Stereotypes

[ValleyGal]

Stereotype: Sociology . a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group.

It is a pattern of characterizing and categorizing society, and frankly, it is a necessary part of understanding social order by declaring something that is typical of a group. There is nothing wrong with stereotyping unless the stereotype is inaccurate for most of the group.

When I was a new mom, my husband at that time ran away from home. I was then stereotyped by some stranger as a welfare mom who will just end up popping out more babies just to stay on welfare. This description was entirely inaccurate of me, and I was hurt and angry. But because there were a lot of women who abuse the system that way, I could see why he would come to that assumption. I could respond by getting all defensive and arguing why I don't fit the stereotype, or I could continue to prove to the world that I don't by my actions.

Just because a stereotype is not true of all members of a group, does not mean it is not true of most members of that group. In fact, the more members in a group, the more people the stereotype will not apply to. It is accurate stereotyping to say that men in the 1950s between ages 18 and 65 worked for 8 hours a day for an employer outside of his own home, and women stayed home to care for the children and home. That is an accurate stereotype and it describes what life was like back then, although it did not apply to everyone.

How will people in the 2080s describe families today? They will likely say men and women both worked equally outside the home but men made more money than women and families were married more than once. That will not describe all families, but certainly most. Stereotypes are useful for categorizing and organizing these systems.

Even feminism uses stereotyping....the radicals are the most vocal, the liberals are not so vocal but they still advocate for women's rights on social issues like pay equity for service type jobs, etc.

People know that a stereotype will not apply to every single member of a group. Those who are hung up on using words like "some" and "many" and other words like that are, imo, nitpicking and finding things to bicker about. Truthfully, they (most) know better.

Some stereotypes are false simply because the quality they are labelled with does not apply any more to the group than it does to society as a whole, or those outside the group. For example, the assumption that overweight people are less intelligent is an inaccurate stereotype. These are the kinds of stereotypes to argue and buck up against.

If you are part of a group and have been stereotyped because the majority of people in that group share a characteristic, it is not an insult to admit being part of that group even if the stereotype does not apply to you. Imo, that should not take away from being identified with that group, and we should not just destroy all stereotyping because everyone is just an individual... we need stereotypes (accurate ones) as a way to make sense of our social structure.

 

[seeingeyes]

Our brains are pattern-making machines to be sure. But our brains also tend to remember "bad" things more readily than "good" things. Stereotypes are going to reflect that.

That's why we cannot treat others in accordance with stereotypes.

Your example of the work-share of the 50's is more an example of a statistic than a stereotype. A stereotype is more about determining someone's worth based on their outward circumstances (image).

 

[mkgal1]

The trouble I see with stereotypes is that they are a short cut. I do think it's our natural tendency (as Seeing Eyes said, our brains are pattern-making machines)...but, along with it often comes a false perception of things.

I think your example of being a single mother is a good one. Even if you were able to prove that you didn't fit the criteria....most people that had that bias (about welfare moms) wouldn't have offered you the time nor consideration to do so.

Also....once a person's mind is made up and they've formed an overall impression about someone, it's very difficult for that opinion to change. Most of the time, people see behaviour the way they have predetermined it. For a better example....let's say one has the opinion that another is a snob. When the two meet in public...the one that has the belief that the other is a snob may act unfriendly and aloof because of their bias. Naturally, the other (the one labeled as a snob) picks up on that and is distant. Then the other can feel that proves their belief....and the pattern continues. The same can happen with having a positive impression of another person---and we may miss things about someone that's toxic as we've colored them inaccurately.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I dislike stereotypes. Although when people stereotype my heritage I don't mind really because its funny to joke about really. And to some degree the stereotype "was" true. I think some of the major stereotypes though do need to be fixed. Like men shouldn't' cry because they need to be manly. Or that women cry because they are weak. Or that you must be fat because of bad eating habits.

 

[ValleyGal]

I think your example of being a single mother is a good one. Even if you were able to prove that you didn't fit the criteria....most people that had that bias (about welfare moms) wouldn't have offered you the time nor consideration to do so.

Speaking of stereotyping.....

 

[mkgal1]

Speaking of stereotyping.....

Not really.....that's what our biases cause us to do, if we allow them to make an impression on us. That's human nature.

It takes effort to approach people with an open mind and to rid ourselves of our biases.

ETA: I found the link to Chip Ingram's teaching on biases. It's something that's had probably the greatest impact on forming by opinions in this area:

I want to walk through a very clear explanation of what prejudice is, how it develops…

Everybody is prejudiced. Okay? Now, let me show you why. First, we are all born into a cultural bias. You grow up in a family, in a culture, in a language, with a religious orientation. You learn during that time. There is a bias.

You look at life through a lens that came from parents, and grandparents, and where you came from, and the part of the country, or the part of the world.

Second, apart from interaction outside our group, we grow up assuming our view accurately defines reality. You’re a little kid and you don’t know any better. And they say, “This is what’s true about black people. This is what’s true about those white people. This is what’s true about people from the South. You know those people from California, what they’re like? Well, here’s how rich people are. Well, you know those homeless people, what their real problem is? They need to…”

All those things are implanted into your mind. And you assume, unless you get outside your world, your group, and your box, that your view really is in alignment with reality.

Third, generations of socialization and indoctrination create barriers, at best, and hatred at worst, with those that are different from ourselves.


 Internal inaccurate assessment (pride) and external inaccurate assessment
(prejudice) result in the fulfillment of Satan’s agenda – to kill, steal, and destroy.


Pride – “a high or inordinate opinion of one’s own dignity, importance, merit, or
superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in behavior.”

(Webster’s)

Prejudice – (1) : “ preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or
learning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.”

:“an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group,
a race, or their supposed characteristics.”
(Webster’s)


The Problem: Prejudice creates walls between individuals and groups so the Gospel
cannot move from one group to another.
~http://livingontheedge.org/broadcast/agenda--5-perpetuate-prejudice-part-1/daily-radio#.U8WoE_ldWSo

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I think your example of being a single mother is a good one. Even if you were able to prove that you didn't fit the criteria....most people that had that bias (about welfare moms) wouldn't have offered you the time nor consideration to do so.

Speaking of stereotyping.....

Hmmm. I don't think that's stereotyping. Possibly generalizing, but not stereotyping. As a rule, I think the word "most" takes it out of that category, because 51 percent is "most." Same with any form of "in my experience." When you've seen something happen again and again, you come to expect it. But if you say "all" about a group of people, and then if you respond to evidence of exceptions with a sarcastic, "Well, 99.9 percent..." then you have stereotyping. This is almost exactly a conversation I recall having in the mid 1980's with my first mother-in-law.

It went like this:
"If we end up having a war, we're doomed, because all of our young people are burned out on drugs."
"Not every young person is on drugs."
"Well, 99.9 percent are."

I'm sure the statistics don't bear that out. But to hear her talk, because her son was an addict, not only is everybody in America between the ages of 12 and 30 in the same category, but the situation is uniquely American, and not a problem in any other country, which of course means America would inevitably lose any war.

Count the stereotypes.

 

[mkgal1]

Hmmm. I don't think that's stereotyping. Possibly generalizing, but not stereotyping.

I agree. Here's a pretty comprehensive explanation of the two:

Stereotypes, according to sociologist Joel Charon, can be distinguished by six main points: stereotypes pass judgment; stereotypes leave little or no room for exceptions; stereotypes create categories that often dominate all other features of a person, not allowing for other characteristics to be seen and appreciated; stereotypes do not tend to change, even when proven wrong, which supports the idea that it is not backed by empirical evidence after all; stereotypes are also not formed by said empirical evidence to begin with, but instead through anecdote or otherwise and, lastly, stereotypes do not help people understand their differences.

Generalizations, on the other hand, take a mountain of data and produce a convenient pattern with which we can quickly and efficiently process little mounds of dirt resembling those mountains.

Let me develop the metaphor. Quartz is known to be a clear, common crystal. Therefore, is it not logical to assume when someone claims to have found a piece of quartz, that is probably going to be a clear crystal, or if they found a clear crystal, that it is probably going to be quartz? Of course. There is no sin in this. There is only a problem when someone finds rose quartz (a pinkish variety) and is determined that it cannot under any circumstances be quartz, because he or she cannot understand that the characteristics of quartz given above are only generalized.

Unfortunately, the quartz metaphor does not extend much further, but I will draw out one more point. Quartz is identified as quartz exactly because of its characteristics; therefore there is no stereotyping in identifying it as quartz, but rather categorization.~Generalizations v. Stereotypes | The Emory Wheel

 

[mkgal1]

Further.....I've always loved this article on the topic (I've posted it before, about two years ago):

In the desire to be understood and relate to people, we can actually make the mistake of identifying with these categories. I assure you, the possibility of you authentically lining up with a certain political party or even a theological doctrine are slim to none. But the temptation is overwhelming. If we identify ourselves as belonging to a category, we can enter into quick, empty exchanges in which we weed people in or out and are in turn weeded in or out. It’s kind of sad, if you think about it.

What you lose when you let people categorize you is threefold:

1. You lose your understanding of yourself
2. In exchange for being understood, you are in fact misunderstood.
3 You lose your true search for self.

If we really want to know who somebody is, we will simply have to get to know them. And in doing so we will find out that people are, in fact, complicated. Not only are people complicated, but they change, they evolve based on circumstances and experiences.

One of the amazing things about Jesus, to me, was he categorized nobody. Everybody He met was an individual.~What’s the Danger in Categorizing People? | Storyline Blog

 

[ValleyGal]

Ah, but it is a stereotype to typecast "most" as having a certain characteristic. That is a stereotype. The word "most" does not remove the stereotype; all it does is affirm that the stereotype does not apply to "all"....which is a given in any situation, for any stereotype.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Those were informative.

It brings to mind a family discussion from my teen years, when my father was trying to teach my brother better than to look down on black people. My brother had said something mildly racist. By "mildly," I mean the words he said weren't bad, but his tone of voice and facial expression clearly showed contempt. My father called him out on it. "Where do you get off with that attitude?" My brother tried to defend it by pointing out the differences in culture, as if those differences were faults. It was explained to him that different is OK. Later in the conversation I casually mentioned something about differences in skin, hair, and lip shape. My brother was puzzled why my father didn't rebuke me for saying that, and my father explained that I hadn't implied it was *bad* to have those physical traits, just that they were *there.* He said it was no different from saying, "blond hair and blue eyes." Rather like the above article, pointing out that stereotyping involves making a judgment. Which is why I believe saying "most" is not a stereotype, because you're not necessarily saying that it's a bad thing.

Not sure my brother understands even yet.

ETA: I read it over, and I do see the other side of the argument here. I was saying, stereotyping means saying it's a bad thing, but there can be good things too. There used to be a stereotype that fat people are generous and happy-natured like Santa Claus. I've heard people thinking it's an automatic fact that black people can sing beautifully. So a stereotype can be not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. That's true.

 

[mkgal1]

Those were informative.

It brings to mind a family discussion from my teen years, when my father was trying to teach my brother better than to look down on black people. My brother had said something mildly racist. By "mildly," I mean the words he said weren't bad, but his tone of voice and facial expression clearly showed contempt. My father called him out on it. "Where do you get off with that attitude?" My brother tried to defend it by pointing out the differences in culture, as if those differences were faults. It was explained to him that different is OK. Later in the conversation I casually mentioned something about differences in skin, hair, and lip shape. My brother was puzzled why my father didn't rebuke me for saying that, and my father explained that I hadn't implied it was *bad* to have those physical traits, just that they were *there.* He said it was no different from saying, "blond hair and blue eyes." Rather like the above article, pointing out that stereotyping involves making a judgment. Which is why I believe saying "most" is not a stereotype, because you're not necessarily saying that it's a bad thing.

Not sure my brother understands even yet.

Okay (LOL)....that brings to my mind something else! Another thing that's closely related (what you're bringing up here)....."characterizations". That's *also* different from a stereotype. If you say....."Gina, across the street, has much lighter skin than mine....and her hair is much coarser as well"---that's based on something true (well.....for the sake of discussion).

So...there are a few things that are closely related...stereotypes; generalizations; and characterizations. Using the word "most" doesn't qualify as a stereotype....I agree. If I said, "most Christians attend church at least three times a year" that's a generalization.....not a stereotype. There's no judgement in it---it's just a fact based on data.

Oh, and another thing. I read an article the other day (I'll have to go search for it again) about how even positive stereotypes can do harm. I'll have to dig that up again, and see how it all fits.

 

[mkgal1]

Here is that article:

Positive stereotypes did not make people feel good. When the White participant used a positive stereotype, the Asian participant liked them less and felt more depersonalized. The positive stereotype also made the participants angry. Statistically, the amount of depersonalization they felt explained the amount of dislike they felt for their partner.

Other studies in this series demonstrated a similar effect with women who were told that they were nurturing or cooperative because of their gender. These studies also ruled out some other explanations like the possibility that Asian Americans react negatively to the positive stereotype because it does not acknowledge that they are both Asians and Americans.

Across all of the studies done in this paper, a positive stereotype made people feel less like an individual. ~The Pain of Positive Stereotypes | Psychology Today

 

[mkgal1]

Rather like the above article, pointing out that stereotyping involves making a judgment. Which is why I believe saying "most" is not a stereotype, because you're not necessarily saying that it's a bad thing.

Not sure my brother understands even yet.

ETA: I read it over, and I do see the other side of the argument here. I was saying, stereotyping means saying it's a bad thing, but there can be good things too. There used to be a stereotype that fat people are generous and happy-natured like Santa Claus. I've heard people thinking it's an automatic fact that black people can sing beautifully. So a stereotype can be not necessarily saying it's a bad thing. That's true.

Exactly. Making a judgement isn't always based on negatives. We can make snap judgement in favor of someone. Either way.....I think we need to reserve our full impression until we know more.

 

[ValleyGal]

Stereotypes are not all bad.

There is empirical social science research which shows that stereotypes are often accurate.[52] Jussim et al. reviewed four studies concerning racial and seven studies which examined gender stereotypes about demographic characteristics, academic achievement, personality and behavior. Based on that, the authors argued that some aspects of ethnic and gender stereotypes are accurate while stereotypes concerning political affiliation and nationality are much less accurate.[53] A study by Terracciano et al. also found that stereotypic beliefs about nationality do not reflect the actual personality traits of people from different cultures.[54]

I was a little surprised at how well Wikipedia has outlined stereotypes. It's a good article, and provides explanations for those of you who are unwilling to accept that they are a needed part of the social experience.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I think what burns my bacon about stereotyping is the part where no matter what the evidence, the predetermined conclusion remains. I can't link it because parts of the site use some profanity, but tvtropes.org calls it "aggressive categorism" and illustrates it thusly:

Bob knows that Alice is stupid: She's a woman, and women are stupid - never mind that Alice has a PhD and an IQ of 150, she's still a woman... and women are stupid, thus Alice is stupid. If Bob finally accepts that Alice is indeed smart, he might resort to claiming that she is not "really" a woman.​

Yep. That's how it works. I speak as one who has been dismissed as stupid numerous times, and then told on top of it that coming off too smart is "unladylike" and will run a man off. I was advised with a proverb I used to see more often than I do nowadays: "A truly smart woman is always just a little bit dumber than the man she's with." If the similar stereotype is that people of an ethnic category are stupid, then a member of that ethnicity who is intelligent will be told they must have another ethnicity in their background somewhere and not be purely X, because everybody knows true X's are stupid. I've seen that happen too.

 

[ValleyGal]

There are always going to be stereotypes, though, and not all are negative. We have both had to buck up against some really negative stereotyping and "prove" ourselves as not part of the stereotype. But there's a bit of a difference in how we respond.

It might be helpful to read the whole article on wikipedia.

Stereotype - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stereotypes work both ways, there are psychological and sociological reasons we have them and make use of them, and they are never going to go away. I think one of the reasons we don't like them is that we feel unfairly judged if the stereotype does not apply to us, and if it does apply to us, we don't like hearing truth. Imo, though, the proof is in the pudding. The research from the 3 notations in my last post were peer reviewed and accepted by APA.

 

[seeingeyes]

It's a good article, and provides explanations for those of you who are unwilling to accept that they are a needed part of the social experience.

That's a big claim. What do you think would be missing if we no longer assumed that all single mothers are milking the system or that Asian kids don't all excel at math?

 

[ValleyGal]

There is a difference between true stereotypes and false ones. For a single mom who's had 4 kids by 4 different men and has not been married to any of them and she's been on social assistance for a long time, that could be a correct stereotype because a LOT of young single women do abuse the system that way and I can see why people would be on guard because of it.

For people like me - I was 29 and had never even been on social services in my life to that point, and was married for several years to the father of my child, I could see how the assumption could happen. Is it so wrong for people to want to know their tax dollars are not going to people who abuse the system we all pay into? Yet it was an incorrect assumption.

So rather than make people stop stereotyping (which we are not going to do anyway), why not have a different response to the stereotyping?

Again, read the article. A lot of stereotyping is actually accurate - and some is inaccurate. It is the inaccurate ones we should stop making, but as a general rule, stereotyping is a method of categorization and makes sorting out social situations a whole lot easier.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

As an aside, does anyone know where that old stereotype of "Indians (Native Americans) don't cry" came from? I used to hear it a lot when I was younger. It showed up in an article I read about a scout troop on a camping trip. The theme was Native Americans, the children grouped by cabins named after various tribes, and that line "Indians don't cry" was used to discourage the children from crying for any reason. I also saw it come up on an episode of The Rifleman, with the chief of the local tribe using it to discourage Mark from crying. Sometimes exceptions were made for women and children (the chief on The Rifleman added "only the women,") but learning to be stoic was considered part of being a "true Indian." This stereotype is what caused that anti-pollution ad to have such a big impact. It was a startling image to see a Native American man (played by an Italian actor) with tears running down his face. Message conveyed, hey, if it's going to make an Indian cry, it must be serious!