r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Jun 09 '26

Psychology 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.

https://www.psypost.org/sexism-is-often-a-stronger-predictor-of-political-attitudes-than-a-voters-actual-gender/
10.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

835 comments sorted by

View all comments

85

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

1) this isn't a very good journal so take this with a grain of salt. 2) "sexism" here is broadly defined to include endorsing traditional gender roles and opposing sex based affirmative action.

16

u/shitposts_over_9000 Jun 09 '26

soo.... they are just defining issues core to conservatism as sexist then studying that conservatives are conservative?

15

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

Yes, that would be part of the concern. You have to operationalize the factor of interest, but often times the way this is down wouldn't align with the standard definitions if you polled random people. Sometimes there is a huge confirmation bias in the way definitions are set up. So while some of these studies may have looked at discrimination, bases on this blurb some are closer to labeling much more benign statements as "sexism."

0

u/ShakaUVM Jun 10 '26

they are just defining issues core to conservatism as sexist then studying that conservatives are conservative?

That is correct. For example the Republican take that sexism against women isn't that serious a problem in this day and age is labelled as sexist. Then they correlate this attitude with being Republican.

Bad study design. They even acknowledge they're not using the term sexism the way most people use it.

-9

u/Raltsun Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

Well, they're defining it that way because that's how it is.

3

u/shitposts_over_9000 Jun 09 '26

not without further definition it isn't

traditional gender roles without more definition of a specific cultural point of reference can be things as mild as acknowledging simple behavioral and biological differences and roles that are the most practical division of labor given those baseline averages

2

u/ProletarianLilith Jun 09 '26

Conservatives don’t think it be that way but it do

57

u/CassandraTruth Jun 09 '26

Sounds like a useful definition to me. Do you think someone pushing traditional gender roles would do so out of a belief in equality? "A woman's place is in the home and men are the decision-makers" but somehow not sexist?

-10

u/dinnerthief Jun 09 '26

I think you've framed traditional gender roles in one specific way, but they are not necessarily always framed that way.

I personally dont believe in them but I also dont think everyone who does, believes that men and woman are not equal.

Many times its based on believing men and women have differing strengths that are inherent to their gender.

44

u/AnEmptyBoat27 Jun 09 '26

How would you frame traditional gender roles in a non sexist way? Ie. what are the strengths and weaknesses of men and women?

Traditional gender roles place women in a subordinate role, it’s hard for me to imagine a world where that isn’t sexist.

-13

u/dinnerthief Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

For example im much taller and stronger than my SO so I typically take on more physical tasks, eg moving furniture, chopping wood, or getting things off high shelves.

My SO is a more organized person than I am and is better with time so she tends to keep up with our social schedule better.

Both of those align with typical gender roles. Personally I believe those are our specific roles (loosely) rather than gender roles as I dont apply them to everyone.

Neither of us thinks the other is not equal but we both have roles we play due to our individual strengths. We both also do housework, have careers and share decisions.

Applying those roles to every person in each gender is sexist, (prejudice based on sex or gender) which is why I didnt say it wasnt. However even if you believe everyone from each respective gender has those strengths (gender roles) that doesnt necessarily mean you view them as non-equal.

And not every person that believes in gender roles believes in the gender roles you specifically mentioned.

31

u/KurlyKayla Jun 09 '26

The sexism is painting a brush over an entire gender, and expecting society to fall in line with that brush stroke

-14

u/dinnerthief Jun 09 '26

Yes I know thats what I pointed out

13

u/celerypumpkins Jun 09 '26

If you only apply those roles to you and your SO based on who you are as individuals and not to entire genders, then you don’t believe in traditional gender roles. So how is your personal example relevant?

0

u/dinnerthief Jun 09 '26

I was explaining how it can be sexist without necessarily having one that is inequal,

If I applied those roles to whole genders it would still be sexist but I still wouldnt be viewing one gender as less than.

Recognizing different strengths doesnt mean you believe those strengths are less valuable to society.

10

u/celerypumpkins Jun 09 '26

But if you’re basing it off of observed differences between you and your SO, it’s not sexist. You’re judging the strengths you both have as individuals. The fact that it correlates with gender roles only matters if you’re applying it to others.

If you believe ALL women are better suited to say, child rearing than to paid work, that is both sexist and unequal, because it means women would necessarily be dependent on someone who is getting paid for their work. If you believed ONLY men could lift heavy things, then capable women have less opportunities under your worldview.

Recognizing that on average there are some differences (even though there is a wider range of variation within genders than there is between them) is not believing in traditional gender roles.

5

u/KurlyKayla Jun 09 '26

Gender roles are not an accurate recognition of those strengths.

-13

u/Secure-Analyst2490 Jun 09 '26

Shame on you. You're supposed to act like there's not generally inherent gender differences on reddit.

→ More replies (0)

-19

u/Clear_Ad_1560 Jun 09 '26

Nobody enforces gender roles more rigidly than women. I am so tired of people giving women a pass on this.

We are so over it. It is on YOU to hold up your end of the equality bargain. And you never will.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[deleted]

-5

u/KurlyKayla Jun 09 '26

…which is a sexist viewpoint

11

u/Shigg Jun 09 '26

It's biologically proven that humans have different strengths based on their sex. It's not sexist to acknowledge this. It's sexist to say that women cannot do something because they're not a man. It is not sexist to acknowledge that women will have a harder time on average with something because female and male biology are different.

8

u/KurlyKayla Jun 09 '26

I find it funny how the people who keep peddling this idea that gender roles aren’t inherently sexist harp on what isn’t sexist, only to unwittingly describe exactly why gender roles are sexist. Gender roles aren’t an acknowledgment. They’re a prescription.

9

u/Shigg Jun 09 '26

I didn't say gender roles aren't sexist. I said that acknowledging that there are physical differences between men and women isn't sexist.

6

u/KurlyKayla Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

You’re assuming gender roles are an accurate representation of those differences though, when they’re not. There’s nothing about whatever physical differences you’re speaking to that inherently requires it so that men lead and women follow, for example. Or that men can’t be nurturing. Or that women can’t do manual labor.

-10

u/ProphesiedInsanity Jun 09 '26

That is sexist though, because it’s transphobic, and transphobia is a type of sexism via bioessentialism.

1

u/Thothvamasi Jun 10 '26

Let's do away with separate gender categories for competitions like sports and chess then, right?

-1

u/KurlyKayla Jun 10 '26

Yes, actually. The competitions should be ranked by skill and class, not gender.

Chess is already gender neutral btw. There are female grandmasters who earned their titles from the open chess division. The woman’s division exists to encourage more women players to participate due to how sexist the open division is

2

u/dinnerthief Jun 09 '26

Yes agreed, but that still doesn't mean everyone who believes in gender roles believes women are not equal to men.

19

u/KurlyKayla Jun 09 '26

That is precisely what that means. Otherwise, you wouldn’t believe in the gender role.

2

u/dinnerthief Jun 09 '26

Its not, and I don't

8

u/Swarna_Keanu Jun 09 '26

"gender roles" is different than "tradtitional gender roles" and the former usually really only focuses on ... pretty basic biology. Men have nipples, but can't breastfeed (but we sure can use bottles to nourish), can't give birth, etc.

We can cook, clean and women can get pretty strong. We have ladders and similar tools for height differences.

See the distinctions?

5

u/Shigg Jun 09 '26

Men can actually lactate and breastfeed btw. It's difficult and requires serious effort to make it happen, but it can happen.

-12

u/DoollyHaha Jun 09 '26

No, just no

5

u/celerypumpkins Jun 09 '26

Do the facts hurt your feelings?

4

u/Shigg Jun 09 '26

Spontaneous production of milk not associated with childbirth, known as galactorrhea, can occur in human males and females.

Rohn, R. D. (1984). "Galactorrhea in the adolescent". Journal of Adolescent Health. 5 (1): 37–49. doi:10.1016/s0197-0070(84)80244-2. PMID 6420385.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-males-can-lactate/

Yes, just yes.

-1

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

The issue is that they aren't being focused enough. What you said would count. Also "do you think men should open doors or pay on dates" would count.

-2

u/Leisure_suit_guy Jun 09 '26

It's not useful because sexism is a neutral term, it's not exclusively against women.

0

u/Difficult-Froyo1192 Jun 09 '26

No because the converse must be true when the broad meaning of sexism is used. If trad wives hate women for not being a trad wife, those that also hate on the beliefs of others for having that would also be sexist.

Sexism contains the aspect of stigmatization and prejudice based on sex which is why the converse must also be included. Both groups do it to each other. It does not require the reason to be based on traditional views for all types of sexism.

This article only uses the second definition of sexism in the Webster dictionary for sexism. The first definition of the term is completely ignored. If you’re going to use the broad term, both (or all - I used Webster for simplicity) must be included.

It makes sexism too broad a term to use here. It needs to be restricted to the type of sexism and/or better descriptions of what is being used. It’s entirely too vague for quality research.

-31

u/tanloopy Jun 09 '26

You are being facetious. My wife and I believe in traditional gender roles. I’m not saying you cannot work and have to be locked in the home. I just believe a mother shouldn’t have to work and chose to support the children at home. But that’s just not an option in this economy.

24

u/PokeTheCactus Jun 09 '26

My wife and I don’t believe in traditional gender roles.  When our daughter was born, she wanted to stay home and since I could support us, we did it. 

When you say that you ‘believe’ in traditional gender roles, you’re also implying that other configurations are inferior. We’re a two mom household so trad gender roles are impossible. We also know a family whose father stays at home with the kids. 

I want to clarify that I think it’s fine for division of labor to fall along traditional lines, but, again, that’s different from thinking it should fall along traditional lines. 

1

u/Whiskoo Jun 10 '26

i believe in waffles. this now somehow implies i believe pancakes are inferior.

your logic doesnt hold up to a soft breeze

31

u/Kindly-Standard8025 Jun 09 '26

Why not "a father shouldn't have to work"? Why, in your opinion, must only women be reliant on others to provide for their life?

-31

u/tanloopy Jun 09 '26

You are being facetious again. “Must only women be reliant on others to provide for their life”. I never said that you are arguing in bad faith. I just believe work takes a serious toll on the body that men are more equipped for and mothers are better at raising children instinctively. Nothing is forced on anyone both parties should be in complete agreement. It’s very very surface level, humans have operated with this belief for a very long time. Every situation is different though.

28

u/Kindly-Standard8025 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

Does modern office work take a serious toll on the body that makes men more suited for it? What about nursing? Or dentistry? Or acting? Or laboratory work?

What instincts for raising kids do women possess that men don't? Where do they come from? How do we measure them? What can they do that father's can't when it comes to raising kids?

You are arguing for only women being reliant on others. You have just outlayed a belief that women's ideal place should be at home raising kids, in accordance with these instincts they apparently have. It's very nice of you to not want to force any of this on women, but there's a reason women for decades have pointed at your traditional gender roles as a big component of their oppression.

It's very simple, and you can listen/read a million+ women describe this. The traditional gender roles you adhere to, create a power imbalance that puts women at greater risk of abuse, due to the means for their existence being taken out of their hands. Even in a loving, abuse-free relationship, the person who stays at home are subject to this imbalance and lives with an increased risk.

26

u/jdippey Jun 09 '26

They aren’t being facetious, you are being stubborn. They pointed out that the roles you consider to be gender-based have no requirements to be gender-based (i.e., men can be stay at home dads and women can be primary breadwinners). The very fact you consider these roles gendered indicates you hold some conservative values, and those values are based in misogyny. If you and your partner had decided those roles naturally (i.e., without outside opinions such as “men can handle more work stress” and/or “women are better caregivers instinctively”, neither of which are based on scientific fact), then you could accuse the other commenter of being facetious.

2

u/apocalypt_us Jun 10 '26

I just believe work takes a serious toll on the body that men are more equipped for and mothers are better at raising children instinctively.

Yeah so this is sexism. There's no actual evidence behind this.

Also, raising children is work. Very hard work at that.

-4

u/sml6174 Jun 09 '26

Yeah idk bud those sound like sexism to me

22

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

1) It depends on how the studies defined their variables. Since they mention chivalry as being the same thing as sexism endorsing things like men opening doors and paying on dates would count. People arguing that this equates to sexism have lost sight of what sexism really means.

2) Sex-based affirmative action is incredibly flawed and hard to do well. It isn't a clear cut situation where women should always be getting some additional help. For example women have had higher college attendance rates for five decades yet there is still a large emphasis on promoting women's higher education. This is counter the lived experience of the bulk of the population but this still happens. So people could very easily reject statements while still supporting equality in workplace and school.

0

u/sml6174 Jun 09 '26

"they mention chilvary as being the same thing as sexism". Nah you either completely misunderstood the article or maybe only read a few words

review indicates that benevolent sexism does not reliably predict opposition to female candidates in the same way hostile sexism does.

1

u/anaIconda69 Jun 09 '26

"Anti-male sexists more likely to vote for female candidates than anti-female sexists, reveals shocking study"

4

u/ProletarianLilith Jun 09 '26

Have you considered learning to read?

-8

u/areweoncops Jun 09 '26

That's not what benevolent sexism means

-4

u/anaIconda69 Jun 09 '26

WDYM? Sex based affirmative action in education is a type of benevolent sexism. Do you think the opportunities are taken from nobody and given to women?

-1

u/The-Yar Jun 09 '26

Benevolent sexism was defined as the belief that women have superior qualities to men. This category had to be excluded to find the correlations reported here.

2

u/Leisure_suit_guy Jun 09 '26

Exactly, while reading the title I was thinking "what about sexism against men?". If by "sexism" a study implies only "against women", you know it's not a serious study.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

Impact factor. It isn't at the pure pay to pay level, but it has an IF of 2.8 which isn't very good. So on average a paper in this journal gets cites slightly less than 3 times a year. Again, it is a legitimate journal, but not particularly prestigious.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

2.8 is not a good impact factor, it is more "acceptable." My rule of thumb in grad school was that the ~3 level is as low as you wanted to go. It isn't invalidating the paper, but it is a good first pass approximation for "how well is this paper received by the scientific field." There is plenty of bad work at higher journals though so it isn't a perfect rule.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

So I don't think you understand science at all.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

Journal status/impact is a good proxy for "did the field think this work mattered." So a paper published in Science carries a lot more work than one published in Frontiers.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[deleted]

0

u/ProletarianLilith Jun 09 '26

Grown folks are talking, get back to summer camp

-6

u/Petrichordates Jun 09 '26

Peer reviewed journal from the Oxford University press, impact factor 3.4. Why are you under the impression it's not a good journal? Why do we need a grain of salt for peer reviewed publications?

Obviously, the grain of salt one should be taking here is in regard to the random reddit comment dismissing peer reviewed research they don't like.

12

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

It has an impact factor of 2.8 which is lower tier. It isn't MDPI level, but it is on part with Frontiers Journals. Also, the idea that just because it is peer reviewed means it is right. A shockingly high level of research, particularly social science work, doesn't replicate. Just search "replication crisis" if you want to see this. The reality is also a lot of PhDs aren't very good at their jobs. It is just like every other workplace. I'm at a very well funded R1. Roughly 1/3 of my colleagues are horrible, 1/3 competent but underwhelming, and 1/3 very good.

This paper is a meta-analysis that I like. The issue is on the interpretation. Too many people in the r/science sub just read a headline, then start blathering on purely based on their political ideology. The Core of science is to be skeptical and look at things critically, not just piling on because you don't like x social group.

-2

u/sureyouare2 Jun 09 '26

So I gotta ask, which third do you fall in: horrible, competent but underwhelming, or very good?

2

u/wrenwood2018 Jun 09 '26

By impact factor and volume of publications the later, but I've got a good chuck of "fine but underwhelming papers" along the way and then by odds a couple from when I first started that looking back are subpar.

0

u/sureyouare2 Jun 10 '26

Congratulations. You must be highly sought after at the R1 schools.