Not all Romans

[AskBasil]

The Romans built the first roads in Britain.

But not all Romans

The Vikings built ships which sailed as far as America.

Not all Vikings.

Rabbits are known for reproducing really quickly.

Not all Rabbits.

Etc. etc. I think I will add "not all" whenever anyone refers to anything ever, until people stop saying Not All Men as a first response to a class analysis of men's behaviour.

Well not all people do that you know ;)

'Some' is an excellent word too.

So, you'd be able to say....

Some Romans built the first roads in Britain
Some Vikings built ships which sailed as far as America
etc, etc.

Hope that helps. See how you get on with it ?

That's exactly the point. People can assume the some in those examples but not others

You going to e-mail that site to tell them cadnowylit?

The French had a revolution in 1789.

Not all French people.

There are loads of homework sites which make bald statements like "The vikings invaded xxxx"

You need to let them know that it's not all Vikings

I was thinking about this after Buffys thread. Which I agree with that we should challenge men about saying things on behalf of all men.

BUT what's the difference between
"Men are violent" and "women are rubbish drivers" for example. If I said one I'd be sexist but both are generalisation.

If you want to get even more picky, almost certainly many of the people who built the roads were not Roman citizens. So 'some Romans and many other people who weren't Romans built the first roads in Britain'. Not quite as simple and effective a statement as 'Romans built the first roads in Britain', conveying as it does a sense of time period and the agency under which it was done.

Well the majority of rapists are men.
Despite the fact that only a tiny majority of men are rapists.
Are the majority of crap drivers women?

I think a better analogy would be single parents. Yes single dads exist but I think it's fair to assume that the average single parent is a woman (although it is not fair to then restrict advice and services to female single parents iyswim)

Yes they were probably crap examples bear but it's early and I'm fully woken up.

I'm sure I could find stats to suggest women are in car accidents but it doesn't mean at an individual level women can't drive.

It was the Roman Legions who built the roads, a very specific subculture of individuals many of whom were not ethnically Roman.

To say that Romans built the roads could imply Roman residents or Roman citizens were directly concerned in the construction, neither of which would be particularly accurate. Inexactitude promotes sloppy thinking.

It was the Roman Legions who built the roads, a very specific subculture of individuals many of whom were not ethnically Roman.

To say that Romans built the roads could imply Roman residents or Roman citizens were directly concerned in the construction, neither of which would be particularly accurate. Inexactitude promotes sloppy thinking.

It's the "Oh that's a generalisation" thing that pisses me off Mide.

Because people only ever say "don't you mean SOME men" when it comes to doing class analysis about men.

They're perfectly happy to accept generalisations for every other situation in the English language, except that one. (Not ALL people obv. )

And that is something to do with our assumption that male feelz need to be pandered to in a way no other feelz do.

The English language works in such a way that if you say "women are crap drivers", there's an acceptance that you don't mean all women. It doesn't need qualifiers such as "some". (I don't agree with you that women are crap drivers and neither do insurance companies, but that's by the by.) It's only with "men are violent" that we suddenly need a qualifier and that people suddenly decide that it's terribly important not to generalise. Every other situation, generalisations are useful and do not imply that a broad generalisation about a group as a whole, applies to every single individual within that group. That's how our language works.

So are you going to e-mail that homework site and tell them they are guilty of promoting sloppy thinking to the next generation of citizens, MephistophelesAssistant?

"I'm sure I could find stats to suggest women are in car accidents but it doesn't mean at an individual level women can't drive."

Eh? What do you mean you could find stats to suggest women are in car accidents? Of course they are, as are men.

Not sure where you're going with that, but perhaps it's just not a good enough example to pursue.

Just to be clear I know women aren't crap drivers and I know the stats about men and violence. Just using them as they are commonly used.

I agree with your point though basil butI think it's more about society than language. Lanuage is the same regardless but how it's used/ interpreted is different.

I just find it odd that some generalisations are ok and some aren't. I suppose the same could be said for race to.

Ask,

No, the English language does not work in the way that you imply. It is totally context dependent. Your example of 'women are crap drivers' is entirely apposite. If someone posted that on this board, they would get shredded, and rightly so. No one would assume that they meant 10% of women are crap drivers and the rest were wonderful

On the other hand, a statement like 'the Normans conquered Britain in 1066' can be assumed to mean that a Norman army invaded Britain in 1066, and not that every single Norman citizen was in the UK (as was).

'Men are violent' is far closer to the first context and, IMO, does need qualifying if what you want to imply is that some men have the capacity (or indulge in) violent acts.

Of course, maybe in the academic study of feminism, the latter context should be assumed. However, a lot of the people on this board are not academic feminists and these threads come up in 'active threads', which is where a lot of people look first, including men. Of course, if you don't care about causing offense, that is fine. However acting like the only possible interpretation of 'men are violent' is that some men may be violent is disingenuous at best.

The Romans built the first roads in Britain.

But not all Romans

but the Romans as an organisational entity did.

The Vikings built ships which sailed as far as America.

Not all Vikings.

but the Vikings as an organisational entity did.

you are taking historical facts and trying to make them sound like biased generalisations, but they are not. You are just reading them wrong.

Well said Larry

'I find it useful to think about men as a social category, when talking about behaviour that we have information or experience to indicate that said behaviour is gendered. An example would be committing violent crime. Another would be the observation that men tend to interrupt or talk over women's speech without necessarily even realising that they are doing it.'

But are you equally happy with sweeping statements about women 'as a social category', even if they are, on the whole (i.e true in over 50% of women) true:

'women like to gossip', 'girls are worse at STEM subjects', 'women are worse at parking'.

The above are all, on the whole, (probably, and I am not going to search for stats to back them up, as you are not re men and violence). However, they say nothing about the causes, nor are they useful in dealing with individual women/girls.

I would never make the above statements because they are profoundly unhelpful.

I do think it is odd that so much attention is paid to 'lived experience' when it comes to women, but for men this seems to count for so little. If most men (and it is the vast majority) are offended by a statement that 'men tend to be violent' (for instance), why should that not be respected? This is not phallus worship, it is merely treating men as equal human beings with sensitivities.

Buffy I understand what your saying and generalisations can be useful, particularly in things like your example of a public health type scenario. They also have have their limitations as you've pointed out.

"But are you equally happy with sweeping statements about women 'as a social category', even if they are, on the whole (i.e true in over 50% of women) true:"

Is my main question? In my experience some women are as quick as some men here to say not all women.

Buffy,

No, of course not. But I do not notice much fuss being made about the way far more young women are going to university these days.

You are spot on about STEM subjects (which I am involved in). It is hard to get girls to treat them as importantly as other subjects. Personally I feel that you have identified part of the cause. The other part is SLTs at schools (girls' schools in particular) making a nod towards science but not really treating it as importantly as the arts.

I believe in treating all people equally and not applying generalisations to populations. Clearly, when writing a paper on sexism (for instance), using 'men do' or 'women do' is far less cumbersome than 'some men' or 'some women' and the context is clear.

I think I made my point re the nature of readers of this parenting site and that men often see these posts on 'active threads'. I don't think you should be surprised by the fact that they cause offense. Again, as I have already said, you are under no obligation to care whether offense is taken.

I would, however, come back to the point that you made about what you are hoping to achieve. If you want to engage the whole population (and, again, I appreciate that you may not give a shit), then you need to use language appropriate to a parenting site (not dumbing down, just not assuming that people know the conventions that you are using).

I think larry just said that women's lived experience of how men can be, is upsetting to men who are not like that, and so women should soften their language and temper what they say in order not to upset them.

I think that's what I read, anyway.

I am also not sure why "women are shit at driving" is being used as a comparison to "men as a class are more violent than women". One is a stereotype which there is not conclusive evidence for, unless you take my dad's pronouncements as evidence. The other is shown in every society in the world any way you care to measure it. I don't think the rates of reports of violence, convictions for violence, the numbers of violent criminals incarcerated, and the lived experiences of both women and men in terms of who is more likely to be violent are quite on a par with the pronouncement of a sexist man about a woman who has the temerity to be on a road near him in a car.