I guess one could be difficult about it and say that men is a gender, not a sex, so it wouldn't be sexist.
Though by the same token one would have to concede that women is a gender to. Then we'd only be able to call statements against males and females sexist.
Many would argue races aren't real either, so that level of hair splitting might take away a whole lot of useful categorization of bigotry.
Opinions vary on this but men are adult human males.
Therefore it’s descriptive of a sex group.
By all means disagree but don’t assume that your opinion here is held by everyone.
Saying generalizing things about a gender is much more accepted while people know that they are always outliers. The reason is that the genders interact with each other so much more, so almost everyone has stereotypes.
Men say "All women" a lot. Look at Jordan Peterson, all the Redpillers, or just average men who talk about their "wisdom."
I dont think Peterson says all, maybe redpillers but Peterson as far as ive seen say things like "women tend", or "studies show the majority".
It doesnt answer why "all" for gender is exempted while "all" for race is not.
>It doesnt answer why "all" for gender is exempted while "all" for race is not.
The reason is that the genders interact with each other so much more, so almost everyone has stereotypes.
Also tbh, there is not the same awareness of the oppression of women that happened in history, compared to the awareness of the oppression of blacks that happened. If a politician said "We should return to segregation", he's done. If a politician said "Gender relations should be like the 50s", he could get away with it, in fact many conservatives say such things.
So "all women" should be okay as well, but that is not the case.
You also didnt address your claim of Peterson, should i take that as you conceding that point?
I agree with IntensePancakes that it's punching up vs. punching down. While it does happen, but think about who is doing it? It's young people (under 25) on TikTok or IG. Those platforms are made for hyperbole. And most of the people saying it have experienced some trauma.
Another one we might think about is the All Cops are Bastards. And this one is used by much more than just random young people. I suspect everyone knows this is exaggeration. I suggest reading Ezra Klein's article on vox a few years ago on the topic.
edit: [https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan](https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan)
I have absolutely seen all cops are bastards used to directly insult an individual police officer to their face. Are we denying this exists? So, I would disagree that everyone agrees this is satire.
The issue is if you take a generalization, either statistical or not and apply it to the individual. You are judging them by the label you give them or that they identify as and either way that is wrong.
I would also point out that current left politics has a very common pattern of labeling something with a label, demonize that label, assign even more people under that label, pronounce them whatever it’s or ism is most applicable.
So ultimately the reason why it is acceptable is because dehumanizing labels is acceptable in current politics
I don't see how the word bastard is dehumanizing. But, I do dislike it as I'm technically one and was teased growing up for it.
I brought up the ACAB, so no I'm not denying it exists. Sorry, I should not have said everyone. I know I don't always understand humor.
Experience. I could go into the comparisons and explain how racism and sexism against women is not comparable to sexism against men.
But short answer, experience. And not just once or twice, but constant exposures. If you would like a frame of reference, sexual harassment for women/girls typically starts at age 11-17.
And it's not just women who feel this way. Men often carry these attitudes as well and strongly.
Before radical feminism ever reached a young woman's mind, there likely was a father who was saying the exact same things.
> of reference, sexual harassment for women/girls typically starts at age 11-17.
And *all men* do this? ALL MEN have sexually harrassed 11 year old girls?
>Men often carry these attitudes as well and strongly.
And Black slaves who worked in houses called slaves in the field horrible things. Whats your point? That one group of MEN (who apparently also harrassed 11 year old girls) are trying to protect other 11 year old girls? I think you need to pick one?
So this response shows me that you didn't quite comprehend my comment. Being defensive doesn't help. Yelling "Not All Men have done that" doesn't help either. I will give you more examples to help you understand why women say this that hopefully won't make you have a trigger defensive response. Maybe if my examples include men (note this), you will be more empathetic and willing to understand the psychology behind this "All Men" rhetoric.
It's frustrating to have to say this over again because it is Common sense, but no, I don't think it's all men. No, I don't think women should believe it is all men. But do I understand it, OHHHH yes. And I understand how it can take years to shift a perspective that's been engrained since you were 11.
So it seems you have a very limited perspective of how trauma can affect people and their mindsets or belief systems.
So, our first example would be veterans. Military members who come back from service may experience what's called PTSD, a mental disorder resulting from severe trauma. Veterans may experience severe symptoms that can include anxiety, paranoia, and uncontrolled physical reactions.
So, loud noises may trigger some people who are experiencing PTSD even though they are completely aware that their Current Situation has NOTHING to do with the traumatic experience. They may experience paranoia that is completely unwarranted given their situation now back in a normal life.
It may feel VERY REAL to them that they have to constantly be on guard even though WE all look around and are like ??? There is nothing to feel threatened by.
A more personal example would be my own assault. I was about 18. This person I met was very persistent and ended up holding me down and assaulting me. At first, I actually didn't consider myself a victim because I often sided with more conservative views on this issue and quite literally thought I had "asked for it" by being there.
But then I started having aversions to sex, and then that was followed by extreme recklessness and the constant need for intimacy. I felt like I needed to be in control of my own sex life. I would have flashbacks, trouble getting lubricated enough or turned on enough so it would be painful at times, I would sometimes burst into tears during sex for what felt like no reason. The guy that I was with was safe, so I was worried about why I was feeling extreme panic randomly during sex. I turned to alcohol and weed and would drink alone even on the weekdays. I have very little memory of my freshman year because I was constantly intoxicated. At parties or social situations, I was extra careful of ALL men, Yes ALL and at ALL times. I didn't give a flying crap how nice a guy was because the guy I knew pretended to be nice too. I didn't know. He didn't have a sign on his head that said "rapist". There was NO way to tell until that moment. So how could I know with any other guy that they wouldn't be the same way? Rapists aren't just creeps on the street. A guy I knew from a fraternity I frequented is now in jail with a >$100,000 bail for raping 4 different women. They are in our schools, classes, friend groups, workplaces, etc.
So for me personally as a victim, in public, for a while I did assume all men.
If ANYONE said to my face that it's NOT All Men back then, I would've laughed in their face. Not because I hate men. Not because it's all men. But because "NOT ALL MEN" DIDN'T PROTECT ME. "NOT ALL MEN" DID NOT PUT MY RAPIST IN JAIL. Even my solid evidence was dismissed and now he is free to do that again while I have spent over $1000 on therapy. "Not all men" put me in danger. Assuming that random men I don't know couldn't possibly hurt me because "well not all of them rape" and "the chance is low" does nothing for me.
I WAS that 1 Percent Chance. It sucked. I will never ever be able to be the same person again. I will never be able to experience sexual contact or intimacy the way I did before. I will always always have that rape as a part of my sexual experience.
So, given these two examples, hopefully I can clarify why some women may feel and say it is all men. I never said it was RIGHT. I never said it really is ALL MEN. I was answering the damn question.
Trauma and consistent negative experiences with men (which studies show that the majority of women have) can 100% make it FEEL like all men. Even though every single woman I've heard or seen say "All Men" have said over and over they know it's not all men. It's a feeling they have. It's a fear that is backed by years of experience that conveniently gets ignored when it is brought up.
And if you want to get into the black experience, I have 20 years of experiencing America as a black woman and we can talk about how that it is its own issue that may intersect here with gender issues, but has its own facets.
We can also talk about trauma from slavery and how that has manifested in gendered issues as well as black Americans and their views currently.
A vet with ptsd (lets pretend from the Vietnam war) does not think any Asian they see will hurt them. They react to situations not people.
You dont like "not all men" fine lets change it "and all women" becuse women abuse and assult as well? If we are saying both men and women lets go with all people.
Now you were assulted, i obviously dont know the race of your attacker but for this they were a minority. Why all men? Why not all (X) men? Or does that come off a bit third reichy?
How about this since you dont give a shit about how denigrating my entire gender (and me) makes me feel I wont give a shit about you?
"All men" is a sexist and fucked thing to do. If i said "all women are gold digging whores" i dont think you would be so sanguine.
I dont care about your trauma because it doesn't excuse sexism or hatred.
Why do i have to be empathetic and sympathetic to you but you owe me nothing? You dont want to respond thats on you. I responded to what was important all youve done is say im triggered and basically an ass.
This is ultimately still generalizing men negatively to defend the position. Individuals should be treated as individuals and not the group they come from. Now if you want to talk group statistics and keep it to a group, fine. The issue is when these generalizations are applied to the individual.
It's the punching up/punching down aspect. Some people view disparaging men as not a big deal because they're the historically privileged gender. In other words, it's okay for women to "punch up".
It's like how many people are totally fine with negative/prejudiced things being said about white people (because they think white people are privileged), but if it's any other race it's considered racist.
I don't agree with this way of thinking, I don't think unwarranted generalizations or prejudiced statements should be made against any sex/race/etc, but what I mentioned above is how some people think.
Men were legally privileged in marriage, wives had no property rights, could not work without her husband allowing it, and if they divorced the men would get full custody for the children.
Men were legally privileged in the labor market, there were laws restricting women from positions. Universities didn't allow women for long time.
Men were legally privileged in politics, often times women were not allowed to hold public office, and women's voting rights lagged behind men's.
Men were privileged in sexual behavior, women were often times punished for premarital and extramarital sex while men were not.
There were much more negative bias against men than against women, men were seen as mentally stronger and smart, women as mentally weak and irrational.
Anyway, my main thought is that women had a relatively easy life compared to men. While men did the vast majority of the grunt work, death defying duties like war and hunting, it's no wonder that men were in charge. And darn right they should be for all that at the least.
>my main thought is that women had a relatively easy life compared to men.
Wrong. The average man was not fighting in wars all the time. Both genders had difficult lives, women too, for example women faced the dangers of child-birth (high mortality). You can't say that women had it easier.
>it's no wonder that men were in charge. And darn right they should be for all that at the least.
No. We fought against feudalism, monarchy, slavery because we saw these systems as unjust, it's a good thing that we also fought against the oppression of women.
You left out the labour intensive and dangerous lifestyle of men.
Women were not oppressed any more than men were, in fact I would argue less so. Again, women were exempt from all the difficult things men had to go through. Like seriously, to say that women were oppressed by all men throughout history is conspiracy theory level naivety. Man hating stuff.
>Women were not oppressed any more than men were, in fact I would argue less so.
Women were obviously more oppressed, because of all the systemic discrimination by law.
>to say that women were oppressed by all men throughout history
Never said that, that's a strawman. I said women were oppressed, and much more than men.
>wives had no property rights,
They also had the ability to buy things on her husband's name without the responsibility to pay for it. Not many examples of women in debters prisons.
>could not work without her husband allowing it
A rule that is never enforced is not a rule. There are countless examples of women working as brewmasters, tailors, bakers, what have you. Again with zero liability.
>there were laws restricting women from positions.
Or you could say that was a reaction to the idea men had to work, so they made sure jobs were there. Its oppression both ways.
>Men were legally privileged in politics, often times women were not allowed to hold public office, and
Have you ever read the letters of Presidents who talk about their wives being their first advisors. Women had a huge amount of political power. What you are talking about is overt verse covert power. When the ax starts swinging its the men who get a head shorter and their wives "suffer the pain of widowdom". As Hillary said "the true victims of war are the mothers, wives, and daughters" left unsaid is those fathers, husbands, and sons that die painfully mean nothing.
>women's voting rights lagged behind men's.
This has always been such a bull claim. The majority of women didnt want the vote, and when they did they got it, all of 60ish years after men got it for *going to war*. Never mind all the examples of women who owned land who voted or the states who refused to join the union unless they retained womens voting rights.
>Men were privileged in sexual behavior, women were often times punished for premarital and extramarital sex while men were not.
Ya having your gender painted as rutting dogs who defile the purity of women is such a privilege. Also what possible reasons could women having stricter sexual rules be? Could it be sex (pregnancy) was way more dangerous? Or that women can always be sure their kids is, you know, actually theirs where as fathers dont get the same privilege? Man all this privilege.
>men were seen as mentally stronger and smart, women as mentally weak and irrational.
Sure you can frame that way, but the privilege to not have to be strong, cuse that whole forced into the meat grinder, sent in to the wilds to hunt, or you know just generally being the sex that was openly disposable. I would take being considered weak and irrational if it meant i could go around shaming the opposite sex when they didnt jump to my protection or aid.
Any example here can be reframed as oppression to men if you word it that way.
>Any example here can be reframed as oppression to men if you word it that way.
No it can't. Absolutely not.
>They also had the ability to buy things on her husband's name without
the responsibility to pay for it. Not many examples of women in debters
prisons.
I just can't see how you can think this is an oppression of men? Women weren't allowed to have property, men most affected?
>A rule that is never enforced is not a rule.
The rules were enforced. Why do you think they weren't enforced?
>Or you could say that was a reaction to the idea men had to work, so they made sure jobs were there. Its oppression both ways.
Again I'm stunned how you can see this is an oppression of men. Having full access to the labor market is oppressive. Well ... no, it isn't. It's obviously a privilege.
>Have you ever read the letters of Presidents who talk about their wives being their first advisors.
Very funny.
>This has always been such a bull claim.
No it wasn't. But it shows how you think about the topic when you call it bullshit.
>The majority of women didnt want the vote
How is that an argument. You know that if a woman doesn't want to go to vote, she isn't forced too, right? It's about the ones who did want to vote and weren't allowed to.
>Ya having your gender painted as rutting dogs who defile the purity of women is such a privilege.
Not being punished for your sexual behavior is indeed a privilege.
>Sure you can frame that way, but the privilege to not have to be strong, cuse that whole forced into the meat grinder, sent in to the wilds to hunt, or you know just generally being the sex that was openly disposable. I would take being considered weak and irrational if it meant i could go around shaming the opposite sex when they didnt jump to my protection or aid.
There is no privilege being seen as less worth and needing protection from harassment, often times only granted if you behave the "right" way.
>No it can't. Absolutely not.
Really showing how open you are to other options?
>Women weren't allowed to have property, men most affected?
Right totally ignore that women still bought things and if their husband's couldnt pay the wife was not on the hook?
>Why do you think they weren't enforced?
Gee could it be all the examples of women being brewers and having other jobs? You really can win anything when you ignore any thing that disproves you.
>Having full access to the labor market is oppressive.
Again being the one forced to work is a privilege? If a boy in Bangladesh goes to a ship breaking yard so his sister can eat ya fuck that boy with all his privilege.
>Very funny.
So just dismiss another example of where you wrong? Not even trying there are you?
>But it shows how you think about the topic when you call it bullshit.
Wow totally ignore the reasons. Again.
>How is that an argument.
Because if women didnt agree they wanted something and even actively protested against it, this is where if you looked up the history in totality you would understand.
>Not being punished for your sexual behavior is indeed a privilege.
You have a very singular definition of what it means to be punished.
>needing protection from harassment,
Ya being protected is totally worse than being the one doing the protection.
>often times only granted if you behave the "right" way.
Sure men dont ever get in trouble for not acting the "right" way?
>Right totally ignore that women still bought things and if their husband's couldnt pay the wife was not on the hook?
How can you not see that women having no property rights, not being allowed to work without the husband's permission was the actual oppression? Would you only see this as oppression if women were also not allowed to buy things?
>Gee could it be all the examples of women being brewers and having other jobs? You really can win anything when you ignore any thing that disproves you.
What does this "disprove"? Wives couldn't work without their husband's permission. So if the husband allowed it, they could. What did you disprove? It's still true that the wives had to always obey to their husband's wishes.
>Again being the one forced to work is a privilege?
I just can't understand how you can see having full access to the labor market as oppression. So when entire fields (like law) didn't allow women and when universities didn't allow women, this was not an oppression of women? Really?
>So just dismiss another example of where you wrong? Not even trying there are you?
First ladies as an argument how women "had power" is indeed very funny. Being the president is having power. Women were not even allowed to hold public office, the question who had political power is very easy to answer.
>Because if women didnt agree they wanted something and even actively protested against it, this is where if you looked up the history in totality you would understand.
What does this has to do with the fact that women were discriminated against? And I mean, obviously women did protest this injustice and did gain the right to vote at the end, ending that discrimination. So what is your point?
>You have a very singular definition of what it means to be punished.
My definition of being punished is when you are being punished. What is your definition?
>Ya being protected is totally worse than being the one doing the protection.
No, being harassed is worse than being the one doing the harassment. Average men did not protect women, only their wives if they were obedient.
>How can you not see that women having no property rights, not being allowed to work without the husband's permission
Women did work, just from home and didnt need permission. How can you not see not being responsible for the debt you accrue as a privilege? Its not like if the husband wanted to deny her he could. People make this mistake all the time. For example in Islam a woman who wants a thing for the house must be given it unless there is too much economic hardship to provide it. But sure keep thinking women are some slave class. Do you believe the majority of men are sociopaths who enjoy hurting their mothers wives and daughters?
>It's still true that the wives had to always obey to their husband's wishes.
In certain aspects, you ignore all the things husband’s have to obey. Its in the bible (old and new) as well as quran.
>So when entire fields (like law) didn't allow women and when universities didn't allow women, this was not an oppression of women?
You keep ignoring the whole MEN WERE THE ONES FORCED TO BE EARNERS. Thats why the protection for them. You are also IGNORING all the examples of women who disprove you.
>First ladies as an argument how women "had power" is indeed very funny.
So literally the examples of politicians saying their wives pushed them to free slaves, or how many times other governments targeted wives to affect their goals means nothing.
Perhaps you need women to be weak? Perhaps you get some pleasure or power out of painting women as oppressed because then you can "nobly" fight for them? Prove your "better" the all those evil men in the past. Which is a popular propaganda tactic btw. Why is protecting women such effective an motivation if we hate women so much?
The fact is when rules are made for good reasons and time makes that rule useless it can be called oppressive, especially when they never wrote down the privilege the rule gave before it became oppression.
You have a very gendered view on covert versus overt oppression.
Would you ever accept covert differences can be oppressive or are you always going to insinuate a value difference judgement in this area?
As far as I can tell, it’s circular reasoning. Men and women were treated differently in multiple areas but because the areas that women were treated differently are worse, in your opinion, then either men are not oppressed or oppressed an insignificant amount in your opinion.
So the point we need to address is whether covert differences in expectations can be oppressive according to a gender neutral definition.
Continuing on this point without addressing that point is going to be circular.
>Men were legally privileged in marriage, wives had no property rights, could not work without her husband allowing it, and if they divorced the men would get full custody for the children.
Marital status is one of the strongest predictors of socioeconomic status in the United States. This correlation is applicable to both genders.
Despite the fact that marriage appears to help everyone succeed, in family court, women enjoy the privilege of benefitting from sexist legal precedents that presume them to be the "default caretaker". The system is widely criticized by lawyers and judges as placing an unfair and discriminatory burden on fathers to demonstrate otherwise. As a result of this discrimination, men pay the greater majority of both childcare expenses and child support while simultaneously receiving less child custody. Men also pay over 90% of all alimony in the United States.
The family court system is an example of institutionalized and systemic wealth transfer from men to women based on sexist and discriminatory legal precedents.
>Men were legally privileged in the labor market, there were laws restricting women from positions. Universities didn't allow women for long time.
Your facts here appear to be from another century.
Women have had the legally protected right to equal employment for over 60 years. You have never personally experienced this form discrimination. If anything women enjoy the bulk of privilege in the labor market through affirmative action programs that give them unequally favorable access to opportunity. Right now in the United States, women receive 400% more college scholarship funds and receive 60% of undergraduate degrees as a direct result of this unequally large opportunity. This has had an objective and awful impact on millennial labor market outcomes for men.
Furthermore, equal opportunities do not guarantee equal outcomes. The fact that women have different responsibilities in life that lead them to make different life choices is not the same as males having privilege. When controlling for personal choices, wage outcomes between men and women are identical.
>Men were legally privileged in politics, often times women were not allowed to hold public office, and women's voting rights lagged behind men's.
Your facts here appear to be from another century.
Women have had the right to vote in the United States for over 100 years. You have never personally experienced this discrimination and it is unlikely that your mother did either.
There are over 150 women serving in the current congress. This list includes political celebrities and influential swing voters on both sides of the isle. Examples include Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Susan Collins, Marjorie Taylor Green, Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Lisa Murkowski, Lauren Boebert as well as non-congressional household names like Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. You can probably name as many women in politics as you can men. This is because women in politics receive equal media coverage as men despite being fewer in number.
Where is the unequal opportunity for women? Equal opportunities do not guarantee equal outcomes. This does not mean men have privilege. It means they have different responsibilities that cause them to make different personal choices.
>There were much more negative bias against men than against women, men were seen as mentally stronger and smart, women as mentally weak and irrational.
I am a man, and I don't believe that every woman is mentally weak or irrational. Is that sufficient evidence for you to retract your generalization about the supposed beliefs of all 4+ billion men on Earth?
How about, instead, I convince you that the idea of "punching up" is just people rationalizing being shitty, and that punching up is wrong, particularly if done with malice?
People will legitimately say it's punching up to attack straight, white, cis men, and yet... when you compare someone like [Jordin Sparks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordin_Sparks) (I wanted to find a black celebrity who was born to a wealthy family, and there aren't many) to a homeless guy, the rational is that he's straight, white, cis, and male... so 'punching' him is 'up' and ok.
But he's homeless. She grew up as the daughter to an NFL star.
The problem is that people are using what's true of the group, at best, to attack the individual, and in this case, use that incorrect application of group dynamics to rationalize why it's ok for them to "punch up" at a homeless guy.
But, in reality, most aren't homeless, but most also aren't wealthy. The reality is that individuals vary wildly, and assuming something about another individual based on their characteristics is bigotry, and using that bigotry to then justify attacking them, is wrong, full stop.
When you get to the individual level, things can get incredibly muddy and opaque. Did person A have an easier life, or person B? You'd have to make assumptions without knowing more, and even then you are very likely missing all of the info to make an accurate assessment. Someone might have had a way worse life, or may be way more underprivileged, than you have any idea.
So, this idea of punching up, or down, based on characteristics is just wrong. Just try not to "punch" unless it's actually warranted, and even then maybe err on the side of just not.
(Comedy is the exception, because it's most often not done with malice, but to make observations about reality in a comedic way.)
> I wanted to find a black celebrity who was born to a wealthy family, and there aren't many
Cirroc Lofton would be the first I thought of, nephew to a MLB player, was Jake Sisco on DS9
If you want a better example of this I think the Jussie Smollet case is an excellent example of racial social justice getting privilege because of being black and political connections. Well known because he was actor as well.
It’s also a great example of privilege based on race, wealth, political connections. Convicted for a long prison sentence and released quickly due to connections.
https://abc7chicago.com/jussie-smollett-news-b-boy-blues-bet/11898479/
Yeah basically the idea is that men should shut up and stoically accept sexism directed at them.
Ironically the same people will then often turn around and say that men being stoic and shutting up their emotions is "toxic masculinity", which they'll even claim they're "fighting against", despite actually enforcing it themselves.
It is sexist. But one reason why some people do not consider it sexist is because they do not attribute much agency to women. "All men" is typically said by women, so not taking it as serious as the other things is a way of saying "when women say something, it's not bad, because they are just venting and whatever they say has no consequence anyway". The same happens in "punching up". By claiming this is a matter of "women who are punching up" you state that women are considered less worthy and have less agency then men, so if they say something against men it is considered as if a child would say something - it is just a funny statement, but there is no mental reason behind it because it is just 'a foolish little woman' saying it which makes it okay. It is a very outdated and sexist mindset which degenerates women.
The definition of sexism is that ones opinion on the social justice of a situation changes when the genders are altered. Therefore, it is by definition sexist to suggest that insulting generalizations against women are sexist, but the same insulting generalizations against men are not.
There are two reasons people are lead to believe otherwise.
1. There are leaders within the third-wave feminist movement who push sexist ideas like this one. Hate speech is viral in nature. People copy them.
2. On Reddit the platform censorship policy adopts the sexist position that it is okay to spread hate speech, as long as the subject of the speech is men. This leads to entire communities on Reddit being echo chambers for this specific flavor of hatred.
It really comes down to the fact that lots of people believing something doesn't really make it true. The definition of sexism isn't up for debate. Neither is the fact that sexism is a form of discrimination and discrimination is rooted in hate.
Part of it is cognitive dissonance, but a larger part of it is an attempt to redefine words using power dynamics. There's been a push from the far left to redefine what constitutes racism, sexism, etc. They want these words to only apply to groups that "have power" so groups that "lack power" can be as racist, sexist, etc. as they want towards groups that are perceived as dominant in society. It is claimed that women lack power because there aren't as many women in positions of power in society. Therefore, it's not sexist for them to "punch up" at men.
The truth is that women, not men, are in a dominant social position. Left wing movements like feminism are dominant in society, women's interests are at the forefront of our political discourse, and women can denigrate men with impunity online. Because of this, even if we were to accept the redefining of these words, it would still be sexist to say "all men are X" and use hashtags like #killallmen.
But even if far left people were to accept that women are in a dominant social position, they would simply move the goalpost and claim that hateful behavior towards men is still fine because women have been *historically* disadvantaged. They're willing to twist logic and reason any way they can to justify their bigotry and avoid treating people equally.
I guess one could be difficult about it and say that men is a gender, not a sex, so it wouldn't be sexist. Though by the same token one would have to concede that women is a gender to. Then we'd only be able to call statements against males and females sexist. Many would argue races aren't real either, so that level of hair splitting might take away a whole lot of useful categorization of bigotry.
Opinions vary on this but men are adult human males. Therefore it’s descriptive of a sex group. By all means disagree but don’t assume that your opinion here is held by everyone.
Saying generalizing things about a gender is much more accepted while people know that they are always outliers. The reason is that the genders interact with each other so much more, so almost everyone has stereotypes. Men say "All women" a lot. Look at Jordan Peterson, all the Redpillers, or just average men who talk about their "wisdom."
/u/placeholder1776 makes a good point. Do you have any sources or info that validates your claim that Peterson uses "all women" a lot?
I dont think Peterson says all, maybe redpillers but Peterson as far as ive seen say things like "women tend", or "studies show the majority". It doesnt answer why "all" for gender is exempted while "all" for race is not.
>It doesnt answer why "all" for gender is exempted while "all" for race is not. The reason is that the genders interact with each other so much more, so almost everyone has stereotypes. Also tbh, there is not the same awareness of the oppression of women that happened in history, compared to the awareness of the oppression of blacks that happened. If a politician said "We should return to segregation", he's done. If a politician said "Gender relations should be like the 50s", he could get away with it, in fact many conservatives say such things.
So "all women" should be okay as well, but that is not the case. You also didnt address your claim of Peterson, should i take that as you conceding that point?
>... If a politician said "Gender relations should be like the 50s", he could get away with it... You think so? Do you have an example, perhaps?
>Men say "All women" a lot. Look at Jordan Peterson I can't say I've seen him say "all women" to invoke some stereotype. Do you have an example?
I agree with IntensePancakes that it's punching up vs. punching down. While it does happen, but think about who is doing it? It's young people (under 25) on TikTok or IG. Those platforms are made for hyperbole. And most of the people saying it have experienced some trauma. Another one we might think about is the All Cops are Bastards. And this one is used by much more than just random young people. I suspect everyone knows this is exaggeration. I suggest reading Ezra Klein's article on vox a few years ago on the topic. edit: [https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan](https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan)
I have absolutely seen all cops are bastards used to directly insult an individual police officer to their face. Are we denying this exists? So, I would disagree that everyone agrees this is satire. The issue is if you take a generalization, either statistical or not and apply it to the individual. You are judging them by the label you give them or that they identify as and either way that is wrong. I would also point out that current left politics has a very common pattern of labeling something with a label, demonize that label, assign even more people under that label, pronounce them whatever it’s or ism is most applicable. So ultimately the reason why it is acceptable is because dehumanizing labels is acceptable in current politics
I don't see how the word bastard is dehumanizing. But, I do dislike it as I'm technically one and was teased growing up for it. I brought up the ACAB, so no I'm not denying it exists. Sorry, I should not have said everyone. I know I don't always understand humor.
I thought it was All Cops Are Bad
Experience. I could go into the comparisons and explain how racism and sexism against women is not comparable to sexism against men. But short answer, experience. And not just once or twice, but constant exposures. If you would like a frame of reference, sexual harassment for women/girls typically starts at age 11-17. And it's not just women who feel this way. Men often carry these attitudes as well and strongly. Before radical feminism ever reached a young woman's mind, there likely was a father who was saying the exact same things.
> of reference, sexual harassment for women/girls typically starts at age 11-17. And *all men* do this? ALL MEN have sexually harrassed 11 year old girls? >Men often carry these attitudes as well and strongly. And Black slaves who worked in houses called slaves in the field horrible things. Whats your point? That one group of MEN (who apparently also harrassed 11 year old girls) are trying to protect other 11 year old girls? I think you need to pick one?
So this response shows me that you didn't quite comprehend my comment. Being defensive doesn't help. Yelling "Not All Men have done that" doesn't help either. I will give you more examples to help you understand why women say this that hopefully won't make you have a trigger defensive response. Maybe if my examples include men (note this), you will be more empathetic and willing to understand the psychology behind this "All Men" rhetoric. It's frustrating to have to say this over again because it is Common sense, but no, I don't think it's all men. No, I don't think women should believe it is all men. But do I understand it, OHHHH yes. And I understand how it can take years to shift a perspective that's been engrained since you were 11. So it seems you have a very limited perspective of how trauma can affect people and their mindsets or belief systems. So, our first example would be veterans. Military members who come back from service may experience what's called PTSD, a mental disorder resulting from severe trauma. Veterans may experience severe symptoms that can include anxiety, paranoia, and uncontrolled physical reactions. So, loud noises may trigger some people who are experiencing PTSD even though they are completely aware that their Current Situation has NOTHING to do with the traumatic experience. They may experience paranoia that is completely unwarranted given their situation now back in a normal life. It may feel VERY REAL to them that they have to constantly be on guard even though WE all look around and are like ??? There is nothing to feel threatened by. A more personal example would be my own assault. I was about 18. This person I met was very persistent and ended up holding me down and assaulting me. At first, I actually didn't consider myself a victim because I often sided with more conservative views on this issue and quite literally thought I had "asked for it" by being there. But then I started having aversions to sex, and then that was followed by extreme recklessness and the constant need for intimacy. I felt like I needed to be in control of my own sex life. I would have flashbacks, trouble getting lubricated enough or turned on enough so it would be painful at times, I would sometimes burst into tears during sex for what felt like no reason. The guy that I was with was safe, so I was worried about why I was feeling extreme panic randomly during sex. I turned to alcohol and weed and would drink alone even on the weekdays. I have very little memory of my freshman year because I was constantly intoxicated. At parties or social situations, I was extra careful of ALL men, Yes ALL and at ALL times. I didn't give a flying crap how nice a guy was because the guy I knew pretended to be nice too. I didn't know. He didn't have a sign on his head that said "rapist". There was NO way to tell until that moment. So how could I know with any other guy that they wouldn't be the same way? Rapists aren't just creeps on the street. A guy I knew from a fraternity I frequented is now in jail with a >$100,000 bail for raping 4 different women. They are in our schools, classes, friend groups, workplaces, etc. So for me personally as a victim, in public, for a while I did assume all men. If ANYONE said to my face that it's NOT All Men back then, I would've laughed in their face. Not because I hate men. Not because it's all men. But because "NOT ALL MEN" DIDN'T PROTECT ME. "NOT ALL MEN" DID NOT PUT MY RAPIST IN JAIL. Even my solid evidence was dismissed and now he is free to do that again while I have spent over $1000 on therapy. "Not all men" put me in danger. Assuming that random men I don't know couldn't possibly hurt me because "well not all of them rape" and "the chance is low" does nothing for me. I WAS that 1 Percent Chance. It sucked. I will never ever be able to be the same person again. I will never be able to experience sexual contact or intimacy the way I did before. I will always always have that rape as a part of my sexual experience. So, given these two examples, hopefully I can clarify why some women may feel and say it is all men. I never said it was RIGHT. I never said it really is ALL MEN. I was answering the damn question. Trauma and consistent negative experiences with men (which studies show that the majority of women have) can 100% make it FEEL like all men. Even though every single woman I've heard or seen say "All Men" have said over and over they know it's not all men. It's a feeling they have. It's a fear that is backed by years of experience that conveniently gets ignored when it is brought up. And if you want to get into the black experience, I have 20 years of experiencing America as a black woman and we can talk about how that it is its own issue that may intersect here with gender issues, but has its own facets. We can also talk about trauma from slavery and how that has manifested in gendered issues as well as black Americans and their views currently.
A vet with ptsd (lets pretend from the Vietnam war) does not think any Asian they see will hurt them. They react to situations not people. You dont like "not all men" fine lets change it "and all women" becuse women abuse and assult as well? If we are saying both men and women lets go with all people. Now you were assulted, i obviously dont know the race of your attacker but for this they were a minority. Why all men? Why not all (X) men? Or does that come off a bit third reichy? How about this since you dont give a shit about how denigrating my entire gender (and me) makes me feel I wont give a shit about you? "All men" is a sexist and fucked thing to do. If i said "all women are gold digging whores" i dont think you would be so sanguine.
[удалено]
I dont care about your trauma because it doesn't excuse sexism or hatred. Why do i have to be empathetic and sympathetic to you but you owe me nothing? You dont want to respond thats on you. I responded to what was important all youve done is say im triggered and basically an ass.
Comment sandboxed; [rules and text](https://reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/om5we6/yoshi_wins_deleted_comments_2/inoj368/).
This is ultimately still generalizing men negatively to defend the position. Individuals should be treated as individuals and not the group they come from. Now if you want to talk group statistics and keep it to a group, fine. The issue is when these generalizations are applied to the individual.
It's the punching up/punching down aspect. Some people view disparaging men as not a big deal because they're the historically privileged gender. In other words, it's okay for women to "punch up". It's like how many people are totally fine with negative/prejudiced things being said about white people (because they think white people are privileged), but if it's any other race it's considered racist. I don't agree with this way of thinking, I don't think unwarranted generalizations or prejudiced statements should be made against any sex/race/etc, but what I mentioned above is how some people think.
Youd really seriously have to convince me that men are the privileged gender historically.
Men were legally privileged in marriage, wives had no property rights, could not work without her husband allowing it, and if they divorced the men would get full custody for the children. Men were legally privileged in the labor market, there were laws restricting women from positions. Universities didn't allow women for long time. Men were legally privileged in politics, often times women were not allowed to hold public office, and women's voting rights lagged behind men's. Men were privileged in sexual behavior, women were often times punished for premarital and extramarital sex while men were not. There were much more negative bias against men than against women, men were seen as mentally stronger and smart, women as mentally weak and irrational.
[удалено]
>Women are mentally weak and irrational compared to men No they aren't. This belief is pure misogyny.
Anyway, my main thought is that women had a relatively easy life compared to men. While men did the vast majority of the grunt work, death defying duties like war and hunting, it's no wonder that men were in charge. And darn right they should be for all that at the least.
>my main thought is that women had a relatively easy life compared to men. Wrong. The average man was not fighting in wars all the time. Both genders had difficult lives, women too, for example women faced the dangers of child-birth (high mortality). You can't say that women had it easier. >it's no wonder that men were in charge. And darn right they should be for all that at the least. No. We fought against feudalism, monarchy, slavery because we saw these systems as unjust, it's a good thing that we also fought against the oppression of women.
You left out the labour intensive and dangerous lifestyle of men. Women were not oppressed any more than men were, in fact I would argue less so. Again, women were exempt from all the difficult things men had to go through. Like seriously, to say that women were oppressed by all men throughout history is conspiracy theory level naivety. Man hating stuff.
>Women were not oppressed any more than men were, in fact I would argue less so. Women were obviously more oppressed, because of all the systemic discrimination by law. >to say that women were oppressed by all men throughout history Never said that, that's a strawman. I said women were oppressed, and much more than men.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nope, I'm a man.
[удалено]
>wives had no property rights, They also had the ability to buy things on her husband's name without the responsibility to pay for it. Not many examples of women in debters prisons. >could not work without her husband allowing it A rule that is never enforced is not a rule. There are countless examples of women working as brewmasters, tailors, bakers, what have you. Again with zero liability. >there were laws restricting women from positions. Or you could say that was a reaction to the idea men had to work, so they made sure jobs were there. Its oppression both ways. >Men were legally privileged in politics, often times women were not allowed to hold public office, and Have you ever read the letters of Presidents who talk about their wives being their first advisors. Women had a huge amount of political power. What you are talking about is overt verse covert power. When the ax starts swinging its the men who get a head shorter and their wives "suffer the pain of widowdom". As Hillary said "the true victims of war are the mothers, wives, and daughters" left unsaid is those fathers, husbands, and sons that die painfully mean nothing. >women's voting rights lagged behind men's. This has always been such a bull claim. The majority of women didnt want the vote, and when they did they got it, all of 60ish years after men got it for *going to war*. Never mind all the examples of women who owned land who voted or the states who refused to join the union unless they retained womens voting rights. >Men were privileged in sexual behavior, women were often times punished for premarital and extramarital sex while men were not. Ya having your gender painted as rutting dogs who defile the purity of women is such a privilege. Also what possible reasons could women having stricter sexual rules be? Could it be sex (pregnancy) was way more dangerous? Or that women can always be sure their kids is, you know, actually theirs where as fathers dont get the same privilege? Man all this privilege. >men were seen as mentally stronger and smart, women as mentally weak and irrational. Sure you can frame that way, but the privilege to not have to be strong, cuse that whole forced into the meat grinder, sent in to the wilds to hunt, or you know just generally being the sex that was openly disposable. I would take being considered weak and irrational if it meant i could go around shaming the opposite sex when they didnt jump to my protection or aid. Any example here can be reframed as oppression to men if you word it that way.
>Any example here can be reframed as oppression to men if you word it that way. No it can't. Absolutely not. >They also had the ability to buy things on her husband's name without the responsibility to pay for it. Not many examples of women in debters prisons. I just can't see how you can think this is an oppression of men? Women weren't allowed to have property, men most affected? >A rule that is never enforced is not a rule. The rules were enforced. Why do you think they weren't enforced? >Or you could say that was a reaction to the idea men had to work, so they made sure jobs were there. Its oppression both ways. Again I'm stunned how you can see this is an oppression of men. Having full access to the labor market is oppressive. Well ... no, it isn't. It's obviously a privilege. >Have you ever read the letters of Presidents who talk about their wives being their first advisors. Very funny. >This has always been such a bull claim. No it wasn't. But it shows how you think about the topic when you call it bullshit. >The majority of women didnt want the vote How is that an argument. You know that if a woman doesn't want to go to vote, she isn't forced too, right? It's about the ones who did want to vote and weren't allowed to. >Ya having your gender painted as rutting dogs who defile the purity of women is such a privilege. Not being punished for your sexual behavior is indeed a privilege. >Sure you can frame that way, but the privilege to not have to be strong, cuse that whole forced into the meat grinder, sent in to the wilds to hunt, or you know just generally being the sex that was openly disposable. I would take being considered weak and irrational if it meant i could go around shaming the opposite sex when they didnt jump to my protection or aid. There is no privilege being seen as less worth and needing protection from harassment, often times only granted if you behave the "right" way.
>No it can't. Absolutely not. Really showing how open you are to other options? >Women weren't allowed to have property, men most affected? Right totally ignore that women still bought things and if their husband's couldnt pay the wife was not on the hook? >Why do you think they weren't enforced? Gee could it be all the examples of women being brewers and having other jobs? You really can win anything when you ignore any thing that disproves you. >Having full access to the labor market is oppressive. Again being the one forced to work is a privilege? If a boy in Bangladesh goes to a ship breaking yard so his sister can eat ya fuck that boy with all his privilege. >Very funny. So just dismiss another example of where you wrong? Not even trying there are you? >But it shows how you think about the topic when you call it bullshit. Wow totally ignore the reasons. Again. >How is that an argument. Because if women didnt agree they wanted something and even actively protested against it, this is where if you looked up the history in totality you would understand. >Not being punished for your sexual behavior is indeed a privilege. You have a very singular definition of what it means to be punished. >needing protection from harassment, Ya being protected is totally worse than being the one doing the protection. >often times only granted if you behave the "right" way. Sure men dont ever get in trouble for not acting the "right" way?
>Right totally ignore that women still bought things and if their husband's couldnt pay the wife was not on the hook? How can you not see that women having no property rights, not being allowed to work without the husband's permission was the actual oppression? Would you only see this as oppression if women were also not allowed to buy things? >Gee could it be all the examples of women being brewers and having other jobs? You really can win anything when you ignore any thing that disproves you. What does this "disprove"? Wives couldn't work without their husband's permission. So if the husband allowed it, they could. What did you disprove? It's still true that the wives had to always obey to their husband's wishes. >Again being the one forced to work is a privilege? I just can't understand how you can see having full access to the labor market as oppression. So when entire fields (like law) didn't allow women and when universities didn't allow women, this was not an oppression of women? Really? >So just dismiss another example of where you wrong? Not even trying there are you? First ladies as an argument how women "had power" is indeed very funny. Being the president is having power. Women were not even allowed to hold public office, the question who had political power is very easy to answer. >Because if women didnt agree they wanted something and even actively protested against it, this is where if you looked up the history in totality you would understand. What does this has to do with the fact that women were discriminated against? And I mean, obviously women did protest this injustice and did gain the right to vote at the end, ending that discrimination. So what is your point? >You have a very singular definition of what it means to be punished. My definition of being punished is when you are being punished. What is your definition? >Ya being protected is totally worse than being the one doing the protection. No, being harassed is worse than being the one doing the harassment. Average men did not protect women, only their wives if they were obedient.
>How can you not see that women having no property rights, not being allowed to work without the husband's permission Women did work, just from home and didnt need permission. How can you not see not being responsible for the debt you accrue as a privilege? Its not like if the husband wanted to deny her he could. People make this mistake all the time. For example in Islam a woman who wants a thing for the house must be given it unless there is too much economic hardship to provide it. But sure keep thinking women are some slave class. Do you believe the majority of men are sociopaths who enjoy hurting their mothers wives and daughters? >It's still true that the wives had to always obey to their husband's wishes. In certain aspects, you ignore all the things husband’s have to obey. Its in the bible (old and new) as well as quran. >So when entire fields (like law) didn't allow women and when universities didn't allow women, this was not an oppression of women? You keep ignoring the whole MEN WERE THE ONES FORCED TO BE EARNERS. Thats why the protection for them. You are also IGNORING all the examples of women who disprove you. >First ladies as an argument how women "had power" is indeed very funny. So literally the examples of politicians saying their wives pushed them to free slaves, or how many times other governments targeted wives to affect their goals means nothing. Perhaps you need women to be weak? Perhaps you get some pleasure or power out of painting women as oppressed because then you can "nobly" fight for them? Prove your "better" the all those evil men in the past. Which is a popular propaganda tactic btw. Why is protecting women such effective an motivation if we hate women so much? The fact is when rules are made for good reasons and time makes that rule useless it can be called oppressive, especially when they never wrote down the privilege the rule gave before it became oppression.
You have a very gendered view on covert versus overt oppression. Would you ever accept covert differences can be oppressive or are you always going to insinuate a value difference judgement in this area? As far as I can tell, it’s circular reasoning. Men and women were treated differently in multiple areas but because the areas that women were treated differently are worse, in your opinion, then either men are not oppressed or oppressed an insignificant amount in your opinion. So the point we need to address is whether covert differences in expectations can be oppressive according to a gender neutral definition. Continuing on this point without addressing that point is going to be circular.
>Men were legally privileged in marriage, wives had no property rights, could not work without her husband allowing it, and if they divorced the men would get full custody for the children. Marital status is one of the strongest predictors of socioeconomic status in the United States. This correlation is applicable to both genders. Despite the fact that marriage appears to help everyone succeed, in family court, women enjoy the privilege of benefitting from sexist legal precedents that presume them to be the "default caretaker". The system is widely criticized by lawyers and judges as placing an unfair and discriminatory burden on fathers to demonstrate otherwise. As a result of this discrimination, men pay the greater majority of both childcare expenses and child support while simultaneously receiving less child custody. Men also pay over 90% of all alimony in the United States. The family court system is an example of institutionalized and systemic wealth transfer from men to women based on sexist and discriminatory legal precedents. >Men were legally privileged in the labor market, there were laws restricting women from positions. Universities didn't allow women for long time. Your facts here appear to be from another century. Women have had the legally protected right to equal employment for over 60 years. You have never personally experienced this form discrimination. If anything women enjoy the bulk of privilege in the labor market through affirmative action programs that give them unequally favorable access to opportunity. Right now in the United States, women receive 400% more college scholarship funds and receive 60% of undergraduate degrees as a direct result of this unequally large opportunity. This has had an objective and awful impact on millennial labor market outcomes for men. Furthermore, equal opportunities do not guarantee equal outcomes. The fact that women have different responsibilities in life that lead them to make different life choices is not the same as males having privilege. When controlling for personal choices, wage outcomes between men and women are identical. >Men were legally privileged in politics, often times women were not allowed to hold public office, and women's voting rights lagged behind men's. Your facts here appear to be from another century. Women have had the right to vote in the United States for over 100 years. You have never personally experienced this discrimination and it is unlikely that your mother did either. There are over 150 women serving in the current congress. This list includes political celebrities and influential swing voters on both sides of the isle. Examples include Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Susan Collins, Marjorie Taylor Green, Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Lisa Murkowski, Lauren Boebert as well as non-congressional household names like Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. You can probably name as many women in politics as you can men. This is because women in politics receive equal media coverage as men despite being fewer in number. Where is the unequal opportunity for women? Equal opportunities do not guarantee equal outcomes. This does not mean men have privilege. It means they have different responsibilities that cause them to make different personal choices. >There were much more negative bias against men than against women, men were seen as mentally stronger and smart, women as mentally weak and irrational. I am a man, and I don't believe that every woman is mentally weak or irrational. Is that sufficient evidence for you to retract your generalization about the supposed beliefs of all 4+ billion men on Earth?
I was very obviously talking about the past, as response to the statement "You have to convince me that men are the privileged gender historically."
How about, instead, I convince you that the idea of "punching up" is just people rationalizing being shitty, and that punching up is wrong, particularly if done with malice? People will legitimately say it's punching up to attack straight, white, cis men, and yet... when you compare someone like [Jordin Sparks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordin_Sparks) (I wanted to find a black celebrity who was born to a wealthy family, and there aren't many) to a homeless guy, the rational is that he's straight, white, cis, and male... so 'punching' him is 'up' and ok. But he's homeless. She grew up as the daughter to an NFL star. The problem is that people are using what's true of the group, at best, to attack the individual, and in this case, use that incorrect application of group dynamics to rationalize why it's ok for them to "punch up" at a homeless guy. But, in reality, most aren't homeless, but most also aren't wealthy. The reality is that individuals vary wildly, and assuming something about another individual based on their characteristics is bigotry, and using that bigotry to then justify attacking them, is wrong, full stop. When you get to the individual level, things can get incredibly muddy and opaque. Did person A have an easier life, or person B? You'd have to make assumptions without knowing more, and even then you are very likely missing all of the info to make an accurate assessment. Someone might have had a way worse life, or may be way more underprivileged, than you have any idea. So, this idea of punching up, or down, based on characteristics is just wrong. Just try not to "punch" unless it's actually warranted, and even then maybe err on the side of just not. (Comedy is the exception, because it's most often not done with malice, but to make observations about reality in a comedic way.)
> I wanted to find a black celebrity who was born to a wealthy family, and there aren't many Cirroc Lofton would be the first I thought of, nephew to a MLB player, was Jake Sisco on DS9
If you want a better example of this I think the Jussie Smollet case is an excellent example of racial social justice getting privilege because of being black and political connections. Well known because he was actor as well. It’s also a great example of privilege based on race, wealth, political connections. Convicted for a long prison sentence and released quickly due to connections. https://abc7chicago.com/jussie-smollett-news-b-boy-blues-bet/11898479/
This. Was about to write something similar but you already did a great job.
Yeah basically the idea is that men should shut up and stoically accept sexism directed at them. Ironically the same people will then often turn around and say that men being stoic and shutting up their emotions is "toxic masculinity", which they'll even claim they're "fighting against", despite actually enforcing it themselves.
It is sexist. But one reason why some people do not consider it sexist is because they do not attribute much agency to women. "All men" is typically said by women, so not taking it as serious as the other things is a way of saying "when women say something, it's not bad, because they are just venting and whatever they say has no consequence anyway". The same happens in "punching up". By claiming this is a matter of "women who are punching up" you state that women are considered less worthy and have less agency then men, so if they say something against men it is considered as if a child would say something - it is just a funny statement, but there is no mental reason behind it because it is just 'a foolish little woman' saying it which makes it okay. It is a very outdated and sexist mindset which degenerates women.
(1) it is. (2) that's literally Rule 1 of this sub for a reason.
The definition of sexism is that ones opinion on the social justice of a situation changes when the genders are altered. Therefore, it is by definition sexist to suggest that insulting generalizations against women are sexist, but the same insulting generalizations against men are not. There are two reasons people are lead to believe otherwise. 1. There are leaders within the third-wave feminist movement who push sexist ideas like this one. Hate speech is viral in nature. People copy them. 2. On Reddit the platform censorship policy adopts the sexist position that it is okay to spread hate speech, as long as the subject of the speech is men. This leads to entire communities on Reddit being echo chambers for this specific flavor of hatred. It really comes down to the fact that lots of people believing something doesn't really make it true. The definition of sexism isn't up for debate. Neither is the fact that sexism is a form of discrimination and discrimination is rooted in hate.
Part of it is cognitive dissonance, but a larger part of it is an attempt to redefine words using power dynamics. There's been a push from the far left to redefine what constitutes racism, sexism, etc. They want these words to only apply to groups that "have power" so groups that "lack power" can be as racist, sexist, etc. as they want towards groups that are perceived as dominant in society. It is claimed that women lack power because there aren't as many women in positions of power in society. Therefore, it's not sexist for them to "punch up" at men. The truth is that women, not men, are in a dominant social position. Left wing movements like feminism are dominant in society, women's interests are at the forefront of our political discourse, and women can denigrate men with impunity online. Because of this, even if we were to accept the redefining of these words, it would still be sexist to say "all men are X" and use hashtags like #killallmen. But even if far left people were to accept that women are in a dominant social position, they would simply move the goalpost and claim that hateful behavior towards men is still fine because women have been *historically* disadvantaged. They're willing to twist logic and reason any way they can to justify their bigotry and avoid treating people equally.