How sexism drives support for Donald Trump

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/23/how-sexism-drives-support-for-donald-trump/

Quote:In the past two weeks, several women have publicly accused Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of groping and forcing himself on them, behavior he had described on a hot micin 2005. Polls now reveal the largest gender gap in support for Trump’s Democratic opponent ever recorded at the presidential level. Moreover, news outlets have documented sexist paraphernalia for sale at Trump rallies around the country.


This raises a key question: How much do attitudes about gender and women affect attitudes toward Donald Trump? Our research shows that these attitudes do matter — over and above factors that others have widely noted, such as authoritarianism, ethnocentrism and anxiety about economic stagnation. Moreover, the anger so visible in this emotionally charged campaign may be helping to make sexism more of a political force.

The impact of sexism on Trump support predates the famous tape

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.

We found that sexism was strongly and significantly correlated with support for Trump, even after accounting for party identification, ideology, authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. In fact, the impact of sexism was equivalent to the impact of ethnocentrism and much larger than the impact of authoritarianism. Again, this was in June — well before the “Access Hollywood” tape was released and several women came forward to accuse Trump of unwanted touching or kissing.

How anger — not fear — makes sexism more important

The election has also been one of the most emotionally charged in recent memory. A significant amount of conventional wisdom suggests that fear is a special catalyst of support for Trump. Interestingly, however, recent research suggests that fear will often dampen rather than boost the impact of attitudes like sexism, ethnocentrism and authoritarianism.

Anger, on the other hand, may have very different political consequences. It emerges when out-groups are seen as violating long-held norms and disrupting preexisting social hierarchies. For this reason, it tends to make attitudes like sexism or ethnocentrism more important. Anger also has other important consequences distinct from fear: It can powerfully mobilize voters and lead them to take greater risks and reject attempts to correct their misperceptions or process new information.

This is exactly what our research shows regarding sexism and support for Trump. In a February 2016 experiment, we first asked random subsets of respondents to think of a time in their life when they were either scared, angry or relaxed. This is called an emotion induction manipulation, and it causes respondents to feel these emotions keenly.

After priming these emotions, we asked individuals how much they supported Donald Trump. Among respondents who were primed to feel afraid, the impact of sexism on support for Trump was smaller, compared with respondents primed to feel angry or relaxed. In contrast, among respondents primed to feel angry, the impact of sexism was slightly larger than those primed to feel relaxed.


Many political observers have assumed that fear — of changing demographics and declining economic conditions — are motivating support for Trump, especially among those with less favorable views of certain groups. But our research suggests that the role of racial prejudice or sexism may be catalyzed more by anger.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Or, people just don't believe the accusers.

[Matt_Crimson]

Yeah. Let's get people to change their vote for Trump by telling them that they're voting for him because they're sexist.

That article is a great example of how not to write a persuasive paper.

[Dill]

(11-03-2016, 04:29 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yeah. Let's get people to change their vote for Trump by telling them that they're voting for him because they're sexist.

That article is a great example of how not to write a persuasive paper.

The goal of the journal article was not to persuade Trumpsters to "change their votes." They are not the intended audience.

 The goal was to report social science findings to other social scientists, as a contribution to ongoing
research on voter behavior.

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: The goal of the journal article was not to persuade Trumpsters to "change their votes." They are not the intended audience.

 The goal was to report social science findings to other social scientists, as a contribution to ongoing
research on voter behavior.

Well yes, I'm aware it's not a persuasive piece, I was just adding in some humor. The so called "science" in this article is embarrassing, and can be taken no more seriously than if it were written as a persuasive piece.

[Dill]

(11-04-2016, 12:58 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well yes, I'm aware it's not a persuasive piece, I was just adding in some humor. The so called "science" in this article is embarrassing, and can be taken no more seriously than if it were written as a persuasive piece.

Where does the science fall short, in your view? Just wondering.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-04-2016, 01:23 AM)Dill Wrote: Where does the science fall short, in your view? Just wondering.

Because they asked questions that they automatically determined if you answered yes to, then you're sexist.
“Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for equality.”


Not saying I agree with the entirety of the statement, but women were celebrating "equality" when the Army allowed women into combat jobs. How many of them are also advocating "equality" by trying to make it so women have to sign up for Selective Services? None? Yet if you say yes to that, you are sexist in their survey.

Thus if you're a Trump supporter (I am not), you are voting for Trump (I am not) because you are sexist (I am not).

[Dill]

(11-04-2016, 04:58 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because they asked questions that they automatically determined if you answered yes to, then you're sexist.
“Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for equality.”


Not saying I agree with the entirety of the statement, but women were celebrating "equality" when the Army allowed women into combat jobs. How many of them are also advocating "equality" by trying to make it so women have to sign up for Selective Services? None? Yet if you say yes to that, you are sexist in their survey.

Thus if you're a Trump supporter (I am not), you are voting for Trump (I am not) because you are sexist (I am not).

The point of such questions is to reveal bias. The question about women "seeking special favors" rather than equality seems like a good start. Appeals for equality do appear to sexists as appeals for special rights.

I don't grasp your second point. Of course, you might likely be sexist if you answered "none" to your second question, since women advocating for equality do indeed think women should sign up for the selective service if men have to.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/its-time-for-women-to-register-for-the-draft

Who would answer "none" except someone who supposed women are angling for favors rather than rights and the responsibilities which come with them? I.e., a sexist.

The article doesn't suggest that everyone voting for Trump is a sexist. Rather, if you are sexist, then Trump's rhetoric will seem attractive, or if sexism is a problem low on your priorities, his sexism will not bother you enough to reject him as a candidate.

It is very difficult, though, to imagine why someone who thinks women's equality is an important value would vote for Trump.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-04-2016, 09:11 PM)Dill Wrote: The point of such questions is to reveal bias. The question about women "seeking special favors" rather than equality seems like a good start. Appeals for equality do appear to sexists as appeals for special rights.

I don't grasp your second point. Of course, you might likely be sexist if you answered "none" to your second question, since women advocating for equality do indeed think women should sign up for the selective service if men have to.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/its-time-for-women-to-register-for-the-draft

Who would answer "none" except someone who supposed women are angling for favors rather than rights and the responsibilities which come with them? I.e., a sexist.

The article doesn't suggest that everyone voting for Trump is a sexist. Rather, if you are sexist, then Trump's rhetoric will seem attractive, or if sexism is a problem low on your priorities, his sexism will not bother you enough to reject him as a candidate.

It is very difficult, though, to imagine why someone who thinks women's equality is an important value would vote for Trump.

Admittedly should have said "Much less?" instead of "None?"

Neither of the candidates are probably really appealing if women's equality is one of your primary concerns.

Trump for obvious reasons, and Clinton because she worked closely with, is friendly with, and took lots of "donations" from Middle East leaders who would have a woman beheaded for showing their face in public. Places where honor killings, throwing acid in women's faces, and genital mutilation are a thing.

[*bfine32*]

(11-03-2016, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: The goal of the journal article was not to persuade Trumpsters to "change their votes." They are not the intended audience.

 The goal was to report social science findings to other social scientists, as a contribution to ongoing
research on voter behavior.

Hell, I knew it was all sciency when I seen that complicated chart

[Dill]

(11-04-2016, 10:55 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Neither of the candidates are probably really appealing if women's equality is one of your primary concerns.

Trump for obvious reasons, and Clinton because she worked closely with, is friendly with, and took lots of "donations" from Middle East leaders who would have a woman beheaded for showing their face in public. Places where honor killings, throwing acid in women's faces, and genital mutilation are a thing.

One of the candidates has taken the international stage to stump for women's rights; the other is known for grabbing them by the pxxxx and calling them pigs.   So I do find one somewhat more appealing in regards to women's rights.

I lived in the Middle-East for many years and don't recall any regime that beheaded a woman for showing her face in
public. Throwing acid in women's faces is done by private individuals in many countries we trade with, including Afghanistan, Brazil and India. I don't have a problem with the Clinton Foundation taking money from "sexist" countries like Saudi Arabia and channeling it into life-lengthening medical treatments for millions of people. You going to walk into the children's HIV ward in a Nigerian hospital and empty the beds because the Clinton's are giving Saudi Arabia back it's donation?

And honor-killing is a cultural practice which is outlawed by every government in the Middle-East--except perhaps the Islamic State. I don't know what their stance is. But it makes little sense to, say, refuse a donation from the King of Jordan because some Bedoo killed his sister in violation of Jordanian law. Accepting the donation does not send the message you are ok with honor killing.

Same deal with genital mutilation. This is largely an African problem, not Middle-Eastern (with the exception of Egypt). I don't think the Clinton foundation has had many donations from Somalia, one of the poorest countries in the world with a government that only controls have of Mogadishu.

I know Hannity and Rush have tried to make this a big Republican talking point--Hillary takes money from the Saudis who don't allow women to drive so how can she be a feminist? And maybe it works for some Republicans, who selectively refuse dialogue with "evil"--until it arrives in the form of their own authoritarian, sexist candidate. But I don't see a contradiction here, especially when there are many Clinton-related or supported organizations in the Middle East who work for women's rights there. Refusing donations for medical care would do little to advance women's rights and taking such money does not support sexism.

[*michaelsean*]

I find it all funny that people try to pretend they didn't support a sexual predator for 8 years, and are about to let him back in the White House.

[GMDino]

(11-08-2016, 10:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I find it all funny that people try to pretend they didn't support a sexual predator for 8 years, and are about to let him back in the White House.

Reagan?

No seriously...you mean the guy who got caught having an affair?  You call that being a sexual predator?  I mean I said he should have resigned over it but "sexual predator"? Really?

What do you call Trump then?  And why would we want him in the white house for even a day?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-07-2016, 01:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ryan is nothing more than a RINO.
If you notice some of Ryan's proposed policies are more liberal than Republican in nature and besides that, when he goes home at the end of the day, he has to listen to his Democrat Wife (whom I think actually wears the pants in his household).

An example of how sexism drives support for Donald Trump.

[GMDino]

(11-08-2016, 10:30 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: An example of how sexism drives support for Donald Trump.

Yep.

There's a word that fits that that some use when they think man isn't being manly enough.

I don't use it.

Maybe my wife won't let me?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-08-2016, 10:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: Reagan?

No seriously...you mean the guy who got caught having an affair?  You call that being a sexual predator?  I mean I said he should have resigned over it but "sexual predator"? Really?

What do you call Trump then?  And why would we want him in the white house for even a day?

Well if people claiming they were assaulted is evidence enough, then yes they are both sexual predators. 

I don't want him in the WH for even a day, and he won't be.     

[*Nately120*]

(11-08-2016, 10:44 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well if people claiming they were assaulted is evidence enough, then yes they are both sexual predators. 

I don't want him in the WH for even a day, and he won't be.     

Even if Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are both serial rapists the bottom line is that Clinton was a better politician.  

[*PhilHos*]

Ever notice when a Republican disagrees with a Democrat, they're like "I disagree" and/or "you're stupid"? But when a Democrat disagrees with a Republican, they're like "you're stupid AND "you're a racist" and/or "you're a sexist" and/or "you're an "ist" of some kind".

I find it interesting.

I'm not saying there aren't legitimately racist/sexist/etc Republicans, but, just once, I'd like to see a Democrat or liberal disagree without going to the "ism"s (outside of these boards 'cause I have seen it here a few times )

[JustWinBaby]

(11-11-2016, 01:18 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not saying there aren't legitimately racist/sexist/etc Republicans, but, just once, I'd like to see a Democrat or liberal disagree without going to the "ism"s (outside of these boards 'cause I have seen it here a few times )

Because that's how they shutdown debate, or even pre-emptively avoid it because you know you'll be shamed if you say something.

The so-called "party of ideas" hasn't really wanted to talk or sell any of its ideas for a long time....and so have been relying almost exclusively on identity politics and looking for the next group of victims to exploit for political gain.

I think a lot of Trump voters gave all that a big middle finger - not going to let political correctness be a weapon wielded to suppress debate and opposition.

[HarleyDog]

(11-02-2016, 05:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/23/how-sexism-drives-support-for-donald-trump/

Your still trusting polls?