Discussions
Why do Forum Posters Love to Stereotype?
Posted by MadameX • 10/12/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: discussion boards, sexism, Stereotypes
It seems like every few days we have a new post beginning "Why do women...?" or "Why do men...?" and I can't recall ever having seen one of those threads that related to something I would truly associate with one gender or the other.
Is it an attempt to be inflammatory in order to generate discussion, or we truly that bound up in stereotypes?
User Comments
-
Doesn't bother me seeing those topics. -
It's because topics like "Why do humans procreate?" are too wide in their scope. We need something easier to tackle. -
Well, at work, with television, on blogs, and in political messaging, there does seem to be the tendency among humans to tune-out if there are too many layers to deal with.
Perhaps the overly streamlined messaging is used to draw people in. -
You would say that because you're a female catholic lawyer and they always hate stereotypes.-
How do you know? Was there a thread about it?
-
Well everyone knows that about female catholic lawyers. Even without an informative thread about it.
-
-
I hope you don't mean all forum posters?
Heh
I think it is a bit of both, some people are so lost in stereotypes that they don't even realise it and some are definitely pushing buttons.-
Bingo...
Cause as you know ALL Witches are the same. LMAO!
-
-
I think it like that tedious small talk people sometimes participate in when they really don't have anything substantial to say, and yes I do believe people think they can incite some kind of worthwhile conversation from it. -
I think any place is a good place to start a discussion. If the presenting statement is over general or stereotypical people can refine it and cut it down to size. -
Sterotypes ruin everything. Take art for example, these days we have art galleries that specialize in and market: female artists, gay artists, african-american artists, comic book artists, graffiti artists, street artists, etc.
What happened to just being a good artists?-
This is a really interesting point because that kind of segregation of markets limits what each group sees, which in turn perpetuates segmenting.
This is one area where the Internet truly is a blessing. -
I totally don't agree with that. I think yes, art should be appriciated on a wide scale. BUT, when I want a specific kind of art, I want to know where to find it. Not every person who loves art loves every kind. Some people identify more with certain kinds of art, so what? Why is everyone so afraid of associating with something? A label dosen't have to be ALL that something is, but it can be a direction or starting off point. -
CentricStudios
You have made an important but objective mention because it is true. Someone is trying to garner a reflexive response and steer us into the showplace based on their stereotyping an artist's genre. By putting a classification on the show, it will turn away persons who may have just gone to the art show. It's when they put artists into these slots that the promoter tends to limit their exposure and the public's admittance.
As an artist I do not wish to be put into a slot or category.
-
-
Your question should then also be: 'Why do SOME/CERTAIN forum posters...' Because now you're generalizing.
Anyway, it doesn't bother me too much. I normally answer these threads with a: 'But I'm not like that.'-
The language of the title intentionally mimicked the language of the threads I'm talking about--I thought that was clear (Claire seemed to be responding to that above, I thought).
-
I normally don't get subtle hints like that. Because we're not ALL as clever as Claire.
-
Yes, subtlety isn't always the best approach with blockheads like us.
-
NP, I wish you wouldn't stereotype blockheads like that...
-
True, Madame X. Some blockheads aren't blockheads at all.
-
-
I think in directing a conversation towards a specific group of people there is more of a discussion generated. Lets not play ignorant here...most the the highest commented discussion threads started with a sterytypical question, and challenged the readers of BC to share their ideas about it. Just because it refers to one gender or person dosen't mean that person is ignorant, OR that they JUST want to be a-holes to get attention...it just means they know how to generate discussion.
This is the kind of stuff you learn in journalism...it's not an unknown tactic.-
Highest commented in sheer numbers, perhaps (I'm not actually sure whether that's true or not, just taking your word that you've crunched the data and that's the case), but how much of it is real discussion?
-
Totally agree, those threads usually get a lot of replies. She-who-must-not-be-named specializes in posting those and I remember I tried it once (anyone remembers the "ALL MEN PEE STANDING" thread?) and it worked, I haven't gotten a thread with more replies than that one. -
Deray, I'd ask you the same question--what kind of replies? Is sheer volume what we're going for ? Is a thread in which 100 women say "I don't really like to shop" and fifty others say "I like to shop but have friends who don't" and 20 men make quips about women spending their money a rousing "success" compared with a thread that has 25 thoughtful responses that make people think?
-
Well I think discussion is up to those involved. If all you do is pick at a question for it's wording...then nothing gets discussed. If you indulge the sterotype for analysis purposes at least, then an actual discussion will come forth. Nothing can always be PC, because PC is a made up idea that everything in our society has/deserves balence, when it actually dosent.
-
Madame, I agree that some threads are absolutely empty and, in general, I don't feel compelled to reply. That was precisely my point when I posted the "all men pee standing" thread. Some of the forum posters just want to get their blogs in a better ranking and threads with a lot of answers will help them do that, so they just post whatever silly question they have and accumulate dozens (if not hundreds) of replies. While thought-provoking threads usually get very few responses, good ones but few.
-
Very interesting, Deray--I did not know that about the ranking. Suddenly, I understand a lot more about what's happened in the forums recently.
-
-
Why is water wet?-
So you can use it in a mixed drink.
-
It isn't wet when it is frozen. Fix a frozen drink.
-
-
I think they're here because everyone does it. We may not do it intentionally but it's always there. We see an over weight person... oh, they must be lazy, A black guy with gold teeth and dreads, he must be a drug dealer, a man in a suit he must be a business man, a woman in a skirt that's way too short, she must be the thing that Santa laughs. Not any are necessarily true but in the back of our minds they are there.-
the santa laugh comment took me a minute... ;D -
That raises an interesting question. Does anything positive come of that tendency? Lotus seems to suggest above that it's sometimes beneficial to make assumptions about people based on superficial characteristics; your tone here seems to suggest that it's a societal problem. Which is it? Or is it somehow both?
-
Madame..I did not say that, and you know it. I was referring to in the forum of discussion for use of a hypothetical ideal in order to stimulate discussion. Not walking down the street or in dealing with people on a daily basis. Big difference.
-
Lotus, I wasn't referring to that comment, but the one in which you said that it was good to segregate art and questioned why people feared being "associated" with something.
I think the problem with those "associations" is that they're often inaccurate--for instance, when someone calls me on the telephone and tries to sell me subscriptions to magazines about fashion, knitting and celebrities based on the fact that I'm a woman of a certain age, they're missing the mark entirely and wasting both of our time. -
Well it would be entirely impossible for a telemarketing company to know what your specific hobbies and habits are. But I know that was just an example. What I meant about art is that I don't think calling a certain artist a "female artist" or a "German artist" or a "graffiti artist" is an injustice. The majority of my friends and some of my family are artists and most if not all of them refer to their artistic genre as part of their identity. I simply think that in some cicumstances catagory is necesarry if not preferred.
How many bloggers on BC identify their blog with something? Everyone almost? Should we all just call our blogs "The Blog" with a number behind it? By erasing catagory your erasing identity in some areas of life. -
@MidwestMom Lol! I'm G rated tried to keep it clean.
@Madamex I think it can be both. What happens when you get to know the man with gold teeth? Turns out he may have once been that person but he decided to change his life and gives back to the community by working at a drug rehab center.
I think when you make assumptions that if you're curious enough and willing to ask questions it can break down barriers. You just have to be willing to question your own stereotypes that you put on others to turn it into a positive. -
I see your point, Lotus. It's actually an interesting one to me because I tend not to find the genre labels you describe very helpful, yet I agree that marketing, shopping, even organizing things in a museum would be difficult without them.
It's similar to the categorization of blogs here at BC. Often when people post about looking for interesting blogs, someone jumps in and points out that there is a categorized directory and a search feature...which makes sense on the surface, but is useless to me because I don't read blogs (or books, or websites, or whatever) based on subject matter--I choose almost exclusively based on the quality of the writing. -
I can understand that. When I go to a book store I don't stay in one genre (although sci-fi is waisted on me), instead I flip through the first few pages and examine the writing style. This has never steered me wrong.
I think with most things in life, any social concept can be harmful if not used responsibly. At least when people genuinely post ignorant sweeping generalizations they can learn a little something from the responses they get on BC.
-
-
Maybe people start discussions that way because they can guarantee that at least half of the people who see the topic will feel compelled to give an answer (of whatever quality).
Don't forget that people visit these discussion boards for various reasons, and what you would consider 'thoughtful commentary' might not inspire someone who just visits for lighthearted banter. -
Internet is one-dimensional world. Real world more complicated. It is fun to generalize. Why are people from Minsk so crazy?
-
This is quite funny. Look how many responses you already got for your 'typical' question.
-
The "typical" question has generated a really thoughtful discussion.
I'm trying to picture the bookstore, museum, shopping mentioned earlier without categories. Actually, I was once in a great second-hand bookstore that seemed completely random - it was fun to browse, but total madness if you wanted something specific.
When it comes to human beings though, maybe browsing is fairer and more fun, too. -
That's a great distinction, Soirette. Presumably, we won't be "shopping" for humans based on superficial categorization.
-
duplicate
-
-
Our media, politicians, pollsters, and so on trade in stereotypes. Bloggers aren't necessarily better than or immune to the culture of which they are a part.
-
Don't we think/act/speak in generalities most of the time? Aren't our observations based on generalizations? A straight woman who has dated men will have general observations about straigh men she's dated? A man who has lived with a woman/women will have generalizations about women's habits? I don't think they are stereotypes per se (my definition of a stereotype is all white people can't dance) or stupid crap like that. Generalizations are just our own personal observations - and I think it's the generalizations that spark the best discussions.-
Do you think so, really? I'm surprised, since based on some of your previous threads I would expect that you've had relationships with several different men. I can't think of a single thing beyond the fact of being male that I could generalize to all--or even most--of the men I've dated.
-
I absolutely know I can draw correlations between all the men I've had relationships with as well as male relatives/friends that I have- there are some inherent characteristics that are very easy to generalize. First one that comes to mind - men are such babies when they get sick. Yet women can push footballs out of their vaginas and we don't complain. LOL
Such as their mood fluctuations during full moons - it's either straight-up male PMS or they are absolutely in love with you. I think everyone can draw up some general conclusions based on any group/type of people they've encountered - it doesn't mean every single person in the world fits into that particular mold, but it does mean that perhaps other people have encountered the same characteristics. Perhaps it's a person's way of asking if it's a fair generalization or if there are enough "I don't do that" people out there who negate that generalization.
-
-
To answer your question, I believe it is mostly done because this is the only way they have been programed to ask a leading question. Many of the questions posed are done by younger adults and perhaps by someone from a different culture. Perhaps they are playing it safe by asking gender related questions.
On the other hand, there have been many instances where many of us have considered if the question is to make us react unfavorably or in other words to incite or infuriate us. These are the times we are being baited for someone else's amusement. -
Mostly because life seems so much easier when one need not think it through. Seems, being the operative word.-
I agree Dane that the word 'seems' is quite relevant.
-
... or not
-
-
Some stereotypes can be useful. If your stereotype actually correctly assesses a personification of general trends and averages (which, granted, not all do) and you admit the limitations of it, it can actually become an informative discussion about the nature of society. Granted, care must be taken, but not everyone who does that is doing so illogically. Hazards exist, but hazards exist with everything. -
All thinking and writing involve a certain degree of generalization. That's where both diverge from life.
-
Do you think it does diverge from life, though? It seems to me that people make many assumptions based on generalization (often erroneous), and then act on them rather than on actual information.
-
In addition, generalization is the essence of the collective, of any sort of group which takes on a mind of its own. That includes society at large.
-
An action is always concrete, bound to a particular place and time, whatever it's based on. There is no such thing as an abstract action.
-
Yes but there is such a thing as an abstract basis for an action.
-
Precisely the distinction I'm making.
-
Exactly, Jeremy. And often that abstract basis applied to a specific situation (on which it should have no bearing) leads to a lot of stress and wasted time and energy.
-
It also can be used to understand where the action came from, which is often more useful then knowledge of the action itself.
-
That's the whole project of Buddhism. (I'm not a Buddhist.) To distinguish between objects and events and the ideas we have of them.
-
Buddhisms not the only philosophy after such, though it's view of why such is important may be different.
-
-
To talk about men or women is not a stereotype, they are sexual types and certainly to talk about sexual types is valid, even though we all know that within those types there is a huge range of individuality. People are frequently using the collective terms for groups-like artists, entertainers, bloggers, writers- and it goes without saying that everyone understands that those groups contain a myriad of individuals who are unique and differentiated within the general set.-
So you think "women love to shop", "men are babies when they're sick", and such are valid statements?
-
I guess we just have different definitions for stereotyping vs. generalization. Stereotyping to me is associating a certain type of dress or behavior with one type of person or their ethnicity or religion, country, etc... a generalization is more of a situational observation. My brother, my father, my ex-husband, ex-boyfriends - when they get sick, they revert to being six years old, requiring cold compresses and chicken noodle soup. My mother, my sisters, my girlfriends, their mothers - we chicks get sick, we push our way through it all by ourselves. That's a generalization then - not completely unfounded nor a stereotype....
-
But it's a generalization based on your very narrow slice of experience. In my equally narrow slice of experience, it has no basis in reality whatsoever--I can only think of one man I've ever known who I would have referred to as a "baby" when he gets sick. Is the larger world more like yours or mine? I don't know, but you can't really, either. And doesn't that kind of generalization lead to assumptions about individuals that might be harmful?
-
@stjavo: You'd find Scandinavian men to be a lot less likely to act that way - Governor Rolvang way back when my Dad was a kid summed up their mentality perfectly when asked at an interview about how 93% of Minnesota boys play hockey during the winter: "What's wrong with the other seven percent?"
Part of it though is that they may want you to take care of them!
-
-
Stereotypes are the consequence of labels, which serve to simplify communication. It's when a fallacy of division is thrown in the mix that it becomes an aggravation.-
In my experience, that issue arises approximately always.
I definitely have not seen a single thread of this type on BC, nor an example in this thread, that I think holds true for a significant majority of the group targeted. -
-
Kobra, I enjoy the hell out of you.
-
Hahaha. I'm glad you do.
-
-
I think people like to stereotype because it stirs up controversy. Sometimes, people like to play the devil's advocates.-
That's not at all what devil's adovcate means.
Devil's advocate means taking a position contrary to your own for the sake of argument. -
Voodo, that is exactly why I used that term. People use stereotypes that they might not fully prescribe to in order to appear contrary. I am proud of you for pulling out your Webster's Dictionary and looking that up. You have excellent looking up skills. Next time, know what you are talking about, I'm an English teacher. I could teach you some things...
-
TCM, I'd be very surprised if that were true.
-
So Madame X, you think VK is unteachable? I wonder what he thinks about that.
-
TCM - you lost me - you are saying that to stereotype is to play devil's advocate? I think VK's definition is more accurate - you play the other side of the coin to oppose the argument as a means to strengthen it, usually.
y'all just need to simmer down - why does everyone take everything so freaking seriously??? God - I've been called a prostitute/slut/whore by several of the members of these discussions and I couldn't care less - in fact, I've laughed and continued the discussion! -
Once again, I mean that people just throw stereotypes around to stir up controversy even if they don't necessarily believe wholeheartedly in those stereotypes. This absolutely goes along with the definition of devil's advocate because they are doing this for the sake of argument even if it goes against what they truly believe. And, no, I did not say that to stereotype is playing the devil's advocate. I don't think this is an issue of anyone having to simmer down. Frankly, I think we should spend less time being so critical of each other and be more respectful of each others' opinions and thoughts. I don't understand why everyone's comments need to be moderated for grammatical correctness and syntax. I'm a teacher and I don't even do that to others. Some people need to get off their high horses, so I do agree with Sjtavo in a sense.
-
The odds that vK had to look anything up there are pretty freekin slim.
And I doubt vK uses the word argument in the common sense very often either. The word argument probably has a close relationship to the word advocate in that sentence.
There is a world of difference between stirring up controversy and advocating for the red man. -
Thank you so much for your input, Dane. Have a lovely evening.
-
“Frankly, I think we should spend less time being so critical of each other and be more respectful of each others' opinions and thoughts.”
Would you say that’s what you were doing when you said:
“I am proud of you for pulling out your Webster's Dictionary and looking that up. You have excellent looking up skills. Next time, know what you are talking about, I'm an English teacher. I could teach you some things...”
I am particularly interested since you claim to be both a mother and a teacher, and VK is a recent high school graduate—I’m curious about whether this is the way you respond to your students.
@NP--I suspect that you know exactly what I meant, but I KNOW Kobra does. -
MadameX, no, I don't respond that way to my students. We are not children here. I am done going back and forth with you about this topic. It is quite obvious that this nonsense is enjoyed here by a group of like minded individuals and I will not partake in it. I responded that way to a condescending remark that was made without fully reading what I said. Thank you and have a great evening.
-
-
I think ToughCookieMommy's use of devil's advocate is perfectly correct- she is saying that even though you know that the use of a stereotype might be wrong, you use it anyway for rhetorical effect. Saying something you know to be factually incorrect for the sake of dramatizing an argument is precisely what it means to be a devil's advocate. It's not very nice to attack someone for their use of language, but when one does it wrongly,it makes the attacker look mean spirited and quite foolish.
-
Because most people are Cartesian - ie they give precedence to their idea of a reality before their experience of that reality.
Which is also why France is the country of cheeses and... labels.-
Harvey-exactly the point I was making above.
-
NP,
Indeed, I missed that particular comment. However, I would disagree with you on the question of Buddhism... like Heideggeranism, philosphical-Buddhism only attains Being in the mind, not Being as Being... turning its back to Substance. It is a philosophy of relation/spirit. The human spirit can only create relations, not Being. That is my general understanding of it. -
I was thinking more of Zen Buddhism.
-
I don't know the differences.
-
-
Because of experience and the Law of attraction. -
Isn't this thread's question sterotyping Forum Posters?-
Indeed--in mimicry of the threads I was talking about. The thread title follows their format exactly. I'm amazed by the number of people who have not caught that and called me out on this.
-
LOL! My mom use to say if she wanted to hide something from us, she would put it in plain sight, and we would never notice it.
-
-
Ah, stereotyping. I'll stereotype in regards to those kinds of threads; they just make me think someones spamming. I might be being a bit cynical but those threads, from my point of view, are just posted to encourage people to open them in the intention of someone opening their profile and in turn visiting their site.
Meh.-
Interesting theory. I'd be very curious to know whether or not it works. Seeing a thread like that makes me less likely to visit someone's profile or blog, since stereotyping seems to indicate a lack of creativity and analytical thought (of course, that's a stereotype, but there's nothing in a thread like that that makes me curious about the author).
-
-
I've never found analytical thought to be a feature of the common spammer. Law of averages would appear to be the only theory they have memorised.
It might really be bored people, its unlikely to be someone actually wanting an answer for anything practical, I'm still hedging my bet on those kinds of post being subtle spam. -
Because you don't know anything about love.
-
Also: some stereotype threads can be funny.
I have a particular fondness for stereotype threads (alas too rarely seen) that combine incredibly general categories with incredibly specific attributes: e.g. "is everyone secretly a towel worshipping foot-fetishist?" "Why do all Americans use suntan lotion?", "Why do so many women exhibit a preference for Edith Stein's reading of phenomenology"et cetera.
I agree that the usual things ("are women more understanding than men") things are dull when they are not bigoted/actual spam.
But we are attracted to stereotype threads because rather than despite their being preposterous.
-Mal
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
