Ye shall gather store of women .
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The basic nature of bigotry, its defining characteristic, is the presumptive applying to Person X characterizations that may or may not be true of X, but are believed to be true of some set that shares some other characteristic of X. That is, it leads to enthymemes."
Well, now you are simply talking about bigotry by itself which is beside the point.
Enthymemes happen. Not much to be done about the fact that sometimes one thing will lead to another. Driving a car can lead to negative outcomes that are not possible if one never got into a car in the first place. Yet, despite possible negative outcomes most people still choose to drive.
Generalizations may not be as useful as a car but they can serve a purpose.
Cops use these all the time. They know most serial killers are white males. Pretty negative thing too. (Is that bigotry?)
Heh. I just thought of further uses... but that is also politicized and this is drifting enough already.
-
In general, most generalizations a flawed.
And most people aren't like most people anyway.
-
@Veronica said
"most women do not DARE say anything negatively about men at all. The ones who do dare to challenge the status quo are usually attacked and run out of dodge-so to speak.
"Say WHAT!?
No way that is even a little bit true. There is even a name for this once near chronic behavior -- "man-bashing". It was so bad that it became a joke of a caricature in itself.
Here's a good one;
*Man Bashing - Funplex > Gender. ... The man bashing will stop when you men
figure out how to treat women with the respect and common courtesy we deserve! **
*I don't know what universe you live in but in my world women challenge the status quo all the time with no undo negative consequences whatsoever.
-
Having spent a fair amount of time in the middle east, (and Yorkshire
) I'm inclined to agree with Veronica.
IN many parts of the world women are indeed treated like slaves, kept out of sight or covered up so that men do not have to deal with there own sexuality. -
@Jim Eshelman said
"In general, most generalizations a flawed.
And most people aren't like most people anyway."
What does that mean? Sounds just plain wrong. Otherwise well crafted generalizations can appear to be flawed when they are expected to be something they are not. To point out how the generalization fails to account for an individual characteristic is like saying an apple is not a watermelon. Senseless.
No one is saying that everyone is the same. Why state the irrelevant obvious? To obfuscate, if you ask me.
The neurotic aversion to something as simple as a 'generalization' among liberals is something to behold. This sort of logic and discourse is why Savage has concluded that Liberalism is a mental disorder, and Denis Prager calls the psychology/philosophy emerging on the Left from the sixties "The Age of Stupidity"
Simple, obvious observations are falsely labeled in a negative light (words like bigot are used) because it is politically incorrect. Jim, you are averse to most political correctness but in this matter you have succumbed.
Men and Women are VERY different. Genetically, chemically, hormonally, ==> temperament, behavior.... It may be politically incorrect, but its true. Half a century of Leftist denial hasn't changed that.
I highly recommend folks tune into Prager's male-female hour. You might learn something.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"In general, most generalizations a flawed.And most people aren't like most people anyway."
What does that mean? Sounds just plain wrong."
It's a self-busting commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of generalizations.
"Otherwise well crafted generalizations can appear to be flawed when they are expected to be something they are not."
If you don't qualify them when stating them, then they come across as absolute, invariable statements. Yes, you have to use language better, saing things like, "More often than not," and "In cases I've seen," etc. Otherwise, they are nearly always factually wrong.
"To point out how the generalization fails to account for an individual characteristic is like saying an apple is not a watermelon. Senseless."
Wrong. It's good use of language.
You can't say, "People named Labyrinthus have green hair" and have it be a right unless you've done a 100% survey. You can, however, say, "Anyone I've ever known named Labyrinthus has had green hair," or some other qualifying remark - that returns it to a statement of your experience.
"\The neurotic aversion to something as simple as a 'generalization' among liberals is something to behold."
They do tend to be the foundation of a lot of bigotry, not to mention simply wrong information. (I tend to give conservatives the benefit the doubt and assume that their greater tendency to flat statements is a result of poorer education and bad rearing, rather than diminished mental capacity or moral corruption.)
It's just intellectually and linguistically sloppy! That's why I categorize it as an education issue. If I were grading an English paper, I'd mark it red on the basis of construction.
"Simple, obvious observations are falsely labeled in a negative light (words like bigot are used) because it is politically incorrect. Jim, you are averse to most political correctness but in this matter you have succumbed."
If I take you at your word - read exactly what you right and interpret it as you say it - and you persist in making flat statements without qualifications or allowing for exceptions - then I must conclude that you mean what you say.
To say, in English, "Women are a pain!" actually means "All women are a pain always." That's what the language means.
"Men and Women are VERY different. Genetically, chemically, hormonally, ==> temperament, behavior.... It may be politically incorrect, but its true. Half a century of Leftist denial hasn't changed that."
The majority of differences are socialization. The remainder of the differences are negligible other than for the specific issues of sexual reproduction and matters immediately attached to that. It's science, not denial.
-
@Froclown said
"By nature women only care about babies, being the center of attention and stirring up drama."
I agree, to a point.
In the same way, men might be said to be a mere collection of base desires, revolving around the basic necessities of food, sex, and shallow conquest.
There are higher and lower types of our species, and the higher type of male distinguishes himself by cultivating detachment and his latent divinity.
Yet I must say, (at the risk of sounding like the Advocate's Advocate), I have yet to meet a Woman who did not wear her attainments like a badge of glory. Likewise, those who make progress in the spiritual realm tend to be cold, manic, and austere. In my experience.
I've had a string of relationships with girls who fall into the category of "bipolar." It is still wonderous to me that these creatures did not destroy me in their fits of passion. While I have little patience for the type of woman described by Froclown, at the same time I retain a healthy respect for Womankind in the ideal.
-
"Likewise, those who make progress in the spiritual realm tend to be cold, manic, and austere."
Hey! I resemble that remark.....
I always though my coldness came from my longitude and latitude
my mania, well from the root man....
and well austere....from Saturnian influences.....
JK
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"You can't say, "People named Labyrinthus have green hair" and have it be a right unless you've done a 100% survey."
That isn't a generalization then, but more of an assessment. If you say that, "in general people named Labyrinthus have green hair" and if it is for the most part true it is accurate and can be useful generalization to those wanting to know something about hair color. The fact that it is not 100% true in all cases is what distinguishes a generalization from an absolute statement of fact.
To say that "women in general are more moody than men" is a generalization and it is accurate. To say, "I know a woman who is like an emotional rock and a man who suffers giant mood swings" is totally irrelevant and does not compromise the integrity of the generalization at all. But I have noticed there are a LOT of people out there who cannot understand this.
If my son comes to me for advice about his wife's mood swings I can console him with the general observation that this is true for a large percentage of the gender and suggest he learn how to deal with it like most men do.
Generalizations can be useful and be used for good. -
Agreed, when they are well stated, as in this last post.
-
It's kind of hard to assess the exact level of "moody" for another person.
In observable terms, we might say that one example is having an over-the-top emotional response to an irritating, but minor situation. From my professional experience, it seems pretty equal with both genders. Some people are usually moody, some people are sometimes moody, some people are seldom moody. Regardless of gender.
What I do notice, though, is that when the moody person is a female, she's 'hormonal', or 'must be menstruating'. And when the moody person is a male, he's just legitimately angry.
Kind of like the studies that show that when people don't know an infant's gender, they report boys and girls as behaving identically. But when they do know the gender, suddenly the boys are more 'alert' and 'responsive'.
In conversations like this, I notice that some people inevitably point out the differences between group A and group B. Yep, there are always differences between two groups. Men and woman have, on average, different hormonal cocktails flowing through their systems. That's science.
But what the people who forward this type of argument seem to be missing is this: just because there are differences, doesn't mean that there is no such thing as bigotry. It's not like we have terminator vision, and every time we consider a demographic or meet a new person, our mind has a scientifically-based assessment of their odds of behaving a certain way (race:x chance of moodiness 54% athleticism 18% etc).
The scientific truth is that there are differences to be found in any 2 groups of people, including gender, and semi-arbitrary racial divisions (as race is a somewhat nebulous concept, genetically speaking), etc.
The scientific truth is also that MOST of us have gender and racial biases that color our judgment of other people's traits and behaviors. (based on science, not conjecture)*
Those two are not at odds with each other. They just are a word to the wise, to leave the generalizations to the scientific studies, and approach each person as a unique snowflake.
EDIT *Here's an interesting one, where mothers imagine their boys to be more motor coordinated than they are, and their daughters, less
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063631 -
93
Are you a Lawyer Jim? I'm sure I read that somewhere, anyway, you could argue black is white and I'd be inclined to believe you.
This thread is becoming increasingly Ruach bound.
Personally I quite like cold women, they are more likely to have enough of there own mind and interests to allow me mine. Intellectual and emotional independence are invaluable, especially on any kind of spiritual path, which is inherently selfish.
I actually left my Fiancé because she could not reconcile herself to my Magickal predilections, she unfortunately did fall into the category of needy and emotionally volatile, and generally disliked anything that took my attention away from her. so from my point of view a cool headed woman is a blessing.93 93/93
-
@Solitarius said
"Are you a Lawyer Jim? I'm sure I read that somewhere, anyway, you could argue black is white and I'd be inclined to believe you."
I practiced law for 14 years (10 of it in private practice) before deciding to do something more fun and more useful. Now I lead the IT team for one office of the largest law firm west of the Mississippi. -
@Solitarius said
"That's a bit more laid back, plus you get to spend the whole day surfing the internet."
Though I joke that they pay be to play with computers, talk on the phone, solve puzzles, and walk the halls, that doesn't quite capture all the fine points <g>.
"Law is a bit too much high pressure for me, I trip over my tongue too much, I'm better at physical stuff."
It was altering my personality in ways I didn't like, including ways that altered close personal relationships. Nonetheless, I gained enormously from it (not counting the income).
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It was altering my personality in ways I didn't like, including ways that altered close personal relationships."
My grandfather worked as a lawyer for a while. He began refusing to take certain cases for personal reasons and the boss called him in and explained, "if you want to work as a lawyer you must do this sort of work".
So he quit. This was around 1933 and the only job he could get was working the ticket window for the railroad.
He held that job till he retired.
