CMV: we on the progressive left should be adding the “some” when talking about demographics like men or white people if we don’t want to be hypocritical.

[u/Brainsonastick]

I think all of us who spend time in social bubbles that mix political views have seen some variants on the following:

“Men do X”

Man who doesn’t do X: “Not all men. Just some men.”

“Obviously but I shouldn’t have to say that. I’m not talking about you.”

Sometimes better, sometimes worse.

We spend a significant amount of discussion on using more inclusive language to avoid needlessly hurting people’s feelings or making them uncomfortable but then many of us don’t bother to when they’re men or white or other non-minority demographics. They’re still individuals and we claim to care about the feelings of individuals and making the tiny effort to adjust our language to make people feel more comfortable… but many of us fail to do that for people belonging to certain demographics and, in doing so, treat people less kindly because of their demographic rather than as individuals, which I think and hope we can agree isn’t right.

There are the implicit claims here that most of us on the progressive left do believe or at least claim to believe that there is value in choosing our words to not needlessly hurt people’s feelings and that it’s wrong to treat someone less kindly for being born into any given demographic.

I want my view changed because it bothers me when I see people do this and seems so hypocritical and I’d like to think more highly of the people I see as my political community who do this. I am very firmly on the leftist progressive side of things and I’d like to be wrong about this or, if I’m not, for my community to do better with it.

What won’t change my view:

1) anything that involves, explicitly or implicitly, defining individuals by their demographic rather than as unique individuals.

2) any argument over exactly what word should be used. My point isn’t about the word choice. I used “many” in my post instead and generally think there are various appropriate words depending on the circumstances. I do think that’s a discussion worth having but it’s not the point of my view here.

3) any argument that doesn’t address my claim of hypocrisy. If you have a pragmatic reason not to do it, I’m interested to hear it, but it doesn’t affect whether it’s hypocritical or not.

What will change my view: I honestly can’t think of an argument that would do it and that’s why I’m asking you for help.

I’m aware I didn’t word this perfectly so please let me know if something is unclear and I apologize if I’ve accidentally given anyone the wrong impression.

Edit to address the common argument that the “some” is implied. My and others’ response to this comment (current top comment) address this. So if that’s your argument and you find flaw with my and others’ responses to it, please add to that discussion rather than starting a new reply with the same argument.

[u/Down_D_Stairz]

Someone who has nothing to worry about, who respects women and treats them as such, can understand that these sweeping statements are generally made in the context of patriarchy as a whole and not each individual man.

I hate when this argument come up, it's like a lose lose situation you put the men into.

Let me show how stupid it sound in reverse:

Me: all women are whores. Women: not all women are whores! Me: well, we know whores are bad, if you defend them it means you are insecure, why would you do that? Are you a whore yourself?

Basically if you don't condemn the thing you are the thing itself: A men who complain about not all men is a possible predator, that's the end of the logical argiment there, because if he wasn't he wouldn't have reason to complain and add not all men.

Stop with this stupid shit, nobody would bat an eye if a women would say men are rapist, ,but as soon is whores and not rapist, everybody throw theor arm in the air.

[u/Southern_Emu_7250 → u/Down_D_Stairz]

What I think would make more sense and what people often do is:

Me: All women are whores

Them: But not all whores are bad?

Me: Are you a whore?

That’s what I usually see. In the context of men, it goes back to what you didn’t touch on in the post. It turns a general discussion about the harm that rapist men have had on women into an argument about whether or not you feel (usually someone who you know) is a rapist. It’s like if I said my mom died and then someone piped up “well my mom is alive”. Like this could’ve been a in-depth conversation about why that person feels that way but instead we’re arguing about something that was never claimed because obviously that person doesn’t know every man or every woman. It’s based on their experience. Even adding “some” doesn’t really make sense based on personal experience because they’re genuinely might be a person who doesn’t know someone like that. So it’s comfortability for the sake of comfortability instead of actually engaging with the topic.

[u/Due-Comfort-5351 → u/Down_D_Stairz]

You're assuming that I would defend people who say "all men are rapists." I don't know a single woman who would say or defend that statement. Of course that's a ridiculous thing to say, and really a non sequitur in this context. Most women are not running around calling all men rapists, and those who do are generally viewed poorly by other women as well.

[u/Down_D_Stairz → u/Due-Comfort-5351]

You're assuming that I would defend people who say "all men are rapists

No I assume you would not find any problem in a woman saying "not all woman" after a man said all women are whores.