Science Daily: Feminism Good for Romance??

[RockyMountainMan]

I don't know who these authors are but there results are very unlikely.  I question whether the subjects are self-identified feminists, or if the authors ascribed feminism to them based on survey questions about their values regarding equality of the sexes.

Feminism And Romance Go Hand In Hand
Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm


Science Daily -- 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.

It is generally perceived that feminism and romance are in direct conflict. Rudman and Phelan's work challenges this perception. They 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, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.

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. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.

* Reference: Rudman LA & Phelan JE (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: is feminism good for romantic relationships? Sex Roles (DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9)

[CaptDMO]

zzzzzz......zzzzzz........zzzzzzz.........zzzzzzzz........zzzzzzzz........

[Cordell Walker]

naw no sleeping.................................a femerioid has to be  out the front door  before my head hits the pillow; no you cant use the bathroom, the shell station has one

[RockyMountainMan]

I saw the article post on, of all places, the exmormon board.
link

This was my response:

The article doesn't give you a lot to go on regarding the authors' methodology. But there is this:

"They carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates..."

Undergraduates are NOT a representative sample of the population.

"...and an online survey including 289 older adults..."

An ONLINE survey? Come on now, how representative can that be?

This is a self-selected study population. This study has no more validity than a poll or survey given by a call-in radio station program.

Furthermore a quick google of the authors show their bias in this area. This is really no more valid that a religionist researcher show promoting his/her own studies that inevitably show that religion has whatever social benefits.

Really, just self-serving propaganda under the guise of science to give a veneer of legitimacy. How is this any different than Smith making self-serving revelations in the name of salvation? None. It's all magical thinking.

Mormonism is to religious cultism as feminism is to secular cultism.

[Stallywood]

Figures, written by two stupid ....well idiots.  None of this is born out by todays society. Birthrate down, marriges down....What morons. Not much else can be said.
Stally

[Mr. X]

authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.

So again it magically becomes the fault of men. Gosh I didn't see that one coming at all. Us men and our bad stereotypes.

But hope is not lost since apparently these raging independant strong willed women are hitching up.

But notice the article doesn't point out the obvious good part about men. That if men are intimidated by strong willed women then how come all these feminists are hitching up? Hmm... maybe men aren't the morons we're painted out to be???... Nah.... Even though there's a positive angle here, its not to mentioned and just the negative crap that men are stereotyping feminists has to be told.

[Tony Ananda]

"Romance" as traditionally understood is a neurosis based on fear and anxiety in both men and women.  Romantic feelings give the participants a temporary reprieve from their fears and mistrust of the opposite sex.  The greater the fears the stronger the need for romantic feelings to overcome them. 

Romance + Feminism = neurosis + neurosis.  Such a combination of anxious defenses can only cause suffering. 

[neonsamurai]

I'm sure you could do a report saying "Democrats and Romance go Hand in Hand".

The problem with these sorts of studies are that they are often quantified by the individuals whom they question. "Do you love your girlfriend? If so how much?" You can't really quantify happiness or love or the quality of your relationship.

I see no reason why this couldn't be a genuine piece of research, but I don't think you can draw a conclusion from such vagarities as to form a definate conclusion. For example, as I'm all for equality, by their definition does that make me a feminist or an MRA? If that does make me a 'feminist' then they need to analyse their findings again.

Simply classing a feminist as somebody who seeks 'equality' means they also have to show what they mean by equality.

[Lazurite]

Here we have why I despise the soft sciences.  They aren't really sciences at all.  Feminism, romance, and relationships could all be defined in dozens of different ways for the purposes of this study, and different information gathering methods and samples would yield vastly different results.  This study could me made to say literally anything.  It's pseudoscience, nothing more.

[Setaseba]

They probably took all positive qualities of a relationship and lumped them under "feminist values" and all negative qualities of a relationship and lumped them under "traditional oppressive male values"

so any older mature person who gives a relationship positive answer is self-identifying as feminist even if they don't come out and say so

in the same way women appropriate positive male qualities and project negative female qualities on men

[dr e]

I took a quick look and it appears clear that both authors are feminists.  You can see a bit here:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~rudman/teaching.html

Very instructive to read her notes for the genes, gender and culture lecture.  She is pushing the sex differences result from socialization model, is pushing the silly and biased Carol Gilligan in the lecture.  I think it is very clear that she has some strong pre-conceived ideas about feminists.  It would be interesting to know how they determinded who was feminist and who was not.   That might be telling. 

Her co-author appears to be a grad student who has links to "feminist majoriity" on her web page. 

http://www.jephelan.com/

[shard43]

Yet another agenda-driven, outcome-decided feminist study.  Why am I not surprised at the lies?

[no2fembots]

.... and LARD is good for your HEART!!!

[realman]

My initial reactions were

1.) gee, is it surpirsing that women with "feminist" husbands/partners would say they have "better" relationships than they would have with men who didn't put them on a pedestal and satisfy their every whim, beck, and call?

2.) I love how "feminist" and "egalitarian" are used interchangeablly when they couldn't be farther from opposites.

3.)  I wonder if the statement about men saying they were more satisfied in relationships with "feminist" women was really talking about "feminist" (i.e., women great, men BAD) women, or "egalitarian" women (women and men both have their pros and cons; there's no reason women shouldn't have real careers and make real money doing real jobs, and there's no reason men should be held responsible for women's actions). Of course, further muddying the waters is the fact that a "feminist" male would probably want to be with a "feminist" woman, because if he wasn't with a feminist woman he wouldn't be able to put her on above said pedestal or be responsible for the previously-mentioned satisfaction of her every whim, beck, and call- it would probably be pure Hell for a "feminist" man to be in a relationship with an "egalitarian" woman, because she wouldn't let him be the p-whipped glob of jello he would want to be.

[Setaseba]

it would probably be pure Hell for a "feminist" man to be in a relationship with an "egalitarian" woman, because she wouldn't let him be the p-whipped glob of jello he would want to be.

ROTFLMFAO!!!

i wonder how many mangina's are also into BDSM as subs and/or on the bottom...that would explain a lot!!!