Home / General / Breaking! Conservertarian Speculation Inconsistent With Empirical Evidence!

Breaking! Conservertarian Speculation Inconsistent With Empirical Evidence!

Comments
/
/
/
111 Views

David Nieporent would like to instruct feminists that they should not worry their pretty little heads about such trivialities as “reinforcing the sexist stereotypes that have contributed to the gross underrepresentation in public office”:

It used to be said that women couldn’t be involved in politics because they were just too frivolous, unable to handle serious issues and suited only to superficial, flighty topics. Then feminists came along to try to prove them right.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Only:

A number of unlikely sources defended President Obama last week when he called California Attorney General Kamala Harris “the best looking attorney general” and was later forced to apologize for it. His defenders mostly sang a common refrain: What’s the harm in complimenting a woman’s appearance?

As if on cue, a study released Monday showed that media coverage of a woman candidate’s appearance actually makes people less likely to vote for her — even if the comments are positive.

“Women candidates pay a real price when they are covered in a way that focuses on their appearance,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners, which conducted the survey along with Chesapeake Beach Consulting, said in a statement. “Even what we thought was benign coverage about how a woman dresses has a negative impact on her vote and whether voters perceive her as in touch, likeable, confident, effective, and qualified. And, in close races, sexist coverage on top of the attacks that every candidate faces can make the difference between winning and losing.”

Also:

Name It. Change It.’s report didn’t run a similar experiment for coverage of Dan’s looks, so we don’t know how praise of his cuticle maintenance would have affected his chances. But we do know that despite President Obama’s commitment to equal-opportunity physical flattery, female candidates contend with far more superficial coverage of their campaigns than do men, and that seriously undermines their success. In Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns, Erika Falk examined media coverage of every female presidential candidate in American history, from Victoria Woodhull in 1872 to Hillary Clinton in 2008. Female candidates were subjected to four times the appearance-based coverage that male candidates were. And the trend didn’t budge across the 136-year sample: Journalists in 2004 described Carol Moseley Braun’s body more frequently than journalists in 1872 touched on Woodhull’s looks. Independent studies have found similar gender discrepancies in media coverage of 2008 vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, and 2000 presidential contenders Elizabeth Dole, George W. Bush, Steve Forbes, and John McCain.

These issues are, in fact, entirely serious. The disproportionate focus on the appearance of women is well-established and clearly harmful.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • sharculese

    Treating women like decoration, of course, has no relationship to the idea that they’re too flighty for political office.

    • RepubAnon

      Maybe someone should tell Maureen Dowd and the New York Times.

    • ChrisTS

      I would like to think of myself as an ornament. Alas, I have never found an appropriate tree (or shelf). Very sad.

  • Malaclypse

    Technically, isn’t Davey more of a glibertarian than a conservertarian? Or is his mindless support for the Iraq War enough to tip the balance?

    • TribalistMeathead

      It used to be said that conservatives couldn’t be involved in politics because they were just too frivolous, unable to handle serious issues and suited only to superficial, flighty topics. Then David L. Nieporent came along to try to prove them right.

      • TribalistMeathead

        Wasn’t supposed to be a response to Malaclypse, oops.

        • c u n d gulag

          It doesn’t matter – it was nicely done!

      • David M. Nieporent

        “I don’t care what they say about me, as long as they spell my name right.”

        The middle initial is M., not L.

        • TribalistMeathead

          I guess I had you confused with David L. Lander, TV’s Squiggy.

    • NonyNony

      Technically Nierporent is a neo-fascist troll who barely disguises himself as a libertarian troll.

      I honestly don’t understand why the same people who ignore Chestnuts will attempt to respond to Nierporent. He’s just as odious as Chestnuts but somehow has convinced whole swaths of people around here that he’s anything but a troll hanging around to piss people off but without the humor that Chestnuts brings to the table.

      • Walt

        Nierporent is wrong on everything, but if you can’t see the difference between him and Chestnuts, then you’re out of your fucking mind. It’s like saying there’s no difference between Ted Bundy and Hitler. Yes, Hitler. Fuck you, Godwin, and may you rot in hell.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah. I agree that Nieporent has beliefs that I find wrong, and in some cases repugnant, but to call him “neo-fascist” is really pushing it.

          Also, Nieporent at least makes some effort to engage with people’s arguments, and talks like reasonably normal person. Chesternuts, by contrast, sounds like he’s from another planet.

          • Anonymous

            Different Anonymous, completely disagreeing. David is always unreasonable, shrill, and combative, and changes goal-posts whenever someone of even moderate intelligence engages with him.

            I’ll take sock-puppets and Poes over this juvenile, lying douchebag.

            • timb

              so much accuracy in that comment…..That comment is so correct, you can use it to find True North in the middle of a blizzard

            • spencer

              I concur with this Anonymous.

            • Walt

              Why? Chesternuts disrupts several threads a week with a million comments about stupid crap. If a thread hits 150 posts, then 50% of the time it’s 20 people arguing with the voices in Chesternuts’ head. Nierperont shows up, makes his dumb arguments, and then goes away for a while.

              • Anonymous

                See, that’s what I was trying to say.

          • jb

            Make that “repugnant in most cases”.

            And I agree that Nieporent is intellectually dishonest, and that his “libertarianism” is mostly a figleaf for hard-right dogma. But unlike Chesternuts, he doesn’t strike me as actually being insane.

      • Karate Bearfighter

        Nieporent has become increasingly trollish, but he used to make coherent conservative arguments and he attempted to engage posts and commenters from the right. There’s a big difference between being a conversation-derailing troll and being a wingnut, even if they do frequently overlap.

        • sparks

          Yes. I didn’t stop responding to Nieporent because he tried to derail threads (he didn’t usually, he attempted to engage the argument), but because he was altogether loathsome as a person.

          I leave the pleasure of arguing with that sort of creeping disease to others.

        • cpinva

          “but he used to make coherent conservative arguments”

          not possible. by definition, there is no such thing, in this reality, as a “coherent conservative argument” the term itself is simply cover for “whatever is best for me”.

          • Malaclypse

            there is no such thing, in this reality, as a “coherent conservative argument”

            Bruce Bartlett. Often wrong (see today on Thatcher) but worth reading.

          • Djur

            There absolutely are coherent conservative arguments, but they’re based on assumptions and values that are not popular to put in plain language. You had much more cogently argued right-wing thought back before the ’60s, at which point at least a half-hearted endorsement of egalitarianism became de rigeur for serious people.

            If you’re willing to stipulate that there are superior and inferior classes of humanity, and that it is preferable that innocent people suffer than for the undeserving to receive aid, you can easily make coherent conservative arguments. You do occasionally come across honest arguments from certain Christian reactionaries, extreme libertarians, and open racists, but the mainstream GOP line is that their policies are not only better for the rich but actually favor the poor and underprivileged. That results in cognitive dissonance and murky argumentation.

            • cpinva

              “That results in cognitive dissonance and murky argumentation.

              which i believe is, by definition, incoherent. by coherent, i mean one that uses actual facts, to reach a conclusion, not something pulled out of thin air.

              • Pseudonym

                by coherent, i mean one that uses actual facts, to reach a conclusion, not something pulled out of thin air.

                But that’s not what coherent means; it means logically connected and consistent. An argument based on false premises can be perfectly coherent, just wrong and unsound.

      • elm

        He’s often right about baseball and many people on the internet actually go back far enough with him to remember the rec.sports days of Usenet.

        • Josh

          Yeah, he always fought the good fight against r(l)m. But he’s spent a lot of time frittering away all the goodwill he earned back then.

      • DrDick

        Yep.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Technically, isn’t Davey more of a glibertarian than a conservertarian? Or is his mindless support for the Iraq War enough to tip the balance?

      It’s a fine line, but in addition to his uncritical support for the Iraq War, has he ever said a negative word about Sam Alito?

    • timb

      He’s spent the last week on Volokh arguing there is no equal protection argument in the DOMA case, so much so that he has basically admitted to opposing SSM, until called upon, where upon he immediately claims he doesn’t care who marries who and the government should have no place in it.

      That’s not even glibertarianism, that’s nihilism dressed up as glibertarianism.

    • FormerBBTFer

      I recall some pretty lol worthy posts from our fine Mr. Nieporent about the us internment of Japanese during WWII, from a civil rights perspective.

      The pro Iraq war stuff was pretty special though.

      I really can’t thank him enough. He’s had a great influence on me.

  • Shakezula

    And if you add commentary about First Ladies… Yech.

    By the way, suggested reading: The latest edition of the Straight Dope where Cece can’t resist twice pointing out that he thinks gals in high heels are hawt, even though he acknowledges heels really, really suck.

    My only objection to this otherwise excellent post is that by quoting the Nimpotent thing, you not only gave its “thoughts credence they don’t deserve, you probably gave him a stiffy that will last for days. Eeew.

    • cpinva

      ok, thanks so much for that incredibly disturbing mental image! i will now go bleach my brain.

      • Shakezula

        Sorry, I used it all. Stupid self-inflicted brain besmirching.

  • jim, some guy in iowa

    it kind of reminds me about the seth macfarlane/oscars thing, because people who want to downplay or defend what obama said seem to have to do it by being *more* sexist and condescending and generally jerk-y than obama was

    • STH

      Tbogg’s post on the Obama thing was particularly nasty. Nice way to treat your allies.

      • sharculese

        To say that tbogg has a blind spot when it comes to male gaze would be a serious understatement.

        • Anna in PDX

          Yes, I love him when he is not talking about women or their issues.

          • Pseudonym

            Is he that bad about all women’s issues? Do you have other examples? That’s disappointing, but I’m not quite ready to tell him to go eat a bag of salted dicks.

            • STH

              Well, here’s the post I referred to, which is really fucking awful.

              He definitely has a history of dismissing women’s concerns. He also really enjoys making fun of people’s looks, weight, etc.

              • Pseudonym

                Yeah, I read that one already. Irin Carmon, Garance Franke-Ruta et al. are smart, serious people. I’m just curious about the history.

      • elm

        Ugg. That was horrifying and is the perfect example of what jim was talking about. I want to believe that it was ironic performance art: “Obama’s gaffe was relatively minor and some people are blowing it of of proportion, so I will show you what major sexist condescension can look like!” But I suspect it’s more likely he saw nothing wrong with what Obama said and is pleased that he pissed off people who did.

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          tbogg is *exactly* what i was talking about

        • spencer

          It was hugely disappointing. Hugely.

  • He really can’t help himself, can he. Pathetic.

    • John (not McCain)

      Poor dear.

  • Joe

    “She’s brilliant and she’s dedicated, she’s tough,” Obama said at a DNC fundraiser in Atherton, Calif., according to a White House pool report. “She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general….It’s true! C’mon.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/obama-kamala-harris-best-looking-attorney-general.php

    The reports are that he was friends with her for years so had some sense of how she would accept the remark, but I don’t think her looks were “focused on” that much when it was the fourth thing noted, a sort of “and.” To put it out there too, some have also noted that he has noted that such and such male pol looks good too.

    The “coverage” of looks here is not Obama, who in a fundraiser cited that (as he has for men) after three other things, it is the media who selectively focuses on this issue as if the only thing he said is “she’s such a babe.” If he has to be more careful about such things, fine, it was a venial sin. We all commit lots of them.

    • sharculese

      If he has to be more careful about such things, fine, it was a venial sin. We all commit lots of them.

      It is not unreasonable to expect somebody with the president’s stature to be held to a higher standard.

      But yes, it was a minor fuckup which he apologized for, and most of the outrage seems to be from the usual crowd of assholes who flip out if you so much as mention that sexism still exists.

      • Bitter Scribe

        This. Their sudden concern about sexism is pretty nauseating.

        • Snarki, child of Loki

          They’re just really, really offended that Obama would dis Ed Meese that way.

      • Scott Lemieux

        But yes, it was a minor fuckup which he apologized for, and most of the outrage seems to be from the usual crowd of assholes who flip out if you so much as mention that sexism still exists.

        This.

      • Pseudonym

        It’s a teachable moment. (I hate that phrase for sounding so condescending but it still fits.)

    • wengler

      The more interesting thing is that there is a well-established media frame for presenting this type of story: the elevation of a throwaway comment, the manufactured controversy surrounding it, the presentation of the usual characters discussing it and finally the moving on to some other headline link bait. Yet there is no well-established way of telling substantive stories, because they aren’t focused enough on a single event.

      This is not newsworthy. Obama didn’t have a dossier assembled on female attorneys general and rank them based on hotness. All it indicates is that your media revels in finding shallow, stupid story angles that can give them a temporary outrage bump, much like a Paul Campos BMI post.

      • Origami Isopod

        All your comment indicates is that you don’t give a fuck about issues that don’t affect you personally.

        • Yup.

        • wengler

          And the stupid outrage commences.

          You want to talk about a large topic like feminism, or commence in a circlejerk about what Obama said?

          Or perhaps you’d like to click the AOL link to HuffPost teasing “You won’t believe what Obama said!”

          • It’s sad you don’t get it.

            • wengler

              It’s sad that you don’t actually respond with anything.

              • Malaclypse

                It can be true that both 1) the media is hard-wired to blow up Democratic “scandals” and 2) Obama, like all humans, said something stupid, for which he has correctly apologized.

                • djw

                  Too boring. Doesn’t afford sufficient opportunity for posturing about how unserious everyone else is.

              • I’m not sure what I could say that hasn’t been said, here in the post, in the comments and in the comments in the other epic thread dealing with this. If you don’t get it by now, you just never will.

                It was a small, forgivable misstep, but it *WAS* a misstep. Sorry you don’t GET THAT.

                • wengler

                  Well he apologized for it, so there’s that.

                  More substantively however, is the failure of the institutional parties in this country to push women into positions of power. There is nothing preventing the Democrats and Republicans from adopting party rules that would have 50 percent of their candidates be women.

                  Also, I didn’t say it wasn’t a stupid comment, I said it wasn’t a national story. There are different ways of saying ‘This person, she’s awesome and my buddy and the best!’ and he chose a dumber way to say it.

                • jb

                  More substantively however, is the failure of the institutional parties in this country to push women into positions of power. There is nothing preventing the Democrats and Republicans from adopting party rules that would have 50 percent of their candidates be women.

                  True, but this doesn’t mean Obama’s comment wasn’t problematic.

                • “There is nothing preventing the Democrats and Republicans from adopting party rules that would have 50 percent of their candidates be women.”

                  Well, there’s at least a norm that says that party members in a district (or state) will actually get to vote (in some fashion) to determine whom their nominee will be. And obviously there can only be one nominee for the Senate/executive branch offices.

          • STH

            You want to talk about a large topic like feminism . . .

            That’s what we ARE talking about.

        • wengler

          All your comment indicates is that you’re willing to give creedence to a manipulative media game that has nothing to do with your preferred policies.

          • Anonymous

            Try, if you can, to wrap your modest noggin around the possibility that some of us found the comments objectionable, full stop, before the “meedja” got involved. We’re not all of us mere pawns in some PR game. Some of us have principles we’re willing to defend no matter whether the world agrees with us or not.

            And, then, on the other hand, you have narcissistic contrarians like yourself, whose sole purpose in life seems to be lurking here, nay-saying women when they complain. You have a horse in this race, dude. I’ve seen it before.

            • wengler

              Anonymous claims I am a lurker.

              Nay-saying women when they complain? Total bullshit.

              • Anonymous

                Every time this subject pops up you strive to ensure women how they’re wrong or over-reacting.

                I didn’t characterize that as trolling.

            • Malaclypse

              While I do disagree with wengler on this topic, he is anything but a lurker or a troll.

      • witless chum

        It’s more newsworthy than a lot of things that are considered news. See, Politico, entire website of.

        Is it a huge deal? I’d say probably not, but it’s worth dinging Obama over for one because he’s probably more persuadable. And liberals should take the chance to try to make not making a big deal of lady politicians’ appearances a norm, at least for Democrats. If nothing else, whacking a mainstream Democrat from a feminist point of view and making him dance the right tune is a positive thing.

        • wengler

          It’s not necessarily important that it is an impolitic comment or not, it’s that the stupid shallow headline shit drives the debate.

          If our politics weren’t defined by gossipy bullshit, a remark like this wouldn’t even have been remembered five minutes on because it was utterly meaningless flattery based on familiarity.

          • Hogan

            What debate is this story driving?

            • wengler

              The show. Otherwise known as the outrage cycle that gets people to click headlines and bloviate endlessly.

              • Malaclypse

                When you find yourself agreeing with Nieporent, it is perhaps best to look back at where your analysis has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

                • wengler

                  No, Nieporent is using this to inject his ‘feminists are stupid’ line.

                  All I’m saying is that what Obama said is indicative of nothing.

                • Malaclypse

                  All I’m saying is that what Obama said is indicative of nothing.

                  But it isn’t nothing. It is an example of how people, who are normally good on the issues, can fail to see something. It is a mistake we can all learn from, should we choose to.

                • Isn’t this one half of what Amanda originally said? Ie that Obama’s thoughtless comment was a Bad Thing without making Obama the embodiment of sexism.

                  And, as this post pointed out, even positive, well received comment about a women’s appearance harms her politically (it seems similar to stereotype threat).

                  So putting aside any thoughts about Obama’s attitude toward women, he should avoid such comments because they weaken his allies.

          • Anonymous

            “Gossipy.” “Shallow.” “Flattery.” Yep, no dog-whistles here.

            • Origami Isopod

              You caught that too, huh?

            • Um…I’m definitely down with the teachable moment aspect of all of this, but I think that’s an entirely appropriate way to describe the American political media. Don’t you?

              • Anonymous

                So you’re labeling Amanda Marcotte’s quite reasonable commentary on the event “gossipy” and “shallow”? Re-think the logic, dude.

                • Anonymous

                  I think Brien is referring not to Amanda Marcotte, or various bloggers, but to the Villagers and the MSM.

                • Anonymous

                  Then Brien ought to pay more attention to the discussion at hand.

                  Once again, pointing out sexism is (a) a necessary public service and (b) not the equivalent bad of the sexist act itself. If you find the oppression of women and criticisms of that oppression too boring, “shallow,” or “gossip-y” for your liking, feel free to remain oblivious and cloaked in your own privilege. We won’t miss you and you’re not needed. Cheers.

            • wengler

              Anonymous, do you consume US media much?

              • Anonymous

                That’s a non-sequitur. You’re complaining that women objecting to something sexist a US president said is gossipy because those objections appeared in an on-line newspaper. Stop lying.

      • Obama didn’t have a dossier assembled on female attorneys general

        Actually, I took (and still take) his comment as a comparison of California AG Harris with all currently serving state Attorneys General, male and female alike (modulo a few given names that aren’t determinative, it appears that there are 43 of the former, 7 of the latter). On that reading, in addition to (implicitly) ranking her by appearance-to-male in a group of 7, he is (equally implicitly but equally saliently—to me) reaffirming that he, heteronormatively, isn’t attracted to anyone in a group of 43.

        • wengler

          I would guess that Obama has had some interaction with Lisa Madigan here in Illinois, but I doubt his comment was in turn some sort of put down of her.

          Rather it looks like one politician buttering another one up and the media blowing it all out of proportion. The alternative headline is “Obama Calls Woman Not His Wife Good Looking!”

      • Scott Lemieux

        And, of course, Campos’s BMI posts are both substantive and correct, but they get in the way of people who are strongly committed to view that fat people are icky. So it’s a good comparison.

        • wengler

          Don’t sell those BMI posts short. Michelle Obama makes an appearance as history’s greatest monster in one of them.

        • spencer

          people who are strongly committed to view that fat people are icky

          Of which there are a surprising number. Sadly.

        • witless chum

          That belief shows up pretty heavily in George R.R. Martin related threads, where a bunch of Bill Frists are certain he’s on death’s door and will never finish the Song of Ice and Fire books because he’s fat.

  • Thanks for this.

    Since looks are largely something we’re born with, constantly constantly constantly using them as basis to judge women is deeply unfair. And stupid.

    • Plus, you know, I kinda feel like we’re screwed either way: If we’re attractive–whatever that happens to mean at the moment–we’re bimbos. If we’re not, we don’t exist, or worse, we’re battleaxes/lesbians. (Not that there’s a damn thing wrong with being a lesbian, but being labeled one because you don’t conform to current beauty standards is troubling.)

      • Nice ears, baby.

        Did you say something?

        • My eyes are DOWN HERE.

          • sharculese

            This comment is better if read in Kristen Schaal’s voice.

        • Origami Isopod

          Nice ears, baby.

          Is that what you kids are calling ’em these days?

          • who you talking at, youngster?

          • cpinva

            rats! just one more damn thing i have to remember!

      • Shakezula

        And so on and so on.

        And it might not be quite so maddening if the people making the rules felt in anyway bound by them. [Cough – Comb over – Cough]

        Also re lesbians – Am I the only one who LOLed when she saw the new Cover Girl? Oh dear, someone’s preciously nurtured stereotype got squished.

        • Cover Girl pleasantly surprised me when they chose a 50 year old lesbian with short hair to act as model. She’s still making up in a way that society rewards (some would argue demands), but still…50* fucking year old lesbian with a big nose and short hair. I think that’s pretty freakin’ cool.

          *I should add that 50 is not some magical old crone number for me. 50 is plenty fucking vital…but in the modeling world it’s pretty much crone territory.

          • Shakezula

            50 is like dead twice over on Supermodel Planet. But 50 tends to have more cash than (for example) 21.

            Also, I think she is absolutely divine.

            Yeah, I know playing into the stereotype. But I thought she was awesome even when she had that tragic mullet. So there.

            • cpinva

              are you guys talking about ellen degeneris? i don’t remember her ever having a mullet, at least, not that i recognized her.

              • When she appeared on Carson.

                My lawn, get off it.

            • ChrisTS

              In fact, she has gorgeous skin. Who better to represent a make-up brand than one who doesn’t need the make-up?

    • wengler

      It’s based on two things: men having power and of course men using that power to make attractiveness in women an important factor in success in the society.

      You can change the first one and it will likely minimize the second one, but it isn’t likely to go away.

      • Anonymous

        but it isn’t likely to go away.

        So…what? We should just sit back and take it?

        This is the other problem – we are punished no matter what we do – say nothing and we’re fucked, continuing to be unfairly judged by our looks. Complain about it, and we’re branded hypersensitive, humorless bitches.

        • wengler

          It was just as assessment that if men and women had more equal power arrangements, looks would still be a consideration.

          This is true even for men, and encompasses not just appearance, but height, stature, and relative fitness.

          • Shakezula

            Please provide directions to this utopia.

          • Anonymous

            Citation need. Prove what you’re saying about magical far-away land and its unfair emphasis on (certain) (feminine-coded) body parts.

  • rea

    Beau Biden is totally hotter!

  • Keaaukane

    A Prosecutor is a prosecutor. No matter how nice the outer wrapping, the soul is twisted, evil and ugly. Obama’s big problem is that he let the outer wrapping distract him from the hideousness within.

    • Epimenides the Cretan

      Earl Warren.

      • Keaaukane

        I don’t think anybody ever thought that Earl was HAWT! Even when he was wearing high heels.

        Or am I thinking of J Edger Hoover?

    • spencer

      Give me a fucking break.

    • witless chum

      I’m all for liberals being more skeptical of prosecutors, but perhaps describing them as Darth Vader is not good. And still kind of sexist.

  • Glenn

    I don’t have difficulty accepting the hypothesis, but are there any commenters here who could shed some light on how seriously one should take this “study”? An online poll that just happens to confirm the leanings of the organization that commissioned it always kinda sets my bullshit detector off, no matter who it is. But I am woefully unqualified to look at it and make an assessment.

    • I took a look. Unfortunately I didn’t find a detailed methodological description, but it’s definitely not an online poll in the sense of a self selected voting survey. The enactment of the survey was conducted online but the sample selection was conducted by alternative means (sampling from an “online panel” with screening for likely voters). Thus, I’m inclined to think that it’s a reasonable effort. The sample size seems ok.

      The identified phenomenon seems consistent with such well established phenomena such as stereotype threat and negative haloing (ie refuted negative stuff about a politician still lowers their favorability with antipartisens).

      With the caveats that 1) I’m in political charity with the outcome, 2) I don’t full understand the sampling methodology, and 3) it’s only one experiment, I feel pretty confident in the results. At the very least, it reasonably supports not using even positive language about looks.

      • Ok, I’d never heard the term online panel before and a lot depends on how that was constructed and whether the weighting did the work it was supposed to do.

        • Ok, this seems like a good discussion.

          If the sample was drawn from a quality panel recruited for eg market research then I’d feel pretty confident about the results.

      • Glenn

        thanks!

  • Pseudonym

    How typical of a blog written by a bunch of straight white males to focus on meaningless First World problems while totally ignoring the racist drone war. Droooooooooones!

  • Data Tutashkhia

    far more superficial coverage of their campaigns than do men, and that seriously undermines their success

    BS, it sure didn’t prevent Cicciolina from getting elected, in Italy.

    Stop whining, and get a better political system, one with proportional representation.

    • SeanH

      Well done, stupidest comment on a post with Nieporent on it!

    • witless chum

      An example from another, quite culturally different from the U.S., country, which doesn’t even harm the point being made, given that makes harder isn’t makes impossible?

      Everyone’s days of not taking Data seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

      • Data Tutashkhia

        Please, I implore you not to take me seriously.

        However, what point is being made? If a segment of the population is under the impression that a woman can’t be (ceteris paribus) as good a politician as a man, then naturally, in a political system where one needs (in most elections) 50%+ of the vote to win, women are at a disadvantage. But that would be much less noticeable in a system of proportional representation, where you vote for a party, rather than an individual. Which is what I’m saying.

        The idea that the way to deal with this is to avoid reminding the voters that the candidate is a woman, which is what this post amounts to, is just pathetic.

  • There is no doubt that the bride and groom on the wedding first lead. But is also very important role of the best man and maid of honor, you need to carefully plan and prepare your perfect “green” bridesmaid dress need to pay attention to what? Together with the goods Wei Weiwei bride Xiao Bian look

It is main inner container footer text