Feminist criticism of men's behavior comes from the idea that gender is a social construct, that men are not inherently evil and their behavior can change. If men couldn't change, the criticism would be pointless.
It is not necessary for every feminist statement to include a 'not all men do this' disclaimer. The criticism itself already expresses the possibility that men could choose not to behave in this way.
Unless someone states that men's behavior can't change or that there is inherent evil in being a man, accusing a feminist of 'manhating' because she criticizes men is usually nothing but an attempt to distract from the content of the criticism itself.
We should recognize such an obvious attempt at derailment for what it is and move on.
#Crucially this also is why generalizing about men isn't bioessentialism #Not when you're doing it from a feminist perspective with an understanding of what sociologically makes a man
YES YES THANK YOU! Same goes for like, generalizations about white people, straight people, cis people, etc.
When the context is anti-bigotry, then the implication of "I hate it when men / cis people / white people are like this" is very clearly "this is a symptom of a systematic hierarchy, they can change and they should". The position of the speaker as a feminist, trans rights advocate, anti-racist, etc. makes that very clear.
It is incredibly frustrating when some little imp then comes out of the woodwork to say "Well if I said that same thing about trans people / immigrants / arabs, etc. you'd call me bigotted!". Like, yeah, you sound bigotted because you're making those statements from an anti-feminist, anti-trans-rights, pro-racist position! The assumptions and worldview behind the sentence fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence.
