4 ms·
A generalization implicitly does not include all cases. The existence of counter examples does not invalidate the general case. Saying a pattern exists in no w
by turtledove 4y ago
A generalization implicitly does not include all cases. The existence of counter examples does not invalidate the general case.
Saying a pattern exists in no way implies you, specifically, fit that pattern.
- nickff 4y agoYour first post in this thread wasn't a clear generalization, it was a vague statement about what 'women do'. This could be interpreted as saying 'all women do', 'many women do', 'more women than men do', 'some women do', or 'modal women do'.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- UnpossibleJim 4y agoOk. Here's some data to let us know where things stand so we can at least know the lay of the land in this conversation. Talking generalizations without data doesn't do anyone much good... these were more disparate than I thought, though I'm willing to bet they aren't as far apart as you thought. As usual, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle =) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/11/04/raising-kids-and-running-a-household-how-working-parents-share-the-load/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/11/04/raising...
- turtledove 4y agoThis is about what I expected, thanks for the data. Many households share equally, a big chunk have the women doing more of the labor, and a small minority of household have men doing more.