Is it possible to discuss relationships without generalizing? (dating, boyfriends, marry)

[SAnderson41]

I don't think I've ever come across a discussion about relationships in which generalizations weren't made. It seems to be part and parcel of the debate.

I've often observed someone make a negative generalization about the opposite sex, after which someone else is quick to point out that "not all X are like that", but then they'll go on to make generalizations themselves and no one calls them out on it.

And sometimes a person will make a positive generalization about the opposite sex, but no one says anything about it. It seems that generalizations about the opposite sex are OK if they're positive, but if they're negative, it's seen as being judgmental. There's not much consistency.

Can generalizations be reasonably made? Do men and women tend to follow patterns of behavior that can be generalized about, both positively and negatively? Or are they really individuals to such an extent that a generalization is never called for?

[cyphorx]

Originally Posted by SAnderson41

I don't think I've ever come across a discussion about relationships in which generalizations weren't made. It seems to be part and parcel of the debate.

I've often observed someone make a negative generalization about the opposite sex, after which someone else is quick to point out that "not all X are like that", but then they'll go on to make generalizations themselves and no one calls them out on it.

And sometimes a person will make a positive generalization about the opposite sex, but no one says anything about it. It seems that generalizations about the opposite sex are OK if they're positive, but if they're negative, it's seen as being judgmental. There's not much consistency.

Can generalizations be reasonably made? Do men and women tend to follow patterns of behavior that can be generalized about, both positively and negatively? Or are they really individuals to such an extent that a generalization is never called for?

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 pinnacles 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 necessary in order to learn anything.

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 necessarily 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.”

Nonsense.

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.

There are individual groups, and there are individuals within those groups.

Men and women have different traits in general, men tend to care less about a womans income or what she does for a living, that why a big complaint among many women is the way her husbands/boyfriends eyes glaze over when she talks about her day at work. while some guys will genuinely show interest.

While women tend to take more of an interest in their husbands/boyfriends work life. while some women can care less(the non materialistic minority).

[SAnderson41]

You mean that groups of people can be generalized about, while keeping in mind the exceptions within the group?

[TMBGBlueCanary]

I think the problem with the generalizations is that #1 The are often insulting, rarely do you see a generalization made about an sex that is flattering #2 Those that make them tend to make absurd exaggerations like 99.9% of all men/women are ____.

And I would add that #2.5, even when the characteristic is pretty general, the poster who observes it is over the top with it and gives it a lot more importance than is typically given in real life. For example, just because women are predisposed to want to marry a man who can be a provider for her children doesn't mean ALL she cares about is money and is no different from a prostitute. And just because a man is predisposed to want to find a woman who can bear children doesn't mean ALL he cares about is her body and is nothing more than an animal who wants to rut and pas on his genes.

[Ginge McFantaPants]

I firmly believe that generalizations exist for a reason: because [insert generalization] is common enough that it has been observed by a large enough segment of people to warrant a generalization. However, just because it is a generalization does not mean that most, or even a narrow majority of the group in question is guilty of committing that generalization.

I also see a lot of narrow thinking creep in these generalizations, especially with all of these "who sucks more, men or women?" threads lately. One side will be harping on what one gender does... completely disregarding the fact their own gender does the same thing, probably with the same degree of frequency. For example, [I don't actually do this, but] suppose I'm perseverating on something men do to women in the dating scene; I may have observed that particular behavior enough to attribute it to men... but women do it, too. But of course I am blissfully ignorant of this because I don't date women, and thus having never been on the receiving end of that behavior from a woman.

[SAnderson41]

Originally Posted by TMBGBlueCanary

I think the problem with the generalizations is that #1 The are often insulting, rarely do you see a generalization made about an sex that is flattering #2 Those that make them tend to make absurd exaggerations like 99.9% of all men/women are ____.

And I would add that #2.5, even when the characteristic is pretty general, the poster who observes it is over the top with it and gives it a lot more importance than is typically given in real life. For example, just because women are predisposed to want to marry a man who can be a provider for her children doesn't mean ALL she cares about is money and is no different from a prostitute. And just because a man is predisposed to want to find a woman who can bear children doesn't mean ALL he cares about is her body and is nothing more than an animal who wants to rut and pas on his genes.

Can you give an example of an acceptable generalization?

[Katnan]

Originally Posted by SAnderson41

Can you give an example of an acceptable generalization?

You don't need examples. You don't need to stereotype people.

[SAnderson41]

Originally Posted by Liberty2011

You don't need examples. You don't need to stereotype people.

No I just mean an example of a generalization that could be considered acceptable.

[usayit]

Use generalizations appropriately... to direct the discussion but not conclude it.


Directing...
"Most men prefer and enjoy the thrill of the chase.. it is their nature. Conversely, its normal for most women in a bar to stand among their comfortable group until a guy approaches. It doesn't mean that she isn't interested. However, I don't believe that it is a hard set rule. I absolutely would be flattered if a woman approached me in a similar situation".

Concluding (draw broad conclusions)..
"All men care for are good looks, sex and someone to take care of things at home."

"All women care about are money and security."



If the topic is a generalization, acknowledge it and keep it in check. If the topic is about a specific, direct it with generalizations but you need more solid points to conclude.

[funymann]

Originally Posted by SAnderson41

No I just mean an example of a generalization that could be considered acceptable.

ALL threads made on CD NEVER help ANYONE!!!