Study Says: You Can't Argue With a Feminist - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Study Says: You Can’t Argue With a Feminist

Another day, another “study” utterly loaded with ideological baggage somehow being defined as a carry-on; i.e. actually newsworthy.

This time it hails from the innocuous-sounding PsyPost, whose editor, Eric Dolan, also heads up the very progressive Raw Story. The research, published in the feminist journal Affilia, examined attitudes toward abortion from students of both sexes across six universities, and was launched on the premise of so-called “Ambivalent Sexism Theory.”

And in the parlance of modern day Clickbaitese, what it found will shock you. Why? Because while everyone knows of the hostile sexism of the Andrew Dice Clay variety, far fewer are privy to the “benevolent” sexism that acts a mind virus for so many well-intentioned people. Indeed, well-intentioned women.

Here, let Dolan explain:

Hostile sexism represents overt antipathy or dislike of women. Benevolent sexism describes the belief that women are nurturing, caring and gentle, but cannot function properly without protection from a strong male partner. Both forms of sexism maintain that women should be subordinate to men.

Not surprisingly, the study “confirmed its main hypothesis: that sexist attitudes were correlated to anti-abortion views.” But come now, was any other result expected?

The Affilia study is the left’s way of dealing with the thorny fact that men are more supportive of abortion than women.

According to classical feminist theory, this shouldn’t happen. The Guardian describes it as “counterintuitive.” But as science writer Razib Khan noted in a January NYT piece,

The General Social Survey, which has been tracking American opinions for decades, includes the question of whether a woman should be allowed to get an abortion if she “wants it for any reason.” In 17 of the 23 years that this question has been asked, men have answered “yes” to a greater extent than women.

Hence the need for a “benevolent” sexism, as a way of accounting for all those women who just don’t get it.

I’m assuming here that women expressed greater “benevolent” sexism, a possible act of sexist stereotyping. But that stereotyping is vindicated by Affilia itself, which corroborated my instincts with the claim that “while women have been shown to endorse forms of hostile sexism somewhat infrequently, women’s endorsements of benevolent sexist beliefs are quite common.”

It’s quite common for women to believe they should be submissive to men, apparently. (The study is behind a paywall, so we’re not sure what explanation, if any, these women gave for their views.)

Progressivism of the race/sex variety is constantly mutating to rescue itself from empiricism that undermines its claims. In some cases this means expanding the definition of racism to include white people belly dancing. In this case it means inventing reasons, on feminist grounds no less, to dismiss the views of women themselves as detrimental to women.

Oh, and women of color especially, as implied by the finding that ”African-American and Asian-American respondents were significantly less likely to be against abortion than were white respondents.” But then even that suggestion is problematic. As the NYT piece points out, “being Hispanic was also associated with being opposed to abortion on demand (even allowing for other variables, such as religiosity).”

I’d say you can’t make this stuff up, but they just did. I’m pro-choice, but when it comes to examining public attitudes, and the voluminous data available on it, one can’t simply choose what to believe. But then one doesn’t simply argue with a feminist.

Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link:

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!