5 ms·

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen Please educate yourself on how this shuts down debate over intolerant behav

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotAllMen Please educate yourself on how this shuts down debate over intolerant behavior. The tolerance of other men is required for activity like this - and /obviously/ there are many men who find this behavior awful but also clearly /not enough/ to stop it from happening. Yes, of course, not all men do this shit. But it’s enough to have a considerable impact on people. Usually there’s a small number of abusers and then a large group of people tolerating or egging on the abuse. This is why they’re describing a “frat bro” culture in the legal suit.

Karunamon 5y ago
Here, sure. We're describing concrete allegations against specific people. However, mentioning a class of people without qualification colloquially means 'all', and would not be tolerated or seen as anything other than an ignorant, discriminatory, prejudicial comment in any other context. Tarring an entire sex as having any problem in particular is disgusting. The article you linked even includes the following quote: If we genuinely oppose prejudice on the grounds of identity, rather than seek to elevate certain identities and disparage others, there is no shame and much worth in pointing out when negative stereotypes are applied to men. The original comment could have been made without the generalization and would have carried just as much weight. The fact that your last paragraph begins with "of course.." is proof that you recognize that this is an inaccurate generalization. Let's have less of that. That's what I'm asking for.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- taurath 5y ago
  > Tarring an entire sex as having any problem in particular is disgusting. Yes, and it misses the point. “I have a problem with men coming up to me at work and slapping my ass” Should not be responded to with “No men I know have done that, this is clearly sexist!” It’s a semantic argument that doesn’t address the actual problem.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    >Yes All that needed to be said. The point is that the statement is a sexist generalization and did not need to be. Nothing more, nothing less. I find double standards on prejudicial statements to be infuriating, doubly so when they're targeted at me, extra points for when they're accusing me of things that, not only would I never do, that I have called out people for doing in real life. Minimizing it as a 'semantic argument' ignores the harm that stereotyping causes.
    - taurath 5y ago
      It’s whataboutism. It’s changing the subject. It’s not grappling with the actual problem being presented. It’s presuming a bad faith attack on you via the group of words chosen. It’s about you having a desperate fear of being accused of something you didn’t do - it should be obvious that someone saying “men” is not literally talking about ALL MEN but you pretend as if it isn’t, and hijack the conversation. Your argument in a vacuum I have no problem with - the frequency it comes up in order to distract from the context in which it comes up is troubling to say the least, and is something often done by bad faith actors. I’m not accusing you of bad faith - however, I’d invite you to look at the directionality of where the conversation has gone. Namely, very far away from the person being harmed and squarely into your feelings of being excluded. For posterity I repost your original comment. OP > As a woman in tech, the problem is that men start hitting on you when they’ve had a few beers. YOU > I'm sorry you had to work with unprofessional assholes that won't take 'no' for an answer, but your experience is not license to slander literally half of the planet. Your argument is as if the OP was saying that half of men on the planet come and hit on her specifically and inappropriately. For fucks sake.
- grayfaced 5y ago
  > mentioning a class of people without qualification colloquially means 'all' Does it? I've never heard that usage and think you're probably inferring things. But there are cases where local language varies. In those cases you should try to understand the intent behind the statement. It's clear to me the writer did not intend the statement you're trying to attribute to them. Do you say "I had lunch with friends" or "I had lunch with some of my friends"

Karunamon 5y ago

Here, sure. We're describing concrete allegations against specific people. However, mentioning a class of people without qualification colloquially means 'all', and would not be tolerated or seen as anything other than an ignorant, discriminatory, prejudicial comment in any other context. Tarring an entire sex as having any problem in particular is disgusting. The article you linked even includes the following quote: If we genuinely oppose prejudice on the grounds of identity, rather than seek to elevate certain identities and disparage others, there is no shame and much worth in pointing out when negative stereotypes are applied to men. The original comment could have been made without the generalization and would have carried just as much weight. The fact that your last paragraph begins with "of course.." is proof that you recognize that this is an inaccurate generalization. Let's have less of that. That's what I'm asking for.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
taurath 5y ago
> Tarring an entire sex as having any problem in particular is disgusting. Yes, and it misses the point. “I have a problem with men coming up to me at work and slapping my ass” Should not be responded to with “No men I know have done that, this is clearly sexist!” It’s a semantic argument that doesn’t address the actual problem.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  >Yes All that needed to be said. The point is that the statement is a sexist generalization and did not need to be. Nothing more, nothing less. I find double standards on prejudicial statements to be infuriating, doubly so when they're targeted at me, extra points for when they're accusing me of things that, not only would I never do, that I have called out people for doing in real life. Minimizing it as a 'semantic argument' ignores the harm that stereotyping causes.
  - taurath 5y ago
    It’s whataboutism. It’s changing the subject. It’s not grappling with the actual problem being presented. It’s presuming a bad faith attack on you via the group of words chosen. It’s about you having a desperate fear of being accused of something you didn’t do - it should be obvious that someone saying “men” is not literally talking about ALL MEN but you pretend as if it isn’t, and hijack the conversation. Your argument in a vacuum I have no problem with - the frequency it comes up in order to distract from the context in which it comes up is troubling to say the least, and is something often done by bad faith actors. I’m not accusing you of bad faith - however, I’d invite you to look at the directionality of where the conversation has gone. Namely, very far away from the person being harmed and squarely into your feelings of being excluded. For posterity I repost your original comment. OP > As a woman in tech, the problem is that men start hitting on you when they’ve had a few beers. YOU > I'm sorry you had to work with unprofessional assholes that won't take 'no' for an answer, but your experience is not license to slander literally half of the planet. Your argument is as if the OP was saying that half of men on the planet come and hit on her specifically and inappropriately. For fucks sake.
grayfaced 5y ago
> mentioning a class of people without qualification colloquially means 'all' Does it? I've never heard that usage and think you're probably inferring things. But there are cases where local language varies. In those cases you should try to understand the intent behind the statement. It's clear to me the writer did not intend the statement you're trying to attribute to them. Do you say "I had lunch with friends" or "I had lunch with some of my friends"