This paper discusses two types of examples in which the acceptability of simple clauses that contain generically used dedicated impersonal pronouns, like English one and German man, are affected. The first concerns a contrast between generic sentences with dedicated impersonal pronouns vs. full DPs in subject position (e.g., '#One eats carrots' vs. 'Humans eat carrots'). The second concerns the acceptability of bare plurals vs. indefinite singular DPs as direct objects in connection with generically used impersonal pronouns (e.g., 'In Norway, one eats {carrots / # a carrot}' vs. 'One eats {carrots / a carrot} for breakfast'). Both contrasts are argued not to be (purely) due to restrictions connected to the grammar of dedicated impersonal pronouns. The first contrast is attributed to independent restrictions on the presence of the generic operator Gen, the core ingredient in the interpretation of generically used dedicated impersonal pronouns: Gen has to be licensed by overt material in the clause that provides content for the restrictor of Gen. The second contrast mirrors a contrast found with generic/habitual sentences with proper names in subject position, which is analyzed in the literature on habituality as a result of two types of habitual sentences.