Study: hostile sexism is a predictor of Trump support

[Ancalagon44]

It's actually really bad science.

First, what is the definition of hostile sexism?

Second, does the 4 question survey actually measure it? From reading the actual questions, hostile sexism doesn't come to mind. When I think of hostile sexism, I think of someone who thinks that women are lesser beings than men, or deserving of scorn, fear or hatred. But, as mentioned, they didn't define hostile sexism, so now we have no idea what they are actually measuring. Without a common definition of what they are measuring, the whole thing becomes useless.

Those questions have more to do with feminism than sexism. The problem with that is that measuring opposition to feminism is not measuring sexism. There are even women who are against feminism, and are themselves not sexist.

Just bad science and bad reporting.

 

[fskimospy]

It's actually really bad science.

First, what is the definition of hostile sexism?

Second, does the 4 question survey actually measure it? From reading the actual questions, hostile sexism doesn't come to mind. When I think of hostile sexism, I think of someone who thinks that women are lesser beings than men, or deserving of scorn, fear or hatred. But, as mentioned, they didn't define hostile sexism, so now we have no idea what they are actually measuring. Without a common definition of what they are measuring, the whole thing becomes useless.

Those questions have more to do with feminism than sexism. The problem with that is that measuring opposition to feminism is not measuring sexism. There are even women who are against feminism, and are themselves not sexist.

Just bad science and bad reporting.

Before you accuse other people of 'really bad science' you should probably take even the slightest amount of time to read about it. From their own writing on the study:

In June 2016, we conducted a nationally representative survey of 700 U.S. citizens. They were asked whether they agreed with statements such as “Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist” and “Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for equality.” An index based on these statements is widely used in social science research on sexism and gender attitudes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...3/how-sexism-drives-support-for-donald-trump/

It is based on commonly used questions that have formed the basis for peer reviewed research in the past and it explicitly creates a common definition.

http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/GlickFiske1.pdf

So now that you've found out that your criticisms are wrong does that change your position? My guess is no.

 

[Roflmouth]

Feminism hasn't been about equality for the last thirty years. HTH

 

[Commodus]

It's actually really bad science.

First, what is the definition of hostile sexism?

Second, does the 4 question survey actually measure it? From reading the actual questions, hostile sexism doesn't come to mind. When I think of hostile sexism, I think of someone who thinks that women are lesser beings than men, or deserving of scorn, fear or hatred.

Those questions have more to do with feminism than sexism. The problem with that is that measuring opposition to feminism is not measuring sexism. There are even women who are against feminism, and are themselves not sexist.

Just bad science and bad reporting.

I'd say that the questions meet your definition of hostile sexism pretty well.

It's the "scorn, fear or hatred" part. If you believe that feminism as a whole is a threat, an attempt to simply reverse the situation and make men subservient, then you're clearly afraid of women asserting themselves. It's not in line with what feminists say they want, and it completely ignores the possibility that feminism, like most things in life, is a multi-faceted concept with varying opinions.

And if you're a woman against feminism, you might not be sexist... but there's a good chance you're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It's like Latinos for Trump: you can always convince some people to act against their own self-interests. This doesn't mean that you're misogynist if you're a stay-at-home mother who has never had more than one sexual partner and opposes abortion, but there's a difference between choosing those paths and insisting that everyone else follow you.

 

[Maxima1]

I don't think you should ever blindly accept changes to gender relations. However, there's a big difference between an intelligent, considered analysis of gender balance and a knee-jerk "feminism bad!" response. The boring truth is that most feminists have a reasonable definition of equality: the same rights and career opportunities, equal pay for equal work, better representation in the media and a commitment to ending sexual harassment and assault (not just against women, but with an acknowledgment that it's primarily committed by men these days). And if there is overreach, we shouldn't be quick to cry "conspiracy!" before determining whether or not it's just a well-meaning but flawed initiative.

It's opposition to commonly held, irrational positions among many vocal types who identify as feminists. An example of some of the stupidity is that an alleged rape should result in a conviction regardless of evidence. If a woman says it, that's that. You see that kind of illogical thinking with SJWs a lot. No matter what a minority does, for example, they're always right. You can see this in the court system. If someone is accused of a crime against a minority, he'll have a drastically increased chance of being convicted than if the victim wasn't a minority. They also never acknowledge disparities that are not in favor of men e.g. conviction rates and always assume anything negative associated with women is because of "the patriarchy".

https://www.scribd.com/document/49975432/Are-Juries-Fair-Research

White jurors at Nottingham were significantly more likely to convict the White defendant when he was accused of assaulting a BME victim (61%) than when he was accused of assaulting a White victim (4%).

Considering comments made online on the internetz, I can definitely see that bias coming out in the court system.

I'm interested to hear how you think that agreeing with a statement that women's movement for equality is actually a campaign for special privileges is not hostile sexism

That's like a binary decision. The other implies there is nothing wrong with feminism. This doesn't indicate hostile sexism necessarily. There's a lot of BS. They want easier access to good jobs to get to at least 50/50 ratio (but not in manual labor) even though equal opportunity is already here. They want people to feel that their life is harder than any man, never mind that IQ and personality determine success, while sex doesn't. They want to take away sexy females from video games because it promotes "rape culture". Etc.

People argue SJWs aren't hostile to whites or police. We can come up with a hostile white or police test, too. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. Yet according to your weak standards, they would always be.

What's common about the topic in the thread and these I mention can be an irrational position based on what people want to believe (i.e. motivated reasoning strikes again!). However, one group's views isn't as acceptable in progressive society (the ones questioning aspects of feminism), while SJWs saying every police encounter with a minority is always "murder" is.

 

[Maxima1]

And if you're a woman against feminism, you might not be sexist... but there's a good chance you're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It's like Latinos for Trump: you can always convince some people to act against their own self-interests. This doesn't mean that you're misogynist if you're a stay-at-home mother who has never had more than one sexual partner and opposes abortion, but there's a difference between choosing those paths and insisting that everyone else follow you.

 

[MajinCry]

Ah, SJWs. The boogeyman of the internet. Stay classy.

 

[Commodus]

I know you're trying to use that to put me down, but funny you mention it: one of the increasing trends in modern feminism and anti-racism movements is intersectionality. That is, a recognition that you're limited in what you can truly represent, and that issues of gender, race and sexual orientation matter. Don't take a particular feminist stance without considering how it affects non-white, non-straight and transgender women, for example.

At any rate, your implied objection doesn't really hold up. As I said, the issue isn't so much internalization as when you insist that everyone share your internalization. It's okay to decide that abortion isn't for you, that you'd rather stay at home with the kids, and that the sexual harassment you've experienced doesn't warrant serious changes in attitude. It's when you tell other women that they must feel this way that it becomes a problem. I'm not trying to speak on behalf of all women; I just want them to have the freedom to speak, to make choices that don't conform to a conservative straight man's views on what women are allowed to do.

 

[Maxima1]

I know you're trying to use that to put me down, but funny you mention it: one of the increasing trends in modern feminism and anti-racism movements is intersectionality. That is, a recognition that you're limited in what you can truly represent, and that issues of gender, race and sexual orientation matter. Don't take a particular feminist stance without considering how it affects non-white, non-straight and transgender women, for example.

At any rate, your implied objection doesn't really hold up. As I said, the issue isn't so much internalization as when you insist that everyone share your internalization. It's okay to decide that abortion isn't for you, that you'd rather stay at home with the kids, and that any sexual harassment you experience doesn't warrant serious attention. It's when you tell other women that they must feel this way that it becomes a problem. I'm not trying to speak on behalf of all women; I just want them to have the freedom to speak, to make choices that don't conform to a conservative straight man's views on what women are allowed to do.

Hey man, I just thought it was funny. I know there's some truth to what you said.

 

[Commodus]

Hey man, I just thought it was funny. I know there's some truth to what you said.

Sorry about that, then! I suppose I would've just liked some context to know where you stood.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

jesus fucking christ, this thread just brought in the dregs from the gamergate hole.

 

[Blue_Max]

jesus fucking christ, this thread just brought in the dregs from the gamergate hole.

...because it's the exact same battle all over again (and again, and again...) "Support us [in the intersectional collective] or we'll call you a sexist and hurl social pressure and punishment upon you."

It's a crock of shit and no amount of screaming will change that.

 

[Commodus]

...because it's the exact same battle all over again (and again, and again...) "Support us [in the intersectional collective] or we'll call you a sexist and hurl social pressure and punishment upon you."

It's a crock of shit and no amount of screaming will change that.

Someone's hurt knowing he's on the losing side of history. (Hint: it's not most of the people in this thread)

Seriously: do you really think the broader public is suddenly going to see things your way and have a change of heart, that we can pretend the past few decades (certainly the past 10 years) didn't happen?

 

[Victorian Gray]

...because it's the exact same battle all over again (and again, and again...) "Support us [in the intersectional collective] or we'll call you a sexist and hurl social pressure and punishment upon you."

It's a crock of shit and no amount of screaming will change that.

poor little victim

 

[Blue_Max]

Someone's hurt knowing he's on the losing side of history. (Hint: it's not most of the people in this thread)

Seriously: do you really think the broader public is suddenly going to see things your way and have a change of heart, that we can pretend the past few decades (certainly the past 10 years) didn't happen?

Check for yourself how many people are fed up with "politically correct" extremism!

Here's just one of thousands of examples: http://www.mediaite.com/online/mahe...-of-being-pc-and-sanders-and-trump-are-proof/

So you can take your microaggressions and your sexist air conditioning and cram it.

 

[Blue_Max]

poor little victim

Oh ye of so little substance; just once it would be nice to see you make an argument instead of mocking what you consider "wrongthink"
...but then you might have to defend your position! Alinsky advised against that... good for you, following that rulebook unfailingly! <3

Only the regressive left chases victim status. All but the regressives can see that I'm not, despite your constant accusations of such.

 

[MongGrel]

jesus fucking christ, this thread just brought in the dregs from the gamergate hole.

But of course.

 

[master_shake_]

The pay gap is a myth. That's part of the reason why men are negative towards feminism. There are of course other reasons. That doesn't mean they're sexist.

if throwing numbers in a hat and yanking out the one that suits your narrative is wrong then i don't wanna be right.

of course they'd never call it the EARNings gap would they.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Oh ye of so little substance; just once it would be nice to see you make an argument instead of mocking what you consider "wrongthink"
...but then you might have to defend your position! Alinsky advised against that... good for you, following that rulebook unfailingly! <3

Only the regressive left chases victim status. All but the regressives can see that I'm not, despite your constant accusations of such.

yep

 

[OverVolt]

Before you accuse other people of 'really bad science' you should probably take even the slightest amount of time to read about it. From their own writing on the study:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...3/how-sexism-drives-support-for-donald-trump/

It is based on commonly used questions that have formed the basis for peer reviewed research in the past and it explicitly creates a common definition.

http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/GlickFiske1.pdf

So now that you've found out that your criticisms are wrong does that change your position? My guess is no.

Well its a good thing I took the bare minimum social science classes and stuck to real science where the lab explodes if you do a shit study like that.

 

[OverVolt]

I know you're trying to use that to put me down, but funny you mention it: one of the increasing trends in modern feminism and anti-racism movements is intersectionality. That is, a recognition that you're limited in what you can truly represent, and that issues of gender, race and sexual orientation matter. Don't take a particular feminist stance without considering how it affects non-white, non-straight and transgender women, for example.

At any rate, your implied objection doesn't really hold up. As I said, the issue isn't so much internalization as when you insist that everyone share your internalization. It's okay to decide that abortion isn't for you, that you'd rather stay at home with the kids, and that the sexual harassment you've experienced doesn't warrant serious changes in attitude. It's when you tell other women that they must feel this way that it becomes a problem. I'm not trying to speak on behalf of all women; I just want them to have the freedom to speak, to make choices that don't conform to a conservative straight man's views on what women are allowed to do.

Blah blah blah, money really is the core of the issue. The rate of mental health problems and low income/independence is a huge factor, and LBGT's tend to have lower incomes as well.

Stop playing with and talking about your bean/pud and get to work.

In terms of women, whatever supports happy health family units is what should be promoted. People should have whatever rights they need to make that happen. Of course what we're doing now is culturally and socially shit for family formation. For example, girl with big dreams gets an expensive degree. Meets the man of her dreams and they get married. If they have kids she will go part time or quit to have more time to raise the children. So I respect the fact that its a backup, but there are also alot of underutilized degrees out there.

Probably just bitter about my sister having a much easier time through Pharmacy school only so she could work like one day a week with her $250k worth of education.

 

[Commodus]

Check for yourself how many people are fed up with "politically correct" extremism!

Here's just one of thousands of examples: http://www.mediaite.com/online/mahe...-of-being-pc-and-sanders-and-trump-are-proof/

So you can take your microaggressions and your sexist air conditioning and cram it.

The irony of your using that example is that Sanders is everything you're against: he's pro-women, pro-LGBT rights... he's not proof of an anti-PC backlash, he's just proof that there's mounting calls for a more resolutely left-wing Democratic party. And Trump? Well, even with the recent poll shift, his odds of winning make Romney's look great by comparison. Don't confuse the loudness of complaints with the popularity of those complaints.

That and it's probably not smart to cite Maher as proof of a backlash when he was also convinced that Clinton could easily lose the primary nomination. Having a TV show and witty dialogue doesn't make you an expert -- it makes you a celebrity.

You're fascinating. You're not only trying to row against the currents of history, you're convinced that the Earth will reverse its spin and change the currents in your favor any second now.

 

[Zaap]

Anyone who really believes those 4 questions determine 'hostile sexism' in any meaningful way are absolute dumbshits.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Anyone who really believes those 4 questions determine 'hostile sexism' in any meaningful way are absolute dumbshits.

It's VOX. Seriously, it's fucking VOX.

 

[umbrella39]

It's unsurprising that you, of all people, would label them as "false". You display misogyny as if it's a badge of honor.

Scorned life-long virgins usually do. This loser is no exception...