RE: Are Gender Stereotypes Accurate?
Hi @alexander.alexis:
I have to begin this long response with a prelude.
My children and I often disagree, though we share the same ethics and values (mostly). Likewise here. Your blogs are wonderful...well researched and entertaining, but sometimes I disagree. My response to this blog--mostly a disagreement--is offered below, with affection:
Stereotypes. They certainly simplify interaction, don't they? It's easy. We see people. They seem to fit into some fixed impression we have about a group. And so, right away we feel we know something important about them, something that allows us to deal with them efficiently. Just like the chicken sorter. When working with large numbers, it's easier to process them if you use generalized traits.
Of course, you may lose a chicken here and there. Or an individual. Stereotypes work for the mean, but not the specific. And I, as a person, am very specific. As are most people.
The chickens are not in a position to protest, and the chicken sorter, overall, is satisfied with the system, because it's efficient. But efficiency can be a dull instrument. And brutal. It doesn't allow for the exquisite charm of a unique personality, the kind of charm that has allowed Homo sapiens to progress.
It is not the mean, the average, those who fit into stereotypes that stand out, that make discoveries, that create. It is those precisely who don't fit into stereotypes that have carried human beings from the Stone Age to the present--with all its complexity challenges.
As for gender stereotypes--I'm not sure they're the bluntest tool, because I think of race and ethnicity and how related stereotypes drive behavior. But they are pretty stupid. They suffocate individual aspiration. They mold young personalities, so that innate inclinations are stunted and manufactured ambitions encouraged.
Of course, culture and biology help to shape gender identity in the individual. These factors influence, similarly, intelligence, physical prowess and susceptibility to disease. But it is the worst kind of educator who teaches students based on preconceived notions. And the worst sort of doctor who does not treat each patient as a unique case.
And so it is with gender. There are some things predictable about me, as a woman. But most of who I am, the most important parts of me, do not correspond to stereotypes.
I hope, and believe that is true for you, also.
Hope you don't mind the long and contentious response. I'm looking forward to Part II :)
Your comments are always welcome and I know you well enough by now to know they're always well-intentioned!
I can't disagree with what you're saying. I'd say what you're saying is true, and what the research says is also true. The problem arises when those who believe in what you're saying start thinking that the people who believe in what I'm saying should be silenced for the sake of the greater good, that sex differences research should not be conducted because it will lead to harm — because if there's one thing the history of science teaches us, is that we're great at predicting the practical outcomes of our research avenues!
Think of it this way: I had no idea gender stereotypes were as accurate as they are. Like most (I assume) people, I kinda defined stereotypes as erroneous. After having done the research, I can't for the life of me explain to you what on earth had led me to believe that people who have innumerable interactions with men and women every single day would have erroneous stereotypes about them. Do we have erroneous stereotypes about the colors of trees? the general shape of a chair? No. So what made me think that our stereotypes about the genders were wildly misleading? Cultural brainwashing is the only answer I can think of, and I don't like that being done to me!
Charm may have allowed Homo sapiens to progress, but science even more so.
In a one-on-one interaction I obviously adapt to the person in front of me. That happens automatically, I don't even need to think about it. I don't know if the narrative that stereotypes make us blind to differences is true. On the contrary, they might make it easier to spot a difference. When I see Dali's Mae West Lips Sofa, I don't immediately reject it because it doesn't look like any other sofa I'd ever seen. I marvel at it. The main reason women who stand out in positive ways are wonderful and appreciated is because most women don't stand out in those ways.
In the next post I answer some of your objections, and I actually use a comment of yours to illustrate cos no one put the point better than you. I might link to your comment here as well!
Hi,
Thanks for that thoughtful response, but as you might have anticipated, I'm not that easily dispatched :)
First I'll start with chairs and trees. While I do believe trees respond to their environment (chairs definitely do not), they are not sentient beings. They do not have the subtlety of intellect that endows humans with individuality. It is this individuality that debunks stereotypes.
Stereotypes are like a plow on a construction site. They're instruments that lump together disparate elements which from a distance appear to be the same, but are really comprised of rocks, dirt, sand, microscopic organisms and even plants. The plow operator is satisfied because the job is done, but is ignorant of the landscape that has been cleared.
As for the Bill Maher clip: The idea of "me too", at first was interesting. It's hard to speak up and accuse, with all the shame and doubt that accompanies that act (believe me). But then the whole thing became hysterical. Where are the rights of the accused? Who is safe in a universe where accusation equals guilt?
I think the 'Me Too' movement got so extreme that it lost its validity. Women (and children) will still be abused in private and their charges will not be believed, in most cases, because that's the way it's always been. And, of course, power prevails.
I won't bring up personal experience, which lends passion to my argument. But be assured that stereotype has rarely worked in my favor, and almost always has been unfair and infuriating.
So, @alexander.alexis, we disagree about stereotypes. They are, in my opinion, not useful in any meaningful way, and they can be quite harmful.
I can't wait to read Part II. :) I'm sure it will be equally interesting and (for me) provocative.
Have a peaceful Sunday.
Ah and I wanted to ask you about that Bill Maher clip I linked to in the conclusion section. What are your thoughts on that? You are uniquely positioned to answer because you're older than my generation, but at the same time you're very modern (you are blogging on a blockchain, after all!) And it's also funny to watch!
I am older...you're right. I think you're younger than my children :) But, happily, I'm not stereotyped by my age (ha ha). Neither my imagination nor my desire to learn has waned with the passing years.
Used to watch Bill Maher all the time. Recently I think he's become a bit mainstream for me, if you can believe that. Almost predictable.
But that was an interesting clip...especially the part about the 'snowflake generation'. I've seen several generations come and go, so to me it's just transient style. One advantage of age :)