Science confirms: Feminists make better girlfriends
posted at 2:31 pm on October 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
And to think of all the times I’ve been mocked for my fascination with various lefty pundettes. You laughed, but I knew. I knew.
Have the Japanese heard about about this, I wonder? It’s … kind of important.
Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported…
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.
The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, then feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women.
Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women.
Exit question: Dare I include this in the long list of studies that come to conclusions politically convenient for the left or is that going to earn me a thousand angry comments about how feminism isn’t uniquely a liberal virtue?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Uh, how do you measure how “Feminist” a woman is?
Where was this taken? How did they “poll”? Who did they “poll”?
Article is long on conclusions, short on information.
Bet most of the “male” respondants were Betas… or College Students…
Romeo13 on October 15, 2007 at 2:38 PM
OK, maybe…but do feminist guys (or the guys feminists hang out with) make better boyfriends?
Remember the last feminist guy featured on Hot Air….
James on October 15, 2007 at 2:39 PM
I guess I am a masculinist.
TheSitRep on October 15, 2007 at 2:41 PM
“[The researchers] carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men’s and women’s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health…”
saint kansas on October 15, 2007 at 2:41 PM
It seems obvious to me. Feminist women are more likely to be sexually liberated whereas conservative/traditional women are more likely to keep things in a lockbox.
NPP on October 15, 2007 at 2:41 PM
So to speak.
Allahpundit on October 15, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Nothing like having a feminist take out her rage against the global misogyny on your wiener, I guess.
Hoodlumman on October 15, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Feminism (as defined today) is not a uniquely liberal virtue, most obviously because it isn’t a virtue — it’s a viral delusion.
Yes, it’s a delusion claimed primarily by liberals, but it infects and affects the entire culture.
Splashman on October 15, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I question their science…ism.
Seems to me that female college students (born in the late ’80s) who consider themselves “feminists” are not the same as “older adults” who consider themselves feminists.
saint kansas on October 15, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Read, liberal chicks are easy.
BigAnge on October 15, 2007 at 2:47 PM
The survey results also showed that 97% of feminists support Ron Paul.
pedestrian on October 15, 2007 at 2:47 PM
If you must fall on a sword….
James on October 15, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Shouldn’t that be “masculist”? It’s not “femininist”, after all.
Kensington on October 15, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Just more leftist claptrap from the bought and paid for non-science blogs like “Live Science” and this article from “Daily Science.” These people would know science if they stepped in it.
If feminism is so great then why all the old-maid feminist like Maureen Dowd, who’s opinion is that feminism is a failure.
I think I’m like most men in saying that I want a woman who is feminine NOT feminist.
Maxx on October 15, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Meaning, willing to spread their legs for just about anyone. Yes, I’m sure many losers see that as a virtue.
Meaning, intent on giving themselves only to their husbands. Woohoo!
Splashman on October 15, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Heh. I suppose we’re lucky that Family Feud isn’t on anymore.
“Survey says: what the…Ron Paul?”
James on October 15, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Damn! Charlie was right! She can bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan and never, ever let you forget you’re a man! The commercial was right! Who’da thunk it?
robblefarian on October 15, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Oh, so much to say about this, so much laughter…but I’ll pass. It’s a tired old debate, and politicizing sexual behaviour is really pointless and silly.
My exit question: Are the terms “conservative” and “feminist” mutually exclusive?
And if so, what makes you qualified to pronounce it as such?
bamapachyderm on October 15, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Ah so this explains AP’s fascination with KP!
He thinks KP, being a lefty, is likely to get her freak on.
liberrocky on October 15, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Feminism IS a uniquely lefty virtue. Fighting for women’s rights in Afghanistan doesn’t count.
AlexB on October 15, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Ha. No, I assure you, I don’t think that.
Allahpundit on October 15, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Yes, this story may be true, but feminists are much harder to domesticate once married, if you’re able to get them married at all.
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:02 PM
If a polling firm used a sample size of 242, what would their error rate be?
Similarily, how did they select the 289 online respondents? How many people actually tried to take the survey before they selected their 289 for their group? why did they select 289 online respondents over the 242 students? (Last time I checked, for comparative studies, you want to use an approximately equal number for each group) what was the control group?
and least, but not last, who funded it?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on October 15, 2007 at 3:02 PM
I got yer Global warming and Feminist shinola right here!
Total BS,
bbz123 on October 15, 2007 at 3:02 PM
are those two things mutually exclusive?
crr6 on October 15, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Oh I very much do not believe this survey
Defector01 on October 15, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Plus, CIRD, how many of the “content” feminist husbands had the battle-axe looking over their shoulder as they typed in “happy happy joy joy”??
bbz123 on October 15, 2007 at 3:04 PM
My exit question: Are the terms “conservative” and “feminist” mutually exclusive?
And if so, what makes you qualified to pronounce it as such?
bamapachyderm on October 15, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Who are you addressing? I’ll answer, just in case.
No, those terms are not mutually exclusive. It should be obvious, however, that feminism infects liberals at a much higher rate, and radical (i.e., establishment) feminists are 100% liberal. The reasons should be obvious as well.
Splashman on October 15, 2007 at 3:05 PM
It’s a demographic shift.
Metrosexual males are more feminine that most women (cue Metro poster boy John Edwards primping). It only stands to reason that somebody has to be the man in the relationship if the real man is too busy worrying about full body waxing or if everything will fit in his messenger bag.
highhopes on October 15, 2007 at 3:06 PM
In my experience…. yes.
Maxx on October 15, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Ewwww ewww… Mr…Cottterr….
It hit me…
The rise in feminism has mathamaticly correclated with the rise in temperature…
Therefore… Feminsim IS the cause of Global Warming…
Its from all us guys going…. sigh… (hot air ya know…)
Romeo13 on October 15, 2007 at 3:07 PM
And the 289 “older men” were College Professors?
Romeo13 on October 15, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Heh. Close, but it was an Enjolie commercial. But your point is on target.
ReubenJCogburn on October 15, 2007 at 3:09 PM
HA! full body waxing. he he
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Yes, they are. It’s horribly anti-PC to say so, but the desire to dominate is not a feminine characteristic. And despite the rhetoric, the essence of feminism is domination.
Splashman on October 15, 2007 at 3:09 PM
OK, one thing I’ll add.
Counterpoint, and QED. Please note, dudes: Don’t comment there until you’ve read the FAQ.
Further suggested reading (the blog is now closed, but you can at least see that much).
bamapachyderm on October 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
The IRONY of the google ads displayed with the article trumpeting the virtues of feminists:
RushBaby on October 15, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Also found – greatest satisfaction among feminist women involved relationships where the man’s most frequently uttered phrase was “Yes, dear.”
eeyore on October 15, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Feminist women are more likely to be sexually liberated whereas conservative/traditional women are more likely to keep things in a lockbox.
Oh for Pete’s sake…
[rolling eyes]
Cassandra on October 15, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Why is it that when I think of feminist, I think of this:
http://www.republicanvoices.org/dworkin_ugly.jpg
bloggless on October 15, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I guess it’s personal experience. I’ve met hot feminists, and most of the ones i know are only feminist in the sense that they want are highly ambitious professionally and want equality in relationships…. which I see absolutely nothing wrong with. In my experience “militant feminists” are just as much a myth as “militant atheists”. Guys are just threatened by ambitious women so they assign them all these imaginary vices.
crr6 on October 15, 2007 at 3:16 PM
…gazing bemusedly down at her lockbox in a decidedly conservative manner, she just prayed someone would keep Al Gore away from her…
Cassandra on October 15, 2007 at 3:18 PM
I think I’ll just leave this one alone, because obviously you dudes have your preconceived notions about what feminism is and what conservative women are all about. I doubt I’m gonna change anyone’s mind in a comment section and I don’t need the headache. It is funny that I appear to be the only woman in this thread, and the dudes are eminently qualified to discuss what feminism is.
See ya in another thread…
bamapachyderm on October 15, 2007 at 3:18 PM
::waves to Cassandra::
Hey, I think you dropped your keys to the lockbox!
bamapachyderm on October 15, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Don’t give up! WE WANT TO BELIEVE.
Allahpundit on October 15, 2007 at 3:19 PM
“Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible….”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, man. I needed that laugh given all the really bad news floating around out there today.
georgej on October 15, 2007 at 3:19 PM
bamapachy, WWFD? What would feminist do? A real feminist would never leave without a fight.
bloggless on October 15, 2007 at 3:20 PM
She clearly knows her place
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Kind of like taming a shrew, eh?
bloggless on October 15, 2007 at 3:23 PM
There’s a category error here. Define “feminist.” See?
What they mean by “feminist”: A smart, independent career woman.
OK, fine. By that standard, Michelle is a “feminist.”
But what do we mean by “feminist”? A bitter left-wing hag who blames all of her personal disappointments on the “patriarchy.” (Example: Maureen Dowd.)
Ali-Bubba on October 15, 2007 at 3:24 PM
And where would that be?
bloggless on October 15, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Anywhere that leaves us men alone to discuss matters of great importance without trifling interruptions from the womenfolk
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Looks like they recruited the global warming scientists for this one. Me thinks it means that either they have no interest in commitment or they have a totally different definition of what a relationship is.
Numenorean on October 15, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I believe the expression is, “I have a headache.” (chauvinistic rim shot). Seriously, don’t go. Stay with us.
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:26 PM
The whole thing, to my way of looking at it, has nothing to do with feminist or non-feminist women. It has to do with driving another political wedge between Americans who, if they met face to face, would find plenty in common and might even become friends.
“Scientific Studies” such as this are about splitting us into tribes, indoctrinating us with suspicions and generalizations, and arming us with insinuations and insults. I’m sick of it.
Dennis Prager divides the world only between the Decent and the Indecent. I’m with Dennis.
RushBaby on October 15, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I guess people didn’t find my lockbox joke funny. Oh well.
NPP on October 15, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Very shrewed!
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I though the traditional “like fish need a bicycle” feminism died right around the ERA failure. These days, I think it means “cleavage and tight pants”. That’s the kind of feminism I can get behind. You know, exploitive AND empowering.
Krydor on October 15, 2007 at 3:29 PM
AP, don’t mock bama!
You’ll only drive her to militant feminism.
Hoodlumman on October 15, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Advice
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Spoken like a feminist’s lap dog, but more likely you have no relevant experience. Tell me, what other successful working relationships do you have in which there is full equality (i.e., one does not give authority to the other)?
And in my experience, frogs are terrorists, peanut butter is the Devil’s feces, and ABBA is the greatest musical group of all time.
Splashman on October 15, 2007 at 3:30 PM
My wife and I have day jobs thank God have fun…… sheesh!
MNDavenotPC on October 15, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I went back up to find it. It was funny, in a sad, too-close-to-home sort of way.
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:31 PM
HA!
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:32 PM
This is one of those situations where so many jokes are flying around in your head that any one you choose is going to be the wrong one.
So, like Joshua from War Games learned, the only correct move is not to play.
James on October 15, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.
That’s true for about 6 months. Then they realize that you are just like their daddy, controlling and patriarchal!
Then you come home to find them drunk by 7pm. Then they go to therapy, get a presciption to Prosac, so not only are they drunk by 7pm, but passed out as well.
The sex isn’t quite as good then.
Rightwingsparkle on October 15, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Here ya go:
Laura on October 15, 2007 at 3:36 PM
So the answer to the question is “no, they didn’t talk to any men”
conservnut on October 15, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Yeah but you can spank ‘em harder
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Plus or minus 6.3 percent at a 95% confidence level. That’s if it’s a poll for simple descriptive statistics, but I’m not absolutely certain what they did with the data.
289 gives plus or minus 5.76 percent, fwiw.
DrSteve on October 15, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Great reference! And great movie!
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:37 PM
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGHHHHHHH,
Dude, how bout a little warning next time!!!!!!!
conservnut on October 15, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Yeah but you can spank ‘em harder
True. But a blow up doll would be cheaper AND more fun.
Rightwingsparkle on October 15, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Or is it….
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:39 PM
I guess people didn’t find my lockbox joke funny. Oh well.
Don’t worry… we’re not laughing *at* you….
We’re laughing *with* you :) All part of that whole Tools of Teh Patriarchy thing.
Cassandra on October 15, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Feminism is another way of admitting women are inferior to men. If they were equal, they wouldn’t have been subservient for so long. Mentally, men and women have similar capabilities but the fact that men are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than women effects our mental state. Men do tend to be mentally aggressive and task oriented over women. Hence, women are inferior to men.
dougless on October 15, 2007 at 3:42 PM
But, I am not a dude, at all.
bloggless on October 15, 2007 at 3:42 PM
AP, is this where you thought this comment thread would go?
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Married women of all religions were almost twice as likely as unmarried women to describe their sex lives as “extremely satisfying.”
Thank you. There is something to be said for practice :p
Also, the couple that stays in shape together…
[drum roll]
Cassandra on October 15, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Then fetch my pipe and slippers, there’s a good girl
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Ali-Bubba, right on track. The second sentence in the article should have defined feminism as used in the
studypoll. They had to expand the meaning of the term or the term would have died a natural death.deepdiver on October 15, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Robot babes coming soon. No pun intended.
Griz on October 15, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I think you’re confusing feminism with slutism.
The Ugly American on October 15, 2007 at 3:50 PM
This is a hell of a lot of fuss over some study done by a couple of chicks.
saint kansas on October 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM
No kidding….. No kidding.
Don’t even get me started.
Mcguyver on October 15, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I bet that should be mousculeenist, and we could have myn’s group meeting. Peculiar spelling is the revolution, dude.
thuja on October 15, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Chicks, who don’t know a damn thing, which is a problem that I could remedy very quickly.
Mcguyver on October 15, 2007 at 3:59 PM
i guess the 2008 Nobel Prize is a slam-dunk.
mymanpotsandpans on October 15, 2007 at 4:00 PM
I think you’re confusing feminism with slutism.
I’ve just never known a feminist that wasn’t one.
Rightwingsparkle on October 15, 2007 at 4:06 PM
C’mon, dudes. If you’re being sarcastic, add a [/sarc] tag. As you should know by now, some people take everything seriously.
Splashman on October 15, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Well, my sister in law is a feminist and I don’t think I’ve ever known anyone less slutty. She’s not at all strident in her views. She and my brother have a strong marriage and have raised two extremely well behaved teenagers. I don’t happen to agree with her political views, but I respect and like her as a person.
One of my daughters in law is a feminist, and my son doesn’t seem too unhappy about it, nor does he seem emasculated by her. In fact, he’s been extremely happy for the six years he’s been with her. She’s pretty and smart and we share most of the same values – in short, I like her too. And I respect her right to differ with me in some regards. I’m glad we live in a country where she can do as she pleases.
Cassandra on October 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM
They didn’t define any of their terms, as such this is pretty meaningless.
Based on a traditional definition of feminism, things like holding down a job while married, etc… most women today are feminists.
Buford on October 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM
[/sarc] ^ 3
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 4:22 PM
And by that same tocket, doesn’t it also stand to reason that they may be more willing to get involved with a guy they’re not serious about whereas a conservative woman might remain single until waiting for “the one”?
I mean it said feminists are more likely to be in relationships, but that doesn’t really tell you the quality of those relationships.
My ex-roommate would certainly qualify as a feminist, and she’s never wanted for a lack of a date. But in the short time we were friends, I dated (and later married) only one guy while she had several. She was never without a guy (despite being a feminist she was fiercely dependent on the guys she dated), but her relationships didn’t exactly last long.
Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 4:31 PM
The second paragraph is all it takes to see that the sample group they used invalidates the study. Undergrads and online surveys? Because undergrads are known for long-term, healthy relationships. Anyway, on a college campus, doesn’t almost every woman refers to herself as a feminist?
hulbstar on October 15, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Plenty, but i was mostly talking about equality of pay. And whats wrong with females being in those positions of authority just as much as men? If I’m a lapdog you’re a dinosaur. Get out more.
are you kidding? So then blacks must be inferior to whites right? Cause they were slaves for hundreds of years. It’s only logical. lol
crr6 on October 15, 2007 at 4:34 PM
I suppose I’ve never personally known a married feminist. I knew them all in my single days. And they were all sluts.
I wasn’t saying that there aren’t any there aren’t. I know there are. I just have never known any.
Rightwingsparkle on October 15, 2007 at 4:37 PM
They didn’t define any of their terms,
Exactly. To my sons, things my husband and I think of as being pretty ‘out there’ seem normal. Times have changed. My oldest son is planning to take paternity leave when our first grandchild is born. That blows my mind – his father would never have done that. He didn’t even come to my doctor’s appointments, nor would I have asked him to, even when I had complications. That just wasn’t something a man did. I just handled it on my own.
A lot of these studies suffer from poor study design. If you don’t define the questions carefully it’s not really apparent what is being asked and you get back an inconclusive set of responses.
Cassandra on October 15, 2007 at 4:38 PM
It’s funny, RWS. My youngest son married a girl from an extremely liberal family, but oddly their basic moral values are very similar to our own. We get along wonderfully – other than our political views, we’re actually quite similar in most ways. I am surprised, considering how different we are politically, that we haven’t argued but I have huge debates with her Dad (a lawyer) – we go at it hammer and tongs and it’s really very good natured. I think that is the mark of someone who is intelligent – they are not threatened by someone who is passionate in their own beliefs and feel no need to proselytize, but just enjoy exploring how the other side thinks. It’s a hoot.
And the thing is, they are *good* people. Really good people. They do exist, even on the other side of the fence. I personally think they are misguided (and they no doubt think I’m mentally ill) but we manage to keep our opinions on that score to ourselves :p
Cassandra on October 15, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Thanks for sharing that. You make me feel vindicated by my comment above.
RushBaby on October 15, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »