Jeremy Stangroom

Okay, well this is quite a difficult topic. Basically, you're absolutely right, you can't say something like men tend to behave badly, therefore Tom is bad. You can't even say, men tend to behave badly, therefore Tom is probably bad.

But sociologists (and feminists) tend to think in terms of structures & systems & classes. These are abstractions, to do with the way in which societies are organised, and reflected in the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of people - *but not inevitably* (which is your point).

So, for example, if you look at say Saudi Arabia, the freedom of women is hugely restricted (they can't drive, for example - though that might be changing). The vast majority of Saudi men will think this is okay, because it's all they know. It's what they've been taught.

And these patterns of behavior & belief are reproduced generation after generation. In this sort of context, it makes sense to think of men and women as classes (having certain kinds of things in common, certain interests, patterns of behavior, rights, beliefs, etc).

However, it doesn't mean - and this again is your point - that the Saudi man who thinks women should be able to drive is morally responsible because many other men think differently. He's not contaminated by the guilt of other men (though the complication is he might benefit).

In fact, I'd go as far to argue that it's not clear that Saudi men, in general, are immoral because they uphold an immoral system. They don't know any better. Effectively they've been indoctrinated into the system.

TLDR: Sociologists tend to think in terms of structures of behavior, reproduced generation after generation. They're operating at a higher level of abstraction than that of individual people, and aren't really in the business of making moral claims about people's behavior.