Harvard Grad Explains The Psychology Behind “Not All Men” So Well, Men Are Thanking Her In The Comments For Opening Their Eyes

This post is specifically about how the phrase "not all men" diminishes what women are saying about mental, physical and sexual abuse. You're doing the same thing by bringing up your personal annoyances about things that are irrelevant to THIS topic. And for the record, there IS no "common ground" to be found with abusive, rapey men.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Your friends sound like idiots.

QBFT: what?! You are here frustrated that men dismiss women and their opinions, that they are so hostile; can you not see you are firing your guns in the wrong direction, in my opinion anyway. This, again in my opinion only, is a reasonable and fair expression. To protect ourselves from the irritation of the negative notallmen ppl, we might have the tendency to gatekeep out of an instinct to prevent hearing this toxic stuff; an understandable but unhelpful response as it slices away those who support us. Did men not march alongside women as they sought the vote, even though a great many more stood against women? Did those suffragetes tell them it wasn't their business? No, and we know that the suffragetes bore the mantle of fighting for the vote, so women were not usurped by the support of legitimately decent men

Agreed that women were not usurped by the support of legitimately decent men. Bring on all the decent men, I say. But the Mac's friends "don't want to participate in women's issues" due to, it sounds like, their fragility. They've given up. They're not useful allies. Why have they given up? Because they feel women look at them as trash. Do women look at them like trash? Seems unlikely to me. Hard to know for sure as I, thankfully, don't know Mac's friends but maybe they had a bad experience with a woman or women. Instead of learning from that, perhaps they chose to just give up - their fragile masculinity couldn't handle a woman speaking against them. If they want to be decent men like you suggest, and allies, then I think they need to put more effort in to engage, rather than dissociating from it.

Qbft: point heard and understood :) I think mac engaging in this dialogue is an effort to engage genuinely: I somewhat overlooked how he(I'm assuming) phrased the part about his friends. Wording is a bitch! But I'm glad we could have a chat about it productively, and I have a new angle to ponder for my metaphor :D

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Yes, maybe Mac himself (he self identifies as a man in another post) is engaging with the issues - but as you're speaking about wording, I do find the way he words things very interesting - not so much in this post, which is carefully worded ("friends who FEEL that...") but in another post below, where he says he's been ostracised from conversations for being a man who wanted to understand. I find it interesting he uses very active language, saying he wants to "participate", and he complains that when he "tries to speak" and he wants "to be heard", he is dismissed. I find it very interesting it's all about him doing, him speaking, and not him listening or him hearing. Again, it's hard to know what really happened from just his pov, but I find, from his language, it equally if not more likely that he tried to talk over women and dominate this supposed conversation and that wasn't well received, than he was unfairly excluded by rude women.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

To be clear, we'll never know what really happened in that conversation. But the way he phrases his involvement is interesting. And regardless, if you're trying to get involved in a conversation where you're not wanted, you don't always need to blame person who cuts you out for being unreasonable. Look in the mirror first: have you done or said something that led them to cut you out of the conversation? Why doesnt this person feel comfortable with you being a participant? Is it them, or is it you? And whoever it is, respect consent. If they don't consent to you being in this conversation, that's their right.

As to the conversation I was ostracized from, it was a conversation about abortion and women's rights. It was between a group of co-workers/friends and other acquaintances. In short I have a particular view on abortion. If you really want to know what that is ASK. Don't assume you know because of my use of language or because you saw me identify as male in another post. In short part of my view challenged some of the women in the group and rather than challenge my view with reason they used the penis card. Because I have a penis rather than a vagina I cannot possibly comprehend the intricacies women's rights and abortion. They like you thought they had me figured out simply because I have a penis. In essence they were saying ALL MEN ARE THE SAME. =( This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened to me or to other men. I guess I just have a thicker skin than most and have not begun to believe that I am incapable of understanding because I have a penis. Maybe someday I will.

First off you need to "read between the lines" waaaay less. Second, rather than call my friends idiots. You could have just asked why they feel the way they do? Instead you immediately assumed they had fragile male egos that can't handle strong women. That is the kind of mentality that often keeps men from engaging in the first place! They feel like women look at them as trash because of the plethora of social media that essential demonize men has told them that they are trash. After a while that sort of thing can break a person. And so some of my friends have been broken and they could care less about womens issues now. Not that they were pillars of womens right before or anything but they certainly are never going to be now. It's like if you tell someone long enough that they are useless after a while they then start to believe they actually are useless.

Paul, here's a great starting point for some research into what you said. "Violence against women is a pressing issue in Singapore. 1 in 10 women in Singapore experience lifetime physical violence by a male"

You dont understand an important issue here. As a woman, I have never felt not safe walking down the street alone in Hong Kong or Singapore no matter how late at night. I would have felt unsafe doing the same anywhere in Europe and wouldnt dare to try in any big city in USA. Lifetime physical violence statistics is not entirely relevant since physical violence is more commonly committed by an aquaintance or a friend or relative or former of current romantic partner than a random stranger. Feeling safe in the street alone is entirely about random strangers

Man states "women do/don't have X" because who would know better how women feel than a man. imirite?

Hugo: I'm sorry you have had that experience. I hope you have supportive ppl in your life you can talk to in a healthy way. If you do not: I would say don't give up looking, because you deserve proper support.

Thanks a lot - yes, I'm happy that many people were supportive, a bit less the organizer of the event who had preferred to sweep things under the rug because the event is a chance for her to advertize her payed events and earn money. The sexual harassment was only part of the assault, and tbh there were many other things going wrong there.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Riiiight, men are always classed as all bad, got it. Anyway, speaking of irony....

They're not, and they shouldn't be, but this 'researcher' wants all men to feel bad for being born men. None of us have any choice about our gender assignment. We should be judged by our actions and not our genitals. Let's end patriarchy and misogyny but not replace it with matriarchy. You can't correct one evil with another. We should be working toward true equality.

Losferatu: then you and I are in agreement on that. Misandry isn't justified by misogyny. Blanket stating all men are bad isn't right. And when a women (in more than just this instance) tries to explain that she feels unsafe, responding with not all men Is just as dismissive. There is a schism between those who think misogyny allows them to be misandrist, and those of us who don't believe such harmful rhetoric: the 'not all men' thing is being blurred and used by both groups

She never said anything like that. Perhaps you should re read the text...

I see no irony in not wanting to be put down by someone who knows nothing about me, simply because of my gender. She creates a self-serving convenient trap to pre-phrase the argument in a way that says if you protest in any way, you're part of the problem, context and personal history be damned. If a male researcher spewed all women are (Insert misogynyst sexist trope here), there we would be outrage, deservedly so. That's where the irony is. This shouldn't be a men vs women fight, it should be people vs misogynists and sexist argument.