is not an example of a stereoTYPE, which generalizes about a definableTYPE, or category of men.
Not criticizing your post at all, just pointing out that when you see "writing like this that portrays all men as the enemy," it's not a fair leap of logic to imply that the meaning and uses of stereotype even play into "all men as the enemy" thinking.
One example is that all the men some women know is their only map of "all men," and so their map is valid and precise, even if incomplete and inaccurate. Only by moving out of their life context and into other contexts can they enlarge and then adjust their map. Until then, what they say would be true for any of us in their context, too. We accept that their map is precisely true, but not accurate because it's not complete. But it's not fair to criticize them for using a map that works for them.
The flaws of stereotypical thinking are similar mental map flaws in all kinds of mental biases. Men are just as guilty of them.
When men are allied with women in the cause of "not all," as allies, they both will recognize men who have problems and know it (that their maps are precise but not accurate), and men who have problems and don't know it (that their maps are precise but not accurate).
Over millennia women have learned all kinds of social/visual signals and cues about men that they've come to depend on for their very survival. When men really change, women will see the absence of those signals and cues -- not just a male or media presentation of their absence, but a whole and nothing-but-the-truth absence.
= new reply since forum marked as read
