Modified from a real discussion.

The following is adapted from a conversation on a forum where THIS article was posted and in which I also included this article. I felt I made some valuable points.
The men that are the problem don't listen to women. The Not ALL men are so worried about being perceived well they aren't listening, either. That makes them part of the problem. It's dismissive, invalidating and off-topic. It's a way of making women's lived experiences about the WOMAN"S emotions and not the MEN"S behavior. You really want to be a "Not All" man? Realize that ALL men have a role in this. Either in perpetrating it, ignoring it or fighting it. The 3rd option is not worried about his ego when I can't meet my son at his bus stop w/o getting catcalls. Because if I say I can't wait for my son at his busstop w/o being harassed, which is a statement of fact, the response is "Not all Men". The original statement does not imply ALL men. If I say 20 men passed me and left me alone but 3 catcalled I am changing my statement in a way that minimizes the very real effect this has on daily life. My son has asked me why men yell at me. Yes they do that while he's right there. It scares him. I do not need to say "Not All Drivers" when what I'm saying is I should be left in peace.   I'm saying that your refusal to hear what we are saying about our lived experiences unless we first modify the tone of our statements is requiring us to make you comfortable before we can be heard. Since the problem is that society worries far too much about makes men comfortable than what makes women safe, your asking us to allow that state to continue in order for us to have a voice
I say I receive catcalls waiting for my son's bus to drop him off. You insist I say 20 cars left me alone, but 3 men yelled at me puts the focus on how many men do it vs the fact that I cannot safely wait for my son at the busstop. No where does the statement that I receive catcalls while I stand there w/ my book and headphones trying to appear disconnected to minimize my exposure imply that ALL men catcall me. That would be ludicrous on it's face. But to "modify" my lived experiences to point out the fact that most cars leave me alone minimizes the very real scariness of not being able to safely pick up my son. And that's the point. 

To change the subject to the fact that it's a minority of the male population instead of the fact that it is a constant lived experience for me.

My son has Asperger's. When men yell at his mother, he thinks I did something wrong. And he is scared. The fact that it happens every time we take a walk together terrifies him. PLus, I really don't feel like explaining to him what "I'd tap that" or "do you want some fries with that shake" means. And if you still are concerned that I'm focusing on the men that treat me this way instead of the men that don't then you're part of the problem. Because, YES, the majority of men don't do that. But the majority of men HEAR them do that and do nothing.

Saying I get catcalled at the busstop is not hyperbolic.

It also does NOT imply ALL men catcall me.

And yes. Say only three men did it does minimize the effect. And that's the point. I've had this discussion with men. I've said I can't escape it. They say, "How Many" I say 3 they say " See, it is not THAT bad, most men leave you alone. Why do you have to dwell on the small minority that bother you"

YOU are letting language be the problem. You view the statement that I received catcalls as hyperbolic. It is not. It doesn't imply all men catcall me unless you are looking to hear that way.I received catcalls. If I said I received a million catcalls THAT would be hyperbolic.

The "Not All Men" is used whenever women discuss their lives. "Men harass me at the beach" "Not ALL men harass you" "I didn't say ALL men. I said men plural, because it was men, plural. The idea that it is all men is not even implied. 3 billion men could not have physically been at the beach." Your insistence that a modifier is about making things clearer is a falsehood. It is clear from the outset that Not ALL men harassed me. It is about making sure we point out that there are "good men" that don't. But it's not the "good men" that are concerned about "Not ALL" men. (In general). I will be openly harassed. 3 men will do it. 30 will let it happen. ALL men have a role. Either a) as perpetrators 2) as enablers who watch it happen/hear about it and do nothing or 3) as men who intervene and confront these men when they see it/hear about it. And, for the most part, the men who fall in category 3 do not want a cookie.

You are saying I have to change my lived experience to make men comfortable. I have to carefully word it so as not to offend the sensitivities of category 2 who know it happens but don't actually perpetrate it. I have to carefully word my statements so that a single random dude's ego doesn't get bruised. I am unconcerned with his ego. He doesn't actively harass me? Cool. Did he go up to the guy who was harassing women and stop it? Probably not. How do I know "probably not"? Because I can count on my hands the number of times men have heard me be harassed and spoke up. And if you see it happen and fail to intervene you are not a "good guy".

I was beaten by my exhusband. I was told, often, by him and others if I would just be more careful in how I acted. More careful about what I said, then he wouldn't hit me. Except that is not true. Being more careful fixed nothing. Saying "some" men catcall will not change the conversation. It will not get men to listen. It will get men to say. "Yes, we know that. What's the big deal." Because the men who worry about "Not All Men" aren't worried about anything except making sure the subject is put into a context that allows them to continue to go about their day munching on cookies knowing that they, personally, didn't catcall me. MY ex would complain I didn't put effort into my appearance. But if I did, then I was "pressuring him" for sex or trying to "get attention" from other males. Your insistence that modifying my behavior would change anything is a) false and b) deflecting the responsibility for these men’s words/behavior to me. No. It was not my fault my ex hit me. It is not my problem that when I discuss what I experience you hear ALL men. That is on those who refuse to understand the very real danger women are in.

This was said "If you know how to fix it, can fix it easily, the message doesn't suffer, and still refuse to do it, one has no right to bemoan the situation." 

which translates to; "If you refuse to behave as men would like you to, then you have no right to complain" and then I was called irrational because I don't want to say "a few men catcalled me" So I ended with:

And now I'm done. You assume a) that we have never "modified our words" b) that if these Not All Men were to be placated that all would be sunshine and roses. c) If I assert my voice, if I challenge your base assumptions, if I tell you my EXPERIENCES disprove your premise and that d) I have a right to tell my story without it being minimized that I am being irrational. You are aware, I assume, that the default position when women speak up up is to call them irrational? That deflecting our words with that idea is a very old trope? I have made extremely concise, factual arguments and you refuse to concede that any of us *may* have dealt with this before. *May* have "modified" our words. *May* know EXACTLY what happens when we do. I am not irrational. If anything, I am not as angry as I should be. Studies show that sexual harassment/assault is SO much a part of a women's daily existence that we (in the aggregate) brush off a**-grabbing/ fondling as 'normal'. Because it is. And refusing to be silenced or tone-policed is not irrational. Seeing the modifier "ALL" when the plural is used (Because the plural is a FACT) is the irrational .