As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[NOT ALL ____] What Justifies Generalization, And Is It Ever Productive?

Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
edited October 2014 in Debate and/or Discourse
I was responding to a blog post about generalization (the "Not All Men" variety, in this instance) and figured it might be an interesting discussion here. The last quote is mine, and contains my personal thoughts on the matter.
When you’re at the pool lounging on a beach chair and some little kids are running and the lifeguard screams out “no running” do you respond “excuse me, not all of us are running”? No, you don’t. The lifeguard didn’t have to specifically state who they were talking to because you’re intelligent enough to comprehend that the comment wasn’t being directed at you.

— Found a quote that shuts down that “not all men” argument pretty well.
Yeah so the lifeguard doesn't say "Everyone who is at the pool stop running" because they are directly talking to a small group of people and not everyone at large. You can't make sweeping generalisations about groups of people and then say "Oh I only mean the bad ones" because that's the same line of logic that racists use.
It's the logic racists use, but they are wrong.

Other, different generalizations, like saying "men keep harassing women," are correct and fair, and if you aren't guilty of doing it, then no, you have no reason to take offense at the generalization, since you have every means of seeing that, yes, many men are doing that very thing.

Everything isn't black and white and "generalizing" isn't the devil. It's a necessity when addressing thousands or millions of people at a time who keep doing something wrong.
Yeah but it's generalising to the point where it's so broad that people think they are under fire here when they are actually talking about someone else. Even adding "some" as a preface before generalising would specify things enough here.
Hexmage-PA wrote:
Do people even really have any control over what they take offense too? I'd think it would be a more unconscious reaction, like anxiety, a subject I personally am very well-acquainted with. I very often experience personal emotional distress in situations that other people don't and probably would be incapable of comprehending if they knew how it affected me. I know full well that this kind of reaction is abnormal, and that there is no rational reason for me to experience ten or more minutes of stress from a co-worker's single, mildly rude gesture towards me (for example), but even being fully aware of the absurdity of my anxiety doesn't do much to prevent it.

I'd expect that taking offense to something works the same way. Even if an individual knows full well that generalizing black people or women has far greater negative repercussions than generalizing white people or men does and that they "have no reason to take offense at the generalization", it doesn't mean that they won't still unconsciously react with feelings of offense that could negatively affect their opinion of the people who make these admittedly far less harmful generalizations (although it's possible that, eventually, these people will stop experiencing this kind of unconscious emotional reaction in much the same way that people can be cured of psychological disorders).

There are far more people who take offense and don't understand that not all generalizations are equal in harm, but I personally have a hard time believing it is productive in the larger scheme of things to tell these people that their feelings are invalidated by their relative macrosocial unimportance and that their taking offense is itself offensive to marginalized groups. While this could shame those especially harmful individuals who openly refuse to accept that racism and sexism still exist, it could also cause other, more moderate individuals who might be open to change to instead disengage entirely because of their apparent status as an "acceptable target" and incorrectly generalize feminists and anti-racists as obsessively bitter people who hate all men and/or whites and are exploiting outrage caused by injustice to make their own desire to demonize privileged groups appear justified.

f59mqk6jwodr.jpg

Hexmage-PA on
«1345678

Posts

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Let's talk about the US missile defense shield.

    Right now it can only shoot down a few missiles some of the time. But maybe one day it will be able to shoot down many missiles all of the time. The balance of power between the United States and Russia depends on mutually assured destruction. For either country to gain the ability to shoot down many missiles all of the time would upset this balance. Therefore, Russia opposes the US missile defense shield.

    The United States tries to reassure Russia. "We're just building this shield to protect ourselves from Iran and North Korea", they say. This is super reasonable. The United States really does face a serious threat from Iran and North Korea. Building a missile defense shield is a great idea for reasons that have nothing to do with Russia. If Russia starts threatening to attack the United States if they don't stop building their shield, Russia looks like an aggressive jerk meddling in matters that don't concern it.

    But say the United States finishes its defense shield, and then happens to disagree with Russia over some minor issue like the Syria conflict. "I think you better do what we say," says America. "We could crush you like a bug." And Russia says "But you told us your shield had nothing to do with us!". And the US answers "And we were telling the truth. We didn't intend it against you. But here we are, disagreeing with you and having a spare superweapon. It wasn't our original intent. But now, we own you."

    Now let's talk about anti-Semitism.

    Suppose you were a Jew in old-timey Eastern Europe. The big news story is about a Jewish man who killed a Christian child. As far as you can tell the story is true. It's just disappointing that everyone who tells it is describing it as "A Jew killed a Christian kid today". You don't want to make a big deal over this, because no one is saying anything objectionable like "And so all Jews are evil". Besides you'd hate to inject identity politics into this obvious tragedy. It just sort of makes you uncomfortable.

    The next day you hear that the local priest is giving a sermon on how the Jews killed Christ. This statement seems historically plausible, and it's part of the Christian religion, and no one is implying it says anything about the Jews today. You'd hate to be the guy who barges in and tries to tell the Christians what Biblical facts they can and can't include in their sermons just because they offend you. It would make you an annoying busybody. So again you just get uncomfortable.

    The next day you hear people complain about the greedy Jewish bankers who are ruining the world economy. And really a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish, and bankers really do seem to be the source of a lot of economic problems. It seems kind of pedantic to interrupt every conversation with "But also some bankers are Christian, or Muslim, and even though a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish that doesn't mean the Jewish bankers are disproportionately active in ruining the world economy compared to their numbers." So again you stay uncomfortable.

    Then the next day you hear people complain about Israeli atrocities in Palestine, which is of course terribly anachronistic if you're in old-timey Eastern Europe but let's roll with it. You understand that the Israelis really do commit some terrible acts. On the other hand, when people start talking about "Jewish atrocities" and "the need to protect Gentiles from Jewish rapacity" and "laws to stop all this horrible stuff the Jews are doing", you just feel worried, even though you personally are not doing any horrible stuff and maybe they even have good reasons for phrasing it that way.

    Then the next day you get in a business dispute with your neighbor. If it's typical of the sort of thing that happened in this era, you loaned him some money and he doesn't feel like paying you back. He tells you you'd better just give up, admit he is in the right, and apologize to him - because if the conflict escalated everyone would take his side because he is a Christian and you are a Jew. And everyone knows that Jews victimize Christians and are basically child-murdering Christ-killing economy-ruining atrocity-committing scum.

    He has a point - not about the scum, but about that everyone would take his side. Like the Russians in the missile defense example above, you have allowed your opponents to build a superweapon. Only this time it is a conceptual superweapon rather than a physical one. The superweapon is the memeplex in which Jews are always in the wrong. It's a set of pattern-matching templates, cliches, and applause lights.

    The Eastern European Christians did not necessarily have evil intent in creating their superweapon, any more than the Americans had evil intent in their missile shield. No particular action of theirs was objectionable - they were genuinely worried about that one murder, they were genuinely worried about Israeli atrocities. But like the Americans, once they have that superweapon they can use it on anyone and so even if you are a good person you are screwed.

    now men as a social category are not really a plausible target for systematic genocide or thermonuclear extinction, but I don't think instincts refined for engaging in high-stakes political identity struggles are best placed to make that distinction

    aRkpc.gif
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Generally speaking, nothing justifies it and no it is not productive.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Feminism spent years railing against the sloppy generalisation #notallmen has caused a somewhat hasty backflip. The conclusion we draw is this: generalisation is ok if Republicans (Internet) feminists do it.

    Very bad arguments and analogies are trotted out to attempt to carve out an exception, they fail to establish this exception on their own merits.

  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    I think the only time it is ever really not a problem is when someone is just venting. At that stage it is not really useful to have to state specifically what is bothering you since it's just getting shit off your chest. For any productive discussion it is never a good idea to generalize to a specific group. There is never a problem that can be contained so neatly in its perpetrators or victims.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    I think the only time it is ever really not a problem is when someone is just venting. At that stage it is not really useful to have to state specifically what is bothering you since it's just getting shit off your chest. For any productive discussion it is never a good idea to generalize to a specific group. There is never a problem that can be contained so neatly in its perpetrators or victims.

    right, but when the target of the "venting" is not a agreed-upon despised privileged out-group the tenor changes.

    "i hate it when men..." -> acceptable venting topic

    "i can't stand how black people..." -> whoa there buddy maybe walk that shit back

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Kid PresentableKid Presentable Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    I think the only time it is ever really not a problem is when someone is just venting. At that stage it is not really useful to have to state specifically what is bothering you since it's just getting shit off your chest. For any productive discussion it is never a good idea to generalize to a specific group. There is never a problem that can be contained so neatly in its perpetrators or victims.

    right, but when the target of the "venting" is not a agreed-upon despised privileged out-group the tenor changes.

    "i hate it when men..." -> acceptable venting topic

    "i can't stand how black people..." -> whoa there buddy maybe walk that shit back

    I agree with the words written in this post, but I get the impression that you're saying this is a bad thing. What's wrong with having different rules for privileged groups for this type of thing? Certainly enough of the rest of the rules are already heavily in their favor. Even (especially?) as one of them, I just have a hard time sympathizing with the privileged group crying about their oppression.

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Okay. Pop quiz. Who has more privileged, Michelle Obama, or a white homeless man?

    See what I mean? And that's just American power dynamics, not even going into the power dynamics of other societies. Do I still have white privilege as a white man in China?

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    I think the only time it is ever really not a problem is when someone is just venting. At that stage it is not really useful to have to state specifically what is bothering you since it's just getting shit off your chest. For any productive discussion it is never a good idea to generalize to a specific group. There is never a problem that can be contained so neatly in its perpetrators or victims.

    right, but when the target of the "venting" is not a agreed-upon despised privileged out-group the tenor changes.

    "i hate it when men..." -> acceptable venting topic

    "i can't stand how black people..." -> whoa there buddy maybe walk that shit back

    I agree with the words written in this post, but I get the impression that you're saying this is a bad thing. What's wrong with having different rules for privileged groups for this type of thing? Certainly enough of the rest of the rules are already heavily in their favor. Even (especially?) as one of them, I just have a hard time sympathizing with the privileged group crying about their oppression.

    because we regard lazy generalization and prejudice as categorically bad things, and empathy and tolerance good things.

    or at least i thought we did. i guess maybe they're just so much ballast holding us back from really going full steam on this culture war

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    I think there's a huge difference between criticizing a part of the government and saying men are like a bowl of poisoned M&Ms.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    if you can't parse the difference between identifying broad social ill and mocking members of a subgroup for resenting the accusation that they're complicit in something they're not then i don't know what to tell you.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Okay. Pop quiz. Who has more privileged, Michelle Obama, or a white homeless man?

    See what I mean? And that's just American power dynamics, not even going into the power dynamics of other societies. Do I still have white privilege as a white man in China?

    Considering that mainland Chinese firms hire Caucasians to serve as corporate representatives because of their race, I would say yes, though it will take a different format.

    As for your first question, I would recommend you read up on intersectionality, as there are many different aspects to privilege.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    intersectionality should make you less enthusiastic about broad brushes, rather than more, really

    the class of 'men' in #notallmen includes a lot of POC, income classes, religious groups, etc., some of whom are even overrepresented in reactionary attitudes toward women. they are simply less likely to engage with activists on twitter

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    No, I would like you to answer the first question. Who has more privilege?

    My point is, the whole dynamic only exists in certain contexts. I guarantee that an Arab Muslim man from the UAE will be better treated then a white atheist in the UAE.

    You're trying to excuse a sweeping generalization of 3.5 billion people with criticism of a government group. That's silly.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I think there's a huge difference between criticizing a part of the government and saying men are like a bowl of poisoned M&Ms.

    Except we're happy to make that "poisoned bowl" argument when we're telling women that they need to watch their behavior to keep safe. But when we find out that they have taken that message to heart, we then turn around and criticize them for doing so.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    How is it productive to alienate a portion of the audience you are trying to reach? If you want to sway hearts and minds you have to first get them to listen. I am not saying to treat them with kid gloves, but you can't expect overt hostility to get you very far. Plus is it really hard to add "some" to a sentence in order to get more people listening?

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Who's we? Because as a rape victim, I sure as shit would never tell someone that. I don't really think child!Nemo could've done any behaviors to prevent getting molested by his older sister, so it would be pretty hypocritical for me to advise women otherwise.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    I think there's a huge difference between criticizing a part of the government and saying men are like a bowl of poisoned M&Ms.

    Except we're happy to make that "poisoned bowl" argument when we're telling women that they need to watch their behavior to keep safe. But when we find out that they have taken that message to heart, we then turn around and criticize them for doing so.

    so first off, making people aware of risks is by no means a broad, universal condemnation. there are a very small number of drunk drivers on the road, and we caution people to take measures to protect themselves from them when possible, but their existence by no means is a broad indictment of drivers.

    and additionally, who is "we" in this context?

    sensitive, right-minded liberals or prejudiced shitheads?

    whose behavior are you advocating? which one are you claiming membership in, hedgie?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    if you can't parse the difference between identifying broad social ill and mocking members of a subgroup for resenting the accusation that they're complicit in something they're not then i don't know what to tell you.

    Here's the thing - we've been telling women over and over that they cannot trust men, that any man could be abusive. And ultimately, women have taken that message to heart! But now that they are taking that message to its logical conclusion - that since any man can be abusive, the safe stance is to assume the worst until proven different on an individual basis.

    And we're going to show resentment? I find that rather offensive. And this is another aspect of why several of us were pointing out in the victim blaming thread that those messages, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately problematic - not only do they constrain the choices that women get to make, but they also make all men look bad.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    WHO
    THE
    FUCK
    IS
    WE

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Kid PresentableKid Presentable Registered User regular
    Is this thread about "Not All Men!" or is it trying to be more (forgive me) generalized? If the former warrants discussion, I feel like #YesAllWomen already did a pretty great and thorough job of addressing the issue.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    if you can't parse the difference between identifying broad social ill and mocking members of a subgroup for resenting the accusation that they're complicit in something they're not then i don't know what to tell you.

    Here's the thing - we've been telling women over and over that they cannot trust men, that any man could be abusive. And ultimately, women have taken that message to heart! But now that they are taking that message to its logical conclusion - that since any man can be abusive, the safe stance is to assume the worst until proven different on an individual basis.

    of course "we" are not. what "we" are saying is that it's difficult to tell prima facia whether someone represents a threat, so it's best to stay mindful. these are not even close to the same thing.
    And we're going to show resentment? I find that rather offensive. And this is another aspect of why several of us were pointing out in the victim blaming thread that those messages, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately problematic - not only do they constrain the choices that women get to make, but they also make all men look bad.

    maybe to a rabbit. most humans, however, can draw a distinction between "some" and "all." additionally, most of us have enough empathy that we understand why, for instance, a black person might resent being told that they are a criminal in the first place and subsequently mocked for taking exception at it.

    wouldn't want to miss on an opportunity to snark on one's choice of despised demographic, though, would one?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Is this thread about "Not All Men!" or is it trying to be more (forgive me) generalized? If the former warrants discussion, I feel like #YesAllWomen already did a pretty great and thorough job of addressing the issue.

    tell us about it, i haven't been paying enough attention to know about that one

    aRkpc.gif
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    if you can't parse the difference between identifying broad social ill and mocking members of a subgroup for resenting the accusation that they're complicit in something they're not then i don't know what to tell you.

    Here's the thing - we've been telling women over and over that they cannot trust men, that any man could be abusive. And ultimately, women have taken that message to heart! But now that they are taking that message to its logical conclusion - that since any man can be abusive, the safe stance is to assume the worst until proven different on an individual basis.

    And we're going to show resentment? I find that rather offensive. And this is another aspect of why several of us were pointing out in the victim blaming thread that those messages, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately problematic - not only do they constrain the choices that women get to make, but they also make all men look bad.

    You start with saying that telling someone all men are evil is problematic, and then end on that's the best solution to our problem? How about we stop doing it at both ends? No one here has said it isn't understandable why this has played out as it has. No one here is saying never do this thing ever cause it makes you a terrible person. We are saying if you want to engage someone you have to meet them at their level. The fact that there have been shitty messages sent to women does not suddenly make a person alienated by being generalized somehow more receptive. Fair is a concept for children. If we are to work to accomplish what is right we need to make an inconsequential concession.

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Is this thread about "Not All Men!" or is it trying to be more (forgive me) generalized? If the former warrants discussion, I feel like #YesAllWomen already did a pretty great and thorough job of addressing the issue.


    How'd it do that then?

    I'm pretty sure it's a general thread for statements that are fucked up like that.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    WHO
    THE
    FUCK
    IS
    WE

    Society. Our society tells women that men cannot be trusted by default, so they need to mitigate their risk when dealing with men. But when women take that societal message to heart, we then criticize them for doing so.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    This topic seems confused.

    The point of #NotAllMen is not to fight generalization, but to try and pretend that a broad trend is instead just a bunch of isolated incidents.

    AngelHedgie's #NotAllCops is a good hypothetical here. "Not all cops are corrupt" is not a valid or even sensible counter-argument to people calling out widespread police corruption and bad behaviour in the US.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    shryke wrote: »
    This topic seems confused.

    The point of #NotAllMen is not to fight generalization, but to try and pretend that a broad trend is instead just a bunch of isolated incidents.

    AngelHedgie's #NotAllCops is a good hypothetical here. "Not all cops are corrupt" is not a valid or even sensible counter-argument to people calling out widespread police corruption and bad behaviour in the US.

    i'd say that the bare minimum of empathy and consideration for police reform campaigns is to allow for the possibility that any given cop might not be corrupt.

    that doesn't strike me as too much of a concession in terms of compromising the purity of the message.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    This topic seems confused.

    The point of #NotAllMen is not to fight generalization, but to try and pretend that a broad trend is instead just a bunch of isolated incidents.

    AngelHedgie's #NotAllCops is a good hypothetical here. "Not all cops are corrupt" is not a valid or even sensible counter-argument to people calling out widespread police corruption and bad behaviour in the US.

    No, it doesn't work. One is not born a cop. One can stop being a cop anytime one wishes. You don't stop being a man. You're born a man. You're always, until you die, a man. This is true of men who are black, men who are white, men who are trans, men who are gay, men who are Buddhist, etc. And, shockingly, huge amounts of them aren't abusive. Your trying to excuse damning the many for the activities of the few.

    It's like excusing anti-Muslim bigotry by using terrorism as your premise.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    This topic seems confused.

    The point of #NotAllMen is not to fight generalization, but to try and pretend that a broad trend is instead just a bunch of isolated incidents.

    AngelHedgie's #NotAllCops is a good hypothetical here. "Not all cops are corrupt" is not a valid or even sensible counter-argument to people calling out widespread police corruption and bad behaviour in the US.

    i'd say that the bare minimum of empathy and consideration for police reform campaigns is to allow for the possibility that any given cop might not be corrupt.

    that doesn't strike me as too much of a concession in terms of compromising the purity of the message.

    But this is, again, irrelevant to the #NotAllMen (or #NotAllCops) argument.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    if you can't parse the difference between identifying broad social ill and mocking members of a subgroup for resenting the accusation that they're complicit in something they're not then i don't know what to tell you.

    Here's the thing - we've been telling women over and over that they cannot trust men, that any man could be abusive. And ultimately, women have taken that message to heart! But now that they are taking that message to its logical conclusion - that since any man can be abusive, the safe stance is to assume the worst until proven different on an individual basis.

    And we're going to show resentment? I find that rather offensive. And this is another aspect of why several of us were pointing out in the victim blaming thread that those messages, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately problematic - not only do they constrain the choices that women get to make, but they also make all men look bad.

    You start with saying that telling someone all men are evil is problematic, and then end on that's the best solution to our problem? How about we stop doing it at both ends? No one here has said it isn't understandable why this has played out as it has. No one here is saying never do this thing ever cause it makes you a terrible person. We are saying if you want to engage someone you have to meet them at their level. The fact that there have been shitty messages sent to women does not suddenly make a person alienated by being generalized somehow more receptive. Fair is a concept for children. If we are to work to accomplish what is right we need to make an inconsequential concession.

    Inconsequential to who?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Okay. Pop quiz. Who has more privileged, Michelle Obama, or a white homeless man?

    See what I mean? And that's just American power dynamics, not even going into the power dynamics of other societies. Do I still have white privilege as a white man in China?
    Pop quiz: Which is more like an apple, an orange or a MacIntosh apple?

    The concept of privilege is NOT about how wealthy an individual is, or how much of an advantage an individual has based on their social status or upbringing. The concept of privilege is that if you would take an identical homeless man and make them a military Veteran, or an Asian, or a Black man, that they would have a different (possibly more shitty) experience than if they were white (within the context of being the US... you can make the same argument about being part of a lower ancestral caste in India, or part of the Muslim community in China). Privilege is about invisible perceptions that you do not have because of who you are, not specifically about wealth or power (although wealth and power are often part of why privilege is discussed).

    As an Asian, I cannot possibly know what kind of discrimination a black person in my current employment feels every day, but because I am aware of the concept of privilege, I am open to discussion about how my black co-workers may experience problems differently based solely on the color of their skin.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    I literally had this same debate with a radical feminist over the rights of women who are trans. This is fucking surreal.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Like, is it alright for me to carry a gun through a black neighborhood? After all, blacks have a huge crime problem.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    Gnizmo wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    I have to wonder - what would be the reaction here to #notallcops hashtag? Because I'd be willing to bet that few would be willing to sign on to that.

    Yes, it's true that not all men are abusive, but at the same time, our society tends to turn a blind eye to how men are abusive, not to mention how society expects women to alter their own behavior in response. In fact, our society tells women that they cannot trust men, then punishes them when they follow that advice!

    what does this matter to the question of whether lazy generalizations are shitty?

    Because before you can call something a "lazy generalization", you have to establish that's what is happening. And the example given - the whole argument that it's unfair to tar all men as abusive - has a lot more going on. In fact, we're more than happy to tar men with that brush - when we're transferring responsibility for their conduct to women by telling them that they have to be on their guard around men. But when they turn that around to hold men accountable, we suddenly find ourselves upset about a "lazy generalization"?

    Strikes me as a tad hypocritical.

    Which comes back to the initial point - do you find the statement that the police in the US have issues with abusive behavior to be a lazy generalization?

    if you can't parse the difference between identifying broad social ill and mocking members of a subgroup for resenting the accusation that they're complicit in something they're not then i don't know what to tell you.

    Here's the thing - we've been telling women over and over that they cannot trust men, that any man could be abusive. And ultimately, women have taken that message to heart! But now that they are taking that message to its logical conclusion - that since any man can be abusive, the safe stance is to assume the worst until proven different on an individual basis.

    And we're going to show resentment? I find that rather offensive. And this is another aspect of why several of us were pointing out in the victim blaming thread that those messages, no matter how well meaning, are ultimately problematic - not only do they constrain the choices that women get to make, but they also make all men look bad.

    You start with saying that telling someone all men are evil is problematic, and then end on that's the best solution to our problem? How about we stop doing it at both ends? No one here has said it isn't understandable why this has played out as it has. No one here is saying never do this thing ever cause it makes you a terrible person. We are saying if you want to engage someone you have to meet them at their level. The fact that there have been shitty messages sent to women does not suddenly make a person alienated by being generalized somehow more receptive. Fair is a concept for children. If we are to work to accomplish what is right we need to make an inconsequential concession.

    Inconsequential to who?

    To anyone being reasonable. To anyone who actually wants to work on changing things. To anyone who understands even the most basic of traits about humanity.

    Ask yourself why Notallmen became a thing at all. Think about what spawned it, why it caught on, and why that was the message trying to be sent out. Nothing cuts to the core of a person better than trying to shove a negative or percieved negative label that is untrue.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    shryke wrote: »
    This topic seems confused.

    The point of #NotAllMen is not to fight generalization, but to try and pretend that a broad trend is instead just a bunch of isolated incidents.

    AngelHedgie's #NotAllCops is a good hypothetical here. "Not all cops are corrupt" is not a valid or even sensible counter-argument to people calling out widespread police corruption and bad behaviour in the US.

    No, it doesn't work. One is not born a cop. One can stop being a cop anytime one wishes. You don't stop being a man. You're born a man. You're always, until you die, a man. This is true of men who are black, men who are white, men who are trans, men who are gay, men who are Buddhist, etc. And, shockingly, huge amounts of them aren't abusive. Your trying to excuse damning the many for the activities of the few.

    It's like excusing anti-Muslim bigotry by using terrorism as your premise.

    This doesn't make any sense. You are not even addressing what I said, which in no way depends on anything you mention. Nor is that even relevant to argument I'm talking about. You are arguing with another person who is not me and is not anything I've said.


    And like, beyond that, this doesn't even work as an answer to the specific argument you seem to have confused mine with since the argument #NotAllMen is designed to counter asserts the exact opposite of the kind of genetic destiny argument you are making here. Feminism explicitly argues from the position that men are socialised. They are not "born this way".

    shryke on
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    I just can't wrap my mind around defending the notion of hating a distrusting a vast group of people just because some of them might be fuckers. I was raped by a woman, but I don't distrust every woman I meet. Because I was hurt by person, not her group. Not her class or caste or any of that shit. But by her.

    I will never damn the many for the few. That's not me, that's not how I work. And I don't understand why some people choose to do that. I just don't get it.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Okay. Pop quiz. Who has more privileged, Michelle Obama, or a white homeless man?

    See what I mean? And that's just American power dynamics, not even going into the power dynamics of other societies. Do I still have white privilege as a white man in China?
    Pop quiz: Which is more like an apple, an orange or a MacIntosh apple?

    The concept of privilege is NOT about how wealthy an individual is, or how much of an advantage an individual has based on their social status or upbringing. The concept of privilege is that if you would take an identical homeless man and make them a military Veteran, or an Asian, or a Black man, that they would have a different (possibly more shitty) experience than if they were white (within the context of being the US... you can make the same argument about being part of a lower ancestral caste in India, or part of the Muslim community in China). Privilege is about invisible perceptions that you do not have because of who you are, not specifically about wealth or power (although wealth and power are often part of why privilege is discussed).

    As an Asian, I cannot possibly know what kind of discrimination a black person in my current employment feels every day, but because I am aware of the concept of privilege, I am open to discussion about how my black co-workers may experience problems differently based solely on the color of their skin.

    intersectionality is an important consideration. a poor white appalachian has a different experience and set of privileges than a rich jewish urban banker or a midwestern transdude or a hungarian immigrant. the experiences of a person of asian descent will vary strongly based on whether they are of chinese, indian or filipene extraction, and whether their families are recent immigrants or generational citizens, and whether they're living in san francisco or south dakota or miami or washington dc. there will be some commonalities as well!

    i am simply cautioning that we should take some care about how we discuss these things.

    Wqdwp8l.png
This discussion has been closed.