Quote:
Originally Posted by listening
http://psychology.tamu.edu/Faculty/blanton/bcd.02.pdf
<...snip...>
Women do the same as a culturally defined and stereotyped group when they self-identify as "one of the boys" or decide that poker playing women are somehow different than the average XX human. The belief they exhibit is: women are not as good as men but I am more like a man and not like most women. The study above is about exactly that in terms of mathematical ability and gender. Here is the abstract, I added the bold:
like most of your writing I find this intriguing. I tend to be fascinated by the limiting or in fact, self-limiting beliefs of folks and groups about how they are supposed to stack up. As part of a very small minority group that is represented as being on the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder I'm always curious as to how this plays out. I've certainly allowed my own limiting beliefs to hold me back for far too long.
All of my math teachers from Jr. High through High School (AP calculus) were women. Therefore I concluded from my very small sample size that math was a women's field that they should excel in. Somehow I escaped the cultural message that girls are supposed to suck at math or be intimidated by it.
On the other hand, I've noted - with some misgivings in a way, that in competitive sports in general there is a stereotype that makes being "too competitive" or "too aggressive" rarely OK for women, mostly only if they still fit in the looks department.
I don't want to repeat or amplify any of the stuff that gets said about the LPGA or the Women's tennis tour, but I heavily identified with Billie Jean King as a youngster and was less than surprised when she came out. I was also, quite sadly, not shocked when most of her sponsors abandoned her.
Being aggressive and winning Wimbledon = good, being proactive and starting the Virginia Slims Tour = great. Beating Bobby Riggs = excellent publicity - you go girl, you are woman hear you roar! Having a girlfriend = bad bad girl. No more Yankee dollars for you. BJK was one of the few women on the tour without an equipment or clothing contract once she was "out." Of course, she was far from the only bi/lesbian woman on the circuit. But being "out" was a liability.
I really feel that this still plays out both in how competitive women allow themselves to be, and how the rewards are stacked. If you are a pretty young thing that can play some poker, there is a site waiting to throw money at you. If you are Linda Johnson, Kathy Liebert or Barbara Enright with a full size (non-women's tourney) WSOP bracelet, less so. I see women who are far less talented than Vanessa Selbst but are better eye candy getting far greater rewards. I don't blame them, you take what you can get from the capitalist running dogs. But the deck is indeed stacked.
I still see, both in the general public and in most of these forums, the double standard that men are judged on talent and women on looks. And I think that this plays out both on how women are valued in the poker world and how they value themselves.
Sorry if I'm rambling. I really shouldn't post after drinking.
Shauna