|
|
Post by larissa on May 3, 2016 1:31:45 GMT
This is based on the Appearance-based politics: Sex-typed facial cues communicate political party affiliation reading. I felt that it lacked any visual representation especially since it was talking about physical features and femininity. I found a short video that is based on the reading and it includes photographs which I believe help see the "femininity" that Republican women exhibit are said to exhibit. Republican Women Have More Feminine Facial Features? Although the study is not saying that Republican women are more attractive, that is a way is has been interpreted, which leads to photos as these:  However, as mentioned, the study reveals that Republican women simply appear to be more feminine. The reason to perhaps why this could be is because femininity fits the traditional gender norms that many conservatives have. Therefore, their beliefs are revealed through the candidates they put in office. Whereas Democrats, are more open to breaking these gender norms.
Why do you think this study was misinterpreted or why could it be misinterpreted?
What do you think our presidential candidates say about our beliefs?
Do you think we unconsciously judge people based on appearance?
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by rkipp on May 3, 2016 3:17:05 GMT
 I definitely think we unconsciously judge people based on appearance and unfortunately I think a lot of people consciously do it as well. I have heard many young adults say that they will vote for the candidate who is more attractive, simply because they do not like any of the candidate's platforms, so they just base their vote on looks. We have even seen this issue throughout history as well. For example, the famous JFK and Nixon debate in which many people claim JFK won the presidency over Nixon due to his attractive looks, thus this issue is not only for women, but men too. Overall, I think the human race is very interested in looks, we naturally are more attracted to some people over others, and this natural instinct is going to influence our decisions as a result. In regards to the pictures you posted, I think the democratic side is a very poor representation of the democratic party. The pictures chosen for the republican women look much better put together than the democratic ones, which could lead to why such a study could be misinterpreted. For instance, I attached a picture of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama in which they both look very put together. Different pictures can cause different perceptions. With all the filters and photoshopping techniques that exist today, we must be careful how we judge pictures. Nonetheless, I agree with the idea that republican women convey more traditional, feminine characteristics due to their party platform, or else they may get criticized for going against their party. Yet because one has less feminine characteristics shouldn't mean that she cannot be portrayed well through photos (i.e. the picture I attached of two democrats). |
|
|
|
Post by cliffordzhang on May 3, 2016 4:24:45 GMT
larissa I don't know how anyone can take picture/study seriously...They literally picked the worst most unflattering pictures they could find of some women on the Internet for the Democrats and picked good looking portraits for the Republican women. This author is obviously biased and not credible in any conceivable way. The findings of this study has absolutely zero merit. TL;DR Bullshit article tries to make asinine correlation.
|
|
|
|
Post by larissa on May 3, 2016 7:13:08 GMT
lol cliffordzhang I understand that. I'm saying people took the idea of "Republican women portraying more feminine facial features" to a different level, hence the picture collage. Obviously these pictures do no justice, however, some people really believe that Republican women are more feminine and therefore, "better looking". |
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on May 3, 2016 20:50:21 GMT
I think the picture is exaggerating the republicans to highlight their feminine features. Everyone, male or female, have times where they put more effort in their appearance. This picture is a good example of how the media can take a thought and find proof, no matter how strange the subject may be. Also a big difference in the picture is that all the democrats appear to be older than the republicans. This is not a difference between feminine and masculine, but rather age. As people mature they loose some feminine qualities, or at least traditional feminine qualities.
Another interesting point is that the study focuses on the women's appearance, rather than their political actions and accomplishments. The article should not try to draw peoples attention to their outward appearance, instead it should point out each of these women's agendas in the government. Then it would at least be beneficial in informing the public, rather then pointing out details that have no connection to how these women could help or harm America.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 5, 2016 5:51:18 GMT
I completely agree with cliffordzhang. The first thing I noticed when I saw that picture was how terrible the pictures for the democrat women (who were all in the middle of talking) were as opposed to nice portraits of the republican women. This is obviously true because they made Michelle Obama to be "unfeminine" when that is obviously not the case (see rkipp 's photo). Anyhow, I think the fact that looks are a huge indicator for the way in which we vote. It's not to say that there aren't people out there that solely based on their political platforms, but many of us tend to take physical appearance into account. For example, there was so much of the world (including myself) who could not take Ted Cruz seriously at all. Instead of actually learning as to what his campaign was trying to do, people would just rail him for looking like Kevin from the Office or the Zodiac Killer. Had he been a better looking fella, maybe more people would have take the time to learn what policies he was trying to implement and we would not be left with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. |
|
