Saying "Not all men" is functionally self implicating. It prioritizes a man's need to be recognized as innocent over women's need to end the systemic problem. It protects the problem at hand. You implicate yourself.
This is just a Kafka trap. Your argument is that denial of an accusation is proof itself of that accusation.
It is perfectly normal human behavior to challenge false accusations. I don’t know how you get this idea in your head that only people who are guilty of whatever generalizing accusation that’s being thrown out would take offense to be a member of the accused.
Let’s take your logic and apply it to race: any minority who objects to a racial stereotype actually fits that stereotype, cuz why else would they object to the generalization if they themselves were not guilty of it? Do you see why the logic of “proclaiming your innocence=proof of guilt” is nonsensical?
(Not person you replied to) - It is heavily context dependent.
It's a perfectly OK response if a woman said "Man - yes all men, every single man on earth - are all rapists." Like yeah, WTF is that, normal response to say not all men.
But if a woman says "Men make it so hard for me to feel safe out alone at night" I think everyone kinda knows it isn't all men. You're basically constructing a strawman which is beside the point, making it about you, and arguing with a woman who's discussing a legit issue.
The idea is if you disagree with the established discourse that means you are condoning the behavior. It also doesn't work in the reverse. If i said that a majority of children under 3 who are murdered are killed by women. It's perfectly acceptable to discuss the nuance of the issue but if you do that in the reverse you hate women for simply not agreeing that everything they're trying to blame on men is warranted.
29
u/Typical-Priority1976 6h ago
why isn't it acceptable other times?