Responsibility to not perpetuate stereotypes.

[Happy Poster]

I've had some thoughtful private correspondence with a lovely lady doper, and she made me think a bit.

In effect she thought (amongst other things ) that by careless statements such as "Most women think XYZ" or "Most women do XYZ", even if such statements have a basis in fact, I should perhaps self censor because they may lead to something akin to a self fulfilling prophecy - maybe a self-perpetuating prophecy, to mangle English... in that women and men reading them may start to act in accordance with them. And thus these differences would last on for generations for no particular reason.

Thinking further about this, this principle can be extended not just to gender differences but to racial differences. Perhaps, for example, just because (to take an example from the UK) Irish Travellers commit a metric shitload of crime here I maybe shouldn't mention it because it could perpetuate these stereotypes.

My personal take on this is that I should never deny the truth - to a direct question I should always answer it - but perhaps I need to look at when these things should be brought up. But is such self censorship necessarily a good idea? Or maybe it's such a good idea I should be self censoring more?

This OP has been couched in the first person, but it's not supposed to be about me, I'm just thinking out loud. What do you think about the general principle, dopers?

[Illuminatiprimus]

The problem with this is that stereotypes are useful to us - they help turn huge numbers of a type of people into something we can understand and conceptualise, even when they're wrong. You can't accurately imagine millions of people comprising one ethnic group, it's pretty hard to imagine a group of people larger than a few hundred at most (that's the limit of people we can relate to as individuals, it's hard wired in our brain). So it's natural that we accumulate stereotypes about groups as a way of differentiating them mentally, there's nothing inherently bad about that. It's also likely that you may have prejudices (and I mean that in the absolute sense, that you make pre judgements about people) based on those stereotypes. This is less good as it can affect the way you judge people individually, but prejudices can be positive and negative (all catholic priests are morally beyond reproach so you'd never suspect them of anything, to think of one that has had pretty bad consequences for some) so this depends on the context.

The real problem is when you are unable or unwilling to treat an individual on their own merits and recognise a stereotype for what it is - a broad categorisation of a lot of people and one that is not necessarily founded in fact. So for example, if one of the stereotypes that you hold mentally is that black people on the whole are more violent and that stereotype has formed because of factors beyond your control (bigoted parents, experiences which have led you to feel this way which you know aren't necessarily representative) and you keep this in your head, then there's not really a problem. If you meet/deal with a black person and you allow your stereotype to form a judgement of that person before you even know them, this is pretty unhelpful for you and for them. If you actively hold your stereotype in front of anything that person is doing that shows you your stereotype is wrong, you have a big problem: you are a racist and a bigot. The first two are to a degree beyond your control, the last one definitely isn't as you're making a conscious choice to do it.

Do we therefore have a responsibility to not perpetuate or actively combat stereotypes? I think that in the privacy of your own head there's nothing wrong with them, as I said you can't really be responsible for how you have come to view someone unconsciously, and you definitely can't help having to use mental shorthand to picture a massive and quite probably diverse bunch of people. What you can help doing, of course, is take steps to give yourself experiences which mitigate the stereotype if it's negative, and ultimately to not actively place the stereotype ahead of individual interactions or choosing you treat someone.

Part of that is not saying things that aren't true, like "most black people are violent" which I don't think there is any data to back up (and certainly not reinforced by my own experiences), but simply pointing out that on average Irish travellers commit more crimes per capita isn't a wrong as long as it's factually correct. Don't confuse the two.

My two cents.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Happy Poster

In effect she thought (amongst other things ) that by careless statements such as "Most women think XYZ" or "Most women do XYZ", even if such statements have a basis in fact, I should perhaps self censor because they may lead to something akin to a self fulfilling prophecy - maybe a self-perpetuating prophecy, to mangle English... in that women and men reading them may start to act in accordance with them. And thus these differences would last on for generations for no particular reason.

One problem with a philosophy like that is that it become impossible to speak meaningfully about groups of people. Another problem is that it mandates lying or self delusion about often obvious facts; which is foolish and dangerous.

Stereotyping largely exists because stereotypes are often true, and because we need to use them to function in such a large and complex world. When a bunch of guys burst into a bank waving guns assuming they are bankrobbers is a stereotype; but it's a sensible one and probably correct. So is the stereotype that women don't like it when a strange man walks up and gropes them.

Stereotyping is bad when the stereotype is outright wrong or when people insist on treating it as true in cases when it isn't; but that doesn't make stereotypes bad. Which is a paradoxical position anyway since "stereotypes are bad" is itself a stereotype.

[Happy Poster]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Stereotyping largely exists because stereotypes are often true

Of course - but when the truth of the sterotype is largely, or may largely be, due to the stereotyping itself... perhaps we ought to be quiet about it for a little bit so it sorts itself out*.

It's not at all clear but it's something interesting.

*Supplementary debate: If that obligation exists, does it change depending on whether the stereotype is good, bad, or neutral? Should we shut up about asians studying and working hard, for example?

[Bryan Ekers]

Happy people are always crying on the inside. It's true. I run into them all the time.

[Happy Poster]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Happy people are always crying on the inside. It's true. I run into them all the time.

Reminds me of an eccentric Russian chap I knew, he would always ask if my girlfriend cried when I came or when she did.

To this day... well... best not to dwell on that

[Napier]

I think you tend to train your brain to think in certain ways, and so the default behavior tends to give extra weight to the stereotypes than they warrant. At the same time, stereotypes can arise for unfortunate reasons that they then help perpetuate. Suppose a downtrodden demographic group in a society is denied access to education and other advantages. You might expect on this basis alone that they'd be less able to have highly skilled careers. If you then feed a stereotype about this demographic being unskilled, it might become the reason society doesn't "waste" education on an "inherently inferior" demographic, even after reforms make some progress in increasing educational access. So, while it is in the best interests of absolutely everybody in the system to increase access for this demographic (for example by placing schools in areas that are traditionally devoid of them), you'd be hindering that process.

[toofs]

Or look at the question from this perspective: should you perpetuate stereotypes YOUR people have?

[Broomstick]

Well, Happy, you asked some of us in another thread (specifically women in male-dominated areas) to drop by this thread, but I'm not sure where you want to go with it. For background, I've played in a bagpipe band (wearing "drag", that is, the full Highland male regalia - my men friends are right, neckties suck, especially if you're playing a wind instrument), I've been a pilot, and I currently work in construction. Sure, I've encountered all sorts of stereotypes in all of the above. Got any specific questions?

[Happy Poster]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Well, Happy, you asked some of us in another thread (specifically women in male-dominated areas) to drop by this thread, but I'm not sure where you want to go with it. For background, I've played in a bagpipe band (wearing "drag", that is, the full Highland male regalia - my men friends are right, neckties suck, especially if you're playing a wind instrument), I've been a pilot, and I currently work in construction. Sure, I've encountered all sorts of stereotypes in all of the above. Got any specific questions?

Nothing to you specifically, but I guess I can adapt the thread to yourself... would you have minded if I said most women aren't interested in mechanical things?

More imporantly - well before you became a pilot - do you think that people saying women weren't interested in mehanical things (which I assume people did say) was a problem to you?

Do you think there is still some kind of gender glass ceiling, and more importantly,something that is discouraging young women from getting involved with flying?

[Happy Poster]

As for bagpipes... I used to play the Northumbrian Pipes. But that is definitely another story

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Happy Poster

Of course - but when the truth of the sterotype is largely, or may largely be, due to the stereotyping itself... perhaps we ought to be quiet about it for a little bit so it sorts itself out*.

No. There will be stereotypes no matter what you do; they are necessary psychologically and practically. If you shut up about it, at best it does nothing, and at worst it lets the ill intentioned push their own. It's like protesting government misbehavior by not voting, and being surprised when people you don't like getting elected.

Or to put it another way; if it's stereotypes about, say, women you object to, what do you expect to get people to do? Have all of humanity just never mention the opinions, behaviors or desires of women for a century or so until everyone holding a preexisting stereotype is dead? As soon as someone asks a question like "what do women want", everyone should just look off into space like nothing was said? A little impractical to get people to do.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Happy Poster

Nothing to you specifically, but I guess I can adapt the thread to yourself... would you have minded if I said most women aren't interested in mechanical things?

Well, no, because that is, in my experience, true. Most woman aren't' interested in mechanical things. However, it might be a good thing to add "but those women who are should be taken just as seriously as men interested in mechanical things" rather than, as was done to me in my youth, discouraged from pursuing such things as "unladylike".

More imporantly - well before you became a pilot - do you think that people saying women weren't interested in mehanical things (which I assume people did say) was a problem to you?

See, there's a subtle difference there. You started out saying "most women aren't interested in mechanical things", which implies something about the typical woman, but leaves space for the atypical women who are, in fact, interested in such things. The statement allows both sorts of women to be women.

The second statement - "women aren't interested in such things" implies that hte rule applies to ALL women, with a possible implication that a woman who IS interested in mechanical things somehow isn't a true woman.

I have no problem with a someone saying "That's an unusual interest for a woman" when, in fact, it IS an unusual interest for a woman statistically speaking. Even among pilots I was an outlier - in the US the ratio of men to women who are pilots is somewhere between 12:1 and 20:1, depending on specific area of aviation, but I started in ultralights when the male:female ratio was closer to 200:1. Yes, I was an anomaly even among female pilots. I didn't and still don't have a problem with saying that, or having others say it. What does irk me is someone saying my interest in aviation is un-lady-like or unfeminine because that implies that somehow I am not a "real" woman. It is possible to have an unusual interest and still be fully female, just as it is possible for a man to be, say, a nurse and still be a heterosexual, fully manly male.

Do you think there is still some kind of gender glass ceiling, and more importantly,something that is discouraging young women from getting involved with flying?

I think with flying the glass gender ceiling is fading fast. It's not entirely gone, but women have unequivocally shown we CAN do it, women hold some impressive aviation records (for example - the pilot with the greatest total hours, and the greatest total commercial hours, is Evelyn Johnson of Morristown, Tennessee. At 60,000+ hours she has double what the average retiring airline pilot does, and all the more impressive because she didn't start flying until age 35 or so if I recall). Women not only fly everything that men do, to the exact same standards, but we also have a lower accident rate. It's kind of hard to argue we're incompetent at this point.

However, women aren't going into aviation at the same rate men are. This is due to several factors. There is still social pressure in some areas against such a thing. This can range from people thinking the only job a woman should aspire to his motherhood and housewife, to thinking it's a "man's job". There is also, however, a biological factor. Women can undergo significant physical changes due to pregnancy and childbirth, and those can make holding onto a pilot's physical clearance more difficult for her than for her male collegues. Most women pilots I know put off childbearing to later than average, and it's nothing unusual for them to be childless (I happen to be without offspring myself. Come to think of it, Evelyn Johnson never had children either. Or Amelia Earhart. Or a lot of other female pilots of note). Pilots need to be able to visualize in three dimensions - a talent more common among men than women, though obviously quite a few women do have that ability. And so on.

So, there are some biological and cultural factors at work that likely mean there will always be more men than women who are pilots.

Anyhow - yes, it WAS a problem in my youth that people would discourage my interest in mechanical or masculine pursuits. I was the first girl in my school district to take woodshop, for example, and apparently that was so controversial in the 1970's that it went to the board of the school district as to whether or not I'd be permitted to take that class. Ditto for drafting - and the drafting teacher threatened to quit rather than have a girl in his class. Yes, that WAS discouraging. Looking back, I probably would have been happier in many ways learning a traditional "trade" like carpentry or plumbing or the like. Instead, I was actively discouraged and sent to charm school to make me more "lady-like". TWICE! I was sent to freakin' charm school TWICE! (Obviously, it didn't take very well...)

It's not as much as issue these days. Yes, prejudice still exists, but it's not as intense as when I was a child. We've become accustomed, at least somewhat, to women in traditionally "men's jobs" and pursuing traditionally male interests. It's not as shocking as it used to be.

[Ritter]

Gotta say, Broomstick, you are seriously close to inspiring worship. Have you thought about writing a book? I would love to read it.

[Napier]

Yes, Broomstick, I want a copy too.

[BigT]

How long ago was this, Broomstick? I'm 25, live in backwards northern Arkansas, and this even sounds strange to me.

[Beware of Doug]

Broomstick, I would be interested to have your opinions about a post I've made to another thread - a discussion about a woman who is reluctant to let other women know she is a veteran combat pilot. The post is about gender typing of aviation as an activity - something people don't always want to discuss about any field of endeavor, namely, the assumptions and subtleties that make it what it is. In your experience, am I on the beam here?

[Chronos]

There is also, however, a biological factor. Women can undergo significant physical changes due to pregnancy and childbirth, and those can make holding onto a pilot's physical clearance more difficult for her than for her male collegues.

On the other hand, though, women also tend to be smaller and lighter than men, which would be advantages in at least some kinds of piloting. And I think I've heard somewhere that women also tend to have higher G tolerance than men, which (if so) would be a benefit for fighter pilots.

Myself, I try to phrase things as tendencies. For instance, "Men tend to be physically stronger than women". But even though that's true, I also recognize that most women are physically stronger than myself: Outliers do exist.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by BigT

How long ago was this, Broomstick? I'm 25, live in backwards northern Arkansas, and this even sounds strange to me.

1977 was the shop and drafting issue.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Beware of Doug

Broomstick, I would be interested to have your opinions about a post I've made to another thread - a discussion about a woman who is reluctant to let other women know she is a veteran combat pilot. The post is about gender typing of aviation as an activity - something people don't always want to discuss about any field of endeavor, namely, the assumptions and subtleties that make it what it is. In your experience, am I on the beam here?

The main problem with your post over there is that the proportion of women vs. men in aviation has been going up gradually but steadily since WWII. Particularly in commercial aviation, the ratio of women to men is the highest in any area of aviation, around 1 woman to 12 men. Perhaps it is a matter that the women who do go into aviation are, for whatever reason, more motivated in some way than the average man who learns to fly. It could also be that among women who aren't professional pilots there is less disposable income to put towards what is, after all, an expensive hobby. The factors aren't fully understood, that's for sure. The point is, however, that the percentage of pilots that are woman is going up, not holding steady or going down.

But yes, "pilot" is usually assumed to be male, even today.

[Chronos]

But yes, "pilot" is usually assumed to be male, even today.

I once knew a lady online who was working a job to support her hobby of air-show stunt-piloting. Her day job? Flight attendant. How many people on one of her flights, I wonder, would have guessed that she was a fully-qualified pilot, too?