This is old news. The book “Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps” by Allan and Barbara Pease came out in the early 2000s. It’s fun, even hilarious in parts, but perfectly explains the physiological differences in brain wiring between the sexes. Should be compulsory reading in schools IMHO
A lot of clichés are clichés because they're accurate and a lot of stereotypes are stereotypes because they're true. Pattern recognition isn't racism nor stereotypical. Stereotypes are pattern recognition. It is not a stereotype if there is a mountain of evidence to back it up.
Fundamentally stereotypes are just simple generalizations. Nothing more nothing less. There are positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes.
In a study by Noam Shpancer Ph.D. Called Stereotype Accuracy: A Displeasing Truth, Stereotypes are often harmful, but often accurate. The professor points out The impulse to dismiss stereotype accuracy (and by proxy group differences as a whole) as wrongheaded fiction is mostly well-intentioned and has no doubt produced much useful knowledge about individual variation within groups as well as the myriad commonalities that exist across groups and cultures.
However, he goes on pointing out First, stereotypes are not bugs in our cultural software but features of our biological hardware. This is because the ability to stereotype is often essential for efficient decision-making, which facilitates survival. As Yale psychologist Paul Bloom has noted, “You don’t ask a toddler for directions, you don’t ask a very old person to help you move a sofa, and that’s because you stereotype.”
“Roughly”? Sure. But there needs to be an accounting of the spectrum inherent in most of them. The average man, for example, is physically stronger than the average woman, but there are some women stronger than some men.
"Development of gender roles: Individuals learn gender roles and stereotypes from a young age through socialization processes, often through their families and other social institutions"...
Martin, Ashley E.
Citation
Martin, A. E. (2023). Gender relativism: How context shapes what is seen as male and female. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(2), 322–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001264
Abstract
This research explores the concept of gender relativism, whereby “gender”—or what is seen as “male” and “female”—changes as a function of context. Seven studies find that people attach gender to seemingly “gender-neutral” stimuli—bifurcating information by “male” and “female”—but that the gender of the stimuli changes as a function of the comparison set. Using stimuli from past work, including shapes (Study 1), species (Study 2), “gender-neutral” traits (Studies 3–4), faces (Study 5), and names (Studies 6–7), these studies demonstrate that gender is relative, where characteristics deemed “female” or “male” exist within a given context. Importantly, these relative evaluations shift perceptions of both gender (i.e., stereotypes) and physical sex (i.e., height, weight) characteristics, with downstream consequences for bias and target judgments (Studies 4–7). In contrast to most work in psychology, which studies gender as an independent variable (to predict differences in stereotypes and outcomes), this work calls for gender to also be considered as a dependent variable that can change as a function of context. Together, these results have theoretical implications for the construct and measurement of gender in psychology, as well as practical implications for gender stereotyping, bias, and discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
Ill repeat this line for emphasis from the study you reference:
"Together, these results have theoretical implications for the construct and measurement of gender in psychology, as well as practical implications for gender stereotyping, bias, and discrimination."
If you can't comprehend the rest its saying, gender neutral traits are only given in male or female characteristics in context - meaning without context there are no masculine or feminine traits. Societal implications on context are what produce the stereotypes, bias and discrimination.
Example, there's a ball with bumps and a ball with spikes. Comparatively some would say, oh the one with the spikes is the boy ball and the soft one is the girl ball. Now take away the ball with the spikes. We now have the original soft ball and now a sponge ball. Comparatively, now the original soft ball would be deemed more masculine and the sponge ball would be feminine.
This whole study is pointing to societal and contextual based perceptions and you're using is as a supporting reference to your own biases, which it actually doesn't support at all. Provider. Masculine trait, right, by your logic & stereotypes? Women own more homes than men. Work that into your essay. Who's leading on heads of households? That's a masculine role right? Ope. Well that's women running that too. So where's that male provider stereotype energy? With your soggy tears on the ground. This is why women have decentralized men and are doing all the better for it. This is why non-binary individuals are saying 🖕🏼 your systems - you can't even uphold your own standards that you beat your chests about but want to pick apart other people and claim y'all for it and everyone else need to fall in line. Please. If y'all were so dominant, so powerful, so almighty, then why you need a 2nd mommy after leaving your first? Stfu. If we want to go stereotypes - masculinity is leaky trash drippings that we all hope to not let hit us. Nobody wants that stank - it sticks. Gtfoh with your dumbass shit.
I remember when that BS was published - totally ignored physiological differences. Concluded what the marxists wanted as conclusions. So stuff it. Appeals to authority are fallacious unless we can agree on whose experts are authoritative.
This is old news. The book “Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps” by Allan and Barbara Pease came out in the early 2000s. It’s fun, even hilarious in parts, but perfectly explains the physiological differences in brain wiring between the sexes. Should be compulsory reading in schools IMHO
Include most titles by Dr. Thomas Sowell too.
Also, "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus."
Why did you not mention "evolution?
A lot of clichés are clichés because they're accurate and a lot of stereotypes are stereotypes because they're true. Pattern recognition isn't racism nor stereotypical. Stereotypes are pattern recognition. It is not a stereotype if there is a mountain of evidence to back it up.
Fundamentally stereotypes are just simple generalizations. Nothing more nothing less. There are positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes.
In a study by Noam Shpancer Ph.D. Called Stereotype Accuracy: A Displeasing Truth, Stereotypes are often harmful, but often accurate. The professor points out The impulse to dismiss stereotype accuracy (and by proxy group differences as a whole) as wrongheaded fiction is mostly well-intentioned and has no doubt produced much useful knowledge about individual variation within groups as well as the myriad commonalities that exist across groups and cultures.
However, he goes on pointing out First, stereotypes are not bugs in our cultural software but features of our biological hardware. This is because the ability to stereotype is often essential for efficient decision-making, which facilitates survival. As Yale psychologist Paul Bloom has noted, “You don’t ask a toddler for directions, you don’t ask a very old person to help you move a sofa, and that’s because you stereotype.”
Stereotypes are literally pattern recognition agreed and often times outdated
“Roughly”? Sure. But there needs to be an accounting of the spectrum inherent in most of them. The average man, for example, is physically stronger than the average woman, but there are some women stronger than some men.
I wonder what the figure is for all stereotypes.
"Development of gender roles: Individuals learn gender roles and stereotypes from a young age through socialization processes, often through their families and other social institutions"...
Martin, Ashley E.
Citation
Martin, A. E. (2023). Gender relativism: How context shapes what is seen as male and female. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(2), 322–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001264
Abstract
This research explores the concept of gender relativism, whereby “gender”—or what is seen as “male” and “female”—changes as a function of context. Seven studies find that people attach gender to seemingly “gender-neutral” stimuli—bifurcating information by “male” and “female”—but that the gender of the stimuli changes as a function of the comparison set. Using stimuli from past work, including shapes (Study 1), species (Study 2), “gender-neutral” traits (Studies 3–4), faces (Study 5), and names (Studies 6–7), these studies demonstrate that gender is relative, where characteristics deemed “female” or “male” exist within a given context. Importantly, these relative evaluations shift perceptions of both gender (i.e., stereotypes) and physical sex (i.e., height, weight) characteristics, with downstream consequences for bias and target judgments (Studies 4–7). In contrast to most work in psychology, which studies gender as an independent variable (to predict differences in stereotypes and outcomes), this work calls for gender to also be considered as a dependent variable that can change as a function of context. Together, these results have theoretical implications for the construct and measurement of gender in psychology, as well as practical implications for gender stereotyping, bias, and discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
Ill repeat this line for emphasis from the study you reference:
"Together, these results have theoretical implications for the construct and measurement of gender in psychology, as well as practical implications for gender stereotyping, bias, and discrimination."
If you can't comprehend the rest its saying, gender neutral traits are only given in male or female characteristics in context - meaning without context there are no masculine or feminine traits. Societal implications on context are what produce the stereotypes, bias and discrimination.
Example, there's a ball with bumps and a ball with spikes. Comparatively some would say, oh the one with the spikes is the boy ball and the soft one is the girl ball. Now take away the ball with the spikes. We now have the original soft ball and now a sponge ball. Comparatively, now the original soft ball would be deemed more masculine and the sponge ball would be feminine.
This whole study is pointing to societal and contextual based perceptions and you're using is as a supporting reference to your own biases, which it actually doesn't support at all. Provider. Masculine trait, right, by your logic & stereotypes? Women own more homes than men. Work that into your essay. Who's leading on heads of households? That's a masculine role right? Ope. Well that's women running that too. So where's that male provider stereotype energy? With your soggy tears on the ground. This is why women have decentralized men and are doing all the better for it. This is why non-binary individuals are saying 🖕🏼 your systems - you can't even uphold your own standards that you beat your chests about but want to pick apart other people and claim y'all for it and everyone else need to fall in line. Please. If y'all were so dominant, so powerful, so almighty, then why you need a 2nd mommy after leaving your first? Stfu. If we want to go stereotypes - masculinity is leaky trash drippings that we all hope to not let hit us. Nobody wants that stank - it sticks. Gtfoh with your dumbass shit.
I remember when that BS was published - totally ignored physiological differences. Concluded what the marxists wanted as conclusions. So stuff it. Appeals to authority are fallacious unless we can agree on whose experts are authoritative.
That study is literally the one referenced in this blog post. Take your tears and cry somewhere else❄️
Why am I not surprised?