2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat Happens When You Elect Women, According To Science
What Happens When You Elect Women, According To Scienceby Laurel Raymond at Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/29/3772383/science-of-why-electing-women-matters/
"SNIP.............
Having examples of female success can also elevate how women think about themselves. Indeed, role models of the same gender are more important for women than men, according to research published in Psychology of Women Quarterly perhaps because both men and women grow up surrounded by images of male success.
Male and female students at the University of Toronto were given pamphlets describing outstanding achievements of men and women in their chosen fields, then completed a questionnaire about themselves. After women read about a female role model with a similar career path, they rated themselves more positively than they did after reading about a man. For the male students there was no difference between those that read about a male or female role model.
A lack of female powerful role models leads to a vicious circle
A separate study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, showed that when women are exposed to female role models, they actually perform better.
In the experiment, male and female students were tasked with giving a public speech. The back wall of the room was either blank or had a picture of Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, or Bill Clinton. Women who were exposed to the picture of either Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel spoke longer, were rated as being better speakers by others, and rated themselves as having spoken better. Male participants performed equally well regardless of what was on the back wall.
...............SNIP"
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Seriously though that policy from West Bengal would be worth trying here.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)about themselves.
Be glad about this as a byproduct, yes, but not as a determining factor.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)true in England after Margaret Thatcher. In fact, I remember as many young women grave-dancing when she died as did young men.
Too bad, a powerful and honest woman with integrity is not running this election season.
artislife
(9,497 posts)And Israel after Golda? Certainly Benizar made her country, Pakistan, a rival of Sweden in its equality and quality of life of women....
FAIL.
So far women leaders have been just as bad as male ones.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)from the highest office in the land for the past 7 years, already.
Heavy sigh.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm now off to go read some more of the links that are in there. I read one and it very interesting.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I mean, you may disagree with all of her issues but, heck, she's a woman, so better elect her.
THIS IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT, NOT GENDER
.
Squinch
(51,094 posts)That worked SOOOOOOO well for you guys when you called AA voters uninformed. I see you are doubling down on your winning strategy.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)"oh you're just calling us uninformed" defense. They know perfectly well what they support. They just don't give a damn.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)supporting and voting for. Someone with no real progressive values. That's who they want.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...as their path to success.
One of the reasons I voted for Obama in the 2008 MN Caucus was that I wanted him to be rewarded for opposing the Iraq War so that other politicians would view opposing war as a path to success.
Redness
(18 posts)Presumably this study wasn't conducted in the future? Then it's evidently unnecessary for Hill to be president for her hypnotic gaze to inspire long-winded speech and unearned self-esteem. Perhaps being a Walmart board member is sufficient. Or first lady (is Bernie gay?). Or Secretary of State (is Bernie committed to an all-male cabinet?).
Indeed, the article's central thesis, that males don't need role models because there are already enough of them, cuts both ways. There does in general appear to be sharply diminishing marginal utility to role models, such that one female example, even if she wasn't even American (Merkel), was sufficient to completely close the gender gap.
So the sane course of action, even if we agree that females have too little self-esteem (as opposed to, say, males having too much), would appear to be to do on a larger scale exactly what was done in the studies: highlight female accomplishments, in which supply is inexhaustible, no matter who is president.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)Calling Hillary 'Constitutional restrictions on abortion are ok by me!' Clinton a feminist is an insult to feminists
JudyM
(29,294 posts)It would do more harm to young women than good, in the long run, when her entire presidency is one scandal after another, mostly that she has brought on herself by abysmal judgment and poor ethics.
A legitimately disgraced woman president is not helpful. And with Clinton IMO it is highly likely.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Hillary is a terrible choice on so many levels.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)She rode in on Bill's coattails and has been a nightmare as SoS. She is also a criminal
and a perjurer. I agree that Liz Warren is the kind of woman we need in high office.
HRC is merely out to enrich herself and her corporate buddies at the expense of all
of us.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)quantumjunkie
(244 posts)Ok, yes we Bernie supporters already knew Hillary supporters were only voting for Hillary because she is a woman. Which, disappointingly, explains why all of you have a blind eye on her record, but i do understand how this will have a positive effect for women. Intriguingly, it seems to have a bigger impact for older women than young. Hillary isn't quite the role model you want to have the next generation of women replicating, but i understand the bigger message.
Hey i want a woman president too but its a real shame it had to be Hillary. Elizabeth Warren would have been the ideal first woman president because let's keep it real, there are only a handful of real democrats that actually give a damn about the people: Warren, Sanders, Grayson, and a few others. Warren would have overwhelmingly united Bernie's progressives, and Hillary's center-right style older democrat supporters.