"Not all men"

One theme that emerges from many feminist statements about unacceptable male behaviour is that "not all men" are like this. That phrase, that hashtag, crops up over and over again. I worry about why it is deemed necessary to include this caveat. I would assert the positive, empowering statement we should make is "all men" should actively challenge this behaviour, in themselves and others.

I know there are positive exemplars out there. But sometimes I worry this observation is made just to avoid the risk of alienating men who might consider themselves not to be guilty of the behaviours in question. Sometimes the concept of "toxic masculinity" is offered as some sort of explanation. I have rejected that idea here. We are not passive victims of masculinity, we are active participants.

This article is not about what "not all men" do. It is about what "all men" can do. Men, as individuals, need to step up and take personal responsibility for any culture that informs male behaviour in general, as participants in and influencers of that culture.

When women use the phrase "not all men" we can assume there are (at least) two categories of men being described. On the basis of the context in which the phrase is used we can conclude that one category consists of men who behave unacceptably toward women. The men in the other category do not. When women talk about "not all men" it's clear they mean men in this second bit of the Venn diagram.

But all too often, when men talk about "not all men," they are not talking about the same thing. They are often, in effect, trying to excuse their own unacceptable behaviour. It is a case of men in the first category trying to insinuate themselves into the second. They are trying to excuse their own conduct by misrepresenting criticism of it as an invalid generalisation.

As men, they are not in fact qualified to make that assessment of their own behaviour. They have a conflict of interests. The appropriate male response to the female statement that "not all men" are responsible for the behaviour they are complaining about is not agreement. It is that "all men" are responsible for curtailing it.

This is a statement that men, rather than women, are qualified to make, indeed must make. It's not up to women to make this point. In the absence of this statement the "not all men" trope lets men of the hook. We need a strong clear statement of universal male responsibility to come from men.

I am not just bringing this up to examine relations between men and women, however. There is a more widely applicable pattern at play here.

Consider the response from some white people to the statement "black lives matter." Some people, clearly considering this to be some sort of reproach, respond "all lives matter," motivated by a desire to exculpate themselves from whatever guilt they feel accrues as a result of the statement "black lives matter." Essentially they are trying to say "don't blame me." As I point out above, it is often the case that precisely those who are most to blame are the ones who attempt to shirk responsibility like this.

Set to one side for the moment the point that the statement that "all lives matter" is both obviously true and entirely irrelevant to the issues that underlie the "black lives matter" movement. The appropriate response to the statement "black lives matter" (with its implication that black people are victims of racism) is not "not all white people are racists" (with its implication that the speaker in particular is not a racist) but that it falls to all people to challenge and eradicate racism in all its manifestations.

Just as we shouldn't respond "not all men [behave unacceptably]" but rather "all men [must challenge unacceptable male behaviour]" so we are less likely to say "not all white people are racists" instead of "all white people should challenge racism."

When we have a situation in which members of Group X are unfairly disadvantaged as a consequence of the behaviour of members of Group Y, the appropriate response from members of Group Y is not "I'm an exception. I'm not like them. Not all members of Group Y behave that way. It wisny me." The appropriate response is "it falls to all members of Group Y to stop this situation continuing."

This is not just an academic point. This has become all the more urgent now that we are seeing an uptick in hate crime following first the Brexit vote and now the Trump vote. Not just women, not just black people, but a wide variety of identifiable groups of people are now experiencing an increase in hate crime and prejudice.

Our response must not be simply to abdicate responsibility for challenging this by appealing to our own innocence. We must actively challenge prejudice, especially when we belong to the community whose members are guilty of the prejudice in question. One might say (with apologies to Pastor Martin Niemöller):

First they disparaged the Muslims.
But I don't disparage Muslims, so I did nothing.
Then they maligned the Mexicans.
But I don't malign Mexicans, so I did nothing.
Then they debased Women.
But I don't debase Women, so I did nothing.
Then they persecuted Black People.
But I don't persecute Black People, so I did nothing.
Then they vilified Homosexuals.
But I don't vilify Homosexuals, so I did nothing.
Then they abused the Atheists.
But I don't abuse Atheists, so I did nothing.
Then they denigrated me.
And there was no-one left prepared to do anything about it.