Interesting graphs and charts department

[Griff]

It's very interesting. The dynamic between how sexist or racist we willingly say or think we are vs how sexist or racist we think our neighbor is leaves a lot of play in the numbers.

My MiL, an old time feminist wouldn't vote for Warren based on her "overly-energetic" personality not her positions. Gender bias is interesting. Warren got pounded and gave ground on her funding of M4A but Bernie gets a pass. To me, Warren is obviously a better potential President than either Bernie or Joe but our self-deception or perception of other voters made sure that couldn't happen.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, she's too strong, that's voiced as abrasive in order to not say too strong for a woman to be. Need a Marilyn Monroe type to wrap the male voters around her little finger... along with double guards on the voting booths to keep wives out while he votes.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Griff

It's very interesting. The dynamic between how sexist or racist we willingly say or think we are vs how sexist or racist we think our neighbor is leaves a lot of play in the numbers.



My MiL, an old time feminist wouldn't vote for Warren based on her "overly-energetic" personality not her positions. Gender bias is interesting. Warren got pounded and gave ground on her funding of M4A but Bernie gets a pass. To me, Warren is obviously a better potential President than either Bernie or Joe but our self-deception or perception of other voters made sure that couldn't happen.

There's also a dynamic between how racist/sexist we say (and genuinely believe) we are, vs. how our choices actually play out in the real world. It's the neverending "I would absolutely vote for a woman, just not that one..." syndrome.

[Undertoad]

Perhaps our secret racism/sexism, hidden even to ourselves, is actually what guides the world?

It's a perfect theory. It can't be disproven -- because the bias is so completely hidden, we aren't even aware of it

Every time a woman isn't elected, it is proof of the secret bias. But then, somehow, the fact we did elect and then re-elect a black man with 57% is also proof. As a nation, we ONLY did that to show that we AREN'T secret racists, or something.

[Clodfobble]

Yeah, man, I don't know about that last part. It's not an argument I've heard, but no doubt someone out there is making it.

[Undertoad]

I'll restate it, I should have written it better

I'm skeptical. If these kinds of hidden biases really guided the world in a very strong way, the nation never would have elected and reelected a black man with a foreign-sounding name.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Every time a woman isn't elected, it is proof of the secret bias.

So every woman who runs for office against a man is a better choice?
That's bullshit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm skeptical. If these kinds of hidden biases really guided the world in a very strong way, the nation never would have elected and reelected a black man with a foreign-sounding name.

To appreciate the art, notice how a foreign sounding name on a black man got lost with other characteristics. That is what a good campaign manager does. He is able to predict people's biases (that originate in the child's brain). And then spin something that either plays on that emotion or masks it.

Steve Bannon was fabulous at that game. Some of the trick he used to see and avert such emotional problems in advance demonstrate genius. So much so that he even got Roger Ailes to back down.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'll restate it, I should have written it better

I'm skeptical. If these kinds of hidden biases really guided the world in a very strong way, the nation never would have elected and reelected a black man with a foreign-sounding name.

It's slowly getting better than it was in the past, and that's reason for hope. But one black President isn't proof that all racism is over. As far as what one Black president says about sexism... Black men got the right to vote before white women did. We're on the same path we've always been on, but with luck, we'll keep moving forward.

[Undertoad]

isn't proof that all racism is over

Again, I'm specifically talking about the "unknown even to ourselves" racism. The "microaggressions" racism, the "hidden biases" racism. I believe the idea that these things affect society in a meaningful way is a load of mighty bullshit.

[Clodfobble]

Microaggressions, I mostly agree. Hidden biases, though, are verifiable--like the multiple studies showing that identical resumes with a traditionally white or black name at the top get vastly different rates of interview requests. By assuming that the headhunters aren't knowingly rejecting candidates by race and are only acting on hidden biases, I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, another study showed that when given a quick-thinking "shoot the bad guys but avoid the hostages" kind of test, both black and white participants were more likely to accidentally shoot the black hostages. I fully agree that accusing someone of racism isn't going to win them over, but it helps to acknowledge that there's stuff our brains do that we don't even know they do. I, personally, have found I'm sexist against women to a surprising degree--when I really stop and look at my gut reactions, I find that I dislike them more, trust them less, and assume incompetence faster than I will with a man. I try to check myself regularly because I know that for whatever reason--childhood bullies all being girls, subtle messaging from my dad who literally seemed to forget I was a girl sometimes*, who knows what else--I'm naturally biased.

*I swear to God he'd give me marriage advice about women, like "if you want to know what a girl's going to be like when she gets older, look at her mother."

[Undertoad]

Hidden biases, though, are verifiable--like the multiple studies showing that identical resumes with a traditionally white or black name at the top get vastly different rates of interview requests.

Verifiable, but don't have a big effect on our world.

On the basis of these studies, some have tried "blind recruitment". They remove anything gender or ethnic-identifying from the resume before it goes to the head hunters.

The Australian public service had a problem in hiring senior women. So they started a trial of blind recruitment.

The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 percent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 percent more likely to get a foot in the door.

Of course, they shitcanned the trial. And this is just one single instance. But the whole idea of just putting a name up there and having it prove anything is pretty meaningless. The world doesn't consist of identical resumes at ALL, and the name is the least interesting thing on a resume. To prove it, I would like to suggest we try a test of traditional black names versus traditional white names, to test our racism:

Who will be your accountant:

Booker
or
Cleetus?

Who will watch over your cash drawer:

Angela
or
Tangerine?

Who will help watch over your aging parent during the day:

Shaniqua, age 41, Registered Nurse
or
Carol, age 21, retail worker?

[Clodfobble]

I see your point, but I'm cracking up at the idea of a 21-year-old named Carol.

[Undertoad]

extremely white

[Flint]

I went to elementary school with a girl named Betsy. Her dad was a doctor.