Not *all* men

[AthenaAwakened]

Hmmmm.

Chris Rock used to do a joke in his stand up about L'il John, the rapper. Now for those of you who don't know L'il John or his work, he's a rapper who likes to party and like to call women 'hos. In the joke, Chris asks a young woman at a club why she is dancing to a song by L'il John that is calling her a 'ho.

The young woman's answer:

"He ain't talkin' 'bout me."


That is a interesting answer, in that it doesn't challenge the statement made by L'il John, but at the same time it let's it be known that there exists in the world of real things people outside of his blanket statement.

NOT ALL MEN, although it may seem the same type of statement, isn't. And its intent is to challenge the validity of whatever statement it is in answer to.

If i were to say men pee standing up, you could then say "not all men" and you would be right. But odds say you wouldn't say that. You would probably say nothing and wait for me to say something that everybody didn't already know. If i were to say men make more money than women, that would more likely get a "not all men" response, even though men in the aggregate do make more money than women in the aggregate and everybody knows that too.

So what happens?

The first conversations about peeing positions gets to go on and talk about peeing positions, but the second conversation which way supposed to be about women being paid less than men becomes about who various sub groups of men are paid the same or even less than women, how women, by not conducting their work lives like men, cause their own paychecks to come up short, how the rules of the free market can not allow special dispensation for mothers because that would not be fair to men, and so on.

A discussion about a real problem that no one argues with get diverted into a dozen other discussions where women (in this case but it also applies to discussions of race, class, ableness, etc.) become oppressors or idiots and men are virtuous, wise or even pegged as the real victims.

This is a problem.

 

[ksen]

Hmmmm.

Chris Rock used to do a joke in his stand up about L'il John, the rapper. Now for those of you who don't know L'il John or his work, he's a rapper who likes to party and like to call women 'hos. In the joke, Chris asks a young woman at a club why she is dancing to a song by L'il John that is calling her a 'ho.

The young woman's answer:

"He ain't talkin' 'bout me."


That is a interesting answer, in that it doesn't challenge the statement made by L'il John, but at the same time it let's it be known that there exists in the world of real things people outside of his blanket statement.

NOT ALL MEN, although it may seem the same type of statement, isn't. And its intent is to challenge the validity of whatever statement it is in answer to.

If i were to say men pee standing up, you could then say "not all men" and you would be right. But odds say you wouldn't say that. You would probably say nothing and wait for me to say something that everybody didn't already know. If i were to say men make more money than women, that would more likely get a "not all men" response, even though men in the aggregate do make more money than women in the aggregate and everybody knows that too.

So what happens?

The first conversations about peeing positions gets to go on and talk about peeing positions, but the second conversation which way supposed to be about women being paid less than men becomes about who various sub groups of men are paid the same or even less than women, how women, by not conducting their work lives like men, cause their own paychecks to come up short, how the rules of the free market can not allow special dispensation for mothers because that would not be fair to men, and so on.

A discussion about a real problem that no one argues with get diverted into a dozen other discussions where women (in this case but it also applies to discussions of race, class, ableness, etc.) become oppressors or idiots and men are virtuous, wise or even pegged as the real victims.

This is a problem.

Exactly.

Thanks for chicksplainin' it to us.

 

[Terrell]

We should judge people on what they do, as individuals, rather than what demographic group they belong to. You can apply that standard across lines of gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, and several others. Let's also have the same set of rules for everyone.

 

[Deepak]

It's easy to deal with the "all men" fallacy. I just say, "A lot of men do a lot things. Right now, all you have to worry about is one man and what he's going to do."

Great elevator pickup line, or the greatest elevator pickup line?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If i were to say men pee standing up, you could then say "not all men" and you would be right. But odds say you wouldn't say that. You would probably say nothing and wait for me to say something that everybody didn't already know. If i were to say men make more money than women, that would more likely get a "not all men" response, even though men in the aggregate do make more money than women in the aggregate and everybody knows that too.

What you are getting in this situation is a defensive "yeah... but.." response. You get it because the listener is reading into what you have said and is anticipating where you are going, and because you are tying individuals to something perceived as negative, due to inclusion in a category. It becomes important to make the distinction of not-all-men, so that not all men are painted negatively, lest the next step be a man-hating festival, possibly leading to actions or rules against men in general. This doesn't just apply to gender. When anybody talks about muslims are this-or-that, you are guaranteed to hear somebody say "not all muslims".

It becomes especially likely get this response if people already see the speaker as against the group they are speaking about. The identity of the speaker matters just as much as the listener.

 

[Nexus]

It becomes important to make the distinction of not-all-men, so that not all men are painted negatively, lest the next step be a man-hating festival, possibly leading to actions or rules against men in general. This doesn't just apply to gender. When anybody talks about muslims are this-or-that, you are guaranteed to hear somebody say "not all muslims".

It becomes especially likely get this response if people already see the speaker as against the group they are speaking about. The identity of the speaker matters just as much as the listener.

If that cartoon had "muslims" in place of "men" some of the people in this thread would be arguing the opposite of their posts right now.

 

[Elixir]

Great elevator pickup line, or the greatest elevator pickup line?

You're doing it wrong. Elevators are supposed to pick you up.

 

[Deepak]

Great elevator pickup line, or the greatest elevator pickup line?

You're doing it wrong. Elevators are supposed to pick you up.

What a country!

 

[Bronzeage]

It's easy to deal with the "all men" fallacy. I just say, "A lot of men do a lot things. Right now, all you have to worry about is one man and what he's going to do."

Great elevator pickup line, or the greatest elevator pickup line?

If I was in an elevator with a woman and I was in a real hurry, and I had to know if she had pepper spray in her purse, that is the line I would use.

 

[credoconsolans]

OK, but let's stick to the subject. The vast majority of politicians ARE men, the vast majority of criminals ARE men, the vast majority of soldiers ARE men, the vast majority of law enforcement ARE men.

All true. But what possible use is this information?

Are you kidding? It's to show how women spend their entire lives and have ever since there has been - probably - civilization under the control of men.

If the social theory is correct and there has never been a matriarchy as there has been a patriarchy, then men have never been in the same situation as women.

It doesn't help in recognising politicians, criminals, soldiers or members of the law enforcement community.

It helps to emphasize that women are controlled by laws created by men (mostly for men), that the laws are enforced mostly by men, and that if women are ever victimized at home or in the street by crime, it will have been committed mostly by men.

It doesn't help separate politicians from criminals, or from soldiers; it is a singularly useless set of facts.

Not if you're paying attention.

Pick a person at random, and the chances are very, very slim that that person will be in one of those four categories.

They don't have to be. Right now there are 26 million people in the state of Texas. 13 million of them are female, with probably 10 million of them being women or young women. Right now 80% of the politicians in the state of Texas are men. The governor is a man. Right now, the governor and the Houses passed laws that were specifically restrictive to women's family planning clinics that offered abortion.

There were 40 clinics a few years ago.

There are 4 now. For the entire state. In Mississippi, I believe there is one clinic left.

Women don't have to KNOW a politician or a police officer to be negatively affected by men being in charge of society.

 

[RavenSky]

Sweeping generalizations are bad for everyone

Oh, good one! I'll have to remember that.

 

[zorq]

It helps to emphasize that women are controlled by laws created by men (mostly for men), that the laws are enforced mostly by men, and that if women are ever victimized at home or in the street by crime, it will have been committed mostly by men.

...

They don't have to be. Right now there are 26 million people in the state of Texas. 13 million of them are female, with probably 10 million of them being women or young women. Right now 80% of the politicians in the state of Texas are men. The governor is a man. Right now, the governor and the Houses passed laws that were specifically restrictive to women's family planning clinics that offered abortion.

There were 40 clinics a few years ago.

There are 4 now. For the entire state. In Mississippi, I believe there is one clinic left.

Women don't have to KNOW a politician or a police officer to be negatively affected by men being in charge of society.

Frankly, I predict that in an alternate reality where only women had decided to run for political office in Texas over the past 30 years that you would be seeing the same sort of outcomes regarding this issue. I predict that voters would still have voted in extremely conservative candidates in most of the districts in Texas; and I expect that abortion related bills would have been proposed and passed just as often. Just because the politicians are men does not directly cause female suppression. In fact, I predict that most female (or male) Republican voters in our regular reality don't see the elimination of abortion clinics in Texas as a "women's issue" at all.

What I'm saying is that the sex of the messenger doesn't necessarily change the message. And the sex of the politician doesn't necessarily change the politics. The sex of the police officer doesn't necessarily change the enforcement of the law. The sex of the criminal doesn't necessarily change the severity of the crime.

I agree with bilby. These facts don't help us.

 

[zorq]

I understand that some people may feel victimized when they are prevented from broad-brushing a negative stereotype onto an entire category of humanity. I also understand that they should get over that victimization because propagating negative stereotypes is a shitty thing to do.

If people want to have discussions about something as complex as the characteristics of humanity they ought to get used to using a little more nuance and tact. It simply makes communicating your ideas more efficient.

 

[Jarhyn]

It helps to emphasize that women are controlled by laws created by men (mostly for men), that the laws are enforced mostly by men, and that if women are ever victimized at home or in the street by crime, it will have been committed mostly by men.

...

They don't have to be. Right now there are 26 million people in the state of Texas. 13 million of them are female, with probably 10 million of them being women or young women. Right now 80% of the politicians in the state of Texas are men. The governor is a man. Right now, the governor and the Houses passed laws that were specifically restrictive to women's family planning clinics that offered abortion.

There were 40 clinics a few years ago.

There are 4 now. For the entire state. In Mississippi, I believe there is one clinic left.

Women don't have to KNOW a politician or a police officer to be negatively affected by men being in charge of society.

Frankly, I predict that in an alternate reality where only women had decided to run for political office in Texas over the past 30 years that you would be seeing the same sort of outcomes regarding this issue. I predict that voters would still have voted in extremely conservative candidates in most of the districts in Texas; and I expect that abortion related bills would have been proposed and passed just as often. Just because the politicians are men does not directly cause female suppression. In fact, I predict that most female (or male) Republican voters in our regular reality don't see the elimination of abortion clinics in Texas as a "women's issue" at all.

What I'm saying is that the sex of the messenger doesn't necessarily change the message. And the sex of the politician doesn't necessarily change the politics. The sex of the police officer doesn't necessarily change the enforcement of the law. The sex of the criminal doesn't necessarily change the severity of the crime.

I agree with bilby. These facts don't help us.

Admittedly when I see a female cop, I put more effort into not pissing her off. While I think people ought be evaluated on a per person basis, there is also the expectation that dangerous gambles should be avoided. In aggregate, female cops are much less lenient and understanding than male cops, because male cops are in general less accepting of female cops. So this odd dynamic arises where there is an institutional pressure for female cops to be 'ball busters'. Not to mention that female cops also get it from offenders too.

So when I see a cop with breasts, I give wide berth. It's the same as when I saw a dog without a collar in the ME. It MIGHT be friendly and well adjusted, but the risk of being bit by a rabid bitch is just too high.

That as much as any other thing is a good reason to discourage gender based distinctions.

 

[credoconsolans]

It helps to emphasize that women are controlled by laws created by men (mostly for men), that the laws are enforced mostly by men, and that if women are ever victimized at home or in the street by crime, it will have been committed mostly by men.

...

They don't have to be. Right now there are 26 million people in the state of Texas. 13 million of them are female, with probably 10 million of them being women or young women. Right now 80% of the politicians in the state of Texas are men. The governor is a man. Right now, the governor and the Houses passed laws that were specifically restrictive to women's family planning clinics that offered abortion.

There were 40 clinics a few years ago.

There are 4 now. For the entire state. In Mississippi, I believe there is one clinic left.

Women don't have to KNOW a politician or a police officer to be negatively affected by men being in charge of society.

Frankly, I predict that in an alternate reality where only women had decided to run for political office in Texas over the past 30 years that you would be seeing the same sort of outcomes regarding this issue. I predict that voters would still have voted in extremely conservative candidates in most of the districts in Texas; and I expect that abortion related bills would have been proposed and passed just as often. Just because the politicians are men does not directly cause female suppression. In fact, I predict that most female (or male) Republican voters in our regular reality don't see the elimination of abortion clinics in Texas as a "women's issue" at all.

What I'm saying is that the sex of the messenger doesn't necessarily change the message. And the sex of the politician doesn't necessarily change the politics. The sex of the police officer doesn't necessarily change the enforcement of the law. The sex of the criminal doesn't necessarily change the severity of the crime.

I agree with bilby. These facts don't help us.

I disagree, this falls right back under the 'not all men' response.

I point out that women have not benefitted from living under the control of men and people come back with, 'well the sex doesn't really matter'.

Well, obviously it DOES.

SOMEone has been passing these laws that are detrimental to women and since men have been in charge and dominate both government and law enforcement and other cultural and government groups, I'd say these facts are self-evident.

 

[bigfield]

It helps to emphasize that women are controlled by laws created by men (mostly for men), that the laws are enforced mostly by men, and that if women are ever victimized at home or in the street by crime, it will have been committed mostly by men.

...

They don't have to be. Right now there are 26 million people in the state of Texas. 13 million of them are female, with probably 10 million of them being women or young women. Right now 80% of the politicians in the state of Texas are men. The governor is a man. Right now, the governor and the Houses passed laws that were specifically restrictive to women's family planning clinics that offered abortion.

There were 40 clinics a few years ago.

There are 4 now. For the entire state. In Mississippi, I believe there is one clinic left.

Women don't have to KNOW a politician or a police officer to be negatively affected by men being in charge of society.

Frankly, I predict that in an alternate reality where only women had decided to run for political office in Texas over the past 30 years that you would be seeing the same sort of outcomes regarding this issue. I predict that voters would still have voted in extremely conservative candidates in most of the districts in Texas; and I expect that abortion related bills would have been proposed and passed just as often. Just because the politicians are men does not directly cause female suppression. In fact, I predict that most female (or male) Republican voters in our regular reality don't see the elimination of abortion clinics in Texas as a "women's issue" at all.

What I'm saying is that the sex of the messenger doesn't necessarily change the message. And the sex of the politician doesn't necessarily change the politics. The sex of the police officer doesn't necessarily change the enforcement of the law. The sex of the criminal doesn't necessarily change the severity of the crime.

I agree with bilby. These facts don't help us.

I disagree, this falls right back under the 'not all men' response.

I point out that women have not benefitted from living under the control of men and people come back with, 'well the sex doesn't really matter'.

Well, obviously it DOES.

SOMEone has been passing these laws that are detrimental to women and since men have been in charge and dominate both government and law enforcement and other cultural and government groups, I'd say these facts are self-evident.

What is your point?

What would be different if women were the majority of police, legislators, government officials, and street criminals?

 

[credoconsolans]

It helps to emphasize that women are controlled by laws created by men (mostly for men), that the laws are enforced mostly by men, and that if women are ever victimized at home or in the street by crime, it will have been committed mostly by men.

...

They don't have to be. Right now there are 26 million people in the state of Texas. 13 million of them are female, with probably 10 million of them being women or young women. Right now 80% of the politicians in the state of Texas are men. The governor is a man. Right now, the governor and the Houses passed laws that were specifically restrictive to women's family planning clinics that offered abortion.

There were 40 clinics a few years ago.

There are 4 now. For the entire state. In Mississippi, I believe there is one clinic left.

Women don't have to KNOW a politician or a police officer to be negatively affected by men being in charge of society.

Frankly, I predict that in an alternate reality where only women had decided to run for political office in Texas over the past 30 years that you would be seeing the same sort of outcomes regarding this issue. I predict that voters would still have voted in extremely conservative candidates in most of the districts in Texas; and I expect that abortion related bills would have been proposed and passed just as often. Just because the politicians are men does not directly cause female suppression. In fact, I predict that most female (or male) Republican voters in our regular reality don't see the elimination of abortion clinics in Texas as a "women's issue" at all.

What I'm saying is that the sex of the messenger doesn't necessarily change the message. And the sex of the politician doesn't necessarily change the politics. The sex of the police officer doesn't necessarily change the enforcement of the law. The sex of the criminal doesn't necessarily change the severity of the crime.

I agree with bilby. These facts don't help us.

I disagree, this falls right back under the 'not all men' response.

I point out that women have not benefitted from living under the control of men and people come back with, 'well the sex doesn't really matter'.

Well, obviously it DOES.

SOMEone has been passing these laws that are detrimental to women and since men have been in charge and dominate both government and law enforcement and other cultural and government groups, I'd say these facts are self-evident.

What is your point?

What would be different if women were the majority of police, legislators, government officials, and street criminals?

For women? Absolutely.

 

[bigfield]

I asked what would be different.

 

[Bronzeage]

I asked what would be different.

It would be like being 4 years old and being the youngest of four children, with three older sisters.

 

[Jarhyn]

I asked what would be different.

Well, Some things would be different, since there are differences in various means between 'men' and 'women'. But for all rational purposes, the situation would be analogous.