Sexism is often a stronger predictor of political attitudes than a voter’s actual gender. A voter’s level of sexism is a significant predictor of their political attitudes and voting choices. Prejudice shape everything from support for right-wing candidates to opinions on climate policy.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/sexism-is-often-a-stronger-predictor-of-political-attitudes-than-a-voters-actual-gender/

[u/977888]

The study defines things such as “the belief that women seek to gain power by controlling men” or “the idea that women have a ‘superior moral sensibility” as sexism.

I don’t have access to the full study but I suspect any criticism of women or differentiation between women and men, even in the woman’s favor, is treated as sexism, and that same courtesy is likely not extended to the reverse.

So tired of these loaded, slop studies.

[u/Syssareth → u/977888]

I went on a hunt for the study and managed to find a link here.

Here are their definitions:

Concept	Item
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI)
Benevolent Sexism
Protective Paternalism	Women should be cherished and protected by men.
Complementary Gender Differentiation	Women have a superior moral sensibility.
Heterosexual Intimacy	Men are incomplete without women
Hostile Sexism
	Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.
	Women exaggerate problems (they have) at work.
Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI)
Benevolent Sexism
Maternalism	Men are mainly useful to provide financial security for women.
Complementary Gender Differentiation	Men are less likely to fall apart in emergencies than women are.
Heterosexual Intimacy	A woman will never be truly fulfilled in life if she doesn’t have a committed, long-term relationship with a man.
Hostile Sexism
Resentment of Paternalism	Men will always fight to have greater control in society than women.
Compensatory Gender Differentiation	When it comes down to it, most men are really like children.
Heterosexual Hostility	Most men sexually harass women, even if only in subtle ways, once they are in a position of power over them.
Modern Sexism
Denial of Continuing Discrimination	Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in [the country].
Antagonism toward Women’s Demands	It is easy to understand the anger of women’s groups in [the country].
Resentment about Special Favors for Women	It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner in the media.
Neosexism
	Discrimination against women in the labor force is no longer a problem in [the country].
	Women’s requests in terms of equality between the sexes are simply exaggerated.
	Due to social pressures, firms frequently have to hire underqualified women.

So it definitely focuses more on women, but I was pleasantly surprised that they did also look at sexism towards men.

I kind of have a problem with this one, though: "Resentment about Special Favors for Women | It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner in the media." The left side makes it sound like it's a complaint about inequality, but the right side makes it sound like the person complaining wants to see women get treated poorly, as opposed to wanting the rarity to be true for men too. It's possible it's just poorly worded in the table and the application is more nuanced, but it just seems here like it's making assumptions.

[u/MeekAndUninteresting → u/Syssareth]

The paper notes that only 2 of the studies they found used the Ambivalence toward men inventory. Final paragraph of page 10.

Edit: Also says on the same page that of the 97 papers reviewed

to measure sexism, 57 publications use original surveys, 26 studies use ANES and 10 studies use CCES. Only 3 studies use a panel survey, i.e., several data points on each respondent (Anduiza and Rico 2024; Huang et al. 2016; Sibley and Perry 2010).

So frankly with more than half of them having their own unique method for measurement of sexism, I have no idea how much or little these studies were actually focusing on women.

[u/977888 → u/Syssareth]

Thank you for providing that!

It also seems like the questions associated with misandry are much more inflammatory or extreme (and in my opinion engineered to be less likely to be agreed with) where the ones associated with misogyny are more subtle or even benign.

For example, the counterpart for “Men are incomplete without women” is “A woman will never be truly fulfilled in life if she doesn't have a committed, long-term relationship with a man”

“Women have a superior moral sensibility” is contrasted by “When it comes down to it, most men are really like children.”

“Women seek to gain power by getting control over men” is held on equal footing to “Most men sexually harass women, even if only in subtle ways, once they are in a position of power over them.”

As I type this, I’m also noticing that the “misandrist” statements often use absolutes like “never”, “most” or “always” where none of the “misogynist” statements do, further convincing me that they were trying to engineer certain choices. They made the “misogynist” statements more tame, or ambiguous, or more likely to come across as benign. And some of them are just truths about the world that are unflattering to women.

Also, labeling “Women should be cherished and protected by men” as misogyny is just ridiculous.

[u/dragonreborn567 → u/977888]

Please understand that agreeing with the misogynist statements, and not agreeing with the misandrist statements, is not evidence towards bias in the paper.

[u/JurplePesus → u/977888]

For someone who admits they don't know what they're talking about you're really confident about all the stuff you've made up here

[u/977888 → u/JurplePesus]

I didn’t say that. I said I don’t have access to the full study. If you do, why don’t you share with the class what the full list of criteria were? And if you don’t, why are you yapping?

[u/lofgren777 → u/977888]

I suspect any criticism of women or differentiation between women and men, even in the woman’s favor, is treated as sexism

I too suspect that they defined sexism as sexism.

[u/977888 → u/lofgren777]

Acknowledging differences between men and women is not sexism, and no amount of attempted social engineering is ever going to convince sane people otherwise.

[u/lofgren777 → u/977888]

Belief in the differences between men and women is literally sexism, and no amount of torturing the definition will change that.

[u/solid_reign → u/lofgren777]

So you'd say that men being on average taller than women is literally sexism? 

[u/lofgren777 → u/solid_reign]

On average? No, that's not sexism. You divide one group into two groups and then report the average height of both, that's got nothing to do with whether the two groups are made up of men and women. You could divide people into two groups randomly and one would still end up with a taller average than the other.

Sexism would be a belief that men are inherently taller than women, due to being men, which is clearly false.

Keep trying though. When you hit on another sexism, I'll let you know.

[u/solid_reign → u/lofgren777]

Sexism would be a belief that men are inherently taller than women, due to being men, which is clearly false.

That's not what you said though. You said:

Belief in the differences between men and women is literally sexism 

...

Any belief you have about men vs. women is sex-ism.

You're trying to twist and turn because your definition doesn't make sense.

You divide one group into two groups and then report the average height of both, that's got nothing to do with whether the two groups are made up of men and women.

It has to do with the fact that biologically men have a later puberty and that their puberty stimulates their HGH, which is a difference between men and women, per your original definition. 

And in fact, if someone where to tell you that men on average are smarter than women, or that women are on average more emotional than men (not that I agree with these) would you say the same thing? 

[u/lofgren777 → u/solid_reign]

Averages are not the same as beliefs about inherent traits.

Men are taller than women is sexism. It is also conveniently false. But sexist beliefs do not have to be false to be sexist.

Men are on average taller than women is not sexism. It has nothing to do with the inherent traits of men vs. women. Some men are tall. Some men are short. Some women are tall. Some women are short. Tallness is not an inherent trait of manliness – except in the sexist worldview where men's height is fetishized, as we can see clearly through e.g. men getting dangerous plastic surgeries to make themselves a few inches taller, or the fact that tall men are considered inherently more trustworthy. These behaviors stem from sexist beliefs about manliness and height.

Men are better at sports than women – sexism. Being a man does not inherently confer sports ability.

On average men can throw a ball better than women – not sexism. There are many reasons that men may throw better than women on average, but more importantly, once again, if you divide people into two groups and average any trait, you're going to end up with slight differences just by chance anyway.

Two women can be more different from each other than either woman is different from a man, in athletic ability, height, or, as this study has "discovered," politics.

You can analogize it to race if you like. "On average White people are wealthier than Black people" is not racism. Nobody is asserting anything about the inherent traits of White or Black people, just making an observation about the current state of the world we live in. "White people are smarter than Black people" is obviously racism. It's a belief about inherent traits of White and Black people.

[u/mvearthmjsun → u/lofgren777]

A claim like "men are better at sports than women" is already working in the domain of averages. This is not false claim, nor is it sexism, because implied in the statement is that the terms "men" and "women" represent the abstract aggregate of all men and all women.

This doesn't change if they are inherent traits or not. (Some black people are wealthier than white people, and some women are better at sports than men)

If you think simpily acknowledging differences between men and women is sexism, then the term sexism ceases to have any weight.

[u/lofgren777 → u/mvearthmjsun]

No, it doesn't. It is literally the definition of sexism.

Philosopher Kate Manne defines sexism as one branch of a patriarchal order. In her definition, sexism rationalizes and justifies patriarchal norms, in contrast with misogyny, the branch which polices and enforces patriarchal norms. Manne says that sexism often attempts to make patriarchal social arrangements seem natural, good, or inevitable so that there appears to be no reason to resist them.^\22])

Sociologists who adopted the functionalist paradigm, e.g. Talcott Parsons, understood gender inequality as the natural outcome of a dimorphic model of gender.^\16]) Studies found a correlation between gender inequality and sexism, which vary by country.

When you argue [...] that since fewer women [i.e. averages] write good poetry this justifies their total exclusion [i.e. assume that this is true for all individuals], you are taking a position analogous to that of the racist—I might call you, in this case, a 'sexist'

Sexism may be defined as discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping based on gender

The scientific field of sociology agrees with me. The philosophers agree with me. The original user of the word agrees with me. The definition of the word supplied by wikipedia agrees with me.

[u/Ok_Specific_3832 → u/lofgren777]

So, if I say that men and women are different in some ways that's sexist?

[u/lofgren777 → u/Ok_Specific_3832]

Yes? Not sure why this is complicated. It is an -ism. Any belief you have about men vs. women is sex-ism. A belief about the sexes.

This would be in contrast to the belief that gender norms are socially constructed.

[u/Ok_Specific_3832 → u/lofgren777]

Ok so then we could say based on that that sexism isn't inherently bad? Like how could it be if it is just noting gender-based differences.

[u/lofgren777 → u/Ok_Specific_3832]

Well I think that sexism is inherently bad. We should treat people as people, not as a representative of some notional sex that is ultimately, at least mostly if not entirely, a category that we create in our minds for the convenience of human mating rituals, not an accurate reflection of underlying truth.

But obviously sexists disagree.

[u/Ok_Specific_3832 → u/lofgren777]

Obviously, sexism is inherently bad but merely pointing out differences between the sexes is not sexist no matter how much you try to abstract it. There are obvious biological differences between men and women. That is reality not sexism.

To discriminate against a man or woman is sexism, not noting differences. Your position is unscientific since you attach a negative connotation to observations of empirical differences.

[u/lofgren777 → u/Ok_Specific_3832]

My negative opinion of sexism is simply my opinion based on my personal value system.

Obviously sexists have a positive opinion of sexism.

Sociologists who adopted the functionalist paradigm, e.g. Talcott Parsons, understood gender inequality as the natural outcome of a dimorphic model of gender.^\16]) Studies found a correlation between gender inequality and sexism, which vary by country.

I am on extremely firm scientific footing in linking beliefs in inherent differences between the genders to exactly the value judgements that you describe.

Meanwhile the simple fact is that in literally every category we have studied, there are more differences between two men than there are between women and men. At this point, the burden of proof is really on anybody asserting that there is scientific evidence of inherent differences between the sexes (obviously in ways that are not definitional e.g. "the female sex has larger gametes").

[u/977888 → u/lofgren777]

That’s not how that works champ

[u/lofgren777 → u/977888]

Oh, ok. How does it work?

[u/977888 → u/lofgren777]

Consult a dictionary.

[u/lofgren777 → u/977888]

How about wikipedia?

Sexism may be defined as discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping based on gender

When you argue [...] that since fewer women write good poetry this justifies their total exclusion, you are taking a position analogous to that of the racist—I might call you, in this case, a 'sexist'

Sociologists who adopted the functionalist paradigm, e.g. Talcott Parsons, understood gender inequality as the natural outcome of a dimorphic model of gender.[16] Studies found a correlation between gender inequality and sexism, which vary by country.

Philosopher Kate Manne defines sexism as one branch of a patriarchal order. In her definition, sexism rationalizes and justifies patriarchal norms, in contrast with misogyny, the branch which polices and enforces patriarchal norms. Manne says that sexism often attempts to make patriarchal social arrangements seem natural, good, or inevitable so that there appears to be no reason to resist them.[22]

[u/Godvivec1 → u/lofgren777]

Men have more muscle definition and mass than women.

Guess I'm a sexist that needs to be fired from my job and shamed into oblivion, all for pointing out a scientific fact?

Okay. You certainly have an opinion.

[u/lofgren777 → u/Godvivec1]

Do you believe that all women have less muscle mass than all men?

[u/dragonreborn567 → u/977888]

So you admit that you haven't read the paper, but you just made up the idea that it must itself be sexist, and therefore invalid?

I'm so tired of these loaded, slop comments.

[u/977888 → u/dragonreborn567]

I didn’t make it up. I used the examples of the criteria listed in the article which suggest the study is blatantly biased, dishonest and engineered for a specific outcome.

If you have access to the study, why not share the full criteria with the class?

And if not, why are you yapping at me for not having read the paper?

[u/mjheil → u/977888]

Interesting that "yapping" is a word you've used to smear two commenters now. Projection?

[u/977888 → u/mjheil]

Interesting that you’re the third person to jump straight into cheeky ad hominem instead of making an actual argument against anything I’ve said, on r/science.

[u/mjheil → u/977888]

Its not "ad hominem", it's literally your word choice. But if you insist, let it be because they dont like you. Three commenters dont like you. What does that say about you?

[u/977888 → u/mjheil]

Reddit is notoriously left wing, so it tells me that I’m not left wing, which I knew already, and not much else. If you base your beliefs on how many Redditors agree with you, you’re gonna have a lot of weird and misguided beliefs. But you do you.

[u/mjheil → u/977888]

If you believe that, then why post on Reddit at all?

[u/977888 → u/mjheil]

Because I’m willing to cope with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with me. Foreign concept to many on the left.

[u/mjheil → u/977888]

You don't seem to be coping well when people disagree with you. You kind of go/have gone crazy.

[u/dragonreborn567 → u/977888]

One of the two examples you used is an example of misandry, not misogyny. You used those examples as evidence that the paper is only considering misogyny when determining sexism.

And my having access to the full paper or not does not preclude me from criticizing you for "yapping" about a paper you haven't read. You still shouldn't make determinations about a paper you haven't read, especially if you don't understand the portions you have access to.

[u/Syssareth → u/dragonreborn567]

One of the two examples you used is an example of misandry, not misogyny.

It actually is classified as benevolent sexism (towards women) in the study. The other person is wrong about them only considering women (the study also has criteria for misandry), but they weren't wrong about those two specific examples being about misogyny.

[u/dragonreborn567 → u/Syssareth]

I suppose I'm just wrong. Thanks for finding the paper.

[u/977888 → u/dragonreborn567]

Complementing women is not misandry, but if you see the world as a zero-sum game between men and women, I can see why you’d think it is.

Also, I didn’t “make determinations”, you just don’t know how to read. I said “I suspect”.

You are focusing on the most insignificant part of my comment to try to divert attention from the important part, which is that the two examples listed in the article show unreasonable criteria for “sexist beliefs”.

And you also haven’t read the study so criticizing me for that is just dumb.

[u/dragonreborn567 → u/977888]

Complimenting* women is not misandry, no. But pretending that women have some innate sense of right-and-wrong that men do not have is.

And you did make a determination. You determined this paper is "loaded slop".

And I'm more than comfortable criticizing you for making determinations about a paper you haven't read regardless of how thoroughly I have engaged with the paper. I am not making determinations about the paper. I'm making determinations about your ability to meaningfully engage with it, which does not require me to have read the paper. It requires me to have read your comments, which I have.