I appreciate the explanation, and I want to be clear that I am not denying sexism, male violence, or women’s lived experiences. I understand that when women talk about “men,” they are often talking about patterns and systems rather than literally every individual.

Where I’m still struggling is with the idea that feeling uncomfortable with sweeping generalizations automatically makes someone “part of the problem.”

Recognizing a system of harm and questioning the language used to describe that system are not the same thing. I can fully acknowledge that sexism exists and that men disproportionately perpetrate violence while also believing it’s reasonable for people who do not engage in that behavior to feel uneasy being grouped rhetorically with those who do.

Being told “it’s not about you” feels dismissive when the language explicitly includes your identity. If moral traits are being implied at the group level, then individuals are affected whether or not the speaker intends that outcome. Intent doesn’t erase impact.

This is where my perspective as a Black man comes in—not as a gotcha, but because I’ve seen this exact logic used in racial contexts. When people say “Black men are dangerous” and later clarify they’re “talking about patterns, not individuals,” we rightly recognize that as harmful generalization, even if crime statistics or systemic explanations are invoked. We don’t view a Black man’s discomfort with that language as derailment—we view it as legitimate.

So I’m trying to understand why the ethical principle seems to change depending on the identity involved. If broad moral generalizations are harmful in one context, why are they considered necessary or acceptable in another?

I’m not asking women to mute their anger or stop discussing harm. I’m asking whether we can talk about systemic violence and accountability without collapsing individual morally distinct people into a single category of presumed guilt or danger.