…but to what degree? As I see it, there are 3 potential concepts we can go with:
1. AWALT (All Women Are Like That)
This assumes that any person who is a female is going to possess certain traits. Such traits may include being overly emotional, having irrational reasons for their actions, taking advantage of men’s willingness to protect/care for women, or giving attention to men who can directly benefit them (Briffault’s law). Note that although this stance is statistically impossible, it is still well used when speaking in generalities.
2. NAWALT (Not AWALT)
The standard go to acronym of white knights and the overwhelming majority of women. While this stance statistically holds more truth than the first point, it is rarely used in a coherent fashion. It is used most often in conversations with women who further on prove that they are, in fact, like that.
3. EWALT (Enough WALT)
What it actually seems to mean when people say “AWALT”, and what I personally use as my go to phrase. It’s not that every woman will eventually frivorce their husband or use false sexual harassment reports to get a male coworker in trouble…But the fact that some do and they don’t have glowing neon signs taped to their foreheads is sufficient reason for men to be cautious around most women. Despite the fact that this is probably the best way to describe how sex/gender relations are in most Western countries, it is still seen as being a prime example of misogyny. Go figure.
Anyone want to add their own acronym, or discuss how much of these is true based on nature vs nurture? Examples and personal anecdotes are welcome, but be prepared for someone to have one that nullifies your own. 😉