January 31, 2014

NYT: Having female loved ones makes men into sexist Republicans

New York Times columnist Charles Blow discovers a new engine fueling the War on Women: having female loved ones makes men more sexist. Apparently, being around women they love causes males to notice average differences between men and women, and Noticing, as we've all been warned, leads to conservatism.
The problem with having your message powered by machismo is that it reveals what undergirds such a stance: misogyny and chauvinism. The masculinity for which they yearn draws its meaning and its value from juxtaposition with a lesser, vulnerable, narrowly drawn femininity. 
We have seen recent research suggesting that men with daughters are more likely to be Republican and a study finding that men with sisters are more likely to be Republican. *
The study of men with sisters was conducted by researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Business and Loyola Marymount University. A report from Stanford about the study concluded, “Watching their sisters do the chores ‘teaches’ boys that housework is simply women’s work, and that leads to a traditional view of gender roles — a position linked to a predilection for Republican politics.”

Also, in 2012 65.0% of white men with wives voted Republican compared to only 50.6% of white men without wives.

It's almost as if the wives, daughters, and sisters of men are poisoning men's minds against the truths of feminism, which are so much more obvious to males sitting alone in their parents' basements.

Seriously, as Henry Kissinger has noted, there will never be a final victor in the Battle of the Sexes because there is too much fraternizing with the enemy.
--------
Here is statistician Andrew Gelman trying to work through the puzzles of how to test for these effects without measuring something else, such as propensity to have larger families.
   

71 comments:

Mr. Anon said...

At least Pajama-boy can take comfort in the knowledge that he will always be a liberal.

Mr. Anon said...

“Watching their sisters do the chores ‘teaches’ boys that housework is simply women’s work, and that leads to a traditional view of gender roles — a position linked to a predilection for Republican politics.”

Or perhaps men concluded that after having never - never in their whole lives - seen a woman cleaning a carbuerator, snaking out a drain, or installing a new light-switch.

Anonymous said...

constant attack leads to constant defense - which is the reason for the tactic...it only really works on people who like to be agreeable. i like being agreeable but not to people who use tactics like that.

anyway

conservatism is basically K-type people encouraging r-type people to be like K-type people. this is good for them.

modern liberalism is about K-type liberals encouraging r-type people to remain r-type people. this is bad for them.

(but means the liberal's kids will have less competition when they grow up).

Anonymous said...

*Charles Blow*

So, somebody named their kid "Chuck Blow". Cool. I like their discretion. Chuck Blow is a lot better than "Richard Blow", for example. Still...there's a novelty restaurant name hidden in that. It's just a matter of finding the best one:

Chuck n' Blow

Blow n' Chuck

Chuck n' Chuck n' Blow, n' Chuck s'more.

Blow, Blow, Blow, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck n' Blow.

Anonymous said...

I glanced at the Stanford study and did not find any breakdown by race or ethnicity. If there really is a link to having sisters and voting GOP, than this study surely ONLY pertains to white males, and white gentile males at that.

Jews with sisters still probably lean democrat in much the same way that upper middle class, married Jews do. I believe it is has been written on this blog before that Jews earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans.

Given blacks 95% support of democrats, it doesn't look like having sisters does much to change this fact.

Also, Blow's NYT piece mentions this:

The problem with having your message powered by machismo is that it reveals what undergirds such a stance: misogyny and chauvinism.

If this is true, then why don't black males vote GOP? Is there any group in this nation with a more machismo attitude?

Anonymous said...

GOOGLE banning SNOWDEN.

http://benswann.com/media-blacks-out-new-snowden-interview-the-government-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

his past Sunday evening former NSA contractor Edward Snowden sat down for an interview with German television network ARD. The interview has been intentionally blocked from the US public, with virtually no major broadcast news outlets covering this story. In addition, the video has been taken down almost immediately every time it’s posted on YouTube.

a woman said...

What a scientiically illiterate , fatuous little wuss Blow is. Hmmm. He must come from a family with an overbearing, emasculating mother.

Ex Machina said...

Still a mystery to me how this guy has a job. Oh, he's black? Never mind.

Anonymous said...

Only 65%????

Seriously!?

Bert said...

It's takes a special kind of mediocrity to make Bob Hebert look inspired, but Charles Blow rises to the challenge.

2Degrees said...

Having to think about someone other than yourself makes you conservative. When all that matters is the next joint and the next anal delve then you are PC.

That's why their so will to sacrifice other people's children's birthright.

stari_momak said...

Seriously, I don’t understand how any white man could vote Democratic, particularly younger (and thus more likely to be unmarried) ones.

agnostic said...

"there is too much fraternizing with the enemy."

Not in a society where food is produced by female gardening (horticulturalists). Men and women couldn't be more distant and antagonistic -- men are evil, and women are pollution.

The more we head toward an economy of self-supporting females, the more we can expect the relations between the sexes to look like those of the Amazon, black Africa, and New Guinea.

DR said...

One of the biggest factors underpinning this relationship is crime and lawlessness. Women as the physically weaker sex suffer much more when the state fails to control human predators.

A single liberal man is likely to view a "vibrant" neighborhood as exciting and wild. A married man with teenage daughters probably views the same place as a dangerous place where his family isn't safe. In some sense married men fear this more than women themselves because they know how depraved men can be.

Jon said...

Even the copy hosted on ARDs site gets you this message: "Der Clip konnte nicht geladen werden. Bitte versuchen Sie es zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt erneut."

Interesting.

Anonymous said...

What, did Pyjama Boy have like eleven brothers or something?

Anonymous said...

Didn't Ross Douthat already write this, several times, in the same newspaper

Anonymous said...

I know Steve prefers not to acknowledge any news events which might redound, however slightly, to the credit of a Republican somewhere, but I'm still surprised he's not ventured any remarks on the Queen of the Single Moms over in Tejas. Her cruel reversal-for-fortune reads like an appendix for the "America's Half-Blood Prince" book. It's almost as if the state Democratic Party would rather continue to lose than run a candidate rooted in reality, as if being an oppressed NAM -- but I repeat myself -- is the sine-qua-non prerequisite in their whole nomination process.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Charles Blow is related to Kurtis Blow from back in the day?

Anonymous said...

It's almost as if the wives, daughters, and sisters of men are poisoning men's minds against the truths of feminism, which are so much more obvious to males sitting alone in their parents' basements.

Few men want to see their female relatives become crotchety old spinsters.

Anonymous said...

In other East Coast Media Establishment news/superstitions, beards are racist.

IHTG said...

These people are just evil.

Dan said...

Explain the voting pattern of black men then?

Dozens of half sisters, high testosterone and a nasty habit of violent conduct... All nigs vote for the liberal party.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yes, the women I've known were brutal saboteurs of the feminist agenda.

My late wife, Myrna, dragged me forcibly out of my liberal college indoctrination. She thought the ideas behind that were the dumbest shit she'd ever heard. She couldn't comprehend how I ever bought into that BS.

Having gay friends undermines the liberal agenda, too.

My closest friend for 35 years is a gay man who introduced me to men's issues and despises feminism.

Anonymous said...

OT, concerning (if the acronym isn't taken yet) WWS, i.e. it's all Sprawl's fault, see:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/atlanta-snow-storm-102839.html#.Uuz6UfYj47B

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm sorry to say that I actually followed that Gelman link.

Jesus H Christ, what a bunch of asinine gibberish and horse manure.

If that represents the state of the art in stats thinking, then it's no wonder that Princeton abolished their Stats Department when Tukey retired.

Seran said...

The magic of diversity!
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-diversity-group-success.html

SFG said...

There is much truth to this. I never bothered trying to be masculine until I started trying to get laid. ;)

Anonymous said...

Agree with the anonymous poster above. Animals tend towards either pair-bonding (penguins) or tournaments (seals*, deer) depending on how reliant the female is on male resources. As female self-reliance increases, there is no need for a woman to settle for a mediocre male out of necessity. Better to become part of a high-quality male's harem.

* IIRC, 85% of male elephant seals produce no offspring.

Anonymous said...

Then to advance the Cause, abort females.

Anonymous said...

"We have seen recent research suggesting that men with daughters are more likely to be Republican and a study finding that men with sisters are more likely to be Republican. *" - Selection bias: men with sisters lived necessarily in families that had a fertility above 1.3 on average, which implies republican.

691 said...

This is why a woman must have an unlimited right to abort her female fetuses. Otherwise her husband and sons might become conservative. Female empowerment!

Anonymous said...

Newest crime of men: loving women close to your heart.

you might have their best interest in mind rather than feminism's interest.

i'm starting to get sick of the west.

Anonymous said...

Men with daughters, are they more likely to be feminist?

Anonymous said...

Steve:

I give thanks* that there are people like you reading the NYT so people like me don't have to. It's a nasty job but someone has to do it.
---------------
* and a fairly regular donation

Modern Abraham said...

The problem with having your message powered by machismo is that it reveals what undergirds such a stance: misogyny and chauvinism. The masculinity for which they yearn draws its meaning and its value from juxtaposition with a lesser, vulnerable, narrowly drawn femininity.


Watching pretenders like Blow and Ta-Nehisi Coates try to construct cogent, literary-elegant sentences with SAT words just barely within their intellectual heft is like watching someone trying to sculpt the Pieta using only sticks of dynamite (though, to be fair, literary-pretentious doofuses like David Brooks, Anthony Kennedy, and Barack Obama are almost as bad). Give me vintage Jesse Jackson any day.

Anonymous said...

The more we head toward an economy of self-supporting females, the more we can expect the relations between the sexes to look like those of the Amazon, black Africa, and New Guinea.

The fundamental tension in a big-Government culture:

Who does the actual productive stuff so that those government-supported women can put food on the table?

Anonymous said...

And in the latest news from Zuckerberg and fellow travellers, You are racissss if you oppose immigration reform

Anonymous said...

Charles Blow is by far the worst of the twelve regular columnists on the NYT's editorial page. No one except Frank Bruni even comes close.

Say what you want about the rest of the writers; they are smart, thoughtful, possess at least a modicum of writing talent, and they focus on important world issues, like the economy, international conflicts, and changes in American society.

Meanwhile Bruni and Blow two seem to have their jobs mainly so the NYT can satisfy each one's respective identity-politics pressure groups. Not surprisingly, a disproportionate amount of their writing is divisive identity-politics pandering like the piece above.

Rohan Swee said...

Also, in 2012 65.0% of white men with wives voted Republican compared to only 50.6% of white men without wives.

Demonstrating once again that women are a bad influence. At least on white men. We need to deny white man access to women to keep them out of the clutches of evil.

Anonymous said...

Haven't we been told that the traditional nuclear family is a source of social pathology? This seems to clinch it.

:-)

Anonymous said...

I suspect they think it will help them with the single ladies (overwhelmingly liberal.) It does not, and that's why single white liberal males sound increasingly shrill as they age. They start to sound like those lesbian activists. So much anger.

Anonymous said...

Pretty simple how the Dems have operated--get the votes of minorities (hell, even Steve Hsu voted Obama), and add to the mix single white women, voila, a winner.

The Dems have every reason to continue to foster policies that encourage no marriage, except for gay, of course, who are a minority and whose votes they already have.

Anonymous said...

Rebellion against conservative dads? Hopefully they'll grow out of it before all the good women are taken.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://newportfbo.com/]replika nike[/url]

[url=http://newportfbo.com/nike]nike lunar[/url]

[url=http://newportfbo.com/christian-louboutin]replica louboutin sale[/url]

[url=http://newportfbo.com/hogan]replica louboutin sale[/url]

[url=http://newportfbo.com/mbt]replica mbt[/url]

countenance said...

I have found that in married white couples, they almost always both vote the same way.

But if they both vote Democrat, the wife wears the pants in the family. If they both vote Republican, it's somewhere between co-equal and dominant husband.

That said, I have to remember from this post that there is also a marriage gap for white men.

David said...

Anything having to do with healthy productive family life among the generality is anathema to the continued rule of the families in power.

Thus the loud top-down campaigns against hetereosexuality, traditional marriage, sexual continence, inheritance, landowning, low taxes, etc.

It's easy to predict what will enrage the power families and their lackeys. Just say you don't want your daughter to marry black, or take drugs. That's enough. Or simply defend inheritance. Dynasty-building is only for the powerful families - your family should avoid it like poison (it's harmful that your influence should extend beyond your own lifetime in any way). Or state that your boy will not wear a dress. They will come after him hammer and tongs.

Al Gore's family can marry into the Schiffs. Your family should be kept at or dragged down to the level of workers in the Tasty Freeze. Preferably with scarred tubes from sleeping around or a black baby with no visible father. That's "cool" and "liberated." It shows that you're "fighting the power." Meanwhile, the power laughs all the way to the hedge fund.

pat said...

The term "female loved ones" raises the issue of sex partners. If there is anything to this theory would that mean that male Republicans have more lifetime sex partners than comparable Democrats?

Interesting if true.

Albertosaurus

Jupiter said...

65.0% of white men with wives voted Republican compared to only 50.6% of white men without wives.

Same for women. If it were up to married white women, Romney would be President. Either marriage makes you sane, or sanity makes you marry.

Anonymous said...

Love is the enemy of liberalism. Liberalism is at war with basic human nature.

Only question now, is how long can this nonsense last!

Anonymous said...

Only the racists at the NYT would hire a mediocre Token like Charles Blow.

I mean, think all the black Democrat writers - and they picked Charles Blow! Or is it that he was willing to work for the minimum wage?

Anonymous said...

"i'm starting to get sick of the west."

It's not the West it's the anti-west.

It's taking every aspect of the original Western culture and inverting it piece by piece.

Whatever its flaws the old Western culture was probably the most (net) adaptive devised so far so inverting it creates the most poisonous culture devised so far.

Anonymous said...

"Explain the voting pattern of black men then?" - is their behavior with respect to politics liberal or conservative? Given how they act the instant they seize power I'd say its fairly conservative.

Anonymous said...

Obviously Bill Clinton hates his wife.

agnostic said...

Further proof Charles Blow was a token hire -- he previously had jobs as a graphics and art director at the NYT and Nat Geo.

What are the odds that in today's hyper-competitive job market, he could specialize in verbal and visual jobs at the most elite media institutions?

They just shoved his token ass in wherever they had a vacancy at the time.

A person with a sense of honor and shame would've picked up on that and gracefully bowed out, maybe flipped the bird at his bosses for being so patronizing and misleading.

But, welcome to the 21st century.

Mr. Anon said...

"David said...

Anything having to do with healthy productive family life among the generality is anathema to the continued rule of the families in power.

Thus the loud top-down campaigns against hetereosexuality, traditional marriage, sexual continence, inheritance, landowning, low taxes, etc.

It's easy to predict what will enrage the power families and their lackeys. Just say you don't want your daughter to marry black, or take drugs. That's enough. Or simply defend inheritance. Dynasty-building is only for the powerful families - your family should avoid it like poison (it's harmful that your influence should extend beyond your own lifetime in any way). Or state that your boy will not wear a dress. They will come after him hammer and tongs."

@David: Well said. The only real lasting power is the power to influence the world beyond one's own life. The wealthy want it all for themselves. They want their progeny to inherit the future, and ours to inherit only the dust.

Mr. Anon said...

"pat said...

The term "female loved ones" raises the issue of sex partners."

I think Steve was referring to sisters, daughters, aunts, etc.

You know,...........the kind of women whom you don't tie up in your basement, Pat. You've been in San Francisco too long.

countenance said...

Jupiter wrote:

Either marriage makes you sane, or sanity makes you marry.

I respond:

I think it's a little of both.

Anonymous said...

Only one Democrat has won the male vote in presidential races since 1992 — and that was Barack Obama, who won it in 2008 by one percentage point.

It appears the Left is concerned that (white, gentile) men vote GOP in larger numbers, so they are grasping at straws to find the reasons behind this. Hence this ridiculous study.

In the list Blow provided of (white, gentile) male voting since 1992, the greatest percentage of said vote was 55% in 2004. Fifty-five percent, and we are supposed to see this as a problem? In other words the (white, gentile) male vote is pretty much up for grabs AS IT SHOULD BE in a democracy. This is healthy because it shows that both parties can actively compete for those votes.

As opposed to say, the black vote which routinely goes 90% or higher for one side. Tell me what other democracy on Earth, with 40 million people, votes 90% for one party. This would be like Poland voting 90% for one party. The only places where 90% of such a large populace votes one way is in places that are not democracies, such as Saddam winning in a unanimous vote in 2002.

To a lesser extent the same can be said about Jews and Hispanics. In 2012, we were supposed to be happy because Jews only voted 70% for the democrat.

If whites voted in the same bloc-like fashion as minorities and Jews, the democrats would not have a prayer. Yet they bitch because (white, gentile) males have the audacity to give SLIGHTLY over half their votes to the GOP.

The Republican Party is in danger of becoming a man cave of cavemen and the women who can abide them.

Similar things could be said about the democrats

Anonymous said...

Here is statistician Andrew Gelman trying to work through the puzzles of how to test for these effects without measuring something else, such as propensity to have larger families.

Find non-family-oriented (WASP, SWPL) people who marry into large (ethnoid) families. There are many real life example of MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING.

SFG said...

"A person with a sense of honor and shame would've picked up on that and gracefully bowed out, maybe flipped the bird at his bosses for being so patronizing and misleading."

He's probably happy to have a job, just like the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Stereotype Treat is better than Stereotype Thrill.

not a hacker said...

Speaking of sexist Republicans, don't you think that the members of uber-exclusive golf clubs like Cypress Point and SFGC should help fund Mark Steyn's defense of the Mann suit? Figure, what, 300 members at each place? So for a $5 million worldwide exposure of perhaps history's greatest fraud, that would be about $8k each for blokes worth an average of 50 mil. Doesn't seem too much to ask.

Reg Cæsar said...

The only places where 90% of such a large populace votes one way is in places that are not democracies. --anon.

The Deep South gave similar results for the limousine Leninist FDR. Their electors represented 12-20 mil people, but only a small fraction ever voted. Wheels did 10-20 %pts better there than in NYC, and 10-20 %pts better than previous Dem candidates in those states.

I'll let the rest of you wrangle over whether that was a "democracy". I can't begin to care.

Anonymous said...

Why are there no Secret Service Women protecting the President?

To be representative, shouldn't it be 51% women?

Anonymous said...

Feminism is mind cancer.

Poueron said...

Actually, I don't know how well this corresponds to what is observed in day to day life.

Men who have had daughters that I known have tended to become more liberal. Its apparently hard for people to refuse special privileges and even more difficult if its for one's kids.

Anonymous said...

The Deep South gave similar results for the limousine Leninist FDR.

Unreal. It looks like in 1932 MS voted 95% for FDR and GA voted 91%. SC actually went 98% for FDR!

Do you suppose if the South still voted like that today, they'd be treated with much more respect? Do you suppose there would be studies like this trying to determine if men with daughters voted democrat?

BTW, here is a great site that allows you to easily toggle through all presidential elections at the national and state level. This is real fun stuff.

Anonymous said...

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/woody-allen-is-a-perv/52d595a02b8c2a42eb00093f

Anonymous said...

The term "female loved ones" raises the issue of sex partners. If there is anything to this theory would that mean that male Republicans have more lifetime sex partners than comparable Democrats?

Interesting if true.


But probably not true, since it's a virtual certainty that Reps marry younger and are less likely to stray. It may be that single Rep males are more successful at getting women into bed than comparable Democrats.

Anyway, how does "loved ones" translate into sexual partners? I wouldn't apply that phrase to more than maybe 20% of my lifetime sex partners, though I liked almost of all of them, some quite a bit.

ScarletNumbers said...

I think the causality runs the other way: A man who votes Republican is more likely to marry and have children.