2019-06-13

Low Expectations?

Training-wise, today I am invoking Rule #6.1 (or 6a, or however I eventually settle on nomenclating the rules) from my new and forthcoming list of healthy lifestyle rules. This will be a list I'll make available at the top of the blog next to "Find A Workout" that describes my intellectual framework for training and living healthy. The plan is to provide an accompanying blog post for each rule and sub-rule for a fully elaborated and comprehensive record of how I approach health and fitness. All for free, of course, because paying for stuff sucks. So, stay tuned.

In the meantime, I'd like to talk about a recent experience I had, and how it made me notice what has been called by others "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

While running a half marathon last Sunday, I reached a turnaround point and started running back the way I came, as per the race course. This gave slower runners behind me a chance to pass the race leaders and see how things were going.

I was in second place, behind a rather good runner who was far ahead of me. As I passed each small group of slower runners going the other direction, many of them would cheer me on. (I would have cheered them on, too, but I was out of breath and focused on my race.)

Suddenly, I heard a woman call out, "Alright! First female runner! Way to go!" Instantly I understood that the woman had seen my long hair drawn back in a ponytail and had mistaken me for a female. (Meh, what are you going to do? I imagine that nearly every man with long hair has had to deal with that a time or two.)

Now, I was running a decent race for my current level of fitness, but I was far behind the first runner and basically not going what I'd consider "fast," not even by "female standards." So, I thought to myself, why would this woman go out of her way to praise a mediocre performance just because the person happened to be female (or so she thought)?

It's likely that she was just cheering everyone on, so don't fixate too much on this lone example. I spent some time thinking about it, and I realized that society has a tendency to praise female behavior that would otherwise be seen as mediocre or even objectionable if conducted by a male.

The example that really came to mind was Captain Marvel. The truth is, I kind of liked that movie. But even though I liked it, I couldn't help but notice that if she were a male character, the movie would mostly be unremarkable. She was a big hit because she was female, and there have been many such movies in recent years; action movies, in which a strong female protagonist takes names and kicks ass.

Isn't it strange, then, that when male-character-driven action films come out, mostly people just find them silly, juvenile, and boring? Ask your romantic partner out to see the latest shoot-em-up action flick, and she'll likely say, "No thanks, let's watch something else." But if the lead character is female, I'll bet you'll get a different answer.

The problem in this case is that a desire to see strong females depicted in film is clouding our judgement. The mere fact that Rambo is a Rambi (get it?) causes some people to think that a story they would not otherwise appreciate is really something great. But the story is the same either way; the only real difference is the politics. Blech.

Somehow, this sense of politics has managed to keep the WNBA afloat all these years, but I think it's a sentiment whose time is rather limited. The true mark of gender equality will be when people view shoot-em-up films and mediocre athletic performances more or less the same way, regardless of whether the object of analysis is male or female.

Until that time comes, a lot of people will waste a lot of time forcing themselves to enjoy stuff that they don't really enjoy on its own merits.

7 comments:

  1. But I want to fixate on your lone example for a minute. If the lady thought you were the female in first place, why shouldn't she cheer for you? Haven't you recently blogged to advocate cheering the winners? Do you think that winners who are in less-than-elite competitions don't deserve praise?

    Also, I think we've (even you have) already come to the point you've made--you "kind of liked" Captain Marvel, so you already assessed it as unremarkable. So did many critics (only 74% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) and audiences (only slightly more than half give positive reviews on the same site). You already note that there have been "many such movies," so some are clearly better than others, and we all know it.

    Also your assertion that "when male-character-driven action films come out, mostly people just find them silly, juvenile, and boring" seems baseless. Both Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy received much better reviews (from both critics and audiences) than Captain Marvel, suggesting that society does not have such a uniform reaction. The fact that many women don't have a desire to see many of those types of films when asked out may speak more to what media women would prefer to consume as part of a romantic partnership. Perhaps she would like to see something that increases those romantic ties or at least empowers her or validates her experiences.

    In the case of the WNBA, as you've already noted by pointing to "female standards," the best female athletes in most sports will under-perform the best male athletes. So if a person wants to be able to cheer for females in basketball, they do so in the WNBA, which (in theory) represents far-from-mediocre athletic talent of the pool from which is draws.

    The more common (and more insidious) side of your realization that "society has a tendency to praise female behavior that would otherwise be seen as mediocre or even objectionable if conducted by a male" is that society has a tenancy to ignore, condone, or even praise male behavior that would be seen as objectionable if conducted by a female (take, for example, overt displays of aggression or ambition). And male mediocrity often results in undue recognition (see pay differences between men and women for identical work), while female exceptional talent can be systematically ignored or actively shunned (see Caster Semenya).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment. There's a lot to chew on there. Hopefully I've understood you properly and can respond to everything.

      First question: "Do you think that winners who are in less-than-elite competitions don't deserve praise?" I wasn't making a point about praise, I was making a point about what lies behind the praise. In other words, less-than-elite winners deserve some of the praise they get, but not all of it. My point in this post was to try to differentiate between the deserved praise and the undeserved praise.

      Re: Capt. Marvel vs Capt. America/Guardians of the Galaxy, I think we might disagree as to whether any of these are "male-character-driven action films." My contention is that none of them are. A better example of a male-character-driven action film, to me, would be something more like "Crank" or "The Expendables." I think the comparison of Capt. Marvel to Crank is much more emblematic of the point I'm trying to make above.

      Re: "So if a person wants to be able to cheer for females in basketball, they do so in the WNBA..." This is the sentiment that I'm trying to question. I wonder what the value is in "wanting to be able to cheer for females." If you see a female doing something you want to cheer for, do it. But I, personally, have no desire to cheer for females qua females when I'm watching sports. I cheer for any cool thing I see; sometimes it's females who are doing it, and sometimes it's men. I guess I'm cheering for "the cool thing," rather than consciously identifying the gender of the athlete and then cheering accordingly.

      Re: "society has a tendancy to ignore, condone, or even praise male behavior that would be seen as objectionable if conducted by a female (take, for example, overt displays of aggression or ambition)" <--- I think there is value in second-guessing this assertion. Obviously males are approximately 50% of the population and females approximately the other 50%, and there is enough variety in human experiences to come up with examples that support any assertion about what happens to males and females generally. I know the narrative exists out there, but I am simply not of the opinion that society ignores or condones or praises aggression by either males or females. I've worked in female-dominated fields for my entire career, so I guess I haven't noticed female ambition going unrewarded. I have never NOT worked for ambitious women, so *shrug*.

      Regarding the gender pay gap, I'm afraid the empirical research hasn't been very kind to that theory: https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/

      But regarding Caster Semenya, I think we are in near total agreement.

      Delete
    2. Still dwelling on the intro. How is it that "less-than-elite winners deserve some of the praise they get, but not all of it"? A winner of a race deserves the accolades, regardless of whether she could have done better or another might have (but didn't), no?

      Capt. Marvel and Crank rate about the same on Rotten Tomatoes. I don't think there is clear evidence that just because it is a woman in the role, it was more well-received. Wonder Woman rates significantly better, while The Expendables is worse.

      Your argument against the WNBA just seems like an argument against women's sports in general. In most sports women will never be physically competitive with men; does that mean there is no value in women's leagues? Or are you just suggesting that as far as entertainment goes, you don't care for women leads or female athletes unless they are better than the equally professional men? Seems like this perspective works well for you, but your optics might not be seeing the value that female representation has for many people, particularly for those wishing to provide a variety of role models for children. I think this is less about politics, unless you are equating politics with philosophy or ideology.

      Perhaps my assertion of unflattering aggression does deserve a second-guess. But historically women _have_ routinely been marginalized for behaviors that are commonly celebrated or at least tolerated in men (premarital promiscuity springs to mind). Additionally, a woman who expands her career to the detriment of her family is judged more harshly than the men who do the same.

      Regarding gender pay gap, the study you cite could easily be summed up with an acknowledgement that wage-earners who are unionized with transparent metrics for advancement do not face a explicit gender wage gap (except culturally, where domestic demands more frequently fall to women thus limiting their earnings ability). But this one study does not negate the others showing real differences in gender pay:

      https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2532788
      https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2018.1266
      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anita_Li2/publication/332216495_The_Gender_Pay_Gap_for_Behavior_Analysis_Faculty/links/5cab847f299bf118c4bcef53/The-Gender-Pay-Gap-for-Behavior-Analysis-Faculty.pdf
      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tushar_Vachharajani/publication/306127773_Equal_work_for_unequal_pay_The_gender_reimbursement_gap_for_healthcare_providers_in_the_United_States/links/5a56e429a6fdcc30f86d67d6/Equal-work-for-unequal-pay-The-gender-reimbursement-gap-for-healthcare-providers-in-the-United-States.pdf

      But none of these is particularly relevant to the conversation, except to say that in many (though clearly not all) scenarios women are routinely under-valued with respect to their male counterparts.

      At least there is one thing we agree on.

      Delete
    3. "in many... scenarios women are routinely under-valued with respect to their male counterparts"

      ^^^ Indeed, we are discussing this under a blog post that highlights this.

      "A winner of a race deserves the accolades... no?"

      ^^^ Some accolades are deserved; some not. Do you agree? "Nice job winning that race" is deserved accolades. "You're the best runner in the whole world!" is not - unless we're saying it to Eliud Kipchoge!

      "historically women have routinely been marginalized for behaviors that are commonly celebrated or at least tolerated in men"

      ^^^ Women have been marginalized; but not in every way that is claimed. You cited three examples: Aggressive behavior is encouraged in men but discouraged in women; promiscuous behavior is encouraged in men and discouraged in women; and that the gender pay gap is the direct result of sexism.

      I disagree on these three points. I say that both aggressive and promiscuous behavior is discouraged in all genders, and I agree with the empirical evidence that the gender pay gap is better explained by male-female behavioral differences than by discrimination.

      I do not claim that women have never been discriminated against. Again, this post highlights clear instances of it.

      "But this one study does not negate the others showing real differences in gender pay:"

      ^^^ The study says that the real differences are explained by human choices rather than unequal pay for equal work, not that the difference isn't "real." There are many studies that show this. Of the 4 studies you listed, 3 involve pay disparity in academia, which is a small and economically uncompetitive labor market. Studies also show that discrimination is worse in uncompetitive labor markets. The 4th suffers from sampling bias, since it relies on Medicare reimbursements, and not all health care practitioners interact with the Medicare system equally.

      But anyway, you may read the economic evidence and decide for yourself.

      "Your argument against the WNBA just seems like an argument against women's sports in general."

      ^^^ Remember, if I claim that X is not a good reason to cheer for a woman, that does not imply that there are good no reasons to cheer for a woman.

      "In most sports women will never be physically competitive with men"

      ^^^ I disagree with this for reasons provided under my post about Caster Semenya. Also, take a look at this: https://thewalrus.ca/when-male-runners-lose-to-women/

      "does that mean there is no value in women's leagues?"

      ^^^ No.

      "Or are you just suggesting that as far as entertainment goes, you don't care for women leads or female athletes unless they are better than the equally professional men?"

      ^^^ Again, no. I'm saying that I don't cheer for people based solely on their gender.

      "but your optics might not be seeing the value that female representation has for... those wishing to provide a variety of role models for children."

      ^^^ To me, a role model is someone who has accomplished something admirable, not someone who merely looks the way we wish our role models would look. I think someone who chooses a role model based on gender, race, etc, is making a mistake.

      It would be racist to say that Jackie Robinson wasn't a good role model for white boys. Similarly, I think it's somewhat sexist to say that Jackie Robinson wasn't a good role model for girls. Men can be role models for girls; women can be role models for boys; blacks can be role models for whites; young people can be role models for old people. My claim is that we ought to evaluate role models on their accomplishments rather than what demographic they belong to.

      "Capt. Marvel and Crank rate about the same on Rotten Tomatoes."

      ^^^ Captain Marvel was a MUCH more financially successful film than "Crank" despite equal Rotten Tomatoes scores. I believe gender expectations played an important part in that.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. I like this discussion. I think we agree on many points here, with some nuance. In reverse order:

      Capt Marvel had the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe helping it to financial success--it was much more than a standalone action film. I think that boosted its success more than gender expectations. The difference in MPAA rating also helps. PG-13-rated movies make on average 4 times the amount of R-rated movies. Crank made about 4 times its budget, while Capt. Marvel made about 7 times. Rambo's first film (since you mentioned him) did better than Capt Marvel, grossing about 8 times its budget.

      Clearly, people of any race or gender can be role models to people of any race or gender; however, there is real value of having some representation in gender or race or other demographic to broaden the notion for many of what is possible. I agree, we should evaluate role models based on their accomplishments, but part (if not most) of Jackie Robinson's legacy is that he faced adversity because of his demographic, yet did not let that deter him from his passion. His legacy is not just that he was a good baseball player, but also that he was a successful black baseball player at a time when black Americans were being systematically excluded and persecuted. His value as a role model is definitely linked to his demographic.

      I am certain I was wrong in saying "In most sports women will never be physically competitive with men." We don't know the biological limits of men vs women. However, the very controversies surrounding Caster Semenya suggest that perhaps men (in general) have biological advantages that put them in different categories as women (in general) in many sports, particularly shorter distance running. I mean, look at your opening example--you were not "going what [you'd] consider 'fast,' not even by 'female standards'" yet you were clearly ahead of the first woman in the race. Obviously, that may be a function of the race entrants, but it's an anecdotal point suggesting that even your mediocre performance was better than the best female performance in that race that day. If you can't accept that a spectator might be following the men's and women's races separately (and is thus cheering the top performer in a different race), you have certainly implied that you see limited value of separate female competitions. This is not the discussion you initiated, but I do feel that your conclusion that one shouldn't cheer for a woman because she is a woman is hard to disentangle from whether women's sports are worth cheering.

      You and I may discourage aggression and promiscuity equally in both genders, but that does not mean that this is the case in broader society.

      The study on unionized wage earners in a transparent advancement track only shows that for that segment of the population wage differences can be explained in terms of personal choices. I don't think it would be prudent to generalize this too broadly, particularly to salaried workers, many of whom work in small and noncompetitive markets. But you're the economist.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete