charlie@cca.UUCP (Charlie Kaufman) (02/07/84)
Are men inherently better musicians? Are women inherently better child
nurturers?
Are stereotypes inherently wrong?
Stereotypes are in fact almost always "right", in the sense that if a
stereotype says "all Xs are Y", you come up with a reasonably objective
measure of Y, and you run a study, you will find a statistically
significant relationship between membership in group X and having
characteristic Y.
Now, you can debate until you are blue in the face *why* that
relationship exists. The goal is usually to prove that it is not the Xs
fault that they have characteristic Y (or not the non-Xs fault they lack
it). The purpose of such an argument is to establish that since society
is at fault, society owes the Xs (or non-Xs) some compensation, like
ignoring characteristic Y in situations where it is not ludicrous to do
so. If you can make such an argument, you are said to have "refuted"
the stereotype.
Bullfeathers.
The evil of stereotypes is assuming that correlations are perfect when
in fact they never are. For years, courts routinely awarded custody to
mothers in divorce cases because everyone knows women are better
nurturers. It would be no less evil to change the policy to award
custody to fathers in 50% of the cases because the stereotype is wrong.
Far too much significance is given to questions of whether men are
inherently better musicians/chess players/computer programmers/whatever
than women. What difference does it make? What is important is that
people who would be good at Z get a chance to try and be encouraged to
do so.
Don't argue that stereotypes are false. You'll always lose. Argue that
they are true but not useful, and perhaps in fact harmful.
--Charlie Kaufman
charlie@cca
...decvax!cca!charliepc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (02/08/84)
Saying that "All X are Y" is almost always refutable when
X = {women, men} and Y = {assorted human attributes}. Stereotypes
are the result of falaciously jumping from "Many X are Y" to "All
X are Y." (Or in some cases, "I knew one X who was Y," therefore
"All X are Y.") In the ideal, each X would be taken as an individual,
judged by actions and intentions (if these could be known).
The problem seems to be that people are unwilling/unable to
judge individuals on their own merits. So, we have an attempt by
the courts and the Congress to encourage a move away from obvious
prejudicial practices. To follow up your example, not all mothers
are the best careproviders for their children. The court is now
encouraged to look at the individual parents and base custody awards
on the parent's ability to provide a good environment for the children.
In employment, our government has determined that the prejudicial
activities are so far reaching and that employers are so unable to
be impartial judges of ability, that some statistical employment
guidelines have been mandated in the form of EEO/AA. The logic
behind this (which I'm sure you know) is that "If there were no
prejudicial hiring/promoting practices, women and minorities would
be represented in the work place in proportion to their representation
in the population [or in some cases, in proportion to their representation
in the profession]. Therefore, the only measurable indication that
there are no prejudicial practices is proof that women and minorities
(and by deduction, men as well) are represented in the anticipated
proportions." I find it infuriating when people tell me about the
incompetent women/Blacks/Hispanics/... who have been hired "to meet
quotas." There seems very little difference between this and the
number of incompetent WASP males who used to be (and still are) hired
in an effort to maintain the status quo.
This is one soap box I feel compelled to stand on periodically.
At least, until we can speak without pre-judging individuals.
Patricia Collins
hplabsrbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (07/27/84)
<left-overs from the line-eater>
There has been a lot of discussion about the male macho stereotype.
I think the emphasis on this topic is misplaced. Stereotypes are of
limited value, generally, and this one is no different. Saying that
men are macho assholes is like saying that women's place is in the
kitchen or bedroom. It misses all the traits that characterize an
individual. When you label someone with a stereotype, it stops you
from seeing the rest of that person, and puts limits on acceptable
behavior. If men think of themselves as macho, they don't try to
develop sensitivity. Rather than discussing how much of the population
fits some gross stereotype, let's discuss how to break down stereotypes,
since they are barriers to communication and individuality, and how
we can develop better roles and modes of interaction.
Rich Goldschmidt Nothing in life (that's worth much) is guaranteed
UUCP: {ucbvax|ihnp4|decvax|allegra}!cbosgd!rbg
ARPA: cbosgd!rbg@Berkeley.ARPA