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.
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.
Posts
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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
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?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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.
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.
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
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.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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.
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?
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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?
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.
THE
FUCK
IS
WE
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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.
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?
tell us about it, i haven't been paying enough attention to know about that one
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.
How'd it do that then?
I'm pretty sure it's a general thread for statements that are fucked up like that.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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.
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.
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.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
But this is, again, irrelevant to the #NotAllMen (or #NotAllCops) argument.
Inconsequential to who?
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.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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.
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".
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.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
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.