Not *all* men

[Bronzeage]

Not *ALL* posters need to keep posting.

It does seem to have crossed the line into compulsion.

Please tell me what NAWALT means. I don't want to skim 12 pages, just to find out.

 

[ksen]

I believe it's:

NAWALT = Not All Women Are Like This
NAMALT = Not All Men Are Like This

 

[Terrell]

Not *ALL* posters need to keep posting.

Yet we're free to continue to do so, absent violation of board rules.

 

[Bronzeage]

I believe it's:

NAWALT = Not All Women Are Like This
NAMALT = Not All Men Are Like This

OFFS

 

[Toni]

I believe it's:

NAWALT = Not All Women Are Like This
NAMALT = Not All Men Are Like This

OFFS

^^ I've never seen that before but I know exactly what it means.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just want to know if you notice this happening in threads about Muslims, black people, and women (and other groups), as well as threads about men.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I believe it's:

NAWALT = Not All Women Are Like This
NAMALT = Not All Men Are Like This

OFFS

^^ I've never seen that before but I know exactly what it means.

I feel I too have divined its meaning

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just want to know if you notice this happening in threads about Muslims, black people, and women (and other groups), as well as threads about men.

yes and some people react by going off on a tangent about the wording (as opposed to pointing out that the generalization could cause problems and moving on with the original discussion) and some people are like the girl in the club

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

 

[RavenSky]

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

Heh

 

[RavenSky]

I believe it's:

NAWALT = Not All Women Are Like This
NAMALT = Not All Men Are Like This

OFFS

LOL!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is it that sexism is rampant on this forum? I'm guessing it's that.

 

[Bronzeage]

Is it that sexism is rampant on this forum? I'm guessing it's that.

Not in the usual sense. This forum has a preponderance of those who have difficulty dealing with sex in general and the opposite sex, specifically.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Well it isn't me.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Is it that sexism is rampant on this forum? I'm guessing it's that.

Not necessarily. We all have priorities when it comes to activism. Feminist/male activism and denouncing sexism are simply not part of my top priority list. That in no way makes me an opponent to feminist/male activism and or any type of advocacy against sexism. Just that my main focus remains on human rights violations throughout the international scene as well as institutionalized discrimination against minority ethnic groups. Whether it be here in the US or my country of origin. The organizations and advocacy groups I support are compatible with my top priorities.

I also tend to recognize the individuality of members of X or Y group, and in this particular case gender. Generally when a thread degenerates into gender war crap, I will withdraw. I do because I get caught in the cross fire of opposite sides who often will not appreciate at all anyone who will communicate evenhanded opinions. It creates a climate of " you are with me and my gender or against me and my gender". Balanced and middle ground opinions end up being drowned in the gender war deluges.

 

[Togo]

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.

But that's the problem, is it not? The meme clearly refers to people intruding on a conversation to divert the issue from the topic at hand to whether their group is being accurately represented. The cartoon literally has the guy running through the city before poking his head through a window to a conversation that's nothing to do with him. It's clear what it's about, and I think people get that.

But memes degrade over time. What the meme actually does is demonise a particular form of objection - not ALL x - irrespective of the situation. And while I can well understand how derailing conversations is annoying and to be avoided, using it as a criticism of the position being put forward without actually disproving it or critiquing it isn't wrong, nor is it necessarily dishonest. If your proposition depends on an inaccurate generalisation, it is wrong, and it doesn't need to be critiqued. That's annoying, and pointing it out as a way of disrupting a conversation or derailing a discussion is a problem, but it's also a flaw that is genuinely fatal to any conclusion that relies on it, and that will need to be addressed at some point.

 

[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.

But that's the problem, is it not? The meme clearly refers to people intruding on a conversation to divert the issue from the topic at hand to whether their group is being accurately represented. The cartoon literally has the guy running through the city before poking his head through a window to a conversation that's nothing to do with him. It's clear what it's about, and I think people get that.

But memes degrade over time. What the meme actually does is demonise a particular form of objection - not ALL x - irrespective of the situation. And while I can well understand how derailing conversations is annoying and to be avoided, using it as a criticism of the position being put forward without actually disproving it or critiquing it isn't wrong, nor is it necessarily dishonest. If your proposition depends on an inaccurate generalisation, it is wrong, and it doesn't need to be critiqued. That's annoying, and pointing it out as a way of disrupting a conversation or derailing a discussion is a problem, but it's also a flaw that is genuinely fatal to any conclusion that relies on it, and that will need to be addressed at some point.

if the proportion is wrong, prove it's wrong, don't evade it. I don't have a problem with proving the proposition wrong. I have a problem with misdirection, half truths and just plain wasting time trying to make the clock run out or have one side just walk away exasperated so that come next Tuesday, we can do the same shit all over again because nothing has been resolved.

 

[Togo]

if the proportion is wrong, prove it's wrong, don't evade it.

If the proposition is All Men Do X, then the fact that not all men do X is disproving it. It's not being evaded. It is wrong.

This shouldn't be controversial, lets take an example:

If the proposition is 'I hate it when men open doors for me, we should have the right to refuse this' then the interjection 'not all men' is pointless. It's rude, it derails the conversation, and it isn't relevant, because the problem doesn't depend on what proportion of men do it, or how often.

If the proposition is 'All men are predatory rapists unless stopped, therefore all men should be subject to controls to protect others' then 'not all men' is a rebuttal of the point being made, because the idea that not all men fall into the categorisation is a reason for not applying to suggested solution to them, and trying to disparage that as a response is a dishonest evasion of the point.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

if the proportion is wrong, prove it's wrong, don't evade it.

If the proposition is All Men Do X, then the fact that not all men do X is disproving it. It's not being evaded. It is wrong.

Is that what you think?

That when some says "Men make more money than women" do you think that the person speaking really means that all men make more money than all women. That Oprah, for example, makes less money than the lowest paid man?

No one thinks that, (and if it was just you and your friends talking, there would be no need to specify, you would just know) but it is proper to say that there is a growing number of women in various demographics who are closing, already have closed and may have even flipped the gap. This is not say that women in the aggregate still Don't trail men in the aggregate in earnings.

That's a correction, that's a discussion, that's staying on topic.

This shouldn't be controversial, lets take an example:

If the proposition is 'I hate it when men open doors for me, we should have the right to refuse this' then the interjection 'not all men' is pointless. It's rude, it derails the conversation, and it isn't relevant, because the problem doesn't depend on what proportion of men do it, or how often.

If the proposition is 'All men are predatory rapists unless stopped, therefore all men should be subject to controls to protect others' then 'not all men' is a rebuttal of the point being made, because the idea that not all men fall into the categorisation is a reason for not applying to suggested solution to them, and trying to disparage that as a response is a dishonest evasion of the point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Interesting that this thread came up shortly after the Affirmative Action threads, because those threads show the need for "not all X" to be said.

When you have one group on average advantaged over another group, and you rectify that by giving special treatment to the second group, you are telling the disadvantaged in the first group that they don't exist. The call that they do exist becomes important, and that is a call of "not all X" (that not all in the first group are better off than those in the second group). If you hear the protest that they do exist, and dismiss it, then you have also told them that they don't matter.

You can see the same in racial profiling (or religion profiling). When one group has more violent offenders than other groups, and police target that group for special attention, it is important to point out that not all members of that group are violent. It shouldn't derail the conversation, but it should be kept firmly in mind. Islam has more of a problem with radicalism, violence, and terrorism than the Amish, but it should be kept firmly in mind that many/most Muslims are good peaceful people. Black men commit more violence than white women, but it should be kept firmly in mind that many/most black men are good peaceful people.

"Not all X" is absolutely vital to most of these conversations, and I would rather err on the side of "not all X" derailing than "not all X" being swept aside.

 

[Bronzeage]

Interesting that this thread came up shortly after the Affirmative Action threads, because those threads show the need for "not all X" to be said loudly.

When you have one group on average advantaged over another group, and you rectify that by giving special treatment to the second group, you are telling the disadvantaged in the first group that they don't exist. The call that they do exist and do matter becomes important, and that is a call of "not all X" (that not all in the first group are better off than those in the second group). If you hear the protest that they do exist, and dismiss it, then you have also told them that they don't matter.

I think this thread started with the idea of relationships between individual men and women, not cultural sexism in society. As usual, everybody has their own drum to beat.