Anonymous #1 1d

So you’d kinda fall into the “don’t say all men” category just because of the larger sociopolitical implications?

4

Anonymous OP 1d

There’s no reason to. It’s like saying all lefthanders or all gay people or all brown eyed people. It’s obviously not the case because there are exceptions to whatever you can say about that block of people, and sometimes even the characteristics or actions of a few are what get labeled onto the whole. Plus are there not white men who are allies? The struggle is ideological not based strictly on identity

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Sss that’s also my fear is that we’d silence women by taking away a phrase that seems to be used as a defense tactic

3

Anonymous OP 1d

and very few people even say “all” men. they say “men” and then people demand a disclaimer that it’s not all men. that’s ridiculous in my opinion. let women talk without having to make sure every bean soup male victim feels they aren’t targeted.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Yeah and I think that’s reasonable. The only reason I ask is cause I see POC talking about this and kind of how their experience with intersectionality changes things. Like the example I saw, which again I’m not arguing for necessarily, was, if you had to choose a bear or black man, which would you choose? Obviously it sounds kinda touchy to say the bear cause that makes larger implications about the black man. And just how does that work with the position

4

Anonymous OP 1d

I do feel like that fundamentally changes the question women were presented with though. People didn’t compare a race of men to a bear. They compared men to a bear. It’s like saying would you rather be in the woods with another human or a bear. Well that’s a much different implication behind the question. Now we’re talking about humanity. Other question about manhood & masculinity. Your question is about race. So to say it makes it more touchy… well duh. I don’t understand the point.

6

Anonymous #1 1d

okay and you don’t necessarily see it as tone policing women?

6

Anonymous #2 1d

Maybe yeah, but a black man is still a man. And so I think the point of that argument is the intersectionality gets lost

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I feel like what you’re getting at is just that Black men are men & an oppressed minority. And that is complex. To which I say, yes. But I don’t think Black men are better off if women stop using language that includes them of their critiques of patriarchy. There are nuances but I don’t think this is the path forward to helping Black men.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Again I don’t wanna seem like I’m arguing for it. I genuinely don’t know

3

Anonymous OP 1d

And I’m telling answering. Casual critiques of patriarchy don’t need to be tone policed with disclaimers excluding Black men or other men of color. Especially not when many of those critiques apply to all races.

6

Anonymous #3 1d

Definitely they do for sure

3

Anonymous #3 1d

especially when it comes to misogyny and sexism and sexual abuse. There is no race that commits these crimes more than others, but there are genders that do. While sexual abuse by women is underreported, it’s also not as prevalent.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

okay yeah I think I see your point yeah thank you

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I don’t automatically view the world as a struggle between men vs women, we depend on each other. If that’s how you see the world then I suppose it would come off as tone policing

4

Anonymous #1 1d

this statement is pretty dismissive of that fact that patriarchy exists, just because you don’t view yourself personally as an oppressor does not mean there has not historically been a fight for women to gain back their human rights from male-controlled regimes

8

Anonymous #2 1d

I will be genuinely blind to a lot of things as someone born male. People can see in front of them but they can’t see their own back. I just don’t think it’s in the popular zeitgeist at the moment that, when someone says “all men ____”, they aren’t literally talking about every man. It causes confusion because that’s what it initially sounds like to a lot of people, probably the majority. And people become defensive as a result. I’m willing to learn though I’m not here to really argue and fight

1

Anonymous #1 1d

but people usually don’t say “all” and i think you know that. women say “men ___” and people want a disclaimer for “not all men” when its unnecessary. it’s asking women to police how they speak about a group in generalities to accommodate the emotions of every single man. why is that her responsibility? it’s MEN’S responsibility to acknowledge a statement not about them isn’t about them. not accommodating every single person regardless of how sensitive they may be.

4

Anonymous #1 1d

imagine if every time someone talked about dogs they had to make disclaimers about how they know some dogs bit but they love dogs. well yeah, we can assume they aren’t talking about loving the dog that bit a child. they’re talking about their experience with most dogs. like atp its gotta be a literacy issue that this is such a huge hangup for people.

6

Anonymous #2 1d

I don’t think it’s a literacy problem. Imagine if I said “women are manipulative”. You wouldn’t think “oh they must be talking about some women”, you’d take it as a general statement about women. It’s different when your audience can actually understand and interact with your statement, dogs cannot do this. Do you see where people get caught off guard?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

you’re still ignoring and dismissing the important context that is systematic misogyny (aka, the patriarchy) the issue in your critique, is that it’s reliant upon equating acts of punching up, vs acts of punching down; and I’d go further and say that analyzing the systemic prevalence of violence and the perpetrators of said violence in the various systems of oppression we live under, is not even punching up.

3

Anonymous #4 1d

in my opinion, redirecting the conversation to “but it’s not all men” every single time this comes, instead of actually discussing the original topic whatsoever (especially when it’s a means to deflect from discussing topics of misogyny), indicates that you’re not actually interested nor willing to learn

6