On Political Misogyny

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

Do political scientists underestimate the impact of vitriolic speech and gender bias on women in politics, and how does political misogyny affect their collective identities and structural obstacles?

View the page of: Suzanne Dovi

Institution: University of Arizona

Explore more insights in:

Political Science Politics and Gender Social Sciences

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from University of Arizona . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Read the Study

Do political scientists underestimate the impact of vitriolic speech and gender bias on women in politics, and how does political misogyny affect their collective identities and structural obstacles?

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 20, 2025

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the concept of political misogyny, where women in politics face bias and hatred based on their gender. It highlights the disparity between optimistic findings that suggest gender doesn't play a role in politics and the reality of how women are treated in the political arena. The author emphasizes the need for a more intersectional approach to understanding misogyny, considering factors such as race and sexuality. This video video also delves into how societal views shape attitudes towards women in power and the challenges they face in being perceived as competent and likable. It concludes by discussing how women are often subject to intense scrutiny and criticism compared to their male counterparts.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are 5 key points from the video you :

1. The video discusses the issue of gender bias and misogyny in political discourse, highlighting instances where high-profile women face negative treatment based on their gender.

2. There is a focus on how gender bias is often underestimated or overlooked in academic studies, particularly due to an over-individualized approach that fails to address systemic issues.

3. The importance of taking an intersectional approach is emphasized, pointing out that different women may face varying degrees of discrimination based on their race, sexual orientation, or other intersecting identities.

4. The video delves into the use of derogatory language towards women in politics, showcasing examples where gendered insults are used to undermine and dehumanize female politicians.

5. The complexity of gender biases and societal perceptions of women in politics is explored, highlighting the challenges that women face in navigating political landscapes where likability and competence are measured differently for men and women.

These key points cover various aspects of gender bias, misogyny, and discrimination faced by women in political convideos as discussed in the video .

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video:

1. "We're talking about on political misogyny."
2. "Something like 64,000 over 64,000 times, right?"
3. "And so there was a real disparity between how we treat women, right?"
4. "Why would a woman ever wanna go into politics if they're gonna make themselves that vulnerable to be really publicly humiliated?"
5. "Do you have to sit there and smile all the time? Not be angry."
6. "So what is said by who, how many times it said, right?"
7. "And this is what I meant about our society making it so much more permissible to hate women."
8. "Likability is a game changer for women, right?"

These quotes touch upon various themes and insights presented in the video regarding political misogyny, treatment of women in politics, societal norms, and challenges faced by women in public life.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:09.885 --> 00:00:10.545
Oh, here we go.

2
00:00:11.605 --> 00:00:13.505
Uh, professor, so I've got to tell you about London time.

3
00:00:13.575 --> 00:00:16.065
It's 6 0 7 in London. It's the 5th of November.

4
00:00:16.065 --> 00:00:17.785
We're talking about on political misogyny.

5
00:00:17.935 --> 00:00:19.785
Okay, professor, so there's an, your,

6
00:00:19.785 --> 00:00:21.305
your paper talks about a new framework

7
00:00:21.305 --> 00:00:22.825
for understanding political misogyny.

8
00:00:23.005 --> 00:00:24.225
Can you maybe just introduce that

9
00:00:24.285 --> 00:00:25.705
for the audience? What does that mean?

10
00:00:26.625 --> 00:00:31.035
Sure. So, the, one of the things that sort of

11
00:00:31.815 --> 00:00:36.115
was in the air, in political science was this idea

12
00:00:36.185 --> 00:00:38.995
that women run, when women run,

13
00:00:39.045 --> 00:00:41.355
women win at equal rates as men.

14
00:00:41.775 --> 00:00:46.595
And so a lot of discussion has gone on about, you know,

15
00:00:46.615 --> 00:00:48.955
all we need to do is like, if we have term limits,

16
00:00:49.525 --> 00:00:51.475
we'll get more women into politics.

17
00:00:51.575 --> 00:00:54.475
And, and at the same time, the number of, like,

18
00:00:54.635 --> 00:00:58.195
I think globally it's 26.4%,

19
00:00:59.055 --> 00:01:01.675
of legislatures are in women, right?

20
00:01:02.015 --> 00:01:03.635
And so, on the one hand,

21
00:01:03.735 --> 00:01:07.675
we have these very optimistic findings about,

22
00:01:07.865 --> 00:01:10.355
that gender doesn't play any role in politics.

23
00:01:10.455 --> 00:01:13.275
And at the same time, you have things like

24
00:01:14.185 --> 00:01:18.315
will Hillary Clinton being tweeted about in using

25
00:01:18.855 --> 00:01:21.675
social sciences defined terms

26
00:01:22.295 --> 00:01:24.115
of sexism, right?

27
00:01:24.115 --> 00:01:27.755
Something like 64,000 over 64,000 times, right?

28
00:01:28.015 --> 00:01:32.875
And so there was a real disparity between how we treat

29
00:01:33.685 --> 00:01:34.875
women, right?

30
00:01:35.575 --> 00:01:38.915
And how and what's happening, right?

31
00:01:39.175 --> 00:01:42.475
And this really bothered me for a couple of reasons.

32
00:01:43.295 --> 00:01:47.955
One was, I was so sick of the question, what's

33
00:01:47.955 --> 00:01:51.155
so why is Hillary Clinton so hateable, right?

34
00:01:51.255 --> 00:01:53.235
And we made it as if it was

35
00:01:53.795 --> 00:01:56.995
a Hillary Clinton personality problem, as opposed

36
00:01:57.015 --> 00:02:00.355
to looking at the fact that over the course of her career,

37
00:02:01.175 --> 00:02:03.475
she has really high popularity rates

38
00:02:03.495 --> 00:02:05.035
and really low popularity rates.

39
00:02:05.055 --> 00:02:06.795
In fact, every time she gets into power,

40
00:02:07.495 --> 00:02:09.395
she gets really low popularity rates.

41
00:02:10.015 --> 00:02:11.635
And instead of thinking, well,

42
00:02:11.635 --> 00:02:14.195
this is obviously a personality, one

43
00:02:14.195 --> 00:02:17.715
of the things I was really like driven by was,

44
00:02:18.225 --> 00:02:19.955
well, what's happening?

45
00:02:20.455 --> 00:02:23.515
How is she being framed in the social media

46
00:02:23.975 --> 00:02:25.715
and by other political elites?

47
00:02:26.135 --> 00:02:28.955
And everything that political scientists know is that

48
00:02:29.855 --> 00:02:32.835
in fact they go to so far to say that there is no such thing

49
00:02:32.835 --> 00:02:37.115
as a public opinion because there're so influenced by

50
00:02:37.145 --> 00:02:39.075
what the elites they trust say.

51
00:02:39.375 --> 00:02:43.875
So the claim is, you know, elites don't represent the,

52
00:02:44.055 --> 00:02:46.115
the fixed opinions of the public.

53
00:02:46.615 --> 00:02:50.395
The elites give like they pander in

54
00:02:50.395 --> 00:02:53.875
that they find out which phrases, which kinds

55
00:02:53.895 --> 00:02:56.515
of statements work, and then the,

56
00:02:56.895 --> 00:03:00.845
and then constituents mimic the words

57
00:03:00.945 --> 00:03:03.085
and behavior of their representatives.

58
00:03:03.305 --> 00:03:06.565
And so in this type of environment, I was like, look,

59
00:03:06.695 --> 00:03:11.525
we're seeing like insults as individualized things.

60
00:03:11.635 --> 00:03:14.685
Like I only wanna, I only care what's been said about

61
00:03:15.105 --> 00:03:18.285
representative Janie.

62
00:03:18.795 --> 00:03:21.765
Instead of looking at how does,

63
00:03:21.835 --> 00:03:25.125
what says is said about Hillary Clinton can influence

64
00:03:25.385 --> 00:03:27.565
how we affect representative Janie.

65
00:03:28.105 --> 00:03:30.125
And so that's what got me started. Yeah,

66
00:03:30.365 --> 00:03:31.365
Brilliant. Nasty claims.

67
00:03:31.365 --> 00:03:32.725
You're talking about nasty claims,

68
00:03:33.015 --> 00:03:34.285
which keen to, well,

69
00:03:36.065 --> 00:03:37.065
Right? So,

70
00:03:37.065 --> 00:03:40.495
so this is actually the thing.

71
00:03:40.495 --> 00:03:44.255
So I was really worried about, what was being,

72
00:03:44.485 --> 00:03:49.255
what was being said about, high profile women, right?

73
00:03:49.835 --> 00:03:53.895
And in particular, one of the things that I actually,

74
00:03:54.015 --> 00:03:58.815
I think I, I got in the article, I actually got accused of

75
00:03:59.525 --> 00:04:04.055
sort of exploiting the, the how horrible

76
00:04:04.595 --> 00:04:06.015
the comments were against women.

77
00:04:06.035 --> 00:04:08.255
So I was making it voyeuristic, right?

78
00:04:08.525 --> 00:04:10.255
When I opened the possibility that

79
00:04:10.255 --> 00:04:12.775
by merely repeating these criticisms,

80
00:04:13.675 --> 00:04:15.615
you are spreading misogyny.

81
00:04:15.795 --> 00:04:19.415
And so I actually dialed back on a lot of the criticisms

82
00:04:19.445 --> 00:04:23.815
because they were so mean

83
00:04:24.155 --> 00:04:25.775
and horrible, right?

84
00:04:26.195 --> 00:04:29.335
And this is, you know, you can say, what I think of

85
00:04:29.335 --> 00:04:32.455
as a nasty claim is when you invoke

86
00:04:32.565 --> 00:04:34.535
someone's gender identity.

87
00:04:35.435 --> 00:04:37.775
Um, so it can be about their body,

88
00:04:37.875 --> 00:04:41.655
it can be about their sex roles, it can be about,

89
00:04:42.505 --> 00:04:44.415
being feminine or not,

90
00:04:44.415 --> 00:04:48.495
but you invoke their, their, their gender identity in order

91
00:04:48.595 --> 00:04:53.215
to use their body as evidence that they're disgusting

92
00:04:53.515 --> 00:04:54.935
and hateable, right?

93
00:04:54.995 --> 00:04:59.295
And so you treat their body as evidence, right?

94
00:04:59.715 --> 00:05:04.495
Of being, well, what, Aaron car

95
00:05:05.485 --> 00:05:09.415
Cais, I'm probably saying that name wrong, CASIS says,

96
00:05:09.555 --> 00:05:11.535
is as a monster metaphor, right?

97
00:05:11.595 --> 00:05:14.015
And so we are called witches

98
00:05:14.595 --> 00:05:18.495
and, you know, horror har

99
00:05:19.215 --> 00:05:20.775
s**t shame, body shame.

100
00:05:20.865 --> 00:05:23.815
We're too good looking. We're too old, we're too young.

101
00:05:24.305 --> 00:05:28.335
Everything. Um, we're bad mothers. We're not mothers.

102
00:05:28.385 --> 00:05:31.335
We're every, one of the things that's really interesting is

103
00:05:32.275 --> 00:05:36.655
how, elites can really fish around

104
00:05:37.275 --> 00:05:40.895
to find, and it,

105
00:05:40.955 --> 00:05:42.215
and it raises a question like,

106
00:05:42.235 --> 00:05:44.615
why would a woman ever wanna go into politics

107
00:05:45.195 --> 00:05:47.855
if they're gonna make themselves that vulnerable

108
00:05:48.475 --> 00:05:50.735
to be really publicly humiliated?

109
00:05:51.105 --> 00:05:54.815
Right? And this is also the kind of language that,

110
00:05:54.815 --> 00:05:58.085
political psychologist knows really does shape

111
00:05:58.385 --> 00:05:59.485
our memory of people.

112
00:06:00.185 --> 00:06:01.925
We as humans, we tend

113
00:06:01.925 --> 00:06:04.205
to remember the bad more than the good.

114
00:06:04.355 --> 00:06:06.885
Someone insults us, we hold onto it.

115
00:06:07.225 --> 00:06:08.965
You know, I think also audiences,

116
00:06:09.105 --> 00:06:13.485
if someone insults your candidate, it's harder to shake,

117
00:06:14.385 --> 00:06:17.565
than it is if someone praises them.

118
00:06:18.625 --> 00:06:19.685
I'm gonna ask you two questions.

119
00:06:19.685 --> 00:06:20.805
The first question is just for

120
00:06:20.805 --> 00:06:22.165
the audience in terms of elites.

121
00:06:22.165 --> 00:06:23.445
Now I understand who you're talking about,

122
00:06:23.445 --> 00:06:24.365
but can you just maybe just

123
00:06:24.365 --> 00:06:25.565
flesh out who you are talking about?

124
00:06:25.565 --> 00:06:28.165
And then secondly, in this study, how did you sort

125
00:06:28.165 --> 00:06:30.525
of empirically test this relationship?

126
00:06:30.675 --> 00:06:33.445
Your idea of, those, those derogatory terms

127
00:06:34.065 --> 00:06:37.685
and, the structural obstacles women face?

128
00:06:38.585 --> 00:06:42.215
Right. Okay. So what I mean by a political elite is,

129
00:06:42.355 --> 00:06:43.455
is in fact very broad.

130
00:06:43.685 --> 00:06:48.615
It's anyone who has audiences that they can influence.

131
00:06:48.755 --> 00:06:53.375
So in this way, Rachel Maddow, who's a us,

132
00:06:54.235 --> 00:06:57.775
you know, M-S-N-B-C, broadcaster

133
00:06:58.075 --> 00:07:02.295
or, Nancy Pelosi, anyone who has

134
00:07:02.965 --> 00:07:04.375
influence on other people,

135
00:07:04.675 --> 00:07:07.655
and this was part of one of the things that,

136
00:07:08.105 --> 00:07:10.975
there was a book called, women on the Run

137
00:07:11.235 --> 00:07:13.415
by Daniel Hayes and Jennifer Lawless.

138
00:07:13.915 --> 00:07:18.735
And they found that there gender had absolutely no effect.

139
00:07:18.955 --> 00:07:22.015
And their reasoning for this was that,

140
00:07:22.415 --> 00:07:26.895
negative partisanship was so strong that,

141
00:07:28.205 --> 00:07:31.375
that sorry, was so strong that there's no room

142
00:07:31.515 --> 00:07:32.775
for, for misogyny.

143
00:07:33.355 --> 00:07:35.615
And one of the things that I wanted

144
00:07:35.675 --> 00:07:37.775
to show was there's actually a lot

145
00:07:37.775 --> 00:07:40.175
of contradictory evidence, right?

146
00:07:40.355 --> 00:07:41.375
And instead of,

147
00:07:41.835 --> 00:07:45.535
and so I feel like we're either stuck in this place, like

148
00:07:46.135 --> 00:07:47.295
misogyny is everywhere

149
00:07:47.355 --> 00:07:50.615
and every, every place at all times, right?

150
00:07:50.675 --> 00:07:54.615
And if you find that there's not misogyny, there's not

151
00:07:55.455 --> 00:07:58.935
evidence of hate, hatred, hateful attitudes in an audience,

152
00:07:58.995 --> 00:08:00.215
we don't have misogyny.

153
00:08:00.465 --> 00:08:04.575
Right? Or you can, they'll be very content contextual

154
00:08:04.575 --> 00:08:09.055
and they'll say, well, misogyny affects, doesn't affect,

155
00:08:09.275 --> 00:08:10.535
it might affect when you run

156
00:08:10.635 --> 00:08:13.215
for the highest office like the presidency,

157
00:08:13.235 --> 00:08:16.255
but it doesn't affect in most US elections.

158
00:08:16.255 --> 00:08:18.095
So they'll say it depends on the context.

159
00:08:18.555 --> 00:08:22.635
And so I wanted to sort of argue

160
00:08:22.665 --> 00:08:26.275
that if we ch we actually aren't gonna know if we're testing

161
00:08:26.495 --> 00:08:27.995
it well enough, right?

162
00:08:28.015 --> 00:08:29.795
Or how we should test the level

163
00:08:29.795 --> 00:08:32.555
of misogyny in a con in any particular context

164
00:08:33.215 --> 00:08:35.795
unless you examine the dynamic nature.

165
00:08:36.335 --> 00:08:41.235
And what I mean by the dynamic nature is, are there elites

166
00:08:41.495 --> 00:08:45.875
who people trust who repeat it a lot, right?

167
00:08:46.635 --> 00:08:50.275
A nasty claim, a nasty claim being something like Carol

168
00:08:50.505 --> 00:08:53.675
Fiorini, you don't have the face to be president, right?

169
00:08:53.815 --> 00:08:55.075
So it's a personal tech,

170
00:08:55.225 --> 00:08:57.845
but it's also saying something she doesn't,

171
00:08:57.875 --> 00:09:01.685
that female face is, is disgusting.

172
00:09:01.945 --> 00:09:04.445
We wouldn't want anyone to have that kind of face

173
00:09:04.505 --> 00:09:08.525
as our president, then it has to trigger an unconscious

174
00:09:08.525 --> 00:09:10.125
or conscious prejudice, right?

175
00:09:10.145 --> 00:09:11.725
And the triggering is really important

176
00:09:11.725 --> 00:09:16.045
because, one of the things which people have is like,

177
00:09:16.505 --> 00:09:20.525
you might say, I love my mom, love my mom,

178
00:09:20.845 --> 00:09:23.205
I love my sister love women, right?

179
00:09:23.545 --> 00:09:25.845
How, how can you say, I hate women when I love women,

180
00:09:26.305 --> 00:09:29.365
but no woman who's ever come up

181
00:09:29.385 --> 00:09:31.405
for presidents is good enough for me to vote.

182
00:09:32.375 --> 00:09:34.635
And those two things can be completely,

183
00:09:35.175 --> 00:09:37.435
you think you love women in your mind,

184
00:09:38.255 --> 00:09:40.595
and at the same time you're like, Hmm,

185
00:09:40.655 --> 00:09:43.635
we don't want a woman's finger on the button,

186
00:09:43.775 --> 00:09:45.315
the nuclear button, right?

187
00:09:45.535 --> 00:09:46.835
And so as a result, you have

188
00:09:46.835 --> 00:09:49.635
to trigger the dis the the discussion.

189
00:09:49.775 --> 00:09:52.275
And then you have to look at the audience, right?

190
00:09:52.275 --> 00:09:53.915
Because some audiences,

191
00:09:54.425 --> 00:09:58.605
when someone says something horrible about Hillary Clinton,

192
00:09:59.115 --> 00:10:02.245
some people go crazy and they mobilize

193
00:10:02.245 --> 00:10:05.325
and they put, you know, they put pink pussycat on their

194
00:10:05.325 --> 00:10:09.725
heads and other people are like, yeah, right?

195
00:10:09.725 --> 00:10:12.165
And so you have, one of the things

196
00:10:12.165 --> 00:10:15.405
that's really interesting is I think misogyny

197
00:10:16.365 --> 00:10:18.365
actually puts women in competition with each other.

198
00:10:18.475 --> 00:10:20.645
That some women are not harmed by misogyny.

199
00:10:20.645 --> 00:10:23.325
Some women may be even helped by misogyny, right?

200
00:10:23.745 --> 00:10:26.605
And that one of the things that you see is that

201
00:10:26.605 --> 00:10:29.485
because women are treated as interchangeable

202
00:10:30.115 --> 00:10:34.725
when you criticize Hillary Clinton, right?

203
00:10:35.105 --> 00:10:38.085
You can also criticize Kamala Harris.

204
00:10:38.465 --> 00:10:43.325
So Kamala Harris was called on Anne culture's show Hillary

205
00:10:43.325 --> 00:10:45.725
Clinton in blackface, right?

206
00:10:46.145 --> 00:10:49.965
So it seems like you can invoke

207
00:10:51.245 --> 00:10:54.505
the founding mothers as,

208
00:10:55.725 --> 00:10:58.625
as a way against women in ways you can

209
00:10:59.205 --> 00:11:01.185
ev evoke them against men, right?

210
00:11:01.685 --> 00:11:06.505
As a way to change women's collective identities.

211
00:11:06.685 --> 00:11:08.745
And one of the things I think I say in the article,

212
00:11:08.745 --> 00:11:11.985
which is super, I I find super interesting is like maybe

213
00:11:12.605 --> 00:11:13.705
one explanation

214
00:11:13.925 --> 00:11:17.425
for the intense partisanship in the United States.

215
00:11:17.645 --> 00:11:19.425
The negative partisanship is

216
00:11:19.895 --> 00:11:23.185
that the Democrats have been understood as the party

217
00:11:23.285 --> 00:11:27.545
of Hillary Clinton, a OC, and Nancy Pelosi,

218
00:11:27.845 --> 00:11:29.705
and now Kamala Harris, right?

219
00:11:30.145 --> 00:11:32.945
Although we can talk about why Kamala Harris doesn't fit

220
00:11:32.975 --> 00:11:36.505
this trend or, or how she's like weaponized femin

221
00:11:36.685 --> 00:11:39.745
and femininity in order to combat that.

222
00:11:40.285 --> 00:11:44.905
But, and I think in some weird way, even though you totally

223
00:11:45.665 --> 00:11:48.545
recognize that Republicans have become the party of

224
00:11:49.755 --> 00:11:50.865
Trump, right?

225
00:11:51.365 --> 00:11:55.685
But what's interesting is Laura Berber, Sarah Palin

226
00:11:56.385 --> 00:11:59.885
and Marjorie Taylor Greene in some ways hold the hatred

227
00:12:00.105 --> 00:12:02.925
of those people of Democrats,

228
00:12:03.275 --> 00:12:07.405
even in like the followers get more, more

229
00:12:09.505 --> 00:12:10.785
backlash, right?

230
00:12:11.255 --> 00:12:14.825
Than, I'm not sure more, but sign a significant amount.

231
00:12:15.055 --> 00:12:17.425
What do you mean by hold the hatred? That's fascinating.

232
00:12:17.425 --> 00:12:19.145
That last point about the Republican women.

233
00:12:20.935 --> 00:12:25.595
Oh. Um, so my example I use in the article is that,

234
00:12:26.175 --> 00:12:29.555
Andrew Biggs, who's a, an Arizonan,

235
00:12:30.655 --> 00:12:33.515
representative who ran for Speaker of the House,

236
00:12:33.735 --> 00:12:38.275
who supports Q Anon, supports January 6th meets

237
00:12:38.275 --> 00:12:39.755
with the white supremacist.

238
00:12:40.455 --> 00:12:45.395
Um, and, and in some ways substantively is exactly the same

239
00:12:45.735 --> 00:12:47.595
as Marjorie Taylor Green.

240
00:12:48.055 --> 00:12:52.225
Nobody knows his name even though he's waiting

241
00:12:52.225 --> 00:12:54.455
for Speaker House, right?

242
00:12:54.925 --> 00:12:58.255
Well, her, and you know, in some ways you can say, look,

243
00:12:58.435 --> 00:13:02.495
she is, she acts in ways

244
00:13:02.725 --> 00:13:06.215
that and produce hatred.

245
00:13:06.355 --> 00:13:08.935
And one of the things I'm think that's really interesting

246
00:13:09.085 --> 00:13:12.135
that comes from my article is we have to think about

247
00:13:12.395 --> 00:13:16.175
how our society teaches at us who to hate

248
00:13:16.675 --> 00:13:17.735
and how to hate them.

249
00:13:18.675 --> 00:13:22.735
And you don't hate all women the same way, right?

250
00:13:22.955 --> 00:13:26.975
And so I think for conservative women, one of the things

251
00:13:26.975 --> 00:13:30.255
that happens is there's this idea

252
00:13:30.365 --> 00:13:34.055
that they are betraying women, right?

253
00:13:34.545 --> 00:13:36.335
While people think Trump

254
00:13:37.275 --> 00:13:40.015
is acting in his own interest, right?

255
00:13:40.115 --> 00:13:44.535
And so there's this way in which I think we get

256
00:13:44.955 --> 00:13:48.815
so angry at, and I'm even gonna say white women,

257
00:13:49.165 --> 00:13:52.735
because they often use their privilege

258
00:13:53.275 --> 00:13:56.095
by throwing other women at the, under the bus.

259
00:13:56.875 --> 00:13:59.255
And when men throw women under the bus, everyone's like,

260
00:13:59.255 --> 00:14:00.375
well, we expect no less.

261
00:14:00.985 --> 00:14:05.895
Right? But so I feel like Marjorie Taylor Greene,

262
00:14:07.345 --> 00:14:10.285
the dis, not that it's not deserving,

263
00:14:10.865 --> 00:14:13.005
but the disproportionate amount of hatred

264
00:14:13.115 --> 00:14:15.525
that she gets versus Andy Briggs

265
00:14:15.705 --> 00:14:20.325
and other Q Anon men in Congress reflects

266
00:14:20.625 --> 00:14:24.025
how women who say outlandish things

267
00:14:24.845 --> 00:14:26.065
are a news story

268
00:14:26.925 --> 00:14:31.145
and gets the, gets the audience going right?

269
00:14:31.525 --> 00:14:34.265
In ways that men, when they say things

270
00:14:35.005 --> 00:14:38.385
we don't even pay attention to when Trump says bad things,

271
00:14:39.055 --> 00:14:40.545
it's like the norm.

272
00:14:41.765 --> 00:14:43.625
Really good, really good, really good. Right?

273
00:14:43.645 --> 00:14:45.825
Let me ask you two questions. First one is about literature.

274
00:14:45.825 --> 00:14:47.145
Obviously we're an academic platform.

275
00:14:47.165 --> 00:14:49.665
So, you, I mean,

276
00:14:49.665 --> 00:14:51.245
do you critique the existing literature?

277
00:14:51.345 --> 00:14:53.125
You do question the fact that they aren't,

278
00:14:53.125 --> 00:14:54.885
they're underestimating gender bias

279
00:14:54.885 --> 00:14:57.525
and misogyny in the, in these conversations.

280
00:14:57.585 --> 00:14:58.585
Can you speak a bit more to that?

281
00:14:59.615 --> 00:15:02.745
Sure. There's two ways that I think they,

282
00:15:02.935 --> 00:15:06.405
underestimate the, the effect

283
00:15:06.405 --> 00:15:08.565
of gender bias in our site.

284
00:15:08.625 --> 00:15:11.765
One is that it's an over individualized approach.

285
00:15:11.965 --> 00:15:16.445
I, so it's only what you say about a particular women that

286
00:15:17.725 --> 00:15:21.965
suggests evidence or of gender bias,

287
00:15:22.065 --> 00:15:24.925
and it's only what constituents report.

288
00:15:25.425 --> 00:15:27.485
And so when I'm saying is like, look,

289
00:15:28.315 --> 00:15:30.375
people have complicated views of gender,

290
00:15:30.395 --> 00:15:31.535
and so you have to look at whether

291
00:15:31.555 --> 00:15:34.975
or not their gender prejudice has been triggered, right?

292
00:15:35.235 --> 00:15:39.175
And you also have to think about, one of the, one

293
00:15:39.175 --> 00:15:41.495
of the things that's really interesting is, you know,

294
00:15:41.505 --> 00:15:46.445
maybe we hate women,

295
00:15:47.225 --> 00:15:49.845
in groups like, I hate Republican women,

296
00:15:49.905 --> 00:15:51.365
or I hate democratic women.

297
00:15:51.705 --> 00:15:55.325
Or we could hate, progressive women.

298
00:15:56.385 --> 00:15:59.565
So, or we could hate, I just hate Hillary

299
00:15:59.665 --> 00:16:01.835
as an individual, right?

300
00:16:02.255 --> 00:16:05.715
So, you know, I, how do we separate out our like,

301
00:16:05.855 --> 00:16:09.915
gender part from our individual part?

302
00:16:10.015 --> 00:16:13.555
And one way, I, I think what elites do is they,

303
00:16:13.865 --> 00:16:18.115
they stigmatize, they say you're a certain kind

304
00:16:18.135 --> 00:16:19.315
of woman, right?

305
00:16:19.775 --> 00:16:22.035
So think, just take about Kamala Harris.

306
00:16:22.235 --> 00:16:25.995
I mean, I feel like they tried, you know, she,

307
00:16:26.825 --> 00:16:29.155
initially they tried, they called her a mattress

308
00:16:29.155 --> 00:16:30.555
that she slept her way to power,

309
00:16:30.975 --> 00:16:33.235
but then they tried, you know, she's a bitter

310
00:16:33.895 --> 00:16:35.315
single woman, right?

311
00:16:35.935 --> 00:16:37.235
Oh, she's, you know,

312
00:16:37.295 --> 00:16:41.375
and she's, sort of, she's,

313
00:16:42.465 --> 00:16:45.735
she's Joe Biden's surrogate.

314
00:16:45.785 --> 00:16:48.655
She's not her own person. We don't know who she is, right?

315
00:16:48.875 --> 00:16:53.335
And so one of these things which you can say is like, look,

316
00:16:53.335 --> 00:16:56.775
they were trying, they're fishing around to figure out

317
00:16:57.165 --> 00:17:01.935
what trope for, to her right,

318
00:17:01.935 --> 00:17:04.135
they can use to make her

319
00:17:06.135 --> 00:17:08.215
hateable, right?

320
00:17:08.715 --> 00:17:11.295
And one of the things that's super interesting is

321
00:17:11.295 --> 00:17:14.615
because Trump called her pretty in the beginning,

322
00:17:15.205 --> 00:17:16.735
they could couldn't really use her body

323
00:17:17.045 --> 00:17:20.215
because she didn't have children, right?

324
00:17:20.805 --> 00:17:24.705
They couldn't use the, she's

325
00:17:26.225 --> 00:17:28.385
maternal, right?

326
00:17:28.445 --> 00:17:31.225
And so she, you couldn't do the same nagging thing

327
00:17:31.575 --> 00:17:32.865
that you did with Hillary.

328
00:17:33.085 --> 00:17:34.905
And so I think one, and

329
00:17:35.225 --> 00:17:38.465
'cause she was a prosecutor, you couldn't even do that.

330
00:17:38.465 --> 00:17:40.065
She's gonna be soft on crime.

331
00:17:41.205 --> 00:17:44.465
And so in some ways she defied the stereotypes very

332
00:17:44.465 --> 00:17:46.065
successfully, right?

333
00:17:46.455 --> 00:17:49.645
Even though they kept trying, you know?

334
00:17:49.705 --> 00:17:53.845
And so I think one, one future area of research is actually

335
00:17:55.305 --> 00:17:58.965
how can, how do some women avoid,

336
00:18:00.185 --> 00:18:02.005
triggering disgust?

337
00:18:02.345 --> 00:18:04.525
Do you have to sit there and smile all the time?

338
00:18:04.705 --> 00:18:06.565
Not be angry, right?

339
00:18:06.785 --> 00:18:09.325
Or do you know, do you have to, like,

340
00:18:09.865 --> 00:18:12.325
is calling out people better or worse?

341
00:18:13.225 --> 00:18:16.925
You know? Um, and plus in my, in my,

342
00:18:18.505 --> 00:18:20.765
my argument is, is like when you trigger people

343
00:18:20.765 --> 00:18:22.525
to think about gender, they're more likely

344
00:18:22.525 --> 00:18:24.165
to think about disgusting things.

345
00:18:25.065 --> 00:18:26.045
And you made that point.

346
00:18:26.045 --> 00:18:27.045
That's really excellent, actually.

347
00:18:27.045 --> 00:18:28.125
Well, I've got one final question.

348
00:18:28.125 --> 00:18:29.205
We don't have enough time with you, Suzanne.

349
00:18:29.295 --> 00:18:30.485
We've got literally two minutes.

350
00:18:30.485 --> 00:18:32.005
You've been brilliant by the way. We've got enough.

351
00:18:32.585 --> 00:18:34.845
You've been, I've gonna asked you this. Oh good. Oh good.

352
00:18:34.845 --> 00:18:37.005
I've got, I'm like, I like, I dunno what you wanna hear.

353
00:18:37.265 --> 00:18:38.325
No, thanks. You're great.

354
00:18:38.425 --> 00:18:39.885
So intersectional approach, you,

355
00:18:39.885 --> 00:18:41.445
you emphasized the importance of that.

356
00:18:41.665 --> 00:18:43.525
Can you maybe speak bit to that just before we finish,

357
00:18:44.305 --> 00:18:45.305
Sir? Okay. So

358
00:18:45.305 --> 00:18:47.245
a couple things we think super interesting.

359
00:18:47.465 --> 00:18:51.885
Um, so one is,

360
00:18:51.935 --> 00:18:55.445
these studies say like, look, we saw, there's no one's,

361
00:18:55.445 --> 00:18:56.965
no one's talking about women as mothers.

362
00:18:56.965 --> 00:18:58.765
No one's talking about what they're wearing. It's fine.

363
00:18:59.385 --> 00:19:04.365
And I would say that, you know,

364
00:19:04.835 --> 00:19:08.725
when you talk about the category of women in isolation,

365
00:19:09.185 --> 00:19:11.925
it tends to highlight the experience

366
00:19:11.925 --> 00:19:13.365
of the most privileged groups.

367
00:19:13.425 --> 00:19:16.805
So it tends to highlight the privilege of cis women

368
00:19:17.225 --> 00:19:21.005
or women with who are, straight

369
00:19:21.145 --> 00:19:23.125
or women who are white, right?

370
00:19:23.345 --> 00:19:24.725
And so one of the things

371
00:19:24.795 --> 00:19:28.565
that I think you really can't assume is that just

372
00:19:28.565 --> 00:19:32.485
because you haven't found women self-reporting their hatred

373
00:19:33.795 --> 00:19:35.455
of white women, right?

374
00:19:35.845 --> 00:19:39.785
Doesn't mean that other women think,

375
00:19:40.645 --> 00:19:45.545
Danica Rome, the first trans woman in Virginia to run

376
00:19:45.605 --> 00:19:49.385
for, both state and sorry, state senate

377
00:19:49.525 --> 00:19:50.585
and house, right?

378
00:19:50.655 --> 00:19:54.185
That she doesn't face hatred as being a woman.

379
00:19:54.525 --> 00:19:58.945
And so there's a way in which the gen, the, the desire

380
00:19:59.205 --> 00:20:02.985
to find happy ending, like have a happy lesson.

381
00:20:03.055 --> 00:20:07.745
Like things are like, gosh, I hope it's true, right?

382
00:20:08.045 --> 00:20:11.545
But there's a way in which, if we don't look,

383
00:20:11.645 --> 00:20:14.345
and so one of the things I found in the article,

384
00:20:14.345 --> 00:20:17.625
which I think is super interesting is, right, so women,

385
00:20:17.755 --> 00:20:22.145
white women are often called pigs, dogs, animals.

386
00:20:22.445 --> 00:20:24.905
But when you refer to, black women

387
00:20:25.205 --> 00:20:28.465
and the article I talked about Michelle Obama,

388
00:20:28.725 --> 00:20:31.505
who is often called gorilla in heel in heels,

389
00:20:32.295 --> 00:20:33.585
gorilla face, ape and heels.

390
00:20:34.005 --> 00:20:38.745
And what one of the things that, they found is

391
00:20:38.745 --> 00:20:42.345
that when you use these types, these racialized tropes,

392
00:20:42.485 --> 00:20:45.785
it brings back sort of the justifications

393
00:20:45.845 --> 00:20:46.905
for chattel slavery

394
00:20:47.035 --> 00:20:50.245
that African Americans are just like animals.

395
00:20:50.825 --> 00:20:55.485
But it, the audience reaction to the use of these tropes is

396
00:20:55.585 --> 00:20:58.885
to condone the use of violence against them, right?

397
00:20:59.385 --> 00:21:02.685
And so, you know, you can call a woman

398
00:21:04.245 --> 00:21:06.645
a pig, a white woman, a pig, right?

399
00:21:07.345 --> 00:21:10.925
But you don't necessarily have the same, that reminds me

400
00:21:10.925 --> 00:21:14.645
that I can do anything I want to women's bodies

401
00:21:15.425 --> 00:21:18.325
in the same way that with our history of slavery

402
00:21:18.915 --> 00:21:20.805
affects, African American.

403
00:21:20.865 --> 00:21:24.325
So what is said by who, how many times

404
00:21:24.865 --> 00:21:26.045
it said, right?

405
00:21:26.665 --> 00:21:30.685
And, and I think actually one interesting idea in the

406
00:21:30.685 --> 00:21:34.685
article that I love is why is it

407
00:21:34.685 --> 00:21:39.195
that it's almost like women can be hated for anything.

408
00:21:40.175 --> 00:21:44.075
And the that comes from, I'm like, we hated Hillary

409
00:21:44.075 --> 00:21:47.715
because of her emails, right?

410
00:21:47.975 --> 00:21:51.515
Not the, not the convictions, not sexual assault,

411
00:21:52.535 --> 00:21:55.675
not like separating families, right?

412
00:21:56.375 --> 00:21:58.755
And so to me it's, it's,

413
00:21:59.015 --> 00:22:02.955
and this is what I meant about our society makes it

414
00:22:03.175 --> 00:22:07.945
so much more permissible to hate women, right?

415
00:22:08.005 --> 00:22:12.225
And, and, and honestly like, I, I think the, the one thing

416
00:22:12.225 --> 00:22:15.465
that's interesting about the likability question is that

417
00:22:16.385 --> 00:22:18.805
men don't, will will vote for someone

418
00:22:19.185 --> 00:22:20.445
who they don't think is likable.

419
00:22:20.445 --> 00:22:23.325
If they think they're competent, they will not do that

420
00:22:23.345 --> 00:22:24.925
for women, right?

421
00:22:25.185 --> 00:22:29.995
And so likability is a game changer

422
00:22:30.095 --> 00:22:31.155
for women, right?

423
00:22:31.255 --> 00:22:36.035
And yet we're so much more, bicky

424
00:22:37.505 --> 00:22:41.355
with what is horrific women behavior.

425
00:22:42.185 --> 00:22:43.575
Horrifying women behavior.

426
00:22:44.995 --> 00:22:47.335
That's fantastic. That's fantastic. That's a wrap.

427
00:22:47.515 --> 00:22:48.895
We have to end it there. That's a wrap.

Quick Answers

Title: Unraveling Gender Bias and Misogyny in Political Discourse

00:00:00 - One of the things that sort of was in the air, in political science was this idea that women run, when women run, women win in equal rates as men. And so a lot of discussion has gone on about, you know, all we need to do is like, if we have term limits, we'll get more women into politics. And, and at the same time, the number of, like, I think globally it's 26.4%, of legislatures are in women, right?
00:00:33 - we have these very optimistic findings about, that gender doesn't play any role in politics. And then at the same time, you have things like will Hillary Clinton being tweeted about and using social sciences defined terms of sexism, right? Something like 64,000 over 64,000 times, right? And so there was a real disparity between how we treat
00:01:06 - And how and what's happening, right? And this really bothered me for a couple of reasons. One was so sick of the question, what's so why is Hillary Clinton so hateable, right? And we made it as if it was a Hillary Clinton personality problem, as opposed to looking at the fact that over the course of her career, she has really high popularity rates and really low popularity rates.

Title: "Analyzing the Influence of Framing and Insults on Public Opinion in Politics"

00:01:37 - she gets really low popularity rates. And instead of thinking, well, this is obviously a personality, one of the things I was really like driven by was, well, what's happening? How is she being framed in the social media and by other political elites? And everything that political scientists know is that in fact they go to so far to say that there is no such thing as a public opinion because they're so influenced by
00:02:09 - So the claim is, you know, elites don't represent the the fixed opinions of the public. The elites give like they pander in that they find out which phrases, which kinds of statements work, and then the, and then constituents mimic the words and behavior of their representatives. And so in this type of environment, I was like, look, we're seeing like insults as individualized things.
00:02:45 - representative Janie. Instead of looking at how does, what says is said about Hillary Clinton can influence how we affect representative Janie, what Was being said about, high profile women, right? And in particular, one of the things that I actually, I think I, I got in the article, I actually got accused of

Title: "Unveiling Misogyny: Gender Identity and Body Politics in Political Discourse"

00:03:18 - the comments were against women. So I was making it voyeuristic, right? When I opened the possibility that by merely repeating these criticisms, you are spreading misogyny. And so I actually dialed back on a lot of the criticisms because they were so mean and horrible, right? And this is, you know, you can say, what I think of
00:03:46 - someone's gender identity. So it can be about their body, it can be about their sex roles, it can be about, being feminine or not, but you invoke their, their, their gender identity in order to use their body as evidence that they're disgusting and hateable, right? And so you treat their body as evidence, right? Of being, well, what, Aaron Ka
00:04:22 - as a monster metaphor. And so we are called witches. And, you know, har s**t shame, body shame. We're too good looking. We're too old, we're too young. Everything. we're bad mothers. We're not mothers. We're every, one of the things that's really interesting is how, elites can really fish around

"The Vulnerability of Women in Politics: Misogyny, Memory, and Influence by Political Elites"

00:04:53 - and it raises a question like, why would a woman ever wanna go into politics if they're gonna make themselves that vulnerable to be really publicly humiliated? Right? And this is also the kind of language that, political psychologist knows really does shape our memory of people. We as humans, we tend to remember the bad more than the good. Someone insults us, we hold onto it. You know, I think also audiences,
00:05:27 - than it is if someone praises them. What I mean by a political elite is, is in fact very broad. It's anyone who has audiences that they can influence. So in this way, Rachel Mattau, who's a us, you know, M-S-N-B-C, broadcaster or, Nancy Pelosi, anyone who has
00:05:56 - One of the things that, there was a book called, women on the Run by Daniel Hayes and Jennifer Lawless. And they found that there gender had absolutely no effect. And their reasoning for this was that, negative partisanship was so strong that, that sorry, it was so strong that there's no room for, for misogyny.

Title suggestion: "Examining Contradictory Evidence and Contextual Dynamics of Misogyny in Politics"

00:06:26 - to show was there's actually a lot of contradictory evidence, right? And instead of, and so I feel like we're either stuck in this place, like misogyny is everywhere and every, every place at all times, right? And if you find that there's not misogyny, there's not evidence of hate, hatred, hateful attitudes in an audience, we don't have misogyny, right? Or you can, they'll be very cont content contextual
00:06:59 - it might affect when you run for the highest office like the presidency, but it doesn't affect in most US elections. So they'll say it depends on the context. And so I wanted to sort of argue that if we ch we actually aren't gonna know if we're testing it well enough, right? Or how we should test the level of misogyny in a con in any particular context unless you examine the dynamic nature.
00:07:31 - elites who people trust who repeat it a lot, right? A nasty claim, a nasty claim being something like Carol Fiorini, you don't have the face to be president, right? So it's a personal tech, but it's also saying something she doesn't have that female face is, is disgusting. We wouldn't want anyone to have that kind of face as our president, then it has to trigger an unconscious

Title: "Gender Bias and Triggered Prejudices in Political Discourse"

00:08:00 - And the triggering is really important because, one of the things which people have is like, you might say, I love my mom. Love my mom, I love my sister love women, right? How, how can you say, I hate women when I love women, but no woman who's ever come up for presidents is good enough for me to vote. And those two things can be completely, you think you love women in your mind, and at the same time you're like, Hmm,
00:08:34 - the nuclear button, right? And so as a result, you have to trigger the dis the discussion. And then you have to look at the audience, right? Because some audiences, when someone says something horrible about Hillary Clinton, some people go crazy and they mobilize and they put, you know, they put pink pussycats on their heads and other people are like, yeah, right? And so you have, one of the things
00:09:06 - actually puts women in competition with each other. That some women are not harmed by misogyny. Some women may be even helped by misogyny, right? And that one of the things that you see is that because women are treated as interchangeable when you criticize Hillary Clinton, right? You can also criticize Kamala Harris. So Kamala Harris was called on Anne culture's

Title: "Collective Identities and Partisanship: Unpacking Gender Dynamics in Politics"

00:09:36 - So it seems like you can invoke the founding mothers as, as a way against women in ways you can ev evoke them against men, right? As a way to change women's collective identities. And one of the things I think I say in the article, which is super, I I find super interesting is like maybe
00:10:04 - for the intense partisanship in the United States. The negative partisanship is that the Democrats have been understood as the party of Hillary Clinton, a OC, and Nancy Pelosi, and now Kamala Harris, right? Although we can talk about why Kamala Harris doesn't fit this trend or, or how she's like weaponized feminism and femininity in order to combat that. But, and I think in some weird way, even though you totally
00:10:40 - Trump, right? But what's interesting is Laura Bert, Sarah Palin and Marjorie Taylor Greene in some ways hold the hatred of those people of Democrats, even in like the followers get more, more backlash, right? Than, I'm not sure more, but signi a significant amount. My example I use in the article is that, Andrew Biggs,

Title: "Uncovering Gender Bias in Society: The Dynamics of Hate and Privilege"

00:11:15 - for Speaker of the House, who supports Q Anon, supports January 6th meets with the white supremacist. and in some ways, substantively is exactly the same as Marjorie Taylor Greene. Nobody knows his name even though he's waiting for Speaker House, right? Well, her, and you know, in some ways you can say, look,
00:11:45 - that and produce hatred. And one of the things I'm think that's really interesting that comes from my article is we have to think about how our society teaches us who to hate and how to hate them. And you don't hate all women the same way, right? And so I think for conservative women, one of the things that happens is there's this idea
00:12:17 - While people think Trump is acting in his own interest, right? And so there's this way in which I think we get so angry at and even gonna say white women, because they often use their privilege by throwing other women at the, under the bus. And when men throw women under the bus, everyone's like, well, we expect no less, right?

"Uncovering Gender Bias: Disproportionate Hatred Towards Women in Politics"

00:12:50 - the dis not that it's not deserving, but the disproportionate amount of hatred that she gets versus Andy Briggs and other Q Anon men in Congress reflects how women who say outlandish things are a news story and gets the, gets the audience going right? In ways that men, when they say things
00:13:21 - it's like the norm's two ways that I think they, underestimate the, the effect of gender bias in our site. One is that it's an over individualized approach. I, so it's only what you say about a particular women that suggests evidence or of gender bias, and it's only what constituents report.
00:13:51 - people have complicated views of gender, and so you have to look at whether or not their gender prejudice has been triggered, right? And you also have to think about, one of the, one of the things that's really interesting is, you know, maybe we hate women, in groups like, I hate Republican women, or I hate democratic women. Or we could hate, progressive women, right?

"Gender Stigmatization and Tropes: The Case of Kamala Harris"

00:14:23 - as an individual, right? So, you know, it, I, how do we separate out our like, gender part from our individual part? And one way, I, I think what elites do is they, they stigmatize, they say you're a certain kind of woman, right? So think, just take about Kamala Harris. I mean, I feel like they tried, you know, she, initially
00:14:52 - that she slept her way to power, but then they tried, you know, she's a bitter single woman, right? she's, you know, and she's, sort of, she's, she's Joe Biden's surrogate. She's not her own person. We don't know who she is, right? And so one of these things which you can say is like, look, they were trying, they're fishing around to figure out what trope for, to her right,
00:15:29 - hateable, right? And one of the things that's super interesting is because Trump called her pretty in the beginning, they could couldn't really use her body because she didn't have children, right? They couldn't use the, she's maternal, right? And so she, you couldn't do the same nagging thing that you did with Hillary.

"Exploring Gender Biases in Political Stereotyping and Society: A Closer Look at Female Representation and Perceptions"

00:15:58 - because she was a prosecutor, you couldn't even do that. She's gonna be soft on crime. And so in some ways she defied the stereotypes very successfully, right? Even though they kept trying, you know? And so I think one, one future area of research is actually how can, how do some women avoid, triggering disgust? Do you have to sit there
00:16:30 - Or do you know, do you have to, like, is calling out people better or worse? You know? and implicit in my, in my, my argument is it's like when you trigger people to think about gender, they're more likely to think about disgusting things. There's no one's, no one's talking about women as mothers. No one's talking about what they're wearing. It's fine. And I would say that, you know,
00:17:02 - it tends to highlight the experience of the most privileged groups. So it tends to highlight the privilege of cis women or women with who are, straight or women who are white, right? And so one of the things that I think you really can't assume is that just because you haven't found women self-reporting their hatred of white women, right?

"Unveiling Gendered Hate: The Double Standard of Misogyny and Racism"

00:17:35 - Danica Rome, the first trans woman in Virginia to run for, both state and sorry, state senate and house, right? That she doesn't face hatred as being a woman. And so there's a way in which the gen, the, the desire to find happy ending, like have a happy lesson. Like things are like, gosh, I hope it's true, right?
00:18:04 - and so one of the things I found in the article, which I think is super interesting is, right, so women, white women are often called pigs, dogs, animals. But when you refer to, black women and the article I talked about, Michelle Obama, who is often called gorilla and heel and heels, gorilla face, apen heels. And what one of the things that, they found is
00:18:35 - it brings back sort of the justifications for chattel slavery that African Americans are just like animals. But it, the audience reaction to the use of these tropes is to condone the use of violence against them, right? And so, you know, you can call a woman a pig, a white woman, a pig, right? But you don't necessarily have the same, that reminds me

"Unveiling the Permissibility of Hateful Attitudes Towards Women: A Critical Analysis"

00:19:08 - in the same way that with our history of slavery affects, African American. So what is said by who, how many times it's said, right? And, and I think actually one interesting idea in the article that I love is why is it that it's almost like women can be hated for anything. And the that comes from, I'm like, we hated Hillary
00:19:41 - Not the, not the convictions, not sexual assault, not like separating families, right? And so to me it's, it's, and this is what I meant about our society makes it so much more permissible to hate women, right? And, and, and honestly, like, I, I think the, the one thing that's interesting about the likability question is that
00:20:35 - who they don't think is likable. If they think they're competent, they will not do that for women, right? And so likability is a game changer for women, right? And yet we're so much more, bicky with what is horrific women behavior, horrifying women be.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Watch the latest episode of The Exchange – the show where influential policymakers and leading researchers engage in insightful discussions shaping the future.

Episode: Brazil's Economic Resilience