 |
| Released to the public domain. |
Saturday, 14 December 2013
Friday, 13 December 2013
Montana newlywed Jordan Linn Graham pleads guilty in husband's murder
"I wasn't really happy," she said.
She wasn't feeling like one should when first married, she said.
From: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/justice/montana-newlywed-death-trial/
Feminism and Attractiveness
Photographs were taken of 30 young women whose attitudes toward the feminist movement identified them as supporters or nonsupporters of the movement. Ratings of the photographs for physical attractiveness yielded no differences between the 2 groups. However, when 40 male and 29 female undergraduates were asked to identify the women who supported the women's liberation movement, Ss significantly chose the photographs of the less attractive women. Both male and female Ss responded this way irrespective of their own professed attitudes toward the feminist movement. The findings are related to research in the areas of stereotyping and sexism.
Goldberg, Philip A., Marc Gottesdiener, and Paul R. Abramson. "Another put-down of women? Perceived attractiveness as a function of support for the feminist movement." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32.1 (1975): 113.
-----
In Study 1, we examined predicted linkages between feminism, beauty, and romance for heterosexual women and men. In line with Goldberg et al. (1975), we expected female targets to be perceived as feminists to the extent they were judged as unattractive. However, we sought to explain this negative relationship by assessing beliefs about targets' (a) sex appeal and (b) lesbianism. If the link between perceived beauty and feminism is accounted for by beliefs that unattractive targets are likely to be unpopular with men and/or to be lesbians, results would suggest that feminists are stigmatized as “unsexy” and thereby underscore the importance of romance and sexuality vis-à-vis judgments of female targets' feminism. We also tested feminist identity as a moderator of reactions to female targets. Although Goldberg et al. (1975) found no evidence for feminism as a moderator, contemporary feminists might not stereotype plain female targets as feminists.
[...]
Target ratings Participants rated each of the eight targets on four items, using 7-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Two of the items were: “In my opinion, she is attractive” and “She was probably popular (dating-wise) in high school.” In addition, following Goldberg et al. (1975), we told people that we knew what had happened to these women, and we asked them to respond to two other items: “She likely became a lesbian” and “She probably grew up to become a feminist.” These four ratings were reliable across the four pretty women (α > .72 for all) and the four plain women (α > .65 for all). Therefore, we averaged them to form four indexes for both pretty and plain targets (collapsed across photos). We labeled these the attractive index, the sex appeal index (derived from dating popularity), the lesbian index, and the feminist index. It is important to note that these ratings were administered in randomized order for each of the eight targets.
[...]
For feminism, results again showed a main effect for target, F(1, 95) = 32.29, p < .001, with plain targets rated as more likely to be feminists than pretty targets by both genders. However, there was also a significant Target × Gender × Feminist Identity interaction, F(1, 95) = 5.05, p < .01. Among women, feminist identity was positively and significantly related to judging the feminism of pretty targets, r(59) = .42, p < .01, but not the feminism of plain targets, r(59) =−.11, ns. Among men, feminist identity was not significantly linked to judging the feminism of either pretty targets, r(37) = .17, ns, or plain targets, r(37) =−.07, ns. The remaining effects in this analysis were not significant.
In sum, these results revealed strong effects for target attractiveness on measures of perceived attractiveness, sex appeal, lesbianism, and feminism, which were not moderated by gender or, for the most part, feminist identity. However, for female participants, feminist identity was positively linked to judging pretty targets as feminists, whereas feminist identity did not relate to reactions to plain targets for either gender. Thus, there was weak evidence to support the notion that contemporary feminists might be more resistant to the stereotype that feminists are unattractive.
[...]
Study 1 supported our central hypotheses. As expected, there was evidence that the unattractive feminist stereotype is robust. However, we found that perceptions of female targets' sex appeal and lesbianism fully mediated the negative link between targets' perceived attractiveness and feminism. Moreover, the negative link between targets' perceived attractiveness and lesbianism was fully mediated by their perceived sex appeal. In concert, these findings suggest the importance of beauty and romance when predicting judgments of female targets' feminism and sexuality, and they shed light on why feminisim has become a stigmatized label. Women who subscribe to the view that feminists are unattractive or sexually unappealing may distance themselves to preserve their own romantic appeal. Moreover, they may well fear that others will stereotype them as lesbians if they embrace an overt feminist identity (Swim et al., 1999). Moreover, men who perceive feminists to be lesbians might view them as unlikely to fulfill their sexual needs, which could lead to negative attitudes toward feminist women (Glick & Fiske, 1996).
[...]
For women, feminist identity predicted judging pretty (but not plain) targets as likely feminists; men's feminist identity did not predict these ratings for either plain or pretty targets. Finally, and again in contrast to Goldberg et al. (1975), female participants who rated themselves as attractive showed low enthusiasm for feminism on the identity and attitude measures. That is, the present sample showed some evidence that the unattractive feminist stereotype contains a kernel of truth. However, we caution against overinterpreting this unexpected finding. It is possible that feminists resist the beauty myth (Wolff, 1991; cf. Rubin, Nemeroff, & Russo, 2004) by not spending a great deal of time on their appearance or that they surround themselves with people unlikely to comment on their attractiveness because they are more interested in achievement than personal appearance. By contrast, women who are not feminists may be more committed to romantic ideals and may report themselves to be more attractive to be consistent with this ideal. They may even request attractiveness feedback from others frequently and remember it easily for this reason. Thus, the present findings are suspect, and future research should use independent raters' assessment of attractiveness, following Golberg et al. (1975).
Rudman, Laurie A., and Kimberly Fairchild. "The F word: Is feminism incompatible with beauty and romance?." Psychology of Women Quarterly 31.2 (2007): 125-136.
-----
[Still looking for studies that analyze the question more than simply testing whether people think feminists are less attractive.]
Goldberg, Philip A., Marc Gottesdiener, and Paul R. Abramson. "Another put-down of women? Perceived attractiveness as a function of support for the feminist movement." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32.1 (1975): 113.
-----
In Study 1, we examined predicted linkages between feminism, beauty, and romance for heterosexual women and men. In line with Goldberg et al. (1975), we expected female targets to be perceived as feminists to the extent they were judged as unattractive. However, we sought to explain this negative relationship by assessing beliefs about targets' (a) sex appeal and (b) lesbianism. If the link between perceived beauty and feminism is accounted for by beliefs that unattractive targets are likely to be unpopular with men and/or to be lesbians, results would suggest that feminists are stigmatized as “unsexy” and thereby underscore the importance of romance and sexuality vis-à-vis judgments of female targets' feminism. We also tested feminist identity as a moderator of reactions to female targets. Although Goldberg et al. (1975) found no evidence for feminism as a moderator, contemporary feminists might not stereotype plain female targets as feminists.
[...]
Target ratings Participants rated each of the eight targets on four items, using 7-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Two of the items were: “In my opinion, she is attractive” and “She was probably popular (dating-wise) in high school.” In addition, following Goldberg et al. (1975), we told people that we knew what had happened to these women, and we asked them to respond to two other items: “She likely became a lesbian” and “She probably grew up to become a feminist.” These four ratings were reliable across the four pretty women (α > .72 for all) and the four plain women (α > .65 for all). Therefore, we averaged them to form four indexes for both pretty and plain targets (collapsed across photos). We labeled these the attractive index, the sex appeal index (derived from dating popularity), the lesbian index, and the feminist index. It is important to note that these ratings were administered in randomized order for each of the eight targets.
[...]
For feminism, results again showed a main effect for target, F(1, 95) = 32.29, p < .001, with plain targets rated as more likely to be feminists than pretty targets by both genders. However, there was also a significant Target × Gender × Feminist Identity interaction, F(1, 95) = 5.05, p < .01. Among women, feminist identity was positively and significantly related to judging the feminism of pretty targets, r(59) = .42, p < .01, but not the feminism of plain targets, r(59) =−.11, ns. Among men, feminist identity was not significantly linked to judging the feminism of either pretty targets, r(37) = .17, ns, or plain targets, r(37) =−.07, ns. The remaining effects in this analysis were not significant.
In sum, these results revealed strong effects for target attractiveness on measures of perceived attractiveness, sex appeal, lesbianism, and feminism, which were not moderated by gender or, for the most part, feminist identity. However, for female participants, feminist identity was positively linked to judging pretty targets as feminists, whereas feminist identity did not relate to reactions to plain targets for either gender. Thus, there was weak evidence to support the notion that contemporary feminists might be more resistant to the stereotype that feminists are unattractive.
[...]
Study 1 supported our central hypotheses. As expected, there was evidence that the unattractive feminist stereotype is robust. However, we found that perceptions of female targets' sex appeal and lesbianism fully mediated the negative link between targets' perceived attractiveness and feminism. Moreover, the negative link between targets' perceived attractiveness and lesbianism was fully mediated by their perceived sex appeal. In concert, these findings suggest the importance of beauty and romance when predicting judgments of female targets' feminism and sexuality, and they shed light on why feminisim has become a stigmatized label. Women who subscribe to the view that feminists are unattractive or sexually unappealing may distance themselves to preserve their own romantic appeal. Moreover, they may well fear that others will stereotype them as lesbians if they embrace an overt feminist identity (Swim et al., 1999). Moreover, men who perceive feminists to be lesbians might view them as unlikely to fulfill their sexual needs, which could lead to negative attitudes toward feminist women (Glick & Fiske, 1996).
[...]
For women, feminist identity predicted judging pretty (but not plain) targets as likely feminists; men's feminist identity did not predict these ratings for either plain or pretty targets. Finally, and again in contrast to Goldberg et al. (1975), female participants who rated themselves as attractive showed low enthusiasm for feminism on the identity and attitude measures. That is, the present sample showed some evidence that the unattractive feminist stereotype contains a kernel of truth. However, we caution against overinterpreting this unexpected finding. It is possible that feminists resist the beauty myth (Wolff, 1991; cf. Rubin, Nemeroff, & Russo, 2004) by not spending a great deal of time on their appearance or that they surround themselves with people unlikely to comment on their attractiveness because they are more interested in achievement than personal appearance. By contrast, women who are not feminists may be more committed to romantic ideals and may report themselves to be more attractive to be consistent with this ideal. They may even request attractiveness feedback from others frequently and remember it easily for this reason. Thus, the present findings are suspect, and future research should use independent raters' assessment of attractiveness, following Golberg et al. (1975).
Rudman, Laurie A., and Kimberly Fairchild. "The F word: Is feminism incompatible with beauty and romance?." Psychology of Women Quarterly 31.2 (2007): 125-136.
-----
[Still looking for studies that analyze the question more than simply testing whether people think feminists are less attractive.]
The Ideology of Wifely Submission: A Challenge for Feminism?
Conversely, our most personal desires may come from the internalization of societal norms, which are often rooted in structures of inequality. In a male-dominated society, the social construction of sexuality can lead to an eroticization of male dominance and female submission (Benjamin 1988; MacKinnon 1989). Women come to desire their own domination. Yet just because our desires are socially constructed does not mean that they can be changed easily or at will (Cornell 1995). As Lori Marso (2006) argues, even feminist women struggle with what she calls the “demands of femininity,” the cultural dynamics and internalized desires that keep women tied to a sex/gender system they seek to transform. For many women, sexual desire is central to how they understand themselves as sexed beings (Cornell 1995, 6); they feel their desires deeply and have no wish to change what gives them fulfillment and makes them who they are, even if their choices reinforce ideologies that support male dominance.
A vision of feminism that emphasizes the right to choose as its guiding principle makes it difficult to get at the problem of desire because the invocation of “rights” and “choices” often functions to shut down critical discourse that seeks to delve into the reasons why women make particular choices. In response to this problem, Linda Hirshman calls for feminism to return “to its early, judgmental roots” (2005, 4), and this is exactly what the women on the third-wave blog feministing.org did when they discovered Kelley’s Website. They reacted with judgmentalness and ridicule — calling CDD “sick,” “wacko,” “disgusting,” and “ridiculous,” among other things (Feministing.org 2007). That reaction is understandable. Because the discourse of wifely submission romanticizes patriarchy and stands diametrically opposed to the feminist goal of ending gender oppression, many feminists will no doubt find it patently offensive. Yet the reaction is also surprising, given that third-wave feminism in general defines itself as the heir of the nonjudgmental, prosex side of the sex wars (Snyder 2008).
Standing in judgment of other women’s choices, however, is not a productive approach, and it will most likely do more harm than good to feminism, playing into commonly accepted caricatures of the movement. Many submissive women already feel marginalized by what they perceive as hegemonic feminist norms — which is what all the marriage manuals are contesting. Judgmentalness does not make desire go away. In fact, a position of condemnation or ridicule will probably push submissive women toward the theological discourse that validates their desires — a discourse that potentially undergirds an antifeminist, Christian Right agenda. While many submissive women vehemently oppose feminism and embrace conservative politics, that is certainly not the case across the board, even among evangelicals (Gallagher 2003, 9). As Christel Manning (1999) found, conservative evangelical women often support gender equality in the workplace, relegating submission to the realms of home and church only, and they sometimes embrace the discourse of wifely submission while behaving in accordance with more egalitarian ideals. Most people are not ideologues, even if they find a particular ideology appealing. People can be swayed one way or another, depending on how the issues are framed.
No easy solution exists to the problem of patriarchal desire, and not all women support gender equality. Nevertheless, I would argue that feminists should respond to submissive women in a way that increases the possibility that they will move toward feminism, an approach that has three components. First, feminists should continue to engage in cultural production with the goal of expanding the possibilities of the imaginary domain — the psychic space in which people construct themselves as persons (Cornell 1995, 8). We need to expand the possibility for women to imagine themselves outside the box of male dominance and female submission by offering images of alternative relationships, genders, and sexualities. For me, the problem is not so much that this or that particular woman desires patriarchy but rather that at a certain point, an aggregation of individual choices could render male-dominated relationships hegemonic once again, possibly even with the support of the law, as in the nineteenth century. Encouraging a multiplicity of relationship types should help mitigate that danger.
When advocates of wifely submission tout the benefits of patriarchal marriage, feminists need to respond with a compelling alternative vision. For example, women concerned about their marriages need to know that a recent study reveals that men and women with feminist partners report having more stable and satisfying relationships and better sex lives (Rudman and Phelan 2007)
Second, feminists should seek to engage women in critical discussions about their choices, rather than simply accepting them as sacrosanct or condemning them as deluded.
[...]
As Marso (2006) argues, all women grapple with the “demands of femininity”; some do this by pushing the boundaries of societal norms. Others struggle to find a functional place of comfort within those norms. Whatever the case, however, only the woman herself “can come up with the answers” to vexing questions about desire; “nobody else can answer those questions” for her (Hirschmann 2003, 237). Walking the line of respectful engagement is difficult, but it is what feminism requires.
Finally, although legal solutions cannot solve the problem of women’s desire for male dominance, law and public policy do have a role to play. Despite the limitations of consent (MacKinnon 1989), the concept remains vitally important. We need to protect laws concerning domestic violence and marital rape from erosion by those who see them as a threat to the conservative family or to their personal practices. Though imperfect, domestic violence laws help protect women from abuse. The possibility of arrest should play a positive role in curbing the desires of those men who seek to impose CDD on unwilling wives — which some men on the Internet claim they do. Indeed, the commandment of submission has been used by evangelical men to justify abuse (Gallagher 2003, 165 –66). Spanking a woman against her will or insisting on sex when she is not ready currently does and should continue to constitute domestic violence and rape, respectively. Men who dominate women must be vigilant in making sure that their partners really do want to be dominated; women should be able to call the police for help if necessary.
Snyder-Hall, R. Claire. "The Ideology of Wifely Submission: A Challenge for Feminism?." Politics & Gender 4.4 (2008): 563-586.
[The above is from an extensive journal article that is certainly interesting to read, though undoubtedly frustrating because of its citation of dubious sources (e.g. Rudman, 2007) making dubious claims to support fundamental aspects of its argument]
A vision of feminism that emphasizes the right to choose as its guiding principle makes it difficult to get at the problem of desire because the invocation of “rights” and “choices” often functions to shut down critical discourse that seeks to delve into the reasons why women make particular choices. In response to this problem, Linda Hirshman calls for feminism to return “to its early, judgmental roots” (2005, 4), and this is exactly what the women on the third-wave blog feministing.org did when they discovered Kelley’s Website. They reacted with judgmentalness and ridicule — calling CDD “sick,” “wacko,” “disgusting,” and “ridiculous,” among other things (Feministing.org 2007). That reaction is understandable. Because the discourse of wifely submission romanticizes patriarchy and stands diametrically opposed to the feminist goal of ending gender oppression, many feminists will no doubt find it patently offensive. Yet the reaction is also surprising, given that third-wave feminism in general defines itself as the heir of the nonjudgmental, prosex side of the sex wars (Snyder 2008).
Standing in judgment of other women’s choices, however, is not a productive approach, and it will most likely do more harm than good to feminism, playing into commonly accepted caricatures of the movement. Many submissive women already feel marginalized by what they perceive as hegemonic feminist norms — which is what all the marriage manuals are contesting. Judgmentalness does not make desire go away. In fact, a position of condemnation or ridicule will probably push submissive women toward the theological discourse that validates their desires — a discourse that potentially undergirds an antifeminist, Christian Right agenda. While many submissive women vehemently oppose feminism and embrace conservative politics, that is certainly not the case across the board, even among evangelicals (Gallagher 2003, 9). As Christel Manning (1999) found, conservative evangelical women often support gender equality in the workplace, relegating submission to the realms of home and church only, and they sometimes embrace the discourse of wifely submission while behaving in accordance with more egalitarian ideals. Most people are not ideologues, even if they find a particular ideology appealing. People can be swayed one way or another, depending on how the issues are framed.
No easy solution exists to the problem of patriarchal desire, and not all women support gender equality. Nevertheless, I would argue that feminists should respond to submissive women in a way that increases the possibility that they will move toward feminism, an approach that has three components. First, feminists should continue to engage in cultural production with the goal of expanding the possibilities of the imaginary domain — the psychic space in which people construct themselves as persons (Cornell 1995, 8). We need to expand the possibility for women to imagine themselves outside the box of male dominance and female submission by offering images of alternative relationships, genders, and sexualities. For me, the problem is not so much that this or that particular woman desires patriarchy but rather that at a certain point, an aggregation of individual choices could render male-dominated relationships hegemonic once again, possibly even with the support of the law, as in the nineteenth century. Encouraging a multiplicity of relationship types should help mitigate that danger.
When advocates of wifely submission tout the benefits of patriarchal marriage, feminists need to respond with a compelling alternative vision. For example, women concerned about their marriages need to know that a recent study reveals that men and women with feminist partners report having more stable and satisfying relationships and better sex lives (Rudman and Phelan 2007)
Second, feminists should seek to engage women in critical discussions about their choices, rather than simply accepting them as sacrosanct or condemning them as deluded.
[...]
As Marso (2006) argues, all women grapple with the “demands of femininity”; some do this by pushing the boundaries of societal norms. Others struggle to find a functional place of comfort within those norms. Whatever the case, however, only the woman herself “can come up with the answers” to vexing questions about desire; “nobody else can answer those questions” for her (Hirschmann 2003, 237). Walking the line of respectful engagement is difficult, but it is what feminism requires.
Finally, although legal solutions cannot solve the problem of women’s desire for male dominance, law and public policy do have a role to play. Despite the limitations of consent (MacKinnon 1989), the concept remains vitally important. We need to protect laws concerning domestic violence and marital rape from erosion by those who see them as a threat to the conservative family or to their personal practices. Though imperfect, domestic violence laws help protect women from abuse. The possibility of arrest should play a positive role in curbing the desires of those men who seek to impose CDD on unwilling wives — which some men on the Internet claim they do. Indeed, the commandment of submission has been used by evangelical men to justify abuse (Gallagher 2003, 165 –66). Spanking a woman against her will or insisting on sex when she is not ready currently does and should continue to constitute domestic violence and rape, respectively. Men who dominate women must be vigilant in making sure that their partners really do want to be dominated; women should be able to call the police for help if necessary.
Snyder-Hall, R. Claire. "The Ideology of Wifely Submission: A Challenge for Feminism?." Politics & Gender 4.4 (2008): 563-586.
[The above is from an extensive journal article that is certainly interesting to read, though undoubtedly frustrating because of its citation of dubious sources (e.g. Rudman, 2007) making dubious claims to support fundamental aspects of its argument]
With this Ring, I Thee Wed
Gender differences in and related correlates of attitudes toward engagement rings and weddings are considered. College students (193 women, 112 men) completed a questionnaire assessing attitudes toward engagement rings and weddings, eros and pragma love styles, and an assessment of traditional versus egalitarian gender roles. Although predicted gender differences and hypothesized love style links were not found, gender stereotypical attitudes regarding male/female roles was positively correlated with pragma, a rational, love-planning love style; with wanting a traditional wedding; and with preferring diamonds in engagement rings. Gender transcendence was significantly correlated with an eros love style as well as with four of ten engagement ring and wedding attitude factors. Rather than indicating less interest in romantic relationships per se, a gender transcendent approach to male/female roles may be associated with egalitarian attitudes towards commitment indicators and with less of a desire for expensive engagement rings or weddings.
Ogletree, Shirley M. "With this Ring, I Thee Wed: Relating Gender Roles and Love Styles to Attitudes towards Engagement Rings and Weddings." Gender Issues 27.1-2 (2010): 67-77.
Ogletree, Shirley M. "With this Ring, I Thee Wed: Relating Gender Roles and Love Styles to Attitudes towards Engagement Rings and Weddings." Gender Issues 27.1-2 (2010): 67-77.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)