WEEK FOUR

Mention the folks of the North of England to any Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman, or Welshman and immediately a visual image will present itself in their minds. True grit. Stoicism and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. Simple, unsophisticated people, molded and shaped by the harshness of a life fashioned over the centuries, a life that has not changed much at all over the generations of time. Authors such Charles Dickens, the Bronte sisters, Mary Stewart, and Catherine Cookson have been inspired to write about the fates and fortunes of the northern classes. The veterinarian James Herriott made his readers laugh and cry with his stories of life in the northern countryside, and lately even the film industry has brought the raw emotion of northern life home to us in films such as "The Full Monty", and "Billy Elliot". Unassuming northerners cannot understand this sudden surge in popularity. They have always been stereotyped as blue collar and working class. They have been coal miners, ship builders, fishermen, mill workers, and farmers for as long as anyone can remember. They could be considered simple, unsophisticated folk, nothing special. They are not ashamed of what they are yet they give the impression that they are somewhat apologetic. This stereotypical image of the northern native as a down-to-earth, lower class, lower educated, blue-collar worker that has persisted for so many years is evolving, however. These labels may still hold more than a grain of truth, but the northern man and woman emerging today is educated, professional, and is breaking out of the stereotypical mold, while being proud of the northern heritage and traditions.

One is led to ask the question, "What is it that made the people from the north of England the way they are? Centuries ago, the Vikings descended upon the northeast coast of England in their long boats. Later, a longstanding feud with "those marauding Scots" to the north and the advance of the Roman Empire threatened the land that northern folk had known for so long. External difficulties were not the only factors that strengthened the northern character and resolve. Up until the last hundred years or so, members of the British aristocracy owned the mines, shipyards, and textile mills in which the northerners toiled for extremely long hours and with little pay. Children were put down the mine at the age of nine, or sent to work "up at the big house" as a "boot boy" or "scullery maid". What little schooling they did receive did not get them very far. They usually followed in the footsteps of their parents, and families were so big that every child had to work to help feed the family. Add to this the harsh climate that existed on the windswept moors of northern England, and one can see that the northern people were made "from sturdy stock". With the rise of the trade union within the last century, however, northern workers were able to campaign and negotiate for better working conditions and pay. The dynasties of the aristocracy faded out, and child labor laws were passed, along with laws to provide the underprivileged with "public assistance". Education and medical care became more available to all social classes, and today the Geordies could hold their own against any other sector of British society. Despite all this, the northern stereotype of the hard-working, manual laborer still persists.

A stereotype can be defined as a "set image". When applied to people, it refers to forming an instant or fixed picture. Stereotypical images are mostly negative, sometimes positive, and almost always contain a kernel of truth. The recent movie, Billy Elliot , was a particularly moving and poignant reminder of the violent struggles during the miners' strike in the 1970s. The film's director, Stephen Daldry, steers clear of any glitz and romance and juxtaposes Billy's struggle with hardship and following his passion for dance. Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Northern men do not dance! If they do dance, it most certainly is not ballet! More importantly, miners' sons do not grow up to be ballet dancers, and yet that is what this film is about. It is about a tough little kid who is sent to boxing lessons, stumbles upon a ballet class, and discovers his true vocation. His single parent father, who has obviously been through the " school of hard knocks ", finally comes around to the idea, and risks breaching the miners' picket line and being labeled a " scab ", just to send his son to ballet school. This story is about defying the northern male stereotype and daring to be different. At the end of the film we see Billy as an adult. As he is just about to make his stage entrance to play the leading male role in Swan Lake , he discards a white, silk robe, as a boxer would before entering the ring. As he soars across the stage, his burly father cries tears of happiness and pride, even though all northern boys are told growing up, that "big boys don't cry". In a recent interview with British Airways Inflight magazine, fourteen-year-old actor Jaimie Bell who played the part of Billy Elliot, described his experience. Jaimie is a northeasterner, and he said that when he first started to dance, his friends told him to "stop poncing about". He said, "they wanted to keep me just like they were". Of course, Jaimie is proud of his achievement and has broken away from the stereotypical northern teenager image.

In another northern film, The Full Monty, we are introduced to six out-of-work Sheffield steel workers, one of whom is desperate to earn some money in order to pay child support. After hearing about an American group called "The Chippendale's", Gary, ("Gaz", if you're a northerner), decides that stripping would be a good way to earn some money! He rounds up his mates, and what follows is a hilarious account of these six men learning to dance – and strip. If one puts the comedic aspect aside, a pathos lies underneath. These stereotypical northern males put dignity aside for the sake of their families. They have to search deep within themselves, and they realize that they have held certain attitudes towards homosexuals, women, and children without knowing it. They have to come to terms with the idea of their bodies being put on display for all to see, and, as funny as it is, it is not just the nakedness of their bodies but the nakedness of their souls that speaks to us.

If a visitor wanted to experience the true British culture, he would find it in the northeast. The southern city of London is a melting pot of cultures and ethnicity's. The north, however, is simply generations of the same bloodline. It is easy, therefore, for a stereotype to persist. Children take on the beliefs, attitudes, characteristics, and behaviors of their parents and then pass them onto their own offspring. Northerners don't usually move away from the area, and if they do, they usually return within a few years. Northerners therefore are characterized by their Geordie dialect, their wicked sense of humor, a love of soccer, fish and chips, and a decent pint down at the local pub. Habits and attitudes are formed over generations and a stereotype is born, and that stereotype will last for many generations to come. Today, however, a new northerner is emerging. The coal mines, shipyards, and textile mills have closed. Taking their place is small business, private enterprise, and computer technology. The inner city slums have been bulldozed away and new shopping centers, sports stadiums, corporate developments, and beautiful homes have taken their place. Universities are filled to capacity, and northern pride is flourishing. Even if the stereotypical image persists, and it will for a long time to come, it is an image to be flaunted.

Everyone, even the least prejudiced and most accepting among us, has at one time or another made a judgment of another person based on limited information and first impressions. This is basically what stereotyping is – making assumptions about an individual because of a particular status or group he or she belongs to. For instance, I might see a bearded, burly man covered with tattoos, wearing a leather jacket with a Harley-Davidson insignia. As he pulls up on his motorcycle and parks next to my car, I might be thinking he is a Hell's Angel, and I might be wondering if it is safe to get out of my car. I have made a judgment based only on his appearance. Perhaps he is a kind and gentle family man who just happens to like Harley-Davidsons. We all make these initial appraisals of people we encounter. I learned in a sociology class that this type of stereotyping isn't necessarily a bad thing; it is natural for us to categorize people and events as to whether they pose a threat to us or not. Stereotyping can have a very negative impact, however, when we continue to judge people based on our own preconceived notions, rather than on the actual facts. The key to getting beyond the stereotypes and maturing in our interpersonal relationships is viewing people as unique individuals and getting to know them before making any judgment of them.

As an average, middle-class, rather "white bread" sort of American, I never thought much about being the object of a stereotype. In reality, I'm quite sure I have been. People have judged me based on various traits that I have or statuses that I hold: woman, Caucasian, mother, wife, Christian, employee, student. I have found, for instance, that frequently, auto mechanics talk down to me. I generally have my husband talk to them, not because I don't feel capable of explaining the problem with my own vehicle, nor because I don't think I'll understand their diagnosis, but because they are reluctant to discuss the specifics with me. I suspect that these auto mechanics have found that many women would rather have their husbands handle this, and so they assume that this will be the case with me. I would actually prefer to be actively involved in the process, and although my husband certainly knows more about auto repair than I do, I try to stay relatively well-informed about my vehicle. Interestingly, my decision to often defer these discussions to my husband reflects my stereotyping of the auto mechanic. Since I have had the experience a number of times in the past with auto mechanics, I assume that this one, too, will likely be more comfortable discussing my vehicle with my husband than with me. I suppose that next time I go to the auto repair shop, to break the cycle of stereotyping, I should assert my interest in the diagnosis and treatment of my car, and jump right in to the discussion.

A few years ago, I had another chance to realize that I was the object of stereotyping. I had the marvelous opportunity to travel with my best friend for a few weeks in England and France. For the first time in my life, I was keenly aware of being seen as "different", and I became aware, to at least some extent, of the way Americans are viewed by Europeans, especially by the French. The stereotype they seem to have of Americans is that we are loud, superficial, overly familiar, too friendly, and we have good teeth. In addition, they are amused by our American accents. This was a whole new experience for me. (I had always been told by my French instructors that I had very good pronunciation, so I was crushed to learn that, apparently, I speak French with a heavy American accent.) I began to wonder if I had the word "American" tattooed on my forehead because many store owners or waiters would begin speaking in English to me and my friend, before either of us had uttered a word. I realized later that day that I had been carrying in plain view a guide book in English, so it must have been painfully clear that we were American tourists. They certainly would have known I was an American the moment I spoke. It was interesting to me that, by the end of less than three weeks immersed in the French language, I found the speech of other Americans we would sometimes encounter to be conspicuously "American" and mildly irritating.

As the French people we met made their initial appraisals of me, I, in turn, found the French, on first impression, to be reserved to the point of stand-offishness. This was particularly the case with passers-by or fellow passengers in trains or subways in Paris. If, for instance, I smiled and nodded at a woman in a train, something I would normally do, she often responded with an icy glare as if I had invaded her space. I found that men were friendlier to me – perhaps they thought I was flirting with them. We found, however, that when we were actually able to speak with people (or at least, we tried to speak with them in our very best schoolgirl French), they were, in general, polite and very willing to help. We even had some very insightful conversations with the handful of people we got to know fairly well. They were not unwilling to discuss matters such as the cultural differences reflected in our experiences on subway cars. They just have to warm up to people a little before jumping into a conversation. I found the experience of traveling in a foreign country to be very eye-opening and helpful in my interactions with others. Many times what I might perceive as rudeness is simply a different cultural norm, and if I withhold any value judgment until getting to know the person, I have avoided committing the error of stereotyping and prejudice.

What I think is the most interesting point in dealing with stereotypes is that they are almost always rooted in a good deal of truth. Many Parisians are rude to Americans. Most American tourists probably do seem overly friendly to the French, and most of us do have good teeth. (More Americans get orthodontic work than people in most other countries.) Many Asian-American students are good in math and science. There are many very gifted black athletes. Probably the majority of women bringing cars in for repair would rather the mechanic spoke to their husbands about their vehicles. The danger lies in not perceiving that these are generalizations. These statistics do not apply to every individual in whatever group we happen to be talking about. Even positive stereotyping can be harmful. If, for instance, I am a teacher and I assume that a particular Asian student in my class will have no trouble with Algebra, when in fact she is struggling, I have committed a grave error that could have damaging effects on her. As we look beyond the stereotypes and invest the time to get to know people as unique individuals, we expand our horizons and improve our own personal growth.

In every day life, people deal with stereotypes. Whether the person is black or Asian, Jewish or Christian, or male or female, stereotypes are prevalent. In the United States, European descendants, mostly Christians, sometimes feel a sense of superiority over cultures that are simply different than their own because those who are different are in the minority. Stereotypes were created to justify feelings of superiority and thus give those in power the right to dominate "inferior" people. One of the earliest stereotypes developed in this country is that of the Native Americans, who were cast as bloodthirsty savage redskins. Not only did earlier settlers develop this stereotype in their heads and actions, they even integrated it into our every day language and artwork, which continues to this day. Such terms as "Indian giver", and team mascots for the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians are direct evidence of our long-standing stereotypes of Native Americans. Although these older stereotypes have been diffused through time, new stereotypes have evolved that are just as damaging as the old ones were. No longer is it correct to call someone an "Indian giver". Instead we tell the Indians to live on a reservation that is government regulated and plant crops in the earth to make a living. Stereotypes of yesterday assisted in suppressing a people; stereotypes of today keep a peaceful people living on poor and dirty reservations with little to no hope of survival beyond the meager lives they lead.

The stereotypical Indian of yesterday lives in a teepee, rides horses, hunts buffalo, and uses smoke signals to warn others that the white man is coming. For centuries, beginning as far back as the days when Columbus first set foot in South America, natives were thought of as an ignorant, uncivilized people who needed to be taught the ways of the civilized world. Christianity was to be spread throughout all lands. No other religion was recognized as valid; therefore, conversion was necessary. In addition to conversion, the main reason was that the Europeans wanted the Indians' land. Resistance to conversion and take over brought on another stereotype: the revengeful murdering savages portrayed in many western films. This distorted view of Indians evolved into an opinion that all Indians should be extinguished. This new point of view carried on into the early twentieth century. Political figures, writers, and characters we all know very well spoke of their negative opinions of the Indians. Teddy Roosevelt, Frank Oz, and the main character in Little House on the Prairie, Laura Ingalls Wilder, each spoke in words that confirmed their beliefs that Indians should be eliminated. Although they never succeeded in complete ethnic cleansing, in today's world we have at least gotten rid of some of the more negative terminology that has been used in the past.

The term "Indian giver", meaning an individual who gives something to someone only to take it back, came from the time when the Europeans were first settling in America. Not knowing anything about the culture of the individuals who already inhabited the land on which they were settling, the Europeans believed that every human society had a leader who could speak for the entire group. This was not the case with the Indians. Each tribe has its own authority. For the most part, there was no unified council of tribes that had the authority to enter into agreements for all. Despite this unknown fact, agreements were negotiated and settled upon, but the Indians never seemed to abide by their terms due to issues related to language and lack of a central council. Not even two decades ago did we begin to recognize that it was the naivety of the Europeans that gave this phrase its meaning. It was not based in truth, only the notion that the Indians were a dishonest people. Today the American culture has begun to further realize that its portrayal of the Native American Indians is erroneous. In an attempt to correct past wrongs, museums in New York City and Washington D.C, as well as all around the United States, have begun use panels of Indians who were invited to make decisions on how to portray Indian exhibits to the public. Are we waking up and realizing that the people we have suppressed for so many years deserve the same rights and liberties that we, as Christian Americans, do? Could the truth be that we are simply creating new stereotypes in place of the old ones?

Many people don't know that today's stereotypes are just as harmful as those of previous times. Although on the surface it may seem that we are making strides to protect the Native American Indian culture, we are getting farther from the truth with every attempt we make. These museums in New York City and Washington that invite Indians in to make the decisions related to how the Indian will be portrayed serve just as much of an injustice as if they had not asked for the input. The images that are presented are the politically correct version of the truth, not the actual truth itself. The images are peaceful, ethical, and virtuous. Indians are human just like the rest of us. Portraying them in such a manner would be the same thing as portraying us the same way. We take Indians to a new level of idealization today. Because we no longer need their land, but need their ecological responsibility, we feel as if we must romanticize the Indians. They will be very angry with us for a long time for what we've done, and attempting to make them into something that they are not is not going to eliminate the guilt we should feel or make them feel any better about us.

For many years we have been attempting to pay back the African Americans for the injustices we served on them for just less than four centuries. The African Americans understand that we can't give them back the freedoms that they had in their native lands. They remain angry with the original settlers who began slavery. They remain angry with the later Americans who kept slavery active. They have the right to be angry. They were served one of the biggest injustices the people of this world can project on an individual. If we look at history, we should be able to learn that we cannot take back the lack of respect we had for the Indians, their culture, and their individual tribal differences. We should further learn that we will never be able to make up for the injustices we served upon each and every one of them. We must simply look to fixing these stereotypes in the future and not perpetuate them to our children. We must make sure that we understand that the life of an Indian is unique and very different than our own. We need to accept the differences and embrace them as we do other cultures in our country. Only then will we begin to heal the tainted relationship with the Indians that has permeated throughout our country for too long.

"A man's self-evaluation is strictly dependent on how successful he is in his work. A woman's self-evaluation is dependent on the kind of man who chooses her." This "educated" statement was written by Theodore Reik, a mere four decades ago in 1961, and actually published in This Week magazine. The fact that this declaration was made is not nearly as disappointing as the realization that this was a stereotype accepted by American society. Women were believed to be less than men in many ways—including their intelligence level. Here is what Robert Briffault had to say in a 1963 publication of The Mothers: "Women are innately conservative and, if it is true that a man learns nothing after 40, it may be said that a woman learns nothing after 25. Her intelligence differs in kind from masculine intelligence." Isn't it astounding that such an idea was so accepted? These stereotypes have been a part of our culture for centuries. In 1566 Martin Luther's Table Talk contained the following entry: "Men have large and broad chests, and small and narrow hips, and more understanding than the women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children….A woman is, or at least should be, a friendly, courteous, and a merry companion in life. They are inclined to tenderness, for thereunto are they chiefly created, to bear children, and be the pleasure, joy and solace of their husbands." There it sits, blatantly announcing the inferiority of women, a sad way of thinking that went so long without being questioned. One might think it would be easy to quickly disregard such an uncomfortable thought by arguing that these ideas are no longer alive within today's society. Would it really be that easy, though? Are these ideas completely buried in the past? Has the population completely accepted women as contributing and capable members of society? Looking into these questions might leave us all a little bit surprised. While much of the thoughts and structures of today's communities no longer make such prejudiced proclamations, an underlying stereotype of women still exists.

It has always been an understanding, whether vocalized or not, that it is a woman's role to be a homemaker. It is clearly evident that this was the understanding in the past simply based on the excerpts already discussed, but this isn't the way that we think about our roles today. Is it? The women of today would like to believe that we are viewed as being equal in all aspects of our daily lives; it would be nice to think that equal contributors are allotted equal rewards. After a long day at the office, we come home, and the whole family pitches in to carry on with the events of the evening—right? Perhaps the reason this could be so easily believed is that it's the women who are too busy to notice otherwise. Recent research on married couples in the United States and Canada shows that women perform about two-thirds of the household chores. This is after they have worked a full day just like their husbands. Why is that? Why is it that we so easily accept the responsibilities of being the primary homemaker? It is just the way it is, right? It is the way we were raised to believe it should be. It is in our nature to "make our house a home." Maybe those ideas about a woman's role are not as distant as we thought.

Okay, so maybe we can accept the fact that we continue to do two-thirds of the household chores because it is "in our nature" to do so. Needless to say, we don't really have more time to spend on that subject because there is laundry to be done. Fair enough, we will move on to another area that warrants consideration--women and politics. On August 26, 2001, women celebrated the eighty-first anniversary of winning the right to vote. We continue to make up more than half of the American population, contributing in the roles of mothers, teachers, lawyers, doctors, plumbers, judges, directors, and just about any other role that can be filled. Despite our many contributions and roles in society, women are still severely underrepresented in politics. In the year 2001, women count for eighty-seven statewide elective executive posts, and seventy-three women are serving in congress (thirteen in the Senate, and sixty in the House of Representatives). This means that although women make up well over half of the American population, we are represented by only 13.6% of the United States Congress. We are definitely making strides in the area of politics, especially considering that we have only been allowed to vote for the past eighty-one years; however, it will be a glorious day when the number of representatives are equal to the percentage of women they represent. Better yet, we will all rejoice when the first woman is elected as President of the United States of America.

Although we continue to do the majority of the household chores, and we are less than equally represented in our government, it is the conditions of today's working environment that seem to invoke the most amount of frustration. This is the area where our society's image of women's capabilities continues to see us as less than men. There are only two women employed as CEOs within all of the "Fortune 500" companies. Recent studies also show that when comparing women and men, women's earnings are approximately 23% less than men's for doing the same job. This standard was accepted for a long time with the reasoning that men were the breadwinners and had families to support. Even though such practices are illegal today, men still earn more than women for doing the same job. It is interesting to learn that as far back as 1978, more mothers were in the labor market than at home. The number of single mothers has risen dramatically over the past thirty years, and yet the standard of less pay for the same work continues. It isn't fair to say that men should be paid more because they are the sole breadwinners anymore. Two-thirds of all mothers are now in the work force, and more mothers have paid jobs than non-mothers. Families with two working parents make up more than 58% of all married couples with children. If theses statistics are true, then why, may I ask, are women still making on average only 75% of a man's income? Why aren't more than 15% of upper-managers in today's largest companies women? The belief that women with children should be at home is still surfacing today. This and the belief that we are simply not as capable as men to perform in the workplace is clearly reflected in the comparison of wages between men and women.

Many of the women and young girls of today's generation take for granted the rights that so many have worked to ensure. This naïve attitude is primarily based on trust—trusting that things are equal, as they should be. The amount of money a person makes should be based on the job being done, not the gender of the person doing it. Women should be equally represented in the United States Government; that would seem only fair as we make up more than half of the population of taxpayers. It also seems like a simple given that both a husband and wife who have worked all day would come home and equally share the evening chores. It doesn't take much investigation to see that equality doesn't exist on the level we would like to believe it does. While such an investigation might lead to disappointing realities, it would also offer a great sense of pride for all of the women that have fought so hard to ensure the rights we have today. Better yet, one might hope that seeing the reality of our society might inspire our women to continue to fight for our rights until the day we are considered equal.

Throughout history, countless negative stereotypes have colored society's view of women. Although women have fought for equality, they are still treated differently in many areas. The field of education is no exception. To this day, girls and boys are educated differently. For instance, girls are routinely led away from male-dominated courses by their parents, their teachers, and society in general. Instead, they are often steered into more "feminine" pursuits such as fine arts or family and consumer education. In 1972, the United States Department of Education passed Title IX, a set of amendments aimed at reforming gender inequality in schools. Title IX provided change in some areas; however, problems still exist. Jane Weinman, Executive Director of the American Association of University Women, is currently most concerned about young girls and the field of technology. She says, "Girls have narrowed some significant gender gaps in education, but technology is now the new 'boys' club' in our nation's public schools." Technological stereotypes exist when teachers and parents encourage girls less than boys, when there are few positive female role models, and when computer software is developed with only boys in mind.

Technological inequalities often begin in the home. Even good parents occasionally treat their girls and boys with gender bias. Research conducted by Janese Swanson, a child psychology expert, has shown that children initially have equal affinities for computing and other technology fields. Nonetheless, cultural factors and personal frustration often discourages most girls by early adolescence. Parents, either consciously or unconsciously, often see more potential in boys than girls. Consequently, they are more likely to encourage their son's computer interests than their daughter's. A parent's expectations and attitudes greatly influence whether their daughter will eventually go into these non-traditional fields. They must be aware of these gender gaps and carefully nurture any interest their daughter may have in the technology field. Parents are an important first step towards changing existing stereotypes.

Teachers also play a significant role in creating and maintaining many stereotypes. A recent study conducted by the American Association of University Women revealed that teachers unconsciously focus more attention on boys than girls. Teachers will also "help" girls by giving them clues or by blatantly revealing answers to tough questions. Conversely, boys are usually forced to figure such problems out by themselves. These differences ultimately undermine a girl's confidence in her abilities. Because many young girls also feel inadequate in the male-dominated field of computer technology, they often appear uninterested in the subject. When teachers believe that girls are not interested in technology, they often direct them into other areas. Therefore, the cycle repeats, and boys continue to monopolize the field. Instead, teachers should seize opportunities to challenge students' ideas about gender-appropriate careers. Technology should be infused across all subject areas, and teachers should choose interesting and relevant activities. Technology would then become an integral part of every student's education. Without these changes, teachers will continue to limit the educational opportunities of young women.

A lack of positive female role models promotes gender-biased stereotypes within the technology field. People throughout the world have heard of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak. However, the names of women who have played an important role in the development of computer science are not commonly recognized. Women are also the minority in computer science classes and among computer science staff. This only helps to perpetuate the male-dominated atmosphere of computer science. Traditional stereotypes about male and female occupations and status relations are also reinforced in the media. Men are often depicted as professionals, technicians, and computer scientists. Meanwhile, women are often shown as secretaries, clerical workers, and data entry personnel. These representations do nothing to further a woman's opportunities. Psychologist Sharon Thomas says, "Without proper role models, girls have difficulty judging their own success. Therefore, they are limited in what they perceive as possible in their own lives." By providing more positive female examples, young girls will be encouraged to pursue a career in the technology arena. Without them, existing gender gaps will only persist.

Most computer software is designed with a boy's interest in mind. This serves to further discourage young girls and must be corrected. Computer expert, Anna Fisher, agrees. She has said, "Equal access to computer technology should be encouraged at an early age, and educational software should be developed to increase a girl's interest in computers." However, there are several differences between boys and girls that must first be evaluated. The American Association of University Women has found that girls use computers more for learning and word processing, but boys use computers more for games. Girls also see computers as a tool with which to accomplish a goal, but boys will play on a computer just for fun. Effective computer software must be created for girls. At the present time, the majority of software that is targeted towards girls lacks educational value and/or reinforces negative female stereotypes. Software developers often rationalize such software by claming that it provides a reason for girls to spend more time on a computer. In reality, this biased software does nothing to interest girls in technology. With these facts in mind, software designers must work harder to develop software that subverts gender stereotypes.

Equity for girls does not mean suppressing boys. The responsibility for closing these gender gaps lies with parents, teachers, and society in general. Even though there are many areas where men outnumber women, technology-based fields are the only ones that continue to lose ground. Female students do not realize that computer science can serve as a pathway toward business school, medicine, and many other occupations. As student diversity changes the face of public education and technology changes the workplace, schools must work harder to ensure that girls graduate with the knowledge and abilities they need to compete and succeed in the twenty-first century. Parents, teachers, and counselors need to be aware of a girl's capabilities and provide them with adequate guidance toward their career choices. Differences in academic achievement, types of courses taken, level of effort, and fields of study may all affect the labor opportunities of women compared to men. In a work force increasingly dependent on technological proficiency, a woman's lack of computing confidence is likely to place her at a disadvantage. Society must make women aware of the wide range of technological career options, provide women with opportunities to meet and talk with female role models, and increase the computer industry's awareness of the need for gender appropriate materials.

"I want to grow old without facelifts. I want to have the courage to be loyal to the face I have made," Marilyn Monroe was once quoted as saying. Tragically, she didn't live long enough to keep her vow, but even so, one might think that a flippant or superficial statement coming from someone whose beauty was known worldwide. In our society, most people would like to be thought of as beautiful. Evidence of this fact is found no further than in the media, at the local salon, or cosmetic surgeon's office. Just as money is seen by many as the answer to one's problems, the idea of being beautiful seems to be perceived in the same way. People feel that they would have more friends, more job opportunities, and more successful and exciting lives if only they were more attractive. Within this idea that beauty can solve one's problems and open doors that would otherwise remain closed lies the stereotype of physical attractiveness.

Physical beauty has been synonymous with health, youth, and fertility for all time. Some scientists theorize that the biological function of beauty is to attract mates for the purpose of reproduction, thus ensuring the endurance of the species. Many researchers hypothesize that the gorgeous tail feathers of the male peacock evolved to increase his reproductive success at the expense of practicality and comfort (high heeled shoes come immediately to mind). Similarly, it is held by many in the scientific community who specialize in the area of physical attractiveness that beauty in humans, especially women, evolved in order to attract and hold the interest of men. If their theories are correct, beauty has served an evolutionary purpose. The most attractive members of a species were also likely to have been the strongest, most fertile, and most likely to survive. Historically, this may have been true, but in today's society the attributes associated with physical attractiveness have evolved into a stereotype.

A stereotype is defined as "an oversimplified conception or standardized image held by one person or group of another." Stereotyping could also be called labeling and described as a thought process that simplifies the world, although at the cost of accuracy. Stereotyping occurs when one characteristic of a whole group is applied to all its individual members. The uniformity within a group is emphasized, while the differences between groups are exaggerated. Everyone is an individual as well as a member of a multitude of groups. Each person fits into several categories. For example, a woman could be a daughter, wife, mother, student, employee, friend, white, American, and PTA member. The way each individual views the world is shaped by his or her own complex collection of influences and past experiences. Even within a single group such as students, there are the men, women, researchers, athletes, the rich, and the poor. For analysis or discussion it is sometimes necessary to use classification, but we must not lose sight of the fact that people are more than their outward appearance, and categories are only transitional starting points from which to try to understand human diversity.

Physically attractive people have an enormous social advantage in our culture: they are better liked, more persuasive, more frequently helped, and seen as possessing better personality traits and intellectual capabilities. Stereotyping occurs when one characteristic of a person, even a positive one such as attractiveness, dominates the way a person is viewed by others. On the surface, there may not seem to be anything wrong with having an advantage or in reaping the many benefits of being attractive, such as assumed intelligence. The harm is done when people are given unearned privileges based solely on their outward appearance. For example, studies have shown that attractive political candidates fare better in the polls than their less charming rivals. Within the judicial system, researchers have found that unattractive individuals are perceived as being more menacing. One study revealed that good looking people are actually less likely to be held legally accountable for their actions, even when it comes to criminal behavior. In the study, prison inmates agreed to undergo plastic surgery to improve their appearance, and their cases were followed after their release. Findings indicated that the now better looking inmates were even less likely to be reincarcerated than those who had received only rehabilitative treatment. Further, the surgery did not make it less likely that the inmates would commit other crimes, just that they were less likely to be punished for the crimes.

A high level of physical attractiveness has the potential to influence others in powerful ways, and it affects all aspects of human interaction. Recent studies conducted at the University of Texas have shown that mothers of cute babies are more attentive and affectionate with their infants and perceive their children as being less intrusive in their lives than do mothers of babies who are not as physically appealing. This has a tremendous effect on a child's critical early development, depending upon where he or she falls in the attractiveness spectrum. The ramifications of the physical beauty stereotype begin in infancy, but do not end there. Michael B. Ross, University of Akron, and John Salvia, Pennsylvania State University, report that teachers in their research gave higher grades to more attractive children and were quicker to recommend that less attractive children were in need of special education interventions. In general, the teachers had lower expectations of the children's academic abilities based on their appearance.

Personality traits attributed to people on the basis of a physical attractiveness stereotype are not always positive; they can either enhance one's status or worsen it. The research of social psychologists suggests that physical beauty causes others to infer many positive traits such as sociability and intelligence, but conversely, beautiful people are often judged to be vain, dishonest, selfish, and in certain situations, even less intelligent. In the professional world, job applicants are frequently subjected to the physical attractiveness stereotype, even by experienced human resources personnel. Being attractive can actually work against women in nontraditional professions where research suggests they are stereotypically perceived as having decreased leadership abilities and credibility. One historical example is the reaction of scientist James Watson in the early 1950's to his colleague Rosalind Franklin's colloquium on her work analyzing the structure of DNA. In his book The Double Helix, Watson acknowledged that he had missed critical points in Franklin's talk because he was preoccupied wondering "how she would look if she took off her glasses and did something novel with her hair." It is doubtful that Niels Bohr would have failed to hear information presented by Einstein because he was wondering how his appearance could be improved with a better hairdo.

Stereotypes can be challenged by encouraging people to question their assumptions about the attributes of groups or individuals. The study of the psychology of physical attractiveness has facilitated such a challenge by providing us with valuable insight into our own behaviors and motivations. While some aspects of the research show that physical beauty does have considerable benefits, it should not be forgotten that in the past, society has made superficial judgments about people based solely on their appearance, often with catastrophic results. Ascribing desirable characteristics to people who are attractive - even though there is little correlation between attractiveness and real personality traits - is no different than racial prejudice. Just as with other biases, people must seek to overcome preconceptions based on physical beauty. The first step is to be aware that such a stereotype exists.

Ask anyone to complete the sentence, "____ are bad drivers", and at least one group of people comes to mind, the elderly. In fact, if one were to list each group, placing them in order from high to low, the elderly would be somewhere near the top of the list. It's an unfair bias that can be seen scattered throughout our culture. This oversimplified conception, opinion, and image that we have of the elderly is, to put it bluntly, a stereotype. We as a society have been quick to judge and even quicker to condemn a group of people based on the unfortunate experiences of a few, albeit perceptive individuals. What is it about this specific group of people that leads us to collectively make the same hasty generalization about them – that they are bad drivers? Are the elderly in fact "bad drivers", or is there some other rationale to explain our attitude towards them? The stereotype that depicts the elderly as bad drivers lies in our own driving habits, in some dire misconceptions that have been made about their mental and physical acuity, and in our own cultural bias towards them.

Strangely, our own driving habits may be one of several factors contributing to how we perceive the elderly as they drive. To begin, we must ask the all-illusive question, "What is a bad driver?" One who drives too fast or too slow? One who causes or is involved in an accident? One who fails to comply with traffic laws? Short of self-incrimination there's no easy answer to this question. Yet leave it to society to unassumingly slap a label on the elderly – their greatest crime, driving too slowly of course. No single accusation is more prevalent and more characteristic of the now classic elderly driver. Of course, there is a flip side to this common misconception, a surprising one in fact. Perhaps it's not that the elderly drive too slow, perhaps instead it's that we drive too fast! We live in a society that in effect rewards punctuality. Everything that we do revolves around time, and we have become prolific at saving seconds, minutes, and even hours by cutting corners here and there. Nowhere are these so called corners more apparent than on the streets, highways, and freeways of our cities. Ironically, our obsession with time has led to its own sort of stereotype, namely that we as Americans always seem to be in a rush to get somewhere.

Of course driving, at any speed, is a complex procedure for anyone, not just the elderly. Driving requires the assemblage of a diverse number of both physical and mental processes. The stereotype unfairly typifies the elderly driver as a perpetual driving zombie stripped of all his basic motor skills and senses. Of course, this couldn't be further from the truth. Certainly as we age our hearing, vision, movements, and perceptions are all affected. Night and peripheral vision for instance may be limited as one starts to age. Stiff necks might make it more difficult to look over one's shoulder, making it difficult to check the blind spot or check for passing cars. Arthritic hands might even make reaction times somewhat slower. Of course, these changes affect every elderly person in slightly different ways - some retaining complete acuity well into old age. For the rest, technology is always there to lend a hand, providing help in the form of hearing aids, eyeglasses, and muscular therapy. If we are able to look past this, thus considering everyone on an individual basis, we will see that many of these same people bring with them decades of experience, perhaps making them the most skilled drivers on the road.

Finally, culture also plays an important role in our perception of how the elderly drive. Over the course of generations, American culture has departed from the more traditional extended family (mother, father, children, grandparents) in favor of the nuclear family (mother, father, and children). In short, the elderly, once productive members of our society but now thought of as inept and bothersome, have been swept aside – a casualty in any respect. This has done little to help with the depiction of the elderly as unconscionable, absentminded individuals, careening from side to side in gas guzzling, oversized, out of control automobiles. Unlike other cultures where the elderly are well respected and cared for, they have been left to fend for themselves. Perhaps there is an arrogance that passes through each of us when we see an elderly person behind the wheel. Perhaps the swiftness with which we are so quick to label them as bad drivers stems from our own detachment. Maybe we don't see them as the viable, functional human beings that they are.

Stereotypes about the elderly, unfortunately mostly negative, are rampant in our culture. All of us are on the same unmistakable path that takes us from birth, through adolescence and adulthood, and finally on to old age. During our journey, strangely, we will fall in and out of some now sadly established stereotypes. As teenagers, we will be labeled inexperienced drivers, as young adults we will be labeled irresponsible drivers, and as middle aged we will be labeled, well, middle-aged drivers. Finally, as elderly folk, we will carry the all-allusive label of bad driver. Myself, some years away from being technically labeled "elderly", see my driving habits changing even now. More often than not, I find myself driving slower, under more control, and with more caution than I did in my teens. At the root of this change is nothing too mystifying; I simply want to be alive to raise a family and take care of them. I hope that I will be able to do just that, regardless of what stereotype I happen to fit. We need to make an effort, as a whole, to try to understand that first, not all elderly people are the same, and second, that there is always more than one way to view any particular situation – specifically as it applies to driving.

The use of stereotypes in the American language is abundant. I'm sure everyone has heard the phrase "fat and happy", implying that all fat people are happy. Other stereotype quotes I hear frequently are remarks about "computer nerds" and "dumb blondes". Although most people treat these stereotyped comments lightly, they are based on some truth. As a child, I became the object of stereotyping. I was raised in a typical military household, making me an "army brat". According to the average civilian, at that time, all army brats were loud, unruly, and disobedient in the public schools. This was an unfair characterization, since I, and quite a few of my friends, were not loud, unruly, or disobedient. I have also been stereotyped into different roles as an adult. I have attended the Friends church, also known as Quaker, for twenty-eight years. People typically confuse Quakers with the Amish people and ask me questions about how we dress, or whether or not we use modern technology. I am also stereotyped because I am a minister's wife. On the other hand, I have done my share of stereotyping. For example, I have always associated body piercing, such as rings in the nose or multiple rings in the ear, with people that have low incomes, are drug users, and juvenile delinquents in general. Stereotyping is unfair, unjust, and can be avoided through education and training. People are unique individuals and do not fit into molds.

The army brat stereotype of the fifties and sixties has some truth to it. Since military children were frequently new to a school and neighborhood, they needed time to explore and settle down. However, when I attended the civilian public schools, the schoolteachers would sometimes treat me as a second-class citizen without attempting to learn about me first. It was obvious that they did not expect much from an army brat. Looking back, I'm sure that the teachers did the best that they could, with the knowledge they had about the military personnel at the time. However, teachers today are trained to handle multicultural classrooms and to affirm the rich traditions of the ethnicities and cultural backgrounds that are represented. I wonder how many of them recognize that from the military child's point of view, ethnic identity almost certainly takes a back seat to the cultural identity that affects every moment of their life and that is the identity of the military brat. Teachers can expect military brats to have all the characteristics and problems of other children their age, but they will also have all the characteristics and problems unique to military brats. Teachers need to understand this thoroughly if they are to read the kids correctly and to handle them wisely, thereby helping to reshape the old stereotype of the wild and unruly military brat. The most important thing teachers should do for army brats is to validate the military child's experience and his, or her, feelings about his lifestyle.

I also experience stereotyping from my affiliation with the Friends Church, commonly known as Quakers. When I mention to people that I am a Friend, or Quaker, one of the first questions I usually get is, "Isn't that where the people wear black clothes and the funny looking hats"? They also ask about whether we use modern conveniences. People usually confuse the Quakers with the Amish religion and life style. The Amish don't use many of the modern technologies. Actually the Quakers have been involved in the development of some new technologies. While a few Quakers today do choose to wear plain dress, most of us do not wear clothing that particularly sets us apart from other people. The Quaker, or Evangelical Friends Church, is very similar to the mainstream protestant churches in their style of worship. The name "Quaker" had its origin in the middle of the seventeenth century in England. It was a period of religious and political turmoil. During this time, the early Friends interpretation of scripture emphasized "Truth" and guidance by the "Inner Light of Christ". These nonconformists suffered intense persecution, at which time they were dubbed "Quakers", however, the "Society of Friends" thrived on adversity, grew strong and left its mark on subsequent generations. Quakers became stereotyped as fair, honest, tolerant of others religious beliefs, and supporters of education.

The typical stereotype of the minister's wife in a Friends Church is a woman who plays the piano, teaches Sunday School, directs the choir, sings solos and is involved in women's ministries. There was a time when a minister's wife, by the very virtue of her marriage, devoted her time to his calling, spending her days pouring tea at the ladies aid societies, practicing the piano, and orchestrating church activities. I do not fit in this mold. I took piano lessons for a few years but eventually realized that I did not have the patience for it. I sing in the choir occasionally, but I recognize that I am not a singer. I have always been involved in teaching children's Sunday school and in leading women's bible studies; however, I do it because I want to be involved and I like it, not because it is expected of me. For a number of years I fell into the trap of trying to fit into the minister's wife's role and feeling guilty for not having the "right" gifts. Now, I am comfortable being who I am, and that is a pastor's wife. My role is to simply be the wife to the pastor, to take care of him, and that I can do.

I have also stereotyped people without realizing it. I put people who participated in body piercing into the "odd people" category. I pictured them as uneducated, not knowing any better, and even being involved in the drug culture. I was surprised to meet our new nursery attendant at church. She came with impeccable character references, a sparkling personality, attends college, and works with children after school. Her father is a minister at another church. She also has a small earring in her lower lip, a very small dainty nose earring, at least four earrings on each ear, and a tattoo on her back. Since I have gotten to know her, this young woman is one of my favorite people. She's a loving, caring, responsible, and honest nursery attendant. She absolutely adores my two-year-old granddaughter who is in her class.

Stereotyping will always be a part of our culture, simply because we are human. However, we can be aware of our weakness in this area and constantly educate ourselves concerning different cultures and their lifestyles. For example, public schools could specifically encourage the army brat identity and cultural heritage, in the classroom and wider school community, by encouraging the kids to write about their experiences and then to share them with the class. We can also learn about different religions without judging them. We can get to know people without first making judgments about them or their clothes, hair, behaviors, religions, or even body piercing. Through education and cultivating multicultural relationships, we can undo the damage that stereotyping has done to us as a people and a nation.

To the majority of the public, the stereotypical representation of a biker or a group of bikers fails to catch the true essence of the individual or faction. The Encyclopedia Britannica states the definition of a biker as "one who is a member of an organized gang." This description brings to mind the picture of dirty, sweaty, hell-raising, knife wielding, beer guzzling, fearless man traveling from town to town looking for, and usually finding, trouble. Few people could deny being brought up with parents warning of the danger of walking in the path of one of these individuals. This description and its entrapping vision does not justify the existence of the thousands of hard working men and women with families, a mortgage, and the usual two-car garage, who work in every type of employment imaginable across the country. Our country boasts representatives in the Senate who belong to clubs and ride often with a "gang" of bikers. My personal experiences belie the stereotype. There are other aspects of bikers, their groups, and their personalities that, perhaps, may change the stereotype completely around.

An ordinary person driving down the highway feeling safe in the confines of his car might suddenly hear the thundering roar of motorcycles, look into his rearview mirror, and begin to live in fear for his life. He sees a double motorcade of large, road-pounding, fire snorting beasts brand named Harley Davidson gaining on the unsuspecting motorist. Not one of these riders says or does anything remotely intimidating. Nonetheless, responding to his survival instincts, the poor motorist flees to the nearest exit and escapes the menacing hoard. He spends the entire rest of the day describing to his anxious audience his feelings of this near death experience. I ride in these motorcades, and I can tell this man, "Relax. We never even looked at you."

Movies promote the image of biker gangs. Hollywood directors turn out odious movies portraying bikers as irresponsible, unemployed, gang-raping individuals whose only connection to any other person comes from their communal lifestyle with other bikers and their leather clad women, or from praying on the weak and lonely just for a good laugh. These movies resound with such titles as "Chrome," "Hot Leather," Hells Angels," "Angels in Chains," and "Born Losers." The depiction of the larger than life, wild, angry biker with long, shaggy hair and a big bushy beard snarling and cursing into the camera made, and still make, many studios wealthy. The public pays to see these movies because it gave them a sneak peak into the hard living lifestyle that they are not brave enough to see in person. These movies create, however, an inaccurate representation of the biker population.

There are those biker groups whose criminal activities hit the newspapers weekly. Only one percent of biker groups will not conform to the rules of society. Growing up in the "biker town" of Commerce City, Colorado, I recall numerous encounters with the Hells Angels and the Sons of Silence biker gangs. They warred with everyone for effect, but they more commonly warred with one another for the distinct label of "the worst biker gang in Colorado." Originally formed after World War Two by fighter and bomber pilots looking for the continued thrill of danger from combat, these individuals bought up war surplus motorcycles and formed a club to band together in the same camaraderie they had during the war. The three-piece patch they wear on their back was developed from the old aircraft are that was painted on the sides of their planes. The patch with the flying death head was designed to show brotherhood for this group when they rode together to club events. As these groups formed over the country, gang rivalry began, and supporting the lifestyle brought them into drugs and prostitution. Due to police enforcement, these bikers subsist together in a civil manner outside of the occasional violent circumstance. Yves Lavigne's book, "Three Can Keep a Secret If Two Are Dead," states the history of these gangs, how they achieved power, and their eventual downfall as key originating members were either killed or sent to prison. The Hells' Angels are making a concerted effort to change their outlaw image and present a more respectable image.

The truth behind the average biker lifestyle is not this exciting. I saw them move their families into our residential area. I heard my parents describing their actions in grand and fearful detail. As I went to school with their children over the years and eventually met the families, I discovered that the one common trait among bikers is their desire for quiet freedom and passive adventure. Bikers are just ordinary folks cruising to work and back, and spending weekends on the open roads for that sense of freedom. They enjoy the competition of turning their motorcycles into true works of art. The bright, dazzling paint and chrome displays the personality of the biker. From a stretched out chopper to a big, V-8, three-wheel "trike", a biker can spend tens of thousands of dollars on their machines. Purchasing and creating a club motorcycle is not for the person with a weak income.

I also discovered some incredible facts about biker clubs. They perform benefit runs for charities. The Muscular Dystrophy Association owes bikers a huge debt of thanks for the funds raised from a charity biker run called the Love Ride that brings more than one hundred thousand bikers and their supporters each year to Los Angeles. They perform benefit toy runs such as Toys for Tots during the holidays. Children's Hospitals and orphanages across the United States and in Mexico garner the funds from the generosity of the biker groups. They deliver the money and bring the gifts on their bikes, and they deliver the funds in cash.

While the movie biker persona tends to put fear into the hearts of the brave, the truth creates a clear distraction from this feeling. I have spent more than twenty years riding with a club, with the majority of its members being active or retired military. These members, and the others I have met over the years, are the same men and women, like myself, who defend this country during times of war. They make up a good portion of the military reserve system. They work in hospitals, schools, and churches, as well as in corporations and private business. They meet at motorcycle rallies all over the world. I have attended more than one hundred major rallies. I have yet to meet one biker, man or woman, with whom I have had a problem. Let Hollywood make its money from the disturbing personification of the biker. In the real world, these are neighbors and friends. When there is a need in the community, the bikers and their clubs give their time and money to ride for the benefit of others. They pack the family in the car and head for the next bike rally. It's helpful to talk to the bikers, look into their affiliations, and ask them questions about their club activities. Bikers are just ordinary people who like a different lifestyle. As a part of the community, we are always here when needed.