How is NotAllMen different from NotAllWomenAreLikeThat?

hyperrreal · 2014-10-30T14:07:19+00:00

The Jezebel crowd has a vested in interest in perpetuating the women as victims narrative. I found this comment in your link to interesting:

This reminds me of how sick Dan Savage got of hearing defensive Christians say "we're not all like that!" in response to every story about fundamentalist homophobia, as though Christians were the real victims here.

AWALT and AMALT are perceived as micro-victimizations. Accurate or not, people feel like their uniqueness, their humanity, and their agency is taken away when they are thrown into these broad categories.

When men say feminists are AMALTing, they are asserting a type of temporary victim status. That feminists have inappropriately generalized about men as a whole, and are passing judgement based on that generalization. Men are the victims of this unfair judgement and the associated stigmas.

This is unacceptable to Jezebel et all, because the story they are pushing requires that women be the victims of male oppression. They are obsessed with '"who is the real victim" as seen in the comment above and the constant privilege olympics among SJWs for this very reason.

Something else to note about the comic strip in that article, is the #notallmen 'superhero' is used to ridicule a feminist making a generalization about men in a private space. It's interesting because that's exactly what bluepillers do to redpillers. When TRP does exactly what that feminist does, people cry misogyny. When feminists do it, even suggesting misandry is shamed and ridiculed.

My hypothesis would be that this hypocritical dynamic is due to the intersection of victimhood/generalization. Women are allowed to be victims, perhaps even assumed to be victims, and so when TRP generalizes it gets attacked, mocked, and accused of pseudo-intellectualism. But when Jezebel and mainstream feminists do it, it's ok because men can never be victims.

While they are both ways of controlling the gender narrative, #notallmen is a shame based strategy meant to silence male critiques of feminism. NAWALT as TRP uses it here on PPD, is more of a caveat used to express that redpillers understand that the generalizations they make will not apply to all women. On /r/theredpill itself, NAWALT may be more similar to #notallmen.

powerkick · 2014-10-30T18:39:04+00:00

All men must be strong, outgoing, dominant, protective, and even violent. This is what traditional masculinity stipulates, and is what feminists like myself believe female disenfranchisement stems from.

YAM isn't an attack on men, the people. It's an attack on the characteristics of traditional masculinity that I listed above. "Ugh, I hate that men try to pick me up on the street and don't relent when I say no." Is something that one could say, but mean "I hate that masculinity requires that men be persistent in order obtain sex, even when it's inconvenient for one party and that party has voiced his or her opinion."

So to say Not All Men is to say "Masculinity isn't REALLY like that. We aren't ACTUALLY taught from a young age that in order to achieve anything in life as a person with a penis I need to display the above characteristics."

That's how I see it, at any rate.

Reginleifer · 2014-10-30T14:07:15+00:00

First off https://archive.today/IzArO

For those of you who don't want to give this shit traffic.

Secondly, because statistically speaking not all men are like that..... a very miniscule portion of men actually ARE rapists (unless you subscribe to the theory that heterosexual penetration is rape). Rape is very rare, so it's not a bad defense to point this out when some feminist is spouting shit. Even if we were to take the 1/5 study seriously ~~which we really shouldn't~~ you still don't have much of a case for making these generalizations.

RP recognizes that literally all women are not like that and this has been repeated here and in the RP subreddit ad nauseam. However it is impractical and dangerous to not treat every woman as outside the standard. (Cucking, divorce rape, loss of custody, etc.)

And unlike the feminists men have good stats to back up their "irrational" fears, stats that confirm all that RP preaches, women DO have preferences that may confirm to the RP definition of hypergamy they generally like richer men, taller men (apparently some put the shorter male-taller female ratio at a laughable 5%, sorry r/short). A majority of marriages end in divorce, with most being initiated by women....... We see what's going on in China with the elite leftover wives and the marriageless male Chinese farmers..... a country with an excess of men has an excess of women who "can't" get married.

Even purple pill agreed (except for a few delusional bloopers) that if woman's income decreased relative to men marriage would increase and if it increased , the marriage rate would decrease.

In short you're arguing two similar sounding concepts, but with two immensely different data pools, and social consequences.... feminists try to implement oppressive and utopian laws in order to acquire "equality" and the other is a stupid dude you supposedly don't even like not considering you "marriage material". >.>

GridReXX · 2014-10-30T17:16:15+00:00

# NotAllMen is used ironically by women and/or feminists.

NAWLT is used ironically by men and/or manosphere-ists.

Although I don't think the Twitter women are necessarily the women RPers have been debating on Reddit, so technically no hypocrisy was had. Most people I know on Twitter don't know what Reddit is, let alone the "manosphere."

drok007 · 2014-10-30T13:54:41+00:00

It's YOLO for people who used all their college electives on Woman's Studies courses.

Lol enough said. You are dealing with two kinds of idiot combine into one.

We_Are_Legion · 2014-10-30T14:51:55+00:00

Ever since that notallmen hashtag went live, its been my go-to explanation for why NAWALT fallacy is something feminists at least should really disagree with. I never really received an answer for why it isn't hypocrisy.

This article should be read so that every instance of #NotAllMen is replaced with a NAWALT, and you get RP's sentiments.

sidenote; /u/cuittler, can we please define NAWALT in the glossary? It really is incomplete without it.

southwer · 2014-10-30T14:14:44+00:00

Thank goodness I always kept out of debates like this, of both sides, and hardly ever even experienced stuff like these debates in my life except the vague recognition that some websites are weird.

Political activism is an organized effort with a clearly defined goal to get a government to change laws. Beyond that, sometimes simple and short awareness raising campaings may make sense. But beyond that, no kind of activism or "fighting" worths a hoot.

When two groups of people are just angrily yappering at each other with no serious goal in sight... they are children. Just being angry at other people or posturing as this or that is not activism. What is, even, the goal? Everybody who ever participated in GamerGate is a child, not only because of the childish behavior but also because they are arguing about toys.

Seriously the whole idea of activism related terms (activism for rights, fighting for a cause etc.) got somehow hollowed out. Just everbody grow up please. If you don't have a clearly defined goal, usually legislation, just get on with your life. And by life I don't mean Tumblr ffs.

But... I think this happens when a young generation finds himself/herself in a bad job market with not a great future in sight to work forward, and 7/24 internet access. It is cat pictures and yelling at each other.

homo_homini_lupus · 2014-10-30T14:32:50+00:00

Isn't NAMALT exactly the same thing as NAWALT? NAWALT arose to make fun of the women who come into forums and threads when men are talking about women to say "Not all women are like that!!!" as if that matters to the discussion of what "women" are like, and usually to derail the thread into a special snowflake discussion about how great they are. Now Jezebel is reacting to NAMALT in the EXACT same way the man-o-sphere responded to NAWALT--Because EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS that NA_ALT is implicit in ANY generalization or stereotype, so pointing it out is stupid.

another-thing · 2014-10-31T06:13:17+00:00

The thing about "not all men" is that it's (more often than not) unironically brought up in response to a valid argument on sexism. We know that not all men are like that- that's obviously true. Unless someone is saying that all men are rapists/pigs/trash/etc, then playing the "not all men" card is avoiding the issue and you are complicit in the misogyny.

Doldenberg · 2014-11-01T23:15:05+00:00

You're ignoring that those two are used in entirely different contexts.

"Not all men" is used by men infiltrating feminist discussion to disprove an accusation that was never made. A feminist might say "There seems to be problem with sexual assault", and then some dude will chime in "But not all men are rapists!". Yeah, sure bro, but the feminist never said so, why do you think you need to clarify that? Do you honestly think that adds anything to the discussion?

Meanwhile, "Not all women" is used when someone is literally asserting that all women are somehow "like that". For example "All women have rape fantasies". Or "Women are naturally more inclined to being a stay at home mom". In that case, "Not all" actually STARTS the discussion, by questioning why we should always define what one should do by what a greater group they belong to is supposedly inclined to do.

Title	How is NotAllMen different from NotAllWomenAreLikeThat?
Author	TomHicks
Upvotes	5
Comments	73
Date	October 30, 2014 12:54 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2krz9c/how_is_notallmen_different_from/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-is-notallmen-different-from.284486 https://theredarchive.com/post/284486

Comments