Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The Political Gender Gap:

Here is some interesting research on gender and politics. link



By the way, the research subjects were college students, the group of subjects most easily available to the researchers. In order to be totally reliable, the research would have to be replicated in a further study using a much wider cross section of research subjects.

Never the less, I think this study provides some scientific basis for why it is that women become the pre-eminent target of the beauty industry. If it is true that "female candidates were more likely to win votes if they were more attractive" one would conclude that "female attractiveness" would be a valuable characteristic in many other sorts of endeavors. And if it happens to be true that more attractive women tend to be more successful, then I would think that women would be intuitively aware of that fact. And, as a corollary, any woman who wants to be more successful would spend a reasonable amount of effort and resources seeking to maximize her attractiveness as a way of enhancing her competitive positioning in a broad range of activities.

By the way, I make no value judgement concerning this situation. I neither endorse this reality nor consider it immutable. But I also see not point in turning away from realities just because we might find to them to be disconcerting.

Maybe that's a better approach than a good college degree and solid experience. But if you spend all your life thinking you're being judged by how you look, you're going to a) spend way too much time thinking about appearances, b) be boring on any subject beyond clothes-hair-nails-face, and c) probably slit your wrists when you get to an age where you will never again be the most attractive woman in the room.

It's a sick way to live, and I personally won't do it. That kind of success I don't want or need; the price is far too high.

Julia
The article clearly placed attractiveness as just one of many factors people used for evaluation
For what it is worth, I share your views about becoming a slave to appearance. Never the less, I also think it is important to acknowledge what ever reality might be. For example, we did not get to a less racist society by ignoring it's existence. IMO one has to be able to clearly look at something in order to deal with it.

Ardy

Ardy, I started to write more but waited for you to finish your reply.



If those two statements have equal value - and they should - why were they not written as


The value for each sentence is different.

As for

-- just how many women do you think have ignored this message from society?

As you say, we did not deal with racism by ignoring its existence. Or...did we, assuming "we" means white people without much personal contact with black people? I know for a fact that black people don't -- haven't -- ignored racism. Any more than women have ignored "looksism" (a word I dislike, btw).

I remember college. It was a long time ago, but I recall it with decreasing clarity. I remember more recently my daughters experience with "higher" education and my continuing involvement in teaching at the graduate level from time to time.

I would be VERY interested in seeing the cross section of the students used for the research in terms of age and year in college.

In the early years, at least through sophomore year, appearance is a very big deal. The cute sorority girl will get a lot more attention than the plain (whether because of inate appearance or attention to makeup, clothes, etc.) farm girl.

By graduate school, however, gravitation is toward those who know what they are talking about, or at least appear to their peers as knowing what they are talking about. I see less emphasis among women on covering or highlighting their raw attractiveness attributes and more emphasis on being prepared.

Ever go to a reunion? Ever notice how the popular "kids" are no longer the leaders in the room?

It is not surprising to me that appearance of women would still be a significant factor among college folks. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Hillary Clinton was not the presumptive Democratic nominee, ahead of Barbara Boxer, Mary Landrieu, or Blanche Lincoln, because people (men or women) think she is the most attractive female Senator!

Female stars have faced this quandry for eons. There are many aging female stars bucking this trend and are quite successful at it. I cite the wonderful Academy Award® winning actress, Meryl Streep.

I attended college from 09-1985 to 05-1993. Never, ever was appearance an issue or what clothes to wear.

I was a dietetics major and the only guy in every department class. Appearances and clothes were a non-issue with my fellow diet students: projects, mid-terms, and finals were.

We had more important things to worry about: Passing classes and working enough hours to make ends meet while being a college student.

Julia
Both sentances are TRUE... but perhaps not equally true.
I was basing my comment upon the research that was presented...
which seemed to indicate a divergence in the imporatance of appearance in the evaluation of the two genders (". Intriguingly though, male candidates were also more likely to win votes if they appeared approachable [r (60) = 0.55, p<0.009], while female candidates were more likely to win votes if they were more attractive")



Yes, and I doubt that not many Backs would say "Skin color makes no differecence in how Black people are evaluated" We know that people can have "aision toned skin and not suffer from the same discrimination. We know that people can have medditeraneian toned skin and suffer from l;ess discrimination, we know that white people can be darkly tanned and suffer from no discrimination..... And ALSO, we know that darker skinned people can at time try to lighten their skin tone to reduce discrimination.

Julia
I am simply saying that there appears to be a gender based differential between the relative importance of attraciveness (in our culture and possibly more universally). It appears that this research confirms my assertion.

And then as a correlary, I am saying that IF my assetrion is true, then it would follow that there would also tend to be a gender based differential of concern about ones appearance.

And, as a further correlary, to the degree that statements one and two are true, then this would also, at least partially explain the differential in gender targeting by the beauty industry.

Yes, I agree with your post.

On the other hand, my observation is that a man can gain and keep credibility despite some disregard of his appearance... IE the absent minded professor type, the construction worker type, etc. While a successful woman will seldom be seen as indifferent to her appearance.

I remember seeing fa few campaign appearances when Obama was addressing a crowd in a simple whit shirt. And, for some reason that shirt struck me as and older and less expensive shirt. I propose that you would seldom or ever see a woman candidate in such little considered attire. I say that if Barak Obama was a woman, she would spend a lot more time on her hair than he does. She would spend a lot more time on make up than he does. Sher would give a lot more consideration to accessories and jewelry than he does. I am also saying that either John McCain or Obama were a woman... and that woman gave as little concern to appearance as the men do, she would tend to be less successful.

I am not saying it is fair, or good... just proposing that it is the reality. And as long as that is the reality that women face, there will be an emphasis among women to patronize the various facets of the "beauty industry." Which inherently makes women better targets for that industry

I would suggest, on the obverse of the coin, that Dennis Kucinich would be taken more seriously if he looked like Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. Or even John Edwards.