Because not all men are the problem, but some men actually are.
—
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Marcus Aurelius
After reading a recent article online, I have been forced into a deep introspection of some of my core beliefs. I have been thinking about this for a while, and have come to the following conclusions:
Gays should not be allowed to marry because of global warming and racism is acceptable because of religious freedoms.
Makes perfect sense, right? It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. While these examples are about random topics and not about men’s issues with women, they represent this kind of flawed logic that seems to have taken over men (Not all Men) when confronted by a woman (Not all Women) complaining about men (all Men) in general. Ok, before you go all “Not All Men Are Like That” (NAMALT) on me, hear me out. But first let me make the appropriate disclaimers.
Yes, there are men who are victims. (Not all Men)
Yes, there are men who are sentimental. (Not all Men)
Yes, there are men who are manly. (Not all Men)
Etc etc etc. (Not all etc?)
Ok, now that I have cleared the air (or made it foggier), let’s get started. Yes, ladies. Men (Not all Men) can be jerks, idiots, incompetent, and all those other adjectives women (Not all Women) call us from time to time. And yes, guys, not all men (but some) are like that. The fact that women can be just as bad does not take away from reality of how men (Not all Men) are. And there lies the flaw of your debate. By redirecting a woman’s complaint about men to some other topic, you refuse to look at the complaint at all.
Saying “Not all Men” is simply a scapegoat to avoid responsibility for our actions, or for dealing with the actions of other men. “Not all Men” simply means you are willing to look the other way about issues that people suffer at the hands of a specific group. Hell, we can replace “Men” with “White Men”, “Millennials”, “Blacks”, “Gays”, “Women”, “Latinos”, and the list goes on. It’s a way to avoid hearing “Check your Privilege”. But let’s limit it to “Not all Men” just to avoid pissing off more people than those needed to get the point across.
And Not all Men has become the battle cry for men (Not all Men) unwilling to accept the fact that there are some really crappy men (Not all Men) around giving the rest of us (All of Us) a bad name. Sure, Not all Men are bad, but that does not excuse you from being a bad man yourself under the excuse of Not all Men. But saying that Not all Men act a certain way, because women act in another certain way is like saying it’s the taxi driver’s fault that the food you ordered was bad. The taxi driver just drove you there.
We see this every time there is a confrontation online about men’s issues, or if there is an article about women, or about anything other than micro-analyzing what some men view as the only problems in the universe: their own. They understand that no other issue is important enough to be discussed, so will discard any other issue outright. Right about now, they are prepping yet another blasting comment or insult about what I just said. The fact that you may be doing so actually proves my point.
If you feel really feel so offended by women complaining about men, do something about it. And here is where I am going to give you a new and absolutely revolutionary action that you, as a man, can do. Instead of going all PR Damage Control Lawyer on a woman who is making the complaint about men, go after the men giving you a bad name! Stop confronting the messenger and confront the problem.
Because Not all Men are the problem, but Some Men actually are. That means you have to do something a little bit bigger and more meaningful than simply complaining to women about Not All Men. Instead of just saying “Not all Men”, prove it in your actions. Set an example on how Not all Men are. Who knows? Maybe if we stopped doing what women (Not all Women) “bitch” about, maybe, just maybe, they will stop “bitching” about it (Not all Women). Let me give you an example.
The article in question complained about fedora-wearing men as prime examples of the Not all Men crowd. I am a Fedora-wearing man, yet I am not part of the Not all Men community. I could complain how the author generalized all those with this hat preference. I could complain that most clothing sites will carry a larger selection of hats for women than for men, obvious gender discrimination. I might even go after the social ignorance of how a fedora and a trilby are constantly confused. I might even go to the extreme, stating how it’s feminism’s fault that because of the limited selection of head gear men are offered, we are forced into trucker or baseball caps, even if we have never shown any interest for either.
Or I could just go after the hypocrites wearing fedoras. Because every time a man uses the Not all Men excuse, he is being hypocrite. If you are willing to fly off into a rant for every complaint a woman has about sexism, yet do nothing about actual sexism, you are a hypocrite. If you don’t have the same kind of militant reaction every time a big restaurant chain tries to sell you chicken wings using a waitress with big boobs and short shorts, you are a hypocrite. Instead of going after the advertising company who openly insults your intelligence by using half-naked women to distract you from a bad product, you insult the woman who calls you out on your sexism.
See how simple that was? Oh, by the way. Did you notice just how annoying Not All Men is? From the Rest of the Men group, stop making us all look like hypocrites!
–
Photo: Flickr/davidd
By the logic of this article then every woman needs to take responsibility of the actions of a few. Do I then have the right to go up to a woman on the street and tell her it is her fault that Miley Cyrus is acting like an attention seeking whore? Is it that woman’s responsibility to change all men’s opinions of women because they see Miley twerking on TV? I think it is wrong to generalize and blame people for things they have not done, but this is what the article is saying; Men are at fault for some… Read more »
I’d like to remind Eduardo García not to rape women. I’m certain that he won’t find the repeated warnings obnoxious. If fact Ed. according to your own feminist logic, denying you want to rape women only underscores how serious your problem is.
[likely over his head, but the rest of you should get it]
The author is not a very deep thinker. The problem with the Slate article and the #YesAllWomen campaign is that is equates men who stand up for women with the jerks that would slap them on the ass.
Its anti-male bigotry from the feminists. What you say? #NotAllFeminists are bigots?
Stop accepting the collective guilt-trip that all of us feel entitled to women’s bodies or that all of us are closeted rapists. Its obnoxious, and you would take a stand to defend your own honor and dignity if you had a pair of balls to begin with.
OrishM, As you know, I usually try to avoid getting involved into the debate that ensues my articles. I realize and recognize that my opinion is bias. I also understand that some people simply view the world from their own perspective, and no other option is possible, making debates within the Internet community so inefficient, specially under the veil of anonymity this medium offers. But this last comment, I can take it as you calling me out specifically, and as such I will handle it. We as men, or whatever other social group you want or don’t want to include… Read more »
That’s the rather effective strategy of the Black Male Empowerment Movement and how the Muslim community has had to work in the aftermath of the generalized religion hatred they have had to endure and the Latino Community had to handle the attacks thrown our way. You have to understand you no longer just represent yourself, but everyone else within your community. Only be becoming their “brother’s keepers” can they grow in strength. The big problem here is it only works withing people willing to think as a community, past their own personal needs. But at the same time though would… Read more »
@ Eduardo Garcia One major flaw in your reasoning is that every group with substantial membership has had individuals who have done bad things. No one that I know of has exhorted women to correct their sisters. I’m unaware of any movement or program or event or group that demands that women atone for their sisters. I’m not pointing this out because I’m doing that women should be doing this too. I’m pointing this out to make a different point. Until women make women’s bad behavior untrue for example false claims of rape, are other groups then justified in generalizing… Read more »
OrishM It’s OirishM, Eduardo. Please try and get it right. We as men, or whatever other social group you want or don’t want to include yourself within, can decide to view the world limited only to what affects or relates to you, and just you. If so, the only social justice you want is the one that benefits only you. By definition that is not social justice, it’s personal convenience, not to mention a rather petty attitude Except this isn’t what objecting to NotAllMen is. It IS standing up to injustice to stand up to bigoted stereotypes. And I don’t… Read more »
The kind of thinking in this article is what is actually the worst enemy of not just men, but all mankind. You are in effect saying that when someone makes a generalisation about your group’s behaviour – even if the behaviour is committed by a minority – then you should not only validate it, but it is your responsibility to police your own group. And if you don’t, you’re part of the problem – never mind if the group is so broad it makes the generalisation laughable in the first place. This is the mentality that got us into the… Read more »
Thank you OirishM.
+1!
True True True.
Comment of the Day (if those are even done anymore)?
“Saying “Not all Men” is simply a scapegoat to avoid responsibility for our actions, or for dealing with the actions of other men. “Not all Men” simply means you are willing to look the other way about issues that people suffer at the hands of a specific group.”
I disagree. Not all men is a repudiation of the concept that because members of a particular group to which one belongs has committed injustice, there is a special or greater obligation on the individual as opposed to non-group members to correct it.
Or, you could just start to act just the way they are “b*tching” about.
That way you’d be affirming them instead, right?
But yet I assume you’d be cool with “not ALL Muslims”, right? (To name an example)
Or would you demand that Muslims themselves make sure there will be no terrorists, forced marriages, honor killings, and blasphemy laws ever again, before they can achieve the right to protest when somebody says they are ALL bad?
Naturally you would not demand that.
To the point http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5311083?fb_action_ids=673603496020396&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B719590404771295%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
thank you. a breath of fresh air. i love this because we can apply the concept to any underprivileged group in any area of being. it’s hard to be a good listener when we are busy defending ourselves and our “rights” (ahem) to our privileges. when a woman is complaining about men, it’s her classroom. when a man is complaining about women, it’s his. but please let’s not forget that the world is predominantly his classroom; there is, after all, a bottom line.
….but please let’s not forget that the world is predominantly his classroom; there is, after all, a bottom line….
But what good does it do to interrupt and tell him his predominantly his classroom (especially when that claim may not even match his own experiences)?
I would respectfully suggest that “not all men” (a phrase I must now expunge from use for the rest of eternity because that’s how these superheated concepts function, to mark and then remove specific strings of language) might occasionally be a genuine effort to request acknowledgement of those who are making the changes the world, other men, women, our fathers, mothers, our wives and our children are asking of us. Are we to focus on the failings of American male culture exclusively? At some point we have to say, “men are changing. (not all men) ” and in that moment… Read more »
Are we to focus on the failings of American male culture exclusively? That’s what it seems to be coming to. Yesterday in a group Im in on FB someone posted an article about how a girl was kicked out of a dance because the male chaperons were ogling her and she was considered a distraction. Oh people were quick to rail on about how terrible those dads were. But as soon someone (I think it was me) mentioned that her date supported her (including walking out of the dance they paid admission to when she was finally kicked out) and… Read more »
so, how many female dads were at the dance?
What responsibilities?
I have no authority to stop others from acting in asinine ways, and until I’m given that authority i refuse to be held accountable for their actions. If women are going to persist in labeling men as a monolithic entity then they can expect the same. I see no reason to parse my statements if they aren’t willing to do the same. I refuse to be held accountable for something I had nothing to do with, and you get no sympathy or empathy from me if you choose to do that.
I guarantee you that if you spend some time looking at sites that cater to women (Jezebel, XOJane, Feminista, etc), you will NEVER see a screed like this one directed towards men. No woman in her right mind would ever consider telling her fellow women that somehow they were responsible for policing, much less reforming the not-so-good and downright bad women in their midst. Nope. Only men are supposed to get involved in that sort of gender based remedial project. Men need remediation. Women, not so much. There is one exception to the above: Spend time in fundamentalists religious websites,… Read more »
Maria Kang was attacked by every one of those sites because she promoted the radical idea that moms needed to stop making excuses to take care of themselves. None of these sites defended her when men news casters would reduce her to eye candy.
As long as the phrase, “Check your privilege,” is targeted at ‘all’ men with its sloppy thinking and patronizing overtones, I have a simple, eloquent reply to that request: No.
You know, sometimes I feel that the inherent smugness in being able to tell other people to check their privilege is a privilege by itself. Like being allowed to punch somebody who is not allowed to defend themselves.
TE,
Agreed. Good metaphor, too.
I’m curious. The people who would tell men- not all men- whatever- to ‘check their privilege,’ I don’t think they think their use of that statement as a punch. I’m not what they’d call it- a love tap?
If folks who use the ‘CYP’ phrase are trying educate the heathen menfolk to their side, they need to rethink their own language. ‘CYP’ is the opposite of helpful.
Saying “Not all Men” is simply a scapegoat to avoid responsibility for our actions, or for dealing with the actions of other men. “Not all Men” simply means you are willing to look the other way about issues that people suffer at the hands of a specific group. Hell, we can replace “Men” with “White Men”, “Millennials”, “Blacks”, “Gays”, “Women”, “Latinos”, and the list goes on. It’s a way to avoid hearing “Check your Privilege”. But let’s limit it to “Not all Men” just to avoid pissing off more people than those needed to get the point across. But as… Read more »
I’ve seen a bit of an uptick in people complaining about the use of “not all men”. Thing is the people who are complaining about it are people who generalize men. In short they are upset that their generalizations are being challenged.
I’ll ask this. On the posts around there where guys come into the comment sections complaining about their experiences with women how often are they told not to generalize women and that “not all women” are like that? But for some reason we’re supposed to believe its okay to generalize men that way?
Well, quite – recall the (entirely legit, IMO) objections to the generalisations in the recent nice guys article. I’m reminded of something I wrote a while back for Alyssa’s douchebag article, as it definitely fits here: There’s a very common problem I see in this debate, and I have to say it’s a mistake usually made by women (or usually feminists, at least) – you talk to us men in ways that most of us men know damn well you wouldn’t take for a second if the situation was reversed. You talk to us in this way, and we know… Read more »
You may not intend it, but you really come off as self-righteous and holier-than-thou. You are holding yourself up as an example of not being like those OTHER men who are hypocrites. I am responsible
only for my behavior, not anyone else’s.
Responsible for your own actions – yes. But you also have influence over others actions as well. What Ed is saying is use that influence when some men (not all men) are being jerks, yes judge them for their actions and make it clear that you disapprove of their childish immature behavior.
If you want an example of this in the modern day era have at look at how well the war on smoking has worked, why not a war on jerks.
I totally agree that we need to collectively and continually use our influence to address bad behavior by men (actually, all people). But I draw the line at stating that we men are somehow forbidden to own our own good works because we are collectively culpable for the actions of the worst among us. Or if that is to be the case, we should, men and women, be culpable for the acts of human kind. Because women (not all women) can be dangerous and violent creatures, too.
Most certainly. Influence should be used to positively reinforce good behavior/works as well as disdain the negative.
There was another GMP article a few months which had a method for turning those assumptions by women on their heads.
It went something like this:
W:All men are XXXX
M: Which men, your father or brothers
W: Well no
M: Your friends
W: Well no
M: So which men
W: Well the men I dated that were XXXX
M: So not all men, just the ones you dated, perhaps you need to pick other types of men.
Hi 5 Mark, I agree.