Gender equality is an asinine concept.

Received · Jun 3, 2008

cantana said:
What I don't understand is what the worth is of making this general distinction at all with regard to the way people are treated.

Generalities relate to induction. We use generalities through induction when we see the quintessential polo-decked out frat boy with the half-dead, half-smug smile on his face. Our induction provides us with sanity: we can't analyze every single thing we come across; therefore we use generalizations until we have a reason otherwise. If I see this quintessential frat boy and witness that he's reading, aha, a novel by Dostoevsky -- well, then, the whole generalization has no power, and we're down to particulars. The rule is: generalities are givens; we filter the world through generalities, and that helps us, again, stay sane. Once we've come to know this person a little better, then we begin to extract particularities, provided that there are some. Again, think of the frat boy -- if he fits the frat boy persona, there really isn't any relevant particularities; there are particularities, but they're things like height, hair color, age -- pretty useless. He's still addicted to sex, he still enjoys ridiculously expensive clothes, he still likes beer, he still eschews independent thinking. Now, obviously, in relation to sex, given that sex is such a huge criterion, we're going to get particulars beyond sex; but as soon as we do this, we must ask whether these particulars fit a type, or whether they're authentically particular. It isn't stereotyping (at least according to the definitions I've seen) to extract generalities for certain criteria (sex, age, ethnicity); it's stereotyping to refuse to look beyond generalities completely, usually based on some repugnance related to one of the criterion of a certain generality. That is, stereotyping refuses to look beyond shared qualities to particular qualities; and each member in a group will always potentially have particularities. It's stereotyping when one closes oneself up to seeking out these potentialities.

It is absolutely, undeniably true that there's more difference between individuals than sexes. But this assumes certain criteria through which to judge these differences. With sex we're talking about pretty large, non-personality related criteria: physical strength, care, relatedness, etc.

Received · Jun 3, 2008

Isambard said:
You realize that your "generalities", also apply to white people vs. black people. I'd say there is the same degree of variation. Now, continue with this logic to see the fun that it brings.

So you're implying that I would be stereotyping if I chose a population based on race and made conclusions based on this population?

Received · Jun 3, 2008

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=4397826

A related still-birth thread relating to induction, racism, and democracy.

cantata · Jun 3, 2008

Received said:
Generalities relate to induction. We use generalities through induction when we see the quintessential polo-decked out frat boy with the half-dead, half-smug smile on his face. Our induction provides us with sanity: we can't analyze every single thing we come across; therefore we use generalizations until we have a reason otherwise. If I see this quintessential frat boy and witness that he's reading, aha, a novel by Dostoevsky -- well, then, the whole generalization has no power, and we're down to particulars. The rule is: generalities are givens; we filter the world through generalities, and that helps us, again, stay sane. Once we've come to know this person a little better, then we begin to extract particularities, provided that there are some. Again, think of the frat boy -- if he fits the frat boy persona, there really isn't any relevant particularities; there are particularities, but they're things like height, hair color, age -- pretty useless. He's still addicted to sex, he still enjoys ridiculously expensive clothes, he still likes beer, he still eschews independent thinking. Now, obviously, in relation to sex, given that sex is such a huge criterion, we're going to get particulars beyond sex; but as soon as we do this, we must ask whether these particulars fit a type, or whether they're authentically particular. It isn't stereotyping (at least according to the definitions I've seen) to extract generalities for certain criteria (sex, age, ethnicity); it's stereotyping to refuse to look beyond generalities completely, usually based on some repugnance related to one of the criterion of a certain generality. That is, stereotyping refuses to look beyond shared qualities to particular qualities; and each member in a group will always potentially have particularities. It's stereotyping when one closes oneself up to seeking out these potentialities.

It is absolutely, undeniably true that there's more difference between individuals than sexes. But this assumes certain criteria through which to judge these differences. With sex we're talking about pretty large, non-personality related criteria: physical strength, care, relatedness, etc.

Essentially what you're saying is that you use generalities to make educated guesses about individuals. That is, of course, perfectly reasonable. As you say, we can't go about assessing everything as we find it. On the other hand, we have a choice between the kind of generalisations that we make; we can try to stick to generalisations which are a) actually informative, and b) relatively inoffensive if they happen not to apply. For example, generalising about black people is unlikely to be informative, and is almost always offensive, whether it happens to apply or not. Generalising about the immediate emotional state of people who, when you meet them, have a facial expression like this:

is probably a better idea.

Sexual generalities are worthless, in any case, when it comes to certain serious decisions about individuals. Decisions about whether or not to employ someone, or whether or not to incarcerate them for life, should not be based on generalities. These choices should be based on particulars, yet we find that stereotypes continue to worm their way in to decisions in even these life-changing areas.

Of course, the other problem is that relying on generalities helps to perpetuate the very characteristics which you are generalising, and this is frequently not a good thing. If, every time you speak to a woman, you assume that she will have no interest in some particular subject - and if a large proportion of people do the same thing - you will assist in perpetuating both the stereotype about women (since other people will notice the way that you talk to them) and the very characteristic of not-being-interested-in-that-subject (since women may be made to feel that they ought not to be interested by the fact that you avoid talking about it around them, or indeed they may never be engaged by the subject because they have never heard you speak in your inimitably charming and eloquent manner about it).

Isambard · Jun 3, 2008

Received said:
So you're implying that I would be stereotyping if I chose a population based on race and made conclusions based on this population?

Yes, as you would (most likely) be avoiding context, especially when making sociological conclusions.

oneofthem · Jun 3, 2008

Molal said:
MOD-HAT

Tone it down - this thread is full of flaming, baiting and general rudeness.

If this continues this thread will be closed.

Debate the issue at hand, layoff the insults.

The OP that started this whole thread was based on rudeness and insult. Therefore issue at hand is rude and insulting.

Molal · Jun 3, 2008

oneofthem said:
The OP that started this whole thread was based on rudeness and insult. Therefore issue at hand is rude and insulting.

Since you quoted my mod-hat, you will notice that I commented on the posts in the thread, not the OP.

One can debate an issue without resorting to rude and flaming comments.

quatona · Jun 3, 2008

When trying to use Received´s method of approaching things by means of generalisation I always run into the following problem:
There is, say, a teen aged white Christian middle class woman in a car (just to pick very few of her countless characteristics) - which generalisation should I apply predominantly?
That about teenies, about whites, about Christians, about middle class persons, about women, about car drivers, about female car drivers, about white Christian, about middle class teenies, young car drivers, white teenies, Christian car drivers...?
Which drawer should I open first?
And what if she is an opera soprano? Does that trump everything else in terms of generalisation relevance?
Or should I create a new generalisation folder "car driving teen aged white Christian middle class women"?
And, if the latter, why not simply consider her (and everybody) an individual category of their own right away?

wanderingone · Jun 3, 2008

LittleNipper said:
Well, I feel that women have serious monthly health concerns. I also recognize that men generally are outwardly physically stronger ---- not that hand to hand combat is a major issue anymore, but it is still an issue. So that even if a woman isn't raped, there are more concerns surrounding women physically then there are with men. Each gender comes with its pros and cons.

You think having a period is a serious monthly health concern?

keith99 · Jun 3, 2008

quatona said:
When trying to use Received´s method of approaching things by means of generalisation I always run into the following problem:
There is, say, a teen aged white Christian middle class woman in a car (just to pick very few of her countless characteristics) - which generalisation should I apply predominantly?
That about teenies, about whites, about Christians, about middle class persons, about women, about car drivers, about female car drivers, about white Christian, about middle class teenies, young car drivers, white teenies, Christian car drivers...?
Which drawer should I open first?
And what if she is an opera soprano? Does that trump everything else in terms of generalisation relevance?
Or should I create a new generalisation folder "car driving teen aged white Christian middle class women"?
And, if the latter, why not simply consider her (and everybody) an individual category of their own right away?

Driver first, teen second. Those 2 are the most apt to get you killed. If you get killed then you can evaluate all the rest. I'd go with female third, mainly because that would allow some relaxation about the first two.

TheDag · Jun 3, 2008

quatona said:
And, if the latter, why not simply consider her (and everybody) an individual category of their own right away?

This is the approach I mainly use and it works for me. I will admit sometimes I allow the generalities to slip in but ewven when that does happen it is based on the individuals peculiarities first and then I slip into generalities. So even when I use generalities it is based on individual traits which still shouldn't happen. Thankfully that is quite rare because in the line of work I'm going to be doing that would be a big mistake and could end up with your client not seeking the help they need. I hate to think where that could lead them.

TheDag · Jun 3, 2008

wanderingone said:
You think having a period is a serious monthly health concern?

I wasn't going to comment on that as being male I don't have periods but I did find the comment amusing considering the number of women I have worked with over the last 15 or so years (i work in a female dominated industry) and in all that time I have only seen one person make an issue of it but then she always talks as if there is a major drama in her life every single day.

Chajara · Jun 3, 2008

wanderingone said:
You think having a period is a serious monthly health concern?

To be fair, a lot of women have iron-deficiency anemia due to the amount of blood lost each month. I looked into it and apparently it's recommended that women take a multivitamin with at least 18mg of iron in it to combat this. On top of that, many of us just have flat-out wonky hormones... I'm one of them.

Having said that, hormonal birth control helps, as do painkillers and getting enough sleep and having a good diet. I'd hardly consider it a serious health concern unless endometriosis or ovarian cysts are involved, it's really more of an annoyance and an inconvenience and a slight drain on finances when you're popping midol like granola and occasionally calling off work due to horrendous cramps or or a bout of birth-control induced vomiting.

Received · Jun 3, 2008

If you met a person who showed no evidence of particularity beyond a certain type, you would only be projecting (creating) your own particularities if you insisted on looking for them. You must, necessarily, wait for the person to prove to you that he or she is different than your preconception; and the fact that you're willing to wait proves that you aren't stereotyping. Suspension of judgement -- that's what I'm talking about. You're not closing a person off because he or she hasn't transcended generalities in a reasonable amount of time; you're allowing this person to prove himself, and if enough time passes you apply your induction -- like you do with everything else in life -- and assume that this person is no different than the preconceived type you have in your head. You can't reasonably go any further than this without sacrificing your objectivity. The frat boy that shows no indication of being different from the typical frat boy may have his own uniqueness; but you wait for this to come to you, and the only thing you can do is be certain that you're not avoiding this responsibility. What else can you do?

Received · Jun 3, 2008

Isambard said:
Yes, as you would (most likely) be avoiding context, especially when making sociological conclusions.

What is the context?

Isambard · Jun 3, 2008

Received said:
What is the context?

Historic, cultural, economic, temporal, geographical, and institutional background.

Received · Jun 3, 2008

cantana said:
Essentially what you're saying is that you use generalities to make educated guesses about individuals. That is, of course, perfectly reasonable. As you say, we can't go about assessing everything as we find it. On the other hand, we have a choice between the kind of generalisations that we make; we can try to stick to generalisations which are a) actually informative, and b) relatively inoffensive if they happen not to apply. For example, generalising about black people is unlikely to be informative, and is almost always offensive, whether it happens to apply or not.

We have a reason to transcend our generalities when the person we're considering doesn't fit our preconceptions. I don't think we have any power at all over the generalizations themselves, but over our willingness to have then knocked down by the person in consideration who has the potential to transcend these generalities. If I see a person who fits a type -- the typical gangster in the ghetto, for instance -- and enough time passes without this person transcending the type, I can safely conclude that this person fits the type.

Sexual generalities are worthless, in any case, when it comes to certain serious decisions about individuals. Decisions about whether or not to employ someone, or whether or not to incarcerate them for life, should not be based on generalities. These choices should be based on particulars, yet we find that stereotypes continue to worm their way in to decisions in even these life-changing areas.

Sexual generalities are mostly worthless in relation to such things you've mentioned. But if it's biologically or psychologically proven that women generally act a certain way, and men generally act a certain way, there's nothing stereotypical about using these generalities, so long as there's nothing that indicates particularity. I can't walk through the ghetto at night and see a deadpan African American in gangster attire and be totally objective by wiping clean any preconceptions or generalities I have based on this presentation. But imagine the first thing he does is (totally random) pulls out a bible and tells you how useful it's been for him to speak to the unconverted by decking himself out in the fashion he's in. Well then, goodbye generalizations!

Of course, the other problem is that relying on generalities helps to perpetuate the very characteristics which you are generalising, and this is frequently not a good thing.

Another unarguable point. I would say, nonetheless, that generalities become relied on if a person refuses to take the "leap" by interacting with someone as if these generalities didn't exist. We constantly test our beliefs, if you wish. We're continually willing to update them. Unwillingness to do so is that is dangerous. It's dangerous when a man meets a woman that appears to follow a certain type and not give her a second to "prove herself" -- that is, prove that she transcends the type, that she has particularity. It's not dangerous, say, if he tries over and over and fails.

Received · Jun 3, 2008

Isambard said:
Historic, cultural, economic, temporal, geographical, and institutional background.

I fail to see how this strict criteria doesn't negate the power of generalization.

mpok1519 · Jun 3, 2008

whats wrong with bein' a gangsta?

Received · Jun 3, 2008

My chances of surviving.

Gender equality is an asinine concept.

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Nihilist Extrodinaire

Senior Member

Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

"God"? What do you mean??

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

sola dosis facit venenum

I don't like titles

I don't like titles

iEdit

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Nihilist Extrodinaire

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Veteran

True love waits in haunted attics

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency