Stereotypes are the devil! (Updated)

I came across this video today and thought it fit very well into the message I am trying to convey. The video is about a phenomenon called "Stereotype Threat". The author of this research is a social psychologist and the Dean of the School of Education at Standford University, Claude Steele. Watch it below:

**Original Post Follows**

Stereotypes are defined by different people in different ways.

Merriam Webster defines a stereotype as:

Something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially: a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgement.

The authors at ChangingMinds.org describe a stereotype as:

Generalizations about a group of people whereby we attribute a defined set of characteristics to this group. These classifications can be positive or negative, such as when various nationalities are stereotyped as friendly or unfriendly.

 Chances are, we've all heard at least a couple stereotypes. Some examples include:

• Women are bad drivers
• White people can't dance
• Asians are good at math 

So, now that we have an idea of what a stereotype might sound like, let's look at some characteristics of a stereotype. Stereotypes are:

• Based on fixed, rigid ideas that support biases that we may or may not be aware we harbor.
• Associated with a group or category of people; virtually anything that would separate "us" from "them.
• Can seem flattering or disparaging; this is how we end up with stereotypes like "Asians are smart" or "People on welfare are lazy".
• Not true

So where do they come from? Well, it may be easier to ask where don't they come from. The socialization process is where we learn virtually everything about our social lives including our values, beliefs, societal norms, and what kinds of behavior are appropriate. The following are examples of different sources of socialization:

• Family
• Media
• Institutions
• Commmunity

So what? What a great question. See, if stereotypes are left unchallenged, people often become accustomed to them. This level of comfort in viewing a category of people as all possessing a certain characteristic or set of traits results in that group losing their individual identities, which is replaced with a larger, less defined, social identity; the process is known as deindividuation. The problem here is that the social identity gained is from the perspective of the viewer, not those being viewed. Because the viewer is focused on the stereotypical trait or behavior, and not on the individual, the person being stereotyped becomes dehumanized. Few people probably appreciate what that means more than psychologist Philip Zimbardo. The Standford Prison experiment conducted by Zimbardo shed light on a nasty, dark little secret about people: our potential to do heinous things to one another. And wouldn't you know that this potential is enhanced when people are dehumanized. Known as the Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo has examined this aspect of human behavior as well.
Some of you may be asking what stereotypes have to do with all of this? Let me bring your attention to a reference I use fairly often: Allport's Scale of Prejudice and Discrimination. You can read a more detailed explanation of the scale on a previous post.

The scale outlines the process of how bias and prejudice evolve into discrimination and further into acts of violence. This process occurs when the behavior at the lower levels are left unchecked and become social norms. Stereotypes fall directly in line with disparaging terms. Even when the stereotype is positive, it often results in a negative outcome for those being stereotyped. An example of this can be seen by school teachers who believe the stereotype about all Asians being good at math. The teacher buys into this stereotype, so less tutoring is offered to Asian students.

The point is that by perpetuating stereotypes, we help to foster an environment in which it is easier to discriminate against one another. Once members of a group overcome any objections, be they personal or social, to discriminating against another group, it becomes easier for members of that group to graduate into the next higher level.

If one still has reservations about this line of reasoning, perhaps it would be of benefit to compare Allport's scale to the one used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to describe the progression of hate crimes.

 The progression is titled the Seven Stage Hate Model and describes how hate groups form, progress into prejudicial behavior before entering into violence. The similarity between this model and Allport's scale is evident.

So, now that we know all of this, what can we do about stereotypes? The answer is deceptively simple: don't use them and challenge others who do. It may not be easy, but since when is anything easy that is truly worth doing?

Soldier gets booed, politicians get applause

Today, I would like to share my perspective on a recurring source of frustration in my life: the GOP Presidential debate. So there I was, reading a news report about the most recent debate and wouldn't you know...angst. According to the Huffington Post, along with several other sources, a gay Soldier was booed by members of the audience after asking whether any of the candidates would counter the repeal of the military's DADT policy if elected into office. The candidates response: silence. That's right, no one condemned the explicit lack of support for this person who volunteered to serve his country. But it didn't stop there.

 In case you didn't catch all of that, the exchange went something like this [taken from the Huffington Post article]:

SANTORUM: I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don't ask don’t tell. I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing: to defend our country...

KELLY: What would you with soldiers like Steven Hill?

SANTORUM: What we are doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. That’s tragic. I would just say that going forward we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president. That policy would be re-instituted as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past. Which was- sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.

Really? May I ask a question? What special 'privilege' is it exactly that LGBT Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have been given? Maybe it's the privilege of serving their country? Hmm...no. That can't be it, because up until 2 days ago they weren't allowed to let anyone know they were gay. Then maybe it's the privilege of telling everyone in their unit that they are gay. Yes, that surely must be it! I know I certainly have been overwhelmed by all of the LGBT Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines running rampant across the military telling all sorts of people about their sexual orientation (sarcasm noted). So that's not happening either? You mean that we're still just carrying on with the same ole status quo of heterosexual men in the military telling one another about their sexual orientation? Not sure about that one either? What would you call it when men get together and talk explicitly about their last (real or fantasized) sexual encounter? Ah yes! Women do it too. Sure, though not as openly as men (because they have to be concerned that delicate balance between the virgin and slut perception). It doesn't really matter though, because those conversations are heterosexual too! Oh, but watch out! Because Rick Santorum feels that "any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military". If he does get elected, he'll have to let me know how that one works out for him. That is however, exactly the type of statement that is typically made by the dominant group.


And as if that weren't enough, he continued by saying "What we are doing [by repealing the DADT policy] is playing social experimentation with our military right now. That’s tragic." Tragic? Would Rick Santorum have also opposed the desegregation of our military in 1948? Was that also 'social engineering'? To a certain degree, yes. Yes it was, and necessary to boot. More than one and a half decades before the implementation of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the military was blazing a path. Setting an example for the rest of the nation.


What would happen to Soldiers like Steven Hill?


Rick Santorum stated that he "Would not throw them out because that would be unfair..." It reads well, to a degree. But listen to how he said it. Watch his body language, then ask yourself what he meant.


Rick Santorum, what I hear you saying is that you are conscious of the values held by many of those who would support you and you are willing to let a United States service member be publicly disrespected in order to garner that support. You believe that conformity is the way ahead and that if everyone would just pretend to be like you, life would be fine.

Well, that sounds a lot like the first three hundred or so years of this country's history, and in my opinion, we've come further in the past fifty. So, I don't plan on taking any steps backward any time soon and I hope you don't either.

Man in the [Socialized] Box

For those of you who may be familiar with Jackson Katz, this may sound familiar. While I don't believe that he is the only source of today's topic, he is one of the primary sources of this information and one of the people who introduced me to it.

And now...a pop quiz!

Not really, but I would like for you to think about the following questions:


1. What disparaging terms (labels, names, stereotypes, etc.) have you, or someone you know, used and/or heard when describing a LGBT person?


2. What do all (or at least the greater majority) of your answers to the question above have to do with women?


Think about it.


Give up?


What if I told you that the majority of disparaging terms used toward LGBT people also happened to be misogynistic? Does that really surprise anyone? But wait, there's more...


You see, there is a model in which men in the United States are expected to fit. We learn about it through our socialization process. This image of what a man in our society does and does not do. A process known as sex-role socialization. Some of these things can be easily seen by filling in the blank in one, or both, of the following sentences:


A 'real' man can ___________


A 'real' man doesn't ___________


Take a minute and try them out. I'm certain most of use can rattle of three or more answers for each of these without much effort.


Notice anything about your answers?


If you're like most people in the United States, the behaviors associated with the first statement are primarily masculine, while the behaviors associated with the second statement are primarily feminine.


Why is that?


Because that is what we've been taught.
We learn this perspective from all of the sources of socialization; Family and media being among the most significant contributors.


From the color of the clothes our parents picked out for us as infants, to the toys we were steered into playing with or avoiding, to the electives in school, to the jobs we should seek, to our role in a relationship, etc., etc.

A word cloud developed from the vocabulary used to advertise popular children's toys. Boy's toys comprise the top cloud; girl's toys comprise the bottom cloud.

See the original article on this image by following the link here.

We are taught what a good (or bad) boy or girl should and should not do.


So what happens when a man in our society steps out of the boundaries that have been outlined for him?


Well, one thing that often happens is that other men challenge that behavior with disparaging terms. Not just any ole disparaging terms however, no... men often rely on terms that are hateful toward women, or misogynistic. It's peculiar, but it is. What men do, in effect, is challenge the targeted man's masculinity by taunting him with these terms. These things aren't always verbal either. Often, signs, symbols, and other forms of non-verbal communication is also deployed in an attempt to socially 'push' the targeted man back into the predefined role.


I say all of that to say this: Before one passes judgment on someone else because their behavior doesn't fit "in the lines" that society has drawn for us, one should take some time to reflect on their own feelings. It is much more difficult to think critically about oneself than it is to discount the lifestyle of someone else. But it isn't until we truly know ourselves that we can begin to appreciate others.