(Example at the end)

Usually we discuss stereotypes in terms of how they are harmful—which is good because it’s super important to recognize and confront the stereotypes that perpetuate systems of oppression and hurt. That doesn’t mean all of them are harmful, though. Some are neutral and and some are a net positive. If you can think of neutral ones that’s fine but I’m especially interested in the constructive and beneficial ones. Hopefully I’m explaining this well enough but if it becomes clear I didn’t I’ll delete this post.

Example: I usually encourage people, especially kids and pedestrians, to assume that drivers can’t see you. While it’s not necessarily true even a majority of the time, it’s nevertheless a constructive stereotype to hold in terms of road safety.

  • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think it’s that we don’t really call them stereotypes when they’re not applied to people.

    At that point it’s just a hueristic.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Valid I suppose. Oxford Learner’s does allow for it to apply for non-people “things” though; I just think the word and its use has shifted so far (due to progress in the field of confronting and attacking negative stereotypes) that that element has almost been redefined out of existence in the minds of most people.