Oh I agree. It's the gender people and allied feminists/progressives who use this argument about "harmful stereotypes" to the extreme where we're not allowed to make any kind of general statement about any group in society anymore. Any "protected group", that is. That doesn't include men, white people or Christians for example. You can promote all the stereotypes about those groups as much as you want and it's stunning and brave.
Michiel: "gender people and allied feminists/progressives"
Yeah. Many of the "gender critical" crowd seem to be more a part of the problem than of the solution.
Michiel: "can promote all the stereotypes about those groups as much as you want ..."
Indeed. Part the woke-mantra that "-isms = prejudice + power", that the "marginalized" can't possibly be guilty of things like racism. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in something from the annals of the late and entirely unlamented Atheism Plus, although it did provide some "entertainment":
You might also have some interest in a conversation thereon in response to an illuminating and "trenchantly" amusing post on that "Woke" theme from UK physicist Rudolph Rigger:
But "stereotypes" in general are an interesting question and topic -- Substacker and social scientist Lee Jussim once argued that "Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology":
Seems rather clear that many groups are characterized by various traits that are more or less common within the group -- the justification for your "general statement about any group" -- without being definitive. Not sure how much statistics you have under your belt, but even the rudiments should be sufficient to appreciate this comparison of agreeableness between men and women:
Women are -- on average -- somewhat more agreeable than men: the peak for women is at a higher "agreeableness" measurement (4.1) than is the peak for men (3.8). But it is quite clear from the graph that many women are, in fact, rather less agreeable than many men. But if one was working in a human resources department of some large corporation, and one was comparing the qualifications of candidates for some customer service position, and one had two candidates -- a man and a woman -- who otherwise had the same scores on various tests -- then one might reasonably argue that, statistically speaking at least, the woman was likely to be the better bet.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 🙂 And stereotypes. Many people don't seem to have a solid grasp on either which tends to compound any number of problems.
#NotAllFeminists -- don't think it helps to be painting with too wide a brush, to be tarring all for the "sins" of the few.
Feminism, in general, has turned the whole concept of gender into something of a dog's breakfast. But I think some "sects" have a useful insight in DEFINING it as more or less synonymous with "feminine and masculine personality":
Where many go off the rails and into the weeds is in thinking that those personality types are entirely "socially constructed 🙄", are just some things hatched in the inner sanctums of "The Patriarchy!!11!!" simply to "oppress" women.
Not all stereotypes are necessarily "harmful"; many of them have a great deal of social value and utility.
For example, see Kathleen Stock's criticisms of radfems as "barking (mad)" for wanting to "abolish gender":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender
Oh I agree. It's the gender people and allied feminists/progressives who use this argument about "harmful stereotypes" to the extreme where we're not allowed to make any kind of general statement about any group in society anymore. Any "protected group", that is. That doesn't include men, white people or Christians for example. You can promote all the stereotypes about those groups as much as you want and it's stunning and brave.
Michiel: "gender people and allied feminists/progressives"
Yeah. Many of the "gender critical" crowd seem to be more a part of the problem than of the solution.
Michiel: "can promote all the stereotypes about those groups as much as you want ..."
Indeed. Part the woke-mantra that "-isms = prejudice + power", that the "marginalized" can't possibly be guilty of things like racism. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in something from the annals of the late and entirely unlamented Atheism Plus, although it did provide some "entertainment":
https://web.archive.org/web/20130525005812/http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2105
You might also have some interest in a conversation thereon in response to an illuminating and "trenchantly" amusing post on that "Woke" theme from UK physicist Rudolph Rigger:
https://rudolphrigger.substack.com/p/a-glossary-of-glossolalia/comment/22092929
But "stereotypes" in general are an interesting question and topic -- Substacker and social scientist Lee Jussim once argued that "Stereotype Accuracy is One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology":
https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
Seems rather clear that many groups are characterized by various traits that are more or less common within the group -- the justification for your "general statement about any group" -- without being definitive. Not sure how much statistics you have under your belt, but even the rudiments should be sufficient to appreciate this comparison of agreeableness between men and women:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
Women are -- on average -- somewhat more agreeable than men: the peak for women is at a higher "agreeableness" measurement (4.1) than is the peak for men (3.8). But it is quite clear from the graph that many women are, in fact, rather less agreeable than many men. But if one was working in a human resources department of some large corporation, and one was comparing the qualifications of candidates for some customer service position, and one had two candidates -- a man and a woman -- who otherwise had the same scores on various tests -- then one might reasonably argue that, statistically speaking at least, the woman was likely to be the better bet.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. 🙂 And stereotypes. Many people don't seem to have a solid grasp on either which tends to compound any number of problems.
#NotAllFeminists -- don't think it helps to be painting with too wide a brush, to be tarring all for the "sins" of the few.
Feminism, in general, has turned the whole concept of gender into something of a dog's breakfast. But I think some "sects" have a useful insight in DEFINING it as more or less synonymous with "feminine and masculine personality":
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/feminism-gender/#GenFemMasPer
Where many go off the rails and into the weeds is in thinking that those personality types are entirely "socially constructed 🙄", are just some things hatched in the inner sanctums of "The Patriarchy!!11!!" simply to "oppress" women.