I agree, but I thought this was a very solid piece. I don’t wholly agree with the author on every single point, but he makes many very good ones.
Like this one?
"There is no one on earth who is more familiar with how tiresome men are than I am. Nevertheless if you’re committed to knowing them, that’s the position you have to start from: th…
I agree, but I thought this was a very solid piece. I don’t wholly agree with the author on every single point, but he makes many very good ones.
Like this one?
"There is no one on earth who is more familiar with how tiresome men are than I am. Nevertheless if you’re committed to knowing them, that’s the position you have to start from: that men are not emotionally maladaptive women and know best how to talk with and to each other."
Why do I have to prepare myself to deal with a tiresome person based only on the fact that the person is a man? I call this kind of thinking atrocious. I will wait to see for myself how the individual interacts. I will restrain from making such generalizations and judgements in advance.
I will wait to see what their behavior and actions are like and then judge from that. That is when I will decide whether I think they are tiresome or not but I won't decide that in advance and just because.
I'm not a fan of most of his points as they do not follow a rational and logical train of thought.
Ironically, you are sort of assuming the converse position that women assume towards men that he is criticizing in this piece -- you seem to have flinched at the first the second anyone suggests that women might be well-intended sometimes and yes, men can be frustrating for women to understand. He’s actually criticizing women for the same reason you would, he’s just being slightly fair for a second before making his point.
Did you read the rest of the sentence you shared? He’s saying that you can’t simply stop at “yeah, men can be tiresome.” You can’t assume men are simply misbehaving women. I think that’s a wonderful point and not saying what you seen to think it’s saying.
Thank you for your remarks. I will just state my default position. I understand his is to make assumptions and generalizations about people based on their gender. There is some use for that but that usefulness is very limited.
EX: Men are physically stronger than women - Generally true enough to be taken as default.
However, one runs into trouble going as far as to generalize intelligence, sense of humor, talent, intentions and or how tiresome or emotionally maladaptive a particular gender is in general. Those and many other things about people transcend their gender and really are irrelevant to whether or not one is dealing with a man or a woman.
It is degrading to men to just default to saying you might as well get used to dealing with a "tiresome" person if you're dealing with men.
By the same token, it is also degrading to women to default to saying they are "emotionally maladaptive" - which, by the way, contradicts his earlier statement generalizing women by default as being helpful and empathetic.
I just don't care for the authors vast generalizations and how he flip-flops on those and even contradicts himself. Are women generally emotionally maladaptive or are they empathetic and helpful? We can't ask him because he's claimed both in the same writing and can't make up his mind which model he wants to go with - but these questions are really just a consequence of the bigger problem and cannot be answered properly anyway.
That main problem starts with the fact that I don't hold value in default generalizations. Default generalizations were used here in an attempt to characterize both genders this way and that way and the other. One person isn't the sole spokesperson qualified to speak on behalf of all women and all men nor to apply sweeping generalizations to them as if they are facts for all of them.
I agree, but I thought this was a very solid piece. I don’t wholly agree with the author on every single point, but he makes many very good ones.
Like this one?
"There is no one on earth who is more familiar with how tiresome men are than I am. Nevertheless if you’re committed to knowing them, that’s the position you have to start from: that men are not emotionally maladaptive women and know best how to talk with and to each other."
Why do I have to prepare myself to deal with a tiresome person based only on the fact that the person is a man? I call this kind of thinking atrocious. I will wait to see for myself how the individual interacts. I will restrain from making such generalizations and judgements in advance.
I will wait to see what their behavior and actions are like and then judge from that. That is when I will decide whether I think they are tiresome or not but I won't decide that in advance and just because.
I'm not a fan of most of his points as they do not follow a rational and logical train of thought.
Ironically, you are sort of assuming the converse position that women assume towards men that he is criticizing in this piece -- you seem to have flinched at the first the second anyone suggests that women might be well-intended sometimes and yes, men can be frustrating for women to understand. He’s actually criticizing women for the same reason you would, he’s just being slightly fair for a second before making his point.
Did you read the rest of the sentence you shared? He’s saying that you can’t simply stop at “yeah, men can be tiresome.” You can’t assume men are simply misbehaving women. I think that’s a wonderful point and not saying what you seen to think it’s saying.
Thank you for your remarks. I will just state my default position. I understand his is to make assumptions and generalizations about people based on their gender. There is some use for that but that usefulness is very limited.
EX: Men are physically stronger than women - Generally true enough to be taken as default.
However, one runs into trouble going as far as to generalize intelligence, sense of humor, talent, intentions and or how tiresome or emotionally maladaptive a particular gender is in general. Those and many other things about people transcend their gender and really are irrelevant to whether or not one is dealing with a man or a woman.
It is degrading to men to just default to saying you might as well get used to dealing with a "tiresome" person if you're dealing with men.
By the same token, it is also degrading to women to default to saying they are "emotionally maladaptive" - which, by the way, contradicts his earlier statement generalizing women by default as being helpful and empathetic.
I just don't care for the authors vast generalizations and how he flip-flops on those and even contradicts himself. Are women generally emotionally maladaptive or are they empathetic and helpful? We can't ask him because he's claimed both in the same writing and can't make up his mind which model he wants to go with - but these questions are really just a consequence of the bigger problem and cannot be answered properly anyway.
That main problem starts with the fact that I don't hold value in default generalizations. Default generalizations were used here in an attempt to characterize both genders this way and that way and the other. One person isn't the sole spokesperson qualified to speak on behalf of all women and all men nor to apply sweeping generalizations to them as if they are facts for all of them.