The Onion

I'm sorry, what even is this argument?? The commenter above you is saying that women have enough proven experience of men being shitty to have to prepare for it in every interaction. Even if they know that it's 'not all men' it's enough that they have to assume it could be any single one.

The only way this could be comparable to racism is if people had legitimate reasons to mistrust other races, which is not the case. Racism is the result of exaggerated stories and mistrust being created about a community with whom the racist generally has no connection.

Most of the time women being wary of men doesn't lead to misandry, it just leads to world-weariness and guardedness around men until we know we can trust them. But even if it did, misandry and misogyny are not equivalent. Misogyny is a prejudice which has been embedded in society for millennia and which has only begun to be deconstructed in the last century. Misandry is a response to this condition, but it is not structural, it's the position held by a handful of women exhausted by their shitty experiences with shitty men.

It's honestly a wonder that more women don't viscerally hate every man in existence, and men should be thankful that we continue to go out and put ourselves out there despite the plethora of bad and downright dangerous things we've experienced. Knowing that men can do awful things and preparing for that possibility is just a survival tactic for remaining in the world.

...sure, I guess? An argument can be repurposed to try and make a lot of different points. Here's the thing though...

A logical argument is considered valid if its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. However, an argument can be valid but not necessarily true (like the argument you're suggesting). This is because validity only concerns the form of the argument, not the truth of the premises or the conclusion.

Here are some examples of valid but not necessarily true arguments:

Modus ponens: If it's raining, then the streets will be wet. It is raining. Therefore, the streets will be wet. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the streets are not wet for some other reason.

Modus tollens: If it is not raining, then the streets will not be wet. The streets are not wet. Therefore, it is not raining. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the streets are not wet for some other reason.

Hypothetical syllogism: If it is raining, then the streets will be wet. If the streets are wet, then the roads are slippery. Therefore, if it is raining, then the roads are slippery. This argument is valid because it follows the form of a valid argument, but it may not be true if the roads are not slippery for some other reason.

In each of these examples, the argument is valid because it follows a valid logical form, but it may not be true because the premises or conclusion may not be true.

Now think about the "enough men" argument. It's not translatable to misogyny and racism because the context (the premises) is vastly different for people who don't identify as men, and for people who are not white, straight, or really any other centered group (these things vary a lot depending on the specific culture you're looking at and the intersectional dynamics that exist). Not enough women are violent towards men (though this does happen, and it is also bad) for men to have a realistic need to protect themselves in as many interactions.

Using the argument out of specific context, without true premises, nearly guarantees that the argument will no longer be true, while still being logically valid.

It's not misandry to be wary around men. Rape culture is a thing. It is not equivalent to racism.

Lemme try again. The same argument is not used (at least, not legitimately) to justify racism, because you do not have to actively take precautions to defend yourself from people of other races.

Madness! How dare you speak logically with a well thought out response! All men are BAD! They're BAD! If you are defending men, you are clearly a piece of shit. Men must be ashamed of themselves! Women can do NO wrong, and they are perfect in every single way! We hate men! /s

Fun fact: I was in an abusive relationship with a woman from 2005 to 2008. She hit me, bit me, verbally abused me, would lie to me about doing things behind my back, just to upset me, and even hit me with her car when pulling out of my driveway. To this day, I'm told, "You were a guy. You could take it. Men can't be abused by woman."

That shit fucked me up and I'm still recovering from it to this day. So when I see generalized BULLSHIT statements about how all men are bad and abusive and that they can't be abused because they're men, it invalidates my traumas and deep down it makes me feel like I should be ashamed of myself for even thinking that what I went through was abuse, and that it was my fault. And then, when i take a fucking stand about it, I just get dogpiled on. Its top tier fucking gaslighting and I'm sick of it.

AS A RESULT:

1. I'm afraid to set healthy boundaries

2. I'm too afraid to say "no"

3. I've developed severe anxiety and have to get myself under control in my current relationship

4. I'm constantly fighting myself on if I'm even worth being with

5. I've developed HORRIBLE panic attacks if I get too emotional

6. I struggle to maintain eye contact

7. I take a lot of stupid shit way too personally, even though I know better.

but I also think it’s not reasonable to expect people to always stay silent when someone’s venting/feelings leads them to make broad, declarative statements about the badness/problems of a large heterogenous group.

Venting to your best friend or friend group is not the same as venting in a public forum. Or even to your male partner. Understanding the issue so that it can be solved in a systematic way is our default reaction, not "oh she just wants to vent let's hug her". We don't even have the same emotional response to that, source as of yet unknown. Going out on a limb: Probably not all nature, probably not all nurture.

That said, the proper answer still isn't "not all men" simply because it doesn't have the proper impact. "I don't understand why you're angry at me" is a much better way to stop an "all men" rant mid-sentence because now you're not opening an abstract discussion about the nature of the universe but telling her about the direct emotional turmoil and therefore labour she's causing, leading her to re-evaluate the relative importance of both. YMMV when it comes to online but in-person I can definitely recommend it.