Gingerism

Well brunettes are fine man
And blondes are fun
But when it comes to getting a dirty job done
I’ll take a red headed woman
A red headed woman
It takes a red headed woman
To get a dirty job done

Well listen up stud
Your life’s been wasted
Til you’ve got down on your knees and tasted

A red headed woman
A red headed woman
It takes a red headed woman
To get a dirty job done

Tight skirt, strawberry hair
Tell me what you’ve got, baby, waiting under there
Big green eyes that look like, son
They can see every cheap thing that you ever done

Well I don’t know how many girls you’ve dated, man
But you ain’t lived til you’ve had your tires rotated
By a red headed woman

A red headed woman
It takes a red headed woman
To get a dirty job done

Bruce Springsteen- Red Headed Woman

When do redhead jokes cross the line into the realm of harassment?

While my hair is now shade of auburn, I was admittedly a redhead for most of my adolescent life.  With that privilege came the onslaught of nicknames: ginger, carrot top, big red, and more recently, Weasley.  Then of course there was that oh-so-famous South Park episode that taught the American public that redheads simply have no souls.  Pair these nicknames with expressions like “better dead than red on the head” and the Facebook event “Kick a Red Head Day,” and as you can imagine, there is plenty of material with which to tease a redhead.

To be honest, I, like many of my redheaded friends, are not offended by many of the redhead nicknames for they are often used as terms of endearment by family and friends.  Not to mention, blondes do not have it too easy either—I bet every fair-haired individual has been called a “dumb blonde” at least once in his or her life.

However, the teasing of redheads goes one step further.  Nowadays, almost no redhead can get by without some degree of sexualization.  I can remember back in middle school when a group of boys approached me at the lunch table.  One of them finally mustered up the courage to ask, “Do the curtains match the carpet?”  All of the boys burst into laughter, so while I had absolutely no idea what they meant, I knew that the jokes had just entered a new terrain—the terrain of sexuality.  From that point further, the nicknames expanded to fire crotch, red hair everywhere, ruby pubes, and burning bush, to name a few.  I learned to laugh, like most people do, but I am still left wondering about the repercussions of it all.

In doing some research about perception of redheads on the internet, I found this description of a “Ginger”:

A Ginger is the medical term for a “person” affected by the bizarre disfiguring disease known as Gingervitus. Ghoulish symptoms include hair color ranging from an eerie light copper-tone to deep blood red, as well as a translucent to pallid skin tone. Much adversity has been attributed to gingers’ existence throughout history, and while female gingers can be considered attractive, most males of the ginger persuasion seem to resemble animated clowns… Gingers have no soul; This is the underlining cause of their Gingerness. Being tools of the devil, they are marked with the colour of their master.

While that description is obviously in jest, the line between joking and true prejudice is becoming far less clear.  In the UK, for example, there are noted accounts of “gingerism” (prejudice against redheads) and “gingerphobia” (hatred towards redheads).  It has been speculated that the dislike of red hair in Britain may be a result of the historical British sentiment that individuals of Irish or Celtic decent were ethnically inferior.

Why won’t yous guys hire me?

Accent discrimination is prevalent, even in top UK law firms, says Dr. Ashley of Cass Business School.

Since coming to Harvard Law, it has become far too apparent that becoming a lawyer is in oh-so-many ways about conformity.  I think back to On Campus Interview week in August, where hundreds of students flooded the Charles hotel, all clad in dark suits clutching their leather folders.  On day one, I saw glimmers of style and individuality, but as the week continued, Career Services walked among the students criticizing the nervous interviewees for wearing the wrong color apparel, large jewelry, or any other indication that a student might have a little character or personality.  By the end of the week, the new 2Ls looked like a mass of funeral goers who already made great strides down the path toward lawyer conformity.

While there may be little room in the courthouse for polka dots and paisley, it is not as obvious if there is room for the vibrant and varied accents that flood the streets of our diverse country.  Quite simply, must legal participants lose their native voices in order to be heard by the American legal system?

In a recent study, Dr. Louise Ashley at Cass Business School in England did a case study of top law firms in London.  Dr. Ashley found that while firms are making concerted efforts to increase minority hiring and diversity initiatives, “working class” applicants are missing out because they do not fit with the Big Law brand.  According to a partner at one of the top 20 UK firms,

“There was one guy who came to interviews who was a real Essex barrow boy, and he had a very good CV, he was a clever chap, but we just felt that there’s no way we could employ him. I just thought, putting him in front of a client – you just couldn’t do it.”

Jack Dovidio, Yale University

If, after watching the above clip, you were asked who you think is more intelligent, Fran Drescher or Anderson Cooper, what would you answer? Most individuals probably would choose Anderson Cooper, even if they knew little to nothing about either individual’s credentials.  But, why should this be the case?

Whether we do it consciously or subconsciously, it is human tendency to judge an individual’s intelligence and competence based on his or her accent.  For example, in the above clip, most of the contextual clues do not provide much insight into the speakers’ intelligence—both Anderson Cooper and Fran Drescher are dressed professionally, and Ms. Drescher is noticeably without her 80’s poodle-esque hair.  Yet, many of us assume that Fran Drescher is the less intelligent of the two due to her over-the-top, nasally Queens, New York accent.  This tendency to size up one’s intelligence after hearing him or her speak often leads to unconscious prejudices and stigmatization.

According to linguistic researcher Agata Gluszek on her website Human Accents: The Science Behind the Way We Speak:

Native speakers often claim that specific accents “just sound nicer, or better, or sexier, or more attractive, etc.” than other accents. In linguistics, all forms and varieties of language are equal: no language, dialect, or accent is better or worse than some other. Most social scientists argue that some accents are found more aesthetically pleasing than others because of the social connotations ascribed to them. Nothing intrinsic to accents makes them more or less pleasing to listen to.

Although no accent is “better” than another, these social stigmas attached to certain accents, whether in a classroom, boardroom, or courtroom, can have serious implications.

Jack Dovidio, Yale University

Jack Dovidio, Professor of Psychology at Yale University, studies stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, social power and nonverbal communication, altruism, and helping. Much of his scholarship has focused on ‘aversive racism,’ a subtle form of contemporary racism. More recently, his research has turned to understanding stigma and prejudice in the context of non-native accent perception.

Three Scholars Worth Your Time: Part 3

Jack Dovidio, Yale University

Jack Dovidio

Jack Dovidio is a professor of psychology at Yale University.  Mr. Dovidio’s research centers around

issues of social power and social relations, both between groups and between individuals… explor[ing] both conscious (explicit) and unconscious (implicit) influences on how people think about, feel about, and behave toward others based on group membership.

In 2010, Mr. Dovidio and Agata Gluszek published an article in Personality and Social Psychology Review entitled, “The way they speak: Stigma of non-native accents in communication.”  The article explores recent empirical research on accents, stigma, and communication, focusing on the role of communicative processes in the manner in which accents influence people.  Utilizing his research on the topic, Mr. Dovidio also explores techniques for reducing conscious and unconscious biases.

One less lonely girl, or one less politicized fan?

Few Americans have been shielded from the force that is “Bieber Fever.”  For those of you who have not heard of the young musical sensation (for better or worse), a brief introduction is in order.  Justin Bieber is a 16-year-old Canadian pop singer with numerous number one hits and Grammy nominations.  However, what makes the young singer so notable is that he has become idolized by millions of American tween girls. In December 2010, for example, the singer released a line of nail polish.  Within just a few weeks, the nail polish completely sold out in the 3,000 Wal-Marts where it was exclusively sold. Not to mention, Bieber’s 3-D biopic currently out in theaters grossed over $30 million in its opening weekend. His influence on the tween-demographic is hard to ignore.

While the media is in a frenzy analyzing whether the Biebs was robbed for the 2011 Best New Artist Grammy, his name has also been in the news recently for far more politicized issues. In the most recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Bieber was asked about his political views, such as his opinion on sex before marriage.  In addition, the 16-year-old was asked about his views on abortion. Bieber responded, “I really don’t believe in abortion. It’s like killing a baby.” When asked about the appropriateness of abortion for cases involving rape, Bieber responded,

“Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

Rolling Stone later issued a correction to their published interview, noting that they omitted part of his response, which should have read:

“Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”

Many of us may be wondering why we even care what a celebrity who cannot even vote thinks about politics.  Regardless, America clearly cares what he thinks, and that is what is so remarkable. On one hand, his interview has enraged pro-choice supporters and a group of individuals who support abortion in limited situations, such as rape.  On the other hand, other groups are viewing the Bieber interview as a valuable voice and perspective for Christian youth.

What is most interesting about the debate over the Rolling Stone interview is how commentators on both sides show evidence of what  Kathleen Kennedy and Emily Pronin call the “Bias-Perception Conflict Spiral.”  According to Kennedy and Pronin’s model, disagreement between parties leads to the perception that the other side is biased.   In other words, in cases of conflict, individuals perceive those with whom they disagree as being biased and unable or unwilling to view things “as they are” in “objective reality.”

Law & Order: Beneficial or Detrimental to the US Legal System?

"This critically-lauded program is not only television's longest-running legal drama but also its most iconic representation of the legal system ... Consequently, whether and how Law & Order contributes to the public's perception of the legal system or informs decision-making merits serious investigation." - Professor Kimberlianne Podlas

At 8:00 p.m. each Friday, millions of Americans flip to NBC to watch Law & Order, the longest-running crime series on television. On the most basic level, the show has been a success—it has turned into a multimillion-dollar franchise.  Despite its commercial success, I can’t help but wonder if Law & Order is a success or a loss for the American legal system, especially for the crime of rape.

On one hand, Law & Order may be doing a disservice to the American legal system.  The People v. The Torture Team suggests that some “twists” that bring in the ratings, although plausible, are so unlikely that they “strain[] the real world feel.” Law & Order SVU, for example, often depicts horrendous cases of sexual assault, but little airtime is devoted to date rape involving alcohol. This is compounded by the fact that the realistic portrayal in these show causes many jurors to form idealized expectations of criminal trials and forensic capabilities (“CSI effect”). In Boatswain v. Delaware, for example, the prosecutor found it necessary to educate the jury that the burden of proof as seen in criminal dramas is idealized— for these shows incorrectly portray that without “fingerprints, [a defendant] can’t be guilty.” Because jurors expect and demand high degrees of evidence, date rape cases involving the question of consent, not whether there was sex, can be especially difficult.

Law & Mind Blogs: Part 11

We are back today with three more fantastic blogs focusing on the intersection of mind sciences and the law.  The blogs featured in today’s post focus on a number of topics, including ethics, neuroscience, statistics, law, psychology, and even videogames.

1.    Brain Ethics (formerly BrainEthics.Wordpress)

Authored by Thomas Zoëga Ramsøy, a Danish PhD student studying neuroscience and neuroimaging, and Martin Skov, a Danish neuroaesthetcian, Brain Ethics is a blog dedicated to current neuroscience research. However, unlike other blogs focusing on similar topics, Brain Ethics is devoted to understanding and questioning the ethical consequences of neuroscience.  The blog asks two primary questions: (1) what are the consequences of tinkering with the brain, and (2) what is it like to be human?  One reoccurring post topic, for example, is neuromarketing, the psychology of consumer decision-making and the effects of advertising, and its potential consequences on society.

2.    Social Sciences Statistics Blog

Run by a group of graduate students from Harvard University’s Institute for Quantitative Sciences, the Social Sciences Statistics Blog is intended to spark conversations about social science statistical methods and analysis in a multitude of fields and topics.  What makes this blog so unique is that it is authored by a group of talented students from six distinct fields: law, economics, sociology, statistics, government/public policy, and brain and cognitive science. From posts about election statistics to Victorian literature to criminal sentencing, the blend of the authors’ backgrounds creates an interesting blog that touches upon a wide range of current issues.  For example, the most recent post entitled “[Maya] Sen on ‘How Having Daughters Affect Judges’ Voting” focuses on an upcoming event exploring the role a judge’s family might have on judicial decision making, especially for issues such as sexual harassment and gender equality.  This post alone shows the wonderful mix of perspective, drawing from sociology, law, psychology, and statistics.

3.    Psychology of Games

Psychology of Games is a website that examines the intersection of psychology and videogames. Most of us have played a videogame at least once—whether we’ve played a simple game of Frogger or maintained a yearly subscription to World of Warcraft.  For this reason, many of us know that videogames require players to make a large number of decisions, such as when to jump or turn or shoot.  Some games also require players to make ethical decisions, such as when to murder, when to steal, and when to cheat. But why is it that we make the decisions that we make?

The psychology of gaming is not only interesting for understanding the multi-billion dollar gaming industry; it is also incredibly pertinent to the understanding of larger social and psychological issues.  Drawing from research in a variety of fields, Psychology of Games employs scientific techniques to answer three broad classes of questions:

1. Why do gamers do what they do?
2. Why do those designing games do what they do?
3. Why do those marketing and selling games do what they do?

Psychology of Games is authored by Jamie Madigan, a videogame enthusiast with a Ph.D. in psychology.  Written in a down-to-earth tone, the blog presents a unique take on psychology while adding a witty quip in nearly every post.

In addition to simply being fun, Psychology of Games underscores the relevance of understanding the psychology of videogames and how it is applicable to current issues.  For example, the blog’s December 15^th post entitled “The Psychology of Shooters (Online)” links readers to Madigan’s recent article published in GamePro magazine. The article explores the psychology of shooters and why interacting with game worlds through the barrel of a gun is often so appealing. It difficult not to think of the applicability of this article to understanding real life shootings, especially after the recent January 8^th shooting in Arizona that left six dead. That is not to say that videogames are to blame for shootings, but rather, perhaps the underlying psychology of shooting games can be applied to real cases of violence.

We believe combat themes will always be a favorite for developers and players. Our hope though, is that by understanding the underlying motivational psychology, developers would also be empowered to not feel chained to blood and violence as their only option. – Researcher Scott Rigby, quoted in The Psychology of Shooters

Psychology of Games is a wonderful resource—it shows the application of psychological research to the exciting world of videogames, while simultaneously raising questions about the applicability of gaming psychology to real life.  It is a great read for anyone interested in either topic.