(Example at the end)
Usually we discuss stereotypes in terms of how they are harmful—which is good because it’s super important to recognize and confront the stereotypes that perpetuate systems of oppression and hurt. That doesn’t mean all of them are harmful, though. Some are neutral and and some are a net positive. If you can think of neutral ones that’s fine but I’m especially interested in the constructive and beneficial ones. Hopefully I’m explaining this well enough but if it becomes clear I didn’t I’ll delete this post.
Example: I usually encourage people, especially kids and pedestrians, to assume that drivers can’t see you. While it’s not necessarily true even a majority of the time, it’s nevertheless a constructive stereotype to hold in terms of road safety.
You must log in or register to comment.
From Oxford:
a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
Is a driver a type of person? Maybe. I think it’s generally prudent to be cautious as a pedestrian, regardless of the rationalization or mnemonic. I don’t think assuming drivers don’t see pedestrians is a stereotype. Maybe it is.
Fixed and oversimplified seems to be doing a lot of work here. “Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”. That’s an oversimplified idea.
“Asians are good at math”. An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.
a woman driver probably doesn’t see pedestrians
A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.
Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
I agree with this definition. :)
Is a driver a type of person?
Why wouldn’t they be? Also note the or thing at the end there. A driver can refer to both human drivers and autonomous vehicles. But either way, every driver in history has been a person or thing.
“Asians are good at math”. An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.
Positive, yes. Constructive, as I ask in my post, no. There is a reason I worded the question the way I did. Positive stereotypes might seem flattering, but they place undue pressure and expectations on individuals, which can be harmful. This isn’t a counterexample so much as an example that is not valid, and glad to see we agree here.
“a woman driver probably doesn’t see pedestrians”—A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.
So, we have to weigh the pros and cons. While such a stereotype might encourage cautiousness around women drivers, the perpetuation of patriarchal values that result in violence and exclusion against women is far more harmful. Therefore, applying gender to road safety is not constructive because the negative impacts significantly outweigh any potential benefits.
Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?
A mean way to end this, come on man. :( Let’s remember to follow community rule 1: “be nice and have fun.”
Sorry, I don’t think “driver” is a “type” of person for this purpose.
Maybe if you decided drivers are foolishly for being drivers and therefore in a different arena, say gambling, can easily be buffed against. “Drivers are risk takers and therefore it makes sense to bluff against them in poker”. That’s a stereotype.
To say drivers, while they are driving, don’t look cautiously enough, or whatever, you are simply making a statement about drivers. Not about drivers in a different context. Not about a type of person who in the situation is a driver… I don’t think it’s a stereotype. You’d either have to be unjustly discriminating against a type of driver or judging drivers in a context outside of driving.
“Don’t eat red berries, many red berries signify poison”.
The subject of the stereotype (red berries) even in your own example is still kept within its normal context (consumption). I will be keeping my own original understanding of “stereotype” for this reason. :)
It’s also the FIXED portion. Everyone has seen people est and enjoy some times of red cherries. Yet, presumably, if you got new data showing drivers do actually pay attention and being a pedestrian was relatively safe you would adjust your beliefs.
A belief based on unbiased data (“being a pedestrian where I live is dangerous and this may be due to a lack of awareness by drivers”) is not the same as an unfounded, fixed belief based on no data, unrepresentative data, or data that does not reflect the root cause.
I actually often see drivers smile and wave at me, disproving that they are unaware, and nevertheless I do not adjust my beliefs in the context of maximizing my road safety as a pedestrian.
I’m with you here, Neptune’s definition seems to overspecify the extract from Oxford they presented.
If we boil stereotyping down to its core components, then it appears to simply be an instance of correlation using subjective and non-complete data: “This individual exerts traits a, b, and c, which means they are highly likely to also exert traits x, y, and z.”
Or: “This individual is operating a car (unique trait/type of person), therefore their visibility and attention capacity are likely reduced or under strain (overgeneralization as driving might come natural to them, and fixed as I might assume that no one is a natural).”
^This is, of course, an oversimplification, as I’m going purely by Neptune’s words and my own understanding, and have not looked up additional sources.
Useful stereotypes can help a person avoid danger.
Unknown mushrooms don’t have to be poisonous but being careless with them can lead to a grisly death. Drivers don’t have to be unaware of me but it takes just one who is to put me in mortal danger if I’m not careful. A man following a lone woman at night where nobody else is around doesn’t have to have ill intent but she’s still better off being prepared for the case that he does.
Does this discriminate against mushrooms, drivers, and men? Yes, but that’s the point. It’s essentially an informal safety guideline and it deliberately overreaches just like real safety guidelines. The 999 times someone doesn’t need that handrail don’t outweigh the one time they do; not in OSHA’s eyes. Because someone might die if the handrail fails that one time.
This whole thing becomes problematic when it gets over-applied. Avoiding canned mushrooms in the supermarket won’t protect me from poisoning. Assuming that all drivers are blind and irresponsible will not improve my behavior on the road. Being afraid of all men in all situations will not make that woman’s life better.
Like always, Paracelsus is right: The dose makes the poison. (And like with poison, some stereotypes are so toxic that any dose of then is bad for you.)
excellent breakdown 🙂
I don’t think a stereotype can ever be constructive because it will always involve the need to be restrictive and limiting in order to be a stereotype.
I guess we need to question who benefits from the constructive stereotype.
“drivers can’t see you” is constrictive for pedestrians, and also drivers, but it’s not constrictive to the graffiti tagger who is trying to go unseen by passing cars (not that a tagger is being constructive in the first place)
The statement “a stereotype can never be constructive because it will always involve the need to be restrictive and limiting in order to be a stereotype” suggests that stereotypes inherently confine individuals to a set of predetermined traits, limiting their full and diverse expression.
However, stereotypes can be context-dependent and their restrictiveness can vary. For instance, in some contexts, certain conservatives might falsely believe that exposure to trans identities manipulates people into becoming trans, which is a restrictive stereotype. Yet, in other contexts, these same individuals may engage with trans identities through media consumption (fetishization; pornography), which contradicts the initial stereotype.
This example demonstrates that stereotypes can shift and are not universally restrictive. The fluidity of stereotypes based on context suggests that while they often limit and confine, their impact can vary, revealing a more complex and sometimes contradictory nature.
As far as the car example, of course the graffiti tagger is no longer going to hold the same stereotype true when they cease pedestrian activities—because the context has changed.
If you have posted a comment and I haven’t responded yet, don’t assume I am ignoring you. My instance/.world seems to be super behind with federating comments so I can’t reply to them till they show up here sorry! :(
Big feet, big weiner.
i’d need evidence to call this valid, how has this shown itself to be constructive in your experience ?
People can typically see your feet at any given time. However they usually won’t see your weiner until they’ve consented to sexy time. So they might assume up front that you have a big weiner, and want to have the sexy time. And then you disappoint them and yourself later. But: had sex.
hmm
That Canadians are perpetually polite.
I live a few miles from the Canadian border and trust me, you’ll find your fair share of Karens from Canada.
hmm i guess im confused why you find this to be constructive? whom or what does it benefit?
Who wouldn’t want the world to think they’re always polite?
I hold the belief that everybody is out tofuck me out of money. Until I’m shown otherwise, I treat each and every person as an asshole, and a scammer.
It’s amazing how drama free my life is, when I keep others bullshit at bay.
I like this enough, as long as you make the genuine effort to identify when you are shown otherwise :) I was thinking the same—I usually am very wary of every unfamiliar email or phone call as phishing or scam until given counter evidence.
shifty eyes
…this guy wants my money…
/s
