I can't get over this sentence no matter how often I read it.
"Women showed no effects when told they were masculine; however, men given feedback suggesting they were feminine expressed more support for war, homophobic attitudes, and interest in purchasing an SUV."
What struck me about Trump winning the recent presidential election in the US was that the US electorate is even more misogynistic than it is racist.
The US electorate chose Obama twice as president but subsequently has on two occasions rejected extremely well qualified female candidates for the same job.
@the_wub @jmcrookston @anne_twain So true. Lichtman missed two keys.
@forbes@flipboard.com @business-forbes@flipboard.com Lichtman is probably right that the explosion of misinformation explains it. An alternative explanation would introduce two more keys: 'race' and 'gender'. Obama won in 2008 with 8 vs. 5 keys (8>6); with 'race' it would have been 9 vs. 6, still a victory as 9>8. Clinton lost and would have lost anyway. Harris had both gender and race against her. It could still be that the misinformation provided low-info voters with a permission structure for racism and misogyny...
So the attempt by Democrats and supporters to sway young male voters pointing out how important their female relatives had been during their formative years probably was the worst possible tack to take. Given that many young men will suffer from this "fragile masculinity" that the first post mentioned.
Why would you as a young man want to admit that you needed women to become a man? Why would you then vote for a female candidate?
Jonathan
ChookMother 🇦🇺🦘
Eggs now in different baskets.
Martin Vermeer FCD