real agenda. Nastiness for anyone who doesn't tow the authoritarian line. Like I say, nothing I read from these posters is 'educating' for me ...... it's just a clear attempt to sow hatred and division. How that helps anyone, is beyond me.

I just found out my uncle is very, very ill and was waiting for a phone call from the hospital when I read her post to you - I didn't choose my words well, but said exactly what I thought!

[Bobbie Jo]

114. FYI....

Your post was alerted:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Tue May 6, 2014, 09:14 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Translation: that post is fucking hilarious, makes me quiver
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4915431

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is the second time she's called Sabrina1 a liar in this sub-thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 6, 2014, 09:24 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster is spot on, both times. Yes, there are brazen liars among us. Calling it out isn't a hideable offense.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Gore1FL]

118. FYI -- Jury Results

On Tue May 6, 2014, 11:43 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

LOL!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4915368

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Nasty sneer toward women that might be fearful, in a fearful situation. "We're not all quivering victims'. Polly7 then demands empathy and consideration because she herself had a violent experience. Because she is a woman does not allow her to scorn women that take a different position than she does. Personally, I think it is a dislike of a group on Du. I have listened to polly and she very much agrees with the group, she hates. If they are not in a thread, she is supportive to women.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 6, 2014, 11:48 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: She's not scorning women, alerter. Get a life.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter sees what the alerter wants to see.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You do not speak for me.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[polly7]

120. Wow, I hope that alerter is brave enough to reveal herself/himself.

Nasty sneer toward women that might be fearful, in a fearful situation. "We're not all quivering victims'. Polly7 then demands empathy and consideration because she herself had a violent experience. Because she is a woman does not allow her to scorn women that take a different position than she does. Personally, I think it is a dislike of a group on Du. I have listened to polly and she very much agrees with the group, she hates. If they are not in a thread, she is supportive to women.

Because every bit of the above is said by someone with a personal vendetta .... but hey, when you hate .... everyone else is a hater.

And what I said is true, we're not all quivering victims, and ...... nowhere did I demand empathy. Also, because I am a woman, I can say any fucking thing I like when I see someone being treated like shit. Right, alerter???

[Egnever]

157. oddly enough

For all the talk about wanting women to be strong equals in society. When many of these so called advocates encounter one. The first response seems to be scorn and dismissal.

Odd that.

[polly7]

158. It's not that odd, really.

Strong women like Sabrina who believe in their own abilities as a capable, intelligent, fully equal human being, and don't live in fear, or preach to others how they should, go completely against the 'education' that's offered here, by some. She earned a big fail. An F! Sabrina.

[polly7]

99. Thank you. nt.

[Nye Bevan]

21. How about an 80-year old guy accompanied by his daughter and granddaughters?

Potential rapist?

You did say "all men".

[boston bean]

24. Probably not.

And you know that is not the scenario one would be speaking of when they make the statement. It is the scenario I pointed out..

Hell, I don't fear my husband, my son, my nephews, my male friends, but that doesn't make the experience or the statement untrue within the context it is given.

[bettyellen]

106. How about astronauts during a spacewalk? Or a quadriplegic in

A parking garage? Or being caught alone with the man you just broke up with?
Yeah, we could throw out all sorts of scenarios and your post would still be pointless.

[Nye Bevan]

113. The quadriplegic might be faking it. Ted Bundy used a similar ploy IIRC (nt)

[Gore1FL]

121. The fact that "we could throw out all sorts of scenarios"

sort of proves the original hypothesis as pointless.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

123. :your: goal ? what is Your Goal, Nye Bevan in this thread and in the larger context?

[hfojvt]

97. even the phrase "some" women

seemed to piss off some people.

But IOKIYAOC

It's ok if you are an oppressed class.

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. Yes. "Some Women" written by *one* poster set off a shitstorm

And it was the author of this OP who threw the first turd. Hypocrisy much?

Disruption isn't a flaw in the system, it's a feature of it.

[Threedifferentones]

17. EVERY DUDE'S favorite argument?

Hey, not all men make that argument!

Sorry, I really need more self control...

[blackspade]

23. Super funny and to the point.

Thanks for posting.

[boston bean]

25. And still there are those stating... NOT ALL MEN

to me here in the replies to this OP.

It's comedic.

[sabrina 1]

29. Okay, you see ALL MEN as potential rapists, I do not. So at least ONE WOMAN isn't living in fear of

All Men which makes your claim that All Women fear All Men as potential rapists wrong. Count me out of that 'ALL' category.

[boston bean]

33. Like I said above, they need a cartoon

for "Not all Women" too.

[AverageJoe90]

35. Thank you, Sabrina. Couldn't have said it all better myself.

[polly7]

103. Count me out, too.

I also don't see all adults as potential child abusers, or think that all adults benefit from child abuse (just remembering that huge thread where I was being 'educated' on how all men DO actually benefit from rape). Makes about as much sense, doesn't it?

[Blue_In_AK]

124. Count me out, as well.

I choose not to live my life in fear.

[blackspade]

144. More tragic than comedic....

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I've got a question about this...

I've been a regular debating the Israel/Palestine conflict for years at DU, and I've seen plenty of 'Israelis are (insert worst attributes of a few to the entire population)' and the same done to Palestinians. It's wrong when someone does that, because at best they're being lazy, and at worst they're deliberately broadbrushing out of bigoted motives. So why is it different when it comes to men? I'd never use the worst behaviour of some men and make a comment saying that men are like that when it's so easier and clearer to just say some men behave like that, but most don't, and part of the reason for that is I see red when I've seen similar stuff aimed at women. I just don't like broadbrushing, I guess...

[boston bean]

41. Ah, because no one is stating what is being implied. ok.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. People don't say stuff like '“I’m just sick of how men…” ?

I've seen people say stuff like that, just like I've seen people say the stuff I used in my examples.

[boston bean]

46. So, each women should spell out and name the person she is specifically speaking of

to relay her feelings regarding the culture she lives in?

Most of this stuff comes down to a denial of what women speak to as their truth. Either you see that or you don't.

Also, notice I didn't say some women. I said women, but I'm not meaning that I speak for every single woman in the world. But for a bunch who do recognize and throughout history have made the same observations.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. No, just use some common sense and do what most people discussing I/P do...

If yr talking about the Palestinians and Israelis who are extremists, you say that some Palestinians and Israelis are extremists. You don't broadbrush entire populations. Why shouldn't the same work when it comes to gender issues? Because any woman who is so set on taking offense when someone points out that not all men are (insert horrible things that some men actually do or say about or towards women), then as a woman I'm going to speak some fucking truth and point out that they're deliberately broadbrushing and getting off on it...

[boston bean]

55. Violet, what I have tried to point out above,

is that it doesn't matter if you say some, many, few, you get the same type of denials.

Feminists need not fashion their language in a way to make men comfortable. We need to speak our truths.

In the examples given above, I'm still being told that I am speaking of all men, when it is not the case. People are being obtuse and strident in their view that feminists think all men are rapists. I think that is concerning. YMMV.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Sorry, but it's not the *truth* when anyone broadbrushes a group of people...

If someone's more intent on refusing to do the very simple and easy thing of putting the word 'some' in front of a group when talking about the negative aspects of some members of a group, then I have to wonder about their motivation, when what they're doing seems to be designed to annoy rather than educate. I detest broadbrushing when it's related to either side in the I/P conflict, and I've yet to see any good argument for why it's okay to do it for gender issues. If someone suspects that what they're going to say is going to be derailed, ensuring that it will be by broadbrushing just doesn't seem the smartest way to go about things...

btw, I'm off to bed, so I'm out of this thread, and I'm just going to leave everyone with a pretty awesome song because that's the sort of person I am. Sorry

[boston bean]

64. In the context that it is meant it is the truth. Sorry.

And that doesn't mean that all men are rapists. People have to actually read, and then comprehend what is being stated.

I think I've spelled it out clearly above.

[The Straight Story]

115. You mean like:

Violet, what I have tried to point out above,
is that it doesn't matter if you say some, many, few, you get the same type of denials.
Feminists need not fashion their language in a way to make men comfortable.

Women
Did you trap your husband into marriage by getting pregnant.

I read right here on the good ole DU that :"MANY" women do this. I don't think this is true. Never mind all the stereotypical/sexist bullshit that comes with such declarations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906673

But I thought it didn't matter if you say some, many, few?

[boston bean]

119. huh? You think many women trap their boyfriends into marriage by getting pregnant?

That was the point. But it seems it whoosh whoosh whoosh all the time. Intentional or not, it's getting sad and boring.

[The Straight Story]

122. *facepalm* it is not about the issue but the language in discussing it I was referring to

On the one hand you defend the language when it comes to men, then you drop that defense when the same language is applied to women.

[boston bean]

127. in your mind that is what it is about.

you got an opinion on whether that was sexist bullshit or not?

[The Straight Story]

128. My opinion

Starts with language and how it is used in a discussion.

Implying a whole group is responsible or just like a small fraction of a group is a form of bias. Whether that is racism/sexism/stereotyping/etc.

Examples:
Comparing all gun owners to a very few and promoting fear of all based on the few.

Using the few who abuse food stamps or the few on welfare who do drugs to smear all those who do not do such things (as we often see the right wing do).

And so on....

What I see, all too often, are people using many/all/most/etc when it is not true overall but may be in their own sphere.

OR more of what I see is using news stories to show proof how prevalent something is when, as a matter of fact, it is still not statistically significant (you can x happens 20,000 times a year which means you can find more than one story a day about it - but that it doesn't happen 350,000,000 times a year isn't reported).

It creates a bubble (like the republicans did during the election last year - ignore the real world outside of it and only let things in which don't contradict your own beliefs).

Now....onto the whole 'trapping' issue. Let's look at it this way (from something in this very thread):

Not all men are rapists. But seeing a man in a parking garage you don't know - well he could be one (or a killer/robber/etc). So taking precautions based on simple crime stats isn't so much a moral discussion but a simple one.

Extrapolate that logic to trapping. Not all women do. But women can, indeed, lie about taking birth control and thus get pregnant. The man now has no choice but to either pay child support (and use his body for 18 years to work) or, if the women so desires and he agrees, marry her. Since they are already involved and there are a lot of factors (raising a kid in a broken home, missing the child when you don't see it, emotional and financial issues) he may well indeed feel that is the best choice where before he didn't.

So because, as noted about men and rape in a garage, the potential exists even though few of said group X are going to do it. Some have so people tell 'cautionary tales' in hopes that others may not find themselves in a bad situation.

Women walk to their cars every single day all over the country and are not raped. Men have sex with women they are involved with and not married to every day as well. Potential for something to happen you do not want to happen because of some control someone else has is there. That applies to many things so is not equating rape with something else but equating the basic idea that to avoid X understand that it can, and has happened.


If you say one is sexist but not the other you are not being consistent. If you say neither is sexist or both are that would be consistent.

In the end both scenarios play out everyday and nothing happens. Most the men you see aren't going to rape you and most the women you are with are not going to skip birth control they say are using. And most people with guns aren't going to shoot you.

[Jim Lane]

148. I largely agree but we shouldn't overdo the parsing of internet discussion posts.

We aren't writing statutes here, where the precise wording may be hassled over by lawyers for the next few decades.

To take an innocuous example: Someone should be free to write "Men are taller than women" without someone else taking umbrage and posting a WNBA team photo to disprove the point. Obviously, even without qualifiers like "most" or "some" being explicit, the statement refers to averages.

If someone writes, "I'm just sick of how men...." and the rest of the sentence plus the context make it clear that it doesn't mean all men all the time, then it really is pointless to jump in (or crash through a window) with a "not all men" response.

Similarly, in the "accidental" pregnancy subthread, there was no reasonable basis for reading the alerted comment as saying that all women do that. I happened to be on the jury so I can give the full report (I was the loquacious Juror #7):

On Sat May 3, 2014, 08:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Subtle Hints Like Becoming "Accidently" Pregnant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4905977

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Women propose subtly like becoming pregnant .... really. Please consider if this is an acceptable way for DU to portray women.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 3, 2014, 08:37 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a joke. Deep breaths.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: the OP is flamebait and the whole thread is likely to devolve into a flaming pile of crap. doing my part to cut it off by hiding this stupidity
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sexist clap-trap.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster implies that this sometimes happens. The alerter asks "if this is an acceptable way for DU to portray women." It's a silly alert if the only basis is that a comment about how some women have acted on occasion is taken as a portrayal of all women. If someone says that some men have committed rape, no one would ask "if this is an acceptable way for DU to portray men." If, instead, the alerter means that no woman has ever deliberately become pregnant while feigning accident, then the alerter can state that disagreement in a response and provide some facts or reasoning.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

In response to your comment denouncing any implication that a whole group is responsible for something, I'd qualify it by saying that the implication has to be a reasonable one before this criticism applies. "The corporations are robbing us blind" doesn't mean that Democratic Underground, LLC (the corporation that runs this site) is robbing us blind. On the other hand, the statement "Individual shareholders in a corporation are not, simply by virtue of their ownership interest, personally liable for the debts of the corporation" is true of all corporations (at least, AFAIK, in all U.S. jurisdictions).

One has to exercise some common sense about what is (or is not) actually being implied. It's always an option to point out a possible ambiguity and denounce one of the interpretations. One can even consider asking the poster to clarify before alerting or denouncing.

[NCTraveler]

44. Amazing how quick a couple of caped crusaders showed up. nt.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. I'm no caped crusader. I just don't like people broadbrushing any group of people n/t

[NCTraveler]

53. "I'm no caped crusader."

Then my comment wasn't toward you if that is the case. Not sure why you felt the need to proclaim "I'm no caped crusader" if it doesn't pertain to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Well, you said a couple turned up and I wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't one...

Who were you talking about, anyway?

[sabrina 1]

59. So who did you mean? Seems the OP is being 'misunderstood' at least that is what I am hearing

The fact is if a whole lot of people misunderstand what you're trying to say, maybe it isn't everyone else's fault, maybe it's the delivery.

The world isn't filled with bad people, men or women. These kinds of posts are why so few people identify as 'feminists' anymore, while a majority, and this is the GOOD NEWS, agree that women and men should be treated equally. It's really simple, if you can't get a majority of the people to view you as speaking for them, even though you claim to be saying what they claim to believe in, who's fault is that?

[boston bean]

62. I think he figured it out just fine.

[redqueen]

67. Society is evolving right past them

and they don't even realize it. To busy coddling egos.

[Harmony Blue]

77. Society has evolved past feminism

and we are about humanism now.

At least the first wave Feminists were consistent even if you disagree with their ideas. Current iteration of feminism is full of mixed messages or ideas being poorly communicated.

[redqueen]

86. Wrong.

...

I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a “humanist.” Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for.n fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!

Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as well—in its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.

Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?

Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.
...
http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy

[sabrina 1]

69. Here's the problem for you. There is no 'gender war' going on among most people. There is an

inequality problem, across the board, and across the Globe. Most intelligent people recognize that. When equality is addressed for all human beings, and some progress is made globally, all those who are not being treated equally will benefit.

But when a small group of people send out the message that only THEY are victims of inequality especially when people are aware of the horrific treatment of people for a myriad of reasons by comparison, they are viewed as selfish, not contributing to solving the huge problem of inequality that affects billions of people around the planet, and since we live in a Global World, it is relevant to address it globally.

Eg, we here in the US consume products every day that are made by people both men and women and even children who are abused, economically, physically and morally. So to spend time worrying about Magazine covers eg, to a vast majority of those who are involved in the fight for equality everywhere, view that as so trite it boggles the mind.

If women here are buying products made by women in India in unsafe working conditions, eg, they are a huge part of the problem, they are harming women. There are more women in the world than just those here in the US but whenever anyone points that out, our own Government's abuse of women eg, in the countries we invade, they are told they are to distract from the 'issues'. Excuse me but when our Representatives go abroad and abuse women they are doing it in our name. Or when they ally themselves with governments that abuse women and other minorities, they are doing it in our name. It IS our problem.

It's a big world, with enormous problems and while people here are unaware of how their own actions are a huge contributor to many of them while they complain about things like how women here chose to improve their economic situations it creates the impression that they are self centered and cannot see how their issues, and we can only judge by what they say, whether worthy of not, are not the ONLY issues people are facing everywhere.

[boston bean]

72. I don't think there is a gender war.

1) So your premise is off.
2) I'll discuss inequality anywhere I see it, thank you.

[bettyellen]

98. Except you're the "only" one claiming feminists claim "only" women have issues that need attention..

For fucks sake, stop casting everything in absolutist terms and maybe you'll learn something instead of tilting at straw women with that bullshit premise.

[Harmony Blue]

66. Good post Sabrina

as always and I have nothing else to add.

[boston bean]

80. You even used the word "couple".....

And it didn't stop the many from coming unglued thinking you were talking about them.

It's a tiring tactic that is being used. It's disingenuous.

[NCTraveler]

108. I made a simple statement.....

I made what I believe to be a simple and accurate statement. If someone else were to have posted it I would feel in no way obligated to reply and stick up for myself if it was in no way a reflection of who I am. Fact is that the first reply to me was a "I'm not the person you are talking about, but....." statement. Always love the "but" statements. One of the other replies really has nothing to do with what I said but they felt they needed to separate themselves from the "caped crusaders". Good op.

[Violet_Crumble]

147. no, you made a snarky comment attacking some duers

I wasn't sticking up for myself, but pointing out the bleeding obvious. The only one n this thread I feel the need to separate myself from is you, as yr attitude has been a nasty one

[NCTraveler]

150. None of what I posted was really nasty.

I guess all things are relative and it may have seemed nasty to you.

"The only one n this thread I fell the need to separate myself from is you"

Interesting way you have of doing that. You say my post has nothing to do with you. You say you want to separate yourself from me. Yet here you are standing up for something that you say has nothing to do with you and replying to me. Nasty is the last thing I am. I can take it as I understand others are in a different position in life than I am and view things like mean and nasty in different ways than I do.

[Kali]

47. nice job of getting a bunch of them to self-demonstrate the point

gawd,


I should never look at the Latest page while I have coffee.

[NCTraveler]

102. +1 nt.

[laundry_queen]

152. Yep. nt

[Blue_Adept]

50. I see that Not-All-Man didn't use the door. Subtext?

Oh my.

[yodermon]

56. "I'm just sick of how women..."

That statement/preamble can never fly, like ever EVER ever. So there's that.

[snooper2]

57. It has been a week already?

LOL

[LadyHawkAZ]

73. Hey, it was nine whole hours from the timeout to the flamebait

People gotta sleep sometime.

[boston bean]

74. So you agree, "Not all men" is flamebait

and a derailment tactic.

It's not like I've never seen it before....

[LadyHawkAZ]

75. I even tried to wait up to see how long it would take

Somewhere around 2am the vodka won. It's not like I've never seen it before...

[boston bean]

76. You gotta find some better things to do.

[LadyHawkAZ]

78. Why? I enjoy vodka.

[boston bean]

82. I didn't necessarily mean that. I mean staying up all night

waiting....

I like vodka too. What's your favorite brand?

[LadyHawkAZ]

84. "Up all night" is relative

2am is actually a bit early for my bedtime, thats always been my natural sleep cycle.

Five Wives or Stoli. Last night's selection was Smirnoff Root Beer Float- not bad, the flavoring masks a lot of the famous Smirnoff nasty taste.

[opiate69]

130. You HAVE to try Crystal Head vodka.. amazing stuff.

[LadyHawkAZ]

131. I have a bottle, with the cool little shotglasses

Unopened. It's so cool I hate to crack it! I'll get around to it some day.

[opiate69]

132. Oh, man.. a shot, either chilled in the freezer or over a single cube of ice...

Smooth as silk. Perfect for sipping. It's Mrs Opie's drink of choice lately.

[tammywammy]

135. Tito's is where it's at.

[maddezmom]

151. +10000

[Orrex]

61. Interesting that Time.com is also running this piece:

Shailene Woodley: Why I’m Not a Feminist

Curious timing?

[LittleBlue]

105. Yeah, Woodley hit waaaay too close to home

What you're seeing here is a defense mechanism triggering. Prepare for more threads explaining why men suck.

I'll just sit here quietly and eat my as a few intelligent posters shut down this thread.

[DesertDiamond]

65. I LOVE this guy!! "Defender of the defended! Protector of the protected! Voice of the voiceful!"

I totally get it!! Thank you, Matt Lubensky! You are AWESOME! And HOT!!

[Blue_Tires]

155. Not all men are witty, awesome and hot...

[pipi_k]

70. So, reading through the thread...

and maybe this is just a little simplistic, but whatever...

What the hell is the big problem with simply adding the word "some" to any rant/discussion about a specific group of people?

some men...

some women...

etc.

anything else, IMO, looks rather ignorant and nasty.


Also...the argument about how to women, all men are potential rapists...OK, I can see where and why that would make sense...especially if a woman has already been the victim of some kind of sexual assault.

But I suppose it's a valid feeling even if a woman hasn't ever been assaulted. The point is, it could happen.


What if it was a black man who raped a white woman? What if she now fears only black men? Is she being unreasonable? Is she being racist, but not sexist?


Or, how about from the other side...I've known some men who got badly hurt from women, who then go on to develop some burning hatred toward, and fear of, the rest of the women in the world.

They see every woman as being a potential greedy bitch/golddigger/liar/cheater/etc. I don't know about anyone else, but I personally don't like being judged based on what someone else did to them.

And I imagine that men aren't thrilled with being thought of as being potential rapists, either.

And just to clarify...I'm not sticking up for one side over the other. As usual, I see this as being an issue that doesn't have a totally black and white, one-size-fits-all, answer.

[Katashi_itto]

79. Likely It's flamebait,

[maddezmom]

81. Exactly it is a gray area

I have no problem adding some, a few, many as descriptor.

[Marr]

100. Then it wouldn't be a broadbrush insult. Where's the fun in that?

Qualifiers such as some, most, many, etc., are often what separates useful discussion from simple in-group/out-group bigotry.

[Springslips]

109. This.

Plus one.

[Vattel]

83. I hate the way that feminists make sweeping generalizations about men.

The joke, of course, is that this is itself a sweeping generalization. It would be better to say. "I hate the way SOME feminists make sweeping generalizations about men."

[rrneck]

85. And now for the thread's greatest hits...

These are your words in this thread:

7. who says all men?

10.(Nye Bevan) I have been told here that "all men benefit from rape", for example
12. In some fashion they do.

16. ...any man can be seen to her as a potential rapist....

39. There was nothing absolutist stated.

38. No one is associating any individual male with rape.

14. To women walking alone in a parking garage all men to them are potential rapists.

27. ah, what did I say... The act of rape perpetuates rape culture... surely you can see that.

22. I am not saying all women fear all men all the time, for Christ sakes.

21. (Nye Bevan) How about an 80-year old guy accompanied by his daughter and granddaughters? Potential rapist?
24. Probably not.

25. And still there are those stating... NOT ALL MEN

64. In the context that it is meant it is the truth. Sorry. (My favorite ed.)

Nice thread. It's got a good beat. It's easy to dance to. I'd give it an eight.

[pintobean]

87. I Got Stung

[WatermelonRat]

89. It's a valid statement if someone is broadbrushing.

If someone is NOT broadbrushing, however, it is derailment.

[gollygee]

90. Are people deliberately misunderstanding the "potential rapist" thing?

Or maybe they really don't get it?

It isn't really that "every man is a potential rapist." It's more like if you're in the dark walking to your car and you see a man you don't know, that man is a potential rapist, regardless of who he is - any man in that situation could be a rapist and you, therefore, shouldn't invite him over to your car or anything.

[rrneck]

91. He's also a potential mugger.

Or even *gasp* a potential proselytizing evangelical. Maybe even all three. He's a potential anything.

[gollygee]

92. That doesn't stop him from being a potential rapist

I don't get your point. The issue isn't that women are going to be wary of men they don't know in some circumstances because they've learned that bad things can happen. Also, in our society, women sometimes get blamed for their own rapes, so they've learned that something bad might happen AND that they themselves might end up taking the blame.

[rrneck]

93. The same can be said for the other three examples. nt

[gollygee]

94. Not really.

[rrneck]

134. Why? ntt

[hfojvt]

95. I understand that one just fine

It simply means that people who do not know me, have no reason to trust me - about anything. Most men are not rapists just like most people are not carjackers, but the ones who are, do not wear neon signs making them easily distinguishable from the rest of us.

[gollygee]

96. Yes, exactly

And rapists, and carjackers, are both more likely to be hanging around dark parking garages. So when you're there, you're on alert, and seeing someone you don't know might make you nervous.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

126. you got it.

pass it on.

[pipi_k]

110. But what about

a pizza delivery guy who comes to your house at 9PM to deliver your pizza...

an apartment building with a laundry in the basement...it could be high noon, but that wouldn't stop a guy from raping someone if he wanted...

a guy like Ted Bundy, who did his thing right out in the open, luring women any way he could, and then actually killing them...


It's not just dark alleys and parking lots...it could be literally anywhere, and often is.


I actually wish that self defense classes could be taught in schools...at least to young girls/women.

Some men might say to that, "Well what about US???" Well, OK...everyone should know how to defend him/herself...but women most of all need that knowledge.

[MadrasT]

117. The guest-star appearances of people BEING THIS GUY in this thread are priceless. n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

125. award winning, they should be. like performance art, right on cue

and the hides and leaves are a real wtf, too.

This dog and pony show has been brought to you by

The Audi4*

*this is the ad appearing on my screen as I type.

[whatchamacallit]

129. So productive!

[Damansarajaya]

140. +1 Rename the place GenderWar Underground. nt

[dilby]

141. This reminds me of that great cartoon, "Not All Black Men in Hoodies", did you see that one?

When the left uses the rights talking points it's ok as long as it's at a different demographic.

[alp227]

142. where's that toon? nt

[whistler162]

143. Oh joy..... another Mark Twain was right thread!

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt"

[quinnox]

145. Oh, FFS

[GeorgeGist]

146. Not all misandrists ...

are women.

[Zorra]

156. There's no need to fear ~ Not All Woman is here!