Engender Truth

Jami (a commenter on this blog) has a terrific way with words. She wrote the following in reply to an earlier post called Stereotypes: Are you yawning or laughing?

“Stereotypes should serve as negative examples of the thinking we need to overcome in order to begin perceiving others as human beings - not as stereotypes slotted into perceptual boxes.”

I think we all agree that putting people into boxes is a problem. So why do we do it? I am sure most of us pegged someone wrong based on one false belief we had of a certain demographic, at least once in our lives.

Does Stereotyping Provide a Function?
I know I have been embarrassed once or twice with my own preconceptions based on national stereotypes (especially when I lived abroad) and I soon realized that my judgment was incorrect and the opposite is indeed true. I also had experiences where people (mis)placed me into a box due to their preconceptions about my culture, that was a strange feeling too.

In those moments I am usually glad I kept those horrid “putting-human-beings-into-boxes” ideas within the privacy of my own thoughts. There must be some function behind the act of putting people into neat conceptual boxes, otherwise we wouldn’t do it. Is stereotyping always wrong?

From my perspective it is human nature to divide concepts, people, and things into categorical boxes in order to understand them in the shortest time possible. In some situations it serves a useful function.

Take for example your average blog directory. I have the biggest problem trying to list my blog into directories because I cannot decide what category my blog should come under. I tend to put it under “Relationships” although I know that this is not the only subject my blog deals with. I am concerned that when my blog is labeled “Relationships” potential readers will assume that this is a dating site.

In a way, I am expected to put my blog into a neat conceptual box labeled “Relationships” and unfortunately, my blog does not fit very easily into this category.

What is the function of a blog directory putting each blog under headings such as “Business; Leisure and Tourism; Hobbies or Relationships”? In short, they are there to give internet surfers a sense of what they will find in each category, so if they are looking for tips on gardening they are hardly going to go into the Business section looking for it. Quite useful, eh?

How about language? It appears fluid and spontaneous from a distance, but when linguists try to understand it, they divide the words up into smaller conceptual bits according to function. So out of all the words in all the languages most of them can be divided into nouns, verbs, adjectives, and so on.

The parallel between the dividing up of language to stereotyping groups of human beings is uncanny! Linguists really do bicker over which word is really an adjective or adverb in a given sentence. Which goes to prove that even the very words we use cannot be stereotyped into boxes all the time – like people, words do not always match the given criteria neatly enough to categorize them as well as we would like.

Stereotyping as a Blueprint
Did you know that the word, “Stereotype” also refers to a late 18th Century method of printing? The process involved type being cast in a single mould so that a printing plate can be made from it. From this mould, numerous copies of a document can be made. This method was used in letterpress, newspapers and other press runs that ran at high speeds. You can see some examples of Stereotypes here

What if we use stereotypes in life as a form of blueprint like the stereotype printing method? Dividing the world into smaller packages is our way of creating order out of chaos. We file information according to labeled boxes for later reference, or for relevance. When we use stereotypes for our perceptions of places, people or objects we are interpreting the world from a blueprint and adding bits as we go along.

Who can blame us? We live in a massive universe. It is a tapestry woven tightly with mysteries that human beings attempt to muddle through everyday! So much of our understanding of life is contradictory too! Anyone that has studied long enough into any subject will discover that the more you read, sometimes the less you really know! All this information is confusing, and human beings have so many varied experiences, opinions, and perceptions that it is no wonder we start trying to condense information into these boxes!

Is Stereotyping a Problem?
The problem is not that people apply these blueprints to people, ideas, and places - it is when we compare ourselves to the blueprints of others, or become so attached to our own blueprints that we are unwilling to change them when we are met with new information.

It is fascinating that the word “stereotype” was given the meaning in 1850 of, “image perpetuated without change” it is directly lifted from the aforementioned concept of the 18th Century printing method. The process occurs in the mind of people who refuse to adapt their blueprints to new information. Their “type” has been set in iron and will only replicate the same viewpoint over and over again. This is the mind of a mechanical robot, not a human being.

To be overly attached to the blueprints we hold of others will only lead to a person to have a mind that is rigid and inflexible, eventually this type of mind will shatter not bend to new ways of thinking. I think it is a shame for any human being to fence themselves in with this thought process. It is always sad to view a person with a decaying mind – for their mind has the potential to be a beautiful instrument if only they tweaked their blueprints a tad.

So if you find yourself putting people into boxes sometimes, don’t beat yourself up for attempting to create order out of chaos. Do update your blueprint to reflect the new information you have learnt – keeping your mind open to these adjustments will make you a more flexible human being that can roll with life’s punches.

Have you ever met someone who actually fits into a stereotype at all?

I am interested in your views, please leave a comment!

Photo Courtesy of I -Stock Photos

Professor Chuck Wall lecturer for Human Relations at Bakersfield College was thinking on a new assignment to set for his students while hearing news on the radio that “another random act of senseless violence” had been committed. Moments later he swapped the word from the violence to kindness and thus asked a new question of humanity: What if more people committed random acts of kindness instead of violence in their everyday lives? Would it not make the world a better place?

With that idea in mind he set a new assignment for his students to “commit one random act of senseless kindness” that week. From this moment this idea has since travelled across the world to highlight that sometimes the smallest actions can make the biggest difference. You can read more about the background of how this concept was developed here.

Wendy Roby, author of an article I read in the Guardian, was also inspired by this concept as she readapted it to an article of tips to give other women on how to commit what she coins as “Random Acts of Feminism”

The suggestions and implications written in Roby’s article dismayed me.

I am deeply disappointed that this little gem of an idea was adapted to become small ways to “fight back” against things in society that Feminists are concerned about. It bother me how easily such a creative and positive idea of doing small things to make everyone feel good is readapted to a Feminist response to society that is only a message of war. Just take a look at these fighting words:

“A sign of female solidarity in an unlikely place might, in fact, be a useful weapon in the feminist’s arsenal.”

Why does it have to become a weapon? Is fighting and aggression what Feminism is all about? What a disservice to Professor Chuck Wall’s original idea of restoring faith in humanity and spreading kindness and goodwill between men and women that you turn his messages of bringing people together into a concept that leads to a battle of wills which does nothing other than divide community?

Would the world be a better place if women everywhere started practising Random Acts of Feminism? I beg to differ. We’ll have women refusing to speak to anyone who calls a woman over the age of 16 a girl, the page 3 ripped out of newspapers, insults written on call cards such as “Too sad and ugly for a real girlfriend? Call me!” radical feminist books left on park benches, and women not shaving to make a point. You think I am joking? I have just summarized the ideas outlined in this article.

Wendy Roby might not have a problem with any of these actions, but I do. I feel that these are small acts that only promote a sense of nippy agitation with the world, the idea that society is something to fight against; a kind of rebellion based on the belief that what bothers Wendy Roby (and other Feminists) should bother everyone else in the world too and everyone should know about it. I grant Roby has every right to express her opinion, but these actions will only ram her ideas about how society should be down people’s throats.

I do like the idea of starting small with any kind of positive change, though. If we are going to bring the “Random Acts of…..” model of thinking into the Gender War, I have a proposition for you.

I propose a new code to replace “Random Acts of Feminism” to “Random Acts of Reconciliation” or in other words, small ways in which men and women can restore trust between each other that can be practiced everyday. I would much prefer to see these small acts of reconciliation than petty notes stuck on a pouting model on lads magazines saying “Despite my come-hither expression, I wouldn’t shag a Nuts reader for a million pounds.”

Upon opening my email I discovered that I have 83 bounced emails in my junkmail folder for engendertruth at hotmail account. The odd thing about this is simply that I never sent any emails from this account, let alone 83 of them!!

If anyone has been spammed with the Engendertruth address, please be aware that it is NOT me. I have unfortunately (it would appear) become a victim of what is known as a Joe Job whereby some Spammy Arse Spammer is masqarading around using my email address. Grrr!

Let it be known that Engendertruth is NOT a spammer.

Let it also be known that I detest spammers. Mainly because they keep telling me I have a small penis!

I spent the last couple of weeks reflecting on posts I have written in 2007, but I have also looked at the responses to these posts. I feel lucky that so many rational, interesting, witty and thoughtful people choose to leave comments on here.

I am extremely grateful for the group of regular readers and commenters that visit this blog. I want you all to know that many of your perspectives, opinions and ideas continue to be an inspiration to me. I hope that what I write continues to be of interest and inspiration to you in return. After all, it is the least I can do, isn’t it?

To this end, I ask you for some feedback to help kickstart 2008. What content would you like to see on Engendertruth in the future? Are there any questions I have yet to answer? Anything you feel I missed in 2007 you would like me to explore further in 2008? Anywhere you think I am barking up the wrong tree? Is there anything you especially enjoyed and would like me develop something similar in the future?

Please leave a message after this post if you have any feedback, I would really appreciate it.

Many thanks to you all.

Do you find the stereotypes on gender roles amusing or do they bore you silly?

I will show you a clip I found on youtube that deals with the various male/female stereotypes accepted in society.

What I found interesting about this video is that it inspired a few comments that struck me as important reactions to stereotyping male and female behaviour.

The first commenter yawns:-

gitti412 (3 weeks ago)
boooooooooring. always the same boring stereotypes. i have ovaries, i have to love shopping.

I can perfectly understand that reaction. There is one part in the clip which suggests a woman coming home would start doing the housework. Honestly, I do housework when I have to. I would very rarely come home and start hoovering and ironing.

I am the least domesticated woman you will ever find. It might be something to do with being an ex-university student, though!

Either way, housework? Blergh. TV and a pizza? Bring it on!

Another commenter chuckles:-

noreaction32 (2 months ago)
good, this is how gender roles should be, just make fun of it instead of being a feminist or a chauvinist about it because in real life, men and women are made to exist in harmony

This comment is interesting because it points to another function of stereotypes, and that is humour.

There is a part of me that thinks stereotypes of men and women are exasperating. There is yet another part of me that views stereotyping as a means of laughing at ourselves and each other.

So what were your reactions to this video?

Are you yawning or laughing?

Upon the stroke of midnight I received a message from a friend of mine, he said:-

Your best wishes for 2007 did bugger all! For 2008, please send me money, gifts and vouchers instead!

Needless to say the text message was the most witty greeting into the New Year that I have ever read. I know many of the readers of this blog have a fantastic sense of humour, so I thought I would share.

Happy New Year!

I would question if the concept of “Gender Violence” really exists.  I would like to understand a definition of what that concept really means.

Are we talking specifically about violence of one gender against another? Are we referring to violence between members of the same gender? Or is there some other meaning or set of unspoken assumptions tucked away within a weasel word somewhere?

The best way to sum up the definition of a weasel word is as follows:

“When a weasel sucks eggs the meat is sucked out of the egg. If you use a ‘weasel word’ after another there is nothing left of the other.”

Let’s have a look at the term Gender Violence.

In this case, I believe the weasel word sits right at the beginning of the term. 

What is Gender Violence and how is it any different to just plain and simple Violence?

I don’t see any difference!

What is Gender doing before the word Violence other than just sitting there PRETENDING to communicate something specific? Gender in this context doesn’t communicate anything at all. It just hangs there like a dead weight off the shoulders of the word following it. I almost want to yell:-

“Oi! Violence! You should know that Gender is beyond your help, you’d be better off leaving it for dead. Dragging that heavy word around all day will only break your back!”

Just like the definition of a weasel word given above, the word Gender sucks the meaning out of the word Violence.

I guess this is because from my point of view ANY violence committed against another human being is still violence.  One act of violence against another human being is still one too many. It does not matter if the violence was committed by or against man, woman or child.

This makes me conclude that Gender Violence is yet another loaded term to redefine our perceptions of what violence really is, and how it exists within our societies.

Ultimately all of this leads me to the following question:

Who commits “Gender Violence” and who suffers as a result of it?”

If you cannot laugh at life, possessing humanity would have no meaning!

Things can get very hairy whilst discussing and reading certain gender issues. Yet, despite this, there are some original and valued ideas that come out of these discussions that take you closer to the reality that you are a living, fragile, human being.

There are also moments when I become aware of the strangeness to the experiences and setup behind this being human scenario. Quite aside from the unique experience of being a woman and not a man, one has to question the rationale of a being with oddly designed ears! If you already think that nature is just a big joke like I sometimes do, please feel free to take a read of what Holly Lisle has to say about this issue:

I really want to know who to blame for ear design. They’re okay when you’re upright. Not great. They don’t swivel so you can’t hone in on interesting sounds. They’re not very sensitive even at the best of times and with the best of ears.

But when you lie down, if you sleep on your side, you immediately lose hearing in the ear you’re lying on. Lying on your ear smunches it against your head, too, which hurts when you wake up (and sometimes hurts enough to wake you up). Predator and prey mammals usually have these great top-mounted swivelly ears that both still work whether the animals are upright or sleeping.

I thought this comment was funny when I first read it, but nothing prepared me for the wonderfully witty response from one of her readers:

From: El Adonai [yhwh .ancient.of.days AT SOME MAIL SERVER.com]
Subject: Regarding Ear Design

Hello, Holly. Recently it came to my attention that you are dissatisfied with the quality and design of the human aural receptors, otherwise more commonly known as “ears”.

Look, nobody’s perfect, okay? I was sitting there just sort of doodling ideas out and then up came Gabriel going on about “You never share any of the creation” and “why don’t you let us try now and again”. So, I handed him the pad and let him try. I said to him, It must be functional–the purpose of this organ is to perceive sound, so that my children may hear my voice and all the beauty of the world; take this paper, this ink, and make for me a thing to fulfill this purpose.

Easy enough, right? And what does that blowhard hand me? Abstract art! On my Son’s eyes, I swear it was almost as bad as when I let Lucifer at it and he made that “appendix” thing. He still won’t tell me what that damn thing is supposed to do.

Love,

I Am

I wonder what “El Adonai” would make of the whole “Gender War”? Actually I dread to think of the hidden explanation for that one

What if we discovered that we were mortal?

We are mortal, but that doesn’t seem to impress the majority with any sense of urgency.

Some might disagree with me and speak of the soul, or some other forgotten part of our existence that could live on when our physical bodies no longer function. That is a possibility which is comforting and interesting concept to entertain. Yet, whichever way we look at the subject of our own deaths and that of those we love, the physical nature of their existence is taken away completely but the people they love, the objects they owned, do not leave with them.

If we truly discovered that we were mortal, I believe that more people would make decisions on what is most important. If you thought you will cross the road and be hit by a bus by next Tuesday, perhaps those battles that you choose to fight today would be a waste of time, perhaps your priorities would change drastically. 

Is a pencil sharpener important when you die? Take this one for example:

Is a knife rack important when you die? How about this one?

Maybe these objects are not important by themselves but the message behind them?

These are mere objects, they do not own any inherent ability to communicate their own existence and purpose. The only beings that give these items a message are those who are choosing to take offense to them.  Neither of these objects mean anything to me, they are simply objects. I wouldn’t even know of their existence if I were not plugged into the internet and currently reading the views of those who would find such items offensive.

I have been quietly watching the conversation between Feministing.com and Glenn Sacks (among a few others) on these objects. I couldn’t help but find the situation amusing. Why?

Ask yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, why a knife rack or pencil sharpener is important enough to grant them any power to offend you? Precious moments are wasted on these arguments that could be better used to focus and explore issues that require more thought and attention.

For me, the following music video by Alicia Keys communicates how often we all forget the fragility of our lives, and that we all fall into the trap of battling the least important whilst forgetting what is most valuable that needs defending.

Men and women are priceless; children are precious.

Building meaningful relationships are important.

Trust, integrity, honour, love, and hope are vital.

Humanity is valuable. 

The exploration of ideas and alternatives are what have helped human beings survive up until this point. It is our strength. Let’s not allow our native intelligence to be distracted by that which bears little importance on the grand canvass of life itself.

Once you put the meaning of a pencil sharpener and a knife rack against those values, I hope they become pale shadows of the importance they were granted before. If not, what more can any rational being do or say?

Postcards from Splitsville :: Children Expressing Themselves About Divorce

The proverb that makes the title of this post is the correct translation of the original Chinese proverb. The combination of words and pictures create an important synergy.

As do two parents that love each other. 

I personally find the above picture suggests an interesting dichotomy between what makes the parents happy and what makes the child happy. Either way, it throws up a lot of interesting questions about the issue.  I don’t fault those parents who choose to divorce, there are often understandable reasons why that had to be the best course of action. It is clear that divorce has a very deep impact upon the children, which is something we are learning with recent generations. I am not sure what the answer is but I agree with Zogmama when she states:

It’s not whether you or I need another parent to conceive or raise children. It’s what’s best for the children that should remain the highest priority.

On Gender Movements and Their Critics « Engender Truth