Gender Stereotypes and Tropes which I strongly dislike

[Miskatonic]

This thread makes me think we need a completely new sub-forum for these types of discussions.

 

[FifthView]

This thread makes me think we need a completely new sub-forum for these types of discussions.

What type is that?


There is drift, often enough. But is all drift the same?

 

[Miskatonic]

What type is that?


There is drift, often enough. But is all drift the same?

The OP's original question and what this thread has turned into are pretty far apart. It seems like every post with gender as part of the topic ends up turning into people debating personal beliefs and not really having much to do with actual writing.

Maybe we can have a "social/political issues and writing" sub-forum.

Otherwise posts like these are always going to get derailed by ideological pissing contests.

 

[FifthView]

The problem is also in the way some OPs inaugurate the thread.

Which is your least favorite gender stereotype ?

There, that's asking for an opinion, a subjective evaluation. So this naturally leads into a thicket of personal beliefs, personal assessments, personal philosophies and aesthetics.

One way such an opening can derail onto a different rail (rather than just simple chaos) is related somewhat to what I wrote above about turning a partial discovery into a universal truth. I.e., the attempt to draw the universal from partiality. Then the debate becomes about who has the Absolute Truth (tm) in his back pocket.

 

[Miskatonic]

For me, the stake in the heart of much of the drivel coming from evolutionary psychology–and, indeed, from much popular science, in general–is the persistent effort to draw a universal on the basis of statistical data.

Whenever such a "scientist" claims that, say, in 89% of cases of X the result is Y–they usually fail to mention that 11% of cases do not result in Y. Yet they will exclaim eureka! and say they have found an absolute. Often, 65% or 75% will be an adequate "determinant" for them.

This holds true for many branches of science. So, in X% of cases, high sugar intake leads to Y; but in 100-X% of cases, it doesn't. Hmmm.

This doesn't mean that nothing important is being discovered or that no relationships between X and Y exist. But only that other variables also exist within the equation. But this also doesn't mean that a meaningful relationship between X and Y certainly exists; without revealing those other variables, how can we know the importance of the relationship between X an Y?

I'm grossly oversimplifying above. But also admitting that I am!

And what does this have to do with gender stereotypes and tropes exactly? Sounds like a completely different topic is being discussed.

 

[FifthView]

And what does this have to do with gender stereotypes and tropes exactly? Sounds like a completely different topic is being discussed.

What is a stereotype, if not a false universal or false absolute? What, indeed, is a trope if not a frequently appearing device—rather than a statistical anomaly?

My comment was directly in line with the conversation up to that point in the thread, in any case.

 

[Devor]

What I understand was some of the best work in the field was the study published in the Proceedings in the National Academy of Science. It is well discussed here:

Men are better at spatial reasoning? Erm, you might want to think again

I was going to stay out of this, but I decided that I do want to comment quickly on the study and on understanding its limitations. I feel that people often overstate the evidence when they quote these things.

First, the disclaimers. I have no problem accepting the validity of the study in terms of its actual findings. And while I do think men and women behave just a little different for biological reasons, I don't really know or care whether spacial reasoning is one of those differences.

But this study is based on the time it took children to complete a four piece puzzle. It found that women from the area with a lot of sexual discrimination did poorly, and the ones from the other side did about even with men.

The problems:

- Sexual differences which occur in the brain and in your hormones aren't finished developing in children. The sexes continue differentiating past puberty. (edit, on second read the puzzle was given to "villagers," and not children.)

- There are a variety of ways to solve a four-piece puzzle without using spacial reasoning, such as matching (this edge is green, that edge is green, they go together). In my experience, that's how most people do it anyways.

- The puzzle is very simple, and is therefore capped at the level of differences it can show. You can't measure advanced reasoning with a test that basic.

- There was no measure of how much energy they exerted during the test. Did some find it hard and focus more? Did some of them find it easy and slack off? Were they invested in solving the puzzle?

It's absolutely horrible that many women are held back in their education throughout the world. This study is evidence of one of the ways that begins to happen early on. If you want to demonstrate that the difference between the sexes is small, or that we make too much of it, or that they're used to hold women back unnecessarily, this study is solid proof of that. But it doesn't come close to proving that the differences are not real on average.

 

[ascanius]

I was going to stay out of this, but I decided that I do want to comment quickly on the study and on understanding its limitations. I feel that people often overstate the evidence when they quote these things.

First, the disclaimers. I have no problem accepting the validity of the study in terms of its actual findings. And while I do think men and women behave just a little different for biological reasons, I don't really know or care whether spacial reasoning is one of those differences.

But this study is based on the time it took children to complete a four piece puzzle. It found that women from the area with a lot of sexual discrimination did poorly, and the ones from the other side did about even with men.

The problems:

- Sexual differences which occur in the brain and in your hormones aren't finished developing in children. The sexes continue differentiating past puberty. (edit, on second read the puzzle was given to "villagers," and not children.)

- There are a variety of ways to solve a four-piece puzzle without using spacial reasoning, such as matching (this edge is green, that edge is green, they go together). In my experience, that's how most people do it anyways.

- The puzzle is very simple, and is therefore capped at the level of differences it can show. You can't measure advanced reasoning with a test that basic.

- There was no measure of how much energy they exerted during the test. Did some find it hard and focus more? Did some of them find it easy and slack off? Were they invested in solving the puzzle?

It's absolutely horrible that many women are held back in their education throughout the world. This study is evidence of one of the ways that begins to happen early on. If you want to demonstrate that the difference between the sexes is small, or that we make too much of it, or that they're used to hold women back unnecessarily, this study is solid proof of that. But it doesn't come close to proving that the differences are not real on average.

Thanks this was basically my problem with it. I was try to keep my reply small so I didn't go in depth.

Also one other thing, you publish the results of your study so it is available to others to peer review. Just because it's published doesn't mean it has been peer reviewed.

 

[Russ]

Also one other thing, you publish the results of your study so it is available to others to peer review. Just because it's published doesn't mean it has been peer reviewed.

The journal it was published in requires peer review before publication. So this study was indeed peer reviewed before it was published. When people speak in the field about peer reviewed they normally mean a peer reviewed journal publication.

 

[Devor]

The journal it was published in requires peer review before publication. So this study was indeed peer reviewed before it was published. When people speak in the field about peer reviewed they normally mean a peer reviewed journal publication.

Yes, but that peer review only refers to the methodology of the study. It would be a mistake to view any single study as by itself proving something as big as whether or not men and women have biologically driven behavior differences. It's one data point, one piece of a really big puzzle that contributes to the conversation. It's that far-reaching conversation among experts with hundreds of studies and decades of debate that reaches conclusions like that, not one study.

 

[Heliotrope]

I think the point, though, was just to show that there is "research" on both sides. One poster argued that something was absolutely genetic, and Russ was simply saying "perhaps... Or perhaps not." There is research on both sides and the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know. We can't argue these points as absolute truths.

 

[Devor]

I think the point, though, was just to show that there is "research" on both sides. One poster argued that something was absolutely genetic, and Russ was simply saying "perhaps... Or perhaps not." There is research on both sides and the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know. We can't argue these points as absolute truths.

Fair enough - some of my points were directed more at statements in the blog post explaining the study than at Russ's direct statements.

 

[Russ]

Yes, but that peer review only refers to the methodology of the study. It would be a mistake to view any single study as by itself proving something as big as whether or not men and women have biologically driven behavior differences. It's one data point, one piece of a really big puzzle that contributes to the conversation. It's that far-reaching conversation among experts with hundreds of studies and decades of debate that reaches conclusions like that, not one study.

It appears you are agreeing with my point. Another poster said quite emphatically that it was proven that those spetial differences were genetic. I suggested that no such thing had been proven.

Neither, I, nor anybody else has ever stated that this study is definitive. In fact I praised the authors for being humble and careful in their conclusions.


The term "peer review" or "peer reviewed" have a meaning in such discussions, I used the term in its normal academic sense. This study was published in a peer reviewed journal and thus has been peer reviewed.

The term "peer review" does not mean the study hold the definitive answer to an entire field. In fact a Norwegian study just came out that suggests the difference is biology based, but once again it was done amongst Norwegian University students which I have concerns about.

 

[Devor]

The term "peer review" does not mean the study hold the definitive answer to an entire field.

I think ascanius may be referring to a point I've made about such studies in the past when he says peer reviewed. So forgive me, but that's why I'm getting into this.

When a journal publishes a study, they presumably review the methodology before doing so. I don't think anybody is challenging that methodology.

However, peer review - at least, as referred to in laymen's terms - also refers to the reviews and opinions formed in the field after the publication. A scientist reading that journal may challenge, just for instance, whether the puzzle really tested spacial reasoning, which could lead to similar tests run on this population with a more complicated challenge for participants, and so on.

That is, peer review can also include the process by which the limitations of the study are flushed out and researched further by others in the field. It's because of that peer review process that one study being published cannot be taken as conclusive. Rather, the conclusive findings determined by the study and affirmed by the journal publishing it are that women in one area took longer to complete the puzzle than women from another area. The (perfectly well-reasoned, if you ask me) opinion that this study successfully isolated education as a factor, and the (reasonable, but more debatable, if you ask me) opinion that the puzzle measures basic spacial reasoning are still matters that require a scientific consensus and additional research.

The idea that this is reflective of all spacial reasoning differences between the two genders? I know you agree when I say this, but it's only a tiny piece of that question.

If I'm misunderstanding the proper definition of "peer review," and there's a more applicable term for the process above, let me know and you have my apologies for confusing people.

In fact a Norwegian study just came out that suggests the difference is biology based, but once again it was done amongst Norwegian University students which I have concerns about.

Most of what I know about this stuff comes from studying Marketing Research back in college, which is a very different perspective than the biological one of the scientists doing the research.

If I were tasked to design a test trying to pinpoint or define whether or how men and women might differ in spacial reasoning, I would start by looking at the physical differences in brain chemistry and hormones, and comparing that to reams and reams of qualitative data from college students in a search to identify the nature of the difference I would want to isolate.

More than likely, if there's a difference, you'll spot it first in a couple of free-response answers, and could then design a way to test it objectively.

I don't know if that actually makes a difference to this conversation, but I thought I'd put it out there.

 

[ascanius]

Another poster said quite emphatically that it was proven that those spetial differences were genetic. I suggested that no such thing had been proven.

The term "peer review" or "peer reviewed" have a meaning in such discussions, I used the term in its normal academic sense. This study was published in a peer reviewed journal and thus has been peer reviewed.

First I never said anything was proven, I simply said that the research I have read said the opposite what you are saying.

For the peer review see below.

I think ascanius may be referring to a point I've made about such studies in the past when he says peer reviewed. So forgive me, but that's why I'm getting into this.

When a journal publishes a study, they presumably review the methodology before doing so. I don't think anybody is challenging that methodology.

However, peer review - at least, as referred to in laymen's terms - also refers to the reviews and opinions formed in the field after the publication. A scientist reading that journal may challenge, just for instance, whether the puzzle really tested spacial reasoning, which could lead to similar tests run on this population with a more complicated challenge for participants, and so on.

That is, peer review can also include the process by which the limitations of the study are flushed out and researched further by others in the field. It's because of that peer review process that one study being published cannot be taken as conclusive. Rather, the conclusive findings determined by the study and affirmed by the journal publishing it are that women in one area took longer to complete the puzzle than women from another area. The (perfectly well-reasoned, if you ask me) opinion that this study successfully isolated education as a factor, and the (reasonable, but more debatable, if you ask me) opinion that the puzzle measures basic spacial reasoning are still matters that require a scientific consensus and additional research.

The idea that this is reflective of all spacial reasoning differences between the two genders? I know you agree when I say this, but it's only a tiny piece of that question.

If I'm misunderstanding the proper definition of "peer review," and there's a more applicable term for the process above, let me know and you have my apologies for confusing people.




Most of what I know about this stuff comes from studying Marketing Research back in college, which is a very different perspective than the biological one of the scientists doing the research.

If I were tasked to design a test trying to pinpoint or define whether or how men and women might differ in spacial reasoning, I would start by looking at the physical differences in brain chemistry and hormones, and comparing that to reams and reams of qualitative data from college students in a search to identify the nature of the difference I would want to isolate.

More than likely, if there's a difference, you'll spot it first in a couple of free-response answers, and could then design a way to test it objectively.

I don't know if that actually makes a difference to this conversation, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Thank you again devor for explain peer review, your summary is basically the whole shebang. Russ, sorry for not explaining peer review better. I did undergraduate in molecular biology and for me this stuff is common knowledge and I forget that not everyone knows these little details.

 

[MauEvig]

There are stereotypes that tend to really annoy me. I can't stand the "women are damsels in distress" trope. While I don't mind men being heroes, it would be nice to see more women in that role.
But what really annoys me is that, and while I love tough women characters (most of my characters are, FYI), why do they always have to be lesbians or at the very least, a bisexual who has a female significant other? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely supportive of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, but just...why? If a hero is a lesbian and she's saving her lover, that still means a woman is going to be the damsel isn't it? In the case of two gay men, the man is still going to be a hero in this scenario? What gives?
But I'm a bit of a rebel. I tend to completely reverse gender roles, or at the very least both the male and female will save each other throughout the course of a story and even work together as a team. I'm actually a big fan of men and women working together.
But as far as the portrayal of gay characters go, I kind of prefer reversing the stereotypes there as well. I tend to make gay males masculine and lesbians feminine. I suppose bisexuals could go either way.
But really, that's my only complaint, that and the fact that women tend to be the damsel in distress all the time.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

There are stereotypes that tend to really annoy me. I can't stand the "women are damsels in distress" trope. While I don't mind men being heroes, it would be nice to see more women in that role.
But what really annoys me is that, and while I love tough women characters (most of my characters are, FYI), why do they always have to be lesbians or at the very least, a bisexual who has a female significant other? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely supportive of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, but just...why? If a hero is a lesbian and she's saving her lover, that still means a woman is going to be the damsel isn't it? In the case of two gay men, the man is still going to be a hero in this scenario? What gives?
But I'm a bit of a rebel. I tend to completely reverse gender roles, or at the very least both the male and female will save each other throughout the course of a story and even work together as a team. I'm actually a big fan of men and women working together.
But as far as the portrayal of gay characters go, I kind of prefer reversing the stereotypes there as well. I tend to make gay males masculine and lesbians feminine. I suppose bisexuals could go either way.
But really, that's my only complaint, that and the fact that women tend to be the damsel in distress all the time.

Yeah, I have damsels in distress, but I’m just as prone to have in dudes in distress... hell, pretty much every character is in distress, heh heh.

 

[The Dark One]

Playing with fire these sorts of threads...

Still, that's never stopped me. I guess I come from two different perspectives on this: one is that any writer is inevitably subject to his/her own innate conditioning. Some of it we can unlearn, if we want to, although I wonder whether some of the values replacing the dinosaur values are always as deeply held and self-evident seeming as the values sucked in with mother's milk. So bearing all that in mind, social values gradually change across the epochs and literature changes with it. Literary historians will find our time incredibly interesting from a sexual politics perspective.

My other perspective is the storytelling prism. I strive to give all characters equal agency. Obviously some will feature more in the story than others but every character who appears (if they get a name) must have some impact on the plot. If I stick to that rule then I'm unlikely to create ciphers or stereotypes. Or if I do, people will still enjoy reading them because they seem real and do things that matter.

That is my hope, but as with all things in this game - I'm the last one able to judge my own stuff.

 

[Insolent Lad]

I wrote a story titled 'A Dragon in Distress' a while back. A middle-aged damsel had decided she wanted to marry him.

 

[Devor]

For those who may not have noticed, I wanted to point out that this thread was necroed from 2015. That’s fine, just be aware.