I'm trying to compile a list of the most egregious stereotypes about women possible. Google has been a bit of help, but I'd like some input from writers' perspectives. Thanks!
Can you narrow it down a bit? Are we talking about bleach blondes with fake boobs? Soccer moms? Self inflated business women with flat heads from hitting glass ceilings?
Ones that apply to women in general. Like: They can't drive They are weak/need protection (from a man) They are not smart enough for leadership They are petty/shallow/image obsessed They are driven entirely by emotion
I would say that they're overly emotional. And that they all want and love children. ETA: Also, that they're offended by foul language.
They say a woman's work is never done - maybe that's why they don't get paid as much... They think only of getting stains out Where to use coupons Can't park Powerful business women die lonely with pissy old cats Can't read maps Have higher pain threshold (childbirth) Women on TV are either gorgeous or incredibly intelligent Women on the radio are too ugly to be on TV Women who don't fall for "my friend's" corny chat-up lines are lesbians Women dressed sexily are gagging for it. My favourite is from Native Americans, when women had their periods they were put into the 'red tent' in case wild animals smelt their blood! Is that a stereotype?
Women who are interested in politics have never been kissed Goldiggers Raging feminists who claim that skyscrapers and rockets are sexist because they are phallic symbols Nagging "How do you get your dishwasher to work?" "...slap her!!" Will probably remember lots more after I have posted.
Stereotypes are one thing, but double standards are more egregious. You won't find many comments about a male politician's hair unless there's a specific reason like John Edward primping in front of a mirror or Clinton's expensive runway haircut. But hair, make up and dress are frequently mentioned in the media about female politicians. Women being exactly as assertive as male counterparts are seen as aggressive. What's the real male equivalent of panties or nickers in a bunch? By real I don't mean after-the-fact creations like, jockstrap too tight. A female who expresses negative issues with something is (similar to aggressive), called over-reacting, over-emotional, offended when that is not the emotion expressed at all. First Ladies in the US elicit negative responses if they take up any interest (like Hilary Clinton and health care) that isn't strictly 'housewifey' in nature. Currently a lot of people, of both genders, don't get what is meant by "rape culture". It's not only about a guy going too far with a drunk gal who otherwise would have said no. It's that such an act is seen as the guy just got carried away, took a tiny step too far, or the gal shouldn't have gotten drunk. The act should be seen as rape, which is what it is. I'm not talking about people having sex after drinking and maybe regretting it in the morning. I'm talking about the Steubenville, Rehtaeh Parsons' and Audrie Pott's rapes and people's response to them. There's no question those three girls were raped, like you know, real rape. Why do people have any hesitation calling it that? I get it that custody disputes aren't the same as real kidnapping. I get it that it's hard to see every case of statutory rape as real rape. But raping completely unconscious girls, it doesn't matter that they were all high school kids, those cases were real hard core, no different than other real rape rapes. What kind of double standard does a society have to have regarding the rights of an individual to treat those girls as less important than the boys involved? But that's what it amounts to. I'll stop here before I get accused of being some kind of radical feminist, which I'm not.
MOST egregious? Needs a man to rescue her like Timmy needs Lassie. I'm sure I could come up with something more absurd, with a little effort. But how about the most insidious? The stereotypes that drift in below the conscious level but completely trivialize her as a person?
I agree with all you said except.... Why should First Ladies get involved in office if they weren't voted for it?
You didn't vote for the people the President installs in various officies or consults with. Some couples have relationships more like partnerships. The idea one's wife must be the homemaker just isn't true in every marriage. Ask yourself, if a President appoints his campaign manager to a position (very commonly done, and except for Heck-of-a-Job, Brownie, rarely noticed) and his wife worked tirelessly on the campaign, why shouldn't she play a role then in the administration? And if that's not convincing, when Hilary's elected (by the way, I call her Hilary instead of Clinton so people know which Clinton), do you think people (not counting general Clinton haters) will react the same way if Bill gets involved in advising her administration?
Your scenario is implausible for many reasons with 2 being the main ones: 1)Hilary hates Bill so she wouldn't throw him a rat's arse to save his life if she had a bucket full of rats' arses. 2)Hilary is never going to get elected so any scenario based on that premise is already moot. Zack Galyfianakis will become president before Hilary.
That's not a stereotype I'm familiar with, but along that line, the way two men fighting over a woman are typically portrayed is usually different than the way two women fighting over a man are portrayed. Men have manly fights and women have cat fights. It's only been recently the media has included more groups of female friends, like the Sex in the City friends. A couple decades ago, it was more likely that men had friends, while groups of women were in competition with each other. And on another note, to this day nurses continue to fight the ignorant stereotypes about what we do. It's not just the sexy nurse, the uniform with the frilly collar, that image, but more importantly it's the image of having a kind but otherwise meaningless professional role. Watch an episode of House. Notice the interns doing all the things nurses actually do in real a real hospital. It's taken a good 30-40 years or so since the first nurse practitioner role was developed before the public readily recognized an NP isn't 'practicing' to be a nurse, and more importantly, they aren't just wannabe doctors. Advanced practice nurses are just that, advanced nurses. While my specialty includes a lot of medicine, not all advanced practice nurses overlap medicine. Some of them are nurse specialists. The lay public still thinks nurses just help doctors. In my practice, I have a number of physician clients that hire me as a consultant for them, not just for their patients. I treat health care workers exposed or potentially exposed to infectious disease.
Because many first ladies are capable and educated these days. With the way the office is set up, and the practicalities of the safety and security of the first family, plus anti-nepotism policies and political considerations, it is just about impossible for a first lady (or a first man) to hold a traditional paying job (or even many volunteer-based positions for already existing entities). So what is left for them to do for 4 or 8 years? It's a prime opportunity for them to work on some issue they care about, to try to help society or further a cause they believe in, or to work with the elected administration in some capacity to further goals that the Presidential spouse also holds. Eleanor Roosevelt helped this country a tremendous amount and was an invaluable asset to FDR. Many held her in higher esteem than even the President.
Who is derailing the thread now? And anyway the stereotypes refer to the majority of the cases, not the entirety. It is true that on average a woman can't drive as well as a man can (unless it is a Chinese man). Also a man won't clean the house as often as a woman. That is not to say that there are no decent female drivers or men cleaning the house.
I agree wholeheartedly with GingerCoffee about double standards being more egregious. However, Kyle asked for stereotypes. I'll try to dredge up a few for him. Can't fight. Fragile/weak, physically and mentally (at least in the Victorian era, it was believed that the natural state of women was to be sickly: http://www.connerprairie.org/learn-and-do/indiana-history/america-1860-1900/lives-of-women.aspx). Emotional. Materialistic. Obsessed with men (acquiring, keeping, attracting, pleasing, etc.). Obsessed with looks (ties in with the above). Obsessed with money (ties in also). Flaky and unreliable (must be kept in check by man's logic). Jealous. Shallow. Can't think of anything else at the moment...
Back on track, a couple more are: that they are neat and tidy or like to clean or are good at cleaning or are more likely to clean than a man that they don't like to get dirty or messy/ that they are always well-dressed, made up, nails done, etc. that they don't understand the rules of professional sports games (or like things like hockey fights)
Wow. Sexist and racist in the same sentence. As far as men being better drivers than women, as all men believe, read this: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/08/new-uk-study-suggests-women-better-drivers-than-men/ It's just one study, but I liked the final words, pointing out how sure men are that they are better drivers. I don't even know what to say about your slur against the Chinese, except that it's apparently your very own personal stereotype.
Nurse stereotypes are classic examples so I'm not sure what you mean. [sidetrack] Do you know what Poe's Law is? The Landover Baptist site is an example. I'll let you figure out if they are a parody site or not. [/sidetrack] Poe's Law has grown to apply to more than just religious fundies. Your comment is so over the top I cannot tell if you are joking or serious. But for the record, you do know, I hope, that women have lower car insurance rates because they get in fewer accidents. [Looks around at house] Maybe I'm misunderstanding Xatron and he is citing false stereotypes rather than his beliefs.
Yeah, when left on my own, my house is a complete f-ing disaster. My husband is much neater than I am (and he's not excessively or compulsively neat, either).
Watch any chick flick. I think your response about the First Lady is valid, when considering the cabinet. I guess I sort of come from the perspective of, "you're just the elected person's spouse,why should I care about you?" Let the first Lady/husband do what the cabinet members do,then, but honestly I don't understand the publicity. This person won,I don't see anything interesting about his or her spouse. And this is beyond the scope of this thread, but its my own personal opinion that family and the leader of a country should be separated. I am interested in the president only so far as in his ability to lead the country,not his personal life. If it were up to me he wouldn't have one.
I am a fan of the two guys want a girl theme, but believe it or not, there are just as many two girls want one guy themes out there. Don't confuse the theme du jour with 'common' or 'average'. No one said you should. What I'm saying is, don't single out the female spouse for your ire. I can guarantee you that Bill Clinton as the first First Man will not be treated the same as Hilary was as First Lady. No one is asking you to judge the person on anything other than the person's own merit. All I'm saying is don't negate their worth because they are a female spouse of a President. Again, no disagreement. When it comes to the family, like the kids, they haven't earned any political points by being related to an elected official. But the reaction to Hilary Clinton was tainted by the stereotype, she's just noted for her relation to Bill. Turns out, that's crap. She's proved that, on her own, not due to a single coat tail, if anything it's been in spite of the coat tails.
