Should Gender Stereotypes be challenged?

[brewer]

OP, did that in the 70's and 80's. To old now to challenge. Easier to ignore or side step. Functional eunuch.

You sure did. That photo album that you had me go through had some doozies...

Fucking photo shop. Thanks for fixing my nose, I guess.

[Brian37]

Just do whatever the fuck you want, regardless of your gender.

With consent, but yea.

[account_inactive]

Just do whatever the fuck you want, regardless of your gender.

With consent, but yea.

Of course.

[Ben Davis]

I agree with your opinion that stereotypes can cause much harm.
But doesn't that mean that we should ignore these stereotypes rather challenge them, so that people can have freedom to be who they want to be.
For example, we all know what a stereotypical male programmer looks like. Wouldn't it benefit a person to ignore this stereotype completely and choose how they want to be rather than making it a point to actively challenge the stereotype?
Why do you think it's better to challenge a stereotype rather than ignoring them?
In my opinion challenging a stereotype doesn't give freedom for a person to be who they are, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter.

Well, here we take a walk in to my values. Every stereotype I've ever encountered has either caused or enabled harm. When I see people being harmed, I'm compelled to do something about it. When I want to do something, I consider the issue as comprehensively as I can in the time available before deciding on the action I'll take.

I also hate inequity.

Considering the stereotype of a 'programmer' you mentioned, the gendercentric assumption of masculinity causes an entry-level barrier for women with end effects across the entire career path (e.g. salary differences, glass ceilings). That's both harmful and unfair. If everyone were to ignore the problem, the situation would never change thus propagating the harm & inequity; silence is tacit acceptance as there's no way to differentiate between people who are being silent because they don't care and people who are being silent because they benefit from/wish to maintain the status quo.

Since I care about people and I don't want to be lumped in to the same category as people who like harm & inequity, I act.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I agree with your opinion that stereotypes can cause much harm.
But doesn't that mean that we should ignore these stereotypes rather challenge them, so that people can have freedom to be who they want to be.
For example, we all know what a stereotypical male programmer looks like. Wouldn't it benefit a person to ignore this stereotype completely and choose how they want to be rather than making it a point to actively challenge the stereotype?
Why do you think it's better to challenge a stereotype rather than ignoring them?
In my opinion challenging a stereotype doesn't give freedom for a person to be who they are, but I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter.

Well, here we take a walk in to my values. Every stereotype I've ever encountered has either caused or enabled harm. When I see people being harmed, I'm compelled to do something about it. When I want to do something, I consider the issue as comprehensively as I can in the time available before deciding on the action I'll take.

I also hate inequity.

Considering the stereotype of a 'programmer' you mentioned, the gendercentric assumption of masculinity causes an entry-level barrier for women with end effects across the entire career path (e.g. salary differences, glass ceilings). That's both harmful and unfair. If everyone were to ignore the problem, the situation would never change thus propagating the harm & inequity; silence is tacit acceptance as there's no way to differentiate between people who are being silent because they don't care and people who are being silent because they benefit from/wish to maintain the status quo.

Since I care about people and I don't want to be lumped in to the same category as people who like harm & inequity, I act.

Actively challenging a stereotype imposes the same restriction on a person in exploring their persona the same way stereotype supposedly imposes restrictions on a person. I'd also like to point out that stereotypes in and of of itself causes absolutely no harm. Stupid people that don't understand that stereotyping is just a broad generalization is what causes harm because instead of realizing that since a lot of people have been this way does not imply that all the people will be this way, idiots go around forgetting the part where stereotypes are only a broad generalization - I'm sure you agree.

If you think silence is a form of tactical acceptance then perhaps instead of advocating for challenging these stereotypes perhaps you should go out and educate people that are harming others because of these stereotyping that these stereotypes are nothing more than a broooooad generalization - nothing more.

I repeat - challenging stereotypes imposes the same kind of restriction a stereotype indirectly imposes, which is restricting a person to explore their persona - think fast but ALWAYS act smart.

[Ben Davis]

Actively challenging a stereotype imposes the same restriction on a person in exploring their persona the same way stereotype supposedly imposes restrictions on a person.

Nonsense. I'm challenging the stereotype, not individuals' personalities.

I'd also like to point out that stereotypes in and of of itself causes absolutely no harm.

Why would you want to point that out when it's not true? Stereotypes are (by definition) crass, public generalisations used to represent broad populations. You can't misrepresent people that way without causing harm.

Stupid people that don't understand that stereotyping is just a broad generalization is what causes harm...

It's the existence of the stereotype which causes the harm. That's as ridiculous as saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The only reason for stereotypes to exist is to portray a crass generalisation of a group. When people use stereotypes for the exact purpose for which they've been derived, the root cause isn't the person, it's the derivation of the stereotype.

...because instead of realizing that since a lot of people have been this way does not imply that all the people will be this way, idiots go around forgetting the part where stereotypes are only a broad generalization - I'm sure you agree.

Not entirely because I don't think it's just 'idiots' who believe stereotypes: uniformed people or the indoctrinated can also believe these things while being considered 'intelligent' by most measures. That's part of the problem; simply saying "Oh, it's just stupid people..." misrepresents the harm & imbalance caused by stereotypes and shows a distinct lack of understanding as to their impacts.

If you think silence is a form of tactical acceptance then perhaps instead of advocating for challenging these stereotypes perhaps you should go out and educate people that are harming others because of these stereotyping that these stereotypes are nothing more than a broooooad generalization - nothing more.

What makes you think that isn't exactly one of the actions I take? What do you think I'm doing right now in this very thread?

I repeat - challenging stereotypes imposes the same kind of restriction a stereotype indirectly imposes, which is restricting a person to explore their persona - think fast but ALWAYS act smart.

No it doesn't. Perhaps you missed it when I wrote this:

When I want to do something, I consider the issue as comprehensively as I can in the time available before deciding on the action I'll take.

Do you think that my activity is unthinking or regardless of context? Maybe you think that my response is to tell people that their personalities are 'wrong' and they're 'bad people'. I don't act against people, I act against the stereotypes. It's like the difference between attacking the religion and attacking the believer.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Actively challenging a stereotype imposes the same restriction on a person in exploring their persona the same way stereotype supposedly imposes restrictions on a person.

Nonsense. I'm challenging the stereotype, not individuals' personalities.

I'd also like to point out that stereotypes in and of of itself causes absolutely no harm.

Why would you want to point that out when it's not true? Stereotypes are (by definition) crass, public generalisations used to represent broad populations. You can't misrepresent people that way without causing harm.

Stupid people that don't understand that stereotyping is just a broad generalization is what causes harm...

It's the existence of the stereotype which causes the harm. That's as ridiculous as saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The only reason for stereotypes to exist is to portray a crass generalisation of a group. When people use stereotypes for the exact purpose for which they've been derived, the root cause isn't the person, it's the derivation of the stereotype.

...because instead of realizing that since a lot of people have been this way does not imply that all the people will be this way, idiots go around forgetting the part where stereotypes are only a broad generalization - I'm sure you agree.

Not entirely because I don't think it's just 'idiots' who believe stereotypes: uniformed people or the indoctrinated can also believe these things while being considered 'intelligent' by most measures. That's part of the problem; simply saying "Oh, it's just stupid people..." misrepresents the harm & imbalance caused by stereotypes and shows a distinct lack of understanding as to their impacts.

If you think silence is a form of tactical acceptance then perhaps instead of advocating for challenging these stereotypes perhaps you should go out and educate people that are harming others because of these stereotyping that these stereotypes are nothing more than a broooooad generalization - nothing more.

What makes you think that isn't exactly one of the actions I take? What do you think I'm doing right now in this very thread?

I repeat - challenging stereotypes imposes the same kind of restriction a stereotype indirectly imposes, which is restricting a person to explore their persona - think fast but ALWAYS act smart.

No it doesn't. Perhaps you missed it when I wrote this:

When I want to do something, I consider the issue as comprehensively as I can in the time available before deciding on the action I'll take.

Do you think that my activity is unthinking or regardless of context? Maybe you think that my response is to tell people that their personalities are 'wrong' and they're 'bad people'. I don't act against people, I act against the stereotypes. It's like the difference between attacking the religion and attacking the believer.

So it seems you're strong for challenging stereotypes.
How exactly would you advice someone to go about this? To challenge these stereotypes, that is.

[MTL]

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/woman-...pted-rape/
http://www.iraqinews.com/features/isis-r...rls-mosul/
http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politic...ties-film/

Still sticking to your philosophy?

I don't understand? How is any of that relevant?

Yeah, I don't get it, either.

The only possible point I could extrapolate from your posting these links is that women are the weaker sex
and in the context of social anarchy, they are ultimately powerless.

So, what, then?

Are we holding up anarchy as the gold standard that we should be grading against???

[GrandizerII]

So it seems you're strong for challenging stereotypes.
How exactly would you advice someone to go about this? To challenge these stereotypes, that is.

Uh, be the kind of person you want to be, regardless of gender expectations and such.

Is it really so fucking hard for some people to think this way?

[MTL]

Think some of this can just be about plain ole chemistry. I'm petite in stature, and have been told I'm feminine, so 'alpha' types tend to be attracted to me. But, my fiance is somewhat of a nerd, too...I haven't really ever been attracted to mere outward hotness. Not really a fan of the terms alpha and beta, because they are so restrictive.

Now there is such a thing as female nature and male nature...men and women do have innate differences beyond just outward appearances, but not all women or men respond in the exact same way to different things that occur in their lives, simply because of their gender. Environment, culture, nature, etc all make us who we 'are,' IMO.

True, we have evolved a certain way for thousands of years.

True, men and women, generally speaking, have differences, physical and in personality.

However,

you have to remember that "thousands of years" or even "tens of thousands of years"
is just a blink of the eye in the big picture of evolution.

In recorded human history, yes, there were traditional male and female roles for a reason.

So what?

In the last few hundred years, humanity made an epic leap forward,
and in the last 50 years, the leap was even more accelerated,
and in the last 20 years....you get the picture.

Our technology and our society is now evolving faster than any of us can keep up with.

Once, we had prehensile tails so that we could hang from trees.

We don't need those anymore.

And we are now at a point where not only will it do us no harm to challenge our gender stereotypes,
(amongst other things),

but if we fail to,

we may not survive as a species,
or at least, may not evolve as quickly as we should,
or at the very least, may not thrive as well as we might have.

Example:  everyone is wringing their hands about how to best deal with ISIS.

The Kurds have highly-trained, entirely female forces that are notoriously savage in their combat,
and although they are a small force, they have it right:

They've found ISIS' Achilles Heel:

To be killed by a woman is considered the ultimate shame and dishonour.

ISIS don't care about being martyred in combat;

but heaven forbid they die at the hand of a woman.

The point is:  the situation has EVOLVED.

Women are the BEST soldiers to fight ISIS.



Just one example.