These are matters of relative proportions, it’s not that this is some sort of normative in the demographic – but taking that at face value, what that sounds like is that some women are still responsive to a cultural conditioning that exalts the figure of the Strong Man In Charge who will just kick the ass of anyone threatening your and your children’s status. If that conditioning included the identification of displays of dominance with an undercurrent of implied violence, as signs of masculine strength, this would make the “Hostile Sexist” type more tolerable to a fraction that may be small but enough to “swing” the poll.
The study itself is here.
In summary, women voters in the 2020 presidential election varied in considering gender and racial inequality when deciding whom to vote for in line with their intersectional positionality of gender and race. Our findings suggest that among white women, racial resentment significantly increased the likelihood of voting for Trump, whereas hostile sexism did not have a significant effect. Specifically, the marginal effect of racial resentment scale on Trump support among white women was approximately 96% when other variables were held constant. Moreover, the group differences analysis confirms that white women were more influenced by racial resentment in their support for Trump compared to Black and Latina women. In other words, white women’s support for Trump in the 2020 election can be explained by their positionality as “second in sex to men” but “first in race to minorities” (Junn Reference Junn2017).
More importantly, the role of hostile sexism and racial resentment on Trump support is significantly conditioned by one’s gender and race. Hostile sexism significantly affects support for Trump among Latina and Asian American women, with the marginal effects of approximately 26% among Latina women and 22% among Asian American women, but this effect lacks statistical significance for Black and white women. Figure 2 illustrates this trend: the slope of the hostile sexism line is steeper for Latina and Asian American women, milder for white women, and almost flat for Black women. Similarly, although racial resentment significantly predicts Trump support across all groups, Figure 3 demonstrates that the slope of the racial resentment line, with regard to Trump support, differs considerably depending on race/ethnicity. The marginal effect of racial resentment on Trump support in the 2020 election was the highest among white women (approximately 96%), followed by Asian American women (66%), Latina women (42%), and Black women (27%).
I didn’t read the entire thing, but I’m still not sure why hostile sexism is more appealing to latina and asian women than to white women or black women. Virtually all the support for Trump from white women was about racism, not hostile sexism. Among latina women, the role of hostile sexism was much larger. Not as big as the appeal of racism, but almost as large.
Also asian women find Trump’s racism more appealing than latina women, probably because there is less anti-asian bias in the US vs anti-latno bias. It fits with cultural standards where whites are on top, asians are basically considered white by proxy, latinos are somewhat marginalized, but not marginalized as severely as black people.
I wonder if it depends on the kind of asian woman. Would a dark skinned asian woman from southeast asia vote differently than a light skinned asian woman from Japan? The number of asian women votes is only like 3% of the electorate, so I doubt it matters but I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘more white’ asian women found racism more appealing.
Or they simply think it won’t be aimed at them. A lot of non-white supporters of Trump
appear to be racists that are parochial enough that they assume Trump and his fellow white supremacists share their particular version of racism.
Especially given all the anti-China rhetoric, Asian American of non-Chinese ancestry might be especially prone to telling themselves it’ll be the Chinese Americans who get persecuted, not them.
I agree. It plays out with latinos, asians, women, etc.
They all think there is a hierarchy, and they are the ‘good ones’ and that the MAGA movement will only go after the bad latinos, the bad asians, the bad women.
Clarification please. As best as you can remember.
Was the problem that the preschool boys were … eager … to speak and be heard, or that the preschool girls tended to be quieter or at least had more impulse control, or that the teacher preferentially called on the boys?
My sense in those environments was that preschool and early grade girls are ahead of the boys in social maturity and impulse control. In those grades it just that Joey wants to share about the fart dad made, and Sarah thinks it but realizes that is not what the teacher wants to hear. Not a bias from the teacher to ignore the girl raising her hand. Was your sense different?
I think that is different than in teen and adult settings men being willing to speak up in public or heard differently when they speak.
As to the subject of the OP. As a practical approach trying to diminish anyone else’s sense of oppression is the best way to drive them away from having understanding for the problems of others, including yours. “You and your concerns don’t matter because someone else [usually meaning ME!] has it worse.” tends to push people away not draw in allies.
I have not read this entire thread, but i just ran into this
Continuing the discussion from Should accusations of gaslighting be treated as accusations of lying?:
And it’s an excellent example of why the phrase “oppression pyramid” makes me cringe. It implies there’s a single dimension of oppression, up and down. And that’s so totally false. In most situations, men have more privilege than women. But there are a lot of situations where women have more privilege than men.
I happen to believe that the groups that are protected from bigoted speech on the SDMB were not picked as “high” on some ranking of oppression. I don’t think they were even all picked for exactly the same reasons. (Note the separate discussion in the rules about trans issues, for instance.)
Anyway, i suggest that “oppression pyramid” is a bad metaphor that inspires conflict as well as being a really bad description of reality. If you want me to take your argument seriously, i suggest you find better words to describe whatever it is you want to describe. @k9bfriender , for instance, was able to clearly describe a real problem he has observed using accurate words.
It was a long time ago. What i remember was that i sat outside the circle, observing the class for a while. And i formed the impression that the class had a significant majority of boys. And then i counted and was surprised to discover it was the same number of boys and girls.
I couldn’t tell you at this point in time whether the teacher called on students or if they just spoke out. My guess is the former, but it was a long time ago. I don’t recall anyone saying anything inappropriate. It all felt like ordinary appropriate discussion for a group of children. Just one that was mostly male voices.
That’s the whole point of the discussion and the metaphor. That it’s common for progressives concerned with social justice to act as though there is a single dimension of oppression which applies in all circumstances.
I gave some examples in this thread of what I’m talking about, and so far no one has engaged with them.
No. I do not think those are at all common. They play no significant role. I’m not even seeing the major thrust of what I am reading here as being “double standards” per se.
I am not even convinced
It definitely occurs … but commonly? I don’t think so. Loudly, sure. But I hear more progressives concerned with social justice with a less simplistic understanding of intersectionality than that.
But of course on all sides simple messaging sells. It markets best to see things as this or that, all good guys and all bad guys. There’s that.
You chose a different preschool for your daughter. I’d assume one that had more girl voices heard in the circle time? Again long time ago, but do you remember what was different about that preschool that resulted in that?
(It may be going off on a tangent but the interest is on it as an example of the bias to male voices being “heard more” from very early on … nature, nurture, both interacting … does it fix expectations of behaviors that result in comfort/discomfort in speaking up and being heard, and at any stage what is the solution, if any?)
I think it’s a perfect description of the way that (as just one of multiple examples that came up in this thread) @HMS_Irruncible was perfectly willing to say that sometimes white men need to shut up and let the queer black woman speak; but then when he was asked if the poor white guy might be able to speak on issues of poverty, he clammed up and got defensive, accusing Alessan of not asking the question sincerely.
If you wouldn’t call that phenomenon “the Pyramid of Oppression”, what would you call it?
Ditto.
I do not remember. And it’s possible that the difference was me, perhaps i paid more attention to the girls because of my people experience. I considered that possibility at the time. But it put me off that school. And that wasn’t the only reason i picked the nursery school i picked, it also had a nicer playground, for instance.
The idea is that groups considered more oppressed by wider society get preferential treatment from social justice activists, eg more willingness to listen to them and believe their ‘lived experience’, a reluctance to criticise them when they engage in bad behaviour, more empathy for their struggles and a greater assumption that their problems are due to external factors vs a result of their own actions, the ability to define the terms of debate, for example that POC should get sole say over what counts as racism, and their problems are given higher priority, while those of privileged groups may be ignored entirely.
The oppression pyramid is a metaphor for this semi-official ordering of groups. AFAIK part of it is official, eg ordering ethnicities from most oppressed to most privileged, or the idea that gay men are more oppressed than straight men but less oppressed than trans men. While part is unofficial, with some types of oppression being given a higher priority than others, eg race vs class.
Can you point to the example?
Yes, i understand that it’s a conservative parody that is used to disparage concern for those with lesser privilege.
Then you don’t understand at all.
Like what part are you denying? That overall white people are most privileged, then Asians, Latinos, and black people are most oppressed?
Most oppressed in what circumstances?
Actually I understand it, the metaphor was originally used among the left; many members of whom felt that they weren’t being listened to or told to shut up for not having enough persecution points. The right only took the idea and twisted it to their own purposes later. Then the left shifted to using it to mean various other concepts of a hierarchy of oppression, with the top of the pyramid either being the oppressors on top of the heap or escalating extremes of oppression culminating in genocide.
So I think what it means depends on who you ask, since the term is used to mean multiple things. Although good luck getting an honest answer out of the Right.
It seems like a fine description of how that poster views things. And it is a poor metaphor that rests on a simplistic characterization of intersectionality that inspires conflict.
Well duh. The more oppressed groups get more concern from social activists and are are looked as sources of their lived experiences.
Yes some are unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. The conservative side seems to have many who think that concern for the real issues of those with some privilege means they can have none for those severely downtrodden, for example.
@puzzlegal , please read @Spice_Weasel’s post near the beginning of this thread, where she talks about her personal experience of these issues. Because people actually believe her and engage seriously rather than insisting it’s all a conservative parody.
Sure.
Unlike others in this thread, @HMS_Irruncible skipped past the “It isn’t happening” and “If it is, it is very rare” stages, and got to the “It does happen and is common but that’s a good thing” part of the argument right away:
(Emphasis mine).
When questioned on it by @Der_Trihs, HMS clearly states:
So, when it comes to minorities - in this case, a “black queer woman” - it is obvious and proper that their voices should take priority. Presumed but not actually stated is the idea that their voices should take priority on the subject of prejudice or oppression they face, but that’s me reading what I think is reasonable into it; it’s possible that the meaning is that their voices should always take precedent to make up for ways in which they’re disincentivized to speak, for example.
So then Alessan asks for clarification. What if the topic of discussion is poverty, should we listen to poor white men over middle class black women on that topic?
Not only does @HMS_Irruncible refuse to give a straight answer, arguing that it’s far too complex for a simple yes or no (although the idea that the queer black woman should be listened to over the white guy on unspecified topics is not far too complex for a simple yes or no answer? How come?):
I asked HMS this earlier, but: in what world is that perfectly clear and logical question a “gotcha”?