Protect one’s ego at all costs. Anything that makes you feel bad, at all, is to be rejected.
Join in-groups that do not value or respect women.
For most people, belief is more social than we’d like to admit. So if your in-groups are a bunch of jerks who think women “talk too much” or whatever, you’ll probably adopt that. It’ll be continually reinforced from your socializing. Then with point #1, any time contrary evidence that does manage to break through you’ll reject it rather than doing any hard work or introspection.
But just spitballing, let’s imagine the victim (often but not always a woman) says something generalized like “Men are assholes online.” The man hears this, and since they are a man, and since men were just called assholes, they feel like they were called an asshole. That hurts the sense of self, the ego, to accept.
I think it’s the group identity thing, really? Like, the group they’re a part of was insulted, so they feel personally insulted. Accepting that the group isn’t great is hard for the brain. They don’t want to be part of a group that’s bad (men online) because that hurts their sense of self, the ego.
I’m a guy, but I don’t, like, care. Not in a gender-queer or trans way, but it’s just not a big deal to me. Maybe that’s why if someone’s like “Men are trash” I can just shrug. But if someone was like “People in New York City are pretentious, rude, assholes” I’d probably have an emotional response. But patriarchy is a much bigger and more wide spread issue, so it’s not really the same.
That makes sense. Perhaps sweeping generalisations should be avoided out of concern such a response could be triggered. FWIW, there are loads of sweeping generalisations about women too. Even the ones that look innocuous bother me.
Maybe! I meant to write in my previous one but forgot: often when the person is making the sweeping generalization in this kind of context, they’re upset. They’re annoyed. They’re not going to be their most kind, patient, self. You probably wouldn’t be if some strangers just told you they were going to [threats and insults].
So while it’s in a sense true that we should avoid broad generalizations, I think it’s fair to cut someone slack in this kind of context. They are probably not looking to be nitpicked.
Think about times you’re annoyed. Like, let’s say FedEx just delivered you a smashed package for the third time in a row. You go “FedEx sucks they always ruin my packages”. You probably don’t need or want someone to go “actually, them deliver more than 99% of packages with no problems. Maybe you should [unsolicited advice]”. It doesn’t matter if that’s true. That’s not what you’re looking for in that moment.
All of that aside, yeah, we should be mindful of speaking in absolutes.
My hypothesis is it’s two major parts:
For most people, belief is more social than we’d like to admit. So if your in-groups are a bunch of jerks who think women “talk too much” or whatever, you’ll probably adopt that. It’ll be continually reinforced from your socializing. Then with point #1, any time contrary evidence that does manage to break through you’ll reject it rather than doing any hard work or introspection.
Can you explain point 1 more? How do negative experiences online for women damage men’s egos?
I am by no means an expert on this.
But just spitballing, let’s imagine the victim (often but not always a woman) says something generalized like “Men are assholes online.” The man hears this, and since they are a man, and since men were just called assholes, they feel like they were called an asshole. That hurts the sense of self, the ego, to accept.
I think it’s the group identity thing, really? Like, the group they’re a part of was insulted, so they feel personally insulted. Accepting that the group isn’t great is hard for the brain. They don’t want to be part of a group that’s bad (men online) because that hurts their sense of self, the ego.
I’m a guy, but I don’t, like, care. Not in a gender-queer or trans way, but it’s just not a big deal to me. Maybe that’s why if someone’s like “Men are trash” I can just shrug. But if someone was like “People in New York City are pretentious, rude, assholes” I’d probably have an emotional response. But patriarchy is a much bigger and more wide spread issue, so it’s not really the same.
That makes sense. Perhaps sweeping generalisations should be avoided out of concern such a response could be triggered. FWIW, there are loads of sweeping generalisations about women too. Even the ones that look innocuous bother me.
Maybe! I meant to write in my previous one but forgot: often when the person is making the sweeping generalization in this kind of context, they’re upset. They’re annoyed. They’re not going to be their most kind, patient, self. You probably wouldn’t be if some strangers just told you they were going to [threats and insults].
So while it’s in a sense true that we should avoid broad generalizations, I think it’s fair to cut someone slack in this kind of context. They are probably not looking to be nitpicked.
Think about times you’re annoyed. Like, let’s say FedEx just delivered you a smashed package for the third time in a row. You go “FedEx sucks they always ruin my packages”. You probably don’t need or want someone to go “actually, them deliver more than 99% of packages with no problems. Maybe you should [unsolicited advice]”. It doesn’t matter if that’s true. That’s not what you’re looking for in that moment.
All of that aside, yeah, we should be mindful of speaking in absolutes.