If you have been to any feminist spaces within the last ten years, you would probably have seen post, discussions or videos with one thing in common, they generalize men. "Men are trash", "Why do men do this", "Men are violent", "Men are sexist people". Just so I have some proofs to back my claims up, here are some of the things on female/feminist subs.

1, 2, 3

Some even not just use "men" as a generalization, but "men" to specify that its MEN and only MEN who do these things.

Example

​

With this however, comes a lot of people who will come to the defense of men and say, "Well not all men are like that". This though, doesn't go well with some people either. Lately, there has been a lot of counterarguments to "Not all men" in feminist spaces with multiple of arguments given. Let's talk about them.

Example

Yes, we know it's not all men, but we don't know which one of them are

This is one of the most common arguments in feminist and misandrist spaces. They know it's not all men, it's just that they don't know which ones good and which ones are aren't. The thing is this argument is only considered acceptable when we're talking about men. "I hate (insert race/ethnicity)" would be completely unacceptable. Why? Because it is a huge generalization of an entire group of people based on something they have no control over. What difference is it to generalizing black people or Jewish people.

A counterargument to this is power. People could argue that men hold more power than women, so it would simply be punching up. However, this is not true either. Imagine an old white storekeeper being told that there would be a robbery at the store he or she works at today. Who do you think the storekeeper would fear more, a well suited white old man, or a black man.

It's rare to die from a shark attack, but people are still scared of sharks.

This is argument makes absolutely no sense.

  1. This argument is comparing humans to animals, despite the obvious fact that humans should not be treated like animals no matter what race or religion they are.
  2. While I do not want to overanalyze things, this argument actually proves the complete opposite point to "not all men but-". Yes, sharks kill rarely ever kill anyone with around 10 people being killed by sharks per year. However, people are still scared of sharks. Ironically, the reason people are scared of sharks is not due to facts, but due to over exaggeration by the media. Some scientists even argue it's because of "Jaws". What makes this argument completely wrong is the fact that due to the fear of sharks is actually hurting sharks. To quote an article from oceanbites about how our fear is killing sharks," Through my journey as a shark defender, I have realized the most challenging obstacle to tackle is the fear of sharks, rather than the actual killing of sharks; most people never encounter a shark in their lifetime, yet they are still scared of them and therefore don’t take the time to think much about shark conservation. "If anything, this argument should be an argument against generalizations.

Similar arguments like

If I have 100 chocolates and I tell you one of them is poison, would you eat it?

are also used. However, these arguments are not new to politics. They have been used in things like racism debates about racial profiling to immigration issues, and they have all been deemed to be racist before, I don't see why the same argument suddenly should be considered acceptable when it comes to men.

Not all men, but most

This genuinely isn't much better. Yes, it does leave room for the idea that not all men are like that, but it does indicate that most men are. This means it is still a large generalization. Just like in the first argument, the same argument with the gender/race swapped would be considered racist. I don't see why there should be an exception for this.

​

We don't actually mean all men, but the bad ones

If you want food, don't ask for a drink. Use your words properly. If you genuinely don't mean all men, then say "some men" or "there are men who will", not simply "Men". If you say "men", it means all, or the majority of men. This argument assumes it's the male audience's responsibility to dodge the insult, to tell themselves "They're not talking to me" even if the words clearly indicate that it is about them.

It's also a matter of precedent. This can be a valid argument; however, it can be a valid argument only if the person who makes the argument also believes that the opposite should also be done. It only works if women are also expected to go out of their way to dodge the insult in the same way men do when someone say "I hate women". If not, that would be an unequal precedent, and I think the word for those is "Sexism".

​

They say that because they have bad experiences with many men

It's the same case as above. Yes, I do sympathize with women who experience sexual assault or sexual harassment and I do think it is understandable that they hate men. However, just because some things are understandable does not mean it's a valid excuse. Hate is still hate, no matter the personal experiences you may have.

Like above, it is a matter of precedent here. This argument can work, but only if we set equal precedents for everything. However, the precedent we have right now is that no matter your personal experience, you can not generalize a whole group of people based on race/ethnicity/gender/religion. Being robbed by black people a few times does not excuse racism, having relatives died in a terrorist attack does not excuse religious bigotry and being a victim of a hate crime committed by another minority does not excuse racism.

I guess you just have to ask yourself a few questions. Questions like if a man was sexually abused or sexually assaulted or/and harassed by several women, is it okay for him to say "I hate women". If no, then the argument does not work.

​

Your just making this about men

This may be valid in certain cases. However, the majority of reasons why men say "Not all men" I have seen is because the author directed the comment at men. The author was the person who choose to make it about men, not the men who say that. This could simply be solved by changing comments like "Why do men ---" or "I hate men" to "Why do some men" or "I hate men who do (insert)", but they usually aren't. Sometimes, the author even outright doubles down on the use of words that generalize men unapologetically, and that says everything you need to know about the people who make arguments like this one.

​