In General, People Who Don’t Generalize are Useful Idiots.

I sometimes wonder where the argument “you can’t generalize” comes from.

Isn’t this the most idiotic idea in the world?

And it escapes from people’s lips without even a thought of what they are doing or saying.

Of course you can generalize. In fact, you must generalize. To fail to generalize is to demand that all things must only be regarded in terms of the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator doesn’t particularly lead to the highest pinacles we can achieve, does it?

The “you can’t generalize” zealots don’t seem to have really thought things through very well. They are thinking one-dimensionally. A more complex, and more proper way of thinking is that “there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups.”

For example, saying something like “women have larger breasts than men” is a sweeping generalization. But, it is a true one – even though some women have smaller breasts than some men. In the collective group of “women” there will be some individual women who have small breasts, while in the collective group of “men” there will be some porky men sporting a set of man-boobs. But only an idiot would try to cherry pick a flat chested woman and stand her next to a man-boobed male and claim that this is in any way a reflection of human intellectualism, therefore, we should not say that “women have larger breasts than men” anymore. It is lunacy! The only thing we might be able to learn then is that “both men and women have nipples.” Wow! Stop everything right there! The Tower of Babel is already reaching into the heavens! What more could we possibly learn?

Generalizations are absolutely neccessary in order to learn anything.

Of course, what one cannot do is take one individual and generalize that the entire group resembles that individual. Take Marc Lepine, for example. Feminists have been screeching for almost two decades now that Marc Lepine is “proof” of the murderous hatred men  harbour for women. Now that is pure lunacy. The actions of one man is in no way a reflection of the mentality of the 15,000,000 other men who live in Canada. That is a wrong generalization.

But, to say that men are taller or heavier than women? Yes, this is a proper generalization, because the majority of men are taller and heavier than the majority of women – even though in some individual cases, you will be able to see a taller or heavier woman than a man.

We generalize that “birds fly.” But oh my gosh! You can’t generalize like that! Don’t you know that Emus, Ostriches, Kiwis and Penguins don’t fly? This is such a lame argument, and it ought to be obvious even to the simplest of simpletons that any biologist worth his salt must neccessarily generalize that “birds fly.” Look up, grasshopper… not down!

Many of the arguments that get put forward in regard to sensitive issues (like the War of the Sexes) automatically get dismissed with the intellectually retarded retort, “you can’t generalize like that.”


In fact, no-one is going to figure out one damn thing about anything if they fail to generalize. Ignoring the similar actions/traits/situations in 80% of the  cases because 20% of the cases do not coincide… well… how is that gonna make you smarter? Huh?

The thing to keep in mind is that there are individual groups (ie. men and women), and there are individuals within those groups.

The way to learn something is to recognize that the trait of the group follows in “this” direction, even though there are individual exceptions which follow “that” direction.

It’s time to stop looking for the lowest common denominator.

Tell people who use the “generalizing argument” to shut the hell up. In general, those people don’t have two brain cells to rub together and aren’t worth listening to anyways.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

43 Comments on “In General, People Who Don’t Generalize are Useful Idiots.”

  1. Drew Says:

    Haha, glad to see you’re back, Rob. What didn’t you like about Blogspot, though? Just hate spending too long in one place?

  2. Can I just slightly disagree? Well, I reckon you can delete the comment if you don’t like it.

    Generalization can cause problems. Let’s say that a man generalizes that women tend to be moody.

    Problem 1: He may himself be moody, but isn’t aware of that fact (although others may be well aware of it) b/c he’s not a woman.

    Problem 2: If he’s a boss, he may have a female employee whose “moodiness” is making her coworkers’ lives hell; a man acting like that would be told to straighten up, and she should be told that, but he’ll make excuses b/c that’s just how women are. (The corollary to that is that he’ll resist hiring women in future b/c he assumes they’ll all be that way.)

    Problem 3: The same boss may have a female employee who has a legitimate grievance, which he dismisses b/c she’s just a woman being moody.

    I’m cool with generalizing that b/c I’m a woman, and have a small frame, I don’t have as much strength as the average man. I ask for help at work all the time and the men are nice enough to give it (while urging me to go to the gymn and eat my wheaties.) Can’t deny that I get a private bit of satisfaction when they can’t open the gas bottle either and have to go get the pipe wrench, but that’s only b/c I don’t like asking for help and don’t like to think that I need it. (Come to think of it, maybe I need to find out where they keep that pipe wrench….)

  3. fedrz Says:

    Hi Drew.

    I’m pretty sure that Google was knocking my ranking down on a pretty regular basis. I had left it alone for quite a while but was still watching my post counts, and then I started blogging again, and my hits would go DOWN (I would only hits from the MRM, none from Google). Now too, I just reset it back to where it was, and left it alone for a few weeks, and lol, it’s getting more hits again/the same as when I was blogging – but, now all from Google again, none from the MRM.

    I watch – I know which subjects I am on google’s first page results on, and about once every week or 10 days, whammo! From the front page way back to page 8 or 10… then the google-bot picks me up again and my google results start to rise again, and then whammo, back to page 8 again. Assholes. And they insist they don’t “censor.” They were doing it last year too – I watched it fairly closely. I think some bitch is campaigning against me or something with the “flag button.” But, there’s nothing illegal about my site.

    Also, my year old comments keep filling up with porn links, violating a TOS probably, so I have kept the comments turned off.

    Pain in the ass.

    But, I don’t really like the way this new blog works (I like to write on Word and then copy and paste – doesn’t work as well on wordpress), and frankly, I don’t know if I have it in me to slog through building another blog… I put an awful lot of time and effort into the last one, and I miss it – plus, it’s already linked to all over the place. Maybe I’ll switch back and just slog through it. It’s a man’s perogative to change his mind, isn’t it?… wait a minute.

    Pisses me off though.

    Pfft. More hits for leaving it alone than for actually blogging.

    Of course they don’t censor… they just make you run around with a 100lbs of bricks tied to your ass!

    I don’t really know what to do about it though.

  4. fedrz Says:

    Hi Laura,

    Lol! Back to the lowest common denominator, eh?

    What if, say, I notice that 80% of males choose to stand up for women’s rights to the direct detriment of their own rights… and what if Mr. Belfort Bax from 100 years ago noted that 80% of males tended to stand up for women’s rights to the direct detriment of their own rights… and what if Angry Harry notices it… and so on, and so on… and what if I notice that because 99% of females plus 80% of men always prefer to empower females over males, that eventually males will be fully enslaved… as has been talked about over and over again throughout history.

    Shouldn’t I start generalizing when there are obvious patterns? And I mean, OBVIOUS patterns.

    The lowest common denominator is low level thinking.

    What is wrong with stereotyping when the stereotype fits?

    Why is it wrong to stereotype or to generalize?

    Has anyone ever thought that this mind-play argument over may have been part of the Hegelian Dialectic, (which also reduces to the lowest common denominator in order to manipulate truth), and that the purpose of this argument is to keep the populations dumbed down?

    That’s what not generalizing when it is properly called for does – it dumbs things down.

    Like I said, you can’t take one instance and generalize that all instances are therefore the same… but, take me for example… I have been at this game for a while now, and I have read GOBS on the subject (far more than anyone with a Gender Studies Degree – I promise you), and so… when I can I start pointing the obvious stereotypical behaviours that are everywhere? There are OBVIOUS patterns that play out over and over and over again – not just in how the current War of the Sexes is playing out, but they also follow the same pattern as previous Sex-Wars in the past.

    How are we supposed to learn then?

    This argument about “not generalizing” has been foisted upon us to keep us dumb, I’m pretty sure.

    It’s just another language/mind game play, similar to how we now use “Gender” instead of “Sex.” It’s a mind play on the population. Gender used to be only used for the masculine or feminine in Language (like in French). The use of “Gender” has now been expanded to include Male, Female, Gay, Lesbian & Transgendered… while “Sex” could only be used for Male and Female. Thus, it opens up the mind (or contracts the mind in the other direction). It is a specific tool of manipulation.

    “Not all women/men/monkeys/fish are like that,” and “that’s a generalization” etc etc is another such attack upon intellect and dumbs us down.

    Generalizations can be abused, certainly… but, it is equally abusive to NOT generalize – in the fashion which everyone uses it as a knee-jerk Politically Correct rebuttal.

    On my other blog, I have dealt with Marxism quite extensively… one of the things I have read quite a bit about people who lived under Communism is when they were asked later about what was the worst thing about living in that system, they reply “the lies” usually as one of their top grievances.

    Communism/Marxism is much more about manipulating the people’s minds in mass populations than it is about Igor and the gulag, nuclear bombs, and so on – most of us don’t realize that Marxism is rife with how to mass-brainwash populations. That’s why it gets rid of things like Christianity and replaces it with the Hegelian Dialectic – so they can manipulate the truth by bringing things to the lowest common denominator.

  5. Well, of course we have to generalize to some extent. But when you’re faced with a flesh-and-blood human being, I think you have to be prepared to put some of that aside. Otherwise you’re not dealing with that person, you’re dealing with a construct you have put up that may not resemble that person at all.

    I had a person on Salon Tabletalk tell me once that because I am from Mississippi, I am less likely to be literate. I tried to tell him that when you’re dealing with a person, you can drop the statistics. I am either literate or not, and the fact that I am communicating with you by the written word ought to give you a clue. But he wouldn’t back down, he said he liked to think of people as members of groups because it saved time. Some of the liberal regulars on there who butted heads with me all the time chimed in then – one of them told that guy that he had delivered the clearest apology for racism and other -isms that he had ever seen. The guy still would not back down – I am less likely to be literate, and that’s all he was willing conclude about me.

    But maybe we’re not talking about the same thing here. If you met a woman whom you did not know and about whom you knew nothing except her sex, and an approximation of her age and whatever else you could tell by looking; and someone asked you about her math skills; would you say, “I have no idea,” or “since she’s a woman she probably doesn’t do math very well”?

  6. On the other hand:

    My daughter went to a very demanding high school in Memphis – they graduate more National Merit scholars than any other high school in the state, year after year, and based on her PSAT score she was invited to participate in an SAT prep course for those top scorers. We pulled up in front of the school a bit before the course started, and she looked out the window at the students who had started to gather.

    “Those are all Asian males,” she said.

    “I’ve been telling you you’re smart,” I said.

    “There’s a stereotype in there somewhere,” she said sternly.

    “Well,” I said, “when you meet an Asian person you have no idea how intelligent that person is. But Asians will be over-represented in the top group – that’s just how it is.”

    Still disapproving, she went into the school. When she came out a couple hours later she was laughing. “Talk about your stereotypes!”

    The kids were given a practice test to see where they were. My daughter was the only girl at her table. There was one Asian boy. She had the highest verbal score at her table, and the lowest math score. The boy with the highest math score was the Asian boy.

    So sometimes these things play out, even in very small groups. I’m not saying they don’t. It’s just that when you meet an individual you shouldn’t assume X or Y about him or her b/c of any group that person is in.

  7. fedrz Says:

    I get what you are saying, Laura. Which is why there are individual groups, and then there are individuals within those groups.

    Here’s an exercise for you to follow.

    Over at Dr. Helen’s, can you notice the different ways in which men and women argue their points?

    Women try to argue much more from a point of shaming the other person – especially the males – for not agreeing with them. Often little insults and jabs, and then pulling back as a victim if their opponent insults and jabs back, more so than by presenting hard logic and facts. (However, Ayn Rand is a woman and could out-logic any male that I have ever met).

    Men will try to provide facts, information and logic to prove their case, but that is not the sole way they argue, they are prone to emotion too, especially when angered – but they do not attempt shaming (socialization) to the extent women do. But there are definite styles that are sex-specific, though not sex exclusive.

    If you look at the diagram of the Yin and Yang, you will notice a dot of the opposite colour inside of eachother. Males are not “fully male” and neither are females “fully female.” Rather, we have parts of eachother within ourselves. (This is what I mean when I refer to “The Male Principle” and “The Female Principle”). The amount of the other which we possess inside of eachother, however, varies from individual to individual. But, no-one is purely male, nor is anyone purely female – however, in general, males have the “male principle” dominant while females have the other dominant – usually, lol.

    Btw. You’ve heard all the blah blah blah about women’s “multi-tasking brains” haven’t you? It is true, they do have multi-tasking brains. It is always thought of as superior because feminists spew it off that way as better than men’s one-task at a time linear brain. What the feminists fail to say, however, is that a male’s linear-brain is far more capable of intense concentration on particular problems and tasks, which is what leads to things like males being the sex that invents everything.

    That is not to say that women are incapable of linear thought, nor males incapable of multi-tasking thought (I can, like, walk, and like, chew gum, and like, blink and breath all at once, lol!) However, the one principle generally is dominant in either sex – how dominant is the variable that creates the individuality.

  8. Can you give me some examples of what you call “shaming”? I’ve seen you and some others use that word and I’m not clear on what you mean by it, because what I would think you mean by it is stuff that you do too. So I think I need some specific examples.

    I tend to argue from fact and logic. My boss, who is an engineer, says that that is my strength. And I respond to it, and am suspicious when people try to sway me by appealing to emotion. I think your yin-yang example is very apt. Most people I know who are in couples, when we talk about our relationships, get around at some point to mentioning some male/female thing that they get “backwards” in their own relationship. I think when you have that going on, it’s an indication that you have a true complementary relationship.

  9. fedrz Says:

    Hi Laura,

    Yes, I suppose Dr. Helen’s is not a very good study sample, because there are several guys there that are highly tuned in to what “usually” happens, and so they immediately shame right back. Lol! I do it too – on purpose, which is what some of the other guys are doing as well. They/we have been talking about these issues long enough that after being stumped time after time by these methods, they’ve figured it out how to get around it. (Lol! That linear thinking brain again!) Women respond better to shaming, so, as soon as a woman starts to shame me, I’ll fire right back in the same… but, I have been yacking about this stuff for a while now, lol!

    We used to play a game called “fembot bingo”:

    Anyway. Dr Helen’s is probably a bad study sample – she is also one of the few (either male or female) that allows us haywire, bellowing SOB’s to stick up for ourselves – which is something that rarely happens, even inside of forums or sites that are elsewhere on the web that are specifically about “men’s issues.” Usually on those sites, a few women manage to get in and it changes the entire dynamic, as the women play on the emotions of the men on the board and then you will again start noticing that the ladies start clucking and shaming if a man (such as a loud-mouth like me) says something which the ladies don’t like, and then all the men hop around trying to get the offending man to shush up so the women stay happy. (Control through socialization).

    Even the ladies that are there “to help” are often highly destructive to a group of men – it is rather invisible though, and it is how women & men operate around eachother:

    I know a fellow online who used to run divorce-support groups for many years. And he relates that when they had mixed/co-ed support groups, that the amount of male suicides were atrocious, but when they separated the groups by sex (despite the wailing of the ladies), the suicides dropped right down to something like 25% of before… what was happening was if a man tried to express his frustrations etc., all the women would gather around him (metaphorically) and cluck and shame him… turn around and throw all the blame back on him… “be a real man”… etc. etc. – But, this example what I am giving is not a hard study, it is merely third party anectdotal evidence – but, it is consistent with what I, and many, many, many other notice – and it is also highly consistent with what virtually every philosopher says. (One’s before PC Feminism censored everything with their garbage). Nobody is “right or wrong or better or worse.” It is just how we are – but these things also have greater implications – socially, politically etc. And, lol, we seem to never be allowed to talk about them… until recently, because there are starting to be enough men finally getting angry about it and putting their foot down, saying “ENOUGH.” You didn’t see that a few years ago… in fact, most information used to be passed on in private message/email because no matter where you went… shush! You can’t say that! Not AAAAALLLLL Women are like that! Lol!

    Men generally try to put forward solid logic, detached from emotion, although they may be emotional when they are saying it… but what they try to do is put down hard info/facts & deductions from there.

    Women generally enter into the debate by socialization. When attacking someone, they most often go for the self-esteem – thus, the immediate cracks about one’s penis size, or sexual orientation, or being a failure at life, or all the blame lies on him etc etc. They may use logic (or think they use it), but it is argued from a point of view of shaming back into the collective thought of the group… group think. It is how women tend to think: “as a group.” And the boundaries of that group are defined by where women “shame people” back towards the folds of the group. Men tend to think individualistically, women tend to think as a group. Lol! That’s why those of us who have been around doing this for a while just sigh… the SAME arguments, in the SAME tone, and the SAME scenario, lol, it plays out time and time and time again. It’s like watching the same episode of Gilligan’s Island over and over and over again… you know what’s gonna happen after a while.

  10. fedrz Says:

    Sorry, that second link I provided didn’t work out right – the piece I was trying to link to is a post what I made a while back… it is half way down the page – the one with the yellow square and the guy beating his head on the computer next to his name… lol, you can’t miss it.

  11. fedrz Says:

    Btw, as far as the “Male Principle” and the “Female Principle.”

    The thing to keep in mind is that the “Male Principle” is more tuned in to logic, while the “Female Principle” is more tuned in to socialization.

    Neither is “better” than the other, but because of their natures – because the Male Principle will strive for absolutes whereas the Female Principle of socialization more often uses relative truths…

    Well… the Male Principle will be the one that more often leads us back to the “correct path” because of it’s very nature… while the Female Principle can be dangerous, because it tends to ignore absolute truths in order by making relative truths more important – a philosophical recipe for totalitarianism, and ultimately, disaster.

    Take the Magna Carta. It was a bloody good thing that an absolute like the Bible existed, because they were able to take that absolute and beat the King over the head with it. The King was ruling by Relative Truth (Whatever he wanted to be true, was true because he said so – you can go waaaaaaay off track that way). But, because the Bible existed, people were able to beat him over the head and insist he was wrong, and thus, return society back towards the correct path.

    The Constitution is the same thing. Because it is designed to be an “absolute.” (A solid principle that never changes – or, is very slow to change), its very purpose is to make sure that Relative Truth doesn’t get out of hand – it constrains us to a “logic” that is void of emotion, and it demands that we follow that logic FIRST, and then use our relative truths/emotions to fit into the constraints of that logic.

    The “Male Principle” has its faults too – it is not as caring and capable of charitable feeling… that is where the “Female Principle” is absolutely necessary for a healthy society too… but, it is highly important that the Male Principle keeps dinging away for those absolutes, to make sure that we don’t stray too far from the path.

    Males and females are polar opposites of eachother. For every advantage, there is a disadvantage. Nature is like this, well, by nature, lol. There is always a balance. Basically, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

    This is the basis for the society set forth in the Bible as well. God’s law (absolutes) is the supreme law, and all other truths must submit to God’s law. That is what creates the “pin” that keeps us on the (more or less) right path as a society.

    Btw, here is an article which I wrote a while back about Males and Females being polar opposites:

  12. “Men generally try to put forward solid logic, detached from emotion, although they may be emotional when they are saying it… but what they try to do is put down hard info/facts & deductions from there.

    Women generally enter into the debate by socialization. When attacking someone, they most often go for the self-esteem – thus, the immediate cracks about one’s penis size, or sexual orientation, or being a failure at life, or all the blame lies on him etc etc. They may use logic (or think they use it), but it is argued from a point of view of shaming back into the collective thought of the group… group think.”

    I have two personal rules about talking about race, which was in everyone’s face all the time back in Memphis. You can’t pretend to read people’s minds (“I know she said ‘X’ but really she meant ‘Y’ cause she’s a racist”) and you can’t tell other people they haven’t seen what they’ve seen, heard what they’ve heard, experienced what they’ve experienced, and so on (“No, you haven’t experienced racism, you’re just imagining things”). So if I bring this forward to talking about male/female issues, if you tell me that in your experience women generally do X, I can’t tell you that you didn’t experience that. But I have a cognitive disconnect when I read your words that I quoted above and compare that to myself. I’m very aware of others’ self esteem and I don’t do personal attacks. And I don’t do groupthink. It makes me ill. I cannot STAND for people to go along with the blah-blah and never have an independent thought. I am a woman. I don’t feel weird or unusual. I get along with other women just fine. But I just don’t think I do those things you say women do.

    I’d cut those women at the divorce recovery thing just a molecule of slack because they may be speaking from their pain. A lot of people, male and female, lash out when they’ve been hurt. But if they were jumping on the men that way it was best that the groups be separated. They undoubtedly had issues of their own that they needed to confront, and having men handy to rail at allowed them to distract themselves from dealing with their issues. And the men sure didn’t deserve to be treated that way.

    Finally, thank you for engaging my comments. I try to read a variety of blogs written by people with whom I disagree b/c I want my opinions to be based on having looked at all sides of an issue. There’s a very hard-left feminist blog I look at from time to time just to make sure I’m not missing anything. I’ve tried to comment there a time or two, they figured out that I am conservative and pro-life, and so I am dead to them. But a little back-and-forth is fun once in a while, as long as people can remain civil.

  13. fedrz Says:


    Well, I am not being all too radical actually, Laura. I know you are a Christian, so I know you must acknowledge that there is an Absolute Truth – God says so in the Bible. About the only time God clearly tells who “He” is, in fact, is when he tells us he is the Truth – and he means THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, because for the rest, when he describes himself, it is in a riddle – a riddle that is always consistent with “The Absolute Truth.” (Never Changing Truth).

    – I am who I am
    – I am the One True Way
    – I am the Alpha and the Omega – the Beginning and the End

    These are things that are consistent with:

    I am the Truth.

    – Put no other gods (truths) before me

    A defining feature of the Bible – of “Abraham’s God” – is that it is Monotheistic. It follows one God – “One Truth.”

    In other societies & cultures, they often worshipped many gods. (Many truths). Abraham’s father used to sell idols, remember?

    So God tells us to put no other “truths” before him.

    Now, our brains naturally work in a way that we try to “justify things.” We try to create “relative truths.” Things are “kinda true” or “true for certain circumstances.”

    Now, the way that our civilization has worked since its inception, is by putting the Absolute Truth (The Bible) first. The Bible controlled even the King. He could be an SOB quite often, but when things got bad, people could open up the Bible and point to and go, “You’re wrong! You’ve gotten way off course.” And then they had the justification to beat the King back – and there was no denying they had that justification. They could stop the King from doing whatever he wanted. The King’s word might be “truth” – but even the King had to make sure that his truth somehow fit within the Truth of the Bible. And thankfully, the Bible never changes (it would be blasphemy). So, there was a “pin” – something that anchors us to a Truth, because the natural course of a civilization is to try and find varied truths to justify what we wish to do. We need a “pin” – something solid – to keep us from veering off of the path too far – something to bring us back to the Absolute Truth.

    Hegel’s philosophy, in the 1800’s, created “The Truth is Relative” in a conceptual way that “dethroned God.” What they meant by that was that it dethroned “The Absolute Truth.” Hegel’s philosophy got rid of the over-riding Absolute Truth, and made “The Relative Truth” the most important.

    Now, Hegel, he got kinda freaked out when he realized that under his system, because of the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of the male and the female, if women were to control the state, the state would at once be in jeopardy.

    Now, the general principles of “male” and “female” are not all that hard to figure out. The bloomin’ feminists screach out their principles all of the time, that women are more caring… more in tune to people’s emotions… better able to verbalize…

    Basically, that women are better because they are more socialized. They are more in tune with eachother.

    I mean, what I am saying is not too much of a stretch.

    Hegel says the same thing.

    And after all, which gender GENERALLY is more concerned about fashion?

    It certainly must GENERALLY be the females!


    And socialization moves around. Take a look at clothes. Lol! The fashions are changing all the time and women are GENERALLY in tune with them – far more so than men.

    These are all fair generalizations, right?

    Just because say, you don’t give a crap about fashion, doesn’t mean that this is not true – that females aren’t “generally like this.”

    Well, fashion is “relative truth.”

    And furthermore, IN GENERAL, males tend to do what pleases females. Some men don’t, but IN GENERAL, men tend to side with women. Most likely from a bioligical imperative… but it doesn’t really matter why. IN GENERAL they do.

    Again, Dr. Helen has posted some of this stuff on her site, and none of the women seem to disagree with this GENERAL PRINCIPLE.

    So then, now we are mathematically (Logically) at the Laws of Averages, correct?

    You understand the “logic” of how a casino makes money. That makes sense to everyone. The house always wins. It plays on the law of averages. Insurance works the same way.

    If I can be right 51% of the time, I can guarantee that I will become a millionare, right? The math works.

    After that, it doesn’t matter – 52% or 86% – the equation will always come to the same result. That “side” will always win. The house always wins, because the law of averages says so.

    This is all very clear logic.

    Now, Hegel said that because women are more “fashionable” than women – of which we all agree women are more fashion-conscious then men – IN GENERAL – that it is far easier to manipulate the desires of women.

    Now, because, IN GENERAL, males tend to do what women want. When women control both spheres of influence, it is the road to totalitarianism.

    IN GENERAL, women tend to choose safety over freedom. It is biological and instinctual. And, I am not the only one saying this. Scores of people from the beginning of time say this. Feminists say this about females themselves. They are more caring, and more willing to sacrifice, more concerned about the community and so on and so on.

    This is pretty clear forward stuff. Nothing radical.

    And men tend to agree with women – to try to please them. This is not radical either. And men do this IN GENERAL.

    So, do we not have a clear path to totalitarianism?

    The casino of life would say YES! Logically it is so.

    What the “male principle” – the logical one – tends to try to pins things down logically. Like the Bible does for society. The Bible is a “pin”. And men IN GENERAL try to find those pins. It is the opposite of the socialization. Except, when it comes to women, their biology takes over and they throw their logic to the wind, and agree with women more often than they disagree.

    This is what Hegel was scared about.

    And Karl Marx, who wanted to destroy Western Civilization, adopted Hegel’s philosophy. And, Karl Marx himself stated that the way to “progress society” was to manipulate the principles of the female. Because it is far easier to move the principle of the female around – through fashion.

    So, if we as a society can’ be “smart enough” to see what these guys are saying… because everytime someone points out something, someone comes along and screeches “YOU CAN’T GENERALIZE” and “NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT” and so on and so on.

    Well good grief. Then they are right. It is a sure fire road to totalitarianism… which it is well proving to be.

    It is the same formula the Hitler pushes forth for children. If you can convince the people it is for the good of the children, they will give up anything. Children are “favoured people.” We will do anything for them. So, if people can put “children on top” – make them the most powerful, well, conceivably, I could rule the world simply by owning a lollipop factory, or a toy factory.

    That IS NOT to say that women are children. Only to say that they are favoured over men, just like children are favoured over women. We would sacrifice a full grown woman’s life to keep a child alive a lot sooner than the other way around, and so would we sacrifice a man’s life to save a woman a lot sooner than the other way around.

    Again, this is not rocket science.

    By the law of averages, unless women are gonna stand up and put a “pin” in the wall somewhere… and say THIS is where it has gone too far… well… tell me that women are not advocating for totalitarianism? Tell me that we aren’t going down this road.

    Tell me how many laws that you have seen passed in 10 years that has specifically favoured males over females.

    You cannot tell me that you believe society has been passing laws that are anti-female. I can’t think of any – unless one considers abortion laws to be anti-female. But, the majority of laws passed seem to be about making women and children safer, or to give women what they want.

    How about marriage laws. Exactly which law has been passed against women? Every law continually favours women.

    Well, it is the road to totalitarianism.

    And mathematically, it works like the casino.

    Which is why Marxists choose it.

    So, again, if women refuse to stand up and say STOP – we have to put a “pin” in the wall… and are gonna keep railing against men. Well, they are cheering for totalitarianism.

    I am not being radical in the least bit. I am agreeing with God. I am agreeing that Hegel’s comments do indeed have implications. I am saying why Marx (and later, Cultural Marxists) adopted them.

    This is what they said. And I am merely repeating it, and pointing out that things are obviously going the way that they said.

    And if women can’t see that, well, lol, that’s what they said too! That’s why they said to use women!

  14. Hm.

    I don’t want there to be laws “against” either men or women. And I can vote however I please, but I have just one vote, as others do. If I had my way abortion would be illegal except for very specific circumstances like the mother’s life (and I’ve known of that to happen, sadly,) and the fetus ought to get due process of law before its life is forfeit. Frankly, this issue concerns me more than just about any other because babies in the womb have no rights AT ALL, not even the rights that men have, and they can’t choose to move out of the country or do anything else. And it’s open season on them, and that cheapens all human life. I vote pro-life, and voice my opinion when appropriate (and possibly when not) and I’ve volunteered for and monetarily supported an organization that helps women in crisis pregnancies so they don’t feel that they have to have abortions and so that they get some help after the baby’s born … a lot of these women have good husbands with jobs and all, they just need a little extra support right then. But that’s about all I can do. If I’m called to account for the fact that I live in a country where we kill our unborn, I will have to take my licks, because I do.

    I care about fashion because people think a woman has demonstrated that she doesn’t know how to act if her hairstyle or clothes are “dated”. Keeping these things up-to-date is like wearing a suit to a job interview or shorts and sandals to the beach. It’s kind of like showing that you don’t have Asperger’s or something, which in technical fields some of us may have a touch of anyway. I think what you’re saying about socialization is true but I don’t think that men necessarily are socialized less, I think a lot of times they lack the insight to see it and so they aren’t deliberate about it. And I have to tell you, Rob – and this is my experience, remember – things that work for men in the workplace do not work for women. For me, anyway. I can’t use the same voice tone and verbal expressions that the men do because I get negative results. The guys can raise their voice or curse or whatever, but not me. When I’ve done that – exactly as the men do – they react to the fact that I raised my voice rather than whatever it was I said. I get results by speaking in a quiet, neutral tone and basically not acting like I’m too invested in the outcome. It’s hard because I do care, I’m actually passionate about some things like safety and quality, and I have a bit of a temper too. As you say, it’s based on survival that we do what we do.

    I’m not aware of men trying to please me, except for my husband. (I try to please him too.) I mean trying to please me by virtue of my being a woman. The guys I work with think I know my job so if I ask to do something they trust that it’s something that needs to be done and they mostly do it. OTOH, I am always ready, if I tell them something “must” be done, to pull out chapter and verse of OSHA regs or whatever and show them.

    As to logic: you don’t know me but you appear to feel that you know, to some extent, and have some positive opinions about Dr. Helen.

    So if
    1 – Dr. Helen is a woman
    2 – Dr. Helen isn’t “like that” (man-hating, shaming, etc.)
    then it must be true that
    3 – “All women” aren’t “like that”.

    Yes? No?

  15. fedrz Says:

    Lol! Laura, come on now. Stop bringing things back to the lowest common denomitor. For pete’s sake!

    Are you trying to tell me that there are no gender stereotypes at all?

    Are you telling me that gender is a social construct?

    How come, whenever it comes to gender stereotypes for women, you will women vehemently deny that there could POSSIBLY be some true gender stereotypes… and yet, when things are said about men being the gender capable of violence and rape and so on, there isn’t a wailing and gnashing of the teeth like this.

    I am trying to point out a general concept of women and men in our more biological and instinctual form.

    And, btw, it is not even specifically “me.” Lol! I am merely trying to relate to you what these very FAMOUS philosophers said about how to pit the sexes against eachother. They talked about things from the general point of view as “men” and “women” too – and noted the characteristics.

    Are you saying that the sexes are angrogynous? And if not, do women have ANY faults to their character? And if so, what are they? And if you know what are the faults with the female side, then why aren’t you shouting out loud about it?

    Do women sin?

    And if they do sin, is their sin equal to a man’s sin?

    If men and women are equal, then female evil must be as equally evil.

    I mean, as the general “women” compared to “men” from an instinctual & animal basis… do we not have different motivators for our life’s cycle? Can you not get the concept of “men” and “women” in the same context of how view the mating patterns of other living things on the planet? Those other organisms all have mating patterns too.

    That is pretty based – a broad generalization – AND IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE!

    Lol! But your argument always comes back its not true because of “I” and “I” and “I” therefore it’s not true.

    So actually, Laura, because of YOUR individual actions, all gender stereotypes are wrong.

    I know what the negative stereotypes of the male, and I can see where they come from because of nature.

    How come women can’t admit what their negative stereotypes are? They love to admit their positive stereotypes, and men love to praise women for their positive stereotypes too. We do it all over the place. But what are typical female negative traits?

    It seems that women don’t want to admit that there is the slightest bit of possibility that they could be capable of sin – every time that men try to talk about something as a broad and OBVIOUS principle… women rush in and try to bring everything to the lowest common denominator again.

    It’s not a hard concept what I am talking about – it is MATH.

    And it is not neccessarily “my views,” and I have no desire to take away anyone’s “rights” away from them.

    I am merely trying to point how they (Marxist theorists) talked about how to remove absolutes like the Bible from society, and manipulate society around.

    And they know that when they want to socially agitate society to move in one direction or the other, they have to use the power of women, not the power of men.

    Because women make society’s social values, lol.

    Not YOU individually, Laura.

    So when you bring it back to “I”, you are running around trying to destroy a principle.

    Have a look at STEREOTYPICAL sex-specific behaviour in regard to child & adolescent bullying:

    Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, I>also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.

    There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).

    There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).


    Notice the STEREOTYPICAL forms of male and female aggression. Yes, I know – these are children and teens and blah blah blah – it is also quite often studyied only in regard to teen FEMALE victims of bullying (by other females). It says that yes, we grow out of it and adopt eachother’s styles as we grow older.

    Now, it only extends that this is naturally a distinguishable underlying characteristic of “male” and “female.”

    Now, that should NOT be hard for people to understand. We both have DIFFERENT kinds of principles.

    Lol! And as PRINCIPLES one form of aggression is very visible and always gets addressed (male), while the other female form of aggression is hidden – BY ITS VERY NATURE.

    And everytime that we men try to bring it up, one of you ladies come up and try to say “I don’t know what you are talking about” and/or downplay that whatever you are capable of doing is “not as bad” and so on. Lol! Women seem just incapable OR UNWILLING of detaching yourself from the broader scope of “gender” and just observing how things “work” from a general perspective.

    Lol! And like I said – this is not just “me” taking MY views on this. I am saying that THIS CONCEPT of what I am speaking of is the concept of some very, very, very smart philosophers have discussed, and some have identified how to manipulate it to change the world.

    Auguste Comte wrote about the same things – how to change the world “through science.”

    Note how it is described to diminish the male role? Note that part of it is to make “goddesses.”

    Lol! You can find this theme over and over again in any totalitarian plot – “follow the female principle.” It’s not just from one place. Marxism is highly feminist.

    And they picked it for a reason…

    Lol! And you keep coming back to “no… it can’t be, because “I…” and “I….”

    It seems that EVERYTIME someone tries to discuss what it was they were talking about… women gather around and throw monkey wrenches at the people who try to point it out.

    Women refuse to let these things about themselves be examined.

    And this is why they say to use it – the way to lead society to totalitarianism is to take control of its women.

    The next thing in line, after men and women are separated (pretty soon), is the rights of the child are going to be elevated over the rights of parents (already happening), and then the government will be able to rule women through their children – they will be making just as an uncomfortable situation between mothers and their children as they have currently created between men and women.

    Cultural Marxists intend on turning things upside down, in order to rule.

    That is THEIR plan.

    Don’t blame me for it.

    I just keep trying to point it out, lol.

    And saying, hey, if you ladies don’t stand up and recognize this… then the very nature of “Human Nature” is going to lead us to totalitarianism. That is what Cultural Marxists designed a system to do.

    I am not being a radical trying to take away anyone’s “rights” or advocate for anyone’s “supremacy.”

    I simply am trying to tell you how these philosophers devised a plan to do it – how to wreck the family, and how to sexualize society. There is a pretty clear path, it looks like we’ve followed it, and it looks like the future ahead is exactly the one they predicted.

    And everytime that I point out the “female principle” that they chose to manipulate, and which they clearly say they chose for a purpose – you keep running up to me and denying that such a female principle exists – by bringing everything down to the common denominator or “I”.

    And that is the very reason why they chose to use it.

  16. “Are you saying that the sexes are angrogynous?”

    No. Point to where I have ever said that.

    “And if not, do women have ANY faults to their character?”

    As INDIVIDUAlS. NOT merely by virtue of being women. By virtue of being members of the fallen human race, sure. But other than that, I absolutely reject the idea of group guilt. I reject it for women, and I reject it for men. I also reject it for black people and white people, and so on. If I am guilty of something, that’s on me. If Suzy down the street wrongs her husband, then by golly that is NOT on me. Because Suzy most likely didn’t ask my opinion first, and if she had I’d have told her to act like a righteous person. I don’t go around knocking on people’s doors and explaining their business to them.

    So Dr. Helen does shame and blame men? Or are you sloppily using the word “all” to mean “most”?

    Tell my daughter who was physically attacked by a female bully in high school that girls don’t do physical bullying. Thankfully the vice principal I called didn’t share your viewpoint; he took me seriously and they put a stop to it. And that’s the point of saying “most” instead of “all”. I agree with you that when girls bully, MOST of the time it’s psychological. IMO there is a tremendous difference between saying that and saying that physical bullying is something boys do. Had the VP shared your apparent views he would have placated me to get me off the phone, rolled his eyes at the helicopter mom getting the vapours, and done nothing.

    “you keep running up to me and denying that such a female principle exists”

    I’m not running up to you. I’m sitting here at my computer, visiting your blog. It’s your blog so if I am annoying you, just say so and I’ll stop.

    “And you keep coming back to “no… it can’t be, because ‘I…’ and ‘I….'”

    But you are saying that women do X. And I am saying that I am a woman and I do not do X. Dr. Helen obvously doesn’t or she wouldn’t countenance you on her blog. Therefore there is a fault in your logic. I’m not saying that Marxism isn’t trying to destroy society, blah blah. I’m saying that when you disagree with the statement that “not all women do X” either your logic is faulty or your language is sloppy.

    And I don’t know why you think I shouldn’t take issue. If I said that men were a bunch of rapist abusers with no social skills, would you not disagree?

    I feel uncomfortable arguing with you on your blog. You absolutely are entitled to your views.

    I’ll say one more thing here. I posted, on my blog, a little blurb about safety training. Some of these things I do for my own purposes, for instance, if I want to remember when something happened for work or want more details for my resume, ha ha, and also it’s a chance for me to express my opinions about things that happen. One of the things that I mention there is the problem with absolute statements that aren’t absolutely true. I’m not talking about Biblical statements. You could compare those to OSHA regs – if you have a four-foot drop from a platform to the floor, that requires a handrail, not negotiable. Tacking on crap like “report any spill or leak no matter how small” is obvious BS and basically forces people to ignore the rules. Better to be very sparing with those absolutes and make sure they’re reasonable and valid.

  17. fedrz Says:


    And again… back to individual instances.

    Not able to recognize that “we” are also part of a larger group, and there are certain types of ways that women behave, and there are certain ways that men behave.

    Both have their positives and their negatives.

    Because we are humans.

    Whenever we (society) have a negative view of men we pass a plethora of laws against it. See – DV. See – No Fault Divorce. All laws passed against the MAJORITY of men, because of the actions of a FEW.

    Whenver we have something that is stereotypical of female aggression, society finds any way possible to excuse it. Because NOT ALL women are like that… therefore ALL women should be excused. And we carry this argument right down to nth degree and trip overselves to excuse women from THEIR type of aggressive bad behavior.

    And so the end result is, one type of behaviour (the kind that makes up most of male power) is completely squashed and regulated by laws (and mostly the removal of rights), while the female types of behaviour are allowed to tromp the society unchecked, and are not even allowed to be spoken of.

    It seems a clear recipe for disaster for me.

    But, I don’t care to speak with you about this anymore.

    You are demanding that a double standard be upheld in society, and then insisting that such a double standard simply doesn’t exist, when the evidence of it is everywhere.

    The very demanding of women to uphold the double standard – to be demand to be equal when they are disadvantaged, but to demand the “special privilege” of a woman and a mother on the other hand… well, it is a system that goes only one way then.

    Lol! And anyone denying that negative stereotypes about men haven’t been drilled into our society just isn’t paying attention at all.

    It’s a pure case of all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    Whenever convenient, the argument rushes into androgyny… but if it is more convenient the other ways, suddenly we are “special” because we are “more caring” and so on and so on – we let those positive stereotypes stand in society, while never accepting the negatives that go along with it. But when we say men are more aggressive, or men want sex more from women, and therefore we have to pass laws against men in “X” area, or we have to pass laws against men’s power over here because they are stronger etc. etc. – it is always taking away power from men’s sphere.

    And society, collectively, denies that women possess any power whatsoever… and since we only rule women by law, from the men’s sphere (passing laws against, say, overt aggression), all of women’s sphere of influence is encouraged to go unchecked, like living in the Wild West, with no laws or anything restraining it all.

    But of course, you deny that women have any powers that men don’t have – and even if they did, women would never be capable of abusing them.

    And because I suggest WOMEN IN GENERAL have these certain powers that are most certainly able to be abused… you will deny that women have certain sex-specific powers, because YOU don’t exercise them personally. Therefore, this problem could never arise in society. So, lets continue to ignore it.

    I don’t buy it that you don’t understand that men and women generally operate in different ways, and under different principles.

  18. “You are demanding that a double standard be upheld in society, and then insisting that such a double standard simply doesn’t exist, when the evidence of it is everywhere.”

    I’ll stop after this because you don’t care to go forward. But I’d ask you to show me where I have demanded a double standard.

    You’re arguing with a hypothetical woman who fits your worldview, not with me.

  19. fedrz Says:

    Lol! It’s not particularly MY worldview, Laura.

    That’s what you don’t seem to grasp.

    When one philosopher after another states pretty much the same ideas… and then feminists themselves spout the same ideas – except they only mention the positives of that aspect, but ignore the negatives associated with those aspects…

    Suddenly, when you don’t want it to be, now you reduce it to MY particular world view, so you can dismiss it.

    That just doesn’t seem to sink in to your “logical brain.”

    You just want argue from the point of view that every aspect of “female” is positive, rather than admitting that “female” has its positives AND negatives. If it comes to someone pointing out the positives AND negatives of males however, typically, the the male positve gets pointed out as NOT superior to the female, and the negative gets focused on – men tend agree with women when they point out they are “just as good” and also agree when their failings are pointed out.

    Whenever something negative about women might be true… such as, if women are better networkers, communicators, better at emotionally connecting etc. etc. (which all of women happily agree to), when one points out that those qualities can also be used negatively for aggression, suddenly you say that I am stretching things to make them fit into my hypothetical world view.

    It’s like me agreeing that men are larger and stronger than women, but then disagreeing that a typical man’s size and strength could be used negatively towards women, claiming that “now you’re generalizing.” Yet, there are ZILLIONS of laws outlawing men using their superior size for ill use towards women.

    And you simply fail to recognize that trend.

    But, carry on. Scurry off and revel in your delusional land of androgyny.

    Now you know why some of the men that are pissed off with this kind of stuff just ignore you, or shoo you away as soon as you wail “Not all women are like that!”

    We’re also not always going to let you get the last word all the time, either.

  20. fedrz Says:

    The Bible also agrees with me.

    But I guess God was generalizing to make things fit into “his world view.”

  21. FM Watkins Says:

    Well makes perfect sense to me. The concept of generalisation (or stereotyping) is actually a logical mechanism, based on the fact that we exist in linear time (in my rambling opinion).

    Apart from memory, the brain is essentially a probability calculator. We don’t know the future so we try to predict it in the hope of being better prepared for it. It is the reason why you can automatically catch something bouncing off of a desk. Your experience (past) with similar objects in similar environments enables you to generate a probability matrix of where the object will end up, and you catch it.

    If a guy, as he grows up, encounters women with particular traits (narcissism, deceit, amorality etc), then it is not only natural but dangerous to not factor such historical data in his probability calculations for future females, same with banks and credit ratings, and any complex system with a feedback function. Back to that fella with the amoral girlfriends, over time he’ll become more and more distrusting of them, just like his ancient ancestors would learn not to fuck with certain types of animals or eat certain plants.

    It isn’t perfect, but we aren’t perfect, and never will be. It does offer a simple way of reducing future risk, based on past experience.

    But then again, maybe I’m just ‘generalising’ LOL

  22. Good question. I face those sort of comments all the time. If one is speaking to a broad audience, one can’t and needn’t detail every individual case or even some of the exceptions to the rule. Anyone with the intellectual capacity to string more than two words together should understand that exceptions make the rule and needn’t be explicitly stated except for the hopelessly dense. People who do this usually are trying to say the generality doesn’t apply to them, which may or may not be the case and is irrelevant to the argument. For a generality to be false the exceptions have to be the majority, duh. Only a complete imbecile would actually believe that one exception refutes a generality and they demonstrate their utter lack of reason.

  23. Epoxytocin No. 87 Says:

    “You can’t generalize” is a generalization.

    That is all.

  24. blah Says:

    I think it’s OK to generalize with the words “in general” before that, I don’t say “don’t generalize” because people need to generalize, however, they need to add “in general” or “most” before that in order to make it an accurate argument. But the person here seems to be too black and white and seems to say that everyone only belongs in two categories : Those that say “don’t generalize”, and those who don’t add “in general”. But the in-between, ACCURATE, thing is ignored.

  25. Brian Says:

    I could not have agreed with you more.

  26. Gorbachev Says:

    I experience the different styles of male-female argument every day.

    It’s a true generalization to say that there’s a difference.

    It’s also true that there are exceptions. The exceptions are not as uncommon as you might think.

    However, the general rule still holds.

    If you look at most feminist arguments, for example, there’s a lot of shaming going on. Most of these arguments are led by women. There’s also a lot of self-censorship and general censorship: Group Think.
    You win points by upholding the Group Perspective; going out on a limb is a major exercise.

    Among any group of males, this isn’t the case. The outliers are often celebrated – and respected – even when the majority still disagrees with them.

    That’s a general trend that’s obvious to anyone who watches.

    However, it’s not a RULE.

    Generalizing has its limits, but you can’t argue anything unless you can argue from the specific to the general and back again.

  27. […] generalisations ahead. As modes of taking in information and processing it, the masculine and feminine are – […]

  28. […] The fact is we are GENERALLY different. Those who equate the utility of emotion to that of the tangible are the same ones who cannot even grasp the basic concept of a generality and its validity or not. In fact its the perfect manifestation of what the good professor is selling, away with facts and figures, in with the feelings, never mind that men are generally bigger than women, not ALL are, and it just doesn’t FEEL right to say so, hence, we cannot generalize. […]

  29. […] “But these are generalizations!” The nay-sayers decry. Too bad those who can’t generalize are useful idiots. […]

  30. Joe Wells Says:

    Alright, asshole. You can’t generalize without statistics.

  31. Fedrz Says:

    I can generalize that people who show up here calling me an asshole within the first two words but don’t go further into the argument thereafter are… morons, and I can reliably navigate my life on such an observation – you pretentious, politically corrected asshole.

    • Boss Says:

      You realize your retarded points of view are the only reasons this page gets any views? The most pathetic thing is that you actually think you are smart and

      • Fedrz Says:

        Yet this site (of which the pages you are reading here on this blog is only a mirror of) has over 1.3 hits, smarty pants.

        And, btw, thanks for your own sophisticated argument… oh wait, you don’t have an argument – just emotionally charged insults. Lol!

  32. James Smith Says:

    I don’t think you can generalize about whether or not you can generalize.

  33. Steve Herzfeld Says:

    The full quotation or sentence is “you can’t generalize from the specific” and that is abolutely true.

  34. rummy games online

    In General, People Who Don’t Generalize are Useful Idiots. | Fedrz’ Blog

  35. Dork Says:

    Nominalism is a motivator for this crock of ****. There’s this I’d ea that categories and universals don’t really exist outside the mind. It’s really a sophisticated attack on rationality.

  36. Mike Says:

    If the people who say “You can’t generalize” would be intelligent enough to understand that there is always exceptions to a generalization rather than just point it out, the world would be a better society. All you do by saying “Don’t generalize”, is hiding your head in the sand.

    To be a better society, we have to learn to accept criticism, since criticism is what we need to become better persons.
    We can either hide behind stupid claims, but that only leads to the acceptance of immoral behaviours.

    If you want to generalize about something i am part of, no problem, i don’t have to feel concerned if it does not apply to me. And if the statement is true, i will even agree to it. And if it does apply to me, then i will be happy to use it to become a better person.

    I’d rather be wrong now than forever.

    Once we accept our flaws, it just bring us to change those nasty behaviours we are ALL guilty of. No one is perfect, and to pretend that your race; sex, religion or whatever groups you can be part of are perfect is just ignorance and stupidity.

    Every time a group of person (Or things), you can start generalizing, and when you do so, you just need to remember that it is only that and that it does not and can’t be blindly applied to everyone. As the OP already pointed out “there are individual groups and there are individuals within those groups.”

    We are all the same but, at the same time, all different!

  37. NR Says:

    This is statement is so dumb – “To fail to generalize is to demand that all things must only be regarded in terms of the lowest common denominator.” Generalizing is applying a common denominator, that’s exactly what it is. I wish you could use your to brain cells to “stop looking for the lowest common denominator.”

    Your entire piece contradicts itself at almost every opportunity. I’m sure not all your writing is like that in general…

  38. So all white people are brutal and tyrannical racists? Because generally speaking, history seems to suggest that.

    Seriously though, generalizations aren’t reliable, except in specific cases. For example, generally speaking, males in the us are heavier and taller than women. Beyond that they are inaccurate because the one doing the generalization is usually incorporating emotional biases,etc into their determination.

    I’d also like to point out that in the process of arguing for the merit of generalizing people. The author actually argues against his own point when it comes to certain schools of feminism that wrongly generalize all men. Not to mention you are sticking with safer arguments like biological ones when you know “don’t generalize” also applies to the stereotyping of groups or demographics, which your inept ass is also doing.

  39. Zander Says:

    I wish I had the time (and I wish the human brains had the capacity without becoming fatigued) to read all the comments, but I don’t so this may have already been stated.

    I think we just need to update our vocabulary for generalizations. Such as “MOST men are stronger and taller than women” and “A LOT of women are more moody than men”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: