The Problem with ‘but not all men’ (the view of a man)

We all know this conversation by now: someone mentions that men commit sexual assault (or worse) and then someone else replies: “But not all men.”

Did anyone say ‘all men’? No. If someone meant ‘all men’ then they would have said ‘all men’. That’s why we have the world ‘all’ in our language. To make a general observation is not to make specific observations: by nature, a generalist claim allows for specific claims to coexist whilst acknowledging that there is a majority fact. Thus pointing out a specific cannot contradict the general.

There are plenty examples of this in daily life. People may dislike cats but they’ll gladly look after their friend’s cat. Most kids hate school but they have a favourite teacher/subject and enjoy the time they can spend with their friends. I can’t stand potato but potato waffles or a good, creamy mash are some of my favourite food.

Disliking potatoes is my general claim but liking mash/waffles are specific claims. Men are the main perpetrators of sexual assault (an undisputable fact) yet all can be glad that there are specific examples showing otherwise.

What baffles me most is that people feel the need to say, “Not all men” when someone else opens up about being raped. How is pointing out that you’re a good person more important than someone else opening up about a devastating event? Besides, these conversations aren’t accusations. If your first response to police is “It wasn’t me” when they made no accusation against you, they will then be suspicious. If someone feels safe enough to open up then respect them by not shutting them down. Emotional intelligence is the best way forward.