Opinion: Discrimination seems to be just a matter of noticing differences between the two women.
A pair of political scientists recently argued that some voters are hesitant to support Vice President Kamala Harris because of discrimination.
Beyond the social claims, the actual data used to support the claim demonstrates a persistent issue with researchers seeing discrimination when inherent differences are the more plausible explanation.
The University of Massachusetts-Amherst researchers “found that discrimination is still a strong force in British politics”.
In a recent Conversation writing, faculty Jesse Rhodes and Tatishe Nteta and graduate student Adam Eichen both claimed that” racist” voters are more likely to support Harris.
This is not a particularly outrageous state.
If someone is genuinely sexist toward women, it naturally follows that they would favor a female candidate over a sexual one. However, it does not follow that all those who oppose Harris do so because they are discriminatory because they did not vote for him.
For instance, they might object to Harris ‘ plan, which includes sending law enforcement after a journalist who supports abortion throughout pregnancy and saying that people can have enough therapies and use enough drugs to become the other gender.
The social scientists define” misogynistic” using three different comments and measuring contract.
They wrote:
In order to gauge sexism, we finally polled respondents to decide whether they supported or refrained from making any comments about the three statements that represent “hostile sexism,” “resentment, and animus toward women.” The statements in the “hostile discrimination” power are:” People seek to gain strength by getting control over men”,” People are also easily offended”, and” People exaggerate issues they have at work”. More misogynistic views were revealed when more people were in contract with these statements.
These are measurements about public designs based on a person’s lived experience. Not being able to identify a perceived flaw in one of the two women is essentially sexist.
If women are attempting to get power, they must be doing so by gaining power over anyone. The phrase” Men seek to gain strength by taking control of women” is not prejudiced in my opinion.
People who express their opinion that” Males are not sensitive enough to children’s feelings,” which is the consequence to” Women are very easily offended,” would not be discriminatory.
Further: Catholic University denies group’s support for the idea of two sexes
Notably, the following statement is very similar to the next, that” Women magnify problems they have at work”.
It would not be essentially sexist to state in the opposite,” Men do not get women’s function complaints seriously enough”.
Again, making studies about the two sexes ‘ public tendencies is not immediately racist.
People, on average, are more vulnerable and feeling based, which is likely why they tend to prefer tasks like psychotherapy, teaching, and animal sources.
People, on average, are more scientific, which is why they tend to jobs in architecture, finance, and the hard science.
Anyone who is married or has a close friend of the other sex can probably attest to these innate differences, on average.
When a woman shares a problem, a female’s intuition is to provide emotional comfort, while a male’s habit is to try to find a solution. No approach is necessarily inappropriate, as with any issue, it is beneficial to feel secure while also looking for a solution.
When a car breaks, it is beneficial to acknowledge the strain it puts on while also considering what to do with the vehicle until it is fixed.
Similar to that, it is acceptable to make observations about the innate tendencies of the various sexes, but doing so does not constitute sexism.
MORE: Trump ‘ nostalgia’ is racist, sexist dog whistle, professor says
IMAGE: White House/Facebook
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
