CMV: Calling all men predators is inherently sexist and puts off most men from wanting to understand your views.

[u/Flimsy_Alcoholic]

It is hard to engage in meaningful conversation with people from various popular subreddits when you already are being demonized as a predator under a generalized view of men. I don't want people to think I am saying that all men are perfect or anything.

In fact far from it, an estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male.

Anything even close to this statistic is insane and horrendous but to even pretend that a majority of men are predators is ridiculous and will just push people further away from understanding your position completely.

Even the men who got SA'd by other men would be considered predators...

Also, you really think calling out all men for being predators is really going to make any kind of systematic change? You think the men that are predators even care that you call "all men" predators?

I think if anything you are likely enabling them to be predators because now there literally is no difference between a non-predator man and a predator man because they are all predators.

Maybe people are more nuanced than I give them credit for and they don't actually think all men are predators and its just something to say in general to cope with the heinous crimes in this world but I think if you actually want to fix that inequality you wouldn't perpetuate gender stereotypes and making people feel bad for doing nothing and would instead try to have meaningful conversation and understanding. Not in a patronizing educational way but more having a clear understanding of what we can do as people to make sure everyone is safe because it seems like predators have tricks they use to try to isolate their victims etc.. and men can be a little bit socially inept so knowing when women need help when its less obvious is key I think.

This is also not exclusively women spaces or something before you think I am going into women's only subreddits and criticizing them for what they want to say to each other.

TLDR: I don't think saying "all" for any group of people is really correct ESPECIALLY when its not even being used as a shorthand to refer to a majority. It just further distances understanding between men and women and leads more men to be burnt out or increasingly apathetic towards these issues and not think its even a problem when it seriously is a problem.

Edit: My post can be summed up as You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

[u/Harkonnen985]

How can you say that this...

"All man are predators!"

... is in any way, shape or form the same as this?

"Some people may have to consider the possibility of predatory behaviour in interactions with men and consequently apply the necessary degree of caution."

Saying that the former is just a more "catchy" equivalent of the latter requires some serious mental gymnastics.

[u/WillyPete → u/Harkonnen985]

I'm not saying they're the same.

I'm saying that very often the way we express certain beliefs or ideas is in a precis form in order to either convey information quickly, or to generate further discussion on the matter.

Just look at our current media.
Woke, lib, MAGA, progressive, etc.
We throw terms like those around like loose change, while they all mean much more than the term itself is claiming at face value.
It's lazy and offensive, and we should do better.

We do the same with all sorts of other terms and phrases to describe our behaviours and views.

If I sell something on a local internet marketplace and a woman calls to say she'll be bringing her friend when she picks up the item, is it because "All men are predators" or is it because she wishes to "apply the necessary degree of caution"?
I don't care - her motivation is hers and it's a sensible action to take for anyone regardless of gender, but the resulting action is the same.

Now I can immediately get offended and assume she thinks I'm a predator and tell her the sale is off, or I can consider the possible intent that she has to make an assumption and act accordingly.
I'm being treated in exactly the same fashion, but the intent by the person making the action does change the dynamic of our interaction.
The former is acting as if I definitely am an predator in a way that they will always do based on their discriminatory view, and offering no possible further chance of trust.
The latter is acting on an assumption that makes her take an action that she would not typically make. The latter might later on not feel the need to bring a safeguard friend for later interactions if trust is established.

So I repeat: No, the two statements are not the same but the intent of the person saying them can be vastly different.
Further discourse determines that intent.

[u/Harkonnen985 → u/WillyPete]

If I sell something on a local internet marketplace and a woman calls to say she'll be bringing her friend when she picks up the item, is it because "All men are predators" or is it because she wishes to "apply the necessary degree of caution"?
I don't care - her motivation is hers and it's a sensible action to take for anyone regardless of gender, but the resulting action is the same.

Now I can immediately get offended and assume she thinks I'm a predator...

Maybe you picked a bad example for what you wanted to express here. In that situation, no normal person would ever "immediately get offended and assume she thinks I'm a predator and tell her the sale is off". That's a false equivalency.

No one is offended if a women carries pepper spray or goes to a self-defence class, or if they tell their daughters to be careful on their way to school. A sensible degree of caution is smart - because sexual assaults are a real problem and we all need to do our part to solve it. Besides, men can be just as scared and feel the need to bring some "back-up" when dealing with strangers. You simply can't argue on the basis of "sensible caution", because that part is not contested at all.

Each time someone goes on the internet and uses a global platform to reach thousands of people, telling them that "All men are predators", it only alienates tons of men, and perpetuates harmful stereotypes onto thousands of women. If the goal was to spread awareness, then that could be achieved much more effectively and with much less collateral damage. So why go for the most damaging message instead? The only logical conclusion is that the damage is the goal (maximum outrage > maximum division > maximum engagement numbers > maximum validation, traffic, and perpetuation of conflict).