you cool, don't have to worry about belaboring the topic...the way i keep alluding to tangents, I feel like i could get a doctorate thesis or two out of this for Psych.
but lets see...
we can't ever really "always be this way," there has to be introduction to, and reinforcement of all socially accepted behaviors, attitudes, etc. Groups and intense social situations on any scale wield an immense power to change attitudes and behavior very quickly. It doesn't even have to be a group, but merely a charismatic leader who takes advantage of great opportunity created by the right situational factors. The best historical example is Hitler's rise. It will make sense if you bother to check out the real stories behind the end of WWI and all of WWII, I won't get into that because its way off topic.
As far as biological inheritance of attitudes, i can't really pose a clear cut response to that. The nature vs. nurture dispute is one of the greatest and most famous in the psychological world. Biology tells us that character traits are not inheritable and child psychologists have assert us that no child under the age range of 10 - 12 is capable of forming his/her own opinion...constructing his/her personal preferences, beliefs, attitudes and habits mainly from informational influence of those around him/her, primarily the parents. Many people still find basis for a belief in some natural transfer of attitudes though...for instance there's a theory out about the generational learned helplessness of the black race a a whole. I don't know a lot about that nature side, so i can't pose a balanced argument...I'll just leave that one up to you sort out for yourself.
As far as males accepting things with belief that they won't change...i don't think you should shift your thinking that way at all. That actually epitomizes the concept of learned helplessness. The human mind is complex and cannot be calculated in any sense, only predicted and guessed about. Everyone thinks in different ways and is influenced by certain things more so than others. its possible that the situation you pose is the case for a lot of men. learned helplessness occurs when one complies with or accepts something believing that it cannot be changed or helped. This happens after very strong reinforcement of failure; in this case, the persistence of norms we don't agree with. But as i said, children usually can't form their own opinions and attitudes until considerably late ages. Many men may receive such thinking in their every day childhood influences and come to believe it. Then you have to remember the power of society and norms. No one wants to be seen as to independent, as non-conformity comes with heavy prices, namely ostracism among others (holocaust, slavery?). men not agreeing with the norm but following anyway reminisces about the idea of cognitive dissonance. the men rationalize they're behavior with the need to fit in. There's also Groupthink to consider, and the different dimensions of persuasion. There are to many angles to approach that idea from, which is probably why they dedicate an entire class to the topic of gender in society alone. The sentiment you expressed may not always be the case with a person in question, but sadly it seems the idea behind it forms part of the basis for the perpetuation of these attitudes.
On the perceptions of women:
I'd say such perceptions, as part of cultural attitudes, were both socially constructed AND motivated. Very few parts of any person's attitudes or views of the world are constructed from the ground up , completely by that person and that person alone. Those parts that are, are done so primarily through personal experience, but obviously no man can "personally experience" every woman in the world (that sounds kinda nasty) . Like i said, most childrens initial attitudes are handed to them by the others around them. No kid comes out of the womb, saying "women are only good for fuckin!" They get that from somewhere. There are two basic types of influence:
Normative influence, which drives us to act, think, and feel as others would expect us to in order to create a favorable impression. and,
Informational influence, which changes our attitudes and behavior base on what we learn from other around us. For example, if you had never been to a poetry lounge, and after hearing someone deliver you stood and clapped loudly only to find all other around you snapping, you would snap for the rest of the night. that's informational influence, you learned how to cat from the others around you and changed your behavior accordingly.
People are exposed to both of these everyday...so its either a teenager on the corner objectifying a woman's body because his friends think its cool, or some American dude overseas slapping a Czech woman on her ass because that's how they say "hello" in the Czech republic. Everyone is influenced by everyone else, and everyone influences everyone else. Strict individual construction of attitudes is near impossible since your family and parent's tell you how to think until puberty, when peer pressure from middle and high school then influence your thinking, and then you have to kiss up to executives in the rest of the world to be successful career wise. I'd say the point at which one is most likely to have the greatest control over one's own attitudes is the first 1-2 years of college, where many are completely thrust away from all social groups they previously associated with (out of state students) and have not much reason to let anyone change their thinking accept for learning the ways of their new location...informational influence which mostly elicits only temp change in behavior and attitudes, lasting as long as the situation does.
©Brandon Baker, 2010
Showing posts with label wifey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wifey. Show all posts
16 January 2010
About all this hoe vs. wifey bulls***..., part 2
First of all, the base of this conversation:
http://purdue.facebook.com
And now lets step back to who wrote this note. Previously I asserted my belief that it was a woman and asked that you accept that as true w/ no justification for the time being. Well here's justification.
I'm basing my assertion primarily on the phenomenon called the fundamental attribution error...which we're all more familiar with than you think. Stemming from Self serving bias, "the error" occurs when observing others. What happens is when we attempt to explain the behavior of others we almost invariably attribute their actions to intrinsic character traits, which, in the case of bad behavior, we see as character flaws. An easily imaginable scenario is when riding elevators. You might call an elevator from the second floor, board it when it comes and find yourself in another's company. When this person gets off on the next floor, the first natural thought is often that that person is lazy, having used an elevator to ascend one floor. When attempting to rationalize one's own actions, they are attributed to some external cause For example, when your elevator is halted on the 4th foor to pick up another passenger, and you disembark on the 5th floor, you won't consider yourself lazy for going up one floor on an elevator. You'll instead blame it on the fact that someone stopped your elevator one floor before our destination. In most cases, it will never cross your mind that the same might have occurred for the person you called lazy prior to your own incident.
Ok, getting to the relevance...the language in the original note attributed the supposed general behavior of all men to supposed internal character flaws of all men.
On further thought, I'd readily surmise that the writer was "wifey" or "thought" she was. Ciara brings up a good point, no woman in her right mind would relegate herself to being a bitch or a ho, unless she was self handicapping, but that's an entirely different direction to go in. Most every woman would consider herself "wifey material" for obvious reasons...self serving bias. Everyone's primary goal is self service and we would all clearly do anything to boost our own self-esteem and self concept. This is done less readily, but i don't think its entirely outrageous for any woman to consider herself a "boo," BUT, i do think that would only happen after time reveals to her her real place in a man's heart. Feeling like "wifey material" and then losing your other to another woman would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance, basically a discomfort caused by the need to rationalize the difference between what one thinks and what is. If this scenario were to occur to a woman, i believe she would readily explain what happened by deducing from th situation that she was i all actuality, a "boo," taking the title as a sort of "second place" or consolation prize.
For those reasons I'm not looking at this as the women putting themselves into categories, but I don't think its the men either. The men more or less, are just agreeing with what women say about each other.
As agreed (excuse the assumption, but i don't have reason to doubt it) no woman in her right mind would call herself a bitch...but what about that "bitch" tryna steal her man?
My hypothesis is this: naturally every woman reserves the high title for herself. at a low point, some might claim the second...but for the most part, the inclusion of the other three ranks are there to serve no other purpose than the being the infrastructure of a sort of caste system based on a woman's relationship with a man, to be used in primarily downward social comparison. The things that are most important in our societies become social criteria, and in this case, that's what a woman's relationship with a man is. Its analogous to your family's wealth, or where you live, etc. in American society. In american society: i got more money = i'm higher class. In this case: i'm more important to him = I'm higher class.
The lower ranks serve two purposes...two promote (one's self that is), and to discourage. Higher class "wifeys" will downwardly compare themselves to "ho's" to, again, boost their own self image. Parallel to that, they will also use the lower ranked labels to ostracize. We use ostracism to both punish deviant or unacceptable behavior in society, and to elicit the proper behavior and create conformity. "bitches, hos ,and boos" commit "crimes" within this little society and are accordingly punished. judgment depends on the intentions and relevance to the person judging, so its not exactly fair at all. For instance, one who thinks of herself as a "wifey" may only be a "boo" in a man's eye, as his actual "wifey" views the "boo" as a "ho" while the "boo" sees her the same way. and then there's all sorts of wierd situations that just make the whole system wrong...think of a scenario like "the one that got away." What if she comes back and the man she left once before still wants only her, but is in another relationship. does that make "the one who got away" a "ho?" there's too much ambiguity.
So do i think men created or dictated all this? I believe that they are 2000 years of strong social norms ans supporting stereotypes that do dictate/characterize a lot of the differences between, as well as behaviors and beliefs of men and women. I think that largest, most famous, inclusive, umbrella stereotypes are mostly created, perpetuated, and occasionally update by men, but i also believe that women play a more than critical part in the stereotype game as well. As i said before...everyone stereotypes, because it makes the world easier to deal with when we do. Women could be creating a complex web of sub stereotypes under those which they feel they can't escape...so that if they are to be thought of in a certain way for the majority of their lives, they can at least have their own system of control that allows them to accentuate and define all the more intricate details that the overly general stereotypes of men don't cover. Thus creating a somewhat false sense of individuality and distance from the norm. That is to assume, of course, that the stereotyping is one way. Women have been in control of some stereotypes about men as well. It's just that in a patriarchal society, the female opinion/belief is often (unfortunately, and please know this is not my belief) of little consequence. I've got a lot of theory on that, but that is yet another road to travel and this is long enough already.
Peace, be easy.
©Brandon Baker, 2010
http://purdue.facebook.com
And now lets step back to who wrote this note. Previously I asserted my belief that it was a woman and asked that you accept that as true w/ no justification for the time being. Well here's justification.
I'm basing my assertion primarily on the phenomenon called the fundamental attribution error...which we're all more familiar with than you think. Stemming from Self serving bias, "the error" occurs when observing others. What happens is when we attempt to explain the behavior of others we almost invariably attribute their actions to intrinsic character traits, which, in the case of bad behavior, we see as character flaws. An easily imaginable scenario is when riding elevators. You might call an elevator from the second floor, board it when it comes and find yourself in another's company. When this person gets off on the next floor, the first natural thought is often that that person is lazy, having used an elevator to ascend one floor. When attempting to rationalize one's own actions, they are attributed to some external cause For example, when your elevator is halted on the 4th foor to pick up another passenger, and you disembark on the 5th floor, you won't consider yourself lazy for going up one floor on an elevator. You'll instead blame it on the fact that someone stopped your elevator one floor before our destination. In most cases, it will never cross your mind that the same might have occurred for the person you called lazy prior to your own incident.
Ok, getting to the relevance...the language in the original note attributed the supposed general behavior of all men to supposed internal character flaws of all men.
On further thought, I'd readily surmise that the writer was "wifey" or "thought" she was. Ciara brings up a good point, no woman in her right mind would relegate herself to being a bitch or a ho, unless she was self handicapping, but that's an entirely different direction to go in. Most every woman would consider herself "wifey material" for obvious reasons...self serving bias. Everyone's primary goal is self service and we would all clearly do anything to boost our own self-esteem and self concept. This is done less readily, but i don't think its entirely outrageous for any woman to consider herself a "boo," BUT, i do think that would only happen after time reveals to her her real place in a man's heart. Feeling like "wifey material" and then losing your other to another woman would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance, basically a discomfort caused by the need to rationalize the difference between what one thinks and what is. If this scenario were to occur to a woman, i believe she would readily explain what happened by deducing from th situation that she was i all actuality, a "boo," taking the title as a sort of "second place" or consolation prize.
For those reasons I'm not looking at this as the women putting themselves into categories, but I don't think its the men either. The men more or less, are just agreeing with what women say about each other.
As agreed (excuse the assumption, but i don't have reason to doubt it) no woman in her right mind would call herself a bitch...but what about that "bitch" tryna steal her man?
My hypothesis is this: naturally every woman reserves the high title for herself. at a low point, some might claim the second...but for the most part, the inclusion of the other three ranks are there to serve no other purpose than the being the infrastructure of a sort of caste system based on a woman's relationship with a man, to be used in primarily downward social comparison. The things that are most important in our societies become social criteria, and in this case, that's what a woman's relationship with a man is. Its analogous to your family's wealth, or where you live, etc. in American society. In american society: i got more money = i'm higher class. In this case: i'm more important to him = I'm higher class.
The lower ranks serve two purposes...two promote (one's self that is), and to discourage. Higher class "wifeys" will downwardly compare themselves to "ho's" to, again, boost their own self image. Parallel to that, they will also use the lower ranked labels to ostracize. We use ostracism to both punish deviant or unacceptable behavior in society, and to elicit the proper behavior and create conformity. "bitches, hos ,and boos" commit "crimes" within this little society and are accordingly punished. judgment depends on the intentions and relevance to the person judging, so its not exactly fair at all. For instance, one who thinks of herself as a "wifey" may only be a "boo" in a man's eye, as his actual "wifey" views the "boo" as a "ho" while the "boo" sees her the same way. and then there's all sorts of wierd situations that just make the whole system wrong...think of a scenario like "the one that got away." What if she comes back and the man she left once before still wants only her, but is in another relationship. does that make "the one who got away" a "ho?" there's too much ambiguity.
So do i think men created or dictated all this? I believe that they are 2000 years of strong social norms ans supporting stereotypes that do dictate/characterize a lot of the differences between, as well as behaviors and beliefs of men and women. I think that largest, most famous, inclusive, umbrella stereotypes are mostly created, perpetuated, and occasionally update by men, but i also believe that women play a more than critical part in the stereotype game as well. As i said before...everyone stereotypes, because it makes the world easier to deal with when we do. Women could be creating a complex web of sub stereotypes under those which they feel they can't escape...so that if they are to be thought of in a certain way for the majority of their lives, they can at least have their own system of control that allows them to accentuate and define all the more intricate details that the overly general stereotypes of men don't cover. Thus creating a somewhat false sense of individuality and distance from the norm. That is to assume, of course, that the stereotyping is one way. Women have been in control of some stereotypes about men as well. It's just that in a patriarchal society, the female opinion/belief is often (unfortunately, and please know this is not my belief) of little consequence. I've got a lot of theory on that, but that is yet another road to travel and this is long enough already.
Peace, be easy.
©Brandon Baker, 2010
About all this hoe vs wifey bulls***...
*smiles* this coincides so perfectly with my current studies in...I'm focusing on prejudice at the moment...specifically gender roles and prejudice. I love it when my education finds application.
First of all, Omari, and Juanita you might find this interesting given the little newsflash you issued in your response: I can tell you with superlative certainty that the words in question were arranged by a woman, either scorn or merely fearful of scorning. My justification is another post in itself, so take my word for it for now.
Given that, and one of the responses, from a man, to Cynequa's original post,
I'm inclined to elaborate on Omari's final statement by saying that the culture isn't losing its values, but is instead (and this is more disdaining) *adopting NEW values.* My studies teach me that Attitudes are comprised of beliefs (stereotypes like those presented) and behaviors (acting in accordance with those stereotypes). Further than that, the sad fact has been revealed to me (through countless studies) that members of stereotyped groups ACCEPT those stereotypes, a statement I'm sure we can all find plenty of examples for. This is the basis for the perpetuation of incorrect and/or overly generalized attitudes (particularly negative ones) that pigeonhole groups of people (like ourselves) into societal situations like the one black people are constantly facing.
Juanita's correct, at least for now, in her statement of the intentions of every woman, but since that note is circulating around and men are agreeing with it, I would not bank on such and attitude remaining true for too long. Soon, it MAY BE the case that every woman (at least of this and proceeding generations until something new comes up) wants to count herself among what appear two be the two superlative ranks of "Boo" and "Wifey."
We always say that actions speak louder than words, and we (humanity in general) found this to be true. Attitudes DO follow behavior, and if the newer generations continue to perpetuate these "standards," for lack of a better term, than this stereotype may become reality. That is assuming, of course, that has not already begun to occur. I say such a thing because people form stereotypes in order to generalize the world...to make it a little easier to function in. Stereotypes help us to know what to expect and how to act with a minimal amount of friction in other groups or cultures (Consider things like "dining ettiquete" or "political correctness," which is a just a form of subtle, patronizing prejudice in my opinion, but thats a joke to talk about another day.) So the fact that this one has formed, may be implicative of some cultural change that has already occurred among the next generation of black men and women, as when numerous outliers break our stereotypes and perceptions, we react by either extending previously existing ones or creating new ones...for example, refer to your common perception of an Olympian, and then consider wheel-chair Olympians, senior Olympians, and other such spin-offs of the concept.
I'll speak no more on the subject for now. I have to apologize if anyones feels as though i'm making this to empirical.
But this does bring one other interesting fact to mind...kind of off topic, but consider this:
Question: "Misogyny" is the hatred of women. What is the corresponding word for the hatred of men?
...
...
...
Answer: In most dictionaries, no such word exists.
the original note for refrence:
http://purdue.facebook.com
Juanita's response and rest of conversastion:
http://purdue.facebook.com
Peace, Be easy.
©Brandon Baker, 2010
First of all, Omari, and Juanita you might find this interesting given the little newsflash you issued in your response: I can tell you with superlative certainty that the words in question were arranged by a woman, either scorn or merely fearful of scorning. My justification is another post in itself, so take my word for it for now.
Given that, and one of the responses, from a man, to Cynequa's original post,
I'm inclined to elaborate on Omari's final statement by saying that the culture isn't losing its values, but is instead (and this is more disdaining) *adopting NEW values.* My studies teach me that Attitudes are comprised of beliefs (stereotypes like those presented) and behaviors (acting in accordance with those stereotypes). Further than that, the sad fact has been revealed to me (through countless studies) that members of stereotyped groups ACCEPT those stereotypes, a statement I'm sure we can all find plenty of examples for. This is the basis for the perpetuation of incorrect and/or overly generalized attitudes (particularly negative ones) that pigeonhole groups of people (like ourselves) into societal situations like the one black people are constantly facing.
Juanita's correct, at least for now, in her statement of the intentions of every woman, but since that note is circulating around and men are agreeing with it, I would not bank on such and attitude remaining true for too long. Soon, it MAY BE the case that every woman (at least of this and proceeding generations until something new comes up) wants to count herself among what appear two be the two superlative ranks of "Boo" and "Wifey."
We always say that actions speak louder than words, and we (humanity in general) found this to be true. Attitudes DO follow behavior, and if the newer generations continue to perpetuate these "standards," for lack of a better term, than this stereotype may become reality. That is assuming, of course, that has not already begun to occur. I say such a thing because people form stereotypes in order to generalize the world...to make it a little easier to function in. Stereotypes help us to know what to expect and how to act with a minimal amount of friction in other groups or cultures (Consider things like "dining ettiquete" or "political correctness," which is a just a form of subtle, patronizing prejudice in my opinion, but thats a joke to talk about another day.) So the fact that this one has formed, may be implicative of some cultural change that has already occurred among the next generation of black men and women, as when numerous outliers break our stereotypes and perceptions, we react by either extending previously existing ones or creating new ones...for example, refer to your common perception of an Olympian, and then consider wheel-chair Olympians, senior Olympians, and other such spin-offs of the concept.
I'll speak no more on the subject for now. I have to apologize if anyones feels as though i'm making this to empirical.
But this does bring one other interesting fact to mind...kind of off topic, but consider this:
Question: "Misogyny" is the hatred of women. What is the corresponding word for the hatred of men?
...
...
...
Answer: In most dictionaries, no such word exists.
the original note for refrence:
http://purdue.facebook.com
Juanita's response and rest of conversastion:
http://purdue.facebook.com
Peace, Be easy.
©Brandon Baker, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)