Not *all* men

[Terrell]

As for life and car insurance, sorry, that's a business decision based on traffic and actuarial statistics. Men need to quit driving like assholes who are going to live forever and maybe their rates will drop.

Problem with basing it on actuarial statistics is that it effectively punishes the men who don't drive like assholes. How exactly am I supposed to make men I don't even know, much less have authority over, drive in ways that aren't assholish? Since no one gets to choose their gender, I don't think it should be held against them.

Instead if you have two drivers of equal driving records & identical policies, why not charge them the same amount? If one of them turns out to be a screw up then raise that person's rates, but don't raise the rates for people who personally didn't do anything wrong, based on something over which they have no control.

 

[bigfield]

I asked what would be different.

Sorry, my mistake.

Obviously women would be in positions of power, they would be legislating laws that did not put them at a disadvantage, their healthcare, education, childcare and rights would be of primary importance and not something to be put off until 'more important' things were dealt with, I think this is all self-evident.

At the moment, men hold the majority of positions of authority, and those authorities have made laws and policies which variously favour both men and women. Depending on what jurisdiction one is in, the favouristism differs.

Men in positions of authority do a great many injustices to men without authority or power; what makes you think women in the majority of positions of authority would not do the same to women, particularly women outside of their favoured social classes?

Political groups are mixed gender. Women are conservatives, liberals, radical socialists, libertarians etc. Conservative women want much different things than liberal women; each group has a different idea about what is good for women at large, just as each group has a different idea of what's good for the entire populace.

What you seem to be describing is a scenario in which the majority of people in authority are not merely women, but women of a particular, shared political alignment. It is probable that men with the same political alignment, elected to the same positions, would act very similarly.

 

[Togo]

Certainly my experience with student politics is that women don't notably have a more coherent view of what is 'fair' in gender politics than men do. There tends to be disagreement with the policies at the top irrespective of the gender of the people making them. Granted student councils can't change the overall culture, but then politicians can't obviously do so either.

I've not come across the 'Not all men...' meme before, and some the cartoons are pretty funny. But the sweeping generalisation that the objection 'not all men...' is always an attempt to derail a conversation with pedantry is no more accurate than the sweeping generalisations that invited the comment in the first place. While I'm all for promoting useful dialogue over needless nit-picking, there does need to be at least some attempt to avoid sweeping generalisations about gender, and demonising those who object to it, however justified you feel that demonization is, is not the most productive way forward.

 

[bigfield]

To add to my previous post:

Obviously women would be in positions of power, they would be legislating laws that did not put them at a disadvantage, their healthcare, education, childcare and rights would be of primary importance and not something to be put off until 'more important' things were dealt with, I think this is all self-evident.

You answered the question with respect to women in the legislature, but you have not answered with respect to police officers, criminals, and soldiers.

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.

What differences would there be if women were the majority of police officers, criminals, and soldiers?

 

[Bronzeage]

A topical meme that's making the rounds.

 

[Terrell]

Should all women have to eat some of the blame for bad things which some women have done? If not, why should all men have to eat some of the blame for bad things some men have done? Also if so, how is it different than expecting all Black (Latino) men to eat some of the blame for the bad actions of some Black (Latino) men. (same for Muslims) When that's expected, especially by the police we call it racial profiling. We usually condemn said profiling as unfair, and rightfully so. Why should gender profiling be any less unjust?

Why not have the same standard for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in your particular favored group?

 

[ksen]

Should all women have to eat some of the blame for bad things which some women have done? If not, why should all men have to eat some of the blame for bad things some men have done? Also if so, how is it different than expecting all Black (Latino) men to eat some of the blame for the bad actions of some Black (Latino) men. (same for Muslims) When that's expected, especially by the police we call it racial profiling. We usually condemn said profiling as unfair, and rightfully so. Why should gender profiling be any less unjust?

Why not have the same standard for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in your particular favored group?

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

 

[Terrell]

Should all women have to eat some of the blame for bad things which some women have done? If not, why should all men have to eat some of the blame for bad things some men have done? Also if so, how is it different than expecting all Black (Latino) men to eat some of the blame for the bad actions of some Black (Latino) men. (same for Muslims) When that's expected, especially by the police we call it racial profiling. We usually condemn said profiling as unfair, and rightfully so. Why should gender profiling be any less unjust?

Why not have the same standard for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in your particular favored group?

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

 

[Derec]

A topical meme that's making the rounds.
View attachment 328

 

[Derec]

A topical meme that's making the rounds.
View attachment 328

- - - Updated - - -

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

So what you are saying is that men should shut up unless being spoken to?

 

[ksen]

Should all women have to eat some of the blame for bad things which some women have done? If not, why should all men have to eat some of the blame for bad things some men have done? Also if so, how is it different than expecting all Black (Latino) men to eat some of the blame for the bad actions of some Black (Latino) men. (same for Muslims) When that's expected, especially by the police we call it racial profiling. We usually condemn said profiling as unfair, and rightfully so. Why should gender profiling be any less unjust?

Why not have the same standard for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in your particular favored group?

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

Are we in 3rd grade or something? Because this argument sounds suspiciously like something one of my kids would've made back in the 3rd grade, "But dad, my buddy gets to do that how come I can't!?!?"

- - - Updated - - -

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

So what you are saying is that men should shut up unless being spoken to?

No I'm saying you should shut up unless spoken to.

 

[Terrell]

Should all women have to eat some of the blame for bad things which some women have done? If not, why should all men have to eat some of the blame for bad things some men have done? Also if so, how is it different than expecting all Black (Latino) men to eat some of the blame for the bad actions of some Black (Latino) men. (same for Muslims) When that's expected, especially by the police we call it racial profiling. We usually condemn said profiling as unfair, and rightfully so. Why should gender profiling be any less unjust?

Why not have the same standard for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in your particular favored group?

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

Are we in 3rd grade or something? Because this argument sounds suspiciously like something one of my kids would've made back in the 3rd grade, "But dad, my buddy gets to do that how come I can't!?!?"

Can you do better than attacking me for making the argument? What's your specific beef with the substance of my argument, that everyone should be held to the same standard? IOW: Why is it wrong for one group to do it, but not wrong for the other? I'm questioning the rightness or wrongness of making said argument, and why should who you are affect the morality or immorality of making such an argument?

 

[Bronzeage]

Should all women have to eat some of the blame for bad things which some women have done? If not, why should all men have to eat some of the blame for bad things some men have done? Also if so, how is it different than expecting all Black (Latino) men to eat some of the blame for the bad actions of some Black (Latino) men. (same for Muslims) When that's expected, especially by the police we call it racial profiling. We usually condemn said profiling as unfair, and rightfully so. Why should gender profiling be any less unjust?

Why not have the same standard for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in your particular favored group?

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

It's a free country and the 1st amendment gives any man the right to make that argument. A better word in this case would be "suit", as in suitor. Besides needing a Captain Obvious uniform, any man would wants to convince a woman that "not all men" are like that, is really saying, "not this man."

For myself, I'll grant anyone the privilege of hyperbole in ordinary conversation and not demand she acknowledge my above average performance when compared to all men.

 

[Terrell]

Should all women have to eat some of the blame for bad things which some women have done? If not, why should all men have to eat some of the blame for bad things some men have done? Also if so, how is it different than expecting all Black (Latino) men to eat some of the blame for the bad actions of some Black (Latino) men. (same for Muslims) When that's expected, especially by the police we call it racial profiling. We usually condemn said profiling as unfair, and rightfully so. Why should gender profiling be any less unjust?

Why not have the same standard for everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in your particular favored group?

It's not about eating some of the blame. It's about letting women have their conversation without chiming in with a "not all men" and turning the discussion from their issue to your issue.

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

It's a free country and the 1st amendment gives any man the right to make that argument. A better word in this case would be "suit", as in suitor. Besides needing a Captain Obvious uniform, any man would wants to convince a woman that "not all men" are like that, is really saying, "not this man."

For myself, I'll grant anyone the privilege of hyperbole in ordinary conversation and not demand she acknowledge my above average performance when compared to all men.

At least you seem to be consistent. I'm against the idea that one group is entitled, or should be, under social convention to make said argument, while the other group is not. Also how is a woman using the NAWALT version of this argument any different than a man using the NAMALT version?

 

[ksen]

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

Are we in 3rd grade or something? Because this argument sounds suspiciously like something one of my kids would've made back in the 3rd grade, "But dad, my buddy gets to do that how come I can't!?!?"

Can you do better than attacking me for making the argument? What's your specific beef with the substance of my argument, that everyone should be held to the same standard? IOW: Why is it wrong for one group to do it, but not wrong for the other? I'm questioning the rightness or wrongness of making said argument, and why should who you are affect the morality or immorality of making such an argument?

That wasn't an attack on you. That was an attack on an argument that looks almost identical to something a child would use.

Of course everyone should be held to the same standard. But if they're not does that mean you will continue to do it too? As a man it doesn't matter to me if women do it too. It matters to me what I am doing. I'm the only person I can change. And if I know that the "not all men" conversation diverter annoys women I'm going to stop doing it. I'm not going to withhold changing my actions until the offenders on their side change theirs.

They're allowed to have their conversation without me butting in my big, old man-nose to try to mansplain how they're wrong.

 

[Terrell]

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

Are we in 3rd grade or something? Because this argument sounds suspiciously like something one of my kids would've made back in the 3rd grade, "But dad, my buddy gets to do that how come I can't!?!?"

Can you do better than attacking me for making the argument? What's your specific beef with the substance of my argument, that everyone should be held to the same standard? IOW: Why is it wrong for one group to do it, but not wrong for the other? I'm questioning the rightness or wrongness of making said argument, and why should who you are affect the morality or immorality of making such an argument?

That wasn't an attack on you. That was an attack on an argument that looks almost identical to something a child would use.

Of course everyone should be held to the same standard. But if they're not does that mean you will continue to do it too? As a man it doesn't matter to me if women do it too. It matters to me what I am doing. I'm the only person I can change. And if I know that the "not all men" conversation diverter annoys women I'm going to stop doing it. I'm not going to withhold changing my actions until the offenders on their side change theirs.

They're allowed to have their conversation without me butting in my big, old man-nose to try to mansplain how they're wrong.

You imply by your argument that it's wrong to use said argument. I question whether or not it's wrong to do so. If NAMALT is wrong, shouldn't NAWALT also be wrong? This is subjective in nature, whether it's a woman interrupting men's conversations (argument, discussion) with NAWALT, or a man interrupting a woman's conversation (argument, discussion) with NAMALT.

This isn't as clear as Suzi trying to excuse her bad behavior by saying Tammi does it too, if the behavior in question is indeed bad.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Y'all do realize that this thread has become a perfect example of what the OP is talking about, right?

 

[ksen]

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

Are we in 3rd grade or something? Because this argument sounds suspiciously like something one of my kids would've made back in the 3rd grade, "But dad, my buddy gets to do that how come I can't!?!?"

Can you do better than attacking me for making the argument? What's your specific beef with the substance of my argument, that everyone should be held to the same standard? IOW: Why is it wrong for one group to do it, but not wrong for the other? I'm questioning the rightness or wrongness of making said argument, and why should who you are affect the morality or immorality of making such an argument?

That wasn't an attack on you. That was an attack on an argument that looks almost identical to something a child would use.

Of course everyone should be held to the same standard. But if they're not does that mean you will continue to do it too? As a man it doesn't matter to me if women do it too. It matters to me what I am doing. I'm the only person I can change. And if I know that the "not all men" conversation diverter annoys women I'm going to stop doing it. I'm not going to withhold changing my actions until the offenders on their side change theirs.

They're allowed to have their conversation without me butting in my big, old man-nose to try to mansplain how they're wrong.

You imply by your argument that it's wrong to use said argument. I question whether or not it's wrong to do so. If NAMALT is wrong, shouldn't NAWALT also be wrong? This is subjective in nature, whether it's a woman interrupting men's conversations (argument, discussion) with NAWALT, or a man interrupting a woman's conversation (argument, discussion) with NAMALT.

This isn't as clear as Suzi trying to excuse her bad behavior by saying Tammi does it too, if the behavior in question is indeed bad.

If that makes you feel better. :whocares:

 

[Terrell]

So if it's off limits for men to make that argument, is it also off limits for women to make the same argument (NAWALT) when they're on the receiving end of criticism? If not, why the double standard, instead of holding everyone to the same standard?

Are we in 3rd grade or something? Because this argument sounds suspiciously like something one of my kids would've made back in the 3rd grade, "But dad, my buddy gets to do that how come I can't!?!?"

Can you do better than attacking me for making the argument? What's your specific beef with the substance of my argument, that everyone should be held to the same standard? IOW: Why is it wrong for one group to do it, but not wrong for the other? I'm questioning the rightness or wrongness of making said argument, and why should who you are affect the morality or immorality of making such an argument?

That wasn't an attack on you. That was an attack on an argument that looks almost identical to something a child would use.

Of course everyone should be held to the same standard. But if they're not does that mean you will continue to do it too? As a man it doesn't matter to me if women do it too. It matters to me what I am doing. I'm the only person I can change. And if I know that the "not all men" conversation diverter annoys women I'm going to stop doing it. I'm not going to withhold changing my actions until the offenders on their side change theirs.

They're allowed to have their conversation without me butting in my big, old man-nose to try to mansplain how they're wrong.

You imply by your argument that it's wrong to use said argument. I question whether or not it's wrong to do so. If NAMALT is wrong, shouldn't NAWALT also be wrong? This is subjective in nature, whether it's a woman interrupting men's conversations (argument, discussion) with NAWALT, or a man interrupting a woman's conversation (argument, discussion) with NAMALT.

This isn't as clear as Suzi trying to excuse her bad behavior by saying Tammi does it too, if the behavior in question is indeed bad.

If that makes you feel better. :whocares:

Is it right, is it wrong? If it's wrong, then who does it shouldn't affect whether or not it's wrong. Same if it's not wrong. Maybe we should refrain, both male & female, from saying "all men (women) do this particular bad thing". If the thing in question is bad, and you wish to call someone on it, why not call the specific person, rather than their demographic group?

 

[ksen]

Is it right, is it wrong? If it's wrong, then who does it shouldn't affect whether or not it's wrong. Same if it's not wrong. Maybe we should refrain, both male & female, from saying "all men (women) do this particular bad thing". If the thing in question is bad, and you wish to call someone on it, why not call the specific person, rather than their demographic group?

It doesn't have to be "right" or "wrong". It's just annoying as fuck and you're being asked to stop.

But have fun carrying on carrying on.