Guilt by association or something else?

I recently came across a post on Facebook from a male feminist which states the following:

"Of course it's not all men. But if I make exceptions for some men when I talk about it, then all men will see themselves as the exception, they will gloss over right over the conversation, and it will lose all of it's impact. So, until is no men, it is all men." 

By suggesting that the existence of men who think they haven't acted untowards to women when in fact they have somehow negates such a belief in others who are completely innocent, what fallacy has he committed?  

I would hesitate to call this one a logical fallacy because the speaker in this case acknowledges that what he's saying is not literally true, but is instead crafting his message in a way that he feels will make the target audience more receptive to it. However, I think the justification does commit the fallacy of stereotyping (the fallacy) in assuming how men will respond to the "some men" message. Surely, there are some men out there who behave poorly towards women, but are self aware enough about it that they would not see themselves as the exception. One thing that I've experienced is that I'll see a post describing how "all men" are, but it's totally inaccurate to how I am and how most of the men I know are. So, my response to that is that I no longer take that person seriously and stop reading what they have to say.

This is just a case of ideology leading to a problematic philosophy. The reason they give is one of opinion, but they have not thought this philosophy through to its logical conclusion. We can use this "rule" to say that ALL women are therefore emotionally unstable, ALL Democrats are communists, ALL latinos are murders, etc. 

I don't think it is a fallacy because it seems they know what they are saying is not true - they are just saying it for attention. It is a form of dishonesty.