Don't judge a book by its cover

What's inside?

Who is not familiar with this admonition? Not to insult your intelligence; but, I do want to dissect this phrase just a bit. The phrase says that we shouldn't prejudge based solely on what the outward appearance may suggest. Is the phrase always applicable? Is there ever a time when a book should be judged by its cover?

Stereotyping exists. So does prejudice and discrimination. Is stereotyping always inaccurate? Is it a pejorative term? Does stereotyping typically lead to prejudice and discrimination? The subject of stereotyping is very complex and has been studied from many different psychological perspectives. I don't propose to be an expert on the topic. I just know it exists. The reasons why are as varied as the stereotypes themselves. Let's look at a few statements that could be considered stereotyping.

Women are bad drivers.
Jews are greedy.
Hispanics are lazy.
Hispanics are very hard workers.
Asian students are more intelligent than their non-Asian counterparts.
Blacks are poor swimmers.
Germans make good engineers.
People from the American South are "rednecks."
People from California are liberal.
Yankees are rude.
All my ex's live in Texas (Sorry, I just needed to lighten the mood)

We have all heard these statements. In fact, there are bad drivers that are female... you could find a Jewish person that is greedy... there are lazy as well as extremely hard working Hispanics... you could find an Asian student that is at the top of her school class.... I am sure there are some blacks that cannot swim... Germany does have some very talented engineers...rednecks do exist in the South... a liberal may not be hard to find in California...and yes...all Yankees are rude (OK, I'm kidding, I'm kidding.) Oh, and I have no ex's in Texas.

To say that women are bad drivers suggests that ALL or, at least the majority of women are poor drivers. Wrong, all-inclusive suggestions apply to the other statements as well. We know that these statements, made in a general sense, are false.

These are commonly heard stereotypes but I wouldn't ever try to defend any of these statements because I do not agree with them. Unfortunately these are not the most offensive stereotypical beliefs that are out there. There are certainly worse ones.

The original topic was judging a book by its cover. Does our outward appearance send some type of message to those that see us? How do you react or what would you assume if you saw:

• A young man with spiked hair dyed red, arms and neck covered in tattoos, multiple piercings, and grungy, black clothing, with the name/graphic of a violent/fantasy video game on his shirt?
• A woman in a very tight, very short skirt, 7 inch heels, very low cut top showing lots of cleavage?
• A woman in a business suit carrying a briefcase and a Venti size Starbucks coffee cup?
• A burly, tattooed man with long beard, do-rag, no shirt, leather vest with various patches/logos/slogan on back, black leather boots, wallet with long chain attached to belt loop of his jeans on a very loud Harley Davidson motorcycle?
• A young man wearing boxer shorts with pants below his buttocks, white tank top T-shirt, gold teeth, NY Yankees hat turned to the side on his head, talking in street language, smoking a Blunt cigar, making what appears to be gang symbols?
• A man in a lifted pickup truck with gun rack and Confederate flag, NASCAR and Browning rifle decals, wearing camo, mullet hairstyle?
• A obese woman in overly tight sweatpants, bedroom slippers, a stained tank top that doesn't cover her mid-riff accompanied by several children and shopping in Dollar General?
• A teenage boy carrying a bookbag, wearing khakis, loafers, button-down oxford shirt with a tie and blue blazer?
• An underweight, teenage girl with very pale skin, black lipstick, all black clothing, long black hair with a stud in her nose and tongue?

Have you ever seen people whose appearance was similar to what I have described? Would you likely have some internal or emotional response if you saw the people as I have described? Would you make assumptions based on these appearances alone? Do you believe your assumptions would be relatively accurate? Some of these appearances are intentionally meant by the person to identify oneself with a particular group. Some are driven by pop culture. Some of these appearances are circumstantial. Some aspects of these looks serve a utilitarian purpose (i.e. briefcases hold papers, pens, folders...leather boots protect bikers' feet and ankles... some students are required to wear uniforms...hunters put rifles in gun racks.)

Sometimes we make judgments when we see people that do not look like or dress like or act like us. Some of these appearances impress us, some titillate us, some evoke pity, some frustrate us, while some intimidate or frighten us. Just like we cannot make assumptions about even the people around us that we resemble or associate with the most, we should not make assumptions about the people we do not have much association with that do not look like or dress like or speak like or act like we do.

So how do we overcome these stereotypes? First, refuse to embrace them yourself. Acknowledge that it is wrong and inaccurate to judge or stereotype groups of people of the same religion, race, gender, socioeconomic status, political party affiliation, sexual orientation, regional citizenship or outward appearance based on the behavior or ideas or appearance of individuals of the same identification.

I have known people that fit reasonably close some of these descriptions above and it was consistent with the stereotype that is commonly associated with people that look that way. But I have also known people that had some of those same appearances that were nothing at all like what the stereotypes would suggest.

So...let's try hard not to judge a book by its cover. I will promise to try as well.

I am woman!

Helen Reddy's 1971 classic song by the same title was embraced as a song of solidarity for women's rights and the feminist movement. "I am woman hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore. And I know too much to go back an' pretend..." I am never surprised by the issues that make it into the presidential election rhetoric. We have heard about contraception, gas prices, wealth, taxes, unemployment, the economy, citizenship, immigration, GSA spending, and a host of other topics.

Now the discussion is centered on the "war on women." I don't know which party is actually waging this war but it doesn't seem to be limited to the opposite sex waging the war (as you would expect.) Seems as though some women have issues with other women's "woman-ness."

For centuries, women were dominated by men. Religions allowed or even required it; cultures embraced and practiced it; and, even in modern times, we see evidence of inequality between men and women practiced and condoned. Laws have been passed in the US disallowing gender discrimination but, the dirty little reality is that it still exits today. While I would love to delve into this aspect of the conversation, this isn't what I want to discuss in this post. Maybe next time.

Hilary Rosen, lobbyist, Democrat strategist and pundit, made a comment about Ann Romney, the wife of the likely Republican candidate that has stirred up the conversation concerning women. Mitt Romney stated that he sought his wife's counsel on economic issues. Ms. Rosen took issue with this by saying, "Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day of her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future."

Ms. Rosen eventually apologized for her poor choice of words and the seeming attack on Ann Romney who is generally perceived as a non-controversial figure. The talking heads on both sides of the political and ideological spectrum have chimed in on the issue. So, I might as well join in.

Rosen may have had a legitimate argument that Mitt's wife may not really know what it is like to be in the economic shoes of most American women simply because the Romneys are very wealthy (I don't believe the Romneys have always lived the opulent lifestyle, however, the memories of Ramen Noodles for supper are probably a distant memory.) But that's not the point from which she qualified her remarks. She said that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. Wow. One should be skeptical when you hear people use words like all, never, always, everyone, etc. because these absolute words are often used in an inaccurate, adolescent fashion. "Mom, you never let me go anywhere!" Of course we expect more from people like Hilary Rosen...she is, after all, a professional.

Is there a perception by some women that a woman who has not pursued a professional career is somehow a lesser woman? Are people simply being patronizing when they say that they applaud stay-at-home wives or moms? What about some other possible qualifiers. Do "real women" need to eventually marry? Can you be a "real woman" if you never have children? We know that these stereotypes also exist.

In my view, the crux of Hilary Rosen's remarks were that a woman must have a career in order to be qualified to participate in "serious" conversations. Oh sure, non-career woman can discuss their favorite brand of vacuum cleaner, best spray starch and  most effective laundry detergent but don't you dare have anything to say about the federal deficit or the problem with mortgage backed securities. Sure, you stay-at-home moms can discuss poopy diapers, the best remedy for colic and sibling rivalry but you should just butt out of the adult discussions about world politics and national security. Unfortunately, feminine elitism is alive and well.

I'm a guy so, it is obvious that I am not really qualified to say what it takes to be a woman. But, I have been surrounded by many remarkable women my entire life. My grandmother was a nursing home owner and was like a mother to me, my sister is an executive with an insurance company, my daughter is a certified schoolteacher, my wife Carol was a self-employed master barber before she became a 20+ year stay-at-home Mom who also home schooled both our children and is now a media clerk at a middle school. Carol's value and standing as a competent, smart woman was not and is not determined by her marital status, her occupation or her childbearing. Being married to me simply gave her the additional titles of "wife and partner." Having Jessica and Michael added "Mama" to her titles. But, she is 100% woman with no further accreditation required by either you or me because that's what God made her to be. And she has every bit as much right to engage in any discussion she feels competent to participate in.