Not *all* men

[Terrell]

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.

So what if you find it annoying. Why shouldn't that same thing apply when it's going in the other direction? Why should it only apply to one argument (NAMALT), and not the other (NAWALT)? How is one argument inherently any less or more annoying than the other, beyond which group is being favored, or personal preference?

 

[ksen]

So what if you find it annoying.

The women it keeps happening to find it annoying.

Why shouldn't that same thing apply when it's going in the other direction?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

Why should it only apply to one argument (NAMALT), and not the other (NAWALT)?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

How is one argument inherently any less or more annoying than the other, beyond which group is being favored, or personal preference?

Nobody said it wasn't.

 

[Terrell]

The women it keeps happening to find it annoying.

Why shouldn't that same thing apply when it's going in the other direction?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

Why should it only apply to one argument (NAMALT), and not the other (NAWALT)?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

How is one argument inherently any less or more annoying than the other, beyond which group is being favored, or personal preference?

Nobody said it wasn't.

And why should the woman's annoyance take precedence over the annoyance of any other group? Given that women (or men) are not a monolithic group in terms of their opinions, I would think that there are some women who think it's valid, at least in some contexts. Not to mention some women are equally annoyed by women who make the NAWALT argument.

 

[ksen]

The women it keeps happening to find it annoying.

Why shouldn't that same thing apply when it's going in the other direction?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

Why should it only apply to one argument (NAMALT), and not the other (NAWALT)?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

How is one argument inherently any less or more annoying than the other, beyond which group is being favored, or personal preference?

Nobody said it wasn't.

And why should the woman's annoyance take precedence over the annoyance of any other group?

Nobody said it does.

 

[Terrell]

The women it keeps happening to find it annoying.

Why shouldn't that same thing apply when it's going in the other direction?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

Why should it only apply to one argument (NAMALT), and not the other (NAWALT)?

Nobody said it shouldn't.

How is one argument inherently any less or more annoying than the other, beyond which group is being favored, or personal preference?

Nobody said it wasn't.

And why should the woman's annoyance take precedence over the annoyance of any other group?

Nobody said it does.

Then why the objection when it's in one direction, (NAMALT) but not the other direction (NAWALT)?

 

[ksen]

Then why the objection when it's in one direction, (NAMALT) but not the other direction (NAWALT)?

I missed where someone was objecting to it happening only one way.

But hey, thanks for taking the time to move a thread about women to try and make it a thread about men.

 

[Terrell]

Then why the objection when it's in one direction, (NAMALT) but not the other direction (NAWALT)?

I missed where someone was objecting to it happening only one way.

But hey, thanks for taking the time to move a thread about women to try and make it a thread about men.

And this isn't? Since the thread itself is criticizing men who attack generalizations against them as a gender, why is it not fair to question if the person is willing to hold his favored group (women) to the same standard. If they're not willing to hold their favored group to the same standard they are complaining that another group won't follow, why is it not fair game to call them out on their hypocrisy?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Well said. And it amazes me that people can see this when we talk about muslims, women, black people, or any other group they perceive as victimized, but can't see it when we talk about men.

Nobody here would get riled up if you said any of:

Not all women are submissive
Not all muslims are violent
Not all black people are poor and uneducated

In fact, I think people here can see why saying such things is important in the face of people broad brushing entire categories of humanity.

pointing out that not all (fill in the blank) do this thing or another is not the problem. It's the next step into endless derails and sometimes outright lying that is the problem. And the use of NOT ALL MEN to move the discussion to FEW IF ANY MEN EVER.

(but you guys are smart so you already knew that.)

I want to see if you are blinded by your biases. Can you see the same thing happening in the other cases above where people speak in generalities of entire groups of humanity?

Have you noticed people saying "not all Muslims" when conversations are about violence endorsed by Muslims? Can you see why people may say "not all Muslims" to that? Does it bother you when they do? It derails the conversation.

Can you see why somebody may say "Not all black folks" if the conversation is about "black culture", with black people being counter culture instead of "acting white"? Does it bother you when they do? It derails the conversation.

Can you see why somebody may say "Not all women" if the conversation is about how women are submissive and want to be taken care of? Does it bother you when they do? It derails the conversation.

It is remarkable when people prone to leaping into conversations to shout "Not All X!", usually in a hostile tone, complain about others doing it when X happens to be men.

 

[Elixir]

There are two kinds of people: those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who do not.
I am of the first kind - I know there are two kinds of people - those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who do not.

 

[ksen]

Then why the objection when it's in one direction, (NAMALT) but not the other direction (NAWALT)?

I missed where someone was objecting to it happening only one way.

But hey, thanks for taking the time to move a thread about women to try and make it a thread about men.

And this isn't? Since the thread itself is criticizing men who attack generalizations against them as a gender, why is it not fair to question if the person is willing to hold his favored group (women) to the same standard. If they're not willing to hold their favored group to the same standard they are complaining that another group won't follow, why is it not fair game to call them out on their hypocrisy?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

Well said. And it amazes me that people can see this when we talk about muslims, women, black people, or any other group they perceive as victimized, but can't see it when we talk about men.

Nobody here would get riled up if you said any of:

Not all women are submissive
Not all muslims are violent
Not all black people are poor and uneducated

In fact, I think people here can see why saying such things is important in the face of people broad brushing entire categories of humanity.

pointing out that not all (fill in the blank) do this thing or another is not the problem. It's the next step into endless derails and sometimes outright lying that is the problem. And the use of NOT ALL MEN to move the discussion to FEW IF ANY MEN EVER.

(but you guys are smart so you already knew that.)

I want to see if you are blinded by your biases. Can you see the same thing happening in the other cases above where people speak in generalities of entire groups of humanity?

Have you noticed people saying "not all Muslims" when conversations are about violence endorsed by Muslims? Can you see why people may say "not all Muslims" to that? Does it bother you when they do? It derails the conversation.

Can you see why somebody may say "Not all black folks" if the conversation is about "black culture", with black people being counter culture instead of "acting white"? Does it bother you when they do? It derails the conversation.

Can you see why somebody may say "Not all women" if the conversation is about how women are submissive and want to be taken care of? Does it bother you when they do? It derails the conversation.

It is remarkable when people prone to leaping into conversations to shout "Not All X!", usually in a hostile tone, complain about others doing it when X happens to be men.

I don't have a problem with NOT ALL X

I have a problem with this.

This right here.

The OP starts off with a comic take on the use of NOT ALL X to derail discussions, usually into several discussions, all of which are designed to ignore the original proposition or to turn the original proposition on its head, even when that original proposition has a shit ton of evidence backing it up. This is usually done to avoid dealing with some personal shortcoming the "diverter" doesn't want to deal with or have found out.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. It is fine and proper to point out that qualifiers such as "all, every, always, never," (stated or implied) can and often do lead to erroneous generalizations and inaccurate beliefs. But to use these words to avoid wrestling the original proposition and to impune that proposition or belittle it without having actually disproving it or honestly critiquing it, is wrong and it is dishonest and really quite sad.

 

[Terrell]

Then why the objection when it's in one direction, (NAMALT) but not the other direction (NAWALT)?

I missed where someone was objecting to it happening only one way.

But hey, thanks for taking the time to move a thread about women to try and make it a thread about men.

And this isn't? Since the thread itself is criticizing men who attack generalizations against them as a gender, why is it not fair to question if the person is willing to hold his favored group (women) to the same standard. If they're not willing to hold their favored group to the same standard they are complaining that another group won't follow, why is it not fair game to call them out on their hypocrisy?

In other words, you don't have an argument against those who question whether or not you will hold your favored groups to standards you demand of groups you don't favor. If you aren't willing to hold your favored group to the same standard how is said position not hypocritical?

 

[ksen]

If you aren't willing to hold your favored group to the same standard how is said position not hypocritical?

Since I've explicitly said I have no problem with holding both groups to the same standard then I have to wonder what thread you've been reading to get this so wrong.

 

[Terrell]

If you aren't willing to hold your favored group to the same standard how is said position not hypocritical?

Since I've explicitly said I have no problem with holding both groups to the same standard then I have to wonder what thread you've been reading to get this so wrong.

We'll see if you're willing to live up to that standard over time. Until then, it would be better if we don't use sweeping generalizations against any demographic group, as a whole, for the bad behavior of a subset of said group. That opens the door to the NAWALT/NAMALT argument. Some men are assholes, some are not. The same can be said of women, or any other demographic group, where said members are old enough to have moral agency.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you aren't willing to hold your favored group to the same standard how is said position not hypocritical?

Since I've explicitly said I have no problem with holding both groups to the same standard then I have to wonder what thread you've been reading to get this so wrong.

We'll see if you're willing to live up to that standard over time. Until then, it would be better if we don't use sweeping generalizations against any demographic group, as a whole, for the bad behavior of a subset of said group. That opens the door to the NAWALT/NAMALT argument. Some men are assholes, some are not. The same can be said of women, or any other demographic group, where said members are old enough to have moral agency.

Well, not *ALL* demographic groups.

 

[Terrell]

If you aren't willing to hold your favored group to the same standard how is said position not hypocritical?

Since I've explicitly said I have no problem with holding both groups to the same standard then I have to wonder what thread you've been reading to get this so wrong.

We'll see if you're willing to live up to that standard over time. Until then, it would be better if we don't use sweeping generalizations against any demographic group, as a whole, for the bad behavior of a subset of said group. That opens the door to the NAWALT/NAMALT argument. Some men are assholes, some are not. The same can be said of women, or any other demographic group, where said members are old enough to have moral agency.

Well, not *ALL* demographic groups.

I'm guessing you're joking, but not sure, absent an emoticon.

 

[ksen]

If you aren't willing to hold your favored group to the same standard how is said position not hypocritical?

Since I've explicitly said I have no problem with holding both groups to the same standard then I have to wonder what thread you've been reading to get this so wrong.

We'll see if you're willing to live up to that standard over time. Until then, it would be better if we don't use sweeping generalizations against any demographic group, as a whole, for the bad behavior of a subset of said group. That opens the door to the NAWALT/NAMALT argument. Some men are assholes, some are not. The same can be said of women, or any other demographic group, where said members are old enough to have moral agency.

Thanks for mansplainin' and setting everyone straight.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, not *ALL* demographic groups.

I'm guessing you're joking, but not sure, absent an emoticon.

Not *ALL* jokes need emoticons.

 

[ksen]

Not *ALL* posters need to keep posting.

 

[Terrell]

If you aren't willing to hold your favored group to the same standard how is said position not hypocritical?

Since I've explicitly said I have no problem with holding both groups to the same standard then I have to wonder what thread you've been reading to get this so wrong.

We'll see if you're willing to live up to that standard over time. Until then, it would be better if we don't use sweeping generalizations against any demographic group, as a whole, for the bad behavior of a subset of said group. That opens the door to the NAWALT/NAMALT argument. Some men are assholes, some are not. The same can be said of women, or any other demographic group, where said members are old enough to have moral agency.

Thanks for mansplainin' and setting everyone straight.

Mansplining', Womansplaning', Muslimsplainin' (insert other group here) same thing, different group. Valid criticism against sweeping generalizations.

Well, not *ALL* demographic groups.

I'm guessing you're joking, but not sure, absent an emoticon.

Not *ALL* jokes need emoticons.

Okay, cool. I thought so, but wasn't sure.