Not *all* men

[doubtingt]

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.

No, the thread began with OP that cited an article which began with several sexist cultural stereotypes about the nature of very definition of men:

Some additional notes about men:

A man is someone who pays his female employees less.
A man is someone who interrupts a woman when she's in the middle of saying something.
A man expects his wife to do all the cooking and cleaning.

Note that these statements are in no way qualified and do not refer to "some" or even "most" men, but rather refer to the "a" person belonging to the category of "men" which the OP claims is defined by the above traits, and therefore to all comprehenders of English refers to "all men". The OP then goes on to attack and mock all people intelligent enough to realize this and the factual wrongness of the OP statements, and thus point out that at best these statements apply to a special subset of people defined by something other than simply being "men", and thus these statements are objectively false, sexist, and the exact same as saying "A Woman is someone that is weak, emotional, and bad at math".

 

[dismal]

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.

No, the thread began with OP that cited an article which began with several sexist cultural stereotypes about the nature of very definition of men:

Some additional notes about men:

A man is someone who pays his female employees less.
A man is someone who interrupts a woman when she's in the middle of saying something.
A man expects his wife to do all the cooking and cleaning.

Note that these statements are in no way qualified and do not refer to "some" or even "most" men, but rather refer to the "a" person belonging to the category of "men" which the OP claims is defined by the above traits, and therefore to all comprehenders of English refers to "all men". The OP then goes on to attach and mock all people intelligent enough to realize this and to realize its factual wrongness, and thus point out that at best these statements apply to a special subset of people defined by something other than simply being "men", thus these statements are objectively false, sexist, and the exact same as saying "Women are weak, emotional, and bad at math".

Well said. The whole thing seems to be rooted in a desire to defiantly wear stupidity and ignorance like a badge of honor.

Fortunately this is a website dedicated to objective thought and reason so it will find no defenders here.

 

[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.

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,

I'm afraid they do. I met a charming lady who had decided that the best way to even up the wage gap was to change the tax code, so that men paid more tax than women by the proportion of estimated wage gap between the two genders. That's a conclusion that does indeed rely upon all men being paid more than all women, and the very example you cite, that of Oprah, is indeed a rebuttal to her proposal. As would be the phrase 'Not All Men'.

That's why it's so important to work out what people are actually arguing for, rather than just jumping the gun based on trigger words. Yes, in some cases 'Not All Men' is a waste of time and an attempt to shift the topic, and in others it is absolutely to the point. The key is to actually read/listen to the entire post/point, rather than breaking in aggressively halfway through.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

A man is someone who interrupts a woman when she's in the middle of saying something.

Disregarding the other two statements, how is this one relevant at all? I'm pretty sure each gender has at some point interrupted each other.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Also, if you're finding you're having to psychoanalyze a very simple response to someone making a sweeping generalization, then you probably have comprehension issues of some kind.

 

[dismal]

A man is someone who interrupts a woman when she's in the middle of saying something.

Disregarding the other two statements, how is this one relevant at all? I'm pretty sure each gender has at some point interrupted each other.

Apparently there was some study done in the 1970s that found men are somewhat more likely to interrupt than women.

This is enough to spur decades of outrage and axe-grinding among women.

(though perhaps not *all* women...)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Apparently there was some study done in the 1970s that found men are somewhat more likely to interrupt than women.

This is enough to spur decades of outrage and axe-grinding among women.

(though perhaps not *all* women...)

That's just more male bashing. If women weren't wrong so damn often, we wouldn't need to interrupt them in order to correct what they're saying. They should be placing the blame about this one where it belongs - squarely on their own shoulders.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It really doesn't take much tact to avoid a fair application of "not all X" derailing your conversation. If you start with "Men interrupt women, pay them less, and are violent towards them".... that demands a "not all men", and you may be derailed from discussing how to address these issues. If you instead simply address these issues by saying "why do people interrupt each other? What drives people to pay women less than men? Why are some men violent towards women?" you should avoid such a derail, and get to talk about what you meant to talk about. Simple really.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It really doesn't take much tact to avoid a fair application of "not all X" derailing your conversation. If you start with "Men interrupt women, pay them less, and are violent towards them".... that demands a "not all men", and you may be derailed from discussing how to address these issues. If you instead simply address these issues by saying "why do people interrupt each other? What drives people to pay women less than men? Why are some men violent towards women?" you should avoid such a derail, and get to talk about what you meant to talk about. Simple really.

Isn't that just being overly pedantic for the sake of increasing the amount of pedanticness in the conversation?

If somebody says "Men interrupt women, pay them less, and are violent towards them", it does not demand a "not all men" because there's clearly a context to the statement meaning "men in general" or "men more often than women" or the like. If someone's going to ignore the context and derail the conversation, choosing your words more carefully isn't going to avoid the trolling behaviour against the perceived male bashing or whatever.

 

[Jarhyn]

It really doesn't take much tact to avoid a fair application of "not all X" derailing your conversation. If you start with "Men interrupt women, pay them less, and are violent towards them".... that demands a "not all men", and you may be derailed from discussing how to address these issues. If you instead simply address these issues by saying "why do people interrupt each other? What drives people to pay women less than men? Why are some men violent towards women?" you should avoid such a derail, and get to talk about what you meant to talk about. Simple really.

Isn't that just being overly pedantic for the sake of increasing the amount of pedanticness in the conversation?

If somebody says "Men interrupt women, pay them less, and are violent towards them", it does not demand a "not all men" because there's clearly a context to the statement meaning "men in general" or "men more often than women" or the like. If someone's going to ignore the context and derail the conversation, choosing your words more carefully isn't going to avoid the trolling behaviour against the perceived male bashing or whatever.

Except that psychology doesn't work that way. When people make a generalization like that, it actually realigns the thought process to the statement made. People saying "women are over emotional" is very likely to lead to those people reinforcing the generalness of the statement, even if in context it is only about a specific subset of persons. It is an unfortunate need that we be pedantic because if we aren't, we make it that much harder to think with critical agency rather than hasty generalities. We let ourselves be fooled into thinking it is OK.

And of course there are people for whom this isn't true. But good luck convincing me or anyone else that you are one of those exceptions.. And the time to convince me and others is more of an opportunity cost than just being careful.

In short, I take great care to not let my animal drive me towards bad decisions for the sake of saving some time or effort, because I have time and effort to spare, and so do you, and I don't think anyone deserves to be put out just because me, you, or anyone else wants to 'save some time' with sloppy thinking and communication.

 

[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.

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,

I'm afraid they do.

you think that there are people who think that a male disherwasher at TGIF makes more money than the industry that is Oprah?

I met a charming lady who had decided that the best way to even up the wage gap was to change the tax code, so that men paid more tax than women by the proportion of estimated wage gap between the two genders. That's a conclusion that does indeed rely upon all men being paid more than all women, and the very example you cite, that of Oprah, is indeed a rebuttal to her proposal. As would be the phrase 'Not All Men'.

That's why it's so important to work out what people are actually arguing for, rather than just jumping the gun based on trigger words. Yes, in some cases 'Not All Men' is a waste of time and an attempt to shift the topic, and in others it is absolutely to the point. The key is to actually read/listen to the entire post/point, rather than breaking in aggressively halfway through.

let me REPEAT. Discussion and correction is fine. Derailment to avoid the issue is dishonest and wrong.

If I have to keep repeating this, I will have to think that there are people here who think discussion is bad and evasion is good.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Do we have any examples of anyone on this board (or anywhere, frankly) making statements in the form of "All Men Do X"?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If the proposition is wrong, and you have proved it wrong, then the discussion is over or the proportion is corrected, right?

That's not what happens with this meme. With this meme, a fact (men pee standing up) is first critiqued with a NOT ALL MEN, then taken to discussions of bedpans and paraplegics and finally to an assertion that claims since on rare occasions people find themselves temporarily bedridden and a minority of individuals can't stand up, the claim that men pee standing up has no credibility whatsoever and should never be spoken in public again.

this is wrong and if all you can argue is that the initiation of this trip down the rabbit hole is correct and not talk about the entire trip, you may find yourself dangerously close to falling down that hole yourself.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

In any other situation it would be perfectly acceptable to just not use some phrasing to avoid misunderstandings. For some reason, this is exempt from that notion.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

In any other situation it would be perfectly acceptable to just not use some phrasing to avoid misunderstandings. For some reason, this is exempt from that notion.

I have already said that absolutes whether implied or stated should be critiqued. This is not the problem. it's the shit that follows.


What is not clear here?

 

[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.

...

That's why it's so important to work out what people are actually arguing for, rather than just jumping the gun based on trigger words. Yes, in some cases 'Not All Men' is a waste of time and an attempt to shift the topic, and in others it is absolutely to the point. The key is to actually read/listen to the entire post/point, rather than breaking in aggressively halfway through.

let me REPEAT. Discussion and correction is fine. Derailment to avoid the issue is dishonest and wrong...

In any other situation it would be perfectly acceptable to just not use some phrasing to avoid misunderstandings. For some reason, this is exempt from that notion.

I have already said that absolutes whether implied or stated should be critiqued. This is not the problem. it's the shit that follows.

What is not clear here?

What's not clear is that you keep on repeating the part that's already been explicitly acknowledged, while evading/ignoring the part that you're being asked to consider.

The part universally acknowledged - that Discussion and correction is fine. Derailment to avoid the issue is dishonest and wrong...
The part you're not addressing - that the phrase 'Not All Men' can occur as discussion and correction, as well as derailment.

It's the second part that's the problem with the meme - a 'Not All 'Not All Men'' if you will. Repeating the first part doesn't help.

 

[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.

...

That's why it's so important to work out what people are actually arguing for, rather than just jumping the gun based on trigger words. Yes, in some cases 'Not All Men' is a waste of time and an attempt to shift the topic, and in others it is absolutely to the point. The key is to actually read/listen to the entire post/point, rather than breaking in aggressively halfway through.

let me REPEAT. Discussion and correction is fine. Derailment to avoid the issue is dishonest and wrong...

In any other situation it would be perfectly acceptable to just not use some phrasing to avoid misunderstandings. For some reason, this is exempt from that notion.

I have already said that absolutes whether implied or stated should be critiqued. This is not the problem. it's the shit that follows.

What is not clear here?

What's not clear is that you keep on repeating the part that's already been explicitly acknowledged, while evading/ignoring the part that you're being asked to consider.

The part universally acknowledged - that Discussion and correction is fine. Derailment to avoid the issue is dishonest and wrong...
The part you're not addressing - that the phrase 'Not All Men' can occur as discussion and correction, as well as derailment.

It's the second part that's the problem with the meme - a 'Not All 'Not All Men'' if you will. Repeating the first part doesn't help.

that's what I am saying.

What you appear to be saying is that the derailment is fine.

Perhaps to clear this up

take this example

That's not what happens with this meme. With this meme, a fact (men pee standing up) is first critiqued with a NOT ALL MEN, then taken to discussions of bedpans and paraplegics and finally to an assertion that claims since on rare occasions people find themselves temporarily bedridden and a minority of individuals can't stand up, the claim that men pee standing up has no credibility whatsoever and should never be spoken in public again.

What is right and proper about the peeing discussion, if anything? What is wrong, if anything?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Another point that should be made here is that "not all X" can be a useful way of looking deeper into an issue.

Religious people have a special aversion to pork products. But not ALL religious people, and by looking at which particular religious people, we can get to the actual reasons behind the phenomenon. Women do math poorly (on average, this is so), but not ALL women. By looking at these exceptions, we may come to understand why the trend is so. Is it something innate to having ovaries or is it cultural pressure in society?

"Not All Men" isn't necessarily a derail, even if nobody said "all men". It is important to consider that not all men do this or that, before attributing this or that to maleness (as the OP article does). It is equally important to consider that "women do it too" where that is so. The article linked to in the OP defines men with "pays women less than men". Not all men do so. Some women do so. Taking a position devaluing the work women do has probably more to do with your culture than with whether or not you have a penis.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Another point that should be made here is that "not all X" can be a useful way of looking deeper into an issue.

Religious people have a special aversion to pork products. But not ALL religious people, and by looking at which particular religious people, we can get to the actual reasons behind the phenomenon. Women do math poorly (on average, this is so), but not ALL women. By looking at these exceptions, we may come to understand why the trend is so. Is it something innate to having ovaries or is it cultural pressure in society?

"Not All Men" isn't necessarily a derail, even if nobody said "all men". It is important to consider that not all men do this or that, before attributing this or that to maleness (as the OP article does). It is equally important to consider that "women do it too" where that is so. The article linked to in the OP defines men with "pays women less than men". Not all men do so. Some women do so. Taking a position devaluing the work women do has probably more to do with your culture than with whether or not you have a penis.

This would not strike me as a derail. You have not used "not all men" to deny that any men pay women less OR to imply that really only a few men pay less or that really men are paid less than women across the board and throughout history

This seems more like a discussion of issue that is seeking explanation and causation than a denial of observed reality.

 

[Arctish]

#YesAllWomen meets #NoAllMen

The hashtag #YesAllWomen was launched to allow women to share stories of misogyny in the wake of Elliot Rodger's assault on Friday in Isla Vista, near Santa Barbara, which saw him kill six people before taking his own life.

While three of Rodger's victims were men, the student had written a lengthy manifesto and posted videos online prior to the assault citing women as the cause of his rage......

......However the hashtag quickly spawned a rival thread -- #NoAllMen.

"#YesAllWomen are Beautiful and #NoAllMen are not Pigs! There is Evil in the World plain & Simple there always has been always will be," one person commented.

http://news.yahoo.com/yesallwomen-campaign-hits-twitter-us-shooting-195429383.html


I don't know how many of the #NoAllMen posters are trying to add something of value to the Twitter discussion, but on the face of it this looks like a defensive reflex, and/or an attempt to shut down the discussion entirely.