Science has proven what many of us have known for some time now:
Science! Unadulterated, peer-reviewed, glorious science! What else but science could have provided this picture, which was taken whole from the University of California press release on the shocking new scientific, peer-reviewed, wee-p-valued paper The GOP has a feminine face? I’ll tell you: nothing.
Here are the main “findings”, which “are forthcoming online in the peer-reviewed Journal of Experimental Social Psychology”:
“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record,” said lead author Colleen M. Carpinella, a UCLA graduate student in psychology.
What’s worse—it makes you weep, but this is science—is this:
Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms [emphasis mine].
The study worked like this: participants rated pictures of both Right women and those women Not Right from the House of Representatives, and found that Right women matched “stereotypical gender norms” while Not Right women appeared to take their makeup cues from Rosie O’Donnell. Indeed, “the relationship is so strong that politically uninformed undergraduates were able to determine the political affiliation of the representatives with an overall accuracy rate that exceeded chance, and the accuracy of those predications increased in direct relation to the lawmaker’s proximity to feminine norms.”
Wait. Politically uninformed undergraduates? Never mind.
Since this is science, peer-reviewed science, published in a leading journal, and evincing small p-values, the findings are indisputable. They are true. They cannot be questioned. There must be a consensus. Nevertheless, I, being by nature untrusting and rebellious, decided to test the theory on new data.
And so test the author did.
Scientific consensus... it can't be argued with.
H/T to Mr. Shea.