Women’s positive actions are collectivized while their negative actions are individualized.

I’ve noticed this pattern when discussing things like “The Bear” meme.

It seems it’s widely acceptable and uncontroversial to simply say “men are dangerous” or “men rape and kill women”.

Even just reading that, I’m guessing it does not evoke any emotion in the reader other than “well, yeah, they do”

However, if you said something like “Men are great innovators, leaders and protectors” , what would your reaction be?

I’m guessing many (if not most) people would immediately feel compelled to say something like “well, that’s very few men” or “women are good at all those things too!”

Now, let’s do this another way:

“Women are nurturing, empathetic and intuitive”

What does reading that make you feel? Again, you’re probably nodding along with that, right? It doesn’t feel at all like something you need to push back on.

Now try something like “Women are vindictive, manipulative and neurotic”

I’m guessing you’re feeling like you need to point out both how “not all women” are like this and that “men do this also”

What is your take on why this is?

My Take: This does indeed happen to a shocking degree, and the disparity in the reactions to the above examples is the result of women’s in-group-bias and men”s out-group bias along with a healthy dose of the women-are-wonderful narratives that have become extremely prevalent in the modern west. It is both nature and nurture causing this. It is also the basis of “I choose the bear” imo.

Any exceptionally bad thing a small group of men do is laid at the feet of “men” while any exceptionally good things a man does is hyper individualized and qualified as the outliers they are.

It’s a similar phenomenon you often hear minority groups discuss. It’s that, the bad behavior of a subset of people that share their traits is collectively held against all members of their group.

It seems human beings tribal instincts are also at play here, but maybe at an even more profound level.

Obviously, whatever the reasons for this, they are complex, but I’m wondering if people can acknowledge this happens, and if so, why and finally what do you think the broader societal consequences will be should this zeitgeist of thought continue without any deeper insight or scrutiny?