Why NeuroTypical women hate categories

Post Reply New Topic

A person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior.

Something or someone that has deviated from what is considered right, correct, natural, moral, ethical, or its intended function. Examples of perversion would be "perverted justice" or "sexually perverted acts".

A perverted person is also known as a deviant or a sicko. Such a person will have deviated from a healthy sexuality into acts that may include one or more of the following: voyeurism, sadism, flashing, masochism, prostitution, incest, paedophilia, bestiality, rape, or some other indecent act or in my own words some one that reduces a persons worth or character, usually verbally, by sexually demeaning comments and/or inappropriate touching Even when they are aware that this is not welcome. They still continue to do it because they are PERVERTS and they invade your personal space and boundaries.

What do perverts have to do with the topic of the post that you replied to? If you dont want anything to do with perverts than avoid them at all costs. Obviously Not all men are Perverts but that's another story.

You asked.

I think I might be able to help out here.

I agree with the others that generalizations are rarely applicable universally. Since they have already spoken about that, I won't rehash it here.

I believe, though, that there is more to it than that.

People as a whole--Aspie or NT--place a strong value on their individuality. They cherish their uniqueness, and they want to be seen and understood for who they are. (Yes, I realize the irony in the fact that I just made a generalization, but stick with me, here.)

Consequently, people are likely to view generalizations as an affront to their individuality. Nobody wants to be told, "You're just like all the others," even if you're not saying anything BAD about the others, and even if you're saying something TRUE about the others--because they want to be seen for who they are, not for what they are.

This is why people find generalizations offensive.

However, I think that generalizing can be a very useful tool for someone with Asperger's, provided that the generalizations are appropriately fact-checked, both in the validity of the generalization and its applicability to that specific individual. Like a colorblind person who has to memorize that a tomato is red and a cucumber is green, we have to use our techniques and tricks to be able to perceive that which our minds are unable to simply "see."

My advice--and I admit that it might not be very good advice, so don't just take my word for it--would be to continue generalizing, but to keep it to yourself. As long as you're appropriately fact-checking your generalizations, then people don't need to know you're doing it. Considering their predisposition to feel that it's an affront to their cherished individuality, it's probably best that they didn't know.

As far as why the tendency to be offended is more common in NT women than men, (and I've thought this out, but really, I'm just making an educated guess), I believe it's because women tend to be more emotionally oriented than men, so they're more likely to be sensitive to things that others may find hurtful or offensive. Again, not universally true, but more likely than not. If I'm correct in believing that the issue of generalization is really an issue of the emotional impact you may have on the person being generalized, then it only stands to reason that women are more likely than men to have a problem with it.

I don't know but I seem to be very sensative about to it. I thought it was an aspie thing with me lol.

I think for me, I feel more a like a herd than a person which bugs me. It use to get to me whenever guys would tell me "Yeah but you girls have it lucky." whenever I complained about being single among other guys as if I had it good. Also, I've often felt the very opposite with the many generalizations that're made about women especially negative ones. Then again I've never really related or understood women that well even though I am one. I seem to socialize and get along better with guys than I do with women most of the time.

Anyway, I think most people will react to stigma given the kind of context that is used. I try making it a habit of using words like "some", "most", and "seems" whenever I make a general statement about men, women, races and so on. I don't seem to get in as much trouble than I do using the word by itself.

I too tend to get in trouble whenever I make generalizations about people including guys lol.

Generalizations aren't meant to be universal. That's the basic principle of a generalization. Unless someone states "all _blank_blank_" and tries to make a generalization universal, there really is no point in getting offended. People have really got to stop getting upset. I think that Belladonna and Haliphron are having fun in this one. Some people have a good time when they argue. It's just funny when two people can pick at each other, but they know they still like each other.

It seems that people have this idea that because someone might want to put people into categories that they then intend to make sweeping generalisations based on that category. I put people into groups but those groups are exactly what they say on the tin and nothing more. If for example a person is in the category "people who like Top Gear" all I know is that that person likes Top Gear. It doesn't say what gender they are, whether they're LGBT, whether they're autistic, etc.

The people I'm living with next year for instance have already been grouped in certain ways. I know that 3/4 in the house are male, 3/4 are LGBT, 2/4 are autistic, at least 2/4 like Top Gear (further investigation is needed), 2/4 study mathematics, etc. These can be useful groups. If there is a development about Top Gear (say information about the next series) I know who might be interested. If there's a development in autistic rights, I know who might be interested.

But I wouldn't use such categories to make generalisations on people beyond the fact that they are in said category. For instance say that 75% of people in the category "men" are also in the category "people who like Top Gear" (WARNING: completely made up statistic). Though that (made up) statistic implies that there's a good chance that a given man likes Top Gear, I can't assume that a randomly selected man likes Top Gear.

Oh my. Did YOU now just get offended by someone's personal generalization?? Your last conversation there should be a perfect example to you why so many PEOPLE find that kind of application of generalizations so damned frustrating. And illogical.

Saying "all men are perverts" is a totally ILLOGICAL generalization which happens to be factually FALSE. I admit that some generalization are not true but there then again there are some that Are. TRUTH is what Im interested in, even if it means making some supersentitive people feel a little self-conscious. So NO, I did NOT get "offended" by someone generalization!
I just wanted to point out that its Both factually incorrect AND logically unsound. So you think that I should accept ANY and EVERY generalization about people as true by default???

Last edited by Haliphron on 09 Feb 2009, 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Like I said before, generalizations themselves aren't the problem. It's when people try to use them (including stastistics) to make assumptions and predictions on an individual scale. That's thinking in reverse, you just can't find truth by assuming everything. That's the opposite of being objective because in order to truly be objective you have to reject many preconceived notions about things (bias', assumptions, ect.) and be willing to look at something from a new angle. In forming juries, do you think either side would want to keep someone around that thinks they already know enough about the defendent and plaintiff even before reviewing any facts? That person either knows them personally, or they are not willing to be objective.

PAWned!! !

^

Not so fast! MissConstrue...

BellaDonna made a generalization saying all men are perverts and then she produced the definition
of a pervert as someone with "Deviant"(i.e. Abnormal) sexual interests and/or behaviours. So in effect she was implying that All Men are abnormal. Since we know that there definitely ARE biological differences between men and womn as groups, that saying that women's sexuality is the "norm" and since men differ from women that way they are sexually deviant/perverts.... "Normal" and "Deviant" are RELATIVE terms that require a referrence point. But since Men and Women have inate differences in sexuality, what is normal for men is NOT equivalent to what is normal for women! Thats why called out BellaDonna on what she said because it is logically misleading.If I said All people are abnormal that isnt a sweeping generalization , its a contradiction!The quantifer( all/some/many/most/few/none) that preceeds a statement about people Makes A BIG FREAKIN' DIFFERENCE!