"Objectifying gaze" (ogling women’s breasts) causes women to helplessly lose their math abilities and get significantly lower math test results. Women who suffer through an objectifying gaze perform worse on math tasks right afterwards. But, interestingly, they are also more willing to accept an invitation by the "perpetrator" of the gaze.
Such findings yielded Feminist research psychologist Professor Dr. Sarah J. Gervais from the University of Nebraska a coveted feminist prize: the Georgia Babladelis Best Paper Award, Psychology of Women (division 35 of the American Psychological Association), 2010-2011.
Women Can’t Think When You’re Looking At Our Tits
A blogger’s refreshingly short summary of Dr. Gervais’ research.
Maybe women’s psyche needs to be empowered, so their intelligence does not get derailed by a simple short ogling stare. Empowering women, of course, is not the goal of feminist study. Rather, new laws are needed to further punish and curtail male behavior. Harassment laws already severely restrict free speech at the work place (Freedom of Speech and Appellate Review in Workplace Harassment Cases)
|
Video showing Objectifying Gaze Research and an interview
Compare a very insightful Sexual Harassment spoof on YouTube. |
Original Research paperGervais, S. J. Vescio, T. K., & Allen, J. (in press). When what you see is what you get: The consequences of the objectifying gaze for men and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly. (abstract, entire pdf) Winner: Georgia Babladelis Best Paper Award, Psychology of Women (division 35 of the American Psychological Association), 2010-2011. Human-Stupidity AnalysisProfessor Sarah Gervais’ Subtle Prejudice Lab analyzes subtle prejudice against women while engaging in serious prejudice against men (who need control and punishment) and women (who need protective laws instead of empowerment) |
Why women who are ogled at work do not perform as well in the office
Dr. Gervais speculated as to whether licentious glances could now become as taboo as bottom-slaps under sexual harassment law.
She said: ‘When it comes to something subtle like this, it’s very difficult to combat.
‘It’s almost expected that men are going to do this to women and that really it’s not that harmful.’
But if research shows such ogling consistently interferes with work performance, it’s time to take the issue more seriously, Dr. Gervais said.
She added: ‘Even though it is just a look, it has meaningful consequences for women.’
Read more: Want-female-employees-better-Ban-flirting! Women-perform-worse-work-stared-at | Daily Mail
Dr. Gervais suggests to explain that this could explain decreased performance of girls and women in math domains. This is easy to check: do girls perform equally good as men when in girl-only schools? There are strong indications that the difference is genetic.
And, of course, Sarah Gervais is really interested if the "objectifying gaze" constitutes sexual harassment. How to scientifically justify further legal restrictions on men’s thoughts and gazes, and further the harassment law suit industry. This is probably why she won the prize of feminist Women Division of the American Psychological Association.
"Participants in our study experienced a single instance of the objectifying gaze. Because one experience of the objectifying gaze caused decreased math performance and increased interaction motivation, these effects may accumulate over time".
Or the opposite! Human-Stupidity just published about research that seems to show the opposite. Women don’t tend to collapse further and further, rather they get used to normal life’s stress like ogling.
For women, sexual harassment was distressing when they saw it as frightening, but not when they saw it as bothersome. "We were surprised by this finding," Settles said. "We thought women would be negatively impacted if they saw their harassment as frightening or bothersome."[…] Sexual harassment is in the eye of the beholder. No fright, no distress. See also a very insightful Sexual Harassment spoof on YouTube.
The panic caused by Dr. Gervais and feminists might actually cause the stressful effect in women. The more women get shielded, pitied, treated like helpless victims of gazes, the more easily they seem to get disturbed. It would be interested to replicate the findings in places like Rio de Janeiro, Brazil or in Mombasa, Kenya where men are still men and women probably know how survive a little gaze without getting serious mental impairment.
In order to strengthen women (instead of restricting men) further studies should clarify which type of women is resilient to gaze: maybe Latinas and Blacks who have a more permissive promiscuous culture. It could be tested if women can be trained to be more resilient. Of course, feminist man hating panic serves only to exacerbate the effects of gazes.
Of course, there are many doubts. Unlike lots of feminist bogus "research", Dr. Gervais basic design is scientifically sound. But nothing prevents a researcher from fudging small details until the desired effect is found.
"All of the confederates were trained to enact the objectifying gaze or not during an interview. Each confederate engaged in training sessions that took between 28 and 30 hours with the first author. The training sessions involved instructing the confederates on the timing and location of the gaze, and confederates practiced the gaze on the experimenter, other research assistants, and other undergraduates."
It might gross out women, if a feminist-trained man stares in prescribed and trained ways, tense and with feelings of guilt. She might sense that this is strange. Maybe an un-shy extravert who honestly appreciates female beauty could yield different results. The attractiveness of the confederate also would be of high importance. Try to hire Brad Pitt or a local heart throb for the experiment and permit him to look unabashedly. It is also unclear if the women perform worse because of being perturbed of excited.
Proposals for further research
- Study how to empower women so they can deal with non-violent moderate "harassment". Study those women that are clearly resilient to such gazes. Replicate the study in sexually liberal countries.
- A woman staring at a man’s chest is rarely traumatizing or even disturbing. For gender comparison in "hostile work environment", the authors are totally unrealistic: "Although women’s chests may be more sexualized for women than men, research reveals that in social interactions, men are increasingly focused on the muscularity of their chests (e.g., Pope, Katz, & Hudson, 1993; Pope, Olivardia, Gruber, & Borowiecki, 1999)."
- "women in the objectifying gaze condition were more interested in spending time with their partner than women in the control
condition,". Find an explanation for this, unencumbered by feminist ideology. Maybe they liked it? If the confederate is highly attractive, and the gaze honest appreciation, then this is quite likely. - Study the effect on men of the hostile work environment caused by "demeaning contemptuous sneer". The contemptuous attitude women have towards losers, nerds, social inept guys, old and ugly men. This is a purposeful openly showed negative resentful attitude, while harassing objectifying gaze is actually a compliment, albeit unwanted.
- Study the effect on men of the hostile work environment created by man-hating feminists that curtails men’s free speech, The constant fear men need to have, to guard every thought, word, and gaze. I would surmise that this does not male restrict math ability, but creativity, work satisfaction and happiness. Men also need to fear female neurotic misunderstandings or intentionally false accusations of harassment. These certainly can come easily, if false rape accusations are already rampant and divorce lawyers routinely advise women to launch false child abuse accusations.
- Study the unnatural hostile environment for boys in all levels of schools that made boy’s performance and graduation rates drop alarmingly.
- Study the unconscious motives for the "objectifying gaze" research. Is it not to give academic recognition to feminist persecution of natural normal male behavior? Study Robert Kurzban and deScioli’s research on hypocrisy and finding victims. They found that people have deep convictions and then, at all cost, find victims and rational explanations for their beliefs.
- Study why the press and institutions like United Nations report unsound pop research results such as the one in four rape lie, bogus sex trafficking research. Hint: probably the same motivation, trying at all cost to prove inborn gut feelings.
- Study why the same press that eagerly published this research uncritically reports clearly false data
- Study the reasons and motivations for feminist language abuse.
- Study how to draw the line at real abuse, quid pro quo, physical abuse, instead of criminalizing every look, word, and thought
- See if sexual bantering and innuendo increases male well being and performance at work.
- More remote and outrageous topics: study the psychological mechanisms for Dr. Milton Diamond‘s findings that legalization of pornography and child pornography reduces abuse of women and children, respectively.
- study the effect of legalized affordable prostitution on men’s well being and work performance. There are some northern European countries where welfare payments include occasional rare visits to a prostitute for mental hygiene.
Links
- pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/01/21/0361684310386121.full.pdf+html
- subtleprejudicelab.wordpress.com/recent-publications/
- newsroom.unl.edu/releases/2011/02/03/Study:+’Objectifying+gaze’+triggers+conflicting+outcomes+for+women
I am elated to see this post. Massive thanks to Human Stupidity for writing on this. Before I was at all aware of the MRM or the manosphere, and while I was effectively still under the indoctrination spell of this vagarchy, I came across a report on this “research” on physorg.com. Even as an effective blue-piller, I was fucking IRATE over this piece of filthy subterfuge masquerading as even pseudo-science. The fury stayed with me and I have ruminated ever since on myriad potential invective responses. And here, you have done an excellent job of tearing apart this propaganda imposting as “research”.
Those behind this “work” are of the most totalitarian, control obsessed, freedom threatening pieces of garbage ingracing the globe.
To these mudskippers, freedom of speech is a joke. They have their sights set on far bigger fish. Absolute behavioral control. Not only is freedom of speech and expression a joke to them, but this little publication of theirs is a clear window to their true objectives. Our behavior- what we look at, when we look at it, and for how long we look it is to be under their control. Control freaks? Ogres.
Just one of the limitless details that bears out the absurdity of this “work” is the self-chosen attire of school girls in general. They go to great lengths in dressing EXPLICITLY and IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS to evoke male sexual attention. Justify spending $200 on a pair of jeans whose essential function is to lift and sculpt the ass into something appearing ever more fertile than it already is, IF NOT TO ELICIT MALE SEXUAL IMPULSE. People don’t spend that kind of money for no reason, dipshit. So as always, the monsters spewing this filth are the ones responsible for it in the first place and trying to skirt that very responsibility.
OT… See how many of the words that the modern speech nazis are trying to convince us are inherently bad and censor them as being ‘misogynistic’, are actually legitimate and useful. Take the term ‘skirt’ for example as just used. The meaning here was ‘striving to avoid personal responsibility and accountability, as in behavior typically observed in the type associated with skirts, the female’. The context only demonstrates how perfectly right and applicable such vernacular is.
Dr. Gervais censored my comment at her blog:
Even serious academic researchers fall in the feminist habit of censoring dissent, instead of engaging in productive discussion and allowing your students to see opposing views.
Dr. Gervais: Are you really worried that my comments could distract your students from the truth of feminism, that you are afraid to publish the comments?
Unlike the censorship here ( My comment was not published), you and your students are very welcome to comment and publish at my blog
Just in case the link to my site is unwanted, anyone can find it by googling
objectifying gaze Gervais
The search yields this article by human-stupidity dot com:
“Objectifying gaze” makes helpless women lose math ability …
Women can’t think full stop. Doesn’t matter about the tit thing.
Shows how powerful men are. We build civilization while defeating strong independent woman with an OGLE.
Imagine a female army. Men require no arms just harass them, offend them and look at their tits. We surrender. not sure men looking at women’s tits is good for the maths really. Actually women are a diversion from real productivity and therefore a nuisance wherever they are. No jobs for women, no votes , nothing at all. No healthcare, NOTHING.
Who cares about their gaze survivability. SO WEAK
Yah, I have problems with how this was “tested”… How the heck does one re-enact a subtle, spontaneous gaze?
You can’t. Unless they got an oscar-level hollywood actor, no way they could re-enact every day gazes.
In fact, by telling the researchers to “gaze at the woman”, I am sure they did it in an extremely creepy/weird way.
In fact, that’s what creepiness comes from… Doing something unnaturally and not spontaneously.