data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/877d3/877d3e0c87874c7095f55833b4c56cd6a9e3cc88" alt=""
Why is it that ’from 57 countries around the world, 44 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that men make better political leaders than women do?’ (Cohrs and Kessler, 2013).
What do you think ‘a further 53 per cent said they did not trust very much or did not trust at all people from another nationality?’ (Cohrs and Kessler, 2013).
Negative stereotypes, harmful prejudices and discrimination can all go some way to answering for why these statistics exist and this blog aims to delve into negative stereotypes, the effects they have whilst also discussing Cooley’s 1902 ‘Looking-glass self’.
To outline what Cooley meant by ‘looking-glass self’, it was a phrase he introduced and refers to a process where people base their sense of self on how they think others see them. It is a three-step process that works as follows:
1. We imagine how we appear to others in a particular situation.
2. We imagine how the other people in the situation are viewing us and what their judgment may be.
3. We develop our feelings and sense of self through these judgements.
This is only the beginning to trying to understand why negative stereotypes can be harmful to people.
When looking at the example stereotype using Cooley’s theory it may mean that all of the girls and women, who are living amongst the respondents who believe that men make better political leaders, may start to believe these things themselves. If they start to believe the stereotype, then then it is likely they succumb to it and a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur. If the majority of women do not believe they would be good political leaders, then it is unlikely they will find the confidence to step out of this stereotype and give it a go. This is harmful to women’s aspirations, prospects and their own self-esteem.
If I were to critique Cooley’s theory I would look even further and argue that it ignores the prevalence of ‘in-groups and out-groups’, and this social phenomenon has a direct effect on negative stereotypes and how they occur. There is evidence that social validation had powerful effects on stereotype consensus and favourableness and that stereotypes were strengthened when confirmed by in-groups (Haslam et al, 1996).
In groups and outgroups are forms of social categorization and the in-group refers to the group to whom you, yourself as a person, belong to and anyone else who is viewed as being part of that group. The out-group refers to anyone who does not belong in your group. The out-group is typically but not always the minority and subject to the more negative and harmful stereotypes.
An example could be two groups of football fans from rival clubs or groups comprised of members from the same racial background, it does not seem to matter how the groups are formed there is always evidence of In-group bias.
In-group bias refers to people treating other members from their in-group more favourably than those from the out-group and it is often that the members from the out-group are subject to harmful stereotypes and negative attitudes from in-group members.
Breaking stereotypes.
With all of our girls aspirations, expectations and self-esteem on the line we must find ways of breaking out of these stereotypes and finding ways of giving our girls the confidence to break the mould! The only way to prevent our girls from becoming victims of gender stereotypes is by abolishing stereotypes and clichés and all things associated with them within our societies and more importantly within our schools.
How can we break the mould?
· Openly confront any discrimination, prejudice or forced stereotypes.
This will not only train your brain to learn that this type of behaviour is unacceptable but also encourage change from others.
· Introducing strong female role models into our schools (Corporativa, 2024)
I would argue that be introducing strong female role models into the classroom then our girls can see first-hand that there are women in professions usually reserved for men.
· Providing gender-neutral education (Corporativa, 2024)
This would be as easy as not using stereotypical examples throughout education and steering away from cliches. Educators should be aware of sexism and deal with matters of equality with sensitivity.
· Treat girls and boys in the same way and encouraging neutral games and toys (Corporativa, 2024).
Children do not know stereotypes until they are learnt so treating girls and boys the same from an early age reinforces equality.
Be putting these steps in place during early-years education I would like to think that there will be an influx of women who know they can be great political leaders, who aren’t scared of what people think when they decide to become an astronaut or a firefighter; women who know that they can do great things and anything they put their mind to.
References:
Cohrs, J.C. and Kessler, T., 2013. Negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. The social psychology of social problems: The intergroup context, pp.3-29.
Corporativa, I. (2024) Ending stereotypes begins in the classroom. https://www.iberdrola.com/social commitment/gender-stereotypes-women#:~:text=Ending%20stereotypes%20begins%20in%20the%20classroom&text=Girls%27%20self%2Desteem%2C%20ambition,and%20should%20begin%20in%20schools.
Haslam, S.A., Oakes, P.J., McGarty, C., Turner, J.C., Reynolds, K.J. and Eggins, R.A., 1996. Stereotyping and social influence: The mediation of stereotype applicability and sharedness by the views of in‐group and out‐group members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), pp.369-397.
Comments