HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » History of Feminism (Group) » An example of junk scienc... » Reply #4
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Response to redqueen (Original post)

Thu Jul 26, 2012, 03:57 PM

4. I am also having trouble seeing any assertion about natural behavior or evo-psych

And it says that BOTH men AND women view women as objects (which to me, seems like a stronger argument for societal conditioning than anything else).

In this part (emphasis added)...

"We can't just pin this on the men. Women are perceiving women this way, too," Gervais said. "It could be related to different motives. Men might be doing it because they're interested in potential mates, while women may do it as more of a comparison with themselves. But what we do know is that they're both doing it."

Would there be an antidote to a perceiver's basic cognitive processes that lead women to be reduced and objectified? Researchers said some of the study's results suggested so. When the experiment was adjusted to create a condition where it was easier for participants to employ "global" processing, the sexual body part recognition bias appeared to be alleviated. Women were more easily recognizable in the context of their whole bodies instead of their various sexual body parts.

Because the research presents the first direct evidence of the basic "global" vs. "local" framework, the authors said it could provide a theoretical path forward for more specific objectification work.

"Our findings suggest people fundamentally process women and men differently, but we are also showing that a very simple manipulation counteracts this effect, and perceivers can be prompted to see women globally, just as they do men," Gervais said. "Based on these findings, there are several new avenues to explore."


...it seems like they are getting to asking "how does it come to be that women are objectified". That seems like progress to me. (I am not crazy about their speculations about motive, but it is clearly stated as speculation so I can live with it I guess.)

Can you help me understand where your interpretation comes from?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
redqueen Jul 2012 OP
hifiguy Jul 2012 #1
redqueen Jul 2012 #5
hifiguy Jul 2012 #6
redqueen Jul 2012 #8
hifiguy Jul 2012 #10
redqueen Jul 2012 #12
hifiguy Jul 2012 #17
seabeyond Jul 2012 #14
seabeyond Jul 2012 #9
hifiguy Jul 2012 #13
seabeyond Jul 2012 #15
hifiguy Jul 2012 #18
seabeyond Jul 2012 #19
One_Life_To_Give Jul 2012 #2
redqueen Jul 2012 #3
seabeyond Jul 2012 #11
hifiguy Jul 2012 #22
seabeyond Jul 2012 #23
hifiguy Jul 2012 #24
seabeyond Jul 2012 #25
hifiguy Jul 2012 #26
seabeyond Jul 2012 #27
hifiguy Jul 2012 #34
LineReply I am also having trouble seeing any assertion about natural behavior or evo-psych
MadrasT Jul 2012 #4
redqueen Jul 2012 #7
MadrasT Jul 2012 #35
seabeyond Jul 2012 #16
pscot Jul 2012 #28
seabeyond Jul 2012 #29
ismnotwasm Jul 2012 #20
seabeyond Jul 2012 #21
redqueen Jul 2012 #30
seabeyond Jul 2012 #31
redqueen Jul 2012 #32
seabeyond Jul 2012 #33
Please login to view edit histories.