@moody
"I mainly find it comical when intellectuals analyze the opposite gender."
Oh my gosh! Me too! But the funny thing is - when I think that way - I'm also generally laughing at myself because I intellectually analyze the genders constantly and I really do enjoy it.
It's weird. In a way, I see myself as if I'm a stranger, who has average opinions of the sort that would be called "normal" - so seeing intellectuals analyze the sexes, or seeing intellectuals try to analyze what makes them socially alienated - is hilarious to me. It's like watching an elephant trying to do ballet. What makes it funny to me is that these issues involve deep, soulful emotions, but they're discussed objectively and scientifically - and the stark contrast between those two things definitely taps into a fundamental quality of comedy. I also think, though, that I've been exposed to situations where other people found my speech behaviors to be funny, and because I can easily sense and be influenced by the emotions of those around me if I'm not on guard, I think it might be something of a learned behavior. I've learned to laugh at myself, from the perspective of an outsider.
At the same time though - I also can't stop, because logically, it's very hard to understand why there
should be an incongruence in my behavior, if that makes any sense. I almost always made head-first decisions. (I've been soundly punished for the very few heart-first exceptions, lol!) So if I can't see why I should behave differently, and I can't find a way to value the quality of blending in, being normal, or otherwise belonging to people - I just can't seem to change. Even if I wanted to - I couldn't. It's like an addict who tries to not be an addict simply by saying "You shouldn't do that anymore." By the time the next day roles around, they've reverted back to their original selves.
On that topic - from a more serious standpoint, I agree but also disagree with the sentiment behind the statement. So many people these days are of the mind "don't even try to figure out the opposite sex because everyone is their own shade of human". But - frankly - that's ridiculous. That would be the same as me saying "there's no point in staying away from bad neighborhoods, or planning to visit a location I think I would enjoy, because every place on earth is different, so attempting to use generalizations to distinguish between them is an exercise in futility".
Here's a controversial example. Some people are gay and some are straight. If someone told me they're gay, I wouldn't tell them "How can you know? Every woman is different." It would almost be like calling a gay man sexist for preferring males, based on the fundamental fact that they are males - not just because they have male equipment (which females could imitate with technology), but because they have male personalities that appeal to a person who finds males to be attractive.
In the same way as gay men aren't sexist against females, I don't think it's sexist for people (gay or straight) to distinguish between males and females. Why should it be? We're different. While you may be able to take Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber and make the argument that they're essentially the same thing - and you might have a decent point - they're obviously the exception. In much the same way, you could take a woman who is heterosexual but acts and appeals identically to a man, and this partner might be a pleasing substitute for someone who is gay if they weren't free to express themselves. But again - that would be a very rare exception. So if we acknowledge that these things would be exceptional, and agree on that, then we are, by default, acknowledging that generalizations exist. And if we acknowledge the validity in a gay man choosing male sex partners because he prefers men to women, then we're also acknowledging that making generalizations is a useful exercise.
Moody - I'm not exactly arguing against you, per say. I didn't read your previous comments (sorry). I'm just using this opportunity to stage my defensive stance on generalizing for utility's sake.
What people dislike about generalizing is both very obvious, and very understandable. It's dehumanizing and it straddles a morally ambiguous line. It's morally subpar, for instance, to judge another person based on rumors without even giving them a chance. By the same token, it's morally subpar to judge a member of the opposite sex based on rumors of what the opposite sex is supposedly like, without giving them the opportunity to demonstrate what makes them unique.
There's another issue with generalization - and that is the "hilarious" scientifically objectified approach that intellectuals tend to engage with. This "logic" - while it parades itself as being "logical" - is an example of human ego and arrogance leading to irrational and invalid discussion which is often (from what I've seen) based upon fundamentally incorrect philosophies, dubious science (which is then often misapplied to add insult to injury), and which is used to rationalize abhorrent and immoral thoughts and behaviors that aggravate REAL and problematic sexism.
So. What you end up with - is a subset of people who feel that generalizations are a threat to them, or an attack on them, and who respond with defensive aggression to try to suppress, mock, or belittle the speaker.
But this is the argument of the gun, in my mind. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Generalizations don't cause bigotry or misogyny, people cause these things. Unfortunately, though, it can be easy to fall into that trap - I've suffered it myself when I was sexist against men.
So. Here's my thoughts. We need generalizations - they are important. Making generalizations is valuable, healthy, and natural. (Labeling, not so much. Liberals these days are label obsessed - which is very hypocritical of their message, at least, the message that has been conveyed to me by liberals I've talked to.)
BUT - what we also need is more talking. Not less talking. People have to stop censoring themselves and tip-toeing around the truth, and actually start sharing real, high-quality information about how they work and how they think and feel. We also need to stop associating such ridiculous levels of judgement and shame with shared thoughts and feelings that others can't necessarily help. The more we talk and tell the truth, the less corrupt generalizations become. Generalizations become toxic when the truths that are capable of contradicting them are kept under wraps, and they are allowed to breed and infect the populous.
You'll never stop people from generalizing. That truly is a natural condition. It's the way the human brain is programmed to work.
But you can take away the power of toxic generalization by contradicting the status quo with real, unbiased information, and teaching people about why what they're thinking is misinformed. I feel like I'm the only woman out there trying to speak out against sexist generalizations against women, by sharing my actual understanding of how women operate. Everyone else I see is just insulting people who make generalizations and trying to make them feel like shit about themselves. That's like telling a racist "You should be ashamed of being a racist!" Okay. That's not going to change their fundamental racist ideologies, though, is it?
This is, again, why I deplore censorship so much. The very people who I've met who claim to be champions of human rights, are aggravating things such as sexism and racism, by creating a breeding grounds where those philosophies can be covertly exchanged by believers, and used to indoctrinate new believers - because the philosophy itself has gone unchallenged. That's what happens when you create a "taboo". You create an information underground that leads to the cultivation of hate groups and all of the nasty isms a person can dream of.
I love talking to racists. I've done a lot of research that prepares me to make solid arguments to logically dispute the racist beliefs those people have nurtured. When someone more or less proves to you that you are wrong, you're a fool not to change. And if they do so on a public venue - others will see you as a fool if you refuse to do so, and they will discount your belief, and be better prepared to make arguments against it in the future, to protect themselves from becoming unwitting victims of that poisonous mentality. But if you don't let people talk (especially on public venues) - well then, that doesn't happen. Shouting people are no threat. (It's why I'm not too worried about the radical feminists and radical LGBT members). Whispers - those are a threat. Those breed in secrecy.
Well - this concludes my effort to persuade you all to harbor my perspectives regarding generalizations!
I'll try again another day. Haha.
