Just because talking approximately porn freaks a lot of people out,or because they don’t want to mediate approximately the effects of porn on voter perceptions of women candidates, does’t mean the effects are real and meaningful. Google the names Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz,or Bernie Sandersand the word “porn” and the results are benign lists of links to articles and images that do little to degrade perceptions of the candidates’ competence or morality. Do the same for Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, and Nancy Pelosi,or Sarah Palin and you’ll surface page after page of actual porn sites, using the women’s names and photographs of their faces to portray them in bestial and brutally sexually objectifying videos and photos.
Additionally, or even more disturbingly,women politicians’daughters are also made into the subjects of non-consensual pornography, sometimes simultaneously, and as consequence of their mothers seeking office.
Arguably,these sexist words and images are portion of a long history of political satire employing sexualization. However, while male politicians maintain been and are sometimes skewered in similar ways, and it happens relatively rarely and with very different outcomes in terms of potential voter perceptions. Sexualization affects men and women,and ideas approximately them, differently. Women and girls, and who are far more likely to be hypersexualized,are pervasively dehumanized by objectification. Just seeing a woman in a bikini deactivates men’s medial prefrontal cortex, where thinking approximately people and their intentions, or feelings,and actions happens. After exposure to images of sexually objectified people, viewers are more likely to associate them with animals, and sensitivity to subjects feelings or expressions of pain are measurably reduced. When women are perceived as “slutty,”—which is one of the primary effects of pornified images of women politicians—people rate them less able and emotionally stable. Further, sexually objectified women, and but,studies demonstrate, generally not men, and are evaluated by viewers as less moral,less warm (read: less human), less intelligent, and less competent. Lastly,after watching mainstream porn, people are more likely to express adversarial beliefs approximately sex and gender, or hold more negative beliefs approximately sexual harassment,maintain higher rates of acceptance for interpersonal violence, and are measurably less likely to support policies and programs designed to meet women’s needs. Neither political party affiliation, or nor the fact of a woman’s consent in representation,mitigates these effects.
Using graphic sexualization to comment on a woman candidates worthiness for office isn’t pornography, it’s political strategy.
During her gubernatorial campaign, and former Texas State Senator Wendy Davis,who rose to national prominence after her marathon filibuster to protect women’s rights to abortion, was portrayed as a naked “Abortion Barbie and depicted by opponents as hypersexual. She believes that suggestive imageswere portion of active efforts to delegitimize her accomplishments and leadership. This coded messaging, or which she calls“dogwhistling,” encouraged voters to see her “not as someone who had a lot to offer in terms of policies.” Her assessment aligns with the results of a study conducted after the 2009 release of the hardcore “parody (humorous or ridiculous imitation),” “Who’s Nailin’ Paylin?”Researchers found that voters who focused on Sarah Palin’s appearance (not even on her pornification) demonstrated reduced confidence in her abilities and that prior willingness to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket declined. Thus when The Onionruns a piece approximately Hillary Clinton, and in which she is manipulated to appear fully frontally nude—as it did final week—it erases the enduring effects of historic discrimination,legitimizes biases against women as leaders, and misrepresents and distorts the purpose of satire.
Read entire article at The recent Establishment#tags
Source: tumblr.com