Okay, So I really pissed Chris off tonight. ha ha!
It all started when a couple of big tall black guys walked in, swiped their cards at the security/access station, made some sort of asshole joke, laughed, and walked into the elevators. Chris stated that they acted like monekys....and said he wouldn't use the other term. So if a person of african american descent acted like an asshole, then they were a "n**ger". WTF?!?
From there, he went on to comment that women always try to use their gender to get guys to let them have their own way. Now, I disagreed, not withstanding the sad examples of the female gender that DO whine and bitch and act like brats to get their way....I see the whole "c'mon, pleeeease, be cool, please? I just wanta go upstairs for a few minutes, i'll be right back down"-- as a very human trait. I've had both guys AND gals pull this shit with me about an equal number of times, so I can say pretty accurately that it is NOT a "women only" trait. So, my point was to ask him WHY exactly women felt it was necessary to act in such a way--- IF, indeed it were a "women only" or common trait of the female gender (even with exceptions).
Upon which reasoning, he threw my question out the window and preferred to watch it splatter on the ground (ie, he dodged it). I said that women felt they had to act in a certain way because of gender bias, or gender stereotyping, often initiated by male expectations or societal expectations (created by women and internalized) based on the desires of the "dominant gender". He disagreed, stating that women "expect to be put down" or something along those lines (the gist of his argument, I believe) and that they "act to further that idea".
Okay, first of all BULLSHIT.
Second, Hey, wanna talk about stereotyping the female gender in an extremely negative light?
I tried to point out that sort of thinking creates too many limitations in seeing people as individuals. What about all the women out there who are NOT letting themselves be "put down" to apply to some stupid idea that the "females of the species are supposed to be weaker"? There's quite a lot of them. Oh, in fact a WHOLE LOT of them. He nodded at that idea, but disagreed that the majority of women were limited because of that stereotype. WITH exceptions for example in the types of majors that college students choose.
And, Weaker? Women are psychologically and for the most part biologically stronger than men. How could a man EVER be able to have MULTIPLE children and undergo the emotional and psychological stress of childbearing? And THEN, live to be about ten years older than men on average? (There's a lot more old women than men out there: men ten to die at about 79 on average, women about 86 or so.) Their bodies are built to last longer. They live longer because they feel they are "needed" by their families.
Okay, so--exceptions? There are no black and white RULES that apply to all of us human beings here on earth. In fact, rules are made to be bent all out of porportion until they no longer apply, and then discarded. So what the fuck was he smoking? Dunno.
So women choose more north campus majors than engineering and science. Why? Well, because their job prospects are better in non-science fields, with the whole maternity-leave idea, and everything else (societal expectations, QED).
He thought that women think entirely differently than men--not as spatially. While this is true as a GROSSLY simplified generalization (of a bit of psychology info), we can find LOTS of holes in that idea.
What about women like Marie Curie? Eh? She was a scientist. There are MANY women doctors, scientists, and even engineers. I'm sure they'd resent being told that they are exceptions to some sort of "rule" that women are incapable of higher cognitive ability or thinking spatially. I told him he had a very narrow negative perception of women as a whole (gee, wonder why I thought that) to apply such a ridiculous stereotype. Wow, so he got really offended at my statement of opinion over HIS opinions/biases of the female gender.
And so, the coversation evolved into a discussion over stereotyping. He opined that you could apply a steroetype....with exceptions, to be able to predict human behavior. I disagree. If you are forced into thinking in such a narrow way about a person because of race, gender or age, then you have failed as a human being/individual. (This is MY opinion, okay?) Because you have to objectify someone with a stereotype to "understand" them, you have not treated them as an individual, with many nuances of behavior, thought, belief and cultural background/upbringing. So Chris argued with me for an hour or two about this, trying to prove me wrong. Well, whatever.
So he decided to try to use an example: If you see two guys in an alley, and they are dressed like bums, will you be more wary of them than men in suits in a dark alley in san francisco? Well, first off, we have to concider CONTEXT.
The normal expectation is for bums to hang out in alleys. This is usually because they have no homes, and LOGICALLY, alleys are warmer (smaller space between buildings), more sheltered (elements like rain are partially blocked by buildings) and probably safer than living on a curb and getting hit by a car. If I decided to be homeless, I'd like a nice alley, thank you! So is this a stereotype? No, common sense in most regards.
Regarding those "bums" as suspicious would be a stereotype. BUT, I find most homeless people are very nice to talk to; they are PEOPLE. They may not have homes, but that does not change the commonality of human experience. They have their ups and downs, good and bad points.
I stated that I would be more suspicious of men in business suits in a dark alley. (I understand what he was trying to say, but REALLY!) This is because they are juxtaposed in a setting that is unusual. Wouldn't YOU be kind of sucpicious too? I'd be more frightened of THEM. Why the hell would they be in an alley? In suits?!? (This is using the normal/usual human assumption that they would be up to no good, or to think the worst of people when no evidence is presented one way or another).
Or, strange looking guys walking around twitching and muttering to themselves with bloodshot eyes, and unkempt appearance, and some sort of threatening posture/behavior would cause me fear. Maybe they even have a knife or a gun. Well, Duh. They have some pretty strange symptoms going on, so yeah. They could be some sort of drug addict. I'm not instantly assuming that they ARE, but the possibility exists, so I'm cautious. That is a stereotype, but I'm AWARE that I'm applying it. I'm AWARE it's most likely incorrect depending on that individual's behaviour toward me/others.
He then went on to villify people who dress like gangsters...or "gangbangers". Thankyou, I know a few gangsters at the end of the street where I live in Garden Grove. They're very nice people. You respect them, you be polite, they will be very polite and respectful back. Talk to them in Spanish, they'll respect you even more. They're PEOPLE, for crissakes. They don't just lurk around, trying to kill people like some stupid stereotype states. Heck, my friend Amanda's brother, Andrew, used to dress like a gangbanger. He even had people ask him what gang he was in. This DOESN'T make him more likely IN ANY WAY to be a gangster or carry a gun or anything. It simply means that for the particular area that he lived in, it was more culturally accepted to dress in a certain way, and therefore as a product of his environment, Andrew did so. So why would I be more wary of people because of how they dress?
What they do, and how they treat me is more important than that shit. It's like saying all Asians are bad drivers. Well, Gee. What we need to do is ask the right questions about our stereotypes: WHY does this stereotype exist? Because culturally (more than others) asian drivers
react to the world around them, rather than ACT upon it. Instead of switching into another lane to avoid braking cars, statistically (and I'll fucking go find the statistics, if you really need to see them) they're more likely to slam on their brakes, or travel at slower more cautious speeds than other crazy American drivers. This pisses off speed hungry American drivers. And thus, the reputation for crappy or "result-oriented" ( not "consequence") driving.
Or, focusing on the positive, "all asians are better students". BULLSHIT. A gross oversimplification. It'd be more accurate to say that they have more motivation to excell in school from family and parents who UNDERSTAND that they need a good education to go places in this world. As well as the fact that they are pressured into not "dishonoring" the family or are supposed to take care of the older members of the family when they get old (thus necessitating a good income/job/education).
(And yes, another point of opinon for me: education does help you do better in the workplace by teaching you NEW ways of thinking....though I'm not sure many college students are even aware of this on their radar or ever figure it out. Not all of us are so self-possessed or aware of our roles in the "grand scheme of things". How is it that people don't WANT to try to expand their thinking? A sad characteristitc of many in the human race.)
What bothers me is Chris's unconscious desire to apply stereotypes to everything.
That REALLY REALLY bugs me.
You're better off to just NOT. Treat people as individuals; then you're probably less likely to be guilty of erroneous conclusions about people. Less wrong impressions to be made if everyone is individually regarded. This isn't the easy thing to do, however. It's the hard way. And many would prefer the easy non-thinking way (stereotype application).
That's not to say that stereotypes don't exist are aren't created by people normally. Chunking or categorizing things is a normal part of human psychology/thinking. There may be MANY types of desks (as another coworker pointed out) but they are not all the same in shape, size, color, details. There is such great variation that desk is really better suited as a description of functionality: a flat surface used for writing/ computing/ whatever! We stereotype in politics too-- to get people to think one way or another.
Then I managed to offend him again my somehow implying that "as an engineer" he was inclined to think more objectively and quantify people more into categories (ie. stereotype) because of the type of logical and semi-pessimistic way of looking at facts that the discipline of engineering requires. Engineers are TRAINED to think in a "glass is at a 50% empty capacity". HE heard the meaning that I was accusing him somehow of being closed minded. (I think. Who knows? He got all angry.) Well, I opine that he wasn't being open minded. Deal with it. You don't like the fact that I'm going to step all over your biases? Too bad!
For this I was labeled as arrogant and stubborn , and accused of not trying to understand his point of view.
Oh, I understand it. I just disagree with it completely. And if you get angry at me, you've lost the argument, because you can't think rationally when you're angry. You can emote. And that's what he did. Don't raise your voice to me.
Just accept the fact that you're not open-minded if you have to insist on an ad hoc argument to "win" a debate on whether you stereotype too much/are a bigot.
You know what? You pissed me off too. At least I can be somewhat mature about my thinking, and somewhat aware of my biases and bigoted behavior. Enough to control it!
If he says shit like that again, I'm going to pounce on his ass. That is a WAY juvenile/sumplistic way of thinking. Makes me ashamed
FOR him.
My response? Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER IT.
