objectifying women hurts their testscores, instantly

[Sasha]

didn't know whether to fit this in women struggles of in science, decided to put it here as an counterweight to the stupid "boobies" thread from yesterday.


When a guy "harmlessly" checks out a woman (http://newspreview.corp.dig.com/WhatWouldYouDo/video/unwanted-flirtation-6800290), it may not be so harmless after all, according to a first-of-its kind study done by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Penn State University.

"There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that checking women out has adverse effects," said Sarah Gervais, an assistant professor of psychology at UNL and the study's lead author, "but there haven't really been any empirical studies to prove that."

That is, until now,

read the rest of the, quite long but intresting, article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/sexy-stares-linked-eds-poor-test-scores/story?id=12994054

[Queercommie Girl]

Frankly, I think the fact that women are disadvantaged in education has much more to do with the implicit institutional sexism that is prevalent in society than pop evolutionary psychology stuff like this. As a study has shown, when examiners mark test papers, if they know the student is male, then they are implicitly more likely to mark him higher because society has an implicit assumption that women are generally less intelligent.

In fact, I don't even believe the evolutionary psychology that finds a biological basis for gender traits is very good from a purely darwinist perspective, since I could find many darwinist arguments that demonstrate how gender flexibility and queer sexuality can have evolutionary advantages for animals, especially higher animals with greater intelligence and a non-specialist diet. This is partly why flexible gender traits like allomothering and homosexuality are more common in primates than in lower animals which generally would tend to have more rigid gender behaviour that cannot be changed.

Even if there is some empirical truth to this study, it has nothing to do with the fact that feminine sexual objectification is intrinsically worse than masculine sexual objectification, only that feminine sexuality as a whole is oppressed by our patriarchal society so "being feminine" is considered to be less worthy than "being masculine".

In a hypothetical society where there is complete gender equality, one would not expect the objectification of female sexuality to be any worse than the objectification of male sexuality. In other words, regarding the oppression of women today, their socio-economic situation comes before and determines their sexual situation, and not the other way around.

To put it somewhat "banally" (not to be taken literally), it's not the "high heels" themselves that are reactionary, it is the society that sees "high heels" as less worthy that is reactionary. Women can never be liberated simply by imitating men.

[Octavian]

I don't understand how this test could of actually be seen as scientifically sound what so ever. The margin for error is pretty large if you consider the two key parts of their study. The first being they only had 67 women in the study and the second being they used a math test as their medium to determine if being objectified caused any mental anguish. The results of the test could be purely due to the mathematical skill of the people themselves. "The results? On average, the women who weren't ogled got six out of 12 questions correct, while those who were checked out averaged just under five. "

[Exakt]

'objectifying' - when an ugly guy who you have no interest in checks you out

'admiring' - when a cute/handsome guy who you'd considering fucking checks you out

this is sciences.

[¿Que?]

'objectifying' - when an ugly guy who you have no interest in checks you out

'admiring' - when a cute/handsome guy who you'd considering fucking checks you out

this is sciences.
I think you're missing the point. You don't have to dislike being checked out for stereotype threat to affect performance. If the assumption is that women are only valuable for their looks, even if they are flattered and appreciate being ogled at, they will perform worse. In fact, many of the women in the study reported wanting to spend more time with their oglers, which indicates that they appreciated being admired for their looks. Problem is, such admiration devalues them as intellectuals, and that's where the stereotype threat kicks in, so the study suggests.

The sample size seems a bit small (n<200) which is not totally horrible, but it is weighted more heavily towards men, there being 16 more men than women. I think it is possible this may have skewed the results, although I am a bit rusty on my stats and correct sampling method for quant studies.

Another problem is that since the women reported wanting to spend more time with the men checking them out, maybe they were just distracted and thinking of having fun than actually experiencing stereotype threat. Idk, it's possible.

[Exakt]

I think you're missing the point. No, I think you missed my point that the term 'objectifying' is a really useless description and merely checking out someone (really, it only is ever applied to females) is termed 'objectifying.' It comes from a strand of conservative feminist thought that treats women as if they're innocent and any expression of sexual attraction towards them devalues them 'intellectually.' Whatever. I mean, I could whisper dirty things into the ears of a bunch of guys or give them flirtatious looks and I'm sure they would be less focused on their tests, but I wonder if we would have a thread titled "objectifying men hurts testscores."

[Exakt]

It's not surprising that getting checked out would impair concentration, said Tomi-Ann Roberts, a professor of psychology at Colorado College who researches objectification. Roberts' own 1997 study found that women's self-objectification negatively affected math scores.


In Roberts' study, the women were either asked to try on a swimsuit or a sweater in a makeshift dressing room. After that, they were asked to complete a math test, among other tasks. The women who tried on the swimsuit did worse on the math test. Researchers concluded that trying on the swimsuit made women think about themselves as an object, which drained mental resources and made them perform worse on the test.

OmG, doIng a TesT in a SwiMsuIt mAkeS iT hArDeR to CoNceNtrAtE!!!

[Exakt]

"In our country, sexism tends to be very subtle, benevolent and complimentary, but even if someone's commentary on your body is so-called complimentary, and you want to continue to interact with that person because they complimented you, maybe you're setting yourself up for more overt forms of sexism." That's right women: if someone checks you out, and you respond positively, you're just setting yourself up for domestic abuse. Advice: respond to all "so-called" compliments in an aggressive and negative manner to ensure said future sexism doesn't eventuate.

[¿Que?]

No, I think you missed my point that the term 'objectifying' is a really useless description and merely checking out someone (really, it only is ever applied to females) is termed 'objectifying.'
Yes, but you stated that it is only objectifying if the woman is not attracted to the person checking her out. That is wrong and somewhat sexist.

It comes from a strand of conservative feminist thought that treats women as if they're innocent and any expression of sexual attraction towards them devalues them 'intellectually.'
I'd like to see a source showing that objectification is a term used exclusively by conservative feminists. Indeed, my guess is that it comes from the radical feminist perspective.

Whatever. I mean, I could whisper dirty things into the ears of a bunch of guys or give them flirtatious looks and I'm sure they would be less focused on their tests, but I wonder if we would have a thread titled "objectifying men hurts testscores."
You fail to understand the concept of objectification, and more so, you totally dodged my point about stereotype threat. In any case, I made this point first, and the actual study addresses it as a limitation. The fact that it was a professional (as opposed to a romantic setting) may have triggered stereotype threat, whereas admiring looks from a romantic partner in a romantic setting possibly does not trigger stereotype threat.

OmG, doIng a TesT in a SwiMsuIt mAkeS iT hArDeR to CoNceNtrAtE!!!
This response is not appropriate to these forums. Enjoy your verbal warning.

That's right women: if someone checks you out, and you respond positively, you're just setting yourself up for domestic abuse. Advice: respond to all "so-called" compliments in an aggressive and negative manner to ensure said future sexism doesn't eventuate.
Again, a lot of it has to do with context. In a professional or academic context, where sexual behavior is not appropriate, certain types of looks or advances should be treated with a certain degree of suspicion.

[Exakt]

Yes, but you stated that it is only objectifying if the woman is not attracted to the person checking her out. That is wrong and somewhat sexist. You're either being intentionally dishonest or are just stupid. My point was that the terms are frequently used in an arbitrary way. I was not providing authoritative definitions but showing their inconsistency.


I'd like to see a source showing that objectification is a term used exclusively by conservative feminists. Indeed, my guess is that it comes from the radical feminist perspective. Did I say that it is used exclusively by conservative feminists? And radical feminists are conservative. (Note: radical feminism is a specific historical strand of feminist thought - like Dworkin etc - not radical, as in revolutionary, feminism).


You fail to understand the concept of objectification, and more so, you totally dodged my point about stereotype threat. In any case, I made this point first, and the actual study addresses it as a limitation. The fact that it was a professional (as opposed to a romantic setting) may have triggered stereotype threat, whereas admiring looks from a romantic partner in a romantic setting possibly does not trigger stereotype threat. I'll respond to this below.


This response is not appropriate to these forums. Enjoy your verbal warning. Enjoy being an asshole.


Again, a lot of it has to do with context. In a professional or academic context, where sexual behavior is not appropriate, certain types of looks or advances should be treated with a certain degree of suspicion. Absolutely they should, and I never said otherwise. I think there's the world of difference between a boss, who is in a position of dominance over an employee, flirting with an employee versus just your typical social setting which allows for reciprocal flirtation. That said, this thread extrapolates its "results" in a classroom to society. And just as it is inappropriate for sexual advances to occur in a professional setting, its totally bizarre to apply professional standards to social settings.

And the whole bullshit about 'stereotype threats' , i.e. if women think they're being objectified then they will conform to certain stereotypes ( i.e. "Oh fuck! I'm being objectified, I better flunk this maths test so I can conform to the typical bimbo!") is just a pile of psycholgical bullshit. I mean, could it actually be, as the article suggests that:


Or, researchers said, they may have interpreted the objectifying gaze as a sign of attraction and wanted to reciprocate it.
But yeah, I guess I can see how (getting checked out) could be distracting in some situations, especially at school. If you are attracted to the person, you might be thinking about things other than taking the test."
"Maybe subconsciously it is to prove something, I don't know, but I really think it would just be because I'm flattered or attracted,":ohmy:

[Exakt]

OmG, doIng a TesT in a SwiMsuIt mAkeS iT hArDeR to CoNceNtrAtE!!!Zomg! Maybe if they did the test naked their "self-objectification" would be even stronger (!) and their results would be even lower! Science!

[Exakt]

Captain-fucking-obvious: just because you're self-conscious about your body (which women aren't?) doesn't mean you're treating yourself like a fucking object.

FFS.

[¿Que?]

You're either being intentionally dishonest or are just stupid. My point was that the terms are frequently used in an arbitrary way. I was not providing authoritative definitions but showing their inconsistency.
But where's the inconsistency. You can be objectified even if you find the person objectifying you attractive, or if the male gaze is considered flattering to you. These conditions do not preclude objectification, so therefore, your original comment is just plain wrong.

Did I say that it is used exclusively by conservative feminists? And radical feminists are conservative. (Note: radical feminism is a specific historical strand of feminist thought - like Dworkin etc - not radical, as in revolutionary, feminism).
You never qualified your statement to suggest otherwise. And radical feminism is not conservative, although getting into an argument over semantics is fairly useless here. Yes, there are some elements of radical feminism that appeal to the right, primarily their views on sexuality, but I think that's about where it starts and ends. Prove me wrong.


I'll respond to this below.

Enjoy being an asshole.
Just giving you a heads up. I'm not a mod, and I'm not going to report you, but that sort of response is not of the sort that is accepted in the main forums. You might get away with it, who knows?

Absolutely they should, and I never said otherwise. I think there's the world of difference between a boss, who is in a position of dominance over an employee, flirting with an employee versus just your typical social setting which allows for reciprocal flirtation. That said, this thread extrapolates its "results" in a classroom to society. And just as it is inappropriate for sexual advances to occur in a professional setting, its totally bizarre to apply professional standards to social settings.
I don't agree with your conception of professional versus typical setting. The types of settings that a person may find themselves include countless varieties such that the standards of professional settings may or may not apply.

And the whole bullshit about 'stereotype threats' , i.e. if women think they're being objectified then they will conform to certain stereotypes ( i.e. "Oh fuck! I'm being objectified, I better flunk this maths test so I can conform to the typical bimbo!") is just a pile of psycholgical bullshit. I mean, could it actually be, as the article suggests that:

:ohmy:It could, but this is just one study. There have been other studies that have shown evidence for the effect of stereotype threat, not just with women, but blacks and Latinas/os as well. Furthermore, studies on teachers and teaching have also shown that students who are treated as if they will perform poorly underperform compared to students who are treated as if they will perform well, regardless of their actual abilities. So there is no reason to dismiss stereotype threat offhand as "psychological bullshit."

[Exakt]

Dude, I'm not really interested in a slagging match, especially when you seem unable to comprehend the points I'm making (or trying to make).


But where's the inconsistency. You can be objectified even if you find the person objectifying you attractive, or if the male gaze is considered flattering to you. These conditions do not preclude objectification, so therefore, your original comment is just plain wrong. You're arguing about something which I'm not concerned with; my point was, once again, that you can't separate 'checking someone out' to 'objectifying them' - the two are being purposefully conflated. Please tell me how a guy who checks me out (i.e. looks me up and down) is objectifying me. Please tell me how I do the same when I check out a guy or a female. Please provide me with a meaningful distinction. I made no comment whether I would consider it flattering or not.


Yes, there are some elements of radical feminism that appeal to the right, primarily their views on sexuality, but I think that's about where it starts and ends. Prove me wrong. Considering the focus of radical feminism was on sexual issues... anyhow, I'm not really interested in this debate.


I don't agree with your conception of professional versus typical setting. The types of settings that a person may find themselves include countless varieties such that the standards of professional settings may or may not apply. Well, I said 'typical social setting' - like in a bar, a nightclub, at a party and so forth. I understand there are more varities than simply 'professional' and 'social settings' - but those were the two examples I compared.

[ZeroNowhere]

Clearly an accelerated proliferation of asexuals is necessary for the optimization of the human race.

In any case, as Exakt pointed out, there are certainly many possible and probably better explanations. Distraction of most sorts tends to injure test performance.

[¿Que?]

Clearly an accelerated proliferation of asexuals is necessary for the optimization of the human race.

In any case, as Exakt pointed out, there are certainly many possible and probably better explanations. Distraction of most sorts tends to injure test performance.
Yeah, except I pointed it out first. Dur!

[ZeroNowhere]

Yeah, except I pointed it out first. Dur!Less forthrightly and less charismatically. Enjoy your verbal warning for underperformance.

In any case, though, you didn't, at least not explicitly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Link in OP's quoted text is dead, and the article is taking too long to load, so forgive me for not concentrating too much on the study itself.

I'm not surprised at these results - would anyone really be able to concentrate on an intellectual task after being asked to wear a swimsuit? Because otherwise there's the implicit assumption that most heterosexual men are drooling perverts who slobber over any and all at least vaguely attractive women they encounter, while most heterosexual women are completely prudish ice queens who instantly recoil from any and all glances from men that might possibly be sexual.

Personally, I don't think such assumptions are very flattering to either sex (it turns straight males into barely-controlled animals, and denies straight women their own sexual agency), and I've not seen anything in the way of evidence for them. The real world appears to be much more complex and nuanced.

[Sasha]

The now published research had nothing to do with swimsuits, thats an stupid older "research" some interviewd hack dragged out of her own past.

It kinda reminded me about an experiment I saw on telly once where completely untraint white collar middle-class people where asked to use the crane of a big constructionsite digger to knock an egg of an pilon.
All the guys an the two butch women where just "hey, lets give it a try" and performed a thousand times better than the other girls who started giggling and proclaiming " I can't do that" even before they touched the first lever.

So I guess I just want to say that science seems to confirm that western hetro sexist cultural behavior does seem to affect skill and development without putting any blame other than on society as whole.

[kahimikarie]

'objectifying' - when an ugly guy who you have no interest in checks you out

'admiring' - when a cute/handsome guy who you'd considering fucking checks you out

this is sciences.

sigh

[Luís Henrique]

Really, it sounds like pseudo-science.

A bit worse, pseudo-science intended to make the point that sex is a bad thing.

Even worse, pseudo-science intended to make the point that sex is a bad thing, under the disguise of something anti-sexist.

Luís Henrique