To think most stereotypes are based on some truth

[lesley33]

AIBU to think that if there is a stereotype about a group of people there is usually a nugget of truth there, even if that nugget of truth is out of date?

For example, there has for a long time been a stereotype that women are worse drivers than men. I don't think that is true now, but I think 30-40 years ago, in general, women were worse drivers than men. I think this was for the simple reason that very few families had more than 1 car. Usually the man drove the car most of the time - to work, family outings, etc. Women in general drove far less than men, so obviously weren't as experienced and this made women in general worse drivers.

And I know this is an in general thing. There will have been individual women 40 years ago who were better drivers than most men.
So AIBU?

I was actually thinking of the Irish being 'drunks' rather than 'thick'. But nice to be reminded.

millyr I LOVE david o'docherty

Dara O Briain does a great piece on stereotypes. Gets the audience to call out a random country and then two random characteristics. Something like Ukrainians are violent and shite at small talk. His theory being that if you hear Ukrainians mentioned your brain will automatically remember those stereotypes even though they are a bunch of invented bollocks.

YABU.
Loads of horrible racist stereotypes out there - about the Irish, black people, Jewish people. How you can think there's a "nugget" of truth in them?!

What a load of bollocks.

Scurry I am just going on what the scientists say. Surely we have to accept at some points that there are gender differences biologically? I am not saying this one in particular is right, it may be wrong or I may have misunderstood what I read about it. But I don't think we should just dismiss it all. Men and women are different physically so I am open to suggestion but will not take it at face value, I generally look for evidence.

Oh and I didn't think it was a stereotype source, just that it might explain the stereotype.

But yes, it may be bad science.

I would agree that lots, perhaps most stereotypes have little nuggets of truth, somewhere. I think acknowledging those nuggets can sometimes be the best way to fight against stereotyping.

Just saying, "NO, you're wrong!" is an ineffective technique.

I personally think the following style of response can work better: "I understand why you think that. However, that idea arose because of 300 years ago, and doesn't apply any more. And even if it did, what about all the members of [insert group] who weren't like that? It's terribly unfair to group people together like that."

Stereotype: Jewish people (in toto) place a high premium on education. Unpack this: Jewish people place a higher premium on education than the majority population of which they form a minority. That is, the majority population don't place a high premium on education.

Is that true? The fact that @ 7 - 10% of that majority population are willing to spend £££ on private education suggests that it's not just Jewish folk who value education.

So is it the non-Jewish persons in remaining 90% of the population who don't care about education?

Hmmm.

Nope, I don't think so. Stereotypes are all about power. They are about displacing the effects of power and inequality, and features that dominant communities feel ambivalent about onto other groups, and turning these into "traits".

They operate subtly. In the above example, the other group targetted by this stereotype is all those groups who are at the bottom of the social and economic ladder, and who suffer unequal access to unequally distributed state education, whose inequality is then dressed up as them "not caring". almost funny, if it weren't so mendacious and punitive.

I notice that the stereotype about Jewish people (all Jewish people? Always? More so than other groups??) crept in rather unobtrusively, under the wire as you discussed the money stereotype. So a lot of steretotypes are very deeply embedded, and subtly pernicious.

And I think the "Irish being thick" has much to do with hostility towards the Irish, which is linked in part to the English having been a colonial presence in Ireland over time, and feeling the fear/hostility/unease/contempt of the colonising force.

Categorising people keeps them 'safe' and helps them make sense of the world - it is born of fear and perfectly irrationally 'normal'

I'm Scottish and I know that the stereotypes of my nationality are alcoholic, aggressive people who eat too much fried food.

Statistically northern countries in Europe drink more alcohol (linked to depression due to more darkness).

The Scots also statistically die of heart disease earlier due to overconsumption of bad foods (again cos it's fecking cold)

On one hand I can look to anecdotal evidence to reinforce stereotypes and I can also look at statistics.

Some stereotypes have a modicum of truth as they may be based on properly collected statistics.

For example there has been a penis size study in the last 2 weeks (either the Mail online or the Times online) and has found that penis size differs across the globe - the men with the smallest penises come from Japan (maybe because they are the shortest or because the women definitely are - there could be a physical explanation for that - average 4.9 inches). The largest was the Congo (average 7.5 inches) - maybe because the men are much taller/stronger/greater muscle.

However, the nugget of truth was, I suspect a lot of the time, someone's great-great- great-grandma/grandpa meeting someone they didn't like, and attributing it to something unrelated.

Agree Wassa!

I have always lived in Cities/areas with large numbers of immigrants. I think some of the stereotypes come about because usually when there is a largish influx suddenly of people from 1 country, those people have left that country because they share a common charateristic - although not always the case.

All MNers are fanatical about breastfeeding, hate their MiLs and.......

LDN....seriously read the book I mentioned. It is a great read and talks about "scientific" myths that are used to explain gender differences - spatial awareness being one of them.

I do think on average Jewish people do value education more highly than the average christian family for example does. There is a very very strong streak within Judaism about men being educated so that they can study Judaism in depth. This emphasis on that in the religion means that education is valued for its own sake.

I don't think in our current society that education is valued for its own sake by most people. Education seems to be only valued as a means to get a good job.

So IMO people could make serious sacrifices to send their children to a private school so they increase their chances of getting a well paid job. This doesn't mean that they value education.

grovel

Precisely!

Although the odd thing is that the Daily Mail outside world perceives us to have "organically fed little hugos who are never allowed outside".

Wonder how that started up?

Wassa

That's because all Daily Mail readers are neo-Fascist, epsilon semi-moronic residents of Carshalton. FACT.

What's interesting for me is the way some stereotypes are allowed to flourish relatively unchecked, and others get jumped on from a great height. For example, if you generalise about Germans you'll get a fairly mild reaction, but if you generalise about Pakistanis you definitely won't. Why is this?

My family are jew-ish and while religion doesn't play a big part in our lives some of the sterotypes do apply to my family. I always thought it was interesting that the gap between men and womens wages was the lowest for Jewish people and I think education has a lot to do with it. I don't know any Jewish families that sent their children to the local comp. If you didn't get into the grammar school then you went private.

My grandmother was the most Jewish grandmother ever. Brilliant lady who fit the Jewish sterotype perfectly without any effort on her part.

Obv some sterotypes are just plain wrong. A lot of the ones about the Irish are way off the mark.

Cos Germans are the most succesful Europeans so cultural stereotyping has little effect - 'Ho, ho Germans put their towels on sunloungers'

whereas being prejudiced against people from pakistan reinforces racism, encourages violence and hatred (and political parties flourish because of anti-immigration stance)

An interesting stereotype is "long-sleeved men are untrustworthy" or "never trust a man with long sleeves" which I found out dated back to an account of the treachery of the long knives.

Doubt anyone seriously believes that long-sleeved men are out to betray them now, but it's an example of how stories start up.

and also one of the stereotypes about germans is their 'efficiency' - zero point being negative about that as it has made them so successful

So if that's the case it's about power, yes? As in: it's OK to make generalisations about people who have lots of power, as we assume they can look after themselves, whereas people with less power need to be protected against insidious forms of social oppression?

People also find it hard to get worked up about stereotyping about posho upper class people at Eton

who cares about such a successful group?

Yes - you put it waaaay better than I did