Prejudism?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

[thegnat]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

Why'd you choose these 3 scenarios?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Why'd you choose these 3 scenarios?
To get your reaction.

[INTJ]

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.
:stunned: One of wonderment.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.
:laugh: Depends on if they are girly men acting like manly girls or manly men acting like girly girls.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.
;) I'd agree!!!

[Antares]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense. Ignorance for the most part, but IQ stastistics do reflect that (not to sound racist), but that's still generalization, which could mean prejudice

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better. What's wrong with that? I say 'Ok, men, lets get to it!' to my group a lot, when they could all be girls. I wouldnt have a problem with this. It also depends though. If he means to insinuate that girls are weak, then it's prejudice. A casual joke? Bring it on any day.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense. A mix of ignorance plus prejudice

[vaguely dissatisfied]

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.
:stunned: One of wonderment.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.
:laugh: Depends on if they are girly men acting like manly girls or manly men acting like girly girls.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.
;) I'd agree!!!
Why would you have a reaction of wonderment for senario # 1 and agree with senario # 3??

I'm not sure what your answer is for # 2. Humor????

[Lights]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

It would seem that the man hasn't associated with many black people. He probably came from a white dominated community and he may have had negative experiences with black people with whom he did associate.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

He is playing on their masculinity, an important aspect of their cultural identity. It creates an insecurity within them that they aren't meeting cultural expectations.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

She probably embraces qualities associated with masculinity and so she feels most comfortable around men.

[JTG]

I'd tell #1 that he's clearly confusing racial superiority with cultural advantage. The reason more black people score poorly on IQ tests (at least in the US) is because we still have a long way to go to reach cultural equality. After that, i'd tell him to gtfo, saying that i only hang around white people, cause they're more intelligent and make more sense.

On #2 lights has the right idea, i think. Women are physiologically less inclined to be strong, so calling them women is an insult meant to challenge them into trying harder.... not that baseball requires a lot of brute strength or anything.

The woman in #3 is similar to the black man in #1, but she's confusing societal norms instead of cultural superiority. Men (in general) are trained to be less in touch with their emotions, and to be stronger, more assertive people. Maybe she just enjoys that vibe and hasn't caught on to the fact that anybody's capable of behaving that way.

It's also possible #1 and #3 have had bad experiences with the people to whom they have an aversion. I have historically had more negative than positive experiences with men, enough so that it left a bad taste in my mouth. As a result, i tend to have more female than male friends.

[INTJ]

Why would you have a reaction of wonderment for senario # 1 and agree with senario # 3??

I'm not sure what your answer is for # 2. Humor????


My reaction of wonderment is because I would wonder when I could introduce him to some of my idiot white friends. I agree with scenario #3 because she is correct. And yes, being the INTJ that I am, that is a sarcastic attempt at humor.

[Jgib5328]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

1. The black guy doesn't really mean intelligence, he means knowledge and education level. Most black people aren't interested in politics, philosophy, science etc, while more white people are. So he can get into more intellectual debates with white people.

2. Being called a girl if you are a guy is a terrible thing. The coach just means the stereotypical girlish characters; like emotional weakness, physical weakness, lack of toughness etc. Plus no offense, but most girls are pretty bad at sports because they are inferior physically, so it is an insult. It's pretty much the same thing as being called gay by your friends. Since there are so many negative stereotypes associated with gay men no guy wants to be considered gay. The coach could of called his players a bunch of fags and that would've motivated them the same.

3. The girl probably is tired or some of the inane conversations women can have and prefer how men talk instead. Women communicate much differently than males, so it isn't hard to believe that someone would prefer one over the other. The woman probably just didn't know how to describe her frustrations with female conversations and assumed she didn't enjoy them because a lack of intellectual thought.

I don't care about people being prejudice, I find it entertaining.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It would seem that the man hasn't associated with many black people. He probably came from a white dominated community and he may have had negative experiences with black people with whom he did associate.



He is playing on their masculinity, an important aspect of their cultural identity. It creates an insecurity within them that they aren't meeting cultural expectations.



She probably embraces qualities associated with masculinity and so she feels most comfortable around men.
Sounds like you're saying that in scenario #1 the individual is prejuding black people in general based on his ignorance of them?

Scenario #2 sounds like you're saying that men identify being percieved as masculine as preferable or better than being percieved as feminine?

Sounds like your saying in scenerio #3 that the individual is not prejuding women in general, but just identifies with and values men?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 2 seconds later...

I'd tell #1 that he's clearly confusing racial superiority with cultural advantage. The reason more black people score poorly on IQ tests (at least in the US) is because we still have a long way to go to reach cultural equality. After that, i'd tell him to gtfo, saying that i only hang around white people, cause they're more intelligent and make more sense.

On #2 lights has the right idea, i think. Women are physiologically less inclined to be strong, so calling them women is an insult meant to challenge them into trying harder.... not that baseball requires a lot of brute strength or anything.

The woman in #3 is similar to the black man in #1, but she's confusing societal norms instead of cultural superiority. Men (in general) are trained to be less in touch with their emotions, and to be stronger, more assertive people. Maybe she just enjoys that vibe and hasn't caught on to the fact that anybody's capable of behaving that way.

It's also possible #1 and #3 have had bad experiences with the people to whom they have an aversion. I have historically had more negative than positive experiences with men, enough so that it left a bad taste in my mouth. As a result, i tend to have more female than male friends.
Sounds like you're describing prejudism in scenarios #1 & 3?

As for scenario #2........Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that strength is not a factor. You can use the scenario......an instructor is teaching a class of student pilots and.........so forth.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 0 minutes and 49 seconds later...

My reaction of wonderment is because I would wonder when I could introduce him to some of my idiot white friends. I agree with scenario #3 because she is correct. And yes, being the INTJ that I am, that is a sarcastic attempt at humor.
So you have some idiot white friends, but no idiot male friends?

[AgentofGaming]

All bad misconceptions.
1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.
The black man hasn't met intelligent black men yet or is too lazy to find some.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.
Cultural issue, illogical insult.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.
She has not met intelligent women or is too lazy to meet some.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

1. The black guy doesn't really mean intelligence, he means knowledge and education level. Most black people aren't interested in politics, philosophy, science etc, while more white people are. So he can get into more intellectual debates with white people.

2. Being called a girl if you are a guy is a terrible thing. The coach just means the stereotypical girlish characters; like emotional weakness, physical weakness, lack of toughness etc. Plus no offense, but most girls are pretty bad at sports because they are inferior physically, so it is an insult. It's pretty much the same thing as being called gay by your friends. Since there are so many negative stereotypes associated with gay men no guy wants to be considered gay. The coach could of called his players a bunch of fags and that would've motivated them the same.

3. The girl probably is tired or some of the inane conversations women can have and prefer how men talk instead. Women communicate much differently than males, so it isn't hard to believe that someone would prefer one over the other. The woman probably just didn't know how to describe her frustrations with female conversations and assumed she didn't enjoy them because a lack of intellectual thought.

I don't care about people being prejudice, I find it entertaining.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the black guy and the woman in scenarios #1 & 3 are not as stupid as you think and do mean what they say..........what would your reaction be then?

Why is it a terrible thing to be called a girl if you are a guy?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 35 seconds later...

All bad misconceptions.

The black man hasn't met intelligent black men yet or is too lazy to find some.


Cultural issue, illogical insult.


She has not met intelligent women or is too lazy to meet some.
I'm impressed!





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense. Ignorance for the most part, but IQ stastistics do reflect that (not to sound racist), but that's still generalization, which could mean prejudice

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better. What's wrong with that? I say 'Ok, men, lets get to it!' to my group a lot, when they could all be girls. I wouldnt have a problem with this. It also depends though. If he means to insinuate that girls are weak, then it's prejudice. A casual joke? Bring it on any day.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense. A mix of ignorance plus prejudice
Bravo!

[thod]

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

Cant see it happening. Never know a black guy who thought whites were more intelligent etc. There isnt realy any difference between 2 black guys talking and 2 white guys. This is the wierdest of the the choices.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

Normal everyday language. Boys learn at school that when you throw a ball to a girl she cant catch. If he says 'you hit like a girl' it means you are weak, women dont have the upper body strength. This is all normal speech.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

I would be suprised if she said they were more intelligent. I know lots of women that prefer male conversations though. Not a sex thing, they just prefer the subjects they choose and the mode of interacting. This is normal for some women but the reasoning of inferiority is not.

[coffeeloverfreak]

On the face of it all of these would be prejudicial, but digging a little deeper, it's clear that it's not so simple:

The belief that white people are smarter than black people is racist, if you're talking about individuals. But let's remember that individuals live in communities and societies.

Let's take the example of the black man who grew up in a poor inner-city community. Let's call him Joe. Within Joe's community, there was probably your usual mix of smart and dumb people, but it's likely that there was not a lot of opportunity, for socioeconomic reasons. Smart people were unfortunately not able to realize their full potential, go to college, get good jobs, make a lot of money, and spend time pursuing more intellectual activities as they might otherwise have been able to. Statistically, a smart young black man might be more likely to end up dead or in jail than in college (sad but true). Add to that the cultural pressures of emulating movies or music in speech, talking about socially-acceptable subjects within his community, which may be less intellectual in nature, and the fact that there is limited exposure to certain kinds of ideas.

Now, let's say that Joe is a brilliant INTJ and gets accepted to a top college that happes to be mostly made up of white students. When he gets there, he finds a different world from the neighbourhood where he grew up. People are smart, sure, because it's a top school. But mostly, they're also educated, and most of them grew up in areas with a lot more opportunity. They probably formed different hobbies and interests as a result. He immediately feels more comfortable around these people, because he's always felt like a bit of an outcast before, but now he's around people with similar interests and hobbies. Maybe at first it's hard to adjust, but he gets used to it and makes good friends who are into the same intelligent, logical discourse as him. But here's the thing: they're all white.

So is it prejudice? Yes, in the strict sense that prejudice is judging an entire group (black people, white people) on the basis of a few examples (his friends growing up, his college friends). But it's rooted in inequality of opportunity and socioeconomic status, which has a basis in reality, too. Unfortunately.

The other two have more to do with social constructs of gender than with social constructs of race, but it comes to the same thing. As a society, we've defined it insulting to call men "girls", so it comes across that way. It doesn't make the coach sexist or the tomboy prejudiced; it might make our society as a whole a bit shortsighted.

[JTG]

So you have some idiot white friends, but no idiot male friends?I had a good laugh

Why is it a terrible thing to be called a girl if you are a guy?

For the same reason a girl takes offense if you call her mannish. Lots of straight people take offense to being called gay, etc. Anybody who's happy (and/or insecure) with their status will be irritated when you question it.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Thod

So scenario #1 is weird and would probably never happen?

Scenarios # 2 & 3 are normal and not prejudiced at all?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 5 minutes and 22 seconds later...

On the face of it all of these would be prejudicial, but digging a little deeper, it's clear that it's not so simple:

The belief that white people are smarter than black people is racist, if you're talking about individuals. But let's remember that individuals live in communities and societies.

Let's take the example of the black man who grew up in a poor inner-city community. Let's call him Joe. Within Joe's community, there was probably your usual mix of smart and dumb people, but it's likely that there was not a lot of opportunity, for socioeconomic reasons. Smart people were unfortunately not able to realize their full potential, go to college, get good jobs, make a lot of money, and spend time pursuing more intellectual activities as they might otherwise have been able to. Statistically, a smart young black man might be more likely to end up dead or in jail than in college (sad but true). Add to that the cultural pressures of emulating movies or music in speech, talking about socially-acceptable subjects within his community, which may be less intellectual in nature, and the fact that there is limited exposure to certain kinds of ideas.

Now, let's say that Joe is a brilliant INTJ and gets accepted to a top college that happes to be mostly made up of white students. When he gets there, he finds a different world from the neighbourhood where he grew up. People are smart, sure, because it's a top school. But mostly, they're also educated, and most of them grew up in areas with a lot more opportunity. They probably formed different hobbies and interests as a result. He immediately feels more comfortable around these people, because he's always felt like a bit of an outcast before, but now he's around people with similar interests and hobbies. Maybe at first it's hard to adjust, but he gets used to it and makes good friends who are into the same intelligent, logical discourse as him. But here's the thing: they're all white.

So is it prejudice? Yes, in the strict sense that prejudice is judging an entire group (black people, white people) on the basis of a few examples (his friends growing up, his college friends). But it's rooted in inequality of opportunity and socioeconomic status, which has a basis in reality, too. Unfortunately.

The other two have more to do with social constructs of gender than with social constructs of race, but it comes to the same thing. As a society, we've defined it insulting to call men "girls", so it comes across that way. It doesn't make the coach sexist or the tomboy prejudiced; it might make our society as a whole a bit shortsighted.
So ....."the belief that white people are smarter than black people is racist......rooted in inequality of opportunity and socioeconomic status". However, the coach is not sexist and the woman is not prejudiced because gender is socially constructed?

[JTG]

I think it's human nature to see somebody and judge based on appearances.

We see a lot of black people acting like uncultured apes and assume it's a black trait, because it's out of our scope of senses to see that they're from an underprivileged urban upbringing.

We see a lot of big athletic men and little toothpick women, so we assume that men are automatically the only good athletes

We* date and then break up with a woman for being batshit crazy, while most of our guy friends are laid back and rational, so we assume all men are better company.

All three are prejudicial to varying degrees, some based on over generalization, some based on misperception. When you get down to it though, all stereotypes have a grain of truth at their core. It doesn't mean they're trustworthy, but it doesn't mean they're automatically wrong either.

(*by "We" i mean "I" ...and past experience dictates that all women are, indeed, crazy. It's not an accusation, just a cynical standpoint from somebody who has a lot of experience dealing with people)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I had a good laugh



For the same reason a girl takes offense if you call her mannish. Lots of straight people take offense to being called gay, etc. Anybody who's happy (and/or insecure) with their status will be irritated when you question it.
In fact, many women identify strongly with men.... just like our woman in scenario #3. As you can see (and you agreed with her) she is not made to feel offended when you consider her mannish, on the contrary, she takes it as a compliment because she enjoys being viewed as someone who is "not in touch with their emotions, stronger, and more assertive."

I wonder why questioning someones status would irritate them?

[thod]

So scenario #1 is weird and would probably never happen?

Scenarios # 2 & 3 are normal and not prejudiced at all?

For me 1) is unlikely. I dont notice any difference with black guys than white guys. The conversations are identical. I would find it very odd if some black guy said whites are more intelligent. I would wonder why he has such a low opinion.

2) is perfectly normal. Thats the way sports coachs speak. I dont regard it sexist. I have never met a girl that is physicaly stronger than I am. But then I am 6'4'' and 210 lbs and did like the contact sports. Try getting on the football (US) or Rugby(UK) team not many girls would make it.

3) Its odd that she thinks she is less intelligent because she is a woman. Male and female conversational styles differ. As I say, I know an awful lot of women that enjoy the male style.

In both 1) and 3) I would be intrigued about why they think they are inferior.

[JTG]

I haven't been entirely serious in my replies here. Reading back over them now, i see that people make take me seriously where i was being sarcastic. Feeling lazy at the moment, so i'll just throw that disclaimer out there in hopes nobody gets offended at what i said.

(to vaguely dissatisfied)
In all honestly, questioning somebody's status in an area they feel attached to a certain ideal usually brings some kind of negative response. For example, it's clear you view yourself as a woman who is equal in most if not all areas to a man. You've become quite defensive (unless i'm misreading your tone) at somebody hinting that a man would take offense when being compared to a woman, i.e. questioning a woman's status as equal to a man.

I also see that you either seem unfamiliar with the connotation of "mannish" or for whatever reason don't see it as a negative. Then again, maybe i'm too traditional. I like to think of myself as masculine, and i prefer my female company to be feminine. In my mind, what's the point of having two genders if they act the same? If i call a woman mannish i'm saying she's out of touch with her femininity, which is definitely unattractive in a woman. Likewise, if i call a guy effeminate it's to say i view him as less of a man.

While i'm not too attached to the idea of stereotypical roles for men and women, i do see them as different, and i do think that's a good thing.

[rwyatt365]

All three are prejudicial but for different reasons (as has been pointed out in other postings). In all, the rationale for the person's action is based on judgment without consideration of individual variations or circumstances.

The first is racial prejudice; "whites are more intelligent than blacks"
The second and third are gender prejudice; "girls are weaker/less capable than boys", "men are more intelligent than women"

Now, if the first person said, "I like hanging around with Bill (who is white), because he is more intelligent than Jerry (who is black)", and that intelligence is verifiable, then the remark is factual.

If the coach says, "You (high-school seniors) play like a bunch of kindergarten girls", he might be making a valid point of a lack of capability.

If the woman says, "I like hanging around (highly-regarded, businessman) Sam rather than a bunch of pre-teen girls", she might have a valid point.

Generalizations are always prone to prejudicial leanings.

[Lights]

Sounds like you're saying that in scenario #1 the individual is prejuding black people in general based on his ignorance of them?

People are entitled to preconceived notions, it isn't until they decide not to challenge them that they become prejudiced.

Scenario #2 sounds like you're saying that men identify being percieved as masculine as preferable or better than being percieved as feminine?

Isn't that true within our culture?

Sounds like your saying in scenerio #3 that the individual is not prejuding women in general, but just identifies with and values men?

She values perceived masculinity over perceived femininity.

[Volition]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

1. The 'intelligence' remark is a sign of ignorance as there is such a thing as a more intelligent black person, in relation to some white people. I'm not too familiar with the leading research on intelligence levels at the moment, but I imagine there isn't any which conclusively places black people below white people.

However, further questioning is required to determine whether this was a flippant or thoroughly sincere comment. The qualification of it being limited to personal experience can be assumed, presumably subject to change. Further questioning would be required to see if this is an unchanging and irrational prejudice.

'Making more sense' is clearly a reference to his own views as clearly other black men would also make sense, to other individuals. It is highly contentious to suggest that all black men, or humans of any type must share identical personalities and we can easily expect some black men will 'get' (some) white men more. They are free to do so.

2. Implicit derogatory reference to females, relying on the stereotypical disparity between males and females. Its only purpose is to get a rise out of women to motivate the players. Motivation can be achieved in other ways.

However, one would need to scrutinise just how bonded the coach's stereotype is with his views of women in general. It is quite possible to keep the two distinct.

3. Again, the remark on intelligence is dubious. There are extremely intelligent women in the world. I don't really know enough about the current research, so I don't comment. On this point, I call BS.

Her purpose is not to put women down. She is merely recalling experiences resulting from her search for like-minded individuals.

Regarding the fact that this woman finds men make more sense: it is far too broad a comment from which to construe some terrifying inherent prejudice. Again, further questioning is required. Unless she fervently held the view that men are inherently superior and nothing will change that fact, her view is subject to future experience and it is in many ways down to luck.

Like in 1. it is highly contentious, even offensive to assume all women share identikit personalities and characteristics and will therefore align themselves with a particular personality type. Like all the women who are happier in female company, she behaves in exactly the same way, associating with people she herself 'gets'. This is absolutely fine. Individual autonomy and whatnot.

Unlike in 2., she is merely stating a personal preference, not actively motivating others through a degrading stereotype. She might also prefer shopping in House of Fraser to Selfridges simply because 'the security is better quality'. A commonsense individual would accept this as her preference only.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I think it's human nature to see somebody and judge based on appearances.

We see a lot of black people acting like uncultured apes and assume it's a black trait, because it's out of our scope of senses to see that they're from an underprivileged urban upbringing.

We see a lot of big athletic men and little toothpick women, so we assume that men are automatically the only good athletes

We* date and then break up with a woman for being batshit crazy, while most of our guy friends are laid back and rational, so we assume all men are better company.

All three are prejudicial to varying degrees, some based on over generalization, some based on misperception. When you get down to it though, all stereotypes have a grain of truth at their core. It doesn't mean they're trustworthy, but it doesn't mean they're automatically wrong either.

(*by "We" i mean "I" ...and past experience dictates that all women are, indeed, crazy. It's not an accusation, just a cynical standpoint from somebody who has a lot of experience dealing with people)
Do you believe that a well informed opinion should be based on personal experience or on gathered information and knowledge about the facts?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 10 seconds later...

For me 1) is unlikely. I dont notice any difference with black guys than white guys. The conversations are identical. I would find it very odd if some black guy said whites are more intelligent. I would wonder why he has such a low opinion.

2) is perfectly normal. Thats the way sports coachs speak. I dont regard it sexist. I have never met a girl that is physicaly stronger than I am. But then I am 6'4'' and 210 lbs and did like the contact sports. Try getting on the football (US) or Rugby(UK) team not many girls would make it.

3) Its odd that she thinks she is less intelligent because she is a woman. Male and female conversational styles differ. As I say, I know an awful lot of women that enjoy the male style.

In both 1) and 3) I would be intrigued about why they think they are inferior.
Both individuals in scenarios # 1 & 3 have preconcieved beliefs about black people and woman (respectively) in general that are based on personal experience or prevailing social discriminations and not on factual information. They're prejudiced.

I guess sports coaches can't be sexist then?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 10 minutes and 30 seconds later...

I haven't been entirely serious in my replies here. Reading back over them now, i see that people make take me seriously where i was being sarcastic. Feeling lazy at the moment, so i'll just throw that disclaimer out there in hopes nobody gets offended at what i said.

(to vaguely dissatisfied)
In all honestly, questioning somebody's status in an area they feel attached to a certain ideal usually brings some kind of negative response. For example, it's clear you view yourself as a woman who is equal in most if not all areas to a man. You've become quite defensive (unless i'm misreading your tone) at somebody hinting that a man would take offense when being compared to a woman, i.e. questioning a woman's status as equal to a man.

I also see that you either seem unfamiliar with the connotation of "mannish" or for whatever reason don't see it as a negative. Then again, maybe i'm too traditional. I like to think of myself as masculine, and i prefer my female company to be feminine. In my mind, what's the point of having two genders if they act the same? If i call a woman mannish i'm saying she's out of touch with her femininity, which is definitely unattractive in a woman. Likewise, if i call a guy effeminate it's to say i view him as less of a man.

While i'm not too attached to the idea of stereotypical roles for men and women, i do see them as different, and i do think that's a good thing.
I wonder if the status of males is somehow different or better than the status of females and, therefore, more desirable? Maybe questioning whether someone is really a member of a higher status group (men) is what triggers negative responses? Maybe that's why it's a percieved insult for a man to be called a girl?

Actually, I am a woman who knows that I am equal in every way to a man. Does that sound like a defensive statement? Would it sound defensive if I were a man and I stated that I knew I was equal to a woman in every way?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 29 seconds later...

All three are prejudicial but for different reasons (as has been pointed out in other postings). In all, the rationale for the person's action is based on judgment without consideration of individual variations or circumstances.

The first is racial prejudice; "whites are more intelligent than blacks"
The second and third are gender prejudice; "girls are weaker/less capable than boys", "men are more intelligent than women"

Now, if the first person said, "I like hanging around with Bill (who is white), because he is more intelligent than Jerry (who is black)", and that intelligence is verifiable, then the remark is factual.

If the coach says, "You (high-school seniors) play like a bunch of kindergarten girls", he might be making a valid point of a lack of capability.

If the woman says, "I like hanging around (highly-regarded, businessman) Sam rather than a bunch of pre-teen girls", she might have a valid point.

Generalizations are always prone to prejudicial leanings.
Kudos!





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 7 seconds later...

People are entitled to preconceived notions, it isn't until they decide not to challenge them that they become prejudiced.



Isn't that true within our culture?



She values perceived masculinity over perceived femininity.
So in scenario # 3 the woman values being percieved as masculine?

Yes.....within our society men do prefer to be percieved as masculine (most anyway), however, the question is.....would a female coach of an all female team refer to them as a bunch of boys in order to motivate them to do better? And, if not, then why?

[thod]

I once new a guy that hated australian aborigines. This seemed irrational for someone in the UK. But then I found out that he was beaten up by gang of them while visiting Australia. He is not being irrational, his experience tells him that is how they act. You see the same thing with religious people. If you were to see the hand of god all around you everyday then you are not irrational in believing in god. It would be irrational if you did not believe this.

I guess sports coaches can't be sexist then?

Using the same logic. If call you a retard, then I am insulting retards.


Actually, I am a woman who knows that I am equal in every way to a man. Does that sound like a defensive statement? Would it sound defensive if I were a man and I stated that I knew I was equal to a woman in every way?


Thats an opinion. You will do anything to preserve your beliefs not matter how wild. You mistake equal with meaning the same. You can be equal but different. You example of sports performance is one such area.

[Zilal]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

1. I'd assume he had a chip on his shoulder about his own race. Some bitterness from the past.

2. I think it's silly and slightly offensive, but I don't really care.

3. I'd assume she hadn't had any good relationships with intelligent, sense-making women yet... and maybe that she didn't want to, but just wanted to believe she had a good reason for hanging out with men.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

1. The 'intelligence' remark is a sign of ignorance as there is such a thing as a more intelligent black person, in relation to some white people. I'm not too familiar with the leading research on intelligence levels at the moment, but I imagine there isn't any which conclusively places black people below white people.

However, further questioning is required to determine whether this was a flippant or thoroughly sincere comment. The qualification of it being limited to personal experience can be assumed, presumably subject to change. Further questioning would be required to see if this is an unchanging and irrational prejudice.

'Making more sense' is clearly a reference to his own views as clearly other black men would also make sense, to other individuals. It is highly contentious to suggest that all black men, or humans of any type must share identical personalities and we can easily expect some black men will 'get' (some) white men more. They are free to do so.

2. Implicit derogatory reference to females, relying on the stereotypical disparity between males and females. Its only purpose is to get a rise out of women to motivate the players. Motivation can be achieved in other ways.

However, one would need to scrutinise just how bonded the coach's stereotype is with his views of women in general. It is quite possible to keep the two distinct.

3. Again, the remark on intelligence is dubious. There are extremely intelligent women in the world. I don't really know enough about the current research, so I don't comment. On this point, I call BS.

Her purpose is not to put women down. She is merely recalling experiences resulting from her search for like-minded individuals.

Regarding the fact that this woman finds men make more sense: it is far too broad a comment from which to construe some terrifying inherent prejudice. Again, further questioning is required. Unless she fervently held the view that men are inherently superior and nothing will change that fact, her view is subject to future experience and it is in many ways down to luck.

Like in 1. it is highly contentious, even offensive to assume all women share identikit personalities and characteristics and will therefore align themselves with a particular personality type. Like all the women who are happier in female company, she behaves in exactly the same way, associating with people she herself 'gets'. This is absolutely fine. Individual autonomy and whatnot.

Unlike in 2., she is merely stating a personal preference, not actively motivating others through a degrading stereotype. She might also prefer shopping in House of Fraser to Selfridges simply because 'the security is better quality'. A commonsense individual would accept this as her preference only.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting your answer, but it seems that you are saying that in scenario #1 ...."the 'intelligence' remark is a sign of ignorance.....and ......it is highly contentious to suggest that all black men, or humans of any type must share identical personalitiesand, therefore, you are coming down on the side of prejudism.

It also seems that in scenario # 3 you are saying that the woman's ".... purpose is not to put women down .....and regarding the fact that this woman finds men make more sense: it is far too broad a comment from which to construe some terrifying inherent prejudice." So you appear to believe that this is not prejudism even though you believe that ...."it is highly contentious, even offensive to assume all women share identikit personalities and characteristics...." You don't see this as prejudism, but rather "....she is merely stating a personal preference, not actively motivating others through a degrading stereotype."





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 3 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Do you believe that a well informed opinion should be based on personal experience or on gathered information and knowledge about the facts?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 10 seconds later...


Both individuals in scenarios # 1 & 3 have preconcieved beliefs about black people and woman (respectively) in general that are based on personal experience or prevailing social discriminations and not on factual information. They're prejudiced.

I guess sports coaches can't be sexist then?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 10 minutes and 30 seconds later...


I wonder if the status of males is somehow different or better than the status of females and, therefore, more desirable? Maybe questioning whether someone is really a member of a higher status group (men) is what triggers negative responses? Maybe that's why it's a percieved insult for a man to be called a girl?

Actually, I am a woman who knows that I am equal in every way to a man. Does that sound like a defensive statement? Would it sound defensive if I were a man and I stated that I knew I was equal to a woman in every way?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 29 seconds later...


Kudos!





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 7 seconds later...


So in scenario # 3 the woman values being percieved as masculine?

Yes.....within our society men do prefer to be percieved as masculine (most anyway), however, the question is.....would a female coach of an all female team refer to them as a bunch of boys in order to motivate them to do better? And, if not, then why?
Do you believe that experience rather than knowledge and information should dictate an informed opinion?

Do you believe that a woman believing she is equal to (not the same as) a man is a 'wild belief'?

[thod]

Some questions in return.


Do you believe that blacks and whites have the same styles of conversation and that you couldnt tell which was which given a long enough sample?

Do you believe that women and men perform equaly well in sports?

Do you believe that men and women have the same styles of conversation and that you couldnt tell which was which given a long enough sample?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

1. I'd assume he had a chip on his shoulder about his own race. Some bitterness from the past.

2. I think it's silly and slightly offensive, but I don't really care.

3. I'd assume she hadn't had any good relationships with intelligent, sense-making women yet... and maybe that she didn't want to, but just wanted to believe she had a good reason for hanging out with men.
I get that.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 6 minutes and 0 seconds later...

Some questions in return.


Do you believe that blacks and whites have the same styles of conversation and that you couldnt tell which was which given a long enough sample?

Do you believe that women and men perform equaly well in sports?

Do you believe that men and women have the same styles of conversation and that you couldnt tell which was which given a long enough sample?
I believe that styles of conversation vary widely and depend on the individuals participating and the situations regardless of their race or sex.

I believe that women and men perform equally well in sports within their own same sex group. Perhaps I should have used the example of the instructor teaching the class of all male student pilots instead of the baseball coach. That may have made things a little easier.

[thod]

I believe that styles of conversation vary widely and depend on the individuals participating and the situations regardless of their race or sex.

So do I. But what about statisticly? If I can stereotype a group an individual not fitting the stereotype does not invalidate it. Its not a logic statement of the form "all" but one of "most". Only when the "most" does not apply does the stereotype become useless. Stereotypes of very useful, they tell me what is likely to happen without having to determine it for each case. I will be right more than I will be wrong.

I believe that women and men perform equally well in sports within their own same sex group. Perhaps I should have used the example of the instructor teaching the class of all male student pilots instead of the baseball coach. That may have made things a little easier.

But the question was baseball and you need shoulders and muscles to swing a bat. If it had for example been an art class and he said "you paint like girls" then I would question what he meant. I would be on the net trying to find if there are gender differences in painting.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

So do I. But what about statisticly? If I can stereotype a group an individual not fitting the stereotype does not invalidate it. Its not a logic statement of the form "all" but one of "most". Only when the "most" does not apply does the stereotype become useless. Stereotypes of very useful, they tell me what is likely to happen without having to determine it for each case. I will be right more than I will be wrong.



But the question was baseball and you need shoulders and muscles to swing a bat. If it had for example been an art class and he said "you paint like girls" then I would question what he meant. I would be on the net trying to find if there are gender differences in painting.
Stereotypes are definately made and used as a short cut to making a general assessment about an individual. I agree that they can be quite useful to the individual who is doing the stereotyping. However, stereotypes are often quite inaccurate even for the majority of people within the stereotypical group. It all depends on who's doing the stereotyping.

The problems crop up with those individuals (usually quite a few) who do not fit the stereotype, but are assumed to by the person that has decided to stereotype a group of people in order to make their own life less complicted. If we make assumptions about a person because we have preconcieved notions about that individual that are based on stereotypes that we have decided to attribute to the group we believe that person belongs to, then we are prejudging them............prejudism.

Well..............would you be suprised if a male instructor in a class full of male student pilots called them a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to do better?

[Volition]

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your answer, but it seems that you are saying that in scenario #1 ...."the 'intelligence' remark is a sign of ignorance.....and ......it is highly contentious to suggest that all black men, or humans of any type must share identical personalitiesand, therefore, you are coming down on the side of prejudism.

It also seems that in scenario # 3 you are saying that the woman's ".... purpose is not to put women down .....and regarding the fact that this woman finds men make more sense: it is far too broad a comment from which to construe some terrifying inherent prejudice." So you appear to believe that this is not prejudism even though you believe that ...."it is highly contentious, even offensive to assume all women share identikit personalities and characteristics...." You don't see this as prejudism, but rather "....she is merely stating a personal preference, not actively motivating others through a degrading stereotype."

Personally I find it a lot harder to accept generalisations based on things we can quantify, like IQ, unless there is conclusive proof of something of course. At the same time, I'm trying to err on the side of caution by rejecting the idea that various backgrounds can fit into such rigid moulds. I'm aware of the hypocrisy in treating the parts differently, but that's just my instinct.

Prejudice is a preconceived opinion, not based on reason or actual experience. As long as one doesn't close their mind to change, as long as that person enters each situation with an open mind, how is the result of their experiences prejudice? Isn't the closed mind key to prejudice?

I have to say, I found it very difficult to formulate much of my opinion of those three hypothetical people. There's just not enough information to work with.

[thod]

Prejudice is a preconceived opinion, not based on reason or actual experience. As long as one doesn't close their mind to change, as long as that person enters each situation with an open mind, how is the result of their experiences prejudice? Isn't the closed mind key to prejudice?


It isnt, you have an image of the sports jock. You know from past experience what attributes this implies. You have verified it before on countless occasions. That in no way means it applys to all. It is the starting position you will take though. As you get to know the other guy you will verify if he fits the mold or not, the stereotype.

Well..............would you be suprised if a male instructor in a class full of male student pilots called them a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to do better?

I dont know. Are girls bad pilots? I know you have to be short and squat to be a good pilot. Its the heart brain distance that matters but you still want a big body to get a big heart. It has to pump the blood up against the g force.

[Lights]

So in scenario # 3 the woman values being percieved as masculine?

Probably. Not always the case but it happens. In gay culture, there are often men who prefer to be perceived as feminine because that is what they believe is expected of them because they are gay.

Yes.....within our society men do prefer to be percieved as masculine (most anyway), however, the question is.....would a female coach of an all female team refer to them as a bunch of boys in order to motivate them to do better? And, if not, then why?

Can woman be motivated the same way as guys not to appear masculine? Of course they can. However, you chose athletics as a scenario and that is usually perceived as a masculine thing. But imagine if a was a female coach telling a bunch of rowdy cheerleaders that they are acting like a bunch of boys. I imagine in that scenario, they would be motivated to act less masculine.

[yondyr]

cheerleaders????????? When did 'players' transmogrify into 'cheerleaders' and whose mind made the jump?

[Lights]

cheerleaders????????? When did 'players' transmogrify into 'cheerleaders' and whose mind made the jump?

As I said...

However, you chose athletics as a scenario and that is usually perceived as a masculine thing.

so I reiterated with a feminine scenario...

But imagine if a was a female coach telling a bunch of rowdy cheerleaders that they are acting like a bunch of boys. I imagine in that scenario, they would be motivated to act less masculine.

Does that clear it up for you? He made the comparison of making boys feel uncomfortably feminine in a masculine setting. So I carried the example by showing that girls can be made to feel uncomfortably masculine in a feminine setting. The context of the situation is important when discussing cultural perspectives.

[yondyr]

Ahh thanks, Lights. I missed that, but grins, to continue, I shiver at the thought that sports may be a male thing and cheerleading a female one. Perhaps because neither interest me.

[pavman]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

Its reverse racism to an extent, but I don't think its that big of a deal. The converse would be just as likely to elicit the same response from me.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

Nothing wrong with a little motivation now and again. If it elicits the right response, then so be it. They're just words after all. Of course, with the wrong mindset they could be de-motivating towards male players. This is assuming there's no females on the team (or some very masculine female players).

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

Same response. I think the problem is that its something complimentary towards the opposite of what that person is, so there's no real problem with the statements above.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Personally I find it a lot harder to accept generalisations based on things we can quantify, like IQ, unless there is conclusive proof of something of course. At the same time, I'm trying to err on the side of caution by rejecting the idea that various backgrounds can fit into such rigid moulds. I'm aware of the hypocrisy in treating the parts differently, but that's just my instinct.

Prejudice is a preconceived opinion, not based on reason or actual experience. As long as one doesn't close their mind to change, as long as that person enters each situation with an open mind, how is the result of their experiences prejudice? Isn't the closed mind key to prejudice?

I have to say, I found it very difficult to formulate much of my opinion of those three hypothetical people. There's just not enough information to work with.
Actually prejudging (judging them before you know them) an individual is often based on the previous experiences you have had with other people that you associate with the individual. That is to say, the group that you have decided to put that individual in in order to make it easy for you to judge them.

Often people do this because it is much easier than just judging everyone's character individually without any preconceptions.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 14 seconds later...

It isnt, you have an image of the sports jock. You know from past experience what attributes this implies. You have verified it before on countless occasions. That in no way means it applys to all. It is the starting position you will take though. As you get to know the other guy you will verify if he fits the mold or not, the stereotype.



I dont know. Are girls bad pilots? I know you have to be short and squat to be a good pilot. Its the heart brain distance that matters but you still want a big body to get a big heart. It has to pump the blood up against the g force.
Are girls bad baseball players?

You're incorrect in your assumptions about what makes a good pilot. I wonder if you have made any other wrong assumptions?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 9 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Probably. Not always the case but it happens. In gay culture, there are often men who prefer to be perceived as feminine because that is what they believe is expected of them because they are gay.



Can woman be motivated the same way as guys not to appear masculine? Of course they can. However, you chose athletics as a scenario and that is usually perceived as a masculine thing. But imagine if a was a female coach telling a bunch of rowdy cheerleaders that they are acting like a bunch of boys. I imagine in that scenario, they would be motivated to act less masculine.
Well.......I can't really see the scenario happening that way, but I guess my point is that the woman in scenario #3 is behaving in exactly the same manner as the man in scenario #1. However, her actions are often percieved by many men and women as not being prejudicial, whereas, most people see the black man's actions as prejudiced.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 1 seconds later...
Pavman

O.K. I don't think there is any such thing as reverse racism, but I see what you mean.

However, do you really think words don't matter? What if the coach called his players a bunch of *iggers?

[Cytastic]

A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.The man is prejudiced. The man cannot possibly know all black people (or white people, for that matter), and therefore cannot make a reasonable assumption about the intelligence level of all.

Besides, the logic is flawed. Making more sense does not necessarily denote higher intelligence, or vice versa. Making sense to another person merely requires a common vocabulary. Likewise, high intelligence does not automatically bestow the ability to make sense - I know some smart individuals who couldn't explain their way out of a paper bag.

A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.To call an adult male a girl is clearly designed to invoke feelings of inferiority because a girl is physically inferior to a man - unless there is a genetic predisposition that would cause a person to be physically weaker than an eleven year old, in which case the person would not be playing baseball.

If the coach called his players a bunch of women, maybe a case for prejudice. But girls? Only if this is little league we're talking about here, in which case the coach would be playing off the cultural prejudice that boys are better at baseball than girls. Which they may be, but I don't have the statistical data to support that.

A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.See answer for #1.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

The man is prejudiced. The man cannot possibly know all black people (or white people, for that matter), and therefore cannot make a reasonable assumption about the intelligence level of all.

Besides, the logic is flawed. Making more sense does not necessarily denote higher intelligence, or vice versa. Making sense to another person merely requires a common vocabulary. Likewise, high intelligence does not automatically bestow the ability to make sense - I know some smart individuals who couldn't explain their way out of a paper bag.

To call an adult male a girl is clearly designed to invoke feelings of inferiority because a girl is physically inferior to a man - unless there is a genetic predisposition that would cause a person to be physically weaker than an eleven year old, in which case the person would not be playing baseball.

If the coach called his players a bunch of women, maybe a case for prejudice. But girls? Only if this is little league we're talking about here, in which case the coach would be playing off the cultural prejudice that boys are better at baseball than girls. Which they may be, but I don't have the statistical data to support that.

See answer for #1.
Hallelujah!!!

[Lucid]

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

I'd think he was being sarcastic or joking. If I realized he was being serious I'd be confused about why he would think that.

2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

Honestly, it kind of angers me that being called feminine is an insult. However, I think it's a term that most people use without thinking about it (myself included). And, on the other hand, if you told a woman that she was manly I think she'd be insulted by that as well.

3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

Not everyone can have the awesome female friends that I do :) I'd offer to introduce her to my girlfriends, who she'd probably love and adopt as her own. At least, that's what usually happens in real life when that situation comes up.

[JTG]

Do you believe that a well informed opinion should be based on personal experience or on gathered information and knowledge about the facts?
Of course not. I said it's in human nature to judge based on past experience, if experience shows an overwhelming trend. I didn't say it's correct to do so, just that it's the way things usually work.

I wonder if the status of males is somehow different or better than the status of females and, therefore, more desirable? Maybe questioning whether someone is really a member of a higher status group (men) is what triggers negative responses? Maybe that's why it's a percieved insult for a man to be called a girl?
This is where you start to get a little confusing. Is this about the question posed in this thread, or is about some personal insecurity or mistreatment from the past? I did say that the view of women not being as physically competent was based on stereotype.

To answer your question about whether a female coach of an all women's basketball team could call them men to insult them: yes, she could. Just like the male coach calling his team girls because of the stereotype that girls are not as physically competent, if the women's basketball team had a couple of members who let their egos get in the way of their performance, she could call them out on the stereotypically masculine behavior.

If she tells them they're acting like a bunch of men, it doesn't automatically mean all men are ego driven a-holes, but the stereotype stands, and it's a stereotype because it's observable behavior in a wide enough cross-section of the male population. You won't see me get defensive about it, either, unless it's directed at me. I even agree with it to an extent; that's why most of my friends are female. I've known far too many guys who viewed themselves as God's gift to the world. There are girls who feel the same way, and i don't really associate with them either.

I still hold my opinion that men and women are different. In general, they have different characteristics, both physically and mentally. You shouldn't feel that i'm bashing you when i say that, because i said i think it's a good thing that the two genders are different. If women looked, acted, and performed on the same level as men in every category, where would the beauty be in having women around?

(I also said above that i haven't been 100% serious in everything i've posted in the thread. If something i say comes across as snide or demeaning, then either it's being misread, or it was intended sarcasm.)

[Lights]

Well.......I can't really see the scenario happening that way, but I guess my point is that the woman in scenario #3 is behaving in exactly the same manner as the man in scenario #1. However, her actions are often percieved by many men and women as not being prejudicial, whereas, most people see the black man's actions as prejudiced.

Clearly I didn't see it either of them being prejudiced. There was too little information provided to know that definitively. I can only speculate that preferences are based on experiences and cultural perceptions. To make the assumption it is prejudice would be a mistake on my part without knowing whether the individuals are discriminating against their own group, or choosing the other group based solely on the perception that they are somehow better.

[Jgib5328]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the black guy and the woman in scenarios #1 & 3 are not as stupid as you think and do mean what they say..........what would your reaction be then?

Why is it a terrible thing to be called a girl if you are a guy?


I would have absolutely no reaction, I could care less if a black guy thinks black people are stupid and same thing for the woman.

It's generally considered a bad thing to have girlish traits if you are a man.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I'd think he was being sarcastic or joking. If I realized he was being serious I'd be confused about why he would think that.



Honestly, it kind of angers me that being called feminine is an insult. However, I think it's a term that most people use without thinking about it (myself included). And, on the other hand, if you told a woman that she was manly I think she'd be insulted by that as well.



Not everyone can have the awesome female friends that I do :) I'd offer to introduce her to my girlfriends, who she'd probably love and adopt as her own. At least, that's what usually happens in real life when that situation comes up.
Well said.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Clearly I didn't see it either of them being prejudiced. There was too little information provided to know that definitively. I can only speculate that preferences are based on experiences and cultural perceptions. To make the assumption it is prejudice would be a mistake on my part without knowing whether the individuals are discriminating against their own group, or choosing the other group based solely on the perception that they are somehow better.
But prejudism is usually based on "....experiences and cultural perceptions...." and ".....choosing the other group based solely on the perception that they are somehow better."





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 25 seconds later...

Of course not. I said it's in human nature to judge based on past experience, if experience shows an overwhelming trend. I didn't say it's correct to do so, just that it's the way things usually work.


This is where you start to get a little confusing. Is this about the question posed in this thread, or is about some personal insecurity or mistreatment from the past? I did say that the view of women not being as physically competent was based on stereotype.

To answer your question about whether a female coach of an all women's basketball team could call them men to insult them: yes, she could. Just like the male coach calling his team girls because of the stereotype that girls are not as physically competent, if the women's basketball team had a couple of members who let their egos get in the way of their performance, she could call them out on the stereotypically masculine behavior.

If she tells them they're acting like a bunch of men, it doesn't automatically mean all men are ego driven a-holes, but the stereotype stands, and it's a stereotype because it's observable behavior in a wide enough cross-section of the male population. You won't see me get defensive about it, either, unless it's directed at me. I even agree with it to an extent; that's why most of my friends are female. I've known far too many guys who viewed themselves as God's gift to the world. There are girls who feel the same way, and i don't really associate with them either.

I still hold my opinion that men and women are different. In general, they have different characteristics, both physically and mentally. You shouldn't feel that i'm bashing you when i say that, because i said i think it's a good thing that the two genders are different. If women looked, acted, and performed on the same level as men in every category, where would the beauty be in having women around?

(I also said above that i haven't been 100% serious in everything i've posted in the thread. If something i say comes across as snide or demeaning, then either it's being misread, or it was intended sarcasm.)
This seems reasonable to me. 'Vive la difference'

[Jgib5328]

Honestly, it kind of angers me that being called feminine is an insult. However, I think it's a term that most people use without thinking about it (myself included). And, on the other hand, if you told a woman that she was manly I think she'd be insulted by that as well.


Being feminine is only an insult for dudes. It's great for females.

[pletharoe]

1. If you follow these links, the research suggests that he is correct:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
His statement may be politically incorrect, but it's accurate and therefore reasonable grounds for his actions.

2. There's always been a bit of bravado in sports, particularly among males. This statement says a lot about many aspects of the way the team are playing. Again, it's not very P.C. but as long as the people it's aimed at aren't offended, then it's an effective communication and I can't find fault with it.

3. This begs the question "What is intelligence?" I think the woman has made a generalization. IMHO women are more "touchy feely" and base decisions more on feelings and intuition than logic and judgement. This can manifest itself in unpredictability which can be misinterpreted as poor intelligence.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I would have absolutely no reaction, I could care less if a black guy thinks black people are stupid and same thing for the woman.

It's generally considered a bad thing to have girlish traits if you are a man.
Is it a terrible thing to be called a boy if you are a woman? Remember that the woman in scenario #3 identifies with men.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 13 minutes and 20 seconds later...

1. If you follow these links, the research suggests that he is correct:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
His statement may be politically incorrect, but it's accurate and therefore reasonable grounds for his actions.

2. There's always been a bit of bravado in sports, particularly among males. This statement says a lot about many aspects of the way the team are playing. Again, it's not very P.C. but as long as the people it's aimed at aren't offended, then it's an effective communication and I can't find fault with it.

3. This begs the question "What is intelligence?" I think the woman has made a generalization. IMHO women are more "touchy feely" and base decisions more on feelings and intuition than logic and judgement. This can manifest itself in unpredictability which can be misinterpreted as poor intelligence.
So the man in scenario #1 is not prejuding anyone, but just making a reasonable judgement about white people because it can be proven scientifically that white people are more intelligent and make more sense than black people?

If the baseball players in scenario #2 were all white men and the coach attempted to motivate them by calling them a bunch of *iggers, would this be an "....effective communication...." that you can't find fault with (assuming none of the players is offended)?

So in scenario #3 the woman is making ".....a generalization..." due to the fact that women are touchy feely and unpredictable and usually don't use logic or judgement to make decisions? And this inability of women to use logic causes others (both men and women) to see women as having low intelligence?

[Jgib5328]

Is it a terrible thing to be called a boy if you are a woman? Remember that the woman in scenario #3 identifies with men.


It is usually bad to be called a boy if you are a girl. If you are called a boy and you are a girl, that means that usually means that you are a tomboy. Tomboys generally are girls who are into sports, wears more guyish cloths, is generally less graceful etc. This is generally looked down upon in society. Girls who are usually assertive, lacking in girlish charm, cold emotionally are also looked down upon (I think Hilary Clinton is an example).

I'm sure the woman in scenario 3 doesn't gel well with the girls. She could be an outcast, a tomboy, or something like that. I don't think it's terrible that she only talks with guys, but is bad. Gender balance is good in many aspects of life.

[pletharoe]

Hi Vaguely dissatisfied,
Thanks for the great thread by the way... interesting topic of discussion. If this was motivated by some project etc, i'd be interested to know about your findings.

1. As a very broad generalization, yes.
As an aside, I think that the racial discrimination argument has been taken too far by many people. A friend of a friend was a police man in Bradford (large asian community) he eventually left the force as he was not allowed to describe a suspect as "Asian" as this was discrimination. He argued (and I agree with him) that it was not discrimination, merely a statement of fact, just like describing someone as tall. But nobody ever accused him of being "heightist"!

2. Now we're getting into semantics, which is pretty tricky. The term "girl" isn't offensive to females (except maybe one or two who tie themselves to railings and burn their underwear). "N*gger", on the other hand, is generally used derogatively and is therefore in poor taste.

3. That's an interesting interpretation of what I wrote earlier. Women frequently use logic and judgement. However, men are more drawn to the sciences (again, I'm making sweeping generalizations here). Science based subjects can appear more "brainy" than the more common career paths chosen by women.
I'm probably not making a particularly compelling argument here. I'll try to summarize with some stereotypes (love 'em or hate 'em, they do have some foundation) Men program computers, build bridges, send rockets to the moon and perform brain surgery. Women work in HR, deal with customers, nurse people back to health (after the brain surgery) and do all the little things at home. The traditional male roles can seem more brainy. I would argue that they are generally more technical, but the ability to understand technical concepts is not the only requirement for intelligence. The abilities which women use in their traditional roles are much harder to measure and are usually undervalued.

Oh dear, I seem to have rambled for a while... sorry!

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It is usually bad to be called a boy if you are a girl. If you are called a boy and you are a girl, that means that usually means that you are a tomboy. Tomboys generally are girls who are into sports, wears more guyish cloths, is generally less graceful etc. This is generally looked down upon in society. Girls who are usually assertive, lacking in girlish charm, cold emotionally are also looked down upon (I think Hilary Clinton is an example).

I'm sure the woman in scenario 3 doesn't gel well with the girls. She could be an outcast, a tomboy, or something like that. I don't think it's terrible that she only talks with guys, but is bad. Gender balance is good in many aspects of life.
O.K. In my neck of the woods it's not considered a negative thing to be a tomboy. But it's probably not like that everywhere.

[yondyr]

I have to say I have a lot of prejudices. Some logical, based on statistics/observation, some illogical based on suspicion/intuition. But I'm sure not going to spout any that would shock in a public forum!

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Hi Vaguely dissatisfied,
Thanks for the great thread by the way... interesting topic of discussion. If this was motivated by some project etc, i'd be interested to know about your findings.

1. As a very broad generalization, yes.
As an aside, I think that the racial discrimination argument has been taken too far by many people. A friend of a friend was a police man in Bradford (large asian community) he eventually left the force as he was not allowed to describe a suspect as "Asian" as this was discrimination. He argued (and I agree with him) that it was not discrimination, merely a statement of fact, just like describing someone as tall. But nobody ever accused him of being "heightist"!

2. Now we're getting into semantics, which is pretty tricky. The term "girl" isn't offensive to females (except maybe one or two who tie themselves to railings and burn their underwear). "N*gger", on the other hand, is generally used derogatively and is therefore in poor taste.

3. That's an interesting interpretation of what I wrote earlier. Women frequently use logic and judgement. However, men are more drawn to the sciences (again, I'm making sweeping generalizations here). Science based subjects can appear more "brainy" than the more common career paths chosen by women.
I'm probably not making a particularly compelling argument here. I'll try to summarize with some stereotypes (love 'em or hate 'em, they do have some foundation) Men program computers, build bridges, send rockets to the moon and perform brain surgery. Women work in HR, deal with customers, nurse people back to health (after the brain surgery) and do all the little things at home. The traditional male roles can seem more brainy. I would argue that they are generally more technical, but the ability to understand technical concepts is not the only requirement for intelligence. The abilities which women use in their traditional roles are much harder to measure and are usually undervalued.

Oh dear, I seem to have rambled for a while... sorry!
I agree that people can see racism where there is none. However, that does not mean that racism does not exist. Your example of using 'Asian' as a descriptor may not be racist but, the black man assuming white people are more intelligent and make more sense may be.

Your absolutely right about the N-word being used in a derogatory manner. Using 'girls' to belittle guys is a derogatory way of using the word just like when you call a man a 'boy'. It seems that you are describing feminists when you say ".....one or two who tie themselves to railings and burn their underwear...." Feminists are women (and men) who strive for equality between the sexes. Often these people take offense when they feel they are being belittled...........just like the men who get called girls.

As for sterotypes..... there is a danger in stereotyping individuals since it can lead to prejudism.

[Jgib5328]

O.K. In my neck of the woods it's not considered a negative thing to be a tomboy. But it's probably not like that everywhere.

It's not really a bad thing here either, but it is still kinda looked down upon.

[vkut79]

"So the man in scenario #1 is not prejuding anyone, but just making a reasonable judgement about white people because it can be proven scientifically that white people are more intelligent and make more sense than black people?"

Prejudice by definition is basically a stubbornly irrational attitude towards something. If the man in point 1 is relying on solid, extensive, reliable scientific evidence that points to the fact that white men in general are more intelligent than black men in general (intelligent in the sense of genetically inherited favorable disposition for successful learning), then he is not being prejudiced, but well informed. As far as I know there isn't actually any solid, extensive, reliable evidence that white > black in natural intelligence.

Despite the fact that he may be making an informed decision by associating with white men instead of black men for the reasons he mentions, he would still need to realize individual variance far outweighs the supposed difference in intellectual ability between the populations of black and whites (assuming the scientific data points to a small difference). For this reason, associating exclusively with whites rather than blacks because the former are slightly statistically predisposed to be more intelligent is somewhat farfetched because it wouldn't be that much harder to find an intelligent black man than an intelligent white one.

Based on his statement, though, it seems that he is describing intelligence as a combination of natural ability and education, which is not the same thing as natural intelligence alone, so his definition of the term may be different than mine (as it usually is).





vkut79 added to this post, 28 minutes and 21 seconds later...

"I believe that women and men perform equally well in sports within their own same sex group."

I see that you are trying hard to support the idea that women are "equal" to men, but in this case where you are assessing the characteristic of athletic performance for the two different groups of individuals (men and women), you obviously cannot use different standards for the two groups if you hope to make a valid comparison. This is like saying that chimpanzees outsmart each other just as well as humans outsmart each other in their respective groups. Different standards for both, so you can't make a legitimate comparison. If men and women performed side by side on the same athletic field, men would be overwhelmingly superior in sports that require physical strength. Here the standards for both are the same because the conditions are the same. You cannot deny that men are athletically superior to women, and similarly you cannot deny that women are superior to men in raising children (men can't give birth, don't have as many child-caring instincts that women do).

What does "equal" even mean when you compare men and women? To say simply that men and women are "equal" demands further elaboration. Equal under the law? Equal in a professional field? Equal in intelligence? All of these questions and other have various answer, depending on what you mean by equality. When people usually say that men and women are equal, they probably mean that they are equal under the law. This of course is an intense subject of debate. If the government's purpose is to maximize the welfare of the society as a whole, why should they treat men and women in an identical manner when the two clearly have contrasting strengths and weakness in relation to various aspects of their lives? I think the question should really be, in what aspects of society are men and women essentially indistinguishable on the basis of sex? In these areas, it makes sense to create laws that treat men and women as equal. Sexual equality in itself serves a benefit to society as it reduces the amount of sexual conflicts, but this particular positive outcome of sexual equality shouldn't be viewed as the ultimate motivation for absolute sexual equality because it disregards those aspects of society where discriminating between sexes benefits society as a whole.

[yondyr]

those aspects of society where discriminating between sexes benefits society as a whole
Could you quote instances please?

[vkut79]

Could you quote instances please?

There really don't seem to be that many that I can think of... the physical difference is the only one that comes to mind as significant enough to warrant distinction. If we were to have a military draft, it would make sense to draft more males as they would perform better in very physically demanding military conditions. I don't think anyone would object if more males (if not only males) were drafted for military service. Under this law men and women are not treated equally. Another example would perhaps be a legal limit for the amount or extent of physical labor men and women can be hired to do - but I doubt that there would be an actual law like this.

Come to think of it, the law seems to be so general that minute differences between men and women don't even really matter, besides the physical one. When I wrote above I was thinking theoretically, so it didn't really occur to me that in the practical legal sense there wouldn't be much of a need for discriminating. So it seems that in almost ever case, men and women ought to be treated equally under the law, and that is how it is today.

[yondyr]

With job descriptions being stated for strength, ability, without mentioning gender, then while many males might qualify, some females might too. I like that none are excluded.

[vkut79]

Yeah I agree, ordinary job description is more than sufficient for virtually any profession and gender doesn't really matter then.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

What does "equal" even mean when you compare men and women?
Prejudism is a preconcieved opionion or bias. Interesting you automatically think he's talking about white men when he said white people.

You're right about the question of equality. To clarify.......eqality, for my purposes, means equal in value.

[vkut79]

Prejudism is a preconcieved opionion or bias. Interesting you automatically think he's talking about white men when he said white people.

You're right about the question of equality. To clarify.......eqality, for my purposes, means equal in value.

You honestly think that's the right definition for prejudism? If thats true, then pretty much all my beliefs about everything are prejudiced, because I have a "preconceived" opinion and/or bias about them. I have the preconceived opinion, or bias perhaps, that all ice cream tastes good. Would you say I'm prejudiced about ice cream? I simply have come to the logical, rational conclusion that this is the case based on my own experience and the experience of others. If you show me evidence that this is not the case, I will readily adjust my opinion. Likewise I could be "prejudiced" in thinking that all electrical shocks are painful. Once again, if you show me evidence that this is not always the case, I will adjust my opinion.

Prejudice can be defined in different ways, but in this discussion it makes more sense as I defined it. In this context, prejudice is used as a deregotary, accusatory term in order to find fault with someone. Why is there fault with well-considered, informed, rational pre-judgments? If I say that women are typically weaker than men, I'm prejudiced (in the negative sense)? No, I don't think so. If I say that women are less intelligent than men, and I have no rationale for this belief, and I stubbornly refuse to revoke that belief in the absence of evidence for it, am I prejudiced? Yes... Its important to use the term correctly, otherwise it seems that any preconceived opinion or belief becomes a bad thing that puts the person at fault.

Men more often associate with men, and women more often associate with women. This is generally the case. And since I know nothing else of the man, I am naturally going to assume that he means other men, not other women.

"Equal in value" - what does this even mean? How is the value determined? Saying that two things are "equal in value" as opposed to just "equal" doesn't give me a better idea of what exactly you are trying to say. If its not specific enough, it doesn't really mean much.

[interjerator]

My reaction to each: Where did you get them from?

[med2006]

Here are three senarios. Please tell me your reaction to each one.

1. A black man explains how he prefers to hang around white people since they are more intelligent and make more sense.


As a black woman (who has heard black people make similar statements) I can imagine a number of number of reasons:

a.) Perhaps the man in the scenario is harboring resentment toward kids that taunted/bullied him as a child (as all kids do) for being different or “trying to be white.”

b) Perhaps, he feels that by distancing himself from the black community and the associated stereotypes he will be more “acceptable” to “mainstream America. “ For some reason Clarence Thomas comes to mind.

c.) Perhaps he thinks (if he is speaking to a white person) that he is going to win some brownie points with that person because he knows or suspects that that person does not respect black people.

d.) Perhaps he has simply internalized the stereotypes that persist about black people and truly believes that white people are more intelligent and only associates with them because he believes that he will benefit in some way.

As a kid growing up in a black neighborhood I was often told that that I was trying to be white or that I "talk white" because I had interests that were different and speak English very well and have always had an extensive vocabulary. It just happens that correct use of the English language is part of my family culture.


2. A male baseball coach calls his male players a bunch of girls in order to motivate them to play better.

Anyone familiar with gymnastics and cheerleading knows that female athletes are tough and have an amazing amout of endurance and pain tolerance so “lack of heart” or courage is not necessarily the issue.

If this is a little league coach, he may be playing off the natural tendency preadolescent boys have to dislike girls. (Who hasn't heard a little boy say "GIRLS!…eeeewww!") God forbid that a boy or even a girl on any playground tells another boy that he runs, pitches, shoots or hits “like a girl.” This is often seen as a challenge (motivator) or fighting words.

To some degree, I think that even adult men will be instantly transported back to the childhood playground if anyone suggests that there is anything "girl-like" about his athletic performance.

In my age group I think that there were fewer opportunities for boys to see girls excel in sports, although there were a number of very gifted runners and tennis players that I can recall in the 1970s. .

Luckily Title IX improved opportunities for girls and young women to participate in organized sports so boys have been able to see girls perform well in sports. Also, soccer is gaining in popularity in the US and I am seeing more girls participating. So maybe things are changing.


3. A woman explains how she would prefer to hang around men since they are more intelligent and make more sense.

As a woman (who has always had more male than female friends I can imagine a number of number of reasons:

a.) Perhaps she grew up in a household with a bunch of brothers and had more tomboy tendencies as a kid and simply feels more comfortable around men.

b.) Perhaps she grew up with a dad and no mom and was socialized to think more like a man.

c.) Perhaps she had some bad experiences with girls or women in her past and she that feels subscribes to the philosophy of “burn me once…”

d.) Perhaps the female role models in childhood deeply disappointed her and she has tried to distance herself from women ever since.

e.) Perhaps, she really means that she simply has more interests in common with men.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

You honestly think that's the right definition for prejudism? If thats true, then pretty much all my beliefs about everything are prejudiced, because I have a "preconceived" opinion and/or bias about them. I have the preconceived opinion, or bias perhaps, that all ice cream tastes good. Would you say I'm prejudiced about ice cream? I simply have come to the logical, rational conclusion that this is the case based on my own experience and the experience of others. If you show me evidence that this is not the case, I will readily adjust my opinion. Likewise I could be "prejudiced" in thinking that all electrical shocks are painful. Once again, if you show me evidence that this is not always the case, I will adjust my opinion.

Prejudice can be defined in different ways, but in this discussion it makes more sense as I defined it. In this context, prejudice is used as a deregotary, accusatory term in order to find fault with someone. Why is there fault with well-considered, informed, rational pre-judgments? If I say that women are typically weaker than men, I'm prejudiced (in the negative sense)? No, I don't think so. If I say that women are less intelligent than men, and I have no rationale for this belief, and I stubbornly refuse to revoke that belief in the absence of evidence for it, am I prejudiced? Yes... Its important to use the term correctly, otherwise it seems that any preconceived opinion or belief becomes a bad thing that puts the person at fault.

Men more often associate with men, and women more often associate with women. This is generally the case. And since I know nothing else of the man, I am naturally going to assume that he means other men, not other women.

"Equal in value" - what does this even mean? How is the value determined? Saying that two things are "equal in value" as opposed to just "equal" doesn't give me a better idea of what exactly you are trying to say. If its not specific enough, it doesn't really mean much.
Prejudice is a preconcieved opinion or bias, that is, an inclination or a predisposition toward or against someone or something. If you prefer to use your own personally formed definition, then that is certainly your perogative.

Yes... you can have a prejudice for a thing, but this does not usually cause problems within society and so the term is not usually used in that way. Unlike electricity and ice cream, individual people are a little bit more complicated and a little more difficult to predict. Although, the desire to make people less complicated and place them within an easily defined box is quite human.

Just because something comes naturally doesn't mean that it is the morally correct thing to do. You know what they say about assuming.

Equal in value means equal in worth. So that each person deserves to be treated as if their existence were as valuable as another person's existence.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 54 seconds later...

As a black woman (who has heard black people make similar statements) I can imagine a number of number of reasons:

a.) Perhaps the man in the scenario is harboring resentment toward kids that taunted/bullied him as a child (as all kids do) for being different or “trying to be white.”

b) Perhaps, he feels that by distancing himself from the black community and the associated stereotypes he will be more “acceptable” to “mainstream America. “ For some reason Clarence Thomas comes to mind.

c.) Perhaps he thinks (if he is speaking to a white person) that he is going to win some brownie points with that person because he knows or suspects that that person does not respect black people.

d.) Perhaps he has simply internalized the stereotypes that persist about black people and truly believes that white people are more intelligent and only associates with them because he believes that he will benefit in some way.

As a kid growing up in a black neighborhood I was often told that that I was trying to be white or that I "talk white" because I had interests that were different and speak English very well and have always had an extensive vocabulary. It just happens that correct use of the English language is part of my family culture.



Anyone familiar with gymnastics and cheerleading knows that female athletes are tough and have an amazing amout of endurance and pain tolerance so “lack of heart” or courage is not necessarily the issue.

If this is a little league coach, he may be playing off the natural tendency preadolescent boys have to dislike girls. (Who hasn't heard a little boy say "GIRLS!…eeeewww!") God forbid that a boy or even a girl on any playground tells another boy that he runs, pitches, shoots or hits “like a girl.” This is often seen as a challenge (motivator) or fighting words.

To some degree, I think that even adult men will be instantly transported back to the childhood playground if anyone suggests that there is anything "girl-like" about his athletic performance.

In my age group I think that there were fewer opportunities for boys to see girls excel in sports, although there were a number of very gifted runners and tennis players that I can recall in the 1970s. .

Luckily Title IX improved opportunities for girls and young women to participate in organized sports so boys have been able to see girls perform well in sports. Also, soccer is gaining in popularity in the US and I am seeing more girls participating. So maybe things are changing.



As a woman (who has always had more male than female friends I can imagine a number of number of reasons:

a.) Perhaps she grew up in a household with a bunch of brothers and had more tomboy tendencies as a kid and simply feels more comfortable around men.

b.) Perhaps she grew up with a dad and no mom and was socialized to think more like a man.

c.) Perhaps she had some bad experiences with girls or women in her past and she that feels subscribes to the philosophy of “burn me once…”

d.) Perhaps the female role models in childhood deeply disappointed her and she has tried to distance herself from women ever since.

e.) Perhaps, she really means that she simply has more interests in common with men.

Makes sense.