Author Topic: Gender & Identity in Online Culture  (Read 69515 times)

ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
on: February 19, 2007, 07:35:24 PM
I don't believe so, though there are people who would argue that.

There have just been a few instances of people assuming I was male on the board, so it was ironic in context.

Call it a few plus one.  I just happened to stumble across this thread and, until now, assumed you were a guy. I had no idea what the word meant, so I don't have any reason to have made that assumption.
Maybe it's just because I'm old... :P

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #1 on: February 19, 2007, 09:50:23 PM
Well, I think male is the default assumption -- I'm sure I do it from time to time. Male, white, etcetera. Which is one of the reasons why I call it out. It doesn't really bug me that any individual assumes one thing or another, but as a system, it's part of the construction of women (and nonwhites, etc.) as other.

I mean, there are all those studies about how people who are online under generic signifiers are treated as male, but people who are online under female signifiers are significantly more likely to be harrassed (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-10-chat-threats_x.htm).

My ideal would be people thinking before assuming the next person they meet online is what they expect them to be. :)

*

Ribbons, huh? And the sesame street defaults of eyelashes and hair barrettes? ;)



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #2 on: February 21, 2007, 01:27:53 PM
My ideal would be people thinking before assuming the next person they meet online is what they expect them to be. :)

I don't disagree, and it'd be great if people did just that.
I want to raise the question if "why?"
In day-to-day life we meet people face to face, or over the phone, and we get automatic tip-offs about that person and gender is one of the first, but on this new fangled interweb we don't get any clues. Should we be concerned with gender at all? Does it matter if one assumes another is the same gender or another race, especially if the avatar in question doesn't give any hints one way or the other?
Is there, or should there be a gender/race/sexuality/political/religious/totally neutral way to refer to someone encounter in a virtual environment so as to not apply ones one stereotypes or prejudices?

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #3 on: February 21, 2007, 01:32:20 PM
Completely as far as gender, you could use gender neutral pronouns. I've been trying to do that on the board, although I sometimes lapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutral_pronouns

The ones used in some genderfluid communities in the United States are under "neologisms."

It's also not inappropriate to use "they" as a personal pronoun. It has a long history of use, apparently, despite what recent grammarians would have us believe. Haut knows more about that.

In re:

Quote
Does it matter if one assumes another is the same gender or another race, especially if the avatar in question doesn't give any hints one way or the other?

Yes. It matters.

It matters because it reinforces defaults. It reinforces that the "standard" person is male or white or whatever. That's just not true, and it's offensive, and it's part of what creates and reinforces systems of sexism, racism, etc.

That doesn't mean one is never going to make mistakes, but it means one should question one's assumptions.



GoodDamon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 352
    • Speculations - My writing blog
Reply #4 on: February 21, 2007, 08:27:46 PM
I'm going to assume my assumptions are wrong from now on. Oh wait...

 ;D Just trying to lighten things up.

Damon Kaswell: Reader, writer, and arithmetic-er


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #5 on: February 21, 2007, 08:28:55 PM
Well, from your avatar I can see you are clearly a juvenile female of Kikuyu derivation. That was easy! :)



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #6 on: February 21, 2007, 11:08:54 PM
I've been trying to purge stereotypes from my mind for years. Every time I think I'm making progress, I run into someone that is the living embodiment of some stereotype.  I swear my late father-in-law was like that.  If I wrote a story and made a character that was exactly like him, I'd get flamed for using such a two dimensional cardboard cutout.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #7 on: February 21, 2007, 11:11:10 PM
Have you read Maus?



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #8 on: March 01, 2007, 07:28:37 PM
I'm late to this thread but feel strongly enough to post anyway...

Some sterotypes are certainly based on ignorance and prejudice, but many others are that way because they are based in fact.  I find sterotypes based on race are usually off, but those based on region or community are pretty good.  Such behaviours are usually reinforced by local customs, family and friends (everyone wants to fit in after all).

Quote from: palimpsest
Quote from: Thaurismunths
Does it matter if one assumes another is the same gender or another race, especially if the avatar in question doesn't give any hints one way or the other?

Yes. It matters.

It matters because it reinforces defaults. It reinforces that the "standard" person is male or white or whatever. That's just not true, and it's offensive, and it's part of what creates and reinforces systems of sexism, racism, etc.
You have a vaild point, Ms. Palimpsest, but the problem is that the human brain needs to picture something.  How many times during a phone conversation have you unintentionally imagined what someone looks like?  I'd be surprised if it wasn't always.  Just as your brain produces ghost sounds and lights during sensory deprivation, it produces imagined images to associate to a person.  And like sensory deprivation, the less information there is to interpret, the more your brain manufactures.  Often this is based on previous experience - if I go to a chatroom of mostly women and someone signs in as blue-eyes332 - I'm imagining "woman" 'til I know otherwise (even if the most famous "blue-eyes" I know is Frank Sinatra). 

Whatever the reason, the fact is that more males poke around and post on this Internet thingy, and unless there is something to give me a clue, I'm going to have to assume the default.  You're a 15 yr old boy if I'm on a gamer site, a man in his late 20s/mid 30s on a chess game, and some guy who likes to sci-fi if you're posting here.

In the case of this forum, I don't think anyone cares what is someone's gender,age, etc. All that seems to matter is insightful comments (of which you have made a substantial amount and for which you have earned much respect).  So I think Thaurismunths is right in implying that assuming someone is just like you doesn't matter - how can it be bad if I think you are just like me (maybe smarter based on your remarks ;)?  Harmful is when I assume something derogatory because I dislike what you've said - "you didn't agree with my opinion of this story, so you must be an ignorant greasy wop who is too dumb to understand"  Which I am glad to say I have not seen here.



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #9 on: March 01, 2007, 07:38:44 PM
So it's impossible to keep an open mind about what someone else's attributes are?

Are you denying that the concept that all sf authors are male -- that indeed all authors are male -- has been harmful to women's work in the field?



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #10 on: March 01, 2007, 10:24:08 PM
So it's impossible to keep an open mind about what someone else's attributes are?
Keeping an open mind is a personal effort, and is different than what I said.  What I said was if you give me nothing to define you with, my own experiences with fill in the blanks because I don't believe that a person can think of another as an androgynous blank.

Keeping an open mind is knowing you are a woman and not dismissing you opinions because of that one fact.

Are you denying that the concept that all sf authors are male -- that indeed all authors are male -- has been harmful to women's work in the field?
Absolutely not, and unfortunately it's part of the reason why some of my favourite authors (C.S. Friedman, D.C. Fontana, C.J. Cheryl) did not reveal themselves as women - but by doing that they help reinforce the stereotype.  By hiding themselves, they allow others to decide how to define them.  The insightful, thorough and helpful comments you have made are no less so, simply because I now know you are a woman - and I would argue that knowing you were a woman at the time might help favourably change some ignorant goof's opinion - think Mary Shelley.



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #11 on: March 01, 2007, 11:24:49 PM
I'm late to this thread but feel strongly enough to post anyway...

Some sterotypes are certainly based on ignorance and prejudice, but many others are that way because they are based in fact.  I find sterotypes based on race are usually off, but those based on region or community are pretty good.  Such behaviours are usually reinforced by local customs, family and friends (everyone wants to fit in after all).

It seems to me that you're conflating stereotype with statistical liklihood.  I don't think they're at all the same.

It may well be statistically likely that, for instance, my grandma, who was a devout Catholic, practiced a particular custom or held a particular belief, or even engaged in a particular set of speech patterns.  She may or may not have--though in knowing her religion and the region where she lived you'd be more likely right than not in your guesses.  But she remains, for all that, an individual, a person easily distinguishable from anyone else's Catholic grandma of Irish descent from northern Ohio.

A stereotype does not recognize that.  A stereotype says "Little old Catholic lady in Toledo" and assembles a list of characteristics that might in outline suggest my grandma to someone who didn't really know her, but that doesn't come anywhere close to depicting her.  I might, if I squinted and ignored her as an idividual person, even be able to say "My grandma was a walking stereotype," but it would require a sort of willful blindness on my part.

As a writer, to me, using a stereotype involves saying "Okay, I've got a character who's...a little girl."  To choose one that drives me, personally, up a wall.  "Therefore, she will be...<insert list of cultural assumptions about little girls>.  I don't need to consider this character as an idividual while composing, because this list of cultural assumptions will be sufficiently <little girl> for my purposes."  And it's not the same thing, I think, as saying, "Well, lots of little girls in this age range love My Little Pony, so I think my little girl character would have Sparkleworks and Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash in a prominent spot in her room."

Using a stereotype is like using a rubber stamp.  Acknowledging that your character is statistically going to be likely to....do or like whatever is just building your character.  But!  Watch out for assumptions about what is statistically likely--sometimes they're based not on statistics but on piled-up prejudices and unquestioned repetitions of stereotypes that everyone assumes are right just because of the repetition (and because of underlying cultural assumptions).

Quote
You have a vaild point, Ms. Palimpsest, but the problem is that the human brain needs to picture something.  How many times during a phone conversation have you unintentionally imagined what someone looks like?  I'd be surprised if it wasn't always.  Just as your brain produces ghost sounds and lights during sensory deprivation, it produces imagined images to associate to a person.  And like sensory deprivation, the less information there is to interpret, the more your brain manufactures.  Often this is based on previous experience - if I go to a chatroom of mostly women and someone signs in as blue-eyes332 - I'm imagining "woman" 'til I know otherwise (even if the most famous "blue-eyes" I know is Frank Sinatra). 

This is precisely, I think, Palimpsest's point.

People are going to fill in the missing spots in their concepts of other people--the human brain is hardwired to fill in missing information, to find patterns and even make them where none is actually there.  I don't think she's arguing that we should all stop doing this.

What she's saying, I think, is that when doing so we should be aware of the assumptions we're bringing to it.   To fill in uncritically, without questioning those assumptions, is to reinforce harmful patterns, patterns that you would likely wish strenuously to disassociate yourself from.

Quote
Whatever the reason, the fact is that more males poke around and post on this Internet thingy, and unless there is something to give me a clue, I'm going to have to assume the default.

You sure about that?  The parts of the intarwebs I hang out in have a lot of girls poking around.  And lots of those girls are SF readers and/or writers.



Quote
In the case of this forum, I don't think anyone cares what is someone's gender,age, etc. All that seems to matter is insightful comments (of which you have made a substantial amount and for which you have earned much respect).  So I think Thaurismunths is right in implying that assuming someone is just like you doesn't matter - how can it be bad if I think you are just like me (maybe smarter based on your remarks ;)


It can be harmful when it reinforces the very subtle and widepread assumption that the people who have worthwhile things to say, and who are worth paying attention to, are people who are just like you.  Which, actually, it does.  Not because you, yourself are sexist or racist, but because the whole cultural framework perpetuates sexism and racism, and part of the battle against them involves questioning the assumptions, and being aware of things like what you're assuming about a person when all you have is an internet handle.



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #12 on: March 01, 2007, 11:28:06 PM
The only thing I have to add to haut's post, at least at the moment, is that it's hardly a coincidence that people's default is white, male, straight, and etc. The rest of us are constructed as deviating from the norm.



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #13 on: March 02, 2007, 03:13:56 AM
I took a long time to respond to this because as I wrote my reply I was trying to clarify to myself what my point was originally.  I guess it boils down to this: If you don't want people to think you are something you are not then show them who you are.  If you use a neutral handle or post anonymously you really shouldn't be upset that people can't guess who you are - this includes them guessing you're something you are not.

Quote from: hautdesert
It seems to me that you're conflating stereotype with statistical liklihood.
I'm not one for arguing semantics(stats vs stereotype), to me sterotypes are "Canadians love hockey" - I don't.
And, for me, this discussion is not specific to writing.  In "imagining" hautdesert or palimpset or Thaurismunths or slic, I'm not applying stereotypes as literary shortcut instead of building a character.  I'm assuming they are like me until shown otherwise, not because I'm unimaginative but because I don't know who/how it helps that I imagine SFEly as a Pakastani woman living in Northern Minnesota.
 
Quote from: hautdesert
People are going to fill in the missing spots in their concepts of other people--the human brain is hardwired to fill in missing information...
..when doing so we should be aware of the assumptions we're bringing to it.
It can be harmful when it reinforces the very subtle and widepread assumption that the people who have worthwhile things to say...are people who are just like you.
I agree with all your points, but feel that we interpret them differently - if you want people to stop making assumptions you disagree with then show them something that challenges those assumptions.

Quote from: hautdesert
Quote
Whatever the reason, the fact is that more males poke around and post on this Internet thingy, and unless there is something to give me a clue, I'm going to have to assume the default.

You sure about that?  The parts of the intarwebs I hang out in have a lot of girls poking around.  And lots of those girls are SF readers and/or writers.
I was speaking in complete generalities, as I thought that was the point.  In my blue-eyes332 example I did suggest there are sections that are not covered in men.

Quote from: palimpsest
It reinforces that the "standard" person is male or white or whatever...
..it's hardly a coincidence that people's default is white, male, straight, and etc....
But Thaurismunths point was "Does it matter if one assumes another is the same gender..." so it only reinforces this default for straight white men.  Straight asian women would consider all other anonymous posters to be straight asian women, etc., etc...



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #14 on: March 02, 2007, 03:36:53 AM
I took a long time to respond to this because as I wrote my reply I was trying to clarify to myself what my point was originally.  I guess it boils down to this: If you don't want people to think you are something you are not then show them who you are.  If you use a neutral handle or post anonymously you really shouldn't be upset that people can't guess who you are - this includes them guessing you're something you are not.

It's not a question of "not wanting people to think you're something you're not."  It's a question of being frustrated that the default is clearly white and male and anything else is "other."

Quote from: hautdesert
It seems to me that you're conflating stereotype with statistical liklihood.
Quote
I'm not one for arguing semantics(stats vs stereotype), to me sterotypes are "Canadians love hockey" - I don't.

The semantic difference is important.  It's as important as the difference between sentiment and sentimentality.  They're two different things, easily confused, but really not the same.

Quote
And, for me, this discussion is not specific to writing.  In "imagining" hautdesert or palimpset or Thaurismunths or slic, I'm not applying stereotypes as literary shortcut instead of building a character.  I'm assuming they are like me until shown otherwise, not because I'm unimaginative but because I don't know who/how it helps that I imagine SFEly as a Pakastani woman living in Northern Minnesota.

Right, I was going off on a writing tangent, because it touched on some of those issues.  :)

 
Quote from: hautdesert

You sure about that?  The parts of the intarwebs I hang out in have a lot of girls poking around.  And lots of those girls are SF readers and/or writers.
Quote
I was speaking in complete generalities, as I thought that was the point.  In my blue-eyes332 example I did suggest there are sections that are not covered in men.

My point isn't that there are parts that are largely populated by women--my point is that your assumption (that it's mostly men on the internet) may well be factually incorrect, and more a product of the places you hang out (and your cultural assumptions) than of objective reality.

Quote from: palimpsest
It reinforces that the "standard" person is male or white or whatever...
..it's hardly a coincidence that people's default is white, male, straight, and etc....
Quote
But Thaurismunths point was "Does it matter if one assumes another is the same gender..." so it only reinforces this default for straight white men.  Straight asian women would consider all other anonymous posters to be straight asian women, etc., etc...

Well, in reality it reinforces the default for everyone.  Because it's not just straight white men who assume that the individuals on the net are straight white men.  It's the cultural default.

My argument, and Palimpsest's, I imagine, proceeded from the fact that both you and Thaurismunths are, to judge from your posts, male.  So the answer is that you being male, yes, there is a harm in your assuming that everyone is male.  (There would also be a harm in, say, my assuming that everyone is female unless otherwise indicated.  But the culture being what it is, the harm of all of us assuming maleness is more insidious.)




Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #15 on: March 02, 2007, 03:42:37 AM
I would also respectfully submit that one reason you may not personally see it as harmful is because it isn't damaging to you. (Not to imply that all people in the dominant classes see things one way, or that all people in opressed classes do either, but it's harder to see the system if you're at the top of it.)

When we reinforce "white male" as normal, as default -- and that *is* the cultural default -- then writing that's about women the way most writing is about men becomes "women's writing" whereas the writing that's about men the way most writing is, remains just "writing."

When we reinforce "white male" as normal, as default -- and that *is* the cultural default -- then politics that address the issues of black women become "identity politics" whereas the politics that address the issues of white men, which is most politics, is just "politics."

This is called "othering." It's not cool.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 03:49:37 AM by palimpsest »



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #16 on: March 02, 2007, 04:50:29 AM
Quote from: hautdesert
My point isn't that there are parts that are largely populated by women--my point is that your assumption (that it's mostly men on the internet) may well be factually incorrect, and more a product of the places you hang out (and your cultural assumptions) than of objective reality.
I haven't read up on it recently, but a quick search bears out my belief
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801403.html
http://www.blog.aimscanada.com/aims_canada/2006/10/good_morning_ho.html

Quote from: hautdesert
Well, in reality it reinforces the default for everyone.  Because it's not just straight white men who assume that the individuals on the net are straight white men.  It's the cultural default.
Again, how else to change that default/perception than show people that there are other people out there.

Quote from: hautdesert
My argument, and Palimpsest's, I imagine, proceeded from the fact that both you and Thaurismunths are, to judge from your posts, male.  So the answer is that you being male, yes, there is a harm in your assuming that everyone is male.
Quote from: palimpsest
This is called "othering." It's not cool.
Yikes.  Quick aside, having my name under my avatar is another hint as to my gender :) But (assuming it is my real name) neither of you know anything else about me.  I won't turn this into a contest of who had/has the harder life, but rest assured I'm not dancing in the streets with money and power, and school involved a good bit of blood, bruises and torment.  I was shunned, and looked down upon well enough to understand "othering".

Quote from: palimpsest
When we reinforce "white male" as normal, as default -- and that *is* the cultural default --...
So again, should I start assuming all anonymous posters are gay black women? bald Jewish girls? glasses-wearing Indian supermodels with humps?




SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #17 on: March 02, 2007, 06:49:10 AM
So again, should I start assuming all anonymous posters are gay black women? bald Jewish girls? glasses-wearing Indian supermodels with humps?

My personal feeling on this -- and please understand, I'm speaking simply as an individual peer in the thread here, not as the moderator or EP's editor or anything else -- anyway, my feeling is that it doesn't really matter what one pictures in one's own mind, so long as those assumptions don't lead to damaging outward action. 

'Damaging' is ambiguous, and there are degrees.  I understand Palimpsest's position that use of gender-charged language is damaging in an indirect sense, even when no offense is intended.  Gender-neutral language seems like a fine ideal to me (though I'm conservative enough to hate all the new pronouns on aesthetic grounds, and prefer to stick with "he or she" or "they") -- but adoption of an ideal is slow even when there's widespread buy-in, which there isn't yet, and Slic's right that it doesn't solve the question of mental models.  It's not natural to imagine unknown people as genderless, and I don't think it's practical nor moral to insist that others have no mental models.  (Why moral?  Because condemning the contents of someone else's head rings of thoughtcrime to me.  And instituting thoughtcrime is on my very short list of evils.)

So yes, I agree with Slic, people are going to have models.  Sometimes those models will be male and sometimes they'll be female; sometimes they'll be white or black or whatever.  All are equally sexist or racist in the absence of data.  What matters isn't the models themselves, but how they affect behavior.  I have mental pictures, too, of just about everyone on these boards, but I don't think it's necessary to share my models with anyone else -- nor for anyone else to care what my models are as long as I'm not pushy about them.

Infringements of models upon the world will happen anyway, and I'll occasionally slip and act as if my model has more validity than it deserves.   I don't think this is hard to overcome if no one inflates the degree of damage artificially.  A reasonable person should be able to correct a mistaken model graciously, and to accept correction graciously.  A simple "Actually, I'm..." and a "D'oh!  Noted." should suffice in most situations. 

When it gets ugly is when people manufacture offense, or defend their models against reality.  "I'm a ______, asshole!  Quit making assumptions!" is manufacturing offense.  It's not a gracious correction; it's a provocative one, and the other party can't simply accept it without an apparent public show of capitulation.  Humans resist losing face, so acceptance becomes less likely, and hearts and minds remain distant.  On the other side, "Well, how the hell was I supposed to know that!  You seemed like a total _____ to me!" is defending one's model against reality.  Models should not be hardened against change.  They're only useful and social if they're reformable on an instant's notice, with every new bit of data.

I think there's been a bit of each on these boards, though it hasn't gone as far as aggression or even definite incivility.  It's unfortunate that just the specter of social identity issues can result in arguments like this one; but it does happen, and as debates go I think this one's been pretty calm.  I don't think it's in the nature of our species to be truly rational or objective about our identities, ever -- but we can be polite about them, and that's something, especially in smart communities like this one, for which my hopes have frequently been rewarded.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


fiveyearwinter

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #18 on: March 02, 2007, 01:19:20 PM

Quote
Does it matter if one assumes another is the same gender or another race, especially if the avatar in question doesn't give any hints one way or the other?

Yes. It matters.

It matters because it reinforces defaults. It reinforces that the "standard" person is male or white or whatever. That's just not true, and it's offensive, and it's part of what creates and reinforces systems of sexism, racism, etc.

That doesn't mean one is never going to make mistakes, but it means one should question one's assumptions.

I don't think that's true. I don't consider having a "default avatar" for someone you meet online to be offensive or responsible for creating/perpetuating racism, sexism, etc. I think that it's not assuming about people, but refusing to change your mind once they've defied those expectations that is the true source of racism/sexism/etc. in society.



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #19 on: March 02, 2007, 03:44:15 PM
Quote
Does it matter if one assumes another is the same gender or another race, especially if the avatar in question doesn't give any hints one way or the other?
Yes. It matters.
It matters because it reinforces defaults. It reinforces that the "standard" person is male or white or whatever. That's just not true, and it's offensive, and it's part of what creates and reinforces systems of sexism, racism, etc.

I don't see how it "reinforces" defaults.
When a new name pops up on the forum they have a blank slate, but that slate gets filled quickly.
The most obvious trait is usually gender, it's an issue with very little grey area: You have an innie or an outtie, and if you fall in-between you probably identify one way or the other (but that’s a rude topic to inquire on). Exceptions to this are uncommon enough that I handle them on case-by-case bases.
Next is age/intelligence based on how well the person writes and the kind of subject material they discuss or include. Unlike gender this has a LOT of grey, and is swayed by age, education, and nationality, but some of the information included can be used to tailor your view of the author. You can't remove your voice from your writings so there are always indicators that can be used to form a picture of the author.
I don't often look for more than that, unless someone tips their hand revealing their nationality, race, etc.
Reinforcing a stereotype is something done by members of the stereotyped class. If I thought that all geeks online are male, and met only male geeks online, the stereotype would be reinforced. If I thought that all single moms smoke cigarettes, and all the single moms I met smoke cigarettes, then the stereotypes would be reinforced. So, what if I met a geek online, and they never gave any clues about their gender, and their gender never became an issue, how would it matter if I thought of them as a man?
How about if I met a woman on-line who was a single mom, and she never gave clues about her smoking preferences, how would it change things if I never found out and it never became an issue?
I think the issue isn't that people impose these generic avatars, I think the concern is when a person refuses to change the features of that avatar.
I look for these clues so I have an understanding on how relate with the poster, author, or story. By forming a mental picture of who wrote what, I can guess at what their intentions were and I try to put myself in their shoes. From there I can better appreciate where they're coming from and hopefully better relate my thoughts to them. In terms of this contest it helps me gauge the kind of response that is appropriate to the author.   

Also, how is it any different/better to use a blank avatar on a person who expresses clues about themselves than it is to apply a textured avatar on a person who doesn’t express clues?

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #20 on: March 02, 2007, 04:03:01 PM
I would also respectfully submit that one reason you may not personally see it as harmful is because it isn't damaging to you. (Not to imply that all people in the dominant classes see things one way, or that all people in opressed classes do either, but it's harder to see the system if you're at the top of it.)

When we reinforce "white male" as normal, as default -- and that *is* the cultural default -- then writing that's about women the way most writing is about men becomes "women's writing" whereas the writing that's about men the way most writing is, remains just "writing."

When we reinforce "white male" as normal, as default -- and that *is* the cultural default -- then politics that address the issues of black women become "identity politics" whereas the politics that address the issues of white men, which is most politics, is just "politics."

This is called "othering." It's not cool.

Being the rationalizing creatures we are, we categorize things. One big lump of "writing" or "music" or "people" would be awful hard to sort through if you were looking for something, or if you wanted to tell share the idea with someone else. Not all doctors, authors, or music is made equal. There are specialists and generalists, fiction and non-fiction, classical and contemporary. Categorizations are necessary.
So if we are going to have "women's writing" and "black's writing" and "youth's writing" and "white's writing" and "men's writing" and "adult’s writing", doesn't it make sense that something needs to be the baseline? Something should be "writing writing".
So what should that baseline be and how do we choose it?

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #21 on: March 02, 2007, 04:09:40 PM
Quote
Reinforcing a stereotype is something done by members of the stereotyped class.
I'm pretty sure you meant this in a more general sense like "when a person behaves the way I expect, they are reinforcing my beliefs" - and the opposite, "a person needs to behave against type if they don't like that belief".  To me, that comment came across as "poor people are  poor because it's their fault" kinda thing.  Which I very much disagree with - fodder for another thread.

Quote
If I thought that all geeks online are male, and met only male geeks online, the stereotype would be reinforced. If I thought that all single moms smoke cigarettes, and all the single moms I met smoke cigarettes, then the stereotypes would be reinforced. So, what if I met a geek online, and they never gave any clues about their gender, and their gender never became an issue, how would it matter if I thought of them as a man?
How about if I met a woman on-line who was a single mom, and she never gave clues about her smoking preferences, how would it change things if I never found out and it never became an issue?
This is where I agree with palimpsest and hautdesert - it does hurt in the larger sense that you wouldn't seem to consider that there are women geeks or non-smoking single moms. I pretty sure you are more open minded than that, and that these are simple examples.  But this also strengthens my arguement because it shows that without a reason to expand a definition, it stays the same.

Quote
I think the issue isn't that people impose these generic avatars, I think the concern is when a person refuses to change the features of that avatar.
Not sure what you mean - so now that you know I am a 38 year old man from Canada with Italian and Scottish parents that I should change my handle and pic to a red and white maple leaf playing soccer?

Quote
...it helps me gauge the kind of response that is appropriate to the author.
Sure, I turn this a bit and say if the person gives no clues then they shouldn't be insulted if they are treated inappropriatly (e.g. if you are 13, and I treat you as though you are a grown adult, don't blame me).



slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #22 on: March 02, 2007, 04:14:39 PM
Quote
So if we are going to have "women's writing" and "black's writing" and "youth's writing" and "white's writing" and "men's writing" and "adult’s writing", doesn't it make sense that something needs to be the baseline? Something should be "writing writing".
So what should that baseline be and how do we choose it?
Simply put - No. 
Why do we need a baseline?  Why not have a descriptor on everything?  Why must one thing be the yardstick against which everything else is based?  It's relative to what you are comparing it to, not a general standard.



Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #23 on: March 02, 2007, 06:06:03 PM
Ehhh, I probably shouldn't be wading into this.  My thoughts aren't all that deep, and palimpsest and hautdesert are doing a great job of elucidating points I mostly agree with.

Then again, I got my own hands, so I may as well type with them.

The most obvious trait is usually gender, it's an issue with very little grey area: You have an innie or an outtie, and if you fall in-between you probably identify one way or the other (but that’s a rude topic to inquire on).

What gender comprises, culturally, is a far more complicated notion than the M or F tickbox, and even what gender is, physically, can better be viewed as a spectrum than an exclusive proposition, I think.  That it seems so simple and straightforward to you is, perhaps, just the luck of your personal experience and genetics.  I liked your explanation of the grey area with age, education and nationality, but I think to single out gender as the place where no such grey area exists exactly demonstrates why making assumptions on the basis of gender can be so problematic.

Reinforcing a stereotype is something done by members of the stereotyped class.

This statement just knocks the breath right out of me.  I'm not sure even how to approach it without being incendiary.  As I understand it, you're saying that if I hold a stereotype, then that's the fault (or perhaps responsibility?) of the people I'm stereotyping?  Zuwha?  How are other people responsible for my thoughts about them?  And how is a group responsible for the opinion I hold about the individual for being a member of that group?  I can't even restate this in a way I can wrap my brain around it.  I'm sorry.  Maybe if you give it another run, I'll get it.

If I thought that all geeks online are male, and met only male geeks online, the stereotype would be reinforced. If I thought that all single moms smoke cigarettes, and all the single moms I met smoke cigarettes, then the stereotypes would be reinforced.

Actually (disclaimer: I'm not an social anthropologist, but I do read about this stuff sometimes) I think the way it has been shown to work is thus :

You (and please, take this as "one", the generic you) think Mexicans are lazy.
You see Mexicans being lazy.  This reaffirms your belief.
You encounter a Mexican who is not lazy. 
You can't fit them into your pattern.  You decide that you can continue to think of Mexicans as lazy, because most of them are, as you've already seen.

The trick is, every subsequent non-lazy Mexican you encounter, does nothing to balance the scales.  They are always the exception to the stereotype, and therefore need not be counted.  In some cases, the non-lazy Mexican will not even be mentally acknowledged, because they don't fit the stereotype.  Once you hold the stereotype, it can only be reinforced, and is much harder to dismiss than merely finding counter-examples.

(apologies to any Mexicans in the audience).

So, what if I met a geek online, and they never gave any clues about their gender, and their gender never became an issue, how would it matter if I thought of them as a man?

I would respectfully submit that if you're thinking of them as a man, then their gender (as you've presumed it) matters.  Otherwise you would think of them as something else - human, maybe.  Opponent.  Friend.  Conversant.  Person.  Irritating little twit.  There are any number of non-gender specific ways to think about people.

I'm with Steve on the idealism of hoping people think of other people as people.  I would never try to force someone into this mode, argue them into this mode, or legislate them into this mode. 

I will not, however, accept the impossibility of it.  Especially not based on the prevalence of stereotyping and making assumptions. 

I don't care whether someone misapprehends my gender in an online community.  I get plenty of real life face-to-face misapprehensions that bother (and affect) me to a greater degree.  I am more bothered by the fact that someone needs to box me into "male" or "female" inside their head before they can interact with me or understand me.  Course, it's their head, so all my bother is mine to shoulder, though given a forum like this, I'll feel free to express it.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


fiveyearwinter

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Reply #24 on: March 02, 2007, 06:23:12 PM
How are other people responsible for my thoughts about them?  And how is a group responsible for the opinion I hold about the individual for being a member of that group?

The only real two things I took minor issue with in this post.

First off, what a person does is directly responsible for your opinion of them (though not the only thing)! If I see someone kill someone else, or help someone in need, or rob someone, or eat too much, or whatever - their actions dictate my thoughts about them. Granted, we can control how we express it, but I think that a person's actions are as much responsible for how we view them as our own prejudices.

Secondly, I think it's more judging a person's willful inclusion in a group than the group itself that determines our opinion of an individual. We can't fault someone for being born a certain way. But as far as group dynamics go - if members of a group show a certain tendency we dislike, and the individual within that group is doing nothing to differentiate themselves from that sort of tendency, then I say we have all the right in the world to judge their inclusion in that group. THIS is why leaders of groups need to speak out unabashedly against behaviors from individuals that damage the opinion of the group - every Muslim should be publicly SCREAMING that they think suicide bombers are wrong/evil. Every fundamentalist Christian should be telling the WORLD how wrong it is to bomb abortion clinics. If you don't want to be stereotyped based on a group, prove you're not a part of the stereotype. People will always have stereotypes in their mind. It's unavoidable. Show me someone who claims to have no preconceived notions, and I'll show you a liar.