not all men

[vh]

i've found an interesting way to look at the not all men argument is to replace men with muslims, and replace oppressing/raping/whatevering women with terrorism/suicide-bombers/whatever

here are some feminist quotes from tumblr, with my translation applied to them

---

"“You must remember, it isn’t about “All men are menaces to women,” it’s about “All women have been menaced by men.”"

revised

"“You must remember, it isn’t about “All muslims are terrorists to women,” it’s about “All women have been terrorized by muslims.”"

---

"The odds of a woman being sexually assaulted in her lifetime are 1 in 6, but if she doesn’t feel safe around strange men she’s a stereotyping bitch."

revised

"The odds of a woman being suicide bombed in her lifetime are 1 in 6, but if she doesn’t feel safe around strange muslims she’s a stereotyping bitch."

---

"its so terrifying that there are men out there that legit think they should kill multiple people purely because they can’t get laid and its so nerve-racking to think that i could walk outside and get shot bc some guy hasn’t been kissed before and now he hates women  and thinks they should die"

revised

"its so terrifying that there are muslims out there that legit think they should become suicide bombers purely because religion and its so nerve-racking to think that i could walk outside and get shot bc some muslim read the quran and now he hates women and thinks they should die"

---

an interesting angle, no?

[Xriqxa]

First of all, thank you for defending the Muslim community.

Yeah, it's pretty stupid of people to think that just because this guy did something, his whole village is a satanic mess of torture and enslavement.

One bird does not make a flock.

[Cosmos]

I applaud you.

A thousand times.

[atomic7732]

I'm pretty sure its a scale thing. The threat:group ratio for males is significantly higher (probably orders of magnitudes) , than the threat:group ratio of Muslims or any religious community.

I mean one shouldn't generalize, but if someone could potentially be a threat to you, you need to be prepared.

Also, concerning "not all men": What does "not all men" contribute to any discussion? Even if statements were generalized before. It's not used to counter-argue with points at all, it can be used to derail arguments and overall just be a dick. Like, thank you captain obvious! Of course not all men. Throwing your hands up and being "not me! I don't do that!" doesn't contribute anything, it diverts focus away from any problem being discussed. Maybe you're not misogynist and you treat women right, but arguments aren't a place for anecdotal evidence.

[vh]

one talks about arresting criminals, not blacks, to curb crime and deporting extremists, not muslims, to prevent terrorism, so why do we talk about men instead of rapists?

and if you're glad we use the terms 'criminal' and 'extremists' to 'blacks' and 'muslims', then that should explain the contribution of "not all men"

[Darvince]

well is it still anecdotal evidence if, say, you take 5000 random men, ask them if they have assaulted or raped a woman, and 4902 say that they haven't?

[Darvince]

“I’ve said this before and I’ll point it out again -
Menstruation is caused by change in hormonal levels to stop the creation of a uterine lining and encourage the body to flush the lining out. The body does this by lowering estrogen levels and raising testosterone.

Or, to put it more plainly “That time of the month” is when female hormones most closely resemble male hormones. So if (cis) women aren’t suited to office at “That time of the month” then (cis) men are NEVER suited to office.

If you are a dude and don’t dig the ladies around you at their time of the month, just think! That is you all of the time.

And, on a final note, post-menopausal (cis) women are the most hormonally stable of all human demographics. They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone, meaning older women like Hilary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren would theoretically be among the least likely candidates to make an irrational decision due to hormonal fluctuations, and if we were basing our leadership decisions on hormone levels, then only women over fifty should ever be allowed to hold office.”

sometimes I read things like this and say "yeah, yeah that makes sense" and other times I read them, and, in this particular example, I find this rather silly, as women generally spend 1/6 to 1/3 of their time PMSing, and they are not fit for those hormone levels. I don't complain all year long and have increased negative emotions as my body is more used to the much higher levels of whatever hormones there are, such as the androgens (yes it is not just one hormone).

[atomic7732]

final point still stands

"They have fewer hormonal fluctuations of anyone,"

So if it's the change that matters (body not being used to it) and not the quantity of them...

[Darvince]

yes but in my opinion both sides are retarded. If a person with higher hormonal fluctuations is in office, why do you not think that women post-menopause should be able to hold office? Also, hormonal fluctuations should not impact the decisions of a logical person (all people can be logical, it depends on their logical intelligence how intelligent they can be). Most politicians tend to have lower logical intelligence but much higher emotional intelligence, because, how do you think they influenced people in order to get elected and hold an office?

[Darvince]

"Sexism is a fake idea invented by feminists.

Sexism happens, but the effect of “reverse sexism” on men is as bad or worse.

Sexism happens, but the important part is that I personally am not sexist.

Sexism happens, and I benefit from that whether or not I personally am sexist.

Sexism happens, I benefit from it, I am unavoidably sexist sometimes because I was socialized that way, and if I want to be anti-sexist I have to be actively working against that socialization."

I am curious, how does one benefit from benign sexism, as that is the majority of it in the west?

[vh]

"Sexism happens, I benefit from it, I am unavoidably sexist sometimes because I was socialized that way, and if I want to be anti-sexist I have to be actively working against that socialization."

kafkatrapping: model P
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

[vh]

I'm pretty sure its a scale thing. The threat:group ratio for males is significantly higher (probably orders of magnitudes) , than the threat:group ratio of Muslims or any religious community.

I mean one shouldn't generalize, but if someone could potentially be a threat to you, you need to be prepared.

Also, concerning "not all men": What does "not all men" contribute to any discussion? Even if statements were generalized before. It's not used to counter-argue with points at all, it can be used to derail arguments and overall just be a dick. Like, thank you captain obvious! Of course not all men. Throwing your hands up and being "not me! I don't do that!" doesn't contribute anything, it diverts focus away from any problem being discussed. Maybe you're not misogynist and you treat women right, but arguments aren't a place for anecdotal evidence.

i have formulated a new argument.

the scale doesn't matter. perhaps one out of two girls is bad at math (and the same ratio could hold for males), but it's still not good to say girls are bad at math, even though the 'scale' is very high.
yes, being bad at math isn't a threat, but whether something is a threat is irrelevant. it won't make you safer to say 'man', than 'criminal', and you're probably not in any immediate threat if you are posting either of those words to the internet.

it is true that "not all men" doesn't contribute to any discussion, but that is precisely the point of NAM -- to disrupt. to stop the idea that all men are exactly what the argument claims them to be.

[atomic7732]

and that's why it's a terrible phrase used by people who really love that they can disrupt arguments cause they're superior even when a valid argument is being presented

if you're not going to respond to the argument don't even bother

[vh]

and that's why it's a terrible phrase used by people who really love that they can disrupt arguments cause they're superior even when a valid argument is being presented

if you're not going to respond to the argument don't even bother

Just because NAM is used to disrupt an argument doesn't mean
1. they love disrupting arguments
2. "they're superior"
3. it's a terrible phrase.

And you have to say NAM even though it's not a response to the argument because it effectively stops the generalization at the source.

[atomic7732]

not all arguments

[matty406]

I think the point is the phrase 'not all men' has had it's meaning diluted by people who don't have all-that-good intentions in the first place