What is the problem with the #NotAllMen?

[mr_engineer]

When some rape-case happens, feminists start to really psycho-analyze men, saying all men are this, that and the other. That 'this is the problem with men'.

When this happens, a lot of men, reasonably, say 'not all men'. Because there are good men out there, and we don't want to be hated for our gender. 

Why does this make feminists so butthurt? Why are they so insistent on hating on all men? 

[aurum]

7 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

When this happens, a lot of men, reasonably, say 'not all men'. Because there are good men out there, and we don't want to be hated for our gender. 

Why does this make feminists so butthurt?

Mostly because they don't feel listened to.

When someone brings up a good faith criticism, the right response is to seriously take it in. Don't argue. 

If your immediate response is to start arguing with them, you're not really listening.

Instead of arguing about how you're right, consider how they might be right.

[mr_engineer]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Mostly because they don't feel listened to.

When someone brings up a good faith criticism, the right response is to seriously take it in. Don't argue. 

If your immediate response is to start arguing with them, you're not really listening.

Instead of arguing about how you're right, consider how they might be right.

Have you considered the fact that when they attack us for saying 'not all men', this enables false accusations?! 

[aurum]

1 minute ago, mr_engineer said:

Have you considered the fact that when they attack us for saying 'not all men', this enables false accusations?! 

Yes, but I'm not talking to a feminist. I'm talking to you, and how you can understand their perspective better.

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

Yes, but I'm not talking to a feminist. I'm talking to you, and how you can understand their perspective better.

My problem is that they enable false-accusations using this rhetoric. And, ultimately, they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing this, because it makes it harder to believe real victims. All because they're waging a war against men. 

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

My problem is that they enable false-accusations using this rhetoric. And, ultimately, they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing this, because it makes it harder to believe real victims. All because they're waging a war against men. 

Fine, but that's still your criticism of them.

Why should they take your criticisms seriously if you're not going to take theirs seriously?

[mr_engineer]

3 minutes ago, aurum said:

Fine, but that's still your criticism of them.

Why should they take your criticisms seriously if you're not going to take theirs seriously?

Because they're full of shit, as far as I'm concerned. No, I'm not 'part of the problem'. I don't watch porn, I don't engage in casual sexism, I'm not a misogynist. I love women. 

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Because they're full of shit, as far as I'm concerned.

And then you wonder why feminists don't feel listened to. Or maybe even get triggered sometimes.

How do you feel when they dismiss your concerns about false accusations?

You are doing the same thing to them.

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, aurum said:

And then you wonder why feminists don't feel listened to. Or maybe even get triggered sometimes.

How do you feel when they dismiss your concerns about false accusations?

You are doing the same thing to them.

As a matter of fact, they already are dismissing those concerns. Not that I care, I know that this is a performance of wokeness, not real wokeness. 

This is not about anyone's feelings, this is about the truth. Not all men! 

[aurum]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

As a matter of fact, they already are dismissing those concerns. Not that I care, I know that this is a performance of wokeness, not real wokeness. 

This is not about anyone's feelings, this is about the truth. Not all men! 

Oh it's definitely about feelings. And in this case, it's your feelings.

Do you actually want to understand feminists?

If you do, you will read at least one book by a feminist author in good faith. Which means seeking to learn and not just critique.

If you won't do that, this conversation is pointless. You have no interest in engaging in good faith dialogue with feminists, and they will rightly treat you as such. 

[mr_engineer]

9 minutes ago, aurum said:

Oh it's definitely about feelings. And in this case, it's your feelings.

Do you actually want to understand feminists?

If you do, you will read at least one book by a feminist author in good faith. Which means seeking to learn and not just critique.

If you won't do that, this conversation is pointless. You have no interest in engaging in good faith dialogue with feminists, and they will rightly treat you as such. 

I understand them fine. I understand that their empathy is partial and that their hatred for men blinds them. That's why they say shit like 'if you say 'not all men', you're part of the problem'. That's nonsense. 

They really like to tell men to 'look in the mirror' and 'learn'. That's just hypocritical. When's the last time they looked in the mirror?! 

Do they think they're the only ones who can psycho-analyze?! We can also do that. Do not mess with innocent men. 

Edited August 17 by mr_engineer

[mr_engineer]

Now, back to my question. What's the actual problem with saying 'not all men'. Is it false? 

[mr_engineer]

I will not be shamed just because I have male parts. Enough is enough. No more sexist rhetoric against men. 

Not All Men. Is that clear?

Edited August 17 by mr_engineer

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

When some rape-case happens, feminists start to really psycho-analyze men, saying all men are this, that and the other. That 'this is the problem with men'.

When this happens, a lot of men, reasonably, say 'not all men'. Because there are good men out there, and we don't want to be hated for our gender. 

Why does this make feminists so butthurt? Why are they so insistent on hating on all men? 

It's not that the statement "not all men" is false. Women already know that it isn't all men.

And with "me too", the reply of "not all men" was employed as a thought-stopping retort to derail and shut down the conversation because it made some men uncomfortable... but more importantly threatened powerful people like Harvey Weinstein.

And the answer back of "Yes all women" was created to show that... even if not all men consciously engage in negative behavior towards women on the caliber of a Harvey Weinstein, all women are still affected by these patterns and most of us have had sexual crime encounters in some degree or another.

And "yes all women" is largely reflective of a critique of the culture that shapes the way that people treat women.

But when people (men and women both) are unconscious and "un-woke" that they will perpetuate these patterns that hurt women either deliberately or unconsciously.

So, given these negative currents... there's a lot of hurt that women experience, often at the hands of men.

And when women open up to share our experiences and try to make our voices heard and to raise awareness, it's a vulnerable thing to do because we're laying our traumas bare to make the world aware of them. This is ESPECIALLY true for women coming together to bring the sexual crimes of a powerful man to light.

And it is a direct challenge to so many power structures just to do so. So, people get super offended and triggered by it... and there's a lot of blow-back and victim-blaming.

Then, in private conversation, when the knee-jerk reaction is "not all men" and it derails the conversation to being about the man being offended by the conversation as opposed to being about the societal patterns that are creating traumas.

It basically goes from a really open and vulnerable heart to heart discussion... to one that would just devolve into a fruitless pointless argument.

And at that point, you realize that the man you're trying to communicate to isn't mature enough to hold space for your lived experiences and has to make the conversation about himself and how upset he is about what he assumes the woman thinks about him.

So as a woman, to preserve your own vulnerability and energy, you save the conversation for men and women who are more mature and less easily offended by your vulnerabilities and traumas.

[mr_engineer]

@Emerald What's up with saying 'if you're saying not all men, you're probably harassing women'?! Why are feminists so set on falsely accusing innocent men?!

[zazen]

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

When some rape-case happens, feminists start to really psycho-analyze men, saying all men are this, that and the other. That 'this is the problem with men'.

When this happens, a lot of men, reasonably, say 'not all men'. Because there are good men out there, and we don't want to be hated for our gender. 

Why does this make feminists so butthurt? Why are they so insistent on hating on all men? 

The same reaction from women to men happens when they see the discourse among red pill Youtubers and respond with 'not all women' to add nuance to the discussion. Saying not all women or not all men is simply a plea for individuality - that neither side should be judged as a collective but more as individuals.

Both sides will see this as deflection, rather than a correction. Both sides will go about legitimate grievances in illegitimate ways. Both sides will universalise their experience of the bad apples amongst the other gender. 

The accusation that this phrase (or not all women) derails, is itself a derailment. It suggests that any defense or clarification is an attack on the conversation's integrity. I think it can become a derailment when the grievances aren't being listened to, and anything that hurts the ego of the opposite gender gets responded to with such a phrase. It's like, Okay, we know not all men or women, but we're discussing the men and women who do act out badly.

The phrase 'believe all women' while well-intentioned, has morphed into a presumption of guilt for men, where they are presumed guilty until proven innocent - often without any evidence to back up the claims being made. This is where men speak out against the incentives in place to use false accusations. 

[Hatfort]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

The phrase 'believe all women' while well-intentioned, has morphed into a presumption of guilt for men, where they are presumed guilty until proven innocent - often without any evidence to back up the claims being made. This is where men speak out against the incentives in place to use false accusations. 

I think this 'believe all women' approach came from a real problem that may not have any good solution. Sometimes women couldn't provide proof of their mistreatment by partners or other men to the police, so nothing was done to help them, and that would backfire on them when their partners found out they were being denounced, so that would lead to more mistreatment and sometimes even death. This was and is a real problem.

Some of these new approaches would seek to protect the women who denounced to the police, even without enough proof, with things like restraining orders. But some women can lie, and use those systems to screw their partners, who may be innocent. Things get more complicated when there are children in those marriages or partnerships.

That's why I don't think there's any absolute good solution. One way you can screw women who really need protection, the other you can screw innocent men. Which bad is worse?