Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Which Came First: The Objectification Of Sarah Palin, Or The Mistrust In Her Competence?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:16 PM
Original message
Which Came First: The Objectification Of Sarah Palin, Or The Mistrust In Her Competence?
A new study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology reports that when men and women are asked to contemplate the appearance of an attractive woman, they judge her as less competent.

In fact, the experiment was conducted among college studens, who were asked to contemplate either the "personal appearance" or "person" of either Sarah Palin or Angelina Jolie last fall. The authors, psychologists Nathan Heflick and Jamie Goldenberg, hypothesized that by focusing on women's appearances, people perceive them as less "human" and therefore lesser. They found that, indeed, once people focused on Sarah Palin's looks, they judged her to be both less competent and less human.


http://jezebel.com/5164970/which-came-first-the-objectification-of-sarah-palin-or-the-mistrust-in-her-competence?skyline=true&s=x
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. For me it was when she opened her mouth....
......"what is it that the vice president does?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Exactly.
I couldn't believe the change in the words coming out of her mouth once she was picked for VP. She was never so hateful before - at least not in public. Now even when she tries to be "nice," we don't believe her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Exactly, this article neglects the fact that she enjoyed
fairly high approval until her disastrous interview with Couric. Once people saw her fail so miserably at such a softball interview, they clicked her into that "beauty queen airhead" category.

Before she opened her mouth, her looks worked in her favor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Pretty women probably have more of a burden to be taken seriously
Plain women have it tough just to get noticed at all.

Sarah was well thought of until she started talking and talking and talking. I thing the low opinions most have of her were merit based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. Recommended n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Genghis Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why does it have to be either/or?
A person can be judged incompetent for both rational (competence) and irrational (sexuality) reasons. Likely, we're all influenced to an extent by both. Thus, we might judge an attractive woman to be less competent than we would if she were male or unattractive, but that doesn't mean that we're unhinged from reality to the point that we would judge any attractive woman to be incompetent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC