But there are several problems with automatically assuming that broad statements like "completely ignore men" mean literally "don't interact with a single male person ever, because they are all trash."
1) The first of which is that this isn't how the English language works.
In fact, it's really, really normal to use generalizations and broad statements to communicate. We do it constantly. So much so that it seems rather backward to me that anyone even thinks of assuming this statement means "literally all men in the history of the planet are the problem, and there's never been a good one."
A statement like that is just too absurd to think anyone would make it seriously.
To me, with my current understanding of the subtleties and complexities of human communication, taking a statement like this literally feels so out of the blue that it can only be a willful misunderstanding. A purposeful attempt to twist my words and opinions into something to suit their own agenda. It often feels like an attack.
I have learned that it's not. But it's hard to get on the same page enough to discuss that with someone, when we're starting from such radically different interpretations of how English word structure works.
Let's try, though:
When people say "politicians are corrupt" do we literally mean exactly every single person ever elected to office? Almost never. But is it enough of the people elected that we are justified in making a broad statement? Yes.
When people say "I hate country music" do they literally mean every single country song ever written? Almost never. There's usually at least one exception. But is it enough of them to make a broad statement? Yes.
When people say "I hate everything" do they literally mean everything in the entire universe or multiverse? Not usually. Sometimes it's just a bad day and finding good things is hard. But we all know we don't mean it literally. That's a given.
When people say things like "Humans are stupid, and I never want to interact with another one again," do they literally mean they will become a hermit entirely off the grid, who will never speak to anyone ever again? Usually not. And usually said person wouldn't seriously enjoy that level of distance from the people they love. But enough humans have been problematic that a broad statement doesn't feel that out of place, some days.
This is a super normal way for people to communicate with each other, and it's more out of place to assume they do mean things literally because they didn't specify otherwise, than it is to make the assumption I did that this post is using men as a broad term, and not as a an all-inclusive literal statement.
Additionally, people are allowed to use words in different ways during different parts of a discussion. This isn't a choose one and stick with that choice forever kind of deal. That goes back to language being subtle and complex. To really give people the best chance at communicating to you, you in return have to be willing to look for those complexities and interpret each portion to the best of your ability, rather than just assigning blanket values to things like a mad lib.
Engaging in discussion like this invokes something of an unspoken contract to not willfully misunderstand one another (which includes not applying blankets, as mentioned above). If you break that, then no coming to terms or an agreement or even a compromise/stalemate can happen. (That's why internet fights often are what they are. People are breaking the unspoken contract to actually put effort into learning from each other.)
2) Men (as a category) really are actually the problem here.
To enter a discussion on the arbitrary and unattainable standards of a thousands-of-years-old patriarchal system by saying "Not all men" is to actively ignore that those arbitrary and unattainable standards exist and/or matter. It relegates them to an afterthought. It essentially says, "Yes, but this other thing is more important."
That other thing being the feelings of a man you know who isn't trash. And sure, it's true that there have been men known to exist in the world that are decent human beings. That's a thing. But he's also fine. He already lives in a world that is designed to treat him more importantly than the rest of us. He isn't going to be in any kind of danger or drama if we don't immediately acknowledge his existence and make everything about him.
But making his feelings more important than acknowledging a message that's trying to teach young girls that their self worth doesn't hinge on conforming to what the current male gaze desires? That will--not might, but absolutely will--hurt someone.
Making his feelings more important than acknowledging a message that's trying to teach young girls that they are allowed to have dreams and ambitions, and to work for them? That will hurt someone.
Turning a message of self-value and self-care and self-love into "how dare you not acknowledge that this man that I like has managed to exceed the expectations of that low, low bar that was set for him"? Nah. We ain't doing that today.
I learned just yesterday that Karen Carpenter was only 32 when she died of complications from anorexia. Let me just ask: would eating disorders like that even be a thing if we didn't have centuries of social custom indoctrinating us with the idea that our worth as a human is based on how well we conform to the desires of the male gaze of the day? I can't help but feel that they'd be dramatically reduced.
Messages that remind people that a man's opinion isn't the end all be all of our self worth isn't just cute or nice. It's life-saving. It's absolutely vital to our physical and mental well-being to get in tune with ourselves. To find out what we want and need. To understand who we are as individuals. To pay attention to our goals and dreams and joys and the tiny stuff that makes us happy in a true and deep way.
The problem is that, in our society, patriarchal standards are often the biggest thing that gets in our way of doing just that. It IS men (as a category) that are the problem so, so often. "Not all men" doesn't just ignore that by making the situation about men's feelings; it actively makes the case that men (as a category) aren't at fault at all by falsely conflating "men as a category" with "literally all men in all of history", as though the two just HAVE to be connected, and can't exist without each other.
They can, in fact, both exist. That's a thing.
3) The question of whether "Stop Trying to Please Men" is literal (all men ever) or not (men as a category) is kind of irrelevant anyway.
This advice is good, whether you're talking about it in terms of "you should stop trying to spend all your time pleasing men as a category" or in terms of "you should stop trying to spend all your time pleasing every man who ever lived."
Either way, the point is to focus on what you need, and not others.
But let's say we do want to take the road less travelled, and assume that this meme is not an inspirational way to tell young women that they are their own people. Let's say she is literally trying to tell people to literally ignore all men, even the good ones.
Well, as it turns out, even men who have really good intentions, and are not bad people, have perpetuated problematic stuff. The same kind of problematic stuff that we are talking about that has been caused by men as a category.
My dad is an example. He's the absolute first person so show up anytime anyone needs help, 100% of the time. He is generous with his resources, wakes up insanely early to work hard, and takes care of an enormous number of people. He's even one of the few Trump voters I've met who cares more about family than being right, so he accepts that we won't agree on that matter and allows us to be what we are.
But despite all this, he was very insistent, while I was growing up, that he loved our hair super long. He wanted it to be as feminine as possible. No, he never outrightly forbade us to cut it, but he didn't have to. We were trained by media and society from a young age that his opinion about the femininity of our hair was important. And so I had my hair super long for 28 years of my life.
I hated long hair. I couldn't function with it. I didn't know how to fix it or care for it well. Most of all, it didn't feel like me. If you've never experienced feeling like a stranger in your own skin, that's an incredibly hard aspect of this situation to explain. I can tell you, though, that it sucks so hard. There's a constantly looming impression that you're just wrong. Not that you did something wrong, but that YOU are wrong.
That kind of feeling permeates everything, to the point where you start to be convinced that ALL of you is something to be ashamed of. It shouldn't feel wrong, but it does, so are you just broken?
It seems weird, and appears kind of shallow, to say that hair and style matter this much, but they do matter. Not in an "I'm better than you because my clothes cost more" way, but in an "I can get on with my life when what I see and what I feel match. When the discord between what I am and what I'm pretending to be doesn't loom heavy in the background."
I never once, in the entirety of my life, looked in the mirror and thought "I have great hair today" until long, long after I chopped it all off. And it took me 28 years to do it because I spent all my time up to that point being scared that if I cut it short that I'd be disappointing people. That it would look terrible, and my dad would hate it, and I'd (somehow?) be even worse off than I was before, regarding my self image and lack of confidence.
Even though I don't even like boys in a romantic sense, I still spent all of my formative years working hard to please men, and their ideas about me, instead of caring about myself.
I've gained more healthy self confidence in the handful of years that I've had my hair short than in all of my teens and twenties combined. I can barely even imagine what it would have been like to spend my 20s with a positive image of my worth as a human. How confident and fulfilled and ready to take on the world would I have been if I hadn't spent all that time trying to be what men thought I was supposed to be? Trying to care more about what they thought than what I did?
Not just about hair, but that really was a major factor in learning how to find my own style and feel good in my own skin. Which I do, now. At least as well as anyone with a normal amount of flaws can. The first time I ever thought the words, "my hair is amazing today" was... life-altering. And I was in my 30s before that happened.
Would I be where I am now without the influence of my dad? No. Is he generally good? Yes. But would I have gotten started with my own life YEARS earlier if I hadn't spent so much time trying to please that image that he wanted of me, and trying to please that image of what boys would want to date? Oof. Yeah. And I have been sad about that hundreds of times since discovering the fact.
That's why I like this advice, whether we take it literally or as generalized discussion. Because I desperately wish I had been given and understood this same advice when I was a teen.
Ignore the judgments. Ignore the insincere romances. "Do not put substantial effort into pleasing men." ie, don't spend your formative years focusing only on what someone else thinks you should be. Focus on learning who you are. Accepting yourself. Discovering what YOU like and dislike. Learn how to overcome your flaws and increase your strengths. Don't spend that energy on someone else's ideas of how that should go.
So, do I care about whether or not some man in your life is validated about being actually decent? Not really, no. Especially not when it comes at the expense of accepting, perpetuating, and supporting the original point of the post, which is to help young women succeed in life without trauma, abuse, and wasted time.
