Subconscious discrimination

Macha

The subject of discrimination (against women and others) has come up a few times. I found a series of tests online that actually test your subconscious discriminations, not your conscious ones.

For example, I would consider myself a feminist and want a career etc, but when i did the 'Gender-Career' test, it turned out that subconsciously I associate careers with men & family with women - not surprising, considering the society I live in.

There are a few different tests, on race, sexuality, fat v thin, etc. The test takes 5 mins max. I'd be interested to see how people get on with any of the tests.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

Your data suggest a strong association of Female with Career and Male with Family, compared to Male with Career and Female with Family.

lol

LadyJ

Apparently I associate females with careers and males with family.....

JC 2K3

Holy crap. I only associated males with science slightly more than females, but I strongly associated males with careers and females with family.

Those tests are really insightful. It seems I'm being subverted far more than I imagined....

Drift

Your data suggest little or no association between Male and Female with Career and Family.

Apparently I'm a wishy washy opinionless pushover :rolleyes:
Or else I'm perfect

WindSock

I made too many worng answers and they couldn't process my test properly. I did the Muslim one though and got bored.

Macha

Yeah they're not the most interesting tests ever.

I got it out of a book called Blink. The author's father is from Jamaica & he found that he had a slightly negative attitude towards black people - crazy. And apparently if individuals are shown pictures of Nelson Mandela & Martin Luther King before they do the test, their attitude towards black people improves.

It just highlights how we are influenced by our surroundings in a way we aren't even aware of.

metaoblivia

Interesting. I had a slight preference for thin people over fat, which I knew. I had a moderate preference for gay people over straight, which was surprising. And I had little to no preference in regards to gender/career and black people/white people.

Balmed Out

to be fair were all sexist. When im out with drunk female friends and theres some sort of sleaze bag trying it on even though they can barely stand im all ptotective, if its one of my male friends being abused im taking out my camera

Selkies

Your data suggest a strong association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts.


Well in sociology its 90% girls.. in computer science, there is 1 out of 14.
Not the most all encompassing study but guys tend to be obsessive and focused, girls tend to have multiple focuses... hence they are more suited to different things.

Then again girls tend to be good at Biology, and more guys are into History.
So its not so clear cut. A lot of it social conditioning I guess though

Crumble Froo

Your data suggest a strong association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts.


meh,t hat sounds about right. i would say that in general it is girls with liberal arts, and same for males and science. i did social care in college, which consisted of 40 people in my year. 2 were male. the two years ahead of us didnt have any males. at the same time, i passed my honours maths cuorse probably only becuase one of my best mates, a girl, is a complete maths whizz, and is currently studying to be a maths and physics teacher, just like our teacher.

edit:to whoever mentioned a black man showing prejudice against black people, i did a lot of research regarding attitudes to the elderly in my sociology course in college, and when pictures of people were shown to old people, they were most likely to show a prejudice against other elderly people, citing them weak, helpless, boring, etc.

Jesus Wept

Your data suggest little or no association between Male and Female with Career and Family.

Oh I are a modern male. :cool:

Reku

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah they're not the most interesting tests ever.

Yup, I got bored and quit, have better things to do with my time than spend 20 minutes clicking "e" "e" "i" "e" "i", etc....

Jesus Wept

farohar wrote: »

"e" "i" "e" "i"

"o"

,8,1

it turned out that subconsciously I associate careers with men & family with women - not surprising, considering the society I live in.

Why so? The overall majority of those working in the professions will be women soon due to current trends among young people. By far, of those attending third-level education the majority are female. The family unit and birth rates continue to decline.

You are being somewhat myopic if you are trying to suggest that our society is based on a "male breadwinner/female caregiver" model. Or that society will traverse this path through our lifetimes in the coming decades. That is not the case.

I think the survey goes to show the disconnect between your perception of how things are and how they actually are, especially in relation to the sexes. Indeed this is quite common.

Macha

Ah come on the subliminal messages are everywhere.

Ever seen a commerical for a home-cleaning product that features a man and doesn't make a big joke out of the fact that the man is actually cleaning the house? The results from survey after survey show that women do way more housework than men, even when both of them are working equal hours (I'll try to find a study).

Women get maternity leave when a child is born. The father? zip. Message? Childcare is wimmin's work.

Yes the size of the average family and birth rates are in decline - is that a bad thing? Perhaps if we supported women in the workforce a bit more by providing decent childcare and gave the poor fathers a bit of time off as well those statistics might change.

But even at that - these tests don't examine a person's conscious opinions or knowledge of facts but their unconscious associations. Yes - the tests look at my perceptions insofar as they look at my subconscious associations but it isn't really looking at my conscious percepetion of reality vs the true reality - I'd have to disagree with you there.

Reku

taconnol wrote: »

Ever seen a commerical for a home-cleaning product that features a man and doesn't make a big joke out of the fact that the man is actually cleaning the house?

Mr. Muscle. In those adds the joke is that he's too feeble to scrub with any effort.:p

Have to agree with your post on the whole though.

One thing I am left thinking though is: is the reason why females do more housework than men due to men being more willing to put up with their surroundings and not being concerned about dirt and grime so much? Do women do more housework because they are the ones who want housework done? Just as guys would do far more auto-work because they are the ones who want to fit the various mods and stuff to their cars.


*Obviously the above is generalisations, some guys will be neat freaks, some girls will be slobs, some girls will be auto-fanatics, some guys won't even know where the ignition is.

Macha

farohar wrote: »

Mr. Muscle. In those adds the joke is that he's too feeble to scrub with any effort.:p

Have to agree with your post on the whole though.

One thing I am left thinking though is: is the reason why females do more housework than men due to men being more willing to put up with their surroundings and not being concerned about dirt and grime so much? Do women do more housework because they are the ones who want housework done? Just as guys would do far more auto-work because they are the ones who want to fit the various mods and stuff to their cars.


*Obviously the above is generalisations, some guys will be neat freaks, some girls will be slobs, some girls will be auto-fanatics, some guys won't even know where the ignition is.

Yeah exactly! Look how effeminate and weak they make him. No real man would ever demean himself to cleaning the house.

Dunno about men & women & housework. I know I'm a bit of a neat freak & my brother is the proud owner of a floordrobe but then again I have a few girlfriends that I just couldn't live with - too messy!

Then again, when I was 3 years old I got a Strawberry Shortcake mini-kitchen and spent hours pottering around 'baking' while my brother got a BMX..hmm...dare I say the words 'gender conditioning'??

,8,1

"Yes the size of the average family and birth rates are in decline - is that a bad thing?"

No, not necessarily. The point I'm making is that the connection between women and family/children is becoming weaker and less normal. The OP thus gives an inaccurate portrayal when she said "this is the way society is".

Ever seen a commerical for a home-cleaning product that features a man and doesn't make a big joke out of the fact that the man is actually cleaning the house?

It doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman on the ad, or how they are portrayed - the vast majority of cleaning products will be bought by women. My hypothesis is that men can do without such cleaning products or go for generic brands.

It applies across the board with all consumer goods and services. Women are much bigger spenders (accounting for about 75% of all consumer spending) and so advertisers see them as the target audience. It's nothing to do with "subliminal messages" or "gender roles" - it's just Capitalism in action.

Then again, when I was 3 years old I got a Strawberry Shortcake mini-kitchen and spent hours pottering around 'baking' while my brother got a BMX..hmm...dare I say the words 'gender conditioning'??

Yes, we're very aware of it. Though most "gender conditioning" nowadays takes much more insipid forms than toy sets.

Perhaps if we supported women in the workforce a bit more by providing decent childcare and gave the poor fathers a bit of time off as well those statistics might change.

The inference I am getting is that fathers should be forced to "participate in family life" according to your measures. Any man should be entitled to take time off to take care of a new-born etc. This is a free society (last time I checked) and people should be free to order their lives however they like without having to fulfil some quota for how many hours spent washing dishes, etc. Just because a father doesn't balance work and family in the way you think he should doesn't mean he doesn't love his family or make a valuable contribution to it.

Apart from men who are removed from their children by divorce law or a restraining order, the vast majority of fathers make an effort to be part of their children's lives.

Furthermore, generally the more childcare and family regulation there is the more the birthrate will slide. Kind of counter-intuitive but true.

Macha

,8,1 wrote: »

No, not necessarily. The point I'm making is that the connection between women and family/children is becoming weaker and less normal. The OP thus gives an inaccurate portrayal when she said "this is the way society is".

heh heh..I am the OP Anyway, everything I write here is just my opinion - I agree with you that those ties are becoming weaker in reality but what about in people's minds??

,8,1 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman on the ad, or how they are portrayed - the vast majority of cleaning products will be bought by women. My hypothesis is that men can do without such cleaning products or go for generic brands.

It applies across the board with all consumer goods and services. Women are much bigger spenders (accounting for about 75% of all consumer spending) and so advertisers see them as the target audience. It's nothing to do with "subliminal messages" or "gender roles" - it's just Capitalism in action.

Yes you're right that it's captialism in action and I understand the advertisers wanting to target the main purchasers of their products. But I would argue that watching those ads re-inforces the idea that women do/should do most of the housework. Are you suggesting that advertising does not affect us? Why then is there talk of banning ads targeting children? Advertising of alohol/cigarettes restricted? Why do companies pump so much money into it??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7244336.stm

I believe that I have full control over my conscious opinions (be they aligned with reality or not) but I think that my subconscious opinions are not something that I have as much control over.

,8,1 wrote: »

The inference I am getting is that fathers should be forced to "participate in family life" according to your measures. Any man should be entitled to take time off to take care of a new-born etc. This is a free society (last time I checked) and people should be free to order their lives however they like without having to fulfil some quota for how many hours spent washing dishes, etc. Just because a father doesn't balance work and family in the way you think he should doesn't mean he doesn't love his family or make a valuable contribution to it.

Apart from men who are removed from their children by divorce law or a restraining order, the vast majority of fathers make an effort to be part of their children's lives.

Sorry I wasn't clear - in this case I was referring to paternity leave.

,8,1 wrote: »

Furthermore, generally the more childcare and family regulation there is the more the birthrate will slide. Kind of counter-intuitive but true.

Well I think that's true to a point but then the reverse starts to happen. This is an article about the worryingly low birth-rate in Japan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7096092.stm

"But compare Japan with Sweden, for example. More Swedish women work and they marry later, yet the country's birth rate is far healthier."

And this article shows how they do it in Norway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4786160.stm

,8,1

Anyway, everything I write here is just my opinion - I agree with you that those ties are becoming weaker in reality but what about in people's minds??

If they read accurate information and engage their logic, most people should come to that conclusion in their minds aswell.

Sorry I wasn't clear - in this case I was referring to paternity leave.

No, I understood you. The inference I was getting is that there should be forced paternity leave quotas.

Yes you're right that it's captialism in action and I understand the advertisers wanting to target the main purchasers of their products. But I would argue that watching those ads re-inforces the idea that women do/should do most of the housework. Are you suggesting that advertising does not affect us? Why then is there talk of banning ads targeting children? Advertising of alohol/cigarettes restricted? Why do companies pump so much money into it??

I really don't think you can argue advertisements are psychological assaults on women. Most are designed to flatter them. (On the other hand, since advertisers have largely written off men as a demographic they portray them as bumbling idiots, and this does raise concerns.)

Anyway, someone has to do the housework, don't they? And if women want to do it to a greater extent than men, so be it. The majority of ads selling sofas and furniture are also targeted at women. Do you think this sends a negative stereotype too; "women as sofa-buyers"?

"But compare Japan with Sweden, for example. More Swedish women work and they marry later, yet the country's birth rate is far healthier."

Yes, but there's a problem here. The birth rate in countries such as Sweden (and Ireland) is artificially buoyed by immigration. Many immigrant populations reproduce at a level much higher than natives - Muslims especially and Scandanvia has a large number of those. They mask the trend that among the native, settled population the birth rate is dwindling. Japan, on the other hand, takes in practically no immigrants.

So, I would say that Sweden's (relatively) high birth rate has alot more to do with its liberal immigration policy than its childcare provisions.

I believe that I have full control over my conscious opinions (be they aligned with reality or not) but I think that my subconscious opinions are not something that I have as much control over.

Well hey, that's fully acceptable. The fact is we're only about 100 years into the hyper-industrialised, individualised society we have today. We evolved in an entirely different environment. It's quite possible our subconsciousnesses haven't come up to speed to the post-20th Century reality that caregiving and motherhood are optional for women rather than inevitabilities. As indeed they are inevitable for almost all other species of animal.

Maybe the results of the survey would support this assertion, maybe not.

In any event, none of that changes the fact that "careers with men & family with women" is not an accurate description of our society. In terms of what's actually going on - not what you might like to think, what was the case 30 years ago, what's the politically advantageous thing to say in terms of feminist advocacy, etc.

Reku

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah exactly! Look how effeminate and weak they make him. No real man would ever demean himself to cleaning the house.

I would've said nerdy (not effeminate) and weak, the idea being that he was the exact opposite of Mr. Muscle, but point taken.