The True Reason “not All Men” Sounds Absurd To Me (aside From The Ignorance Of Statistics) Is That

the true reason “not all men” sounds absurd to me (aside from the ignorance of statistics) is that it fundamentally misunderstands misogyny. “not all men” assumes that male supremacy is not an ideology like Nazism or fundamentalism might be. additionally, it assumes that male supremacy is disconnected from male violence. if a white supremacist killed a black innocent, you would not disconnect his ideology from the crime. but male violence must be psychological, not ideological. he beats a woman because he himself was beaten as a child, etcetera.

misogyny, loosely described is the dehumanization (not mere dislike) of women. thus it takes many forms: objectification, pedestalization, decontextualization, caricaturization (or stereotyping), etc. BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, the ideology of male supremacy centers around one core tenet: men are entitled to women for anything at any time. misogyny will, given time, result in male violence and exploitation. but it begins with entitlement. misogyny is a man feeling entitled to a woman’s body. to a girlfriend, wife, prostituted woman. but it doesn’t have to be solely sexual. he can be entitled to a woman’s subordination. he can be entitled to her kindness or attention. he can be entitled to her time and effort. he can be entitled to her support and loyalty. he can be entitled to her service and ideas. he can be entitled to her career and finances. there is no limit to the expression of male entitlement toward women. and that is what makes a man a patriarch. any person a misogynist. that a woman or girl, by virtue of being female, must be an endless fount of whatever one wishes.

misogyny is uncritically expecting your girlfriends to support all your decisions. misogyny is a man expecting his mother to cook and wash after him. misogyny is a boy getting angry that a girl has genuine, logical counter arguments to his ideas. misogyny is a boyfriend expecting his girlfriend to be 100% available to him whenever he wants attention or feels needy. without returning even half that energy. misogyny is stripping nuance from prominent female figures whether historical, fictional or celebrity. it is the denial of a woman’s interiority and needs. misogyny is a pastor that expects women to defer to him on spiritual matters. it has so many flavors and languages and it has no limits. male entitlement toward female people knows no limits. it’s TRA’s demanding access to women’s female spaces and calling any woman or girl that expresses discomfort or argues for her rights “inconsiderate bigot cunts.” entitlement to a woman’s agreement. it’s the government banning a woman’s right to terminating pregnancy or self-defense against sexual violence because governments are entitled to workers and soldiers.

and so, “not all men” is absurd because there’s virtually no man that does not have some level of this entitlement and expect it of at least one woman or girl in his life. especially because even women do not escape misogyny. men’s entitlement to controlling or overpowering a woman in some way (as the prime hallmark of the identity of a man) is omnipresent, whether or not it escalates into male supremacist violence. but again, once the ideology takes root, that women naturally owe men themselves or some capacity of themselves, violence (or neglect in the face of it) is almost always certain to follow. in which case the question for a woman doesn’t become a matter of “if” but “when.”

all men are entitled to women and girls and believe, as a result of being male supremacists, that they are owed our labor, bodies and minds. this alone makes all men (and boys) weaponized.

dangerous.