eg “not all men” weirdos

—-

Edit: to further clarify the example above since it set off some brainworms, this can be seen when people respond to discussions about patriarchy and the way it shapes toxic masculinity with defensive “not all men” statements.

When we discuss systems, we are aware that not everyone who has privilege within them internalizes it the same way.

Men are not somehow evil. Masculinity is not somehow evil. Feminism is about liberation of everyone from patriarchy. The issue is that you can wind up needing to “protect” or cater to very fragile expectations of individuals and that can sometimes wind up recentering discussion on purely men and their feelings about patriarchy.

That is an important aspect of the discussion, but it cannot be the only one. Given that one of the patriarchal behaviors that many men are taught is to talk over anyone who is not a man, space must be intentionally created for others.

Anyway, this would be better covered in a dedicated effort post on feminism and positive masculinity.

This is however a meme featuring Josie and the pussy cats with a comments section that proves the meme is accurate lol

    • BolsheWitch [she/her, they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Love how you guys took the concept of “punching up and down” which makes obvious sense in the context of comedy and decided for no reason that it also applies to actual hate speech

      I don’t understand how this relates to the meme I posted?

        • BolsheWitch [she/her, they/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          it’s a similar thing to how people saying “all lives matter” are weird and missing the point lol

            • BolsheWitch [she/her, they/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              Interesting, I’ve only seen it brought up in response to folks talking about toxic masculinity. Wasn’t aware it was also attached to awful 2nd wave feminism shit

        • pastalicious [he/him, undecided]
          ·
          2 years ago

          “Not all men” is sort of a meme or a cliche. This comic explains it better than I could http://listen-tome.com/save-me/

        • MoneyIsTheDeepState [comrade/them,he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          'Not all men,' as a phrase usually refers to the act of objecting to a casually unqualified statement about men.

          Although systems of oppression degrade all participants, there's often a hierarchy. People of all genders are subordinated to capital, but within that system all other genders are subordinated to cis men. So when people criticize 'men' as an identity they generally mean cis men in the context of their societal role as mid-level oppressors. Men aren't forced to participate in the oppression, and many do their best not to with wildly-varying degrees of success.

          'All men are predators,' for instance is reactionary. 'Men are predators,' is not reactionary by virtue of referring not to 'all men,' but to 'men' as a social construct at the peak of its own hierarchy of predation.

          In short, it isn't 'all men,' so much as 'it's not necessary to qualify which men.'

            • MoneyIsTheDeepState [comrade/them,he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              It's similar to 'Black lives matter.'

              Virtually no one's saying that to mean 'only Black lives matter,' but people respond to it as though that's the implication. It could be qualified each time we say it as, 'Black lives matter the same as all lives do, but Black lives in particular are being treated as though they don't matter in accordance with our longstanding policy of white supremacism,' but that that isn't necessary. In fact, the reaction that 'Black lives matter' evokes from sensitive crackers helps to illustrate the fact that they're more concerned with their own image than they are with drawing attention to systemic oppression.

              Men are predators. We're taught and encouraged at every turn to be predators, and way way too many of us are. Sure, I'm not. My friends aren't. I'd bet your friends aren't.

              But then, most men I know (US deep south) are vocally fine with 'non-violent' kinds of rape. When I hear people talk about a huge, systemic problem with our concept of manhood including predation, I'm not concerned with whether or not they make sure to explicitly leave room for me in their complaint. I have all the room I need in society for my identity as a white cisman. I don't need even more of it from discussions around toxic masculinity, but those discussions need succinct messaging for reach.

                • Ideology [she/her]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Gender is fake. "Men" as a cultural institution is a toxic concept that needs to either die or be reformed to the extent it's unrecognizeable. There is an ACAB kind of function happening here: not all men do bad things, but if you hold being a man in higher regard than being human, whether explicitly through beliefs or implicitly through the kinds of behaviors you defend, you are effectively a gender cop.

                • MoneyIsTheDeepState [comrade/them,he/him]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  I also said that people respond to 'Black lives matter' as though it meant that only Black lives matter. Did I accuse all people of doing that, or did I say that people do it? You know, particularly the people who do it?

            • MoneyIsTheDeepState [comrade/them,he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              Now that my main point is snarked out at you, yeah of course. Gender essentialism is deeply destructive and completely untethered from reality.

              I'm not saying 'all or almost all,' I'm saying 'way, way too many for reasons that are deeply rooted in our concepts of what constitutes a man.' I'm sorry you've got guilt tied up in that - it's probably undeserved in the first place. But unless you mean gender essentialists like TERFs making sweeping statements about 'male nature' or other kook shit, I haven't even once encountered anyone talking about men who, upon my asking, didn't explain some variation on 'we're talking about the concept of manhood that men are taught to emulate, as well as the social structures propping that concept up.'

              And I did ask a few different people. It pained me as a kid to see those statements, because I knew I wasn't like that, but the only people who ever clarified that they really did mean categorically all men were gender essentialists. So eventually, I just adjusted my understanding of 'men' as an unqualified group in accordance with how sane, non-gender-essentialist people were using it.

              To me it mirrors the reactionary narrative of 'Black rights activists want you to feel guilty for being white.' The activists don't say that - their opponents do. The activists can and will explain systemic oppression until the sun burns out, but it will always be misrepresented in public discourse as 'white bad' because reactionaries eat it up, refuting it is longer and more boring to observe, and unfamiliar white audiences will enter the conversation in a defensive posture.

                • MoneyIsTheDeepState [comrade/them,he/him]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Of course, you can say stuff like “All men are predators” and be the best comrade in the world,

                  What? No you can't. That's been the whole point here - that 'not all men' is a reaction to 'men' more often than to 'all men'. You don't get to define other people's ideas for them by adding an incorrectly-inferred 'all' even if you do feel reflexively defensive about it.

                • BolsheWitch [she/her, they/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  You’re on a leftist website discussing systemic patriarchy… these aren’t uncommon ways to talk about systems of oppression.

                  “Man” as we understand it when discussing patriarchy systemically is referring to that gender role in relation to the patriarchy.

                  Similar to discussing whiteness or class. We can understand that discussing the currents of those concepts is not necessarily a value judgement on the individuals within it.

          • BolsheWitch [she/her, they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Not all men,’ as a phrase usually refers to the act of objecting to a casually unqualified statement about men.

            Although systems of oppression degrade all participants, there’s often a hierarchy. People of all genders are subordinated to capital, but within that system all other genders are subordinated to cis men. So when people criticize ‘men’ as an identity they generally mean cis men in the context of their societal role as mid-level oppressors. Men aren’t forced to participate in the oppression, and many do their best not to with wildly-varying degrees of success.

            ‘All men are predators,’ for instance is reactionary. ‘Men are predators,’ is not reactionary by virtue of referring not to ‘all men,’ but to ‘men’ as a social construct at the peak of its own hierarchy of predation.

            In short, it isn’t ‘all men,’ so much as ‘it’s not necessary to qualify which men.’

            Appreciate the systemic aspect you outlined here, although the example of men as predators is a pretty intense one. I also want to emphasize that I most often hear the “not all men” line in response to conversations about patriarchy and how it conditions men to behave and act.