[QUOTE=fable]Given, and understood before you stated it.
Yet for all that, it still amazes me that people of considerable intelligence fail to see, as the cliche has it, outside the box, especially when they pride themselves on being (in many cases) free of superstition, influence by others, in short, utterly rational and supremely individual human beings.[/QUOTE]
I the the basic issue here is that
humans are not rational. The idea that the human being is rational is a misconception, based on a variety of ideologies ranging from religion, philosophy, older sociology and other theoretical frameworks not based on actual studies of human behaviour but instead of opinion and inductive conclusions.
Studies of human behaviour in modern psychology all point in the same direction: humans do not behave rationally. Our concept of rationality stems from certain ideals that are not consistent with how humans make decision, make choices, form their value systems and opinions.
We are all irrational to certain degrees and within different fields - what areas a given person will be more or less irrational in, is dependent on many factors such as personality traits, sociocultural environment, education, etc. An area where most people in the Western world are irrational is choice of partner - we often choose a partner we fall in love with, although love in itself is not a product of rational thinking. We may fall in love with person A although person B would probably suit us better in the long run. We may meet people who fulfil all known critera for long lasting relationships, still we don't necessarily fall in love with them.
However, to a large extent people can actually choose what areas they will allow themselves to be irrational or not. The professor in psychology at my university is an extremely rational scientist in his 60's. He rides his bike in the traffic as if he was a racing cyclist. He very well knows that bikers are the largest group of head trauma patients in Stockholm. He knows that statistically, he is putting himself at great risk, and for a scientist also a minor cogntive decline will affect his work very negatively as opposed to if he had a risk-behaviour where other parts of the body where at the highest risk. (For instance, if he was skateboarding to work instead, he would risk wrist and arm injuries rather than head injuries). Still, he thinks it is worth the risk because going really fast with his bike gives him a kick and makes him happy. So it is a calculated risk that he has choosen to take.
Now, this guy is a leading professor in psychology, so his base of knowledge may make it easier for him to keep up a high self awareness and make counscious choices than the average person. However, I use him as an example because I'm convinced that everybody makes a lot of similar choices, although everybody is not fully aware of having made the choice. Regarding gender stereotypes, as with all stereotypes, we have to consider there is a lot of gain involved.
Whereas gender stereotyping gives an incorrect view of the world and serve as a barrier for understanding and knowing more about human behaviour, it also provides a guide for how you should and are expected to behave in different contexts and towards other people. The great thing with sweeping, overgeneralised models that you have learned during your upbringing, is that they serve as a guide you can lean back on without effort. Imagine how much time and energy you can save by using the already existing stereotypes not only as guideline for you own behaviour, but also for interpreting everybody else's behaviour! Since there are only 2 sexes, categorisation is very simple.
I think gender stereotyping can be compared to any other ideology that simplify people's lives. It works the same way as dogmatic religion or political views. Having this kind of stable framework also gives an illusion of safety and familiarity - you feel that you know, understand and recognise without needing to put a lot of time and energy into collecting and evaluating information. Instead, you can use that time and energy to other things.
So, in brief for everybody who didn't read my long post:
Summary: A long line of evidence support the view that humans being are not governed by rationality, but by other factors. Striving for a world view that is as objectively
correct as possible is not desirable for most people. Instead, striving for a world view that fits your personal circumstances and characteristics is more desirable. It is in this context we have to view the maintainace of gender role stereotypes.
