A thread of feminist narrative is that men who are lazy, violent, feckless parents etc. are somehow representative of men in general, while women who are lazy, violent, feckless parents etc. aren’t representative of women in general. It’s a thread – usually implied rather than overtly stated – that runs through Woman’s Hour and much else. When women in particular hear this narrative decade after decade, it’s little wonder they believe strongly that women are intrinsically superior to men. So when men dominate any areas e.g. politics, corporate boardrooms, it can only be because men discriminate against women, whether overtly or covertly.
An excellent new article on gender generalisations by Mark Trueblood:
Justice for Men & Boys 
I find the distinction between NAWALT (or NAFALT, Not All Feminists Are Like That) and NAMALT is very hypocritical. Whenever feminism is criticised, it is inevitable that the replies will contain a cacophany of NAWALT/NAFALT arguments. However, if ever Rape culture or the prevalence of Rape is questioned using NAMALT, the argument is invalid. It’s almost like feminists believe that men are some kind of singular, Hive-Mind incapable of any form if individual, reasoned thought whereas women are free, independant thinkers whose job it is to assist the poor male hive mind.
LikeLike
Reblogueó esto en Los españoles se merecen saberlo, por la Paz y la verdadera Igualdad en España!y comentado:
“Un hilo de la narrativa feminista es que los hombres que son vagos violentos, padres irresponsables, etc son de algún modo representativo de los hombres en general, mientras que las mujeres que son vagos violentos, padres irresponsables, etc no son representativos de las mujeres en general.”
LikeLike