Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The 8-points was clearly just suggestions. "Possible approaches include: ..." and "There are other possibilities as well.". There is no requirement to reference the 8-points at all, as long as the student has illustrated that they read the article and engaged in critical thinking about some aspect of the article.Based on the paper guidelines that I linked the google doc for, that wouldn't have sufficed either.
It was an 8-point list of facets that had to be discussed (a few of which tilted toward a particular narrative)
Fair to assume you were in college just a "few" years before I was?
I think it's safe to assume campus climates may have changed just a tad.
So what" All gendered behavioral standards are stereotypes, are they not?
Yes, you are conceding the premise that gender stereotypes exist, are held by many and have an effect on the shape of our society. Are you actually denying this?
Only if they were paranoid about it.
Which we have shown it to be.
No, it doesn't. There's a concept in conversation - listening to understand vs. listening to argue. You're doing the second one, just with reading.
Ah, yes, we must never admit that we're wrong. I get it - when I come up with an idea that sounds cool, I also have a tough time giving it up, even in the face of evidence that it doesn't work.
But it isn't, so it isn't.
The respondent could approach it by denying the premise and presenting data and research showing that immigrant communities are associated with lower crime rates.
Quite a few people have done it over the years. This particular student evidently didn't know how and produced an unhinged rant instead.
Which does not deny that gender typicality is a stereotype, nor does it deny that these stereotypes can be used in oppressive ways. In fact, the purpose of the study was to discover whether they were being used in oppressive ways or not.
The premise that the student rejected was not one asserted by the paper.
The paper did not present a conceptual idea. It presented empirical data on how middle schoolers perceive people based on their behavior and mannerisms, and how those perceptions influence social dynamics.
Your disdain for the "soft sciences" is well-established.
Fortunately for everyone involved, that's not what the paper asserts.
It was a study with a conclusion that was all but guaranteed to produce the outcome that they were hoping to leverage.
Your dedication to characterizing a scientific study you haven't read to fit your preconceptions is quite impressive.
Of course they re stereotypes. A stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. Just because a stereotype is traditional amongst some people doesn't make it less of a stereotype.
What part of that do you think is false?
Why is it OK for conservatives to do the same thing?
She makes that statement, yes. However, she makes no coherent argument for it - in part because she does not appear to understand the meaning of the word "stereotype:"
Note how Fulnecky's paper (quoted above), in fact, agrees with the passage you pulled from the study. She does propose a specific reason for these gender stereotypes to exist (namely that they're a natural result of the way that God created humans), but she appears to be under the impression that stereotypes are inherently "bad things," and since she does not believe that anything that comes from God can be bad, she feels compelled to say that these cannot be "stereotypes." That's incorrect.
I feel like this is a pretty well-understood fact, so I'm not sure what your point is.
You're pulling this bit out of context, IMO. Again, reading to argue rather than reading to understand. In context, the authors refer to both "high" and "low" typicality in the Discussion, so when they just say "typicality" here, they mean the subject of typicality in general, not people exhibiting "high" typicality.
Have they?
Wouldn't have I needed to look at it to know that they constructed it around surveying a few dozen Jr. High kids?
So boys get teased if they're swishy or timid about rough sports and girls get teased if they're tomboys or too butch. Even if they're straight. The study, as far as I can see, does not dwell on the causes of their atypicality.
Not sure where you pulled that definition from.
No. Similarly to "theory," just because a word has a certain meaning in contemporary lay discourse, that does not erase its meaning in an academic context.
Also no.
I tire of following your Gish Gallop around. Pick a topic and stick to it.
