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?

245678

Posts

  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    shryke 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.

    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".

    EDIT: No, fuck it, I'm done. This isn't worth it. I'm going to go have a happy Halloween. I need to go restore my faith in humanity.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YesAllWomen

    Basically a hashtag created for women to share their stories/experiences of harassment which points out that all women are harassed frequently by men. Some people pointed out that a lot of "not all men" reactions are usually either missing the point or trying to deflect conversation. The fact that not all men do a thing is usually irrelevant.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Julius wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    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

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YesAllWomen

    Basically a hashtag created for women to share their stories/experiences of harassment which points out that all women are harassed frequently by men. Some people pointed out that a lot of "not all men" reactions are usually either missing the point or trying to deflect conversation. The fact that not all men do a thing is usually irrelevant.

    it's a much more coherent campaign imo

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    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.

    Trying to pretend that generalizations are either valid all of the time or none of the time isn't a useful argument.

    If you want to discuss the merits of a specific generalization, then present a specific generalization for us to discuss. If you want to make a comparison, then present two generalizations for us to compare.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will 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.

    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?

    Actually, I recall @ceres (among others) explaining (in a good amount of detail) why they are, in fact closely related. How what seems like well intended advice comes with an assload of societal baggage that serves to constrain the people it targets, and why that is a huge problem.

    And, as I said above, this is one aspect of why. We, as a society, have told women that they cannot trust men in the general sense. And yet when they take that to heart, we then criticize them for doing so. And thus, women are put into yet another lose lose situation.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Generalizations aren't really a thing you can take or leave, they're just a thing you are presented with and need to put to useful ends.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV BET" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Edit: BET

    Schrodinger on
  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Um, both of those things are incredibly racist. The fact that neither action has anything to do with 'blackness' is what makes it racist. If you were to be more specific, like, "I hate when Nigeria does X", then you are not being racist, because you are being specific and not generalising. That's the point.

    Spaffy on
    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    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.

    Trying to pretend that generalizations are either valid all of the time or none of the time isn't a useful argument.

    If you want to discuss the merits of a specific generalization, then present a specific generalization for us to discuss. If you want to make a comparison, then present two generalizations for us to compare.

    Yeah I don't get it. We use generalizations all the time without a problem. Not all generalizations are lazy generalizations. And more importantly generalizations are not really the same thing as saying "all ...".

    When I say "men are ..." I do not necessarily mean 'all men'. I can mean 'most', 'many', '85%' or 'a bunch' and even though those would still be generalizations to some extent they cannot be countered by not-all-men arguments.

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    The best part of this subject is that in ten years people will look back on these "quaint biggots" the same way we look back on people who tried to fight segregation while still calling them racist slurs.

    It's like people can't see beyond their nose in these issues and don't realize their own horrible, untenable and exclusionary mindset is the reason these kinds of social issues still rarely gain traction on the level they could by trying to engage people as people.

    But hey, all internet social activists are terrible. So no surprise there.

    steam_sig.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2014
    Irond Will 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.

    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?

    Actually, I recall @ceres (among others) explaining (in a good amount of detail) why they are, in fact closely related. How what seems like well intended advice comes with an assload of societal baggage that serves to constrain the people it targets, and why that is a huge problem.

    And, as I said above, this is one aspect of why. We, as a society, have told women that they cannot trust men in the general sense. And yet when they take that to heart, we then criticize them for doing so. And thus, women are put into yet another lose lose situation.

    this is not being honest at all. i suspect you're smarter than this, and are just making ridiculous arguments as either mere reflexive political axe-grinding or some sort of elaborate troll.

    otherwise i could make some pearl-clutching accusation of how you're infantilizing women (you are) and speaking for people you have no right to speak for (you are) by way of pointing out that you're repeating the same, thoroughly-addressed, ridiculous argument that women are lacking in the synapses that allow them to distinguish between "some men might be bad people" and "all men are some way".

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    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.

    Trying to pretend that generalizations are either valid all of the time or none of the time isn't a useful argument.

    If you want to discuss the merits of a specific generalization, then present a specific generalization for us to discuss. If you want to make a comparison, then present two generalizations for us to compare.

    Yeah I don't get it. We use generalizations all the time without a problem. Not all generalizations are lazy generalizations. And more importantly generalizations are not really the same thing as saying "all ...".

    When I say "men are ..." I do not necessarily mean 'all men'. I can mean 'most', 'many', '85%' or 'a bunch' and even though those would still be generalizations to some extent they cannot be countered by not-all-men arguments.

    is it really such a concession to qualify the statement, then?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger 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.

    The issue isn't "some of them might be fuckers."

    The issue is that this behavior is often condoned and encouraged by society in insidious ways.

    It's not a criticism of men specifically, so much as the social forces that shape their behavior.

    For instance, there's nothing inherently gendered about shoplifting. "I hate it when men shoplift" doesn't make any sense as a statement.

    OTOH, there is something inherently gendered about catcalling. "I hate it when men catcall me when I'm trying to get to work" is valid. It assumes a sense of entitlement of a women's time and attention. Are you an exception to this? Great! She wasn't referring to you.

  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound 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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV BET" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Edit: BET
    To put it another way: You have to be specific about the generalization so that it can be filtered through a radical feminist litmus test to see if its good or bad.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV BET" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Edit: BET
    To put it another way: You have to be specific about the generalization so that it can be filtered through a radical feminist litmus test to see if its good or bad.

    Oh yeah it's really radical to ask men to not catcall a woman walking down the street

    Those damn feminists, how dare they want to walk down the street in peace and quiet!!!!

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie 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.

    It's a form of privilege. As has been discussed in many a previous thread, women don't get the option to treat random men as individuals, for a number of societal reasons.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/14/2777431/maryville-missouri-rape/
    The Kansas City Star published on Sunday their remarkable, seven-month investigation into an eerily similar story that unfolded last year in the small, northwestern Missouri town of Maryville. In this case, though, the rape victim never got to see her horror story go to trial — and the family’s terror hasn’t ended; they’ve even had their house burned down.

    The problem isn't simply a few bad apples acting badly.

    The problem with the story is that apparently the entire town rallied with the rapists and burned the girl's house down. And then the courts refused to charge the boys responsible.

    Obviously, not all men rape. But all men who live in that town will be raised to believe that he can get a free pass for rape in the future, regardless of whether or not he chooses to act on it.

  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV BET" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Edit: BET
    To put it another way: You have to be specific about the generalization so that it can be filtered through a radical feminist litmus test to see if its good or bad.

    Oh yeah it's really radical to ask men to not catcall a woman walking down the street

    Those damn feminists, how dare they want to walk down the street in peace and quiet!!!!
    We can discuss cat calling if you would like. We can discuss how notallmen is an attempt to push back against the demonization of an entire gender where it's enemies frame it as another attack on women somehow. We could also discuss how in any politicized issue people try to frame the other sides issues in a negative light. Just as an example pro-choice/pro-abortion, pro-life/anti-womens choice. I'm "pro-choice" but I am perfectly aware that some people believe that terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong and that they arent out to limit the freedoms of women any more than they have to in order to save an innocent life.

  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound 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.

    It's a form of privilege. As has been discussed in many a previous thread, women don't get the option to treat random men as individuals, for a number of societal reasons.

    So much generalization it's amazing. You dont just get to say things like that as if they are fact. Not all of us went through extreme liberal conditioning sessions so that we can say "oh right, women dont get to treat random men as individuals, I almost forgot that".

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV BET" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Edit: BET
    To put it another way: You have to be specific about the generalization so that it can be filtered through a radical feminist litmus test to see if its good or bad.

    Oh yeah it's really radical to ask men to not catcall a woman walking down the street

    Those damn feminists, how dare they want to walk down the street in peace and quiet!!!!
    We can discuss cat calling if you would like. We can discuss how notallmen is an attempt to push back against the demonization of an entire gender where it's enemies frame it as another attack on women somehow. We could also discuss how in any politicized issue people try to frame the other sides issues in a negative light. Just as an example pro-choice/pro-abortion, pro-life/anti-womens choice. I'm "pro-choice" but I am perfectly aware that some people believe that terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong and that they arent out to limit the freedoms of women any more than they have to in order to save an innocent life.

    Can you be more specific?

    This thread has a lot of "those comments make me feel bad as a man," but comes short on saying what "those comments" actually are.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will 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.

    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?

    Actually, I recall @ceres (among others) explaining (in a good amount of detail) why they are, in fact closely related. How what seems like well intended advice comes with an assload of societal baggage that serves to constrain the people it targets, and why that is a huge problem.

    And, as I said above, this is one aspect of why. We, as a society, have told women that they cannot trust men in the general sense. And yet when they take that to heart, we then criticize them for doing so. And thus, women are put into yet another lose lose situation.

    this is not being honest at all. i suspect you're smarter than this, and are just making ridiculous arguments as either mere reflexive political axe-grinding or some sort of elaborate troll.

    otherwise i could make some pearl-clutching accusation of how you're infantilizing women (you are) and speaking for people you have no right to speak for (you are) by way of pointing out that you're repeating the same, thoroughly-addressed, ridiculous argument that women are lacking in the synapses that allow them to distinguish between "some men might be bad people" and "all men are some way".

    Several of us (of both genders) have explained how society tells women that they cannot trust men in a myriad of ways, both in the advice we give women to protect themselves and in the way society treats women who do not follow that advice.

    And the only person who is bringing up any argument about the intelligence of women is you. I have been very clear in delineating this as a social phenomenon that places women in this bind.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/14/2777431/maryville-missouri-rape/
    The Kansas City Star published on Sunday their remarkable, seven-month investigation into an eerily similar story that unfolded last year in the small, northwestern Missouri town of Maryville. In this case, though, the rape victim never got to see her horror story go to trial — and the family’s terror hasn’t ended; they’ve even had their house burned down.

    The problem isn't simply a few bad apples acting badly.

    The problem with the story is that apparently the entire town rallied with the rapists and burned the girl's house down. And then the courts refused to charge the boys responsible.

    Obviously, not all men rape. But all men who live in that town will be raised to believe that he can get a free pass for rape in the future, regardless of whether or not he chooses to act on it.

    Um. No they won't? They may learn of what happened and be just as disgusted by it as you or I. And they also might have, like the internet or the ability to travel to other towns to learn just exactly how fucked up that situation is. This is exactly the same kind of generalisation that leads to racism - that someone from Country / Town X accepts Behaviour Y even if he doesn't explicitly do Z.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    I was happily writing up a long-winded thing about what I think the components of a generalization are but people seem to be getting very angry about something else entirely. I was going to use words like criterion a bunch!

    With regards to #notallmen: consider a small village that wakes up to find a glowing purple crystal in the central square, its malevolent energies pulsing silently. You can't really quite feel it unless you are specifically paying attention. Nobody cares but after a few years people start noticing that some people are feeling strangely sick.

    Also some of the men have been hideously transformed into some sort of gibbering mess of teeth and writhing tendons that behave basically like a physical manifestation of misogyny.

    And so some of the women say hey, maybe we should do something about this strange hellcrystal, it seems to be affecting the men somehow. But then dudes who haven't been transmogrified say well whoa now, not all of us have been affected by it.

    And the women say that's great, we're really happy for you, but given that it's probably gonna keep turning men, not necessarily you, but men, into ravening fleshbeasts let's get rid of it. Especially since we can't tell whom it has affected until they, y'know, suddenly are a ravening fleshbeast.

    And the dudes get super offended and don't understand why these women are constantly lumping them in with the monsters. (Coincidentally some of them have writhing tentacles instead of hands but this is seen as pretty normal at this point or they haven't checked lately.)

    And then the women start getting really frustrated because this isn't about the men it's about the demonic hellcrystal dammit.

    Surfpossum on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will 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.

    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?

    Actually, I recall @ceres (among others) explaining (in a good amount of detail) why they are, in fact closely related. How what seems like well intended advice comes with an assload of societal baggage that serves to constrain the people it targets, and why that is a huge problem.

    And, as I said above, this is one aspect of why. We, as a society, have told women that they cannot trust men in the general sense. And yet when they take that to heart, we then criticize them for doing so. And thus, women are put into yet another lose lose situation.

    this is not being honest at all. i suspect you're smarter than this, and are just making ridiculous arguments as either mere reflexive political axe-grinding or some sort of elaborate troll.

    otherwise i could make some pearl-clutching accusation of how you're infantilizing women (you are) and speaking for people you have no right to speak for (you are) by way of pointing out that you're repeating the same, thoroughly-addressed, ridiculous argument that women are lacking in the synapses that allow them to distinguish between "some men might be bad people" and "all men are some way".

    Several of us (of both genders) have explained how society tells women that they cannot trust men in a myriad of ways, both in the advice we give women to protect themselves and in the way society treats women who do not follow that advice.

    And the only person who is bringing up any argument about the intelligence of women is you. I have been very clear in delineating this as a social phenomenon that places women in this bind.

    here is the argument you are making:

    1) women are cautioned that some men might be threats

    ergo

    2) levying broad negative generalizations against men (but only men) are just fine

    it's nonsensical, hedgie.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Jackie Registered User regular
    I'm not gonna step into this thread proper because it's a god damned mine field of people yelling at eachother but I felt the need to say the whole #Yesallwomen and #notallmen are both kinda silly to talk about in the context of a thread about generalization.

    #Yesallwomen was about how a large number of women suffer harassment or abuse from men. It's not some magic generalization that says all men are rapists. It's pointing out that this stuff is a fact of alot of women's lives and how society is bad at really responding to the issues.

    Which is part of the reason the whole #Notallmen thing is super silly. Because no one attacked 'all men'. They attacked some men and the shitty culture that helps support their behaviour.

    Neither of those hashtags were about some sweeping 'boys are icky' statement. So it's kinda weird that most of the discussion seems to be about those nasty feminazi's wanting to castrate all the white men for existing.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2014
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    I was happily writing up a long-winded thing about what the components of a generalization are but people seem to be getting very angry about something else entirely. I got to use words like criterion a bunch!

    With regards to #notallmen: consider a small village that wakes up to find a glowing purple crystal in the town square, its malevolent energies pulsing silently. You can't really quite feel it unless you are specifically paying attention. Nobody cares but after a few years people start noticing that some people are feeling strangely sick.

    Also some of the men have been hideously transformed into some sort of gibbering mess of teeth and writhing tendons that behave basically like a physical manifestation of misogyny.

    And so some of the women say hey, maybe we should do something about this strange hellcrystal, it seems to be affecting the men somehow. But then dudes who haven't been transmogrified say well whoa now, not all of us have been affected by it.

    And the women say that's great, we're really happy for you, but given that it's probably gonna keep turning men, not necessarily you, but men, into ravening fleshbeasts let's get rid of it. Especially since we can't tell whom it has affected until they, y'know, suddenly are a ravening fleshbeast.

    And the dudes get super offended and don't understand why these women are constantly lumping them in with the monsters. (Coincidentally some of them have writhing tentacles instead of hands but this is seen as pretty normal at this point or they haven't checked lately.)

    And then the women start getting really frustrated because this isn't about the men it's about the demonic hellcrystal dammit.

    how about: many of the dudes are happy to help out with the crystal but don't particularly care to be called hellbeasts while they're doing it?

    i mean, this is really the heart of the objection.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/14/2777431/maryville-missouri-rape/
    The Kansas City Star published on Sunday their remarkable, seven-month investigation into an eerily similar story that unfolded last year in the small, northwestern Missouri town of Maryville. In this case, though, the rape victim never got to see her horror story go to trial — and the family’s terror hasn’t ended; they’ve even had their house burned down.

    The problem isn't simply a few bad apples acting badly.

    The problem with the story is that apparently the entire town rallied with the rapists and burned the girl's house down. And then the courts refused to charge the boys responsible.

    Obviously, not all men rape. But all men who live in that town will be raised to believe that he can get a free pass for rape in the future, regardless of whether or not he chooses to act on it.

    Um. No they won't? They may learn of what happened and be just as disgusted by it as you or I. And they also might have, like the internet or the ability to travel to other towns to learn just exactly how fucked up that situation is. This is exactly the same kind of generalisation that leads to racism - that someone from Country / Town X accepts Behaviour Y even if he doesn't explicitly do Z.

    And in the end, the girl still has her house burned down and no justice being served.

    Saying "Not all men" are okay with that doesn't help her. It doesn't unburn her house.

    I'm sure that there are a lot of people in that town who think that the situation is fucked up. Unfortunately, those people don't have any power to stop it from happening. The people who apparently do have the power to stop it from happening are okay with it.

    Now, let's say that there's a boy in this town who thinks that rape is okay. Based on the actions of the people in power, do you think he'll more bold, or less bold, to commit similar crimes of his own?

    That's the problem.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Are people confusing "X do this." with "All examples of X do this?" Because that isn't how English works.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    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.

    Trying to pretend that generalizations are either valid all of the time or none of the time isn't a useful argument.

    If you want to discuss the merits of a specific generalization, then present a specific generalization for us to discuss. If you want to make a comparison, then present two generalizations for us to compare.

    Yeah I don't get it. We use generalizations all the time without a problem. Not all generalizations are lazy generalizations. And more importantly generalizations are not really the same thing as saying "all ...".

    When I say "men are ..." I do not necessarily mean 'all men'. I can mean 'most', 'many', '85%' or 'a bunch' and even though those would still be generalizations to some extent they cannot be countered by not-all-men arguments.

    is it really such a concession to qualify the statement, then?

    Why should I suddenly start qualifying my statements? I have never had to, since people in general are smart enough to understand the point. When I say "Klingons value martial prowess over intelligence." or "The Dutch are more outspoken and loud than the Flemish." I don't get met with #NotAllKlingons or #NotAllDutch/NotAllFlemish despite the existence of peaceful Klingons and soft-spoken Dutch people and loud Flemish people. Qualifying a generalization does not always make a statement more clear or provides more information. (That is: It does but most of that is just making context explicit, which is rarely needed since people are already aware of it.)

    Generalizations are a useful tool. They can help speed up communication and prevent us from getting bogged down in unnecessary sidetracks trying to explicitly qualify things that are besides the point. Sometimes we want to speak in general about things.

    And sometimes generalizations are used badly, sure. But lazy and sweeping generalizations are bad because they're lazy and sweeping, not because they're generalizations.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Spaffy wrote: »
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/14/2777431/maryville-missouri-rape/
    The Kansas City Star published on Sunday their remarkable, seven-month investigation into an eerily similar story that unfolded last year in the small, northwestern Missouri town of Maryville. In this case, though, the rape victim never got to see her horror story go to trial — and the family’s terror hasn’t ended; they’ve even had their house burned down.

    The problem isn't simply a few bad apples acting badly.

    The problem with the story is that apparently the entire town rallied with the rapists and burned the girl's house down. And then the courts refused to charge the boys responsible.

    Obviously, not all men rape. But all men who live in that town will be raised to believe that he can get a free pass for rape in the future, regardless of whether or not he chooses to act on it.

    Um. No they won't? They may learn of what happened and be just as disgusted by it as you or I. And they also might have, like the internet or the ability to travel to other towns to learn just exactly how fucked up that situation is. This is exactly the same kind of generalisation that leads to racism - that someone from Country / Town X accepts Behaviour Y even if he doesn't explicitly do Z.

    And in the end, the girl still has her house burned down and no justice being served.

    Saying "Not all men" are okay with that doesn't help her. It doesn't unburn her house.

    I'm sure that there are a lot of people in that town who think that the situation is fucked up. Unfortunately, those people don't have any power to stop it from happening. The people who apparently do have the power to stop it from happening are okay with it.

    Now, let's say that there's a boy in this town who thinks that rape is okay. Based on the actions of the people in power, do you think he'll more bold, or less bold, to commit similar crimes of his own?

    That's the problem.

    i don't really think that anyone is saying that it wasn't a problem, or that it sent good messages about rape.

    we are apparently talking at cross-purposes here.

    "hey, maybe don't generalize the worst things that any men do to all men. like, take the syllable to draw a distinction in your thinking and wording"

    "but you don't understand! these things are really bad! why are you standing in the way of progress? when i say "men are pigs" i'm obviously not talking about you if you're not a pig! "

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will 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.

    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?

    Actually, I recall @ceres (among others) explaining (in a good amount of detail) why they are, in fact closely related. How what seems like well intended advice comes with an assload of societal baggage that serves to constrain the people it targets, and why that is a huge problem.

    And, as I said above, this is one aspect of why. We, as a society, have told women that they cannot trust men in the general sense. And yet when they take that to heart, we then criticize them for doing so. And thus, women are put into yet another lose lose situation.

    this is not being honest at all. i suspect you're smarter than this, and are just making ridiculous arguments as either mere reflexive political axe-grinding or some sort of elaborate troll.

    otherwise i could make some pearl-clutching accusation of how you're infantilizing women (you are) and speaking for people you have no right to speak for (you are) by way of pointing out that you're repeating the same, thoroughly-addressed, ridiculous argument that women are lacking in the synapses that allow them to distinguish between "some men might be bad people" and "all men are some way".

    Several of us (of both genders) have explained how society tells women that they cannot trust men in a myriad of ways, both in the advice we give women to protect themselves and in the way society treats women who do not follow that advice.

    And the only person who is bringing up any argument about the intelligence of women is you. I have been very clear in delineating this as a social phenomenon that places women in this bind.

    here is the argument you are making:

    1) women are cautioned that some men might be threats

    ergo

    2) levying broad negative generalizations against men (but only men) are just fine

    it's nonsensical, hedgie.

    Except that there's no way for a woman to tell just by looking if Random Male is a threat.

    So, for the advice to be useful, it has to be "any male you don't know (and, if we're being honest, ones that you do know) can potentially be a threat." Then, we add a societal coda to that - "oh, and just to let you know, it's going to be your responsibility to keep safe. If something happens, your actions will be analyzed to find any little fault."

    And then we look astonished when women look at us as if we're a collective threat.

    It's not nonsense.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular

    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV BET" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Edit: BET
    To put it another way: You have to be specific about the generalization so that it can be filtered through a radical feminist litmus test to see if its good or bad.

    Oh yeah it's really radical to ask men to not catcall a woman walking down the street

    Those damn feminists, how dare they want to walk down the street in peace and quiet!!!!
    We can discuss cat calling if you would like. We can discuss how notallmen is an attempt to push back against the demonization of an entire gender where it's enemies frame it as another attack on women somehow. We could also discuss how in any politicized issue people try to frame the other sides issues in a negative light. Just as an example pro-choice/pro-abortion, pro-life/anti-womens choice. I'm "pro-choice" but I am perfectly aware that some people believe that terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong and that they arent out to limit the freedoms of women any more than they have to in order to save an innocent life.

    Can you be more specific?

    This thread has a lot of "those comments make me feel bad as a man," but comes short on saying what "those comments" actually are.
    Like anecdotal evidence? Tweets? Posts from earlier in this thread? What would satisfy you, or are you just victim blaming?

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Julius wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    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.

    Trying to pretend that generalizations are either valid all of the time or none of the time isn't a useful argument.

    If you want to discuss the merits of a specific generalization, then present a specific generalization for us to discuss. If you want to make a comparison, then present two generalizations for us to compare.

    Yeah I don't get it. We use generalizations all the time without a problem. Not all generalizations are lazy generalizations. And more importantly generalizations are not really the same thing as saying "all ...".

    When I say "men are ..." I do not necessarily mean 'all men'. I can mean 'most', 'many', '85%' or 'a bunch' and even though those would still be generalizations to some extent they cannot be countered by not-all-men arguments.

    is it really such a concession to qualify the statement, then?

    Why should I suddenly start qualifying my statements? I have never had to, since people in general are smart enough to understand the point. When I say "Klingons value martial prowess over intelligence." or "The Dutch are more outspoken and loud than the Flemish." I don't get met with #NotAllKlingons or #NotAllDutch/NotAllFlemish despite the existence of peaceful Klingons and soft-spoken Dutch people and loud Flemish people. Qualifying a generalization does not always make a statement more clear or provides more information. (That is: It does but most of that is just making context explicit, which is rarely needed since people are already aware of it.)

    Generalizations are a useful tool. They can help speed up communication and prevent us from getting bogged down in unnecessary sidetracks trying to explicitly qualify things that are besides the point. Sometimes we want to speak in general about things.

    And sometimes generalizations are used badly, sure. But lazy and sweeping generalizations are bad because they're lazy and sweeping, not because they're generalizations.

    i would expect to see these particular arguments made by racists or other assorted bigots tbh.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    OTOH, there is something inherently gendered about catcalling. "I hate it when men catcall me when I'm trying to get to work" is valid. It assumes a sense of entitlement of a women's time and attention. Are you an exception to this? Great! She wasn't referring to you.

    And it's good to note that qualifying that you're not talking about all men or whatever in that statement might actually be counterproductive. If you say 'some men' instead of 'men' or add "not all men are like that." to it then it could easily be read as implying that you don't always hate it or that it's not really that big a problem.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    how about: many of the dudes are happy to help out with the crystal but don't particularly care to be called hellbeasts while they're doing it?

    i mean, this is really the heart of the objection.

    Can you present some real world non-hypothetical examples?

    The only one I saw was the poisoned M&M's example. And the original statement says that 90% of M&Ms are fine and not poisoned. So what's the objection?

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    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

    You need to finish those sentences so we know what we're comparing.

    For instance, "I hate it when black people are lazy" is racist.

    "I hate it when black people watch TV BET" could be racist but maybe not. It depends on whether you mean "black people have shitty taste," or if you mean "BET is a terrible channel that exploits stereotypes." Aaron McGruder makes the second argument, while a lot of conservatives will make the former argument.

    But the real question is whether or not you're making a criticism that is directly tied to the idea of "blackness."

    Even the phrasing of your sentences shows a distinction. "I hate it when men" implies you're only referring to specific men, where as "I can't stand how black people" implies a sweeping generalization of all black people in general.

    Edit: BET
    To put it another way: You have to be specific about the generalization so that it can be filtered through a radical feminist litmus test to see if its good or bad.

    Oh yeah it's really radical to ask men to not catcall a woman walking down the street

    Those damn feminists, how dare they want to walk down the street in peace and quiet!!!!
    We can discuss cat calling if you would like. We can discuss how notallmen is an attempt to push back against the demonization of an entire gender where it's enemies frame it as another attack on women somehow. We could also discuss how in any politicized issue people try to frame the other sides issues in a negative light. Just as an example pro-choice/pro-abortion, pro-life/anti-womens choice. I'm "pro-choice" but I am perfectly aware that some people believe that terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong and that they arent out to limit the freedoms of women any more than they have to in order to save an innocent life.

    Can you be more specific?

    This thread has a lot of "those comments make me feel bad as a man," but comes short on saying what "those comments" actually are.
    Like anecdotal evidence? Tweets? Posts from earlier in this thread? What would satisfy you, or are you just victim blaming?

    Pointing to the actual tweets would be a lot more helpful than saying that tweets exist.

  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/14/2777431/maryville-missouri-rape/
    The Kansas City Star published on Sunday their remarkable, seven-month investigation into an eerily similar story that unfolded last year in the small, northwestern Missouri town of Maryville. In this case, though, the rape victim never got to see her horror story go to trial — and the family’s terror hasn’t ended; they’ve even had their house burned down.

    The problem isn't simply a few bad apples acting badly.

    The problem with the story is that apparently the entire town rallied with the rapists and burned the girl's house down. And then the courts refused to charge the boys responsible.

    Obviously, not all men rape. But all men who live in that town will be raised to believe that he can get a free pass for rape in the future, regardless of whether or not he chooses to act on it.

    Um. No they won't? They may learn of what happened and be just as disgusted by it as you or I. And they also might have, like the internet or the ability to travel to other towns to learn just exactly how fucked up that situation is. This is exactly the same kind of generalisation that leads to racism - that someone from Country / Town X accepts Behaviour Y even if he doesn't explicitly do Z.

    And in the end, the girl still has her house burned down and no justice being served.

    Saying "Not all men" are okay with that doesn't help her. It doesn't unburn her house.

    I'm sure that there are a lot of people in that town who think that the situation is fucked up. Unfortunately, those people don't have any power to stop it from happening. The people who apparently do have the power to stop it from happening are okay with it.

    Now, let's say that there's a boy in this town who thinks that rape is okay. Based on the actions of the people in power, do you think he'll more bold, or less bold, to commit similar crimes of his own?

    That's the problem.

    That whole situation is a problem. You know what else is? Telling all those hypothetical boys (ps women rape too) that they are all rapists because of their gender, and then when they question it you tell them "well not all of you, but enough that its an ok generalization to make".

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    That whole situation is a problem. You know what else is? Telling all those hypothetical boys (ps women rape too) that they are all rapists because of their gender, and then when they question it you tell them "well not all of you, but enough that its an ok generalization to make".

    Once again, I see a lot of people shouting "It would be really bad if people said X."

    But not any examples of people actually saying that.

    And if you did present an example of a person saying that, I'm guessing that the response would be generally negative from everyone.

    Schrodinger on
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Irond Will wrote: »
    how about: many of the dudes are happy to help out with the crystal but don't particularly care to be called hellbeasts while they're doing it?

    i mean, this is really the heart of the objection.

    Can you present some real world non-hypothetical examples?

    The only one I saw was the poisoned M&M's example. And the original statement says that 90% of M&Ms are fine and not poisoned. So what's the objection?
    I'm not particularly fond of this response as I feel it's a different discussion from the one I started. My point was that there is a difference between
    all men have been affected by this influence to a specific extent
    and
    all men are exposed to this influence
    and even
    all men are affected by this influence to some extent.

    And generally (heh) speaking the #notallmen thing seemed to come up an awful lot even when the conversation was about the latter two. So yeah I think it's fine to not want to be lumped into the first category (although the relative merits of someone doing so can be discussed by someone else).

    Edit: I think I misunderstood Schrodinger's post as being more about advocating for the M&M's approach than it was so maybe this whole post is now extraneous.

    Surfpossum on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will 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.

    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?

    Actually, I recall @ceres (among others) explaining (in a good amount of detail) why they are, in fact closely related. How what seems like well intended advice comes with an assload of societal baggage that serves to constrain the people it targets, and why that is a huge problem.

    And, as I said above, this is one aspect of why. We, as a society, have told women that they cannot trust men in the general sense. And yet when they take that to heart, we then criticize them for doing so. And thus, women are put into yet another lose lose situation.

    this is not being honest at all. i suspect you're smarter than this, and are just making ridiculous arguments as either mere reflexive political axe-grinding or some sort of elaborate troll.

    otherwise i could make some pearl-clutching accusation of how you're infantilizing women (you are) and speaking for people you have no right to speak for (you are) by way of pointing out that you're repeating the same, thoroughly-addressed, ridiculous argument that women are lacking in the synapses that allow them to distinguish between "some men might be bad people" and "all men are some way".

    Several of us (of both genders) have explained how society tells women that they cannot trust men in a myriad of ways, both in the advice we give women to protect themselves and in the way society treats women who do not follow that advice.

    And the only person who is bringing up any argument about the intelligence of women is you. I have been very clear in delineating this as a social phenomenon that places women in this bind.

    here is the argument you are making:

    1) women are cautioned that some men might be threats

    ergo

    2) levying broad negative generalizations against men (but only men) are just fine

    it's nonsensical, hedgie.

    Except that there's no way for a woman to tell just by looking if Random Male is a threat.

    So, for the advice to be useful, it has to be "any male you don't know (and, if we're being honest, ones that you do know) can potentially be a threat." Then, we add a societal coda to that - "oh, and just to let you know, it's going to be your responsibility to keep safe. If something happens, your actions will be analyzed to find any little fault."

    And then we look astonished when women look at us as if we're a collective threat.

    It's not nonsense.

    first off, what you have here is wrong in several ways - women don't collectively hold any given attitude, let alone this particular one. also, many, i daresay most, women can distinguish between the concepts "a few men are rapists" and "every man is a rapist"

    and second, this has absolutely nothing to do with the rightness of making gross and insistent generalizations.

    Wqdwp8l.png
This discussion has been closed.