Journal entry for October 3, 2001

Today's summary: Rant on creativity stereotypes, socialization, and gender stereotypes.

I've been REALLY busy lately, so I'm going to fill the next series of entries with some generic rants I've posted to various debate and discussion threads elsewhere on the internet. I figure hey, you might just find it interesting, and it's better than no entry at all today.

This particular rant was posted to a thread that originally asked "Is one gender just plain better at art?" and devolved into various accusations of stereotyping and misogyny. Fun, fun fun. I probably should have stayed away from the conversation entirely, but instead I went into a REALLY long essay regarding sex, socialization, and the pluses and minuses of stereotypes, as follows:

I don't feel qualified to make any absolute claims about which sex might be "naturally" better suited for the arts, needless to say. I would claim though, that on the /biological/ level, I think our creative potential is probably even (just like I'd say that intellectual potential is even). As adults however, our /expressive/ potential is hampered/encouraged by our upbringing and our opportunities. I feel that women are encouraged to be more expressive than men, and yet, women have less opportunity for their actual expressions of self (art, political views, ideas, whatever) to be taken seriously, which is rather ironic, don't you think? There are a few things that I feel are at least worth mentioning in my typical longwinded manner , about how people of different sexes are socialized, and stereotypes.

I think we all know that adult men and women /generally/ tend to think differently, have different goals in life, different interests, as well as different opportunities. HOWEVER. I would like to submit that I believe these differences are NOT biological, not some God-given "natural order of things". I believe that we have essentially equal potential, as human beings, but that we are socialized differently based on sex. People are very adaptable creatures, and we start adapting as soon as we're born to fit into our family, our society, and our culture. It's good for survival value, since we are social creatures.

I mean, what's the first question people usually ask about a new baby? Not "Is it healthy?". Not "Was the labor difficult?". No, most people want to know first of all, "Is it a boy or a girl?". We all seem to know it WILL make a difference in that child's life. It doesn't mean that on the social or opportunity level that it SHOULD make a difference, but even so, it does. I don't think anybody would deny that it makes a difference. So the question then becomes, what IS that difference and how is it caused? How we are socialized is based on people's conscious ideas (which are often stereotypes) about what they expect of a child, as well as deeper rooted cultural basics ("women take care of children", "men hunt", etc.)

Here's a gender related example that is about animals in general. It saves other animals a LOT of time and wasted energy, to have plenty of preprogrammed sex-specific instincts... but even many animals with strong parenting instincts can be totally derailed if they weren't raised by their own species. A parrot raised in an incubator and fed by humans has VERY little idea how to actually raise a parrot himself/herself, because it doesn't know how baby parrots are raised by adult parrots.

Although sometimes people actively try to project a role onto another person (a child), it's usually not a conscious act. People treat children a certain way because that's how they were treated, and it is self-perpetuating.

To use an example totally unrelated to sex, of how people are consciously and subconsciously socialized... only about 1 in 7 adults is lefthanded. However, geneticists who've actually done testing claim that the ratio (biologically) is more like 4 left-biased for every 6 right-biased people. The low ratio of lefties in society is not only due to people trying to actively "encourage" righthandedness... it's also because right-handed people just automatically tend to put the crayon or spoon in the kid's right hand, way before they even know what hand the kid is actually best with. The additional corollary is that the ratio would probably be absolutely 1:1, if lefties didn't have the survival disadvantage of being forced to work in right-handed ways.

But back to the topic...

The assignment of gender roles isn't always bad, in the abstract sense. Obviously some of these assumed roles developed among our species (and other species) because at least to an extent, it must have served a functional purpose to already "know" how labor would be subdivided. It saves time that would otherwise be spent in negotiation and training... if somebody is raised from birth for a certain role, they have a better idea what to do than their counterparts would.

And NO, I am not saying women are naturally better parents than men or anything like that. I /am/ suggesting that women are taught from birth how to be better communicators, taught that it's okay to express their natural human sensitivity, taught to be less violent and more nurturing, etc. Men, conversely, are often raised with expectations (by adults of both sexes) that they will be logical decision makers, taught that their human sensitivity is a display of weakness, taught to emphasize their aggressive urges, and so on.

(Aside: Given that I believe the preceding statements to be true, I wish more people were raised like women! This is why Ghandi used to say he was a woman in his heart. Although really, ideally, we would all be good logical decision makers too, and... well... Well. Let's just say I wish we encouraged all the positive stuff and that we didn't encourage negative things, how's that sound? I just feel sorry for men that they're not socially allowed to display certain feelings, or even admit that they have them to begin with. I think that's getting better as time passes, though.)

We are socialized according to gender, which is why generally speaking, adult men and women ARE different... and that's why there are exceptions to the rule. Because it's NOT a rule. It's not predominantly biological, it's social. Me, you, everybody with a chance to read this is lucky. As a person in a relatively free and affluent society (and you must be one, if you have internet access), you are allowing yourself a chance to develop /yourself/ philosophically, /beyond/ what you were taught to do/expect when you were younger, and /beyond/ your stereotypes. At least, I sure hope you're allowing yourself that chance.

So... even though you may hear people express sexually stereotypical views during this discussion, please remember that it DOES NOT necessarily mean that the person who holds that view thinks it's a good thing to push women down or glorify men.

I think that when people are actually willing to discuss their stereotypes, when they're open-minded enough to reconsider their stereotypes, nobody should smack anybody down for having stereotypes in the first place. The key is to help people understand that they have those stereotypes, that they are NOT universal, and to be aware that they might be applying a stereotype unfairly against contrary evidence. I believe that in a conversation like this, people should only be faulted if they cling to an illogical or destructive stereotype... particularly if they believe that the stereotype is a universal truth about men, women, black people, kids, whatever.

After all, people can't help having stereotypes. EVERYONE has stereotypes of some kind. A stereotype is an assumption. (definition from dictionary.com: A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image) We need assumptions in order to function, it's how we decide quickly between the million possible options in any given situation. We cannot (and will not ever realistically) test and question our assumptions at every single decision point in our lives. I stereotypically assume that that glowing red burner on the stove should not be touched, since every glowing red burner I have encountered in the past is hot. I stereotypically assume that that angry-looking guy with the big knife (or even big muscles) is worth avoiding. If I stopped right then and said, "Wait, maybe he's actually a nice person, he's just upset", I could end up in a bad situation, even if that thought I had might be true. Stereotypes have survival value, to an extent.

I really mean it when I say everyone has stereotypes of some kind. Really. (Or is that a stereotype?) You the reader, for example, probably have a stereotype that leads you to assume that an 8-year-old kid would not be the best choice as the accountant for a business. You wouldn't even consider it (Come on, seriously. Would you?). And why is that? Because there is a stereotype that children are generally less experienced with money, less trained in math, less trained in accounting basics. And, generally speaking, that stereotype IS true, or at least seems to be true in your world, and there's nothing wrong with having that stereotype. But there's also another stereotype that could be in action -- that kids are stupid, that they are destructive, that they cannot be trusted with money, etc etc. -- and that stereotype might also be /sometimes/ turn out to be true. That doesn't mean that the stereotype can EVER be extended to claim that all kids are naturally that way.

When people cross that line... when they start to believe that their stereotypes are universally true, or that they prove something about human nature, or that a stereotype can be used as the basis for a decision despite contrary evidence... that's when the stereotype becomes destructive. It would be ESPECIALLY wrong (in the moral sense) in the face of contrary evidence. Claiming "that kid broke the vase because kids are naturally destructive" would be a perfect example.

Extreme, destructive stereotypes are what people are usually referring to when they say someone is racist, sexist, etc. Even so, we really do all have our stereotypes. We even have stereotypes about people who have stereotypes. "Racists hate black people!" is a stereotype. A stereotype is an assumption -- for example, if I say "Racists hate black people!" I'm probably assuming that racists are white, and I'm also implying that all racists hate. There's plenty of people who are techically racists who are just biased. Similarly there's plenty of people who are technically sexists who are just biased... people who would be willing to listen, people who would be willing to agree that logic and their intellectual capability can outweigh everything they've been taught.

After all... being willing and able to go beyond what we've been instructed to do by others... go beyond what people expect of us... even to go beyond what we expect of ourselves... that's also what being an artist is all about, isn't it? So let's encourage some understanding and some tolerance, otherwise we'll end up alienating the people we disagree with instead of converting them. It should be OKAY for somebody to state their stereotypes, especially if they acknowledge that they aren't universally true. How else can we discuss it? It would be great if we can help each other transcend our social programming, even in some small way. The key is to undercut the basis for the idea, not to revile the person for having that programming to begin with.

I could go on and on, but, I need dinner.