Tue. November 6
The Sexual Double Standard in the Media & Politics
Women often complain about the sexual double standard: If they sleep around, they get called nasty names, whereas if men sleep around, they’re considered alpha males.
There’s another sexual double standard that bothers me more, however. It has to do with the free expression of thought in a culture that values the politically correct over the truth.
Just recently, CNN got into trouble for reporting on a peer-reviewed scientific study that found that women’s political decisions are affected by their hormones.
The results showed that ovulating single women tend to support President Barack Obama because, in the words of lead researcher Kristina Durante, they feel “sexier.”
Heightened sexual feelings, according to Durante, lead women to support politicians who advocate for easy access to birth control and abortion. CNN pointed readers to an article it published about a separate Durante study — which is still available on CNN’s website — that showed women also buy “sexier clothes” when ovulating.
Married or otherwise committed women, by contrast, favored Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
After major backlash from their readers and other news outlets, who ridiculed the idea that a woman’s opinions would be governed by her menstrual cycle, CNN axed the story from its website, claiming that it did not meet its “editorial standards.” The study, by the way, is soon appearing in a leading academic journal of psychology Psychological Science. Peer-reviewed science or not, it was considered sexist and had to go:
“What an insulting question,” wrote one female commenter [on CNN]. “As if my ability to make decisions depends on my cycle!”
“I think I am done with CNN,” agreed another woman.
“Yes. We all know women are irrational creatures, slaves to their hormones, with no agency of their own,” wrote CNN.com reader Joel.
The other day, I came across an article in the Economist that reports on a very similar study that was just published in the same journal, Psychological Science. This study, though, is about men, and how male hormones affect political decisions:
Dr Petersen and Dr Sznycer were investigating the idea that a person’s political opinions might be aligned with his physical characteristics. The opinion in question was whether resources should be redistributed from the rich to the poor. The physical characteristic was strength . . .
Dr Petersen and Dr Sznycer found that, regardless of country of origin or apparent ideology, strong men argued for their self interest: the poor for redistribution, the rich against it. No surprises there. Weaklings, however, were far less inclined to make the case that self-interest suggested they would. Among women, by contrast, strength had no correlation with opinion. Rich women wanted to stay rich; poor women to become so.
Of course, no one is complaining about this article or the study it is based on. No one is saying that the study is sexist, degrading to men, or that it denies men their dignity as rational decision makers. Maybe the study does all of these things (though no one is making this argument). Or maybe it’s just reporting on a scientific fact (which is the consensus of the press). The point is that reasonable people can civilly discuss whether hormones affect the way men make decisions without the conversation being completely shut down by the custodians of the politically correct.
For women, it’s another story. If academics imply that women’s decisions are subject to biological factors–and if journalists report about it–then they are castigated as sexist, the article is called “craptastically craptastic,” and the study is dismissed as “pseudo-science.” The anti-intellectualism of the media can be truly breathtaking.
Related Articles
-
Mitt Romney’s Sex Appeal and the “Wimp” Cover
Does Mitt Romney have sex appeal? Does he need it…
Read More > -
The Beyoncé Debate: Can Traditionally Minded Women Be Sexy?
Yesterday, we ran a wonderful piece by Ashley McGuire on…
Read More > -
Piss Christ, “Art”, and Violence
“Piss Christ” has been resurrected.
Or, at least, the controversy…
Read More >
Popular Articles
-
Act Like a Man, Think Like a Woman
H.L. Mencken nailed it perfectly, and almost a hundred years…
Read more > -
The NBA Finals Matchup as Cultural Metaphor
As it currently stands, the San Antonio Spurs are leading…
Read more > -
The Contagious Dynamism of Tim Tebow
In the land of the spiritually-blind, the man with one…
Read more >
Interesting…
It seems to me that there is a narrative of gender-based inequality underlying the CNN readers’ comments: that women are often portrayed (in media, in discourse between citizens, etc.) as beholden to their irrational hormones and therefore less fit for politics than men.
I don’t think they would refute the general notion that hormones may influence political thinking, rather they refute the notion that women are irrational, which is and has been used as a justification for sexism and misogyny.
So then why does no one call “foul” at the publication of research on the relationship between hormones and political choices in men? Because in our society one rarely, if ever, encounters the notion that men are somehow unfit for politics; the study therefore does not threaten the credibility of men in the public sphere.
My reading is that the CNN commenters are afraid that the study’s findings will be used out of context as a means for reinforcing existing assumptions and prejudices that justify sexism and misogyny.
The question then comes back to the original notion: do you think that our societal notions of gender prevent true equality?
My response is less clear than I hope it would be, but it’s the best I can do between my third period class and lunch!
I guess the idea is that you want women to be seen in a positive light, so you want information about women’s natures to be censored. However, you say it is okay to write unflattering things about men since they supposedly hold all the power.
The end state is that we need to see both equally; however, the censorship and misleading would have to continue, in order to maintain the equality. Meanwhile, the truth suffers, and everyone ends up making terrible decisions based on false information, and free speech is crushed in favor of an illusory “equality” that cannot exist (and it is indeed an illusion because you’re being misled.)
It is better to learn the reality, even if the reality is unflattering to women. After all, if women are so strong and great, they shouldn’t need the press to suppress damaging truths about them. It only adds to the suspicion that they’re insecure about something.
There’s a reason a manosphere exists: things like this.
Women aren’t evil harpies, but they’re not beyond reproach as a group either.
Men are deemed unfit for politics in a partisan sense by women and men constantly, in people’s private lives and in the media.
True, they are deemed unfit because the content of their ideas not their hormones. But at least with hormones it is seen as something a person does not have control over. Whereas when someone believes you unfit for politics because of your intellectual belief in this or that ideology they are basically saying you’re dumb. When given a clear choice you’ve picked the wrong one vs. the hormones made the choice for you.
But I guess it’s better to, at the very least, be given the chance to have you political fitness assessed in the realm of ideas. A realm where a person can argue the merits based on facts. There is no rationality in the fog of hormones, hence the ease with which people discount decisions reached while under their influence.
I guess what I’m trying to say is: whether the individual in question is male or female hormonally based decisions for political questions are not good and, even though men’s decisions are not judged based on whether their hormones effected them or not, they are still judged.
” Do I think that our societal notions of gender prevent true equality?”
Yes. But these notions are just one group among many. Absolute equality is, I think, impossible. Relative equality as measured against a enforceable legal standard is however attainable.
What is your definition of ‘true’ equality?
Touché…good food for thought
This afternoon as I walked into the polling station, I was planning on voting for Romney. But upon entering the room my emotions took over. “I am a single women, I am ovulating.” I said aloud with wonder. Even though I was planning on going Republican, suddenly I was overcome with passion. Maybe it was all the attractive young men going for Obama, or maybe it was Obama himself, but since I am ovulating, I can only assume it was both. Obama was no longer someone I disliked, but someone I desired. I somehow forgot everything I ever knew, cared for, or wanted in my future, and voted for Obama. #saidmeNEVER
I have to admit: that’s rather funny. However, my larger point still stands. Trying to improve the image of women by hiding unflattering information about them won’t work because then we would not be able to solve any social problems regarding women, since we would be working from deliberately falsified data. Second, it raises the suspicion that men are being deceived about women by the culture — and hiding this sort of information is, indeed, deception.
If we have to resort to airbrushing these articles to protect women’s image, then what does that say about women as a whole?
Think about it this way: if schools in highly conservative counties banned the teaching of evolution since it reflects negatively on their religion, you would raise a hue and cry, as would I. But when a major news organization retracts a scientific article since it might — might — reflect badly on women, it is somehow okay. Progressives like to say that they are “for” science, but only when it confirms their worldview (look above at the article on men and hormones.) If it doesn’t, it is suppressed, much like a conservative Christian county council suppressing evolution in schools.
Even if we reach this hypothetical end point of equality, the censorship and obfuscation would have to continue in order to maintain the equality. Political freedom would be crushed.
I think the issue I have with the study, is that you can’t imply causation, there is only correlation. There is also a study done on the climates temperature and the increase of pirates in the world. Just because there was a study done, doesn’t mean we have come any closer to finding truth about a situation.
A good point, lizandrio. That still doesn’t mean it should be hidden away — just include the necessary caveats about correlation and causation.
Yes I agree.