The case for and against "not all men"

Alright, let's start off by my acknowledging that I am indeed the enemy, the evil, the oppressor, in the form of a white, cis, heterosexual, middle-class male who works for a corporation, but not just any corporation, one that works for pharmaceuticals, yes, those evil-doers that are only outclassed by companies that make weapons and cigarette companies.

Now that we've got that out of the way (and what god-awful writing that was, but what do you expect from a college dropout... yes, we're starting up by pulling out all the stops in reminding myself why I'm the Dark Wind),  let's get down to business.  There was a commercial that came out this week that shows men doing the right thing by standing up to other men who are behaving poorly or by stopping a fight.  In response, as you can easily imagine, a small segment of the population has cried foul and, at least based on my social news feed (and the expectation of the company in question, otherwise they wouldn't have made the ad), a much larger segment of the population has cheered and told the smaller population that they can take their complaints and stick up... well, you get the idea.  Some of these responses to the response to the ad (responses to the response to the... yeah, that's it) have been so keen as to avoid saying anything about how many men are responding negatively or even if it's only men that are responding negatively and instead focusing on the ridiculousness of that negativity in the face of an ad suggesting people should behave kindly and courteously and do the right thing.  There are some others, however, that run something along the lines of the following:

Ads for Women: Be thin, be thick, love your body, your boobs look better in this, dye your hair, embrace your grays, these pants are slimming, be feminine, wear makeup, look natural, hide your age....
Women: K.
Gillette: Men should be less shitty.
Men: Don't tell us what to do!

My immediate reaction is to feel attacked by this and respond with "not all men" but I know that I can't respond publicly this way.  That is not my place, I would be doing evil by doing so and called out as such.

A much later reaction is to point out that men also are told by ads to be thin, have no gray hairs, have some gray hair, be rugged, enjoy trucks and the outdoor, and love power tools.... but this is even easier for me to put aside because I know that this is like a puddle saying it's also wet when talking to a lake.... sure it's true but....

So, back to the "not all men" reaction... is it reasonable to not be permitted socially to have this reaction without repercussions?  Most other situations "not all ..." is not only accepted but warranted and right.  Examples easily come to mind: "not all Muslims are terrorists (and really almost none are)", "not all illegal immigrants are murderous thieves (and really almost none are)", "not all recipients of welfare are cheating the system (and really almost none are)."  But then why is "not all men" inappropriate to say?  It's actually quite simple.  Men are privileged in the US.  A privileged group is does not get to defend themselves in this way for it suggests they do not understand that it's understood that not all are being implicated (and yet there are those who would respond to someone saying "not all" with "yes all") and because ... well... they are the privileged group in the pairing.

There is another argument in favor of "not all men": by attacking all men and not providing the opportunity for men to say "not all" it causes us to move further into our corners.  Men who feel attacked by these memes and statements will often back down from the fight to make the bad actors among us behave better.  Ok, but there's a counter to this one, and it's something that we have been learning lately from a variety of political studies.  People don't get convinced by logical arguments, or really any arguments.  It turns out it's nearly impossible to convince people that their beliefs are wrong and to change political sides.  So these memes are not meant to convince anyone, they are meant to give voice to frustration and anger and they are meant to rally those who agree.  So to respond with "not all men" in these instances, similar to the memes themselves, would not be helpful to the conversation and would only antagonize those that are oppressed and expressing their frustration and anger at the situation... which seems not only useless and unnecessary but indeed hurtful and wrong.

So, yes, I believe not all men, but it is more than reasonable that I should refrain from responding this way.... oh, and as many would point out, yes, all men.

Offices and pod coffee

I've noticed that various offices have taken to having pod coffee... my office recently switching to keurig.... this is very wasteful (both financially because individually wrapped coffee pods are more expensive and environmentally because they're individually wrapped).

But what's the alternative? The main ones offered currently are coffee shops, pot coffee, and other non-conventional (in the US) forms of single brew (french press, cold brew...). All of these have negative elements to an office's needs.

• If you don't provide coffee, your employees now are missing out on a perk that competitors have.  Worse still, if they decide to go to a coffee shop, you're essentially promoting a transition out of the office which is costly in efficiency.
• If you go with only having pot coffee available, while this is at least a little bit closer to the common scenario, it's not going to be quite the perk that is expected by your employees because they can't pick and choose and personalize their coffee selection.

So, I get it... there are certainly reasons why companies are all converting to pod coffee of one fashion or another.  Taking that as a given, maybe there's an option that would allow for something more economical, environmental, AND providing the same perks we've come to expect in the office? I know it sounds ridiculously inefficient, but, I've been thinking about the reusable pods available for keurig.  I don't think people would accept filling their own reusable pods, but, what if someone at the office were to be responsible for filling the pods, in similar fashion to someone currently being in charge of stocking them?  

• I can imagine having a small device for holding several pods at a time while their filled, making it slightly more efficient than when a person fills one pod.
• You could get different flavors and mark different reusable pods as each flavor, thus allowing the same diversity as is available today.
• For the most environmentally concerned companies, the remains of the coffee grounds could be composted instead of just tossed in the trash. 

The main problems I foresee with this plan are that you need someone to take a bit more time with stocking the coffee and that you would want some way to keep the freshness of the grounds in place once placed in the reusable pod.  For the former, I'm not really sure what can be done aside from using tools to make the process of resetting the pods quicker, such as the aforementioned holder for holding the pods while refilling or a funnel for the same part of the process.  For maintaining freshness, I wonder if you could get a rubber cap to put over the pod.

Looking just at my office, I expect there would be a decent start-up cost but that it would pay for itself relatively quickly.  Let's say you expect to need 24 cups of each of 12 varieties per day.  

• You would need around 288 reusable pods; $10 for 4 pods; $720
• 12 bags of coffee; let's say $8/bag; $96
• Miscellaneous equipment such as funnel... let's say $50?

Total: ~$870 (assuming you already have a keurig, given that we're replacing the current offering...if that Keurig machine already in place is based on a service provider, then we're adding a Keurig to bring us to about $925-$975)

So, yes, that's a large starting point but consider the financial savings of such an arrangement.  That 12 bags of coffee covers roughly 360 cups of coffee, or around $225 worth of Keurig cups.... so you can see how a savings of $130 nearly every day would cover that initial investment into the reusable pods real quick.... the initial investment would be covered within 2 weeks.

What are your thoughts?  Do you work in an office where lots of pods are used?  Do you think the office could make the switch?