“Don’t you think she should have said ‘SOME’ men?”

A letter to a friend about the reflexive #NotAllMen retort

“My friend, don’t you think her statement would be fixed easily if she said SOME men?”

Dear friend,

I realize this touches you deeply because you are a good person raising a daughter, and I understand where you’re coming from with your question because this is a question that has been asked so many times by so many people that there is a hashtag, #NotAllMen, that began in earnest but has been re-appropriated to mock this question and the men who ask it, but I will attempt to address it sincerely for you because I appreciate you as a person.

The expressed sentiment — this generalization about men — is about a cultural phenomenon so prevalent in society that women are wishing to express the truth of their experiences without having to be nuanced to death with what in the grander scheme of things seems like a trivial correction.

While it is true that this statement is applicable to *some* men and not *all* men, a response focusing on this distinction is one that doesn’t mitigate the primary issue: that there are enough men out there who do consciously or subconsciously behave in these ways that it is upholding sexism. Such a response shifts the focus of the conversation from harm caused to the one man who is experiencing identity discomfort and identity insecurity due to the perceived inconsistency/conflict between the thesis statement itself and their own sense of ideal self/their sense of ideal masculinity.

Besides, because of generations of patriarchy and gender roles placing men in positions to sustain institutional and cultural oppression of women, men no matter how “good” must reflect and question their beliefs about themselves and how they relate to masculinity and societal privilege.

I would say that the message conveyed in this way is stronger than making explicit “some men,” which is naturally assumed by some standards of casual use of the English language and in this context, is the assumption that would make sense.

It can be argued that any room for ambiguity must be overwhelmed, but I think context matters, and in this context, any ambiguity read into the statement is oftentimes by a man playing “devil’s advocate” and sealioning rather than being inquisitive in good faith. Thus, women expect that men who are trying to be good allies/accomplices generally would not take personal offense or perceive the statement to be inaccurate or as applicable to themselves. Sometimes the lack of the latter perception is incorrect and they should be grappling with their own contributions to sexism rather than excluding themselves from being part of the problem.

And that’s the next thing to be considered — this expression forces reflection through triggering this nearly autonomous response from anyone whose identity feels directly challenged by it. All of us are oppressed, oppressors, and flawed by virtue of the cultures and influences on our upbringings. We must all be in constant questioning about how to interact in ways that cause the least harm.

Might we even consider gender-socialized differences in interpretation and use of language for self-expression as a factor in how women’s speech is policed? Yes, I think so. The way I express myself changes in different contexts and doesn’t always resonate with people depending on their own preferences for communication. For example, I like to write figuratively at times because I’ve always appreciated poetry and using words to illustrate notions in large watercolor brushstrokes that ultimately (I’d hope) paint an idea to fullness. Yet, that expression might not be as powerful in resonating with someone who requires more groundedness in languaging that most meshes with what they consider reality.

Does this mean that to be a more effective communicator, one might have to carefully think about how to make their message receptive to the audience they want to absorb this message? Perhaps. But who is to say that this would not betray the messages themselves if the messages are about sexism and sexism can be embedded in the very act of transforming a communiqué to make it more palatable to the status quo? (As in, the reason why some rhetoric is more effective than others may have little to no correlation with truth value or rationality, but in social conditioning — and sexism.)

But please don’t generalize this explanation too much. 😂😂 I believe it still holds true that if we are trying to hold each other accountable for co-creating a better society for future generations that we ought to scrutinize our beliefs and expressions — but sometimes as we question others, we must remember to start the questioning just a wee bit closer to home and ask ourselves why we seek more clarity — for obfuscation of truth or for discovery of it.

Thank you for listening ❤

Proud to be your friend,

Jessica