Skip to main content

Can a fact be a stereotype?

It's easy to come up with a knee-jerk reaction that labels information you don't like as a 'stereotype' hence dismissable. But can something that is factually accurate be a stereotype? According to my trusty dictionary, a stereotype is 'A preconceived and oversimplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person, situation, etc.'. Although it is not explicit, I would suggest 'preconceived and oversimplified' implies being factually inaccurate.

As soon as we accuse someone of assuming a stereotype to be true, the suggestion is that they aren't reporting facts but rather some biassed idea that doesn't reflect reality.

I was fascinated, therefore to see this assertion on the Geek Feminism blog:

It looks like a visit to Fermilab has no impact on boys’ gender stereotypes about scientists, but it has a strong impact on challenging girls’ gender stereotypes about scientists. For girls, there was a 58% increase in female scientist representation in their drawings; for boys, there was a 0% increase in female scientist representation in their drawings.


(Emphasis from original.)

Now let me be very clear. I am 100 percent in favour of there being no gender differentiation in the selection of people to be scientists, and I believe that everyone, female and male, should be encouraged in an interest in science. I would be delighted if we had equal representation of both sexes in the sciences. And I am very disappointed if the lab visit had no impact on boys' portrayal of a scientist.

But the repeated use of the word 'stereotype' seems to be misleading. There are many more male scientists than female (particularly in the physical sciences.) The picture above (apologies for fuzziness, it is sealed in a glass-fronted frame) is my final year physics group. Despite some difficulties identifying who is what due to a lot of long hair, there are many, many more men than women.

My problems are twofold. One is the misuse of the term 'stereotype', the other the odd nature of the experiment described. The author is looking for students to switch from representing scientists as male to female after a lab visit. But even in ideal conditions of a 50:50 gender distribution, there would be something wrong if all the scientists pictured were female. That too would be a misrepresentation. But not a stereotype.

Comments

  1. Good point. It is actually quite ironic that focusing on "stereotypes" as a source of and solution to problems is itself stereotypical behaviour - expending energy doing the wrong thing, which distracts attention and effort from the fundamental issues. I deplore the dumbing down of science in the media - Horizon is a case in point. Science should not just be "fun" but should be challenging and intriguing to attract the best people and the best teachers. Solving the "problem" of gender representation is just diverting attention away from the real issue, that teaching science no longer attracts enough good quality people. I am sure that repeatedly representing scientists as wearing white lab coats and blowing up things with custard powder is part of the image problem and has made things worse, not increased accessibilty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I'd have to quibble with that. Scientists may consist of many more men than women ... but not no women at all. So perceiving scientists as only men, is a stereotype, even though there's a lot of truth in it (as there is in all stereotypes, at least initially). To use a different example, it would not be a stereotype to portray mothers as women (because it's logically impossible for them to be anything else) but it would be a stereotype to portray the primary parent as a mother - sure, 90% of the time you'd be right but it would still jar with, say, a child whose primary carer was their father. So yes, I'd say that drawing a picture with only male scientists in it would be an over-simplification - and drawing a picture with only female scientists would be a distortion - but if these kids want to be scientists themselves, then observing that some scientists in fact are women seems to me like a good start in their career of investigating the world as it really is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd say it was more like it's not a stereotype to portray a person having two legs. Similarly the most logical portrayal of a scientist is statistically male, so not a stereotype. But I see your point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are women really as uncommon as that? Maybe in physics, but the scientists I worked with were mainly botanists and taxonomists and it's nothing like that male dominated. Of course, to a physicist, maybe they're not scientists at all .... but there's a whole other stereotype.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'All science is either physics or stamp collecting.' Ernest Rutherford.

    I am not worthy to argue with Rutherford.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope