Don't Text the Subtext

So, Tracy Morgan is asked by Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley "Tina Fey or Sarah Palin?" This is to help settle an ongoing argument. Everyone acknowledges that they are fine looking dames, the both. Morgan tells them that he thinks Sarah Palin makes fine masturbation material. Everyone gets uncomfortable and TNT apologizes for Morgan's behavior.



Dear TNT:

Mayhaps you might consider apologizing for having your co-hosts ask a guest which of two national prominent women he'd most like to fuck. That is what they asked him, even if they didn't use any naughty words. You see, I know you're concerned that some thirteen-year old boy was just robbed of his innocence by hearing the word "masturbation," but the real damage was done before that when he realized that the only place for women in this conversation was as a sex object. Even if he couldn't figure out what the initial question meant (unlikely) he would be hard pressed to miss the follow-up conversation about how fine looking they are.

So your apology only reinforces that at TNT sexism is perfectly acceptable, as long as no one uses any naughty words. So, fuck you and your apology.

Oh, and Kobe Bryant is a rapist.

It's the housework, stupid

I hope I’m not the only person who raised an eyebrow to this article on the gender wage gap. This first part isn’t necessarily a surprise:

Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women's place in the world, according to a study being reported today.

It is the first time social scientists have produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.

The differences found in the study were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.

Ah, we wander into the little bubble of reality where I can claim some competence as a thinker. From everything that I understand about the gendered economy, I could’ve predicted this response. But I didn’t, and so these guys got the “big find I got cited in the Post” honors. Good on them, and I’ll cede the floor so they can interpret their findings.

"Some would say, 'Of course traditional men earn more than traditional women -- they are both fulfilling their desires to play different roles in the home and workplace,' " said Judge, emphasizing that the researchers compared working men with working women, not working men with women who stay home. "Our results do not support that view. If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, 'I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less'? I don't think traditional-minded women would say that."

[…]

Livingston and Judge said there are two possible explanations: Traditional-minded men might negotiate much harder for better salaries, especially when compared with traditional-minded women. Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.

"It could be that traditional men are hypercompetitive salary negotiators -- the Donald Trump prototype, perhaps," Judge said. "It could be on the employer side that, subconsciously, the men who are egalitarian are seen as effete."

Livingston, a doctoral candidate in management, added: "People make others uncomfortable when they disconfirm stereotypes -- we don't know how to interpret them."

Um… no.

The authors are right to note that women who adhere to traditional gender roles, especially career women, would think it wrong to be denied equal pay for equal work, but Livingston and Judge pay too much attention to attitudes as being a determinant.

It would seem that there’s a fairly strong correlation not between attitudes, but in contributions to the economy of the household. The person adhering to the gender role that contributes the least amount of work to social reproduction is the one who has the advantage in the realm of the formal economy. I look at those numbers and I see the economic costs of cooking, cleaning, and taking the kids to the doctor for both women and men.

The explanations put forward remain firmly focused on individual variations and miss the bigger picture. Traditional-minded men bargain harder and better? I don’t buy that for a second. You’d have to develop a metric for bargaining ability that didn’t rely on monetary success as an indicator. At any rate, I don’t think some mythical “bargaining ability” is differentially distributed between men and women or between those who adhere to different gender roles. The second hypothesis, that managers subconsciously perceive more feminist men as “girly men,” similarly seems to assume a little too monolithic mindset amongst that population.

Essentially, what we’re seeing is a subsidy that enables men to single-mindedly devote themselves to their careers, for various reasons putting them at a distinct advantage to those who attempt to strike a more equitable balance between work and family. For the method geeks, I didn’t notice any mention that they controlled for marital status and/or number of children, and I’d be interested to know if there were some interesting multiplier effects among some of the variables (adherence to traditional gender roles X gender; adherence to traditional gender roles X marital status, among others). That the authors went with seemingly implausible explanations suggests not seeing the forest for the trees. But whatever – I’m glad they’re interested in the problem, even if I think they’re barking up the wrong tree. But wait.

Parents looking at the study might be tempted to inculcate their sons with traditional gender views with an eye to greater financial success, but the researchers warned that this would come at their daughters' cost -- traditional-minded women suffer the greatest income disadvantage for doing the same work.

"Traditional values," Judge said, "do not have to be traditional gender-role values."

That the Post would jump to the cheap locker room guffaw of “maybe we should train our boys to keep women barefoot and pregnant” and that the authors would respond with a liberal piety worthy of its own bumper real estate just seems offensively hokey.

Paging Dr. Freud

As both dave and I pointed out recently, the right-wing locker room is standing at full mast over Sarah Palin. And as they do so, they reveal some analytically rich musings:

Palin exudes sexual confidence and maternal authority, which in a relatively conservative culture like ours is the most recognizable and viscerally comprehensible form of female power. It makes a lot of men uncomfortable, but that’s because it’s the kind of female power they are most often subject to, and most often fail to successfully resist. I spent much of my life taking orders from women a lot like Sarah Palin — women like my mother and my Iowa public school teachers.

Ew.

Palin and Sexism

The Daily Show: Boom!

Palin and Sexism

A friend sent me this. I think it's amazing that the Republicans are pushing the "Palin is hot" meme enough that it took less than three hours for someone to dummy this up.

Sorry if posting it only compounds the problem of women being seen solely as sex objects, even when they are running for VP, but it something I am seeing the Republicans push, so the sign makes a comment.

One of my first thoughts after hearing about Palin is that a good trick by the Republicans would be to have someone like Buchanan or Novak or Savage say something sexist, then she could denounce the sexists in her own party and try to win those Hillary voters over. This might be the first wave on that line.

Noted without comment

This One's Got Legs [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An e-mail:

"Of course, you are correct that women will not reflexively vote for Governor Palin because of her gender. This pick helps more with *men*. Think we'd much rather watch Governor Palin than Sen. Biden for the next four years?"