One of the big problems in talking about gender is that there are just too many people.
“Men” is 3.5 billion people. If one assumes that most people talking about gender in English on the Internet are only intending to talk about the Anglosphere and not men in Saudi Arabia (which seems right), men is still 225 million people. That’s a lot of different people. That’s a hell of a lot of diversity.
And yet most of the time when people talk about ‘men’ and ‘women’ they aren’t basing it on survey data about those 225 million people. They’re talking about, well, their personal experiences. Over the course of their lives, they’ve met a few hundred, perhaps a thousand men. That’s not a lot. And the sample is systematically biased in a whole lot of ways. Of course, there are the obvious ways: my sample has way more trans people and way fewer black people than would normally be expected. But there are subtler things too.
Here’s an example I happen to know from my personal anecdotes. In high school, I was friends with some frankly entitled nerdy guys. They were universally under the impression that they were Nice, as shown by their willingness to pay for dates and buy their girlfriends flowers on Valentine’s Day, and that it was sheer injustice if a girl they were interested in said ‘no’, given that they were Nice. Girls more attractive than I was would occasionally find themselves subjected to severe social pressure to go out with whomever had a crush on them, and labelled a ‘bitch’ and isolated if she continued to refuse.
Right now, I’m friends with a bunch of nerdy guys who are scared shitless of women. They have never asked a girl out because it is too frightening, and when girls flirt with them they tend to radiate terrified body language which makes the flirting girl assume that she is being crushingly rejected. Many of them feel that, simply by having a crush on a girl, they’re doing something wrong; their sexuality, being male, is burdensome and creepy, and they should avoid ever letting a girl know about it.
Now, by luck, I happened to be in both groups. Imagine if I had only known entitled nerd guys: every time one of the scared guys was like “I am afraid of doing something wrong when I ask a girl out!”, my instinctive response would be “well, maybe you are doing something wrong, you fucking creep.” Or imagine if I’d only known the scared nerd guys: every time someone complained about the entitled guys pressuring them into dating them, I’d be like “Christ! Nerd guys have it hard enough! Knock it off! You’re just unfairly stigmatizing socially awkward people.”
As it happens, I’ve been in both groups, so I have a fairly nuanced viewpoint on the subject. But there are lots of cases where I’ve only been in one group, and I don’t know which ones. I can’t make my thoughts more nuanced when I don’t even know what ways my samples are distorted.
So whenever I say something about ‘men’ or ‘women’, take it as ‘this is the pattern I have noticed among people I have happened to interact with, which may or may not be similar to people that you have interacted with.’ And when you get into arguments with people about whether men are sexist or women can’t communicate, have as a hypothesis “both of us are telling the truth about different groups of people.”
Thing of Things 
Clearly, you need to befriend more Chads to have a fully comprehensive gender experience.
LikeLike
Isn’t their husband one? 😉
LikeLike
Hi. I don’t know how relevant this is to your intentions with this post but one of the reasons I like literature (of all kinds) is that it helps me to experience, to some degree, things I would never had an opportunity to experience. I don’t want to posit an equivalence but there is still value. For example, I had one experience going through high school but by reading bout someone else’s fictional or factual experience I can know something about experiences that are forever closed to me.
One thing that I try to remember is that there is a lot that I don’t know. I thought slavery was relegated to history and then I met a slave. Because I was unaware of modern slavery, I thought it didn’t exist. Because of my ignorance, I thought I had knowledge (slavery no longer exists) but was wrong. I have since encountered people who think they have the same alleged piece of knowledge because it is something they haven’t experienced and informed me that I was mistaken about ever meeting a slave.
It is important to me to remember to be open to claims made by other people. They may very well have valid knowledge that I lack and I shouldn’t dismiss them because of my unfamiliarity with something. I also shouldn’t assume that I know so much about a thing that I should assume that I can’t be unfamiliar with it. I apologize for the complicated sentence; I tried to be specific with my thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Out of curiosity, where did you meet a slave? What was the situation like?
LikeLike
I’m not OP, but I saw a talk by someone who works against human trafficking who said that most people who staff fairgrounds in [home state in the United States] are white poor people from South Africa who were coerced into labor contracts, can’t leave or else they lose their houses, and their bosses can’t be litigated against because the international legal system isn’t designed to handle those kinds of cases.
LikeLike
My first job (between graduating high school and starting college) was at a fast food franchise. The franchise I worked at was owned by foreign national couple (I assume they were of legal residence but that isn’t relevant here) and one of my coworkers was their (adult) niece. She got paid for her work at the restaurant but she lived with my bosses and was forced to provide domestic unpaid labor.
I understand that this may not be a clear cut case. She was being paid for some work and someone could argue that she was exchanging labor for shelter in a way that doesn’t constitute slavery. I don’t know if it fits various definitions of slavery but I do know that is was unpleasant for my co-worker and friend. At the time I considered it forced slave labor and at the moment, I consider it problematic no matter what the title. I also know that while I received overtime pay for overtime work, this person did not so the owners of this franchise were violating federal labor law.
My friend was an illegal resident complicating matters. I did what little legal research I could do at the time and informed her of what I found trusting her to make the best decision for herself. It is interesting to me that a person would rather be an undocumented resident having her rights violated in the US working part-time for no compensation on top of a more then full time job then live and work someone else where she could live and work legally. At some point in casual conversation she did refer to her lawyer so I suspect that she had legal advice on her situation.
I visited the restaurant in the summer break between my first and second years at college and there were (mostly) the same people working for the same owners. It would have been a few years before I made it back but by that time there were new owners and an entirely new staff (all of a different nationality interestingly enough).
Despite what my friend’s experience qualifies as, knowing her educated me as to the existence of slaves in the US today. It left a powerful impression. I have since learned more about modern slavery which exists today in the US and sometimes includes persons born in the US.
This also doesn’t negate my point on the very few times I have been told that slavery no longer exists by people who cite, as evidence, that they don’t know about it existing. Because I am not a forceful speaking I usually don’t get a chance to either talk about the experience of my friend or point them to either ways they can educate themselves about slavery and avoid inadvertently supporting it or to places which are fighting modern slavery.
I think my second point that one should not be quick to dismiss the personal experience of others because it isn’t consistent with what one has experienced stands.
LikeLike
@Benjamin, your links are not of equal quality. The second link in particular (the essay by Walker-Rodriguez and Hill) cites statistics which are pretty wildly wrong (the mentioned average age of those entering prostitution is oft-repreated nonsense that is always a good indicator of a site that hasn’t bothered to investigate the truth of its claims). For completeness, the first link mostly talks about number of prosecutions and convictions, and I presume the numbers are accurate (they look similar to what I’ve seen elsewhere). The other two links seem more interested in advocacy than in providing information, which is fine, I suppose; if they did make more factual claims and made any egregious errors, it was in links past the first which I wasn’t willing to click through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@protagoras
I thank you for the warning. It is important to be working with correct information. Where can I find good statistics on Modern Slavery in the USA?
LikeLike
I would assume that when you read literature (more true for fiction, but also for nonfiction I would figure) you only get to see the world through the distorted perceptions of authors; in the end, this is only another biased perspective. Authors are a relatively homogeneous group (compared to society as a whole), among who you select an even more homogeneous subgroup by only reading genres and authors you like.
(Also literature probably reflects biases of a society as a whole and amplifies them? E.g. I’d imagine someone reading books maybe a few centuries ago would get the idea that, yup, these nonbelievers surely are a wicked bunch.)
LikeLike
It is still a good way to obtain experiences that I don’t and even can’t have. I don’t make the claim that consuming literature by itself either gives me a balanced perspective on everything nor makes me immune to being ignorant of things. Also, I do make a point of finding literature (both fiction and nonfiction) that makes points I disagree with and provides new and different ideas and experiences from what I have. That’s one of the things I love about it. I don’t claim that reading, and listening, and watching things makes me understand all perspectives but that it helps me to understand more perspectives then I would otherwise get. There are a lot of numbers between 0 and 1.
LikeLike
That works for you because you’re outside both groups looking in, and in both of your hypothetical statements you’re choosing between generalizations about how nerdy guys typically are. From the perspective of actual nerdy guys, the dispute is between a hostile generalization about them, and an objection to having hostile generalizations made about them. It’s usually a dispute about moral norms, not sampling.
LikeLiked by 4 people
A lot of people are pretty fucking bitter about transmasculine people and I don’t mind? I recognize that some groups of transmasculine people have absolutely terrible norms, and given that I am not actually terrible I do not need to take offense at it.
It seems like your argument would conclude with people not being able to talk about misbehavior by nerds at all. I assume that’s not what you mean– after all, you’re certainly enthusiastic enough about talking about misbehavior by social justice people.
LikeLike
I wasn’t saying that no one should make negative generalizations about others ever in any context. I’m saying that the norms about when this is appropriate are usually what people are upset about. Our culture has insanely powerful norms against throwing negative generalizations at large social groups.
I acknowledge that you’re willing to go with the “I’m going to assume that they’re not talking about me, they’re just talking about the bad ones” position when people make broad based comments that would otherwise read as bigoted generalizations. But that’s further in the anti social justice direction than I’m willing to go.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you were jewish and someone is ranting about “evil jews” but you’re pretty sure you’re one of the noble ones is it unreasonable to object?
It seems like a pretty good idea that even if you internally don’t categorize yourself in the same group someone is attacking, if it’s likely that lots of other people around aren’t going to make the same distinction you are and are going to update their judgements of you then responding seems sensible.
If everyone perfectly shared the same categories and distinctions then it would be perfectly reasonable for a trans person coming across a pastor screaming that “Child Molesting Transexuals” are evil to say “Absolutely! Child Molesting Transexuals certainly are evil!” secure in the knowledge that as they’re a non-child-molesting-transexual they’re not included in the category being attacked.
In reality of course the pastor doesn’t consider there to be a distinction, is actually attacking all trans people as being child molesters and much of the congregation are in the same boat.
Would the person objecting against or trying to establish a social norm against the pastor attacking “Child Molesting Transexuals” mean that nobody could ever complain about child molesters who are also trans?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think it’s a good idea to call people “evil”. If the person were ranting about Jews who support Israel detaining Palestinian journalists without trial, then I think that is fairly reasonable.
Most people who are ranting about child-molesting trans people have never actually met a child-molesting trans person, so this post could not possibly apply to them. In the event that they were molested as a child by a trans person, I think compassion is a much better attitude than yelling at them for being a transphobe.
LikeLike
You don’t mind people ranting about transmasculine folks because they don’t pattern-match you to those folks they’re complaining about. It’s not analogous to the nerd example. I think BPD would be a better analogy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is why I am extremely skeptical of personal experience. Without some sort of quasi-objective source of information you cannot tell whether your experience is representative.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m interested in hearing more about this strange alternate-universe high school where the nerds at the top of the social hierarchy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They weren’t. You don’t actually have to be on the top of the social hierarchy to bully and mistreat people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From what I’ve heard, most bullies are in the middle of the social hierarchy. The most popular people don’t have to worry about falling far enough to be a victim and can afford to be nice; it’s the people that are just barely above victimhood themselves who need to make sure the wrath of the mob they’re a part of falls on somebody else.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That bothers me a lot. The exact same people who criticize everyone else for being too America-centric tend to make grandiose claims about the essential nature of gender, sexuality, kyriarchy, etc., strongly implying that the mechanisms being described are intrinsic to every society, while in real life they don’t generalize even to Russia, much less India, China, or Saudi Arabia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arguably off-topic but it’s even more noticeable when the topic is race. Claims that might be useful and insightful in the US context with its very specific history of chattel slavery and the civil war are routinely applied to groups that simply don’t have that history, and when you point this out *they’re* the ones who lecture *you* about your supposed lack of understanding/appreciation of diversity…
LikeLiked by 3 people
>So whenever I say something about ‘men’ or ‘women’, take it as ‘this is the pattern I have noticed among people I have happened to interact with, which may or may not be similar to people that you have interacted with.’ And when you get into arguments with people about whether men are sexist or women can’t communicate, have as a hypothesis “both of us are telling the truth about different groups of people.”
Or you can do the smart thing: dispense with anecdotes entirely and use “real” data.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Getting real data takes time and, to do it really well, money, and also education. If only people with access to these resources could talk about gender, our perspectives would be even more limited than they are.
I do agree that people talking about patterns they’ve observed in their own life should speak with the caveat that their sample may be unrepresentative, though. But they should absolutely speak.
LikeLike
>Getting real data takes time and, to do it really well, money, and also education.
Of course. That’s what we pay researchers for, isn’t it? It’s not like everyone needs their individual data set.
Limiting perspectives is the whole point.
LikeLike
My suggestion is simple: allow anecdata about human beings, but disallow misrepresentation of it. Yes, there is a difference between “x” and “most x I’ve met”, and it is actively immoral to conflate them. This was hammered into me in kindergarten and it baffles me that social justice is trying to undo it. How does overgeneralization even help the aggrieved trying to vent, let alone an actual discussion? At best it’s a very deadly coping strategy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sometimes I am addressing issues about which data has not been collected, or the data isn’t particularly reliable. All my writing about transness is based on personal experience, because there simply isn’t enough information about whom transition helps and whom it doesn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How would you even gather data about this?
“Are you a creepy entitled nerd? (Answer Yes/No)”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Take a random sample of self-identified nerds and follow them around at bars?
Confounding effects: What about the ones who don’t go to bars at all? What about the ones who change their behavior when they learn they’re being watched (because the IRB will probably make us tell them)?
LikeLike
I wonder how many people answering “Yes” to such a question are creepy entitled nerds.
LikeLike
Well, as a single data point, I would answer yes, and I’m most certainly an entitled nerd. The creepy part is still up for debate, though!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anecdotes are “real data”, they’re just qualitative not quantitative. They definitely have value, even if they’re not ideal for extrapolating to entire populations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So whenever I say something about ‘men’ or ‘women’, take it as ‘this is the pattern I have noticed among people I have happened to interact with, which may or may not be similar to people that you have interacted with.’ ”
This convention seems like a rather bad choice. One problem is that it is extremely confusing since almost no one but Ozy uses the convention. The second thing is that it is likely to hurt alot of people. People tend to strongly dislike hearing negative generalizations about groups they belong. But generalizations that are TRUE are at least defensible. If you say “men/women are X” at the very least you should honestly believe that almost tall men/women are X. However I think even the true generalizations are unhealthy. Instead of saying “men are taller than women” one should consider saying “most men are taller than most women”. This attitude seems both kinder and epistemically more healthy than Ozy’s convention.
I am honestly confused as to why Ozy thinks this convention is a good idea. My theory is that Ozy identifies with and wants to defend a set of writers who complained about real problems in careless and hyperbolic ways (Andrea Dworkin is the platonic ideal). Obviously its a bad idea to expect people who are hurt to be perfectly careful in how they phrase things. But its even worse to encourage people to carelessly stereotype others! If you have to “vent” about groups you should really do it somewhere you are unlikely to hurt other people.
LikeLike
I prefer generalizations that are “A are more foo than B” == “A are on average more foo than B, but there are exceptions” rather than “any A is more foo than any B” as you can easily use “all” to get the second meaning. Bears are larger than dogs, humans are smarter than chimps and so on. You can’t use phrases like these if you are talking about all the humans or all the dogs and these phrases are convenient. It’s possible to use the phrase if the percent of positives is large enough, but that would lead to the endless arguments over definition of “large enough”.
On the other hand I’m against using “A are more foo than B” to mean only people in someone’s circle. And I’m strongly against using “all” to mean “majority”.
Disregard this if you want, I’m not even a native English speaker.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Ozy’s advice is about interpreting statements made by others, not about making your own statements.
Sometimes you think someone is making an indefensible generalization, but they think they’re simply reporting observable facts, and not generalizing at all. ‘Their sample is different from my sample’ is an idea that can help you understand and explain why they’re wrong without concluding that they’re evil.
LikeLike
I am on record (on this site) as saying that I don’t think it is wise to assume anyone is evil. I think almost everyone should be assumed to be doing their best. This includes neo-nazis, 9/11 hi-jackers, etc.
However I still do not think Ozy’s convention is a good idea. In my opinion Ozy’s attitude amounts to endorsing (probably innacurate!) stereotyping. I have some guesses as to why ozy thinks its ok to carelessly stereotype. But I do not agree with zir on this.
People should try to say accurate things about sensitive topics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think this is about ‘venting’ at all. If I make the statement “most people who really, really want to be women would be happier if they identified as women”, that is not ‘venting’ by any reasonable use of the term, and I am using ‘most’ as you suggest. But the thing is that my generalization is based on the people I happen to interact with (of course, because there are no studies on the topic), and I know that the people I happen to interact with are different from the norm in ways I can’t really predict. It is totally possible that there are a whole bunch of people who really really want to be women but are unhappier if they identify as women, and I just haven’t met them. If I talk to someone who mostly interacts with the latter group, I might assume they’re transphobic or trying to keep trans people from transitioning. But I need to have in my hypothesis space “this person knows different people than I do.”
LikeLike
Lets say the average of the women you personally knew was 5’10. Maybe you lived in some unusual village in Scandinavia. However you had read on wikipedia that the average height of women worldwide is 5.5.
Would you stills say “The average women is at least 5’7” ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Best. Disclaimer. Ever.
So many pointless arguments could be avoided if everyone understood this.
“You may be generalizing from a different sample.” is usually way more likely than “You are just making stuff up.” And even if they are, in fact, making stuff up – there are probably some experiences that made them believe this is justified and credible. People don’t usually get hateful and bitter for no reason at all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
In general,
∀x, #NotAllx
LikeLiked by 4 people
Your high school nerds and you current nerds are the same group, just at two different stages.
You say, “sheer injustice”. What is exactly, is the injustice they are complaining about? Its not as simple as “A girl I liked doesn’t like me”.
Just like your later friends are scared of doing something wrong, so are the high school nerds. The injustice they refer to is that girls are attracted to people who are doing things they were told are wrong, and not to them who are doing what they were taught is right.
That is why they feel “entitled”, they’ve been doing what they’ve been taught is what girls want, so they expect girls to be attracted to them.
Your later nerds have just had a bit more experience and learned that every action is also “wrong” (including what your entitled high school nerd’s thought was correct) and thus are paralyzed. Ex: “If I get to know a girl first, then ask her out, I’m a duplicitous nice guy”,”If I ask a stranger out, I’m a creep”.
Similarly they no longer feel entitled because they recognize there is not action they could take (that would be ok morally) that would be attractive.
LikeLike
Um… I am pretty sure that nearly everyone I am friends with would take ‘no’ as an answer, regardless of how confused they were about what girls want, and that indeed if you don’t take ‘no’ for an answer you have problems much, much more serious than your ignorance of flirting.
LikeLiked by 1 person