flies1

If NAWALT* Then NAMALT

“All men are potential rapists, and definitely sexual deviants!” “Yeah! Those creeps!”

“Men are no longer necessary.” “Damn skippy! Those useless slobs!”

“Men are dominating privileged patriarchal oppressors, rule the world, and own all corporations.” “They oppress women! Smash the patriarchy!”

“Men are stoic and emotionless. They don’t feel things like women do.” “Why won’t they listen to me!?!?!?”

“Men are poisoned by testosterone and their chromosomes are going extinct.” “Good! Who needs them anyway?”

“Boys won’t sit still in the class and are hard to control.” “So annoying! Why can’t they be more like girls?”

“Men are sexually selfish and don’t care about pleasing their partners.” “Of course not! They’re men!”

“Men pollute Mother Earth and plunge penis pumps in her to extract oil to fuel male privilege.” “Yeah! Women are more sensible and compassionate!”

“Men are violent thugs, and start all wars.” “Yes! If women ruled the world, there would be no war.”

“Men are unnecessary for the raising of a family.” “That’s right! Women can do it all!!!”

“Husbands and fathers beset their wives and children with marital rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and neglect.” “Those assholes are sick!”

“Men force women into restrictive gender roles.” “Yeah! Down with patriarchy! Women hold up half the sky!”

“Don’t let your man cheat on you, all men are pigs.” “Men don’t do any housework.”

“Men abandon their children.” “Men are boorish and insensitive.” “Men don’t know how to treat ladies anymore.” “Men are failing in school.” “Men have Peter Pan syndrome.” “Men should act more like women.” “Men are afraid of commitment.” “Men think with their dicks.”

“Women have a serious lack of respect for men’s humanity.” “NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT! Stop generalizing!”

Hyperbole aside, does this not sound familiar?

Here’s how it goes: misandrists and other ignorant jerks utter bigoted nonsense, a few people agree, and everyone else just silently accepts it. Except for a few who protest, and are quickly shouted down or told to “man up.”

But woe betide any man or woman who dare speak a less-than-flattering thing about women. “Not all women are like that” (NAWALT) is the least of the recriminations.

I understand some of the criticisms of generalizing, and the spirit behind NAWALT. While I think the human race would have died out long long ago without the ability to generalize, and to a certain point it is intellectually necessary, I get that we should treat people as individuals as much as possible. Women and men are human beings. Some of them are saints, some are pure evil, and most are a balance of both. And we’re all just trying to live our lives.

But it is also glaringly obvious that when it comes to gender issues, it is regarded as hunky dory to generalize men in a horrible fashion. This should go without saying, but if Not All Women Are Like That, then Not All Men Are Like That.

If you’re reading this, you probably already speak against misandry and other forms of bigotry. And if you say NAWALT, or warn against a generalization, you should be taken seriously. But if you don’t speak against misandry and other bigotry, or you join in, then you have no right to utter NAWALT. That reveals a lack of courage and a broken moral compass. You can do better.

Remember: If NAWALT, then NAMALT.

__________

* “Not All Women Are Like That”, or NAWALT, is the phrase/acronym for a very common phenomenon in gender-related discourse. Whenever anyone says something less-than-positive about a woman, or a group of women, some version of “Not All Women Are Like That” is uttered as a non-answer to stop the conversation, or to deflect an obvious truth from acceptance.

About Mark Trueblood

Mark Trueblood believes wholeheartedly that men and women of all backgrounds can work together to create positive change.

View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • Shrek6

    Great thought provoking article Mark.

    Not sure I can give up my position of generalising against women yet, simply because they keep proving me right.

    There is no such thing as NAWALT!

    Well actually I’m wrong. If you want to compare all the women in the world to the women who contribute to this site, then I would easily accept that NAWALT, because not all women are like the women here at AVfM.

    But in the general community of women around the world, the overwhelming majority are not only supporters of male disposability, they are indeed the architects.
    And not only that, the overwhelming majority of women around the world fully support all the discriminatory and derogatory evil that feminists have brought against men over the past 50 years. Sure they may object to some of it, but secretly to themselves, they fully support it.

    The sheer fact that none of them fight to stop or change it, is testament to the fact they fully support it.

    So, knowing like I do that not all men would harm a woman, in fact the overwhelming majority of men would never harm a woman in anyway shape or form, the fact is that the general population of women are indeed quite prepared to harm men to either get what they want, or to save their own arses, or to simply alter their future path by ditching a man who they only told yesterday they loved, but today he is a perp of DV and child abuse.

    • OldGeezer

      “… the fact is that the general population of women are indeed quite prepared to harm men to either get what they want, or to save their own arses, …”

      I think that “exploit” rather than “harm” might possibly be the more appropriate verb. Your suggestion that “get[ting] what they want, or sav[ing] their own arses” provides the actual incentive is exactly correct IMO. The fact that harm to men may result from their selfish desires simply doesn’t enter into women’s impulsive demands for benefits and privileges and wouldn’t matter much if it did. If anything, it may even add some “vengeance” incentive to the equation which can also be a powerful motivator for those so inclined.

      I would argue further that the exploitation of men isn’t actually specific to either sex. It’s just that women enjoy certain advantages in that area that can be used, not only in their own behalf, but also exploited in turn by others with their own agenda … and has been … and continues to be. But that is by no means an excuse for the feminist intermediaries who permit and facilitate the exploitation for their own advantage. It should probably be noted that not all of them are female either. They wouldn’t have got as far as they have without a lot of male help.

  • http://commonmanmedia.blogspot.com Jonathan Taylor (TCM)

    I think there’s a distinction that needs to be made between these two things:

    1. Using a generalization about men or women as a means of judging an individual man or woman without sufficient evidence about the individual.
    2. Generalizing about men or women – while allowing for the possibility of exceptions – as a means of setting necessary boundaries in your interactions, without prejudging that individual.

    For example, there’s a difference between:

    1. A man who, while having sex with a woman who says she’s on birth control, uses a condom because he’s assuming the woman will – because she is a woman – lie.

    2. A man who, while having sex with a woman who says she’s on birth control, uses a condom because he simply does not know (or rather, essentially declares an agnostic stance on) what she will do, but knows that the system is set up to empower her to enslave him, and he’ll be totally left without recourse if she “accidentally” gets pregnant.

    It may seem small, but I think it makes a lot of difference.

  • http://tarnishedsophia.wordpress.com TheSwordintheChalice

    If NAWALT, then NAMALT.
    Makes perfect sense, honestly.
    Been saying it for the longest time.
    Generalizations are good for conversations involving overwhelming statistics, or for use in situations where you don’t know the person/people you’re dealing with, and have undoubtedly kept some of us safe at one time or another.
    But to use these generalizations to make permanent judgments about others, and be unwilling to alter your beliefs about individuals? That is folly, and neither men nor women should do this.

    Unfortunately, we all know someone (jor multiple someones) who want so strongly to believe AWALT or AMALT that it clouds the rest of their thinking to the point of irrationality…

    • Rukumouru

      Overwhelming statistics like what? “One in four”?

      Feminism and other totalitarian dogmas are notoriously adept at fabricating “overwhelming statistics” out of thin air, there is no excuse for doing anything with care and respect that they won’t be able to corrupt into a weapon.

  • rayc2

    “Overwhelming statistics like what? “One in four”?

    Feminism and other totalitarian dogmas are notoriously adept at fabricating “overwhelming statistics” out of thin air….”

    If they keep redefining rape at the rate they are going, pretty soon it will be a FACT that 9 out of 10 men are rapists and the only solution will be to cut off all boys penises at birth. /sarc

    • Darryl X

      As it stands in the US, cutting off a substantial part of penes at birth is routine.

  • Darryl X

    In the US and elsewhere for sure, all women benefit from the proceeds of feminism. All women benefit from the systematic kidnapping of children and child trafficking, the enslavement of hard-working men and the impoverishment of responsible men. Laws like VAWA, Title IX and CAPTA don’t just benefit some women who choose to use them for profit and political expedience but all women including the ones who do not. That’s why on average women live more than six years longer than men and women receive more Social Security and other forms of public assistance than men even though men have more education, work longer hours, have longer careers and risk more hazard at their jobs. So not all women are like that but laws exist which encourage, enable and reward all women to be like that including the ones who aren’t. So what’s the difference? There is none.

    • Theseus

      A lot of what you are saying could have been applied to whites in the south before civil rights. It was systematic abuse of another class of people, and most whites in the south during that time weren’t in a hurry to change things, in fact most were more than happy to keep the status quo. I don’t see anything racist or bigoted in pointing this out.

      Where the bigotry, racism, and sexism comes in is when an entire class or group of people is broad brushed and generalized with a negative characteristic or stereotype; MEN are pigs, WOMEN are lying, vindictive Jezebels, JEWS are tight wads, etc, etc. In other words when a negative characteristic is looked at as the natural state (i.e. genetic) based on an individual’s race, culture, or gender.

      However making generalizations according to one’s ideology is fair game because this indicates state of mind (feminism). THIS is the important distinction.

      • Bewildered

        ” A lot of what you are saying could have been applied to whites in the south before civil rights. It was systematic abuse of another class of people, and most whites in the south during that time weren’t in a hurry to change things, in fact most were more than happy to keep the status quo. I don’t see anything racist or bigoted in pointing this out. ”

        There’s one big difference though,whites and blacks were two distinct discrete classes in a conflict of interests ,so the tribalistic ‘we they’ mentality was very easy to sustain. AFA the man-woman relationship is concerned there’s a very big significant intersection of individual interests. At the very least most men have mothers,sisters/female cousins and most women have fathers,brothers/male cousins to whom they relate as real people and not as abstract objects. So the chances of spotting an unjust zero sum game are a lot brighter. Ask 100% cotton, GWW etc.

        “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

        Henry A. Kissinger

        ” However making generalizations according to one’s ideology is fair game because this indicates state of mind (feminism). ”

        They are still probabilistic though !

        • Mark Trueblood

          Gloria Steinem fought the Patriarchy by sharing a bed with Henry Kissinger for a time.

          • crydiego

            Thanks for this bit of trivia and thanks for a thoughtful post.

          • Bewildered

            LOL!!!! Kinda shows how ridiculous this “War between the Sexes” is.

            Rich,privileged people’s lurid fantasies which others mindlessly cloned and for which they have been made to pay a heavy price.

    • Bewildered

      ” So not all women are like that but laws exist which encourage, enable and reward all women to be like that including the ones who aren’t. So what’s the difference? There is none.

      Hehe ! tell this to 100% Cotton, Suz, Aimee and other female members of our forum

      • Darryl X

        I will honor admin’s expectation that I refrain from the obvious response to your post.

        • A. Anthony Villareal

          For some reason, I thought you were banned from here.

  • Bewildered

    ” If NAWALT, then NAMALT. ”

    and vice versa which implies and is implied by the fact that above everything else we are INDIVIDUALS.

    “Women and men are human beings. Some of them are saints, some are pure evil, and MOST ARE A BALANCE OF BOTH. And we’re all just trying to live our lives.”

    It’s the extremes that distort the picture. If your sample includes the entire population of the world then your assertion would be in the vicinity of the truth.
    Unfortunately most of these so called social studies use samples that are pitiable inadequate for any meaningful,reliable extrapolation.

    • externalangst

      “Women and men are human beings. Some of them are saints, some are pure evil, and MOST ARE A BALANCE OF BOTH. And we’re all just trying to live our lives.”

      It has occurred to me that rather than the Straus-Levi lists of female / male attributes which has been taught in schools – lists that include generally negatively assigned attributes for men such as:

      Men – competative, violent
      Women – cooperative, nurturing

      etc. you get the idea.

      This list of ‘generalizations’ not only promotes the generalization of men:bad ; women good, but fails to note an important point. The best people of both sexes share the same qualities. Both are generous, courageous, fair etc. These are not male or female characteristics. Conversely, both bad women and men share the same characteristics – viciousness, dishonesty etc.

  • crydiego

    The simple fact is, Not All Women “Are” Like That. I have to stop myself very often and remember that it is feminism, the ideology that is corrupt and morally bankrupt. I can blame that on some individuals but I certainly can’t blame it on women in mass. The changes that happened in the 70’s had almost everyone on board up to a point. It was a universal belief in fairness that got feminism off the ground, -but then it changed.

    Politicians saw votes and a way to divide the civil rights movement, and not only that, the money flowed in like a river. Women bought and paid for anything feminist. They were in the first blush of love with a new life of freedom and possibilities, -but then it changed.

    It changed because it lost touch with equality and it had to keep selling books, driving magazine sales and getting the right people elected. It changed because it lost touch with reality and the lives of common men and women and has deteriorated down to The Virginia Monologues and the Slut Walk. It changed because everyone started selling their own brand of it. So it’s true, “Not All Women Are Like That!”

    Women don’t even know what they are supporting anymore with feminism because there is no center and it is falling apart through dispersion. Feminism is like most ideologies, “5% of the people get 95% of the benefits.

    Women can be are best supporters, as we theirs. That’s just the way it’s been for a million years!

    • crydiego

      Sorry about the Virginia Monologues, my spell checker loves that state

  • CloudKicker

    The most frustrating thing is when a feminist uses the NAMALT argument as a mere disclaimer to avoid the absolute. It usually goes something like this: “I know that not all men are like this, but MOST are…” In other words, the men who are not like that are the exception to the rule. The rule being, of course, that men are evil.

    A generalizing statement does not need to apply to all of the members of a group, but only needs to include them. Some people don’t get this concept and think that by stating the obvious exceptions it means they are not generalizing. But who am I kidding, generalizing is only a fallacy when the generalization is not accurate. I certainly wouldn’t give much credibility to the NAFALT argument, after all!

    • Mark Trueblood

      I don’t hear Feminists say NAMALT all that often. I hear a lot more “schrodinger’s rapist” – style arguments, and I also consider “check your privilege” arguments to be AMALT.

      • Bewildered

        ” Check your INSANITY ” would be an appropriate reply.

    • Bewildered

      ” “I know that not all men are like this, but MOST are…” ”

      This is a classic ! A feminist’s euphemism for ‘ALL’ !

  • CrimsonViceroy

    The thing about passing judgement based on precluding a verdict of AWALT is that it isn’t necessarily about “guilty until proven innocent” it’s about “guilty until proven reformed and rehabilitated”. We all know that women ARE guilty of the sin of misandry by the lives they lead, the lies they tell their loved ones and themselves, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the way they vote! They compromise the majority of voters now, gentlemen. That means that if you see more and more draconian laws being passed against men, then you have to correctly lay the blame on the largest voting bloc..in this case, women. They represent the political majority, with the immunity of still being claimed the minority. That’s the perfect recipe for rights without responsibility.

    If we want to plainly honest, how many times have men heard such vapid generalizations against them and how they need to do more X or be less Y or they are total Z’s. And before I really ingested the red pill, I would take those comments to heart and reflect upon myself how much am I like what they say men are. In fact, if you look at society holistically, you’ll see that men police and patrol ourselves rather rigidly, overly so in most circumstances. Just look at how much shaming and guilt-tripping you’ll get even amongst family and friends should you veer off the straight and narrow. You see absolutely NO such thing amongst women. If they were truly concerned about NAWALT regards, then you would see more social outrage over female pedophiles, female child rapists, and female murderer’s. However, you see no such case, and more so you will see the NAWALT defense almost unilaterally. I’m not going to say what makes a woman a true woman, much less what makes a man a true man as such gender measurements are often used by our opponents to silent opposition more than actually drafting logical counterarguments. I will say that a MATURE ADULT will often take the critical generalizations that have been leveled against them and try to find kernels of truth instead of vehemently arguing against it. Taken that most men have listened to the vitriol spat at them about how they are insensitive power-hungry brutes, and have even voted in more money and power to provide additional provisions for women, I would say that the only mature adults in the room are men. Funny how even though the statistics are heavily stacked against any negative generalization against men, we still don’t relegate ourselves to simple “NAMALT” everytime.

    • crydiego

      Great comment Crimson. In it you said, “If they were truly concerned about NAWALT regards, then you would see more social outrage over female pedophiles, female child rapists, and female murderer’s.”
      This is so true but you don’t see much even from men! It’s a slow awakening for everyone. How did it ever get this bad?

  • Bewildered

    ” How did it ever get this bad? ”

    Simple ! A filter called GYNOCENTRISM.

    • crydiego

      I had to look it up: “Men don’t matter!” I think that’s a catchy bumper sticker with a little AVfM at the bottom.
      I think the next time a woman who identifies as a feminist, calls me a man I will tell them I would preferred to be called a “person.”

  • MGTOW-man

    I am always going to generalize because it is mostly true about most people, most of the time. We all already know that NAWALT and NAMALT, so big deal. Such truth does not make wrong that MWALT and MMALT. That is the point and is where we MHRA’s should be focusing on if we are to get to the root of the problem and do away with it once and for all. Why be afraid of the the truth? isn’t such truth-hating reserved for feminists? Trust me, feminists and bad women in general WILL hide in this PC push for no generalizing. It is foolishness to comply and foments their winning.

  • DavidicLineage

    Just had an idea that’ll keep me laughing all night. Next time a woman pulls out the NAWALT line, correct her pronunciation.

    “It’s pronounced natal.”