It’s ridiculous that we’re still writing about this. Ideally, we’d have loved to discuss more radical feminist ideas and analyze intersectional gender oppression in a deeper, more meaningful way. Last week, however, conversations in online fora reinforced the need to address more “mundane” arguments in gender discourse.

For starters, we need to discuss the concept of gender. Many feminist scholars and philosophers have tried to define gender, and different societies’ conception of it. Basing the concept of gender on biology will exclude trans women, basing it on social roles will exclude societies and cultures and basing it on physical appearance will marginalize women who do not fit into that norm. Thus, feminist scholars have, instead, turned to use the concept of gender as a tool to understand the oppressive systems in which gender operates. From this understanding, what defines women from the beginning of society, across cultures and intersectionalities is the fact that they have been oppressed under the patriarchy.

Inverting this argument means that what defines men, from the beginning of society, across cultures and intersectionalities, is that they have been on top of the gender hierarchy. This is not to say that the patriarchy has not affected men negatively, but that men have, are and will continue to benefit from the patriarchy, regardless of — and this is important — whether they actively perpetuate gender oppression.

Therefore, when women make statements like “men do X,” “I hate men,” “men are trash” or “men suck,” they are not critiquing the male gender as a whole, but rather the privileged position that the gender occupies and the harm that it causes women. It is a criticism of oppression, which is pervasive in almost every facet of our lives. When women make these statements, they do not literally mean every single member of the privileged gender. Yet, these statements are frequently met with backlash accusing them of discrimination and double standards. Every expression of our oppressed position is responded with the age-old “Not All Men,” as if that argument suddenly makes the patriarchy disappear.

Let’s now look at the usual situation in which this argument plays out. A woman, based on her experiences with misogyny — whether in the form of sexual violence or everyday sexism — will express her grievances by generalizing the privileged gender. A person – usually a man – will then complain about her generalization and claim that not all men behave in the same way.

Why do women generalize when making such statements? For starters, women have been taught since birth to fear men. We grow up being told, explicitly or implicitly, that men will harm us. Women move through life with a set of rules to protect ourselves from men, as though the burden of protecting our safety is on us: Do not leave your drink out. Don’t walk home alone. Don’t walk at night. Carry keys in between your fingers. Learn boxing.

Making these generalizations about men keeps women safe. Of course, we know nice men and we know that they exist. But if we assume every man in our lives will treat us with the same decency and respect that those select ones do, we would be in danger. We cannot blindly trust men at parties, on dates or even while we’re shopping. Whether the idea that all men are harmful is true or not, we need to act like it is, because our survival depends on it. Not only this, but the lived experience of our peers provides insight into how even certain men, who we once considered to be the exception, overtime reveal misogyny or act violently.

Our safety, therefore, depends upon believing that every man will harm us because, in practice, this is a safe assumption. But isn’t this a double standard? Why can women make such broad generalizations and not men? Imagine if a man said, “women do X.” Is it fair?

As we are forced to explain time and time again, being a man means occupying a position of power in the gender hierarchy. It is absurd, then, to cry double standards when the roles have always been reversed. Women have always been generalized, treated as property and considered subhuman. The default role is not “men suck,” but that women are being beaten, raped, abused and then invalidated in their experiences.

To reply with a poorly crafted “Not All Men” argument to someone’s experiences with gender oppression not only invalidates their experiences, but further proves the point: “Yes, All Men.”

Another common response to discussions about women being sexually assaulted is: “But men also go through x.” If your response to a conversation of women getting sexually assaulted is that men also get sexually assaulted, you do not care about male victims of rape and sexual assault. Talking about male victims of rape and sexual assault is an important conversation to have. But if you use the horrible experiences of male sexual assault in a passing, fleeting remark that only serves to invalidate the experiences of women, without taking care to contextualize and analyze the subject in its entirety, you are not bringing anything productive to the table.

Even if not all men actively participate in the oppression of women, most passively support the patriarchy by turning a blind eye to such incidents. Men remain friends with rapists. They make “rape jokes.” They “offer” women protection, yet call them b*tches if women don’t respond to their “kindness” with sexual favors. Men laugh when a friend catcalls women “for fun.” And the most damning of them all, when a woman actively speaks out against this mistreatment, they distance themselves from their privileged position and claim that they are never the ones to do this.

If you still believe you are one of the “good ones'', you wouldn’t be correcting generalized statements with “Not All Men.” You would be someone who intervenes, calls out violence and actively engages in making space for women's experiences. If you truly are an outlier, there is no need to recognize it or derail the conversation. The last thing you would do is center yourself in the conversation. You would not invalidate survivors, but would actively work to make a world in which women are not in a state of constant threat. So as long as you keep saying “Not All Men,” you’re actually proving our point.