if you’re a responsible parent that keeps an eye on what their child is doing.

Unfortunately you can’t run a society based on how people should behave. That’s the entire reason we have a legal system and the means to implement safeguards for our population.

Ahh yes, I forgot. Anything that runs counter to your expert opinion is condescending.

Sounds like a perfectly legitimate rebuttal…

Lol, are you this overdramatic every time someone disagrees with you? I think you may be a bit sensitive when encountering criticisms, which may explain the whole taking the generalization of men personally.

All I’m really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just “men” when making complaints about certain men. It doesn’t need to be precise, just clear enough that it’s obvious that all men aren’t the target of criticism

Right, but isn’t it a bit far fetched to be taken literally? That there are a significant amount of women who hate every man in their life?

If I said men love sports, would you demand me pretext that with “not all men”?

I’m not doing that. I’m making my point in a thread that’s specifically about why feminism is often seen in a bad light. Where else could I possibly find a more appropriate venue for such a criticism?

That was in reference to the “not all men” rhetoric.

I’m saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.

Maybe that means you may be overreacting?

I know better than to say “not all men”. You’re missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me.

You’re just validating their interpretation?

It’s about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because they’re men.

I think people whom think that way are just finding pedantic reasons to be upset at something they already have made opinions about.

You don’t need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.

Not trying to convince you of anything besides my original retort, communication about politics is hard. Just look at our conversation.

How so? I’m criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that I’m taking about that subset of women, not women in general.

Idk, you said" a lot of women" and “I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted turn I do”, not exactly specific language.

prevalent enough that I’ve encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. It’s also prevalent enough that it’s a common complaint from men.

Again, anecdotal evidence. I have not experienced this, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Assuming that all societal discourse is reflection of your own experience is a product of reductive reasoning.

They do need to stop.

Right, but who are you making that request to? If a woman randomly yelled out to you that misogynist men needed to be cast out of society, what assumptions would you make? How different would it be if they just specified men, not misogynist men?

My point is that actual productive discourse requires context, nuance, and patience. That even if you are talking to a person who doesn’t utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesn’t automatically mean that their point is moot. Nor does it really mean they were unintentionally making a claim.

If someone is making a claim like “men evil” and there is surrounding context that should lead you to believe that this is not a literal statement, like them having a boyfriend or being married to a man…isn’t saying “not all men” pedantic? Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?

But I didn’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric

Couldn’t your need for specified absolution be an example of internalized misanthropy? One could assume that people who do not self associate with accusations intended for misogynists, have no real need for this type of pedantic relief.

Again, my whole point that political discourse is exceedingly hard. And it’s made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isn’t being specific enough for their taste.

How hard is it for critics of toxic masculinity to just say what they actually mean instead of saying a bunch of blatantly sexist things things and then claiming they meant something else when they’re called on it?

Tbh, pretty difficult. At least for the vast majority of people. Putting together a comprehensive argument pertaining to socioeconomics or politics without it being full of internal contradictions is nearly impossible. Especially if your ideological framework isn’t accounting for things like class consciousness.

For example, you are complaining about the reductive reasoning that leads to people make a bunch of sexist claims. However, you yourself utilized reductive thinking to come to that conclusion.

How prevalent is this attitude among feminist? Is this a majority or minority opinion, and if it is a minority opinion, how impactful is it? If it is just a few people making a lot of noise, is it fair to really judge half the global population for it? It is essentially the same “Schrodinger’s douchebag” you were speaking about.

Women who do this need to fucking stop, because they’re draining enthusiasm from their male allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.

Is essentially the same as saying the men who are misogynist need to stop because they are draining enthusiasm from their female allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.

None of these are actual solutions to problems, they don’t even really identify a problem, it’s just rhetoric.

Which is why some men are becoming “anti-feminist”. It’s not that they’re anti-women, it’s that they are anti-“A movement that tells them they are the source of all problems and offers them no support”.

I think the problem is more inherent in how America interprets liberalism. We don’t include things like class consciousness into liberal ideology, here it’s all about addressing specific systemic inequalities between certain demographics.

When you define liberalism as only fixing these inequalities then of course a large population of men aren’t going to involve themselves, they don’t reap any benefit, they’re not experiencing any systemic abuse.

However, if we accommodate socioeconomic realities of class into the equation, things start making a bit more sense. By protecting the most disadvantaged demographic in your class, you also strengthen your own interests.

I think it’s important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you aren’t participating in misogyny, then they really aren’t talking about you. They just aren’t vocalizing the division in class that separates us all from the reigns of power.