icantfindaname posted:

If the average is no handicap for sex that means for every Hillary who loses because she's a woman, there's somebody who wins because they're a woman.

icantfindaname posted:

It proves that the average woman candidate's campaign isn't hurt by sexism. I guess you could argue that public image of Hillary is uniquely sexist, but I don't really buy that. And I'm not sure what any of the stuff about her winning more votes or the EC has anything to do with anything


Statistically speaking, it's not actually a thing in major elections

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-how-much-sexism-is-hurting-clintons-campaign/

Boon posted:

Ahhhh I suddenly understand why some people thought racism was dead when Obama got elected.

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

NewForumSoftware posted:

Well that's certainly a way to completely ignore what he's saying as opposed to you just making up a new strawman because your last one was impossible to attack

icantfindaname posted:

It proves that the average woman candidate's campaign isn't hurt by sexism. I guess you could argue that public image of Hillary is uniquely sexist, but I don't really buy that. And I'm not sure what any of the stuff about her winning more votes or the EC has anything to do with anything

Boon posted:

Well, you've convinced me that sexism no longer exists in American politics.

Trabisnikof posted:

Your own quote points out how there is likely sexism in politics that isn't been well documented by scientific research (which is a duh).

JeffersonClay posted:

The average woman candidate isn't running for presiden. I'm wary of generalizing Sarah Palin's experience getting elected governor of Alaska to Hillary's campaign and concluding sexism had nothing to do with any of it.

NewForumSoftware posted:

I think I may have figured out your problem. You read posts in hyperbole somehow. The words just magically transform themselves as they go from the screen to your eyes. I mean, certainly you can't really think someone said that?

Quick, retreat to google to find more lovely articles that don't agree with you (or read them first this time, my personal recommendation)

icantfindaname posted:

Statistically speaking, it's not actually a thing in major elections

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-how-much-sexism-is-hurting-clintons-campaign/

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

I sure am glad people love to pointlessly conjecture about something that doesn't even have a data set that can be used to extract a meaningful conclusion from. If there are insufficient data to prove your point or the opposite of your point, the next step is to usually Do A Study instead of saying Maybe I'm Right.

At least when people aimlessly argue about noise you get to see their own biases leak out, like calling PoC "irrational" as a stereotype.

Notorious R.I.M. posted:

I sure am glad people love to pointlessly conjecture about something that doesn't even have a data set that can be used to extract a meaningful conclusion from. If there are insufficient data to prove your point or the opposite of your point, the next step is to usually Do A Study instead of saying Maybe I'm Right.

At least when people aimlessly argue about noise you get to see their own biases leak out, like calling PoC "irrational" as a stereotype.

JeffersonClay posted:

I will concede that it's possible for people to make conscious, self-interested and strictly rational decisions that are informed by sexism. The suggestion men of color who made a sexist choice were irrational was my attempt to shield them from that kind of indictment but I shouldn't have.

icantfindaname posted:

If the average is no handicap for sex that means for every Hillary who loses because she's a woman, there's somebody who wins because they're a woman.

quote:

A significant body of research has pointed to evidence that political gender stereotypes exist in the minds of voters, but we have had less evidence that these stereotypes matter amid the competing influences in an actual election environment. The analysis presented here confirms that stereotypes are related to abstract attitudes about women in political life but cautions us before we assume that these relationships exist in the same way in the real world. Indeed, the analysis of vote choice in House elections in 2010 sup- ports the hypothesis that gender stereotypes are not major forces but instead are, like many things, context-bound and episodic, appearing as significant in some races but not others. In addition, when stereotypes do have an impact, they are still not likely to override the importance of traditional political vari- ables such as party. This would suggest that women candidates have less to fear from voter-gender stereotypes than more.

Admiral Ray posted:

My claim isn't that people didn't vote for Clinton because she's a woman; my claim is that sexism allowed people (men and women) to dismiss the hosed up, demonstrated, sexist beliefs of Trump when they went and voted for him.

Boon posted:

As opposed to the one article someone posted that "disproved" the idea (which the very title and further reading which I posted directly argues against) that people arguing sexism didn't affect Hillary in any way when it came to voting?

icantfindaname posted:

The second half of that article is a giant cop out saying there's no measurable evidence for it, but it's still sexist that people dislike Hillary. If there's no evidence, IMO, it's entirely fair to dismiss the idea


Do you accept that if sexism were a major influence in electoral politics, it would be empirically measurable?

quote:

Indeed, scholars have produced an impressive body of research that con- firms that voters look at women candidates and women officeholders from a gendered perspective, ascribing certain stereotyped issue position competen- cies and personality characteristics to them. Women candidates and office- holders are generally viewed as more compassionate and honest than men, warmer and more expressive, and better able to deal with constituents such as citizens groups than men. Men are viewed as more competent, decisive, stronger leaders, and possessing a greater ability to handle a crisis (Alexander & Andersen, 1993; Burrell, 2008; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993b; Kahn, 1996; King & Matland, 2003; Lawless, 2004; Leeper, 1991; Paul & Smith, 2008; Sapiro, 1981/1982). Trait stereotypes are relevant because several studies have found that people evaluate the stereotyped masculine traits (experience, leadership) as more important in politics than the feminine traits (honesty, compassion), particularly as the level of elected office being considered rises from the local to the national level (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993a; Lawless, 2004; Rosenwasser & Dean, 1989).
People also stereotype women and men in terms of policy interest and competence. Women are assumed to be more interested in, and more effec- tive in dealing with, issues such as childcare, poverty, education, health care, women’s issues and the environment than are men, while men are thought to be more competent at dealing with economic development, military, trade, taxes, and agriculture (Alexander & Andersen, 1993; Brown, Heighberger, & Shocket, 1993; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993b; Koch, 1997; Rosenwasser & Dean, 1989). Beyond policy, several studies find that women are perceived as more liberal than men and that they are often perceived as more liberal than they actually are, based on objective measures of ideology (Koch, 2002, 2000; McDermott, 1997).
This literature also suggests that stereotypes can shape whether voters will choose or reject women candidates. Rosenthal’s (1995) findings support the notion that people often favor candidates of one sex or the other based on their assumptions about what those candidates are like or what they will do in office. Sanbonmatsu’s (2002) work on baseline gender preferences suggests that many people have an underlying preference to be represented by a woman or a man and that this predisposition is determined, in part, by gender stereotypes. This preference can combine with issue position preferences to move voters toward or away from a woman or man candidate. Koch (2002) finds that the perceived liberalism of women candidates, particularly Democratic women, can pull them farther away from the average voter, which can result in these candidates losing votes.
Existing Data and Remaining Questions
The significant body of work on political gender stereotypes clearly suggests that voters begin their evaluations of candidates by noting their sex and making some set of stereotyped assumptions based on that information. It is also clear that these stereotyped evaluations are thought to hold the potential to influence people’s willingness to vote for particular candidates. The cumulative weight of this research has been to suggest that gender stereotypes are an important piece of the public’s evaluation of women candidates and that they have the potential to be more harmful than not to women’s chances of election.

NewForumSoftware posted:

I haven't really seen a compelling argument for what someone who didn't vote for Hillary because of "sexism" even looks like.

Beyond that, what does it even matter if she would have won with a penis? What does that do? Give you the green card to just blame Trump on "sexists" and ignore the economic poo poo we can actually do something about?

Trabisnikof posted:

You keep say this and cite the 538 article, but the scientific article linked by 538 is actually far more nuanced:


http://www.marioguerrero.info/425/readings/Dolan2014.pdf

So yes, maybe I wouldn't use this research on US House races to extrapolate to the presidency with such confidence.

icantfindaname posted:

The second half of that article is a giant cop out saying there's no measurable evidence for it, but it's still sexist that people dislike Hillary. If there's no evidence, IMO, it's entirely fair to dismiss the idea

quote:

Do you accept that if sexism were a major influence in electoral politics, it would be empirically measurable?

Boon posted:

I don't even think you're reading my very short posts fully, so... maybe I should start with how we agree and then go into how we disagree.

quote:

That said, someone, maybe even you, basically implied upthread that black men couldn't be sexist

JeffersonClay posted:

I will concede that it's possible for people to make conscious, self-interested and strictly rational decisions that are informed by sexism. The suggestion men of color who made a sexist choice were irrational was my attempt to shield them from that kind of indictment but I shouldn't have.

icantfindaname posted:

Saying the normal rules don't apply to Hillary in particular and this race in particular puts you back at square one, saying that Hillary attracts a special, unique kind of sexism not comparable to any other. Which is inherently impossible to prove. I think people didn't like Hillary because her public image at least was deeply unlikable. Maybe sexism prevented her from having the charisma of a successful candidate, but a dude who acted the same way as her would be similarly disliked. See other noted smug, boring technocrats Al Gore and John Kerry

icantfindaname posted:

Saying the normal rules don't apply to Hillary in particular and this race in particular puts you back at square one, saying that Hillary attracts a special, unique kind of sexism not comparable to any other. Which is inherently impossible to prove. I think people didn't like Hillary because her public image at least was deeply unlikable. Maybe sexism prevented her from having the charisma of a successful candidate, but a dude who acted the same way as her would be similarly disliked. See other noted smug, boring technocrats Al Gore and John Kerry

Trabisnikof posted:

You're completely wrong that there is no measurable evidence at all of sexism in American elections.

quote:

Women candidates and office- holders are generally viewed as more compassionate and honest than men, warmer and more expressive, and better able to deal with constituents such as citizens groups than men

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

And so, progress was made.

icantfindaname posted:

I don't think Hillary's problem was that she was seen as too squishy and compassionate

Guy Goodbody posted:

The fact that you were willing to weaken your own argument just to protect black men is the most noble goddamn thing I've ever heard. It's a shame that soldiers get medals but not brave people like you

JeffersonClay posted:

Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist.

JeffersonClay posted:

Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist.

Or did you miss the point of that exchange?

Business Gorillas posted:

You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues

shrike82 posted:

Trump killing TPP puts him ahead of the Abuela

shrike82 posted:

Trump killing TPP puts him ahead of the Abuela

JeffersonClay posted:

Now it's your turn to apologize for refusing to believe black men could be sexist.

Or did you miss the point of that exchange?

Business Gorillas posted:

You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues

Business Gorillas posted:

You guys ever consider *puts flashlight under face and says in a spooky voice* people looked past the fact that she was a woman and thought she was a terrible candidate based on the issues