Implicit Bias

John Sides and Kevin Drum discuss some provocative evidence suggesting that around a quarter of the population -- including both men and women -- have a strong implicit bias against the idea of putting a woman in the White House. That's sobering information, if true. On the other hand, it's not really all that surprising -- all of us have grown up and continue to live in a deeply gendered world and participate in a popular culture that's suffused with a lot of sexist assumptions. Most people would probably say that they're not affected by such things, but there's something arrogant about it. I try to do my best, but I've taken things like the Project Implicit tests and they show pretty clearly that I'm not without sin.

That said, the political implications of this, though real, are also limited. Whether or not I have some subconscious bias against female politicians, I also have a large very conscious bias against Republican politicians, against proponents of extending the Bush tax cuts, against advocates of "rogue state rollback," against politicians who favor Social Security privatization, etc. Long story short -- if Hillary Clinton emerges as the Democratic nominee then I'm not going to hesitate to vote for her, notwithstanding any subconscious prejudices I may or may not have or any mean blog posts I may or may not have written about her.

Comments

Yay, get ready for GFR to rise from the dead and start belting out another round of 'Anyone who doesn't support Hillary Clinton is a sexist'.

Posted by soullite | April 9, 2008 5:37 PM

Well, OK Matt, but you probably vote with your brain more than most people do. And for that c. 25% that Drum discusses, or at least some of them, it's not what you call a "subconscious" bias so much as a fairly explicit bias which is likely to have a bigger impact on their voting decisions than it does for you and me. I suspect it would matter in a general election, though how that would ever be quantified I don't know.

On the other hand, of course, for many of the people for whom gender matters a lot, race is likely to matter a lot, too. As you noted a few days ago, in some ways the Dems have a pair of weak candidates in this respect.

Posted by Ryan | April 9, 2008 5:38 PM

No idea if it's related, but I have heard from many women in my life (my wife, sister, friends, and co-workers) that they'd rather work with men any day. There is some form of innate competitiveness that I don't think I'll ever be able to truly grasp. The same mentality may explain the women who have a bias against a female President.

I'd also like to see the same type of research done on 20 or so other groups to see if the size of the bias is near consistent. How about ethnic groups, weight, baldness, people with piercings, blonds, large noses, etc.? I read someplace that weight discrimination actually beats out most of forms. Can we expect, say, 20-30% of the population to have a bias against any number of characteristics?

Posted by LFC | April 9, 2008 5:39 PM

With the U.S. population getting fatter and fatter every year, won't fat be the norm in 20 years? Wouldn't we expect bias against fat people to wither away as Americans continue to suck down the calories and pile on the pounds?

Posted by blah | April 9, 2008 5:47 PM

I miss GFR... She rocked.

Posted by Peter K. | April 9, 2008 5:49 PM

Did anyone else take that Project Implicit test? It made no sense to me. I gave up on the first series of "yes/no" questions. I wasn't sure what they were even asking. But, apparently, the answer is "no" when McCain's picture is shown.

Posted by fostert | April 9, 2008 5:50 PM

Back in the day, Pre-Iowa Petey was GFR's biggest detractor. Now they'd be the best of friends.

Posted by Christmas | April 9, 2008 5:56 PM

Wouldn't we expect bias against fat people to wither away as Americans continue to suck down the calories and pile on the pounds?

Maybe. But maybe the fat majority would then start to feel bias against the "thinners" and discriminate against them.

I think people have a near infinite capacity to assort and group themselves over the stupidest s**t.

Posted by LFC | April 9, 2008 5:58 PM

"Woman is the nigger of the world" - Yoko Ono (later used as a song title by John Lennon)

Posted by Rusty | April 9, 2008 6:00 PM

I just hope Obama appreciates how lucky he is as a black man running for president. Imagine how difficult it would be for him if he had to overcome some sort of bigotry.

Posted by Bob | April 9, 2008 6:11 PM

We are sick of non-blacks using the word nigger to promote their agendas.

Posted by World Nigger Association | April 9, 2008 6:13 PM

I think you make a good point based on your quick self-analysis - I can imagine that the overlap between the 25% and the portion of the populous that is Democratic enough to vote in the Democratic enough to vote in the primary is comparatively small, and certainly not larger than the %XX of the Democratic base that is at least somewhat racist.

From my personal experience in politics, I can say that sexism indeed exists and makes things harder for a politician - I played a very modest role in helping to elect the first female Governor in Louisiana's history, and man, those people who claim they are not sexist are full of it. On the other hand, if we had had a black candidate it would have been just literally impossible to win.

Just for the record, I will also freely admit that in our particular race, the gentleman Governor Blanco ultimately faced in the run-off, current Governor Bobby Jindal, also faced his own set of bias issues on account of his ethnicity / race (Indian-American).

Posted by Vermando | April 9, 2008 6:14 PM

...if Hillary Clinton emerges as the Democratic nominee then I'm not going to hesitate to vote for her...

Good for you for stating that, Matt. The Dem Primary Blog Wars have seemed to cool off slightly in the past week. Certainly didn't hurt to have Mark Penn slapped down.

Long story short, McCain is effing horrible.

Posted by Undecided | April 9, 2008 6:24 PM

I'm unfamiliar with the methodology of that sort of study, but it's a little surprising that the word "context" doesn't appear in the study at all. I'd think that there'd be different sets of 4 questions that'd result in an average response of "2.16 of these make me angry!" but lead to different numbers when the fifth question is added.

Also, what's this got to do with implicit bias? Rather, it looks like the study is trying to combat the Bradley effect by letting people cloak their answers. I'd say that there's more psychology to this than the authors acknowledge though. There's also the effect of not wanting to look like a complainer and saying "3 of 4!" or "4 of 4!" if you don't like multimillionaire athletes or seatbelts. The kind of person that opposes mandatory seatbelt laws is the sort of person that doesn't want to look like an ineffective whiner to a random pollster on the phone. If it's just 3/5 it doesn't seem so bad.

Posted by Zach | April 9, 2008 6:35 PM

"...all of us have grown up and continue to live in a deeply gendered world and participate in a popular culture that's suffused with a lot of sexist assumptions."

Standard feminist psycho-babble.

Posted by kafka | April 9, 2008 6:51 PM

What you mean there's sexism in the world? Shocking.

I would really, really like to see a truly experienced, strong, ethical, and progressive female candidate for President. Supporting her would be a fantastic experience. Maybe next time.

Posted by Rachel Q | April 9, 2008 7:04 PM

Re GFR

Maybe a stupid question but who the hell is GFR?

Posted by SLC | April 9, 2008 7:23 PM

I just took one of the tests you linked to. Turns out I have a moderate PREFERENCE for Arab-Muslims than toward other people, which is apparently only 9% of the people who took the test.. I found this pretty weird I never thought I was biased in FAVOR of Muslims.

Overall I think that test is stupid because its so easy to figure out whats going on and chose the right answers. Even if you do have to respond 'quickly.'

Posted by wiretapp | April 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Please read the comments to Kevin's post.
The study is very very flawed to the point where the results should just be ignored.

While these results may accord with one's pre-existing political and social beliefs they're just bad science.

If we strive to be reality-based and not simply an echo-chamber, we owe it to our ideal to dig deeper into a study even if it "seems about right" before linking it and using it as evidence for what we believe in.

Posted by marc | April 9, 2008 7:41 PM

Maybe a stupid question but who the hell is GFR?

The one and only Garance. The pfabulous pfundit with the pfunny name.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 9, 2008 7:44 PM

GFR is a young, smart, genial writer who would periodically get blasted by the Nerdfury for deviating from the ideological line of the day.

Posted by Peter K. | April 9, 2008 7:45 PM

Are you trying to get laid?

Posted by Rishi Gajria | April 9, 2008 7:51 PM

Are you trying to get laid? Thats a very Ezra Klein post.

Posted by Rishi Gajria | April 9, 2008 7:51 PM

Read some of the comments about this on Kevin Drum's site. As Marc notes, a number of good questions about methodology are raised, and Zach raised some of them above. As I understand it (I have not read the study), the statistical control group saw only four images, while the test group saw the same four images plus the fifth "woman as president" image.

Why was the test not performed comparing results of a fifth "woman as president" image to a fifth "man as president" image? That would remove any effects caused simply by increasing the number of images, plus it would highlight the apparent real purpose of the study: to see if there is an underlying antipathy to having a woman as president.

That test would indicate whether it is the image of "president", irrespective of gender, that raises the anger response. Finally, to show how fraught with problems of interpretation such studies can be, a "man as president" image might have been interpreted by some participants as an image of Bush, and might actually have generated a greater level of anger response!

Posted by Steve H | April 9, 2008 7:52 PM

The gays at the Atlantic certainly have more than a strong implicit bias against the idea of putting another Clinton in the White House. The exact combination of vaginafear, CDS and perfectly legitimate political and policy preferences that color their thinking the world will never know.

Posted by sacred banders of the Atlantic | April 9, 2008 8:22 PM

Re: John Sides and Kevin Drum discuss some provocative evidence suggesting that around a quarter of the population -- including both men and women -- have a strong implicit bias against the idea of putting a woman in the White House.

To what extent are these the same people who have a string bias against outting a Democrat in the White House?

Posted by JonF | April 9, 2008 8:24 PM

"I'm not going to hesitate to vote for her, notwithstanding any subconscious prejudices I may or may not have or any mean blog posts I may or may not have written about her."

Agreed.

"Long story short, McCain is effing horrible."

Agreed.

Posted by Rihilism | April 9, 2008 8:33 PM

I think a better word for this phenomenom is "gender unease" rather than sexism. Use the word "sexism" and men automatically presume that you are only refering to male attitudes toward women -- but women well know that what is at play here is something broader than that. We're talking about a deep cultural change -- that affects women as much as men and is as unprecedented for women as it is for men. That kind of change can't help but engender a certain amount of fear, and, as a reaction to that fear, hostility.

A woman forthrightly vying for, and being within reach of achieving, the most powerful and respected position in our society of course makes many people -- male and female -- uneasy. It upsets our traditional notions of power -- what it looks like, who possesses it, etc., changes our view of who must be obeyed, who is given authority, who is owed respect. Plus, it throws all our political conventions and cliches out the window, demands totally new political narratives, etc., etc. (Which is why, I think, members of the elite political media often appear more hostile and resistant to this change than many less politically sophisticated people.)

For women, of course, it's not only about women achieving a new level of respect and authority -- it is also about women accepting a new level of responsibility. Every time some women push to do more, our culture's idea of not only what women can, but also what they should do expands. Understandably, I think, some women find that frightening.

Posted by esmense | April 9, 2008 8:37 PM

"I'm not going to hesitate to vote for her, notwithstanding any subconscious prejudices I may or may not have or any mean blog posts I may or may not have written about her."--MY

This is very white of you Matt. JUST KIDDING!

Seriously, many of us have disengaged from one of our favorite blogs due to your oppo-research tactics of late. It's funny, the Hillary-get-out movement, which you urged on, has died down, hopefully because you and other Obama supporters realized the fundamental problem:

HRC wins Ohio and TX (sort of), and is leading in PA....so drop out. No one else in Democractic Party history would under these circumstances.

Thankfully, people seem to be coming around to the obvious view....if Obama wins PA, or loses close and sweeps IN and NC, he will be set up perfectly for the general election.

The Clinton's aren't monsters. They don't seek to undermine the Democratic Party. In fact, their mission in life was pretty much to save it. They did a good job, on the presidential level certainly.

Posted by Andruw | April 9, 2008 9:54 PM

Look, JonF is right. 99%+ of this 25%, assuming that's a reasonable figure, are going to vote Republican. The overlap between this 25% and the idiots giving Bush any 'approval' rating at all? Close to 100%.

Even if true this has no electoral resonance whatsoever.

Posted by drinkof | April 9, 2008 10:25 PM

"I just hope Obama appreciates how lucky he is as a black man running for president. Imagine how difficult it would be for him if he had to overcome some sort of bigotry."

By what measurement isn't anti-sexism lagging behind anti-racism? The Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870. The Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920. The (biggest) Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. The Equal Rights Amendment failed. There is essentially no race-based chattel slavery existent in the world today. There is widespread trafficking of women.

Finally, that comments such as what I quote next are so common, even on leftwing blogs like this, are a good indication of how far anti-sexism has to go compared to anti-racism.

"Are you trying to get laid?"—Rishi Gajria

Fuck off. And may I suggest to Matt that comments on any post involving feminism that suggest Matt is "trying to get laid" be an automatic IP ban?

Posted by Keith M Ellis | April 9, 2008 10:37 PM

I think the implicit bias the progressives (sorry I meant to to say: primitives) have is that they do not want GOP to have a person of color or a woman in any leadership position. These progressives (read: intellectually dishonest) want to make sure that GOP is portray as a party of yesterday so that they can win, win, and win. They just want to create a political divide: US (intellectual dishonest pogressive) and THEM (the GOP of yesterday).

An intellectually dishonest person does many things. H/she will talk endlessly about freedom, equity, diversity, peace (not war), etc. But, will never carry it through. I once met a guy who worked hardest to make sure his child got into a private school. He coud not deal with public school for his child. But, he could talk endlessly about virtues of public school. For them, progressives will spare nothing - the best. Environment can go to hell, for example.

These intellectual dishonest people do not want Rice even considered to be McCain's VP. Forget all the Iraq stuff, if you can. Did you see that beneficiary Kartrin V. on ABC News Sunday morning. Boy, she went out of control the minute Rice was mentioned as a POSSIBLE VP. How dare the GOP steal votes? We must demonize her right away. Rice=DEVIL. If I had to choose between an intellectually dishonest liberal and a open red-neck for a beer. I would go with the red-neck. At least he will tell you what is in his mind straight. The ID-Liberal will talk about diversity, equity, and all that while he plots how to get a dagger in your back.

I will celebrate if McCain actually puts Rice as VP. It will be just fun to see all these left bloggers hyper-active shoot themselves on live TV. I love it.

Posted by eorse | April 9, 2008 11:39 PM

"the GOP of yesterday"

I believe we're using the term "yesteryear" at our meetings now.

"open red-neck for a beer"

Please don't redneck and drive.

"The ID-Liberal will talk about diversity, equity, and all that while he plots how to get a dagger in your back."

I think you meant to say they or that person or she/he or it or perhaps human being. Not all ID-Liberals are men, you know...

Posted by Rihilism | April 10, 2008 12:14 AM

By what measurement isn't anti-sexism lagging behind anti-racism?

I think everyone should boycott the Oppression Olympics. At least the opening ceremony.

Posted by Josh E. | April 10, 2008 12:35 AM

all of us have grown up and continue to live in a deeply gendered world

Hilarious. It makes parody redundant.

What the hell does that even mean? A deeply gendered world? Yes, as far as I can tell almost everyone is a gender -- male and female seem to be the two most popular. I don't think it's going to change anytime soon either.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 10, 2008 1:01 AM

"By what measurement isn't anti-sexism lagging behind anti-racism?"

The problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges, especially when you bring in international human trafficking. The US isn't exactly at the center of that problem. When you look at something like the punishment handed out to people for vehicular manslaughter, which as a random act can have a killer and victim of any race and either gender, people who kill white women get the highest sentences and people who kill black men get much easier sentences. Compare incarceration rates, poverty rates, etc. of white women and black men. Part of the reason second-wave feminism has been dying a slow death is that it has focused much on the grievances of elite white women (not being able to make the jump from being an executive to CEO because of racism, Augusta membership, etc.) while ignoring the problems facing minority women and non-elite white women.

Posted by Reality Man | April 10, 2008 1:16 AM

Everyone has prejudices. But not everyone is a bigot.

The key distinction:
Prejudice is drawing a conclusion with incomplete information. The "walking down the street, a group of blacks on one side, whites on the other..." question is about prejudice. Given more inforation (young white males vs black adults of both genders for example) changing your assesment is called for.

Bigotry is holding onto a prejudiced position in spite of having more information (most often with selective reasoning and confirmation bias).

Yes, Hillary Clinton is female. And a surprising majority would vote for a male over a female... if that were all the information they had. I wonder how much that prejudice (for which one may make a good argument there is a rational basis for... again given only female vs male information) translates into bigotry against Clinton? My guess is "too much", but less than people fear.

Thinking clearly about what prejudice means is critical to avoiding being a bigot.

Posted by travc | April 10, 2008 2:50 AM

I miss GFR... She rocked.

I used to feel that way, until she wrote that egregiously idiotic series of posts about the whole girls gone wild thing. Not that she's The Enemy, but I wouldn't say she rocks.

Posted by guyx | April 10, 2008 3:59 AM

It's not "gender bias" - that's just a modern politically correct way to say "chimps prefer alpha males".

How many female chimps do you find leading a troop?

It's that simple.

As humans, of course, with the ability to do conceptual processing, we can override that - if we're willing to acknowledge it first - which most people aren't.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 10, 2008 4:23 AM

"The problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges, especially when you bring in international human trafficking. The US isn't exactly at the center of that problem."

No, but it nevertheless occurs here—while a similar race-based trafficking of humans into effective slavery no longer does.

It's not apples and oranges. You're cherry-picking your examples. Yes, white female victims correlate to harsher sentencing. But that's only the example of the sexism of positive bias that still exists; it just proves my point. And it's "positive" insofar as the notion that women are in need of being specially protected is "positive".

Note that this "protection" has many limitations, such as a reluctance to prosecute men who beat their wives, or the continued reluctance to prosecute anything but the most lurid stranger rapes (while turning a mostly blind-eye to the far, far more common acquaintance rapes).

Furthermore, both within the US and worldwide, there are far fewer legal guarantees for equality for women than there are for racial minorities.

Indeed, in almost every category of equality, women lag racial minorities. The only exceptions you've mentioned are those where there is also no equality, but a preference that is the result of the opposite side of the sexism blade.

"Compare incarceration rates, poverty rates, etc. of white women and black men."

Please, that's absurd. You're cherry-picking. That comparison doesn't tell you anything because you're compounding numerous biases, both positive and negative.

In fact, it's a very dishonest comparison because you're using a subcategory of women that are the privileged racial majority and in two exceptional contexts, criminal punishment and poverty, in which women in general are (apparently) positively favored while black men are particularly adversely disfavored. I say "apparently" because a leniency in criminal punishment for women is, though superficially favorable, nevertheless sexism; and white women, as a class and compared to white men, are only less impoverished because they still are expected to be married to a man who works and supports them. Men, in general, are more inclined to be in impoverished and this is only because they don't have anyone expected to be their economic benefactors.

"Part of the reason second-wave feminism has been dying a slow death is that it has focused much on the grievances of elite white women (not being able to make the jump from being an executive to CEO because of racism, Augusta membership, etc.) while ignoring the problems facing minority women and non-elite white women."

I dispute your "slow death" contention, but will agree with you that feminism has always neglected the economic and racial underclasses. If you think this is unique to second-wave feminism, you need to learn more about the history of feminism. Read about Rose Winslow's experience in the National Women's Party, for example.

Nevertheless, your implicit claim is that feminism is unpopular among the economic and racial underclasses because those women find class and race concerns more pressing. While I won't presume to speak for them as you are, I will point out that this doesn't prove anything, one way or another, as to whether in absolute terms sexism or racism is more socially and legally oppressive. Put simply, the larger part of progress in anti-sexism and anti-racism, as well as most other forms of social reform, is just in getting people to see the inequality that exists. Anti-sexism lags behind anti-sexism because the overwhelming majority of the world's population still believe that vast discriminations between the sexes is natural and essential while, in contrast, a far smaller portion believe such things about racial differences and discrimination.

While at least half of politically informed Americans know enough to laugh at The Bell Curve, far fewer bat an eye at daily commonsensical notions about women's intellectual inferiority, whether it's at mathematics or driving an automobile. Would you expect people in this day and age to laugh when someone jokes about how black people can't drive a car?

I don't know from whence this meme originates—that is, this meme that not only is feminism overblown, but that it's hurtful to racial minorities—but it reads to me like a particularly disingenuous right-wing talking point. A "divide and conquer" talking point.

If someone like me says that anti-sexism lags woefully behind anti-racism, I'm certainly not saying that anti-racism is unimportant or is a solved problem. Not at all. While I do think that something about Obama's candidacy demonstrates that we've made some important advances in anti-racism in the US; I also think that other things, like the afore-mentioned incarceration rate of black men—and how uncontroversial or horrifying it is to most Americans—shows that we've not made nearly the amount of progress we pretend we have.

But history doesn't lie about these things. There's a reason that blacks got the vote fifty years before women did. The whole world protested because of South Africa's Apartheid but are there very many protests about what is essentially slavery of women in Saudi Arabia and many other nations? No, there's not.

As for this post and comparing Obama's and Clinton's chances...I honestly don't have an opinion on where they are comparatively with regard to bias. My gut sense is that sexism is more widespread and more acceptable than racism; but that racism is more intense. In other words, I think more people have reservations about voting for Clinton because she's a woman than do about Obama because he's black; but the sexist reluctance is probably more mild than the racist reluctance. What that means nationally, I don't know. I guess if it amounts to who is more acceptable to the center right and the right, I'd have to say it's, amazingly, a black person (as long as he's non-threateningly black, as Obama is). Hillary, by the way, isn't exactly the parallel version of the "non-thretening woman".

Thus, I think, why some of us do think that sexist bias is perhaps more at play in this election than is racist bias. But one could choose two difference candidates, a white woman and a black man, and get the opposite result.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | April 10, 2008 7:01 AM

If you are an elitist all you know are other elitists. Perhaps you should think about the limitations of your own experience before making such broad judgements.

I'm a working class woman who never felt abandoned by elite feminists until this election (the advances 2nd wave feminists made open doors for me, too) when I realized that young, affluent 3rd wave elite and academic feminist don't have a clue about how strongly sexism still affects the lives of women who suffer under the further limitations of race and class. Because they don't know those women except as stereotypes and haven't a clue about their hopes, abilitities, ambitions, responsibilities, needs and lives.

In the late 60s and 70s the affluent phi beta cappa from Radcliffe, the young black woman with a recent secretarial certificate, and I -- a working class white kid ("trailer trash") supporting myself and trying to establish residency in California so I could get resident tuition to a state school -- worked together in the clerical pool. We shared lunch and coffee and our frustrations with the limits that were placed on ALL of us in the established order.

Today that young woman from an elite college -- white or black or some other ethnicity -- isn't sharing coffee with the less affluent hometown girl and the working class outsider. She's being served coffee by those young women. And other than that relationship of servant and consumer, their lives never cross.

Don't put the sins of your generation on mine.

But do think about how the huge gap in earnings between the top 20% and everyone else is affecting our society. The reality is this; the elite not only live in a different world than the rest, they live in one that is in many ways still lost in the 1960s and 70s -- because the world has changed much less for them than for everyone else. They still see the biggest social divide as racial, when in fact, the biggest divides are class and geography. They still see working class white people through an "Archie Bunker" or "po white trash" (direct quote from Obama supporter) stereotype, when in fact, in many parts of this country working class and low income people live and work in MUCH more racially integrated worlds than they do. Many also still see working outside the home as only and always a "choice" and believe in and write about something as ridiculous as "the mommy wars." But most women outside that elite see work outside the home as a responsibility -- one that has to be met if they are to become parents and build stable families.

The 2nd wave generation of "feminists" proudly wore their "every mother is a working mother" tee shirts. Our hope, whatever our class or race, was a world in which all women would have options that allowed them to meet their responsibilities and follow their dreams -- a world in which women's traditional responsibilites were granted as much respect as the new responsibilities they were, based on dire need generated by a changing economy as well as on ambition, taking up outside the home.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 9:22 AM

Keith Ellis, I find it interesting that you accuse your critics of 'cherry picking' when you're doing the same thing. International trafficking may focus on women, but all you have to do is google 'chocolate slavery africa' and you'll learn that there's still plenty of people of both genders being bought and sold.

Overall, I agree that sexism is pernicious-- you can see evidence of that right here-- but I'm not sure that waving the flag that insists that sexism is more pernicious or worse in some way than racism is helpful.

Posted by Persia | April 10, 2008 9:41 AM

Thanks to Esmense - your comments are the best!

Posted by CParis | April 10, 2008 10:27 AM

Richard Steven Hack --

Why bring chimps into it? It is obvious that different HUMAN cultures have different notions of power. Unlike our own, some cultures recognize female and male power as two distinct, positive and necessary, things. This, for instance, is one reason why many Hispanic nations, despite strongly "macho" traditions, have had an easier time accepting female leadership than we have here in the US -- a nation that sees power as exclusively a male attribute. (It is also most likely why there is little gender gap evident in Clinton's support in the Hispanic community.)

If you live in a culture that recognizes women as powerful -- although powerful in different ways than men -- their leadership does threaten a loss of power for men or threaten traditional notions of gender.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 10:36 AM

Richard Steven Hack --

Why bring chimps into it? It is obvious that different HUMAN cultures have different notions of power. Unlike our own, some cultures recognize female and male power as two distinct, positive and necessary, things. This, for instance, is one reason why many Hispanic nations, despite strongly "macho" traditions, have had an easier time accepting female leadership than we have here in the US -- a nation that sees power as exclusively a male attribute. (It is also most likely why there is little gender gap evident in Clinton's support in the Hispanic community.)

If you live in a culture that recognizes women as powerful -- although powerful in different ways than men -- their leadership doesn't threaten a loss of power for men or threaten traditional notions of gender.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 10:37 AM

Richard Steven Hack --

Why bring chimps into it? It is obvious that different HUMAN cultures have different notions of power. Unlike our own, some cultures recognize female and male power as two distinct, positive and necessary, things. This, for instance, is one reason why many Hispanic nations, despite strongly "macho" traditions, have had an easier time accepting female leadership than we have here in the US -- a nation that sees power as exclusively a male attribute. (It is also most likely why there is little gender gap evident in Clinton's support in the Hispanic community.)

If you live in a culture that recognizes women as powerful -- although powerful in different ways than men -- and you see both male and female power as equally necessary and respected elements of a strong community -- female leadership doesn't threaten a loss of power for men or threaten traditional notions of gender.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 10:39 AM

Richard Steven Hack --

Why bring chimps into it? It is obvious that different HUMAN cultures have different notions of power. Unlike our own, some cultures recognize female and male power as two distinct, positive and necessary, things. This, for instance, is one reason why many Hispanic nations, despite strongly "macho" traditions, have had an easier time accepting female leadership than we have here in the US -- a nation that sees power as exclusively a male attribute. (It is also most likely why there is little gender gap evident in Clinton's support in the Hispanic community.)

If you live in a culture that recognizes women as powerful -- although powerful in different ways than men -- and you see both male and female power as equally necessary and respected elements of a strong community -- female leadership doesn't threaten a loss of power for men or threaten traditional notions of gender.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 10:39 AM

Sorry about all the repeat comments. Computer was balking -- couldn't tell that anything was getting posted. I feel like an idiot.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Sorry about all the repeat comments. Computer was balking -- couldn't tell that anything was getting posted. I feel like an idiot.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 10:47 AM

This is about what I'd expect, personally. It's probabably also true that 35-40% of the population tends to get upset or angry at the idea of a Democrat being elected President, and another 35-40% has the same response to the idea of a Republican getting in. There are all kinds of preconceptions in play about this stuff.

Posted by stuck in 200 | April 10, 2008 11:59 AM

"If you are an elitist all you know are other elitists. Perhaps you should think about the limitations of your own experience before making such broad judgements."

Are you speaking to me? Because a) I didn't presume to speak for minority and working class women, I made an argument about the objective truth of the situation vis a vis race versus sex—your experience is anecdotal and you are invalidly generalizing from it; and b) my own experience, as a matter of fact, is not at all limited, and you're offensively presuming quite a lot in calling me an "elitist".

In any case, I agreed that the women's movement neglects minority and working class women; my only argument with that assertion was that it's not a new phenomena. It's always been the case. Nevertheless, whether minority and working class women are neglected, and/or feel neglected, does not tell us whether or not minority and working class women are more disadvantaged because of their sex than their race or economic position. The implicit argument I was and am refuting is that because minority and working class women feel neglected by feminism it's the case that they are disadvantaged more by their race and class than by their sex. That's a fallacious argument, it doesn't follow one way or the other.

"Don't put the sins of your generation on mine."

You're assuming I'm young. I'm not. I'm middle-aged. It's ironic that you're doing this while you're arguing against people bringing their limited perspectives and assumptions to this discussion. You don't know anything about me, but you're assuming a great deal.

"Keith Ellis, I find it interesting that you accuse your critics of 'cherry picking' when you're doing the same thing. International trafficking may focus on women, but all you have to do is google 'chocolate slavery africa' and you'll learn that there's still plenty of people of both genders being bought and sold."

No, cherry picking is using exceptional data to fallaciously prove a wrong conclusion. Such as focusing on the treatment of white, female crime victims. In my example, de facto chattel slavery, by no measurement you can produce will you show that slavery of men, whether or not as racial minorities, has the scope in magnitude or geography that the trafficking of women has. This is a relevant because this wasn't always true, just as many disparities contemporarily accepted with regard to sex were also once true with regard to race.

"...but I'm not sure that waving the flag that insists that sexism is more pernicious or worse in some way than racism is helpful"

It's important because there's a great deal of apathy about sexism. Across the political spectrum, the dominant views are that sexism is no longer much of a problem and/or that sexism generally makes sense and is acceptable, anyway. Yet on countless metrics there is still a large gap between men and women in our society. When I was young, in the 70s and 80s, one heard quite a bit about the pay gap between men and women. Not today, though the gap hasn't really diminished that much.

Just look at how the topic of sexism and feminism is received in comments on this site, a leftist site, and compare that against how discussion of racism is received. Feminism and sexism produce jokes and dismissal. Racism produces right-wing trolls and outraged left-wing responses. But on the topic of sexism, the left produces just as many trollish comments.

Saying that one large social injustice is being neglected and impacts more people than another doesn't mean that the other problem is being disregarded. I personally think that an oversensitivity by feminists to this charge is part of why feminism is moving more slowly and taken less seriously in our society. Feminists are dearly afraid to offend and they are quick to take on every other social injustice (under the rationale that it's all the same thing manifested differently), greatly diluting their efforts.

I speak out and am activist in numerous areas, including gay rights and anti-racism. Just because I think that anti-sexism is generally neglected relative to the other two doesn't mean that I don't care about and an am active with regard to the those other two (and others). It just means that I think that more people need to pay more attention to it than they are. The problem really isn't that people like myself are spending too much time on anti-racism and too little on anti-sexism; it's that too few people are spending any time at all on anti-sexism. I can name numerous members of my family and friends who care about racism; but I can name only two or three who really care about sexism. That's representative of the general problem.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | April 10, 2008 1:44 PM

I don't agree that "feminism" neglects working class and minority women. I think it is an oft repeated, unexamined cliche with no bearing in fact. Many feminist ARE working class and minority women. The issues that animated and still animate 2nd wave feminism today are, in fact, of most importance to working class and minority women -- pay equity, child care, health care, family leave, etc., etc. These are issues that have direct bearing on the economic survival and health of their families.

What I am suggesting is that many among our elites -- whether they consider themselves "feminist" or not -- are neither very informed, thoughtful or concerned about working class and minority women and their issues because of class insularity -- rather than because of ideology. That lack of concern doesn't arise from and has nothing to do with the political and social movement called "feminism" -- which certainly all the working class and minority women I know have always felt we were a part of. I am also suggesting something else -- that much of the advancement elite women have made in the last few decades has arisen from class advantage, rather than from feminist success. Today, the affluent graduate of an elite college goes straight to the professional track, not to the typing or filing pool. But the typing or filing pool, which once provided a stepping stone into the business world, or the means to an education, for poor and working class, white or minority, women, no longer exists. This economic reality, along with other aspects of our transition to a low-wage service economy, has had a much bigger impact on the economic lives and prospects of non-elite woman than any particular failure of feminism.

Why would anyone presume that only members of the elite are feminists? You don't have to take a women's studies class to understand when you are getting screwed. Or to care about social justice. In fact, having experienced injustice is probably a much greater political motivator than reading about it in a classroom.

If you don't know working class or minority feminist, perhaps it's because you don't know a great many working class or minority women. Or, it may be that you hold some position of authority that limits honesty between you and such women. Or, perhaps you have a limited notion of who and what a "feminist" is.

Last word; I did not use personal anecdote to prove something. I used it to illustrate something that has been well documented by elsewhere.

Posted by esmense | April 10, 2008 2:53 PM

"I don't agree that "feminism" neglects working class and minority women. I think it is an oft repeated, unexamined cliche with no bearing in fact."

Ah, well, I disagree. I understand it's not your personal experience (that's the anecdotal part—you are making an argument based upon your own personal experience), but it's not an assertion coming out of left-field. It's long discussed problem; as I mentioned, one example is Rose Winslow's experience in the suffrage movement. Look it up.

I also have anecdotal evidence; but as I said, that doesn't count for much. Instead, I'll just refer you to things like my historical reference and the many, many discussions that have always gone on in feminism about this. Different people feel differently about it. But either asserting it one way or the other are not outrageous points of view. The discussion about this is fairly mainstream. Maybe not in your head, but it is in the real world.

"If you don't know working class or minority feminist, perhaps it's because you don't know a great many working class or minority women. Or, it may be that you hold some position of authority that limits honesty between you and such women. Or, perhaps you have a limited notion of who and what a 'feminist' is."

Quit putting words in my mouth and assuming things about me. Did I say that I didn't know any working class or minority feminists? No, I did not. You're assuming that because I disagree with you, I must not know any minority or working class feminists. How extraordinary arrogant of you. Is it not possible that we simply disagree about matters of fact without the need to make ad hominem arguments? Notice that I'm not assuming all sorts of things about you in order to "explain" how it is that you are "wrong" and I'm "right".

As to your convoluted argument that economic injustice is primarily the cause of the lack of advancement of women in general; I'll only reply that it's sort of like saying that economic injustice is the primary force causing inequality for disabled people like myself, not the lack of disability rights. That's true and it's not true, but it's a dangerous argument to make. It's certainly true that growing economic inequality and related economic injustices are the overwhelming causes of much or most of the specific disadvantages that most people face today. But this has always been so in our capitalist society.

More to the point, you could make the same argument you're making about the current state of working class black people. You could make that argument about every single disadvantaged group of working class people. Does this suggest that less attention should be paid to fighting the particular injustices that these groups face because they're female, or black, or handicapped, or gay, or whatever? Of course not. So what's your point?

Posted by Keith M Ellis | April 10, 2008 4:35 PM

Andruw:

Seriously, many of us have disengaged from one of our favorite blogs due to your oppo-research tactics of late. It's funny, the Hillary-get-out movement, which you urged on, has died down, hopefully because you and other Obama supporters realized the fundamental problem:

HRC wins Ohio and TX (sort of), and is leading in PA....so drop out. No one else in Democractic Party history would under these circumstances.

HRC LOST TX. Less delegates. The HRC campaign and its supporters lie and lie and lie and try to damge Obama with their Tonya Harding strategy.

That's why we want it to end.

The noise has died down b/c we have realized it's definitely over - just check the math - and HRC won't get out no matter what.

If the situation was reversed, the HRC campaign would be screaming and Obama would have dropped out b/c of self respect and the good of the party.

Posted by Peter K. | April 10, 2008 6:11 PM

Andruw:

Seriously, many of us have disengaged from one of our favorite blogs due to your oppo-research tactics of late. It's funny, the Hillary-get-out movement, which you urged on, has died down, hopefully because you and other Obama supporters realized the fundamental problem:

HRC wins Ohio and TX (sort of), and is leading in PA....so drop out. No one else in Democractic Party history would under these circumstances.

HRC LOST TX. Less delegates. The HRC campaign and its supporters lie and lie and lie and try to damge Obama with their Tonya Harding strategy.

That's why we want it to end.

The noise has died down b/c we have realized it's definitely over - just check the math - and HRC won't get out no matter what.

If the situation was reversed, the HRC campaign would be screaming and Obama would have dropped out b/c of self respect and for the good of the party.

Posted by Peter K. | April 10, 2008 6:13 PM

Andruw:

Seriously, many of us have disengaged from one of our favorite blogs due to your oppo-research tactics of late. It's funny, the Hillary-get-out movement, which you urged on, has died down, hopefully because you and other Obama supporters realized the fundamental problem:

HRC wins Ohio and TX (sort of), and is leading in PA....so drop out. No one else in Democractic Party history would under these circumstances.

HRC LOST TX. Less delegates. The HRC campaign and its supporters lie and lie and lie and try to damge Obama with their Tonya Harding strategy.

That's why we want it to end.

The noise has died down b/c we have realized it's definitely over - just check the math - and HRC won't get out no matter what.

If the situation was reversed, the HRC campaign would be screaming and Obama would have dropped out b/c of self respect and for the good of the party.

Posted by Peter K. | April 10, 2008 6:16 PM

Zach is right pointing out that it's pretty strange to say this measures 'implicit' bias. Methodological problems aside, to the extent that this measures anything it measures unspoken, but quite conscious, bias. That's something very different from the implicit associations measured by the IAT. To the extent that these effects are real, that would make them much more troubling than those of the IAT , I think...

But as has been stated, there's probably a 'hillary effect' here. In a lot of minds, the idea of 'woman president' is synonymous with Hillary right now, and probably a good fifth of the population will always hate her. The direction of causality is an open question, though. Does Hillary-hatin' create the bias, or does the bias create Hillary hate?

Posted by lackluster | April 10, 2008 10:38 PM