A rant on gender stereotypes

[bennyboy]

And yes, the idea of a stereotype is to gather a number of characteristics that are supposed to describe a specific group without exceptions.

I disagree that stereotyping is what you say it is.

Stereotypes are an important part of the way we process information. It's the bullheaded refusal to let GO of stereotypes when they're revealed false, or to discard stereotypes when you come across a specific exception, that's wrong.

Let me give an example. If I had to pick a team for an Ice Hockey Death Match, and I was provided with only a list of male and female names, I'd pick the butchest-sounding male names, or the names that sound the most white Canadian. I'd be stereotyping not only by gender but by name as well. I don't think anyone on this thread would pick a "Sally" over a "Brad" in this situation, or an "Inderjeet Balliwall" over a "Jake Davidson." However, out there somewhere are the Canadian Women's hockey team, who will kick the living shit out of almost any national men's team (literally, if you get them angry enough). And if I discover that one of my female names comes from that team-- bye bye stereotype. There are also some Indian Canadian men, in my experience, who are superior athletes, and some guys with names like "Jake Davidson" who are small and delicate, or who are too obese too engage in sports.

Now let me put on my pig hat and talk about a more realistic situation-- deciding whether in wartime women should be drafted as soldiers. I'd say not, because I wouldn't expect a woman just dragged off the street to adapt well to the life of a frontline grunt, and I wouldn't expect men, in general, to be able to handle working along side them. However, when asked if women should be ALLOWED to register, I'd say fuck yeah-- because any woman who meets the strength and endurance requirements of a volunteer army, and who also brings the positive attributes more associated with females (like the ability to work under pressure or in severe pain), is going to be a force to be reckoned with. You'd be a total moran to refuse women from joining a fighting force just because they're women.

So I don't think the problem is with stereotyping-- it's with people who do it badly, and for the wrong reasons. Gits are gits, no matter what ideas are going through their gitty little heads.

[Dystopia]

I think you and I have different ideas of what makes a stereotype. I don't think people necessarily think that a stereotype applies to every single person of so and so group. If I say that men and stronger then women (duh) I would think it's implied that I don't believe every single man is stronger than every single woman. Again, Duh.

Stereotypes are when you apply the same principle or assumption to the whole group, otherwise it's not really a stereotype, it's just a more likely to be true characteristics - There's no consensus to the definition of stereotype, but most agree that it's when we assume previously that people in that group have that trait.

Well I'm going to use one brought up in the opening post, which is that women aren't good at working on cars or mechanics. I also am not good at working on cars. In high school even less. On a test called the ASVAB I scored in the bottom 30% when compared to other men in Automotive knowledge. However it's was in something like the top 20% if I was compared to women. So if someone says women don't know anything about cars, obviously they don't mean all of them and equally obviously it is a true statement.

Actually they probably mean all of them - You may think people joke, but many people take their jokes seriously and when they throw out a stereotype they subconsciously believe it's true. And in what way does your little experience prove that women know nothing about mechanics?

Even if they don't, you said a significant part of stereotypes are true and a single example doesn't prove your point. Do you have any actual evidence that women aren't good with cars? And even if they aren't, do you ever wonder if that's because they lack skills or because society tells them that it's a man's stuff?- Meaning that if it didn't happen they could be better mechanics.

I wish you a great 2015, and take into account that the reason I'm debating this with you is not because I'm mad, but rather because I disagree with some of your claims (like the one saying that most stereotypes are true).

---

I disagree that stereotyping is what you say it is.

Really? Then go check out what psychologists and sociologists have to say. I only had highschool psychology I'll admit, but most authors I studied said that generally stereotyping means we automatically assume something about the whole group unless proven false by a specific member of that group - Until then, we just assume.

[paulpablo]

Now let me put on my pig hat and talk about a more realistic situation-- deciding whether in wartime women should be drafted as soldiers. I'd say not, because I wouldn't expect a woman just dragged off the street to adapt well to the life of a frontline grunt

It's pretty off topic to the thread but in the 2nd world war when soviet women were forced to battle at stalingrad there are accounts of female snipers groups who were supposedly merciless and very good at what they did.

I agree with most of what is being said in this thread about gender stereotypes, I find it annoying that my gender is supposed to have this strong emotional tie with a football team, and support that team with a passion, even though the players probably aren't from the city the team represents, the supports aren't either or the manager, and the owner is probably an arab or russian oil tycoon, and the players, and the quality of players change depending on the changing of the owners budget. So you're basically cheering for the football teams shirt.
And I'm supposed to shout "We won we won" when the team wearing the shirts I support win, except I didn't win, I just watched.

Another is drinking beer, less alcohol than vodka, whiskey, gin, absinth therefore less fun. Also responsible for 20 year olds who already have beer bellies. The taste is something I've grown to like as I've got older, I'm now 30. But when I was 14 and 15 and drinking there was nothing I hated more then some boring dickhead who would drink guiness or some old man drink at a party or concert in an effort to be more manly. Also probably the worst drink to have right before a mosh pit aswell from personal experience.

But threads like this annoy me when people get carried away by saying things along the lines of "Yeh a woman could box like Mike Tyson in his prime but just because they have a vagina people won't let them, it's just because culture holds them back otherwise a woman could beat up Brock Lesnar in MMA".

It's like saying white people could run faster than black people except culture has been discouraging them from doing well in the 100 meter dash.

I do agree that stereotypes shouldn't prevent people doing what they want to do.
I also think though that people should be proud of and develop what they are good at whether it fits the stereotype of who they are or not.

[abaris]

Now let me put on my pig hat and talk about a more realistic situation-- deciding whether in wartime women should be drafted as soldiers. I'd say not, because I wouldn't expect a woman just dragged off the street to adapt well to the life of a frontline grunt

That's more or less implying, men are suited for that kind of thing. Widespread PTSD says differently.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that "being suited" confers immunity. So the presence or prevalence of PTSD wouldn't have much to say on the matter. Perhaps no amount of being suited - no intentional/unintentional breeding program for size, aggression and violence- no amount of post natal cultural reinforcement can actually prepare someone for seeing "what may be seen" or experiencing "what may be experienced". I suppose, IMO, that's the dividing line between potential and talent - in this particular business. As with any other profession, there are those who seem to have innate potential and yet fail to do well, while there are also those who seem to have no potential - who instead focus on their performance and see results. If I had to distill the situation, perhaps we're beyond the point were potential, or being suited, is sufficient oomph to get one passed the finish line. Pressing buttons, firing at shapes in the distance....neither of these things seem to require any gender specific or gender stereotypical skillsets or attributes. I bet there are women with potential to be soldiers, who aren't -and women with no potential but through training and discipline..are. Keep in mind, the vast majority of soldiers are not warfighters to begin with...so a broad inclusion will likely speak to things no one directly brought up. Less than a quarter of "soldiers" are trigger pullers.....and I;m pretty sure that being a cook doesn't require a penis, nor is a penis a job enhancing organ in that regard. Strangely...cooks get PTSD...lol. Carrots say the meanest things.

[abaris]

Rhythm, have you by any chance read the book "On killing" by Dave Grossman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

Grossman being an army psychologist gives a pretty comprehensive account on different types of soldiers and how they deal with what is thrown at them.

[bennyboy]

Now let me put on my pig hat and talk about a more realistic situation-- deciding whether in wartime women should be drafted as soldiers. I'd say not, because I wouldn't expect a woman just dragged off the street to adapt well to the life of a frontline grunt

That's more or less implying, men are suited for that kind of thing. Widespread PTSD says differently.

You conveniently cut out the part of the sentence where I just said that women are superior under pressure.

[The Grand Nudger]

@abaris. Yup, had to.

@Benny. Not all "pressure" is interchangeable. I know people who are great under actual fire...but have crumbled "under fire" in civilian life, and vv.

[bennyboy]

I don't think that "being suited" confers immunity. So the presence or prevalence of PTSD wouldn't have much to say on the matter. Perhaps no amount of being suited - no intentional/unintentional breeding program for size, aggression and violence- no amount of post natal cultural reinforcement can actually prepare someone for seeing "what may be seen" or experiencing "what may be experienced". I suppose, IMO, that's the dividing line between potential and talent - in this particular business. As with any other profession, there are those who seem to have innate potential and yet fail to do well, while there are also those who seem to have no potential - who instead focus on their performance and see results. If I had to distill the situation, perhaps we're beyond the point were potential, or being suited, is sufficient oomph to get one passed the finish line. Pressing buttons, firing at shapes in the distance....neither of these things seem to require any gender specific or gender stereotypical skillsets or attributes. I bet there are women with potential to be soldiers, who aren't -and women with no potential but through training and discipline..are. Keep in mind, the vast majority of soldiers are not warfighters to begin with...so a broad inclusion will likely speak to things no one directly brought up. Less than a quarter of "soldiers" are trigger pullers.....and I;m pretty sure that being a cook doesn't require a penis, nor is a penis a job enhancing organ in that regard. Strangely...cooks get PTSD...lol. Carrots say the meanest things.

Yeah, but none of those are "grunts."

[abaris]

You conveniently cut out the part of the sentence where I just said that women are superior under pressure.

Sorry, my bad. Didn't mean to twist your words, it's just the inexcusable fact that I only skimmed the rest of your post.