Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 351
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)Page 15 of 25    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
There's nothing quite like an experiment that succeeds beyond expectation...

Those three outrageous stereotypes I typed out seem to have stirred up a little emotion in a couple women. But the remarkable thing is they still can't seem to connect how they felt about being stereotyped to the effect their stereotypes have on other people.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 352
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/4/2012 10:22:58 PM

Here's the thing -- if you fit that mold of his point that he sees as ridiculous, that blondes are (usually) dumb, then that would defeat his argument. Yes, he used a commonly silly one that pertained to you...if you were a very tall woman, he could just as easily use a silly one that pertained to tall women, so you'd instinctively go thru the process of seeing how/why the stereotype was idiotic -- thus, making the point as to how your stereotype is just as idiotic. There are statistically accurate (to various degrees) of stereotypes, and there are ones that are nonsense & just superstitious. Saying that blondes are usually dumb or tall women like to fight is one of the latter.


First, you're assuming that he shares your same perceptions and reasoning skills, when he obviously doesn't. If that were the case, he wouldn't have stooped to starting this flame war in the first place, by employing the "rub the dog's face in it to teach it a lesson" tactic, which is indicative of an ego-driven need to control rather than from any desire to use reasoning to get his point across.

Secondly, if he and I were having a private disagreement, and proving his argument was his only goal, what you say about his selection of stereotypes to illustrate his point might apply---however, when there's an audience, the rules are different, and he was obviously motivated more by the desire to win a few laughs by getting in a cheap shot---rather than to get me to see the "ridiculousness" of my statement.


Aside from the silly-stereotype example that a refuter would fall into to make them think twice about theirs, since you do seem like an intelligent woman, it's more dumb-founding that you wouldn't get that your stereotype is just as silly & superstitious as blonde women tend to be dumb or old people tend to be bitter. When someone who's seemingly intelligent defends a ridiculous stereotype with such conviction, yes, there will probably, in the midst of posts are going to be words said that they're not being so bright.


You don't seem to understand that such terms as 'idiotic" "ignorant" or "silly" are all subjective and can be a matter of personal opinion. You're being shortsighted to think that everyone shares the same perceptions. You and some others perceived my statement to be use of a stereotype, whereas I perceived it as an opinion I formed from my own negative experiences, rather than a stereotype. Just because a person doesn't share your perceptions that something they stated is "idiotic", "ridiculous", or "silly" doesn't mean they are not bright.

Some research studies have found correlations to exist between men with low self-esteem and verbal abuse and a need to control. There are also research findings that show that many shorter men do tend to have lower self-esteem than taller men. My own experiences with shorter men just happened to be congruent with these findings. I don't consider it stereotyping---moreover, I never used derogatory terms like "Napoleon Complex" or "Little Man Syndrome", which I believe would have been more on a par with the "blondes are dumb as rocks" and the other stereotypes that were trotted out.


I think the only critique about "tactics" that could be said, would be that if shorter guys are More abusive, then you must be comparing non-shorter abusive guys you've dated to shorter abusive guys you've dated, indicating that you gravitate toward abusive guys too much/in general.


That's a distortion of the facts. There are different "degrees" of abuse---it's not all black and white. The only reason I used the term, "abusive" to begin with was because the post I was responding to used the term, "punching bag", so the word, "abusive" immediately came to my mind. My preference for taller men is actually based on how well they've treated me. Overall, I've found the taller men tended to be nicer and less condescending and to have more self-confidence than the shorter ones, with very few exceptions.


Those three outrageous stereotypes I typed out seem to have stirred up a little emotion in a couple women.


It appears that we've succeeded in stirring up a little emotion in you as well, since you can't seem to resist having the last word.
 forums_gal
Joined: 1/30/2012
Msg: 353
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/4/2012 11:02:15 PM
You and some others perceived my statement to be use of a stereotype, whereas I perceived it as an opinion I formed from my own negative experiences, rather than a stereotype. Just because a person doesn't share your perceptions that something they stated is "idiotic", "ridiculous", or "silly" doesn't mean they are not bright.


When a person makes broad generalizations about an entire group of people such as short men based on some negative experiences, that is a textbook definition of a stereotype.

The following are some definitions of a stereotype that I found in a dictionary.

A too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group, such as “Football players are stupid” or “The English are cold and unfriendly people.”

A generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype
 good_catch77
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 354
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 8:35:22 AM

As a member of the 'next generation' of shorter guys out here in the world, I'm hoping that the 'our' generation of women will have a more positive outlook on their own experiences with shorter guys. I would hope that in time we can phase out these negative stereotypes that we have inherited and enable future generations of shorter guys to start life with less 'negative press' to overcome.


Agreed...I'm not short by no means but I sure hope the next generation doesn't believe all the "hard wired" BS and other things.

Last night I remembered a quote my dad always said

"Minds are like parachutes, they work best when opened"

I think this applies to stereotypes. Yes we all do it esp when we get our "butt hurt" but generally speaking a stereotype based on anything shouldn't be a reason to not even give a person a chance at something. ESP dating.

If I said I don't find over weight women attractive

~ Reason 1 ~ Not my type or I'm a small framed guy then it might be called a preference (then again someone might get their "butt hurt" and insult me too esp someone overweight)

~ Reason 2 ~ I think they are lazy or mentally abusive since they've got a "chip on their shoulder" to prove to everyone wrong that they are beautiful too. Then that would be a stereotype. (and I would get flamed too).
 Sean4MD
Joined: 7/13/2011
Msg: 355
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 9:38:15 AM
I wish I was a tid bit taller. 5'11-6'0 is short to me.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 356
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 10:43:39 AM
That's pretty much what I was thinking too, that while it might decrease one's options slightly, probably not too much overall once the individual is known and things are taken on a case-by-case basis. Stereotypes abound everywhere though.

I would say though, as far as the dating/singles scene is concerned, the options can drop more than slightly if you're talking about attractive women who they don't know and get their fair share of attention. If a guy's solidly below the more popular height in his geographic location (usually 5'10"-5'11"), the options drop decently well, and solidly moreso online. But of gals he knows (friend of friend, regular at bar, co-worker etc), then it becomes more like you say - slightly, if he's not way-rare-short and still taller than she.

if he and I were having a private disagreement, and proving his argument was his only goal, what you say about his selection of stereotypes to illustrate his point might apply---however, when there's an audience, the rules are different, and he was obviously motivated more by the desire to win a few laughs by getting in a cheap shot

I totally understand, but I think there's something you're missing. Your statement that shorter guys tend to have lower self-esteem, and are often more abusive is a pretty bold statement, and people can take it as offensive. Even ones who aren't short can be irked by that kind of stereotyping -- in an Audience. So I think someone who says that and stands by it as being just fine, is warranted a just as stereotypical statement about "people" who have one of their attributes, to make the point in an audience as well.

That's a distortion of the facts. There are different "degrees" of abuse---it's not all black and white.

Oh I know. I wasn't implying that abuse is abuse is abuse, at all. In fact, I was pointing out that if one finds one group of people, not on culture or upbringing, but on mere shoulder-width or height to be More abusive than others -- then you'd be implying you have experience with more mildly abusive guys in average-to-tall range for a comparison, given a confident conclusion. In other words, one would have to be running into a lot of abusive guys to get a confident conclusion -- if they aren't saying shorter guys Are (usually) abusive while average-to-tall guys aren't hardly at all (which would be more black n white).

You and some others perceived my statement to be use of a stereotype, whereas I perceived it as an opinion I formed from my own negative experiences, rather than a stereotype.

You just described how one arrives at a stereotype on the superstitious level. It's one thing with mere taste of attraction... we all form those without even being fully aware of them. Saying that blondes are (usually) dumb because girls with blonde hair I've encountered on a dating-scene level are usually dumb -- is a *judicial* statement.

It's separate than taste. It's not the same as a mere negative-attraction association. An example of a mere association like that would be where some folks after a sour breakup, don't chase or accept dates of girls or guys who generally looks like their ex, but also knowing that just because people who look like their ex doesn't mean they are actually b!tchy, arrogant, self-centered, etc. It Would be judicial if they actually believed that. That's called superstitious stereotypes.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 357
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 12:04:19 PM

When a person makes broad generalizations about an entire group of people such as short men based on some negative experiences, that is a textbook definition of a stereotype.


I didn't make a broad generalization about an entire group of people---only a generalization about a sampling of men I've dealt with. You are confusing a bias with a stereotype. A bias is a personal preference, like or dislike.

A stereotype is a preconceived idea that attributes certain characteristics to all the members of a group, class, or set. If I had stated that all short men are abusive and have low self-esteem, that is a stereotype.

What I said was:


In fact, it has been my experience that the taller men usually have a higher level of self-esteem, thus, they are less likely to be abusive towards women.


That is a personal bias, not a stereotype. Moreover, just because I'm biased toward taller men, it doesn't mean I will only date taller men---just that I prefer to date taller men based on my past experiences.


If I said I don't find over weight women attractive

~ Reason 1 ~ Not my type or I'm a small framed guy then it might be called a preference (then again someone might get their "butt hurt" and insult me too esp someone overweight)

~ Reason 2 ~ I think they are lazy or mentally abusive since they've got a "chip on their shoulder" to prove to everyone wrong that they are beautiful too. Then that would be a stereotype. (and I would get flamed too).


You might get flamed by some sensitive individuals, as I have---however, in Reason 2, you are expressing a personal bias rather than a stereotype.

If you instead said:

"All overweight women and lazy and mentally abusive since they've got a chip on their shoulder to prove that they are beautiful too." That would be a stereotype. See the difference?

What I'm having trouble understanding is why a person who says they don't want to date members of a certain group because they are not attracted to them is seen as less offensive than expressing a bias by saying they prefer to date members of a certain group over another group because they have personally have found them to be less lazy or abusive?



You and some others perceived my statement to be use of a stereotype, whereas I perceived it as an opinion I formed from my own negative experiences, rather than a stereotype.


You just described how one arrives at a stereotype on the superstitious level. It's one thing with mere taste of attraction... we all form those without even being fully aware of them. Saying that blondes are (usually) dumb because girls with blonde hair I've encountered on a dating-scene level are usually dumb -- is a *judicial* statement.


That might be how the stereotype got started, but it is a bias, not a stereotype.


It's separate than taste. It's not the same as a mere negative-attraction association. An example of a mere association like that would be where some folks after a sour breakup, don't chase or accept dates of girls or guys who generally looks like their ex, but also knowing that just because people who look like their ex doesn't mean they are actually b!tchy, arrogant, self-centered, etc. It Would be judicial if they actually believed that. That's called superstitious stereotypes.


Nope, it is still a bias, rather than a stereotype.
 good_catch77
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 358
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 12:37:54 PM

What I'm having trouble understanding is why a person who says they don't want to date members of a certain group because they are not attracted to them is seen as less offensive than expressing a bias by saying they prefer to date members of a certain group over another group because they have personally have found them to be less lazy or abusive?


See lazy and abusiveness can overtake ANYONE of ANY body type. I've seen all types of men and women be lazy and abusive. Seen ugly people, beautiful people, short, tall, skinny, overweight, all types not just one body type. To me these are personal attributes that are not based on body types. I've seen blonde women be equally or not more verbally abusive than the stereotypical red head. See my point?

To call a person abusive or even lazy just based on a body type to me is considered a stereotype. Not a personal preference.
 forums_gal
Joined: 1/30/2012
Msg: 359
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 3:02:50 PM
What I'm having trouble understanding is why a person who says they don't want to date members of a certain group because they are not attracted to them is seen as less offensive than expressing a bias by saying they prefer to date members of a certain group over another group because they have personally have found them to be less lazy or abusive?


Not attracted to fat women, short men etc is purely physical. Stating that short men are abusive, fat women are lazy etc is applying a negative personality trait to someone simply based on height, body type etc.

Suppose I had dated 5 blondes and 5 redheads. 4 out of the blondes had cheated on me and none of the redheads did. I would not think blondes would be more likely to cheat. It's way too small of a sample size to form any accurate assessment. Cheating would be a product of an individual character flaw. Not a general character flaw of blondes.
 MyScreennameRox
Joined: 12/11/2011
Msg: 360
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 4:10:12 PM
Holy crap guys, you're supposed to reply to a thread, not filibuster it.

Can none of you write concisely?
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 361
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 5:04:09 PM

Not attracted to fat women, short men etc is purely physical.


Not necessarily. Being "not attracted" to a group of people can be for a myriad of reasons---not all of them physical. It's just a convenient way to get a free pass to dismiss an entire group of people from your dating pool without having to explain your reasons---which might offend those groups.

If a person actually explained why he/she was not attracted to certain groups of people, e.g. "I am not attracted to blue people because they have big nostrils", "I am not attracted to green people because they have little slanted eyes", "I am not attracted to red people because they have thin lips", "I am not attracted to people over 50 because they have crow's feet", I am not attracted to fat people because they have cellulite", etc., he/she would be harshly judged.

Why would the above statements about lack of attraction be considered any more acceptable than my statement that the taller men I've dealt with tended to have more self-confidence, and were less likely to be abusive than the shorter ones?


Suppose I had dated 5 blondes and 5 redheads. 4 out of the blondes had cheated on me and none of the redheads did. I would not think blondes would be more likely to cheat. It's way too small of a sample size to form any accurate assessment. Cheating would be a product of an individual character flaw. Not a general character flaw of blondes.


First of all, there are no research studies done to show a correlation between haircolor (which one can change at will) and cheating---plus the sample size you're using is much smaller than mine---therefore, your example isn't analogous with my view that the taller men I've dealt with tended to have more self-confidence, and were less likely to be abusive than the shorter ones.


Stating that short men are abusive, fat women are lazy etc is applying a negative personality trait to someone simply based on height, body type etc.


Yes, and if put as a statement in that fashion, it would be considered to be stereotyping.

In contrast, if a man said that he found most of the overweight women he dated to be more lazy and to have less self-discipline, and to be moodier and less pleasant to be around than the thinner women he dated, he is biased. He is not stereotyping.
 Darkbutcomely
Joined: 4/20/2011
Msg: 362
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 5:16:53 PM
Sorry I think attraction should be a part of an relationship. I like a tall guy. what can I say.
 forums_gal
Joined: 1/30/2012
Msg: 363
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/5/2012 8:08:09 PM
Why would the above statements about lack of attraction be considered any more acceptable than my statement that the taller men I've dealt with tended to have more self-confidence, and were less likely to be abusive than the shorter ones?


I will concede that your examples are stereotypical, but physical attraction is NOT always based stereotypes. I'm not attracted to obese people. It's not because I think obese people have trait A or B. They just don't turn me on. Many times it's simple as that.

Even if your sample size is more than 5, I still highly doubt whatever you sample size is a large enough to form an accurate assessment. There are probably millions of men that don't meet your height preference and you have probably met a very tiny fraction of them. Do you have any links to these studies that show short men are more abusive? I have heard many stereotypes about short men. But never heard about that one until now.

The larger point is this. I would NOT prefer group A over group B simply because more people that I had dated from group B were abusive, lazy etc. Too small of a sample size.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 364
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 2:15:35 AM
I heard somewhere that you have to be a certain height to donate sperm. Society would weed us out if they could.

Admittedly, it seems like my height isn't as much an issue in real life interactions as it is with online dating. I suppose it is my personal issues holding me back.

I am just as bad as these women who have upset me anyway, as heavier women are the main ones who message me on this site.

I'm sure 10 more people will tell me how F'd up I am and tell me how I need therapy.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 365
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 2:53:01 AM
I said n another thread that my difficulties and failures were "God's Plan" for me. People were more appalled by me saying that than I am with accepting it. Whatever my purpose in life is, apparently it isn't to find mutual attraction on a dating site. At least this one is free though.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 366
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 3:29:28 AM
It has helped me excel in other parts of my life. Somewhat like how a blind man can hear better, or how a deaf man can see better, and how both have a stronger sense of smell. I am a supervisor in my job, and I always take on leadership roles. I get in no trouble with the law, where as most of my peers at least have had one infraction. I have a lot of stability and sense of awareness in my life, where many of my peers who don't have the relationship problems that I do often fall short in other areas. Not everyone can do everything, but everyone can do something. I am grateful for everything I have, but it does not mean I am happy without the things that I don't have.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 367
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 7:24:12 AM
I will concede that your examples are stereotypical, but physical attraction is NOT always based stereotypes. I'm not attracted to obese people. It's not because I think obese people have trait A or B. They just don't turn me on. Many times it's simple as that.


I'm not arguing with that point, and I do realize that people's reasons for not being attracted are often unconscious and deep-seated---thus can't be expressed. I was merely trying to point out that when a person says that they're "not attracted" to members of a certain group, their reasons often do involve stereotyping, and they shouldn't automatically get a free pass---that's all.


Even if your sample size is more than 5, I still highly doubt whatever you sample size is a large enough to form anaccurate assessment. There are probably millions of men that don't meet your height preference and you have probably met a very tiny fraction of them.


You're assuming I'm making my assessment only from men I've actually dated, or met in person. I am not. My assessment also includes those online and in the media. We are talking in the hundreds.


Do you have any links to these studies that show short men are more abusive? I have heard many stereotypes about short men. But never heard about that one until now.


I don't believe we're allowed to post links here, but all one has to do is google men's height and self-esteem, men's height and inferiority complex, men's height and behavioral issues, etc. There are dozens of sources of information.


The larger point is this. I would NOT prefer group A over group B simply because more people that I had dated from group B were abusive, lazy etc. Too small of a sample size.


I think you would prefer group A over B if it involved a trait/traits that you personally didn't find attractive or acceptable. For example, many women won't date separated men---not because they are still legally married, but because they believe the separated men are more apt to go back to their wives than a divorced man.

Maybe they had one or two bad experiences with a separated man. Rather than looking at each separated man on a case-by-case basis, they automatically exclude ALL separated men from their dating pool.

In contrast, I merely pointed out that it has been my experience that taller men often have more self-confidence and are less likely to have a chip on their shoulder and have a negative attitude towards women.

I'm substituting "negative attitude" in place of "abusive" because that word seems to carry too many negative ramifications that were not intended---I didn't mean emotional or physical abuse. I look at each shorter man on a case-by-case basis rather than dismissing them as an entire group as many women do, because they're "not attracted to short men".

It's my opinion that a woman who dismisses all short men with the excuse that she is "not attracted" to them is less acceptable than a woman who is biased towards taller men, yet is still willing to consider shorter men as dating prospects.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 368
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 8:02:39 AM
In order to analyze hundreds of data points, a statistical breakdown is required. There is no way that the human brain can conduct an objective analysis without doing the math.

There are roughly 150 million men in the united states. A sample size of 100 represents about 0.00007% of the population. Extrapolating from this size sample to the entire population would be risky at best.

There are so many factors that contribute to forming the human psyche, there is no way to hold all other factors equal and only vary the height of the individuals in the analysis. The math involved in an ANOVA on a large number of factors is incredibly complex.
 good_catch77
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 369
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 8:12:16 AM

I don't believe we're allowed to post links here, but all one has to do is google men's height and self-esteem, men's height and inferiority complex, men's height and behavioral issues, etc. There are dozens of sources of information.


I was told on another thread that google was not a reliable source since I was searching for female sex offenders in my area, So for this it isn't one as well...well that's what logic tells me.

I can see your point about self esteem. Coming from a man that has struggled with the self esteem demon most of his life. I'm not a basketball player but at 5'10" I'm a little above avg thank goodness to tall genes and my mom not throwing my dad off before he was finished lol.

I did google it and for the most part it is professional opinion...yes its from a professional but it's still their opinion. There have been studies. There has been studies for everything and anything too. It's funny that we often support studies that support our argument but if it was against it then it's not a reliable source...case and point with the google being a good source of information or NOT.

There also has been studies on how low self esteem attributes to abusive behavior. Sometimes the abuse is directed at someone and sometimes its directed at themselves. I'm guilty of having low self esteem and made myself believe that I don't "deserve" anyone or "no one" will want someone like me. Generally when I'm at my lowest.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 370
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 9:27:27 AM
halcyon_skies


In contrast, I merely pointed out that it has been my experience that taller men often have more self-confidence and are less likely to have a chip on their shoulder and have a negative attitude towards women.


It's been my observation that taller men are much more likely to be players and move from women to women. Shorter well adjusted men are more likely to stay with a women they have found a good relationship with.

Both tall and short men can be equally abusive and have negative personalities, they get expressed in different ways.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 371
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 9:37:04 AM
Predicting human behavior is a very complex problem which the human mind is not capable of processing. That doesn't stop people from trying, so they turn to simple solutions like stereotyping. Unfortunately, stereotypes tend to be about as accurate as flipping a coin or rolling a dice. People that rely on them will be wrong as often as they will be right. They justify the stereotype because their memory tends to be selective and they only remember the times the stereotype was correct.

It's very similar to the use of horoscopes.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 372
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 10:30:14 AM
It's been my observation that taller men are much more likely to be players and move from women to women. Shorter well adjusted men are more likely to stay with a women they have found a good relationship with.


Careful Dragonbits, or you too, will be accused of stereotyping. But in view of the fact that you're a member of the shorter group, I can understand your desire to toot your own horn, and I have no issue with that. We all do it.


Both tall and short men can be equally abusive and have negative personalities, they get expressed in different ways.


I understand what you're saying, however, I prefer to deal with men that have high self-esteem and have a lot of women competing for them, i.e. those that sometimes get stereotyped as "players"---over those men who have low self-esteem and chips on their shoulders.

Personally, I haven't noticed shorter men being more apt to be faithful than taller men, but some other women might have observed this.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 373
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:31:27 AM
halcyon_skies It would logically have to follow that if short men have fewer choices then they can't be players unless they are a rock star.

I have no problem with stereotyping as long as others realize that it only means a larger than average percentage of people behave a certain way.

Studies I have read say that the most happy LTR are where the women is more attractive than the man. I keep a copy of this in a brief which I hand out.

Why do you care so much about this issue?

I would ask you to toot my horn, but that isn't likely to happen.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 374
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 11:37:23 AM
Believing in a stereotype tends to be self perpetuating. If somene believes short men are more likely to be abusive than tall men, they will tend to judge short men to a different standard than tall men. For example, they are more likely to break up with a short guy the first time they have an argument. If it were a tall guy, they would have been more likely to cut him some slack and dismiss it as a minor disagreement. After the fact, they look back at their experience and say, "Aha! I was right about short men!"

Convincing someone that they do anything like the above is next to impossible. After all, who wants to admit to a lack of objectivity?
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 375
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 12:17:06 PM
I didn't make a broad generalization about an entire group of people---only a generalization about a sampling of men I've dealt with.

... which is an entire group of people (those under 5'8"). Based on your sampling, you made a generalization about those type of people. It's pretty simple.

You are confusing a bias with a stereotype. A bias is a personal preference, like or dislike.

Wiki: "Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions. Another name for stereotyping is bias." Your assumptions are based on your prior experience of the sample. The only difference is, a stereotype by default is thought to be popular, and yours is more of a personal stereotype. And it's not merely a personal preference of attraction -- you stated that they're more abusive (which leads to not being attracted), which is your bias -- your stereotype. It's one thing to say that you have a personal feeling/like/dislike based on a negative-association from experience, it's another to say that a group of people actually tend to Be a certain way.

Sally: "So do you want to give Tim your number?"
Barbara: "No, no, I don't date black people."
Sally: "Oh, that's cool - he's really really good looking, but I guess you don't find black guys physically attractive, that's cool..."
Barbara: "No, he is good looking. Black guys usually have low-self esteem and are more abusive, so I'm not into those people."
Sally: "What? You shouldn't stereotype black guys...taste for physical attraction is one thing, but..."
Tim: "Ummm, I'm standing right here, girls... fyi."
Barbara: "Oh, hi Tim. It's just from my experience with a few guys of your kind -- just a personal bias. I'm not stereotyping. I think Sally is confusing stereotype with my personal bias. So we're all good, right? (smile)"

"I am not attracted to blue people because they have big nostrils" ... "I am not attracted to green people because they have little slanted eyes" ... Why would the above statements about lack of attraction be considered any more acceptable than my statement that the taller men I've dealt with tended to have more self-confidence, and were less likely to be abusive than the shorter ones?

Actually, it's less of a judgment because you're not judging they themselves as a person, you're making a judgment about whether blue people have noticeably big nostrils or green people having slanted eyes. And if you came across a blue person with small nostrils or a green person with nice round, big eyes, you wouldn't have that unattraction. If you were to say blue people tend to be more abusive and have low self esteem, you better have a lot of evidence, because you're calling them All out and making a judgment call about them as a people. If you were to say your experience with blue people is non-attractive, because you've dated a couple blue people and they were abusive and low self-esteem -- but don't think blue people necessarily were that way at all, but it's just a taste thing stemming from a negative association of experience -- that still may not be liked by many blue people, but it would be something different because you're not making a judgment call about them as a person.
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)