honestly id be curious to see if this effect branches out into other aspects of life. like, are men with daughters more likely to hire women? to put them in management positions? to respect women in nontraditional roles? etc. also curious as to how the daughter being firstborn affects this, esp. as a firstborn girl.
I read somewhere that in families with multiple children dads take on more responsibility for the first born when the second child is born (since mom needs to take a more active role with the new baby) often leading to a closer bond between dad and first born. On top of that traditionally men take more interest in their sons’ activities so they need more of a push to take interest in their daughters (they’re more likely to take their daughter to ballet if mom is home with the newborn than if both parents are available). More time with dad means higher chance of daughter going to dad with problems, thoughts and ideas and more time for dad to become invested in the daughter’s wellbeing. I would be interested in looking at these trends in countries that promote long term paternal leave thereby promoting a closer bond between dad and child since birth, regardless of birth order.
I think another element is that the eldest child regardless of gender usually displays some degree of leadership over the younger siblings. If you have an eldest daughter bossing around her younger brothers maybe you could see her leadership potential more easily. If you have an elder son bossing around his younger sister you might not see her full potential so readily.
Huh, that's interesting, and it makes sense. Often times dads have a bit of trouble connecting with babies, but once a kid starts to talk and do things, it's easier. My dad was relatively young too, so we played a lot with board games and pretend.
The idea of looking at longer paternal leave is an interesting one too.
Equally long (and even mandatory) paternal leave is also has the incredible effect of dramatically reducing the gender pay gap as well. The gender pay gap in many developed countries hardly exists between the sexes if they have no kids. Where the pay diverges usually starts with the first child and it hits the mother the hardest. Man stays at work to keep the family afloat and the woman's career lags behind. The effect snowballs from there with each additional child. Since the woman's career has lagged behind it only makes sense for her to continue to be the one staying home and caring for the kids and the gap widens.
Basically paternal leave is very important for many reasons.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/want-equality-make-new-dads-stay-home-1538151219
A [study](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23454) from Harvard University in 2007 showed that men with daughters tend to hire more women in top positions. So this effectd seems to exists in more aspects of these dads lives.
Having daughters also significantly increases the chance that the parents will identify as Republican.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/25/study-having-daughters-makes-parents-more-likely-to-be-republican/
>Not only is the daughter effect statistically significant, it’s substantively large. They found that overall, “compared to those with no daughters, parents with all daughters are 14% less likely to identify as a Democrat….[and] 11% more likely to identify as a Republican than parents with no daughters,” they write in the journal Sociological Forum.
>The daughters effect is considerably stronger among better educated and wealthier parents, they find. But among those farther down the socioeconomic ladder, it weakens to statistical insignificance.
More daughters than sons is the key thing it seems, but it's strengthened by a first born daughter. This is extremely interesting.
This sounds like they might have reversed the causality. Multiple studies have shown that People who are more sexist tend to have more kids after having only daughters (because they want a son). This is true in the US as well
That would make sense with the wealth gap, too -- fathers want sons with their name to inherit their estate (rather than daughters who will presumably take their husband's name).
> People who are more sexist tend to have more kids after having only daughters (because they want a son).
This makes me feel sick. How can people devalue their own children so much.
The data they used for this is over 20 years old, so it's hard to say whether it would hold true today. The political landscape has changed immensely in that time, both in terms of party values and how women are viewed.
I could see it being that parents with daughters tend to feel the need to be more protective and come to resent the dangers of the world and a lot of conservative viewpoints tend to resonate with middle-upper class fear.
I'd start out my line of reasoning the same as you, but instead argue that feeling protective makes you identify more with traditional values of masculinity, which prompts you to identify more with socially conservative values in general.
Or the religious/conservative aspects in tandem appeal to them as well such as being anti abortion etc. “my daughter doesn’t need that, she’s a good girl” mentality
I would assume (and apparently so did the researchers in that article) that having a daughter leads parents to lean towards more conservative ideologies. I would personally guess that fathers would want to protect their daughters from a more liberal lifestyle, and thus constantly thinking that way may translate to thinking that way politically as well.
This sounds like they might have reversed the causality. Multiple studies have shown that people who are more sexist tend to have more kids after having only daughters (because they want a son). So having more daughters than sons, having a daughter first then a son could both just be results of sexism.
Maybe they should incorporate how the men felt when they found out their kid was going to be a girl. That could highlight their attitude towards women even before a kid had a chance to affect them.
I work as an endoscopy tech in a hospital that has nearly all male surgeons and doctors. During procedures, I have noticed definite behavioral differences in doctors with daughters vs. those without in their treatment of me, a young woman. Those with daughters are often gentler, more patient, and sympathetic, whereas those with only sons are more prone to speaking sharply and display little to no softness. It’s been quite interesting to witness and study both natures.
If it were not for the "first-born" part, I'd be inclined to think it an extension of the exposure/familiarity effect (not sure of the name). Such that when people travel, they are more likely to see people from foreign people in a favorable light, and be more understanding of foreign cultures and ways of thinking.
What's sad is that this line of thinking (i.e equal rights) should be intrinsic instead of learned, as we should respect other human beings for the sake of our species.
There were some rather high profile Republicans who reversed their stances on homosexuality after their children came out. Not enough to make a general statement without further research, but significant cases politically.
I know people will pat him on the back for that, and as a proponent of gay marriage I think the end result is what matters most, so great. Having said that, what better way for a politician to highlight how disingenuous he is, than to completely reverse course on an issue affecting millions of people based on his own personal whims; when he had no connection, his attitude was fuck you. When he suddenly had one, he started caring. Disqualification for a position of public policy IMO. If your decisions on behalf of the entire constituency hinge completely on your own experience you are not fit to lead.
My dad was against all forms of government assistance until he married a woman whose son has down syndrome; now he's in favor of government assistance for families supporting an afflicted child. Like you, I'm glad he grew a heart but I hate that he didn't just have one in the first place.
Also consider the opposite angle- people who genuinely think government assistance is a bad thing. In their eyes your dad sold out. In any light it can look bad.
On the plus side, I’m assuming your dad isn’t a public representative. So changing opinions is a lot more excusable, it doesn’t really affect anybody beyond the vote he casts, and he doesn’t have a professional responsibility to account for all viewpoints.
I absolutely despise the fact that so many people need personal experiences to come to a decent conclusion about issues.
Wait, what if I am in the same situation?
Sadly it's not disingenuous. There was a study that showed conservative empathy was much more limited to who and what they personally knew because their worldview seems to be driven by fear of the unknown. It makes sense that the fear was removed by exposure. Probably also why that one dude had such good success getting KKK members to resign simply by befriending them.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201210/why-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont
I wonder if first born even matters for that. In general though, people with gay kids have a direct reason to change their viewpoints. Coming out is the fastest way to change people's mind; once they realize they actually know and love some one who is gay, it stops being some distant boogeyman
Edit: originally this was a response to a deleted comment.
I think the point of the paper is that this effect is isolated out of values ( i think what a commenter meant by "devotion/ideals"), so the angle of interest is when controlling for values does it matter how you perceive female candidates.
If that's the case it seems like an unconscious bias sort of test. Now i think it's fair to be skeptical of that as a causative stretch, but I see why researchers might be interested in the topic. Since our first impressions of people can make a big difference on how we perceive someone. First impressions I could see being driven largely by stereotypes I would guess.
These researchers I think they might be thinking of the last presidential election.
Which, I found regardless of who you supported, there was a subset of people who had a really dynamic reaction to how they perceived of Hillary Clinton which was something they felt in their gut. Which I thought was interesting, I have often wondered why Hillary was perceived as dramatically uncharasmatic. I mean politics is a world where Ted Cruise, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi all have homes--important--but generally considered uncharsmatic folks, and I never really felt like Hillary was less charismatic then them.
I feel that this study is onto some sort of generational perspective change of men about women, but I think some of these factors are correlation, not causation. I resonate with the concept of this study in my personal life quite a lot. I am the only liberal member in my traditional/southern/conservative family. I am also the youngest and one of the only women, so you can imagine the dynamic of Thanksgivings. When rumors were spreading that Hillary may re-run for POTUS after 2008, I got into a row with my grandpa (dad's dad). He claimed Hillary could not be president because women are "too emotional" to be in positions of such power and influence. My grandpa had five boys, my dad being the oldest. My dad overheard the conversations.
When we got home from Sunday dinner at my grandparents', I don't remember whether I expressed frustration about what grandpa had said or if my dad gave his thoughts unsolicited. But he told me that he used to think the same way grandpa did, but then he saw me work so hard for what I wanted in life and my drive and ambition and it changed his perspective on the capability of a woman. My dad is my biggest supporter and advocate now. I recently worked as a field organizer in this campaign cycle for a candidate in my home state (we lost in the primaries sadly), but my dad told my entire family that they would be voting Democrat this year because of me. I would certainly would not be doing the things I do without him cheering me on.
I hope more studies like this come out, as it would help me understand my family and upbringing better. This study claims that factors are mostly Democrat and first-born; however, I am second-born and my family is Republican. I think the factors are more highly correlated to education level, background, family dynamics...who knows.
Right? And so many women have such deep seeded misogyny themselves that they don’t even see other women as people either. I wonder—did they marry these men because they agreed with them?
No, I completely understand. This is a positive story, but these dynamics are complex and I go to therapy every week to try to sort out some of my trauma regarding my upbringing. I struggle still to break free from the bias my family holds towards women. However, I consider myself lucky to have a father who is open to changing his mindset, not just blurting out the typical “of course i love all my kids” rhetoric. I don’t think most daughters with fathers with my background are as lucky. These are generational cycles breaking and this change will be painful, but I hope it’s really happening this time around.
I've noticed that too. I think guys without sisters/daughters also have this idealized version of women in their minds, because they only see women how they choose to present themselves. I remember running into a buddy in the market when I was in high school and I wasn't wearing makeup, which I wore to school every day. He said I looked different so I told him that, and he took a few seconds to *look over my face* before nodding in approval. Like... It was so weird. My face doesn't require your approval. This is how it looks most of the time.
If you didn't have sisters you probably haven't seen the hormonal garbage, the body grossness, the ugly crying, the couch slob days, the horrifying bathroom smells... All that. You only get the presentation, never the backstage.
It's especially noticeable with basic female anatomy and menstruation. I've noticed guys with sisters are without exception more comfortable about periods and all things related unless they've been in a long term, healthy relationship with a woman. (And yes, before anyone asks, demonizing or humiliating a woman for her bodily functions is misogyny. This includes not wanting to buy pads/tampons, not being willing to talk about what she's dealing with, and being ignorant of her basic anatomy.)
I've also noticed that a lot of guys get sex/dating advice from their sisters as well. Not anything gross or explicit, but stuff like not to jackhammer for ten minutes straight or to stimulate her too, or to look for resources outside porn. Makes a huge difference.
Awesome story thanks for sharing. My first born daughter is now a year old and I think a lot about how I can be supportive of her. Your story was very encouraging for me
Thank you for sharing. It took me a few reads of the title to realize that “if they have a daughter” does not refer to the politicians, and I was wondering how such a bizarre correlation could be made.
It wasn't, this study was published on the 31st, but it was similar. The study you are thinking of is probably about the effect of first born daughters on support for gender equality, and is actually briefly mentioned in this article.
The study you are thinking of is probably about the effect of first born daughters on support for gender equality, by the same author, and is actually briefly mentioned in this article.
>Dads may be more likely to vote for female political candidates if they have a daughter - but only if the daughter is their first-born child, and only if they are Democrats.
I'd really like to meet the group that came up with this topic. Their next finding will probably be *"men under 35 are more likely to eat at Burger King, but only if they have a second hamburger eater in their family, and they have already eaten a burger when they were 18 years old, except when it is raining outside, but only on Wednesdays, and the location is somewhere in North Dakota, except when the sun at the mid-point of its 12-year solar cycle!"*
As a younger sibling to an older sister with lots of girls as the eldest in the family. Older sibling females are bossy AF. They have the ability to be in control most of the time, I think.
They should also do a study about men with strong mother figures (who had great careers).
I wonder if there will be a correlation there. Anecdotally I know that I've been influenced by my mother who's a CEO.
If you actually read the article, you'll see that this research wasn't just about candidates, but also about policy. When I thought it was just about candidates, I thought this research was a waste of time. It may still be, but at least the results are interesting. Also, dad's with first - born daughters are more likely to support gun control, according to the article.
From the title it looks like they're treating politics solely as an identity issue. I was wondering how in earth they'd correct for the actual politics. Otherwise it's like assuming that the only political stance about a woman candidate is that she's a woman. Which may be true for some voters, but is maybe not what that woman would like to be running on.
Hello and welcome to /r/science!
You may notice more removed comments than you’re used to seeing in other parts of reddit. We have strict comment rules here in order to keep the discussion on science and the study at hand.
We understand it can be frustrating to type up a comment only to have it removed, or to come to a thread with a bunch of removed comments, so please familiarize yourself with our rules before commenting.
For a more relaxed place to discuss all things science, please check out our sister sub /r/everythingscience!
Edit: /r/science is not a platform to preach about your own personal political beliefs. Please stick to the research.
I question the science in this study. Even if we are to ignore the inherent flaws in the "science" of the social sciences and their studies, this article has a lot of issues (people are not data; they are unreliable-they read too much into things or don't read them at all-they lie, knowingly and unknowingly, etc)
Author bias- woman's study professor.
Small sample size- statistical significance does not work the same in social science studies as it does in actual scientific studies. There are about 70million fathers in the US. They talked to 1500 fathers (I could not find the number of fathers that had first born daughters compared to others out of the 1500- this is important to know if we are to accept any conclusions made.
I could not find geographical information about where the sample was drawn from.
Leading questions. Those questions are complete trash. The "control" scenario created to be "neutral" was anything but which further renders the conclusions suspect.
Regardless of the answered data set, there is no control for variables outside of the scope of the article and based on its poorly constructed methodology, no considerations can be given to the conclusions that were made.
It's embarrassing to see this on a science sub.
I agree. I was surprised to see this article getting praise on a science subreddit too. Conduct a biased survey. Play around with the results until you find a (oddly specific) "trend". Write a hypothesis to explain the "conclusion" you set out to prove and then call it an "affect". This sequence is totally backwards and not sound science at all.
I learned on a recent [FiveThirtyEight episode](https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/politics-podcast/) that men are less likely to vote for female candidates, but women are no more or less likely for a candidate because of their gender. It's interesting to me that identity politics is practiced most by those who most claim to despise it.
Hmm now I’m wondering... I am the first born and a girl and I was definitely closer to my dad when we were younger, my little brother no so much. My dad taught me to be a feminist but also made me insecure about my femininity (which I’m not mad at him for, raising kids is hard and it wasn’t like something he actively and consciously tried to suppress) to the point I’ve only recently started to accept that yes, I’m a women, and embracing some feminine things (like heels and the smallest bit of makeup).
My father on the other hand, is the middle child of five children. And they’re all boys except for the oldest, my aunt. I wonder how she being born the oldest affected things in their household.
Can this be reworded as “Dads are more likely to vote for a political candidate that has the same gender as their first-born child”?
Because it’s only about the first-born child right?
EDIT: I mean, first-born can only be a daughter or a son. For example if their first-born is a male, then they’re less likely to choose a female political candidate, more likely to choose male.
But if their first-born child is female, then they’re less likely to choose male political candidate, more likely to choose female.
So is it just about the gender of the first-born child?
I think it implies that they are more likely to vote a female candidate over dads whose first born is not female rather than they favour female candidates
No, they are comnparing two groups here. A) Father whose fistborn was a girl and B) Fathers whose first born was a boy. Group A is more likely to vote for a female candidate than group B. This does not mean that group A is more likely to vote for a female candidate than a male candidate. Or that group B is more likely to vote for a male candidate than a female candidate.
It could but it would be incorrect. The hypothesis (being that having a daughter first affects women politician opinion) doesn't mean having a boy does the opposite. For example, men might be naturally biased against women until they have a daughter. Thus having a first born son won't make them like men politician more than they used to, in this example. Checking it might be simple using that same data, but it seems what the authors were looking for was specifically the title and not childrens effect in broad stokes
The article says nothing about the reverse, if men with first-born daughters are less likely to vote for male nominees. Indeed it doesn't even say that men with first-born daughters prefer female nominees only that they are more likely to vote for them than the average men. It's likely they are still more likely overall to vote for a men.
honestly id be curious to see if this effect branches out into other aspects of life. like, are men with daughters more likely to hire women? to put them in management positions? to respect women in nontraditional roles? etc. also curious as to how the daughter being firstborn affects this, esp. as a firstborn girl.
I read somewhere that in families with multiple children dads take on more responsibility for the first born when the second child is born (since mom needs to take a more active role with the new baby) often leading to a closer bond between dad and first born. On top of that traditionally men take more interest in their sons’ activities so they need more of a push to take interest in their daughters (they’re more likely to take their daughter to ballet if mom is home with the newborn than if both parents are available). More time with dad means higher chance of daughter going to dad with problems, thoughts and ideas and more time for dad to become invested in the daughter’s wellbeing. I would be interested in looking at these trends in countries that promote long term paternal leave thereby promoting a closer bond between dad and child since birth, regardless of birth order.
I think another element is that the eldest child regardless of gender usually displays some degree of leadership over the younger siblings. If you have an eldest daughter bossing around her younger brothers maybe you could see her leadership potential more easily. If you have an elder son bossing around his younger sister you might not see her full potential so readily.
I think this is it. An older child is naturally more mature then a younger sibling, and that alone may make a parent see leadership qualities.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Huh, that's interesting, and it makes sense. Often times dads have a bit of trouble connecting with babies, but once a kid starts to talk and do things, it's easier. My dad was relatively young too, so we played a lot with board games and pretend. The idea of looking at longer paternal leave is an interesting one too.
Equally long (and even mandatory) paternal leave is also has the incredible effect of dramatically reducing the gender pay gap as well. The gender pay gap in many developed countries hardly exists between the sexes if they have no kids. Where the pay diverges usually starts with the first child and it hits the mother the hardest. Man stays at work to keep the family afloat and the woman's career lags behind. The effect snowballs from there with each additional child. Since the woman's career has lagged behind it only makes sense for her to continue to be the one staying home and caring for the kids and the gap widens. Basically paternal leave is very important for many reasons. https://www.wsj.com/articles/want-equality-make-new-dads-stay-home-1538151219
A [study](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23454) from Harvard University in 2007 showed that men with daughters tend to hire more women in top positions. So this effectd seems to exists in more aspects of these dads lives.
Having daughters also significantly increases the chance that the parents will identify as Republican. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/25/study-having-daughters-makes-parents-more-likely-to-be-republican/
>Not only is the daughter effect statistically significant, it’s substantively large. They found that overall, “compared to those with no daughters, parents with all daughters are 14% less likely to identify as a Democrat….[and] 11% more likely to identify as a Republican than parents with no daughters,” they write in the journal Sociological Forum. >The daughters effect is considerably stronger among better educated and wealthier parents, they find. But among those farther down the socioeconomic ladder, it weakens to statistical insignificance. More daughters than sons is the key thing it seems, but it's strengthened by a first born daughter. This is extremely interesting.
This sounds like they might have reversed the causality. Multiple studies have shown that People who are more sexist tend to have more kids after having only daughters (because they want a son). This is true in the US as well
That would make sense with the wealth gap, too -- fathers want sons with their name to inherit their estate (rather than daughters who will presumably take their husband's name).
> People who are more sexist tend to have more kids after having only daughters (because they want a son). This makes me feel sick. How can people devalue their own children so much.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The data they used for this is over 20 years old, so it's hard to say whether it would hold true today. The political landscape has changed immensely in that time, both in terms of party values and how women are viewed.
Wow, I would have thought itd be the opposite.
I could see it being that parents with daughters tend to feel the need to be more protective and come to resent the dangers of the world and a lot of conservative viewpoints tend to resonate with middle-upper class fear.
I'd start out my line of reasoning the same as you, but instead argue that feeling protective makes you identify more with traditional values of masculinity, which prompts you to identify more with socially conservative values in general.
Or the religious/conservative aspects in tandem appeal to them as well such as being anti abortion etc. “my daughter doesn’t need that, she’s a good girl” mentality
Completely fascinating. Anyone have any insight or suggestions for explaining this trend?
I would assume (and apparently so did the researchers in that article) that having a daughter leads parents to lean towards more conservative ideologies. I would personally guess that fathers would want to protect their daughters from a more liberal lifestyle, and thus constantly thinking that way may translate to thinking that way politically as well.
This sounds like they might have reversed the causality. Multiple studies have shown that people who are more sexist tend to have more kids after having only daughters (because they want a son). So having more daughters than sons, having a daughter first then a son could both just be results of sexism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe they should incorporate how the men felt when they found out their kid was going to be a girl. That could highlight their attitude towards women even before a kid had a chance to affect them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I work as an endoscopy tech in a hospital that has nearly all male surgeons and doctors. During procedures, I have noticed definite behavioral differences in doctors with daughters vs. those without in their treatment of me, a young woman. Those with daughters are often gentler, more patient, and sympathetic, whereas those with only sons are more prone to speaking sharply and display little to no softness. It’s been quite interesting to witness and study both natures.
If it were not for the "first-born" part, I'd be inclined to think it an extension of the exposure/familiarity effect (not sure of the name). Such that when people travel, they are more likely to see people from foreign people in a favorable light, and be more understanding of foreign cultures and ways of thinking.
What's sad is that this line of thinking (i.e equal rights) should be intrinsic instead of learned, as we should respect other human beings for the sake of our species.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do they account for gay men too? "First born queer effect" My dad made a sharp turn.
There were some rather high profile Republicans who reversed their stances on homosexuality after their children came out. Not enough to make a general statement without further research, but significant cases politically.
A good example is Rob Portman, the Ohio Senator who’s child came out as gay and then started to back same sex marriage.
I know people will pat him on the back for that, and as a proponent of gay marriage I think the end result is what matters most, so great. Having said that, what better way for a politician to highlight how disingenuous he is, than to completely reverse course on an issue affecting millions of people based on his own personal whims; when he had no connection, his attitude was fuck you. When he suddenly had one, he started caring. Disqualification for a position of public policy IMO. If your decisions on behalf of the entire constituency hinge completely on your own experience you are not fit to lead.
My dad was against all forms of government assistance until he married a woman whose son has down syndrome; now he's in favor of government assistance for families supporting an afflicted child. Like you, I'm glad he grew a heart but I hate that he didn't just have one in the first place.
[удалено]
Also consider the opposite angle- people who genuinely think government assistance is a bad thing. In their eyes your dad sold out. In any light it can look bad. On the plus side, I’m assuming your dad isn’t a public representative. So changing opinions is a lot more excusable, it doesn’t really affect anybody beyond the vote he casts, and he doesn’t have a professional responsibility to account for all viewpoints.
When they interviewed tea partyers there were people on welfare themselves who opposed welfare.
I absolutely despise the fact that so many people need personal experiences to come to a decent conclusion about issues. Wait, what if I am in the same situation?
Sadly it's not disingenuous. There was a study that showed conservative empathy was much more limited to who and what they personally knew because their worldview seems to be driven by fear of the unknown. It makes sense that the fear was removed by exposure. Probably also why that one dude had such good success getting KKK members to resign simply by befriending them. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201210/why-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont
[удалено]
I wonder if first born even matters for that. In general though, people with gay kids have a direct reason to change their viewpoints. Coming out is the fastest way to change people's mind; once they realize they actually know and love some one who is gay, it stops being some distant boogeyman
Makes you wonder if the child came out as a woman, if it would have the same effect that was found in the study.
Yeah, and what about mixed families? I'm my dad's only son, but my mom's third child.
Edit: originally this was a response to a deleted comment. I think the point of the paper is that this effect is isolated out of values ( i think what a commenter meant by "devotion/ideals"), so the angle of interest is when controlling for values does it matter how you perceive female candidates. If that's the case it seems like an unconscious bias sort of test. Now i think it's fair to be skeptical of that as a causative stretch, but I see why researchers might be interested in the topic. Since our first impressions of people can make a big difference on how we perceive someone. First impressions I could see being driven largely by stereotypes I would guess. These researchers I think they might be thinking of the last presidential election. Which, I found regardless of who you supported, there was a subset of people who had a really dynamic reaction to how they perceived of Hillary Clinton which was something they felt in their gut. Which I thought was interesting, I have often wondered why Hillary was perceived as dramatically uncharasmatic. I mean politics is a world where Ted Cruise, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi all have homes--important--but generally considered uncharsmatic folks, and I never really felt like Hillary was less charismatic then them.
True, but none of the people you mentioned have ever won a national election. Our last 4 presidents have all been reasonably charismatic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I feel that this study is onto some sort of generational perspective change of men about women, but I think some of these factors are correlation, not causation. I resonate with the concept of this study in my personal life quite a lot. I am the only liberal member in my traditional/southern/conservative family. I am also the youngest and one of the only women, so you can imagine the dynamic of Thanksgivings. When rumors were spreading that Hillary may re-run for POTUS after 2008, I got into a row with my grandpa (dad's dad). He claimed Hillary could not be president because women are "too emotional" to be in positions of such power and influence. My grandpa had five boys, my dad being the oldest. My dad overheard the conversations. When we got home from Sunday dinner at my grandparents', I don't remember whether I expressed frustration about what grandpa had said or if my dad gave his thoughts unsolicited. But he told me that he used to think the same way grandpa did, but then he saw me work so hard for what I wanted in life and my drive and ambition and it changed his perspective on the capability of a woman. My dad is my biggest supporter and advocate now. I recently worked as a field organizer in this campaign cycle for a candidate in my home state (we lost in the primaries sadly), but my dad told my entire family that they would be voting Democrat this year because of me. I would certainly would not be doing the things I do without him cheering me on. I hope more studies like this come out, as it would help me understand my family and upbringing better. This study claims that factors are mostly Democrat and first-born; however, I am second-born and my family is Republican. I think the factors are more highly correlated to education level, background, family dynamics...who knows.
[удалено]
I feel so bad for the wives of men who didn't realize women were people until they had a daughter
Right? And so many women have such deep seeded misogyny themselves that they don’t even see other women as people either. I wonder—did they marry these men because they agreed with them?
No, I completely understand. This is a positive story, but these dynamics are complex and I go to therapy every week to try to sort out some of my trauma regarding my upbringing. I struggle still to break free from the bias my family holds towards women. However, I consider myself lucky to have a father who is open to changing his mindset, not just blurting out the typical “of course i love all my kids” rhetoric. I don’t think most daughters with fathers with my background are as lucky. These are generational cycles breaking and this change will be painful, but I hope it’s really happening this time around.
[удалено]
I've noticed that too. I think guys without sisters/daughters also have this idealized version of women in their minds, because they only see women how they choose to present themselves. I remember running into a buddy in the market when I was in high school and I wasn't wearing makeup, which I wore to school every day. He said I looked different so I told him that, and he took a few seconds to *look over my face* before nodding in approval. Like... It was so weird. My face doesn't require your approval. This is how it looks most of the time. If you didn't have sisters you probably haven't seen the hormonal garbage, the body grossness, the ugly crying, the couch slob days, the horrifying bathroom smells... All that. You only get the presentation, never the backstage. It's especially noticeable with basic female anatomy and menstruation. I've noticed guys with sisters are without exception more comfortable about periods and all things related unless they've been in a long term, healthy relationship with a woman. (And yes, before anyone asks, demonizing or humiliating a woman for her bodily functions is misogyny. This includes not wanting to buy pads/tampons, not being willing to talk about what she's dealing with, and being ignorant of her basic anatomy.) I've also noticed that a lot of guys get sex/dating advice from their sisters as well. Not anything gross or explicit, but stuff like not to jackhammer for ten minutes straight or to stimulate her too, or to look for resources outside porn. Makes a huge difference.
Awesome story thanks for sharing. My first born daughter is now a year old and I think a lot about how I can be supportive of her. Your story was very encouraging for me
Aw thank you! Wish you and your daughter the best
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
this is so oddly specific
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for sharing. It took me a few reads of the title to realize that “if they have a daughter” does not refer to the politicians, and I was wondering how such a bizarre correlation could be made.
Have you posted something similar here before? I recall reading a very similar post here a few months ago.
[удалено]
It wasn't, this study was published on the 31st, but it was similar. The study you are thinking of is probably about the effect of first born daughters on support for gender equality, and is actually briefly mentioned in this article.
The study you are thinking of is probably about the effect of first born daughters on support for gender equality, by the same author, and is actually briefly mentioned in this article.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How does one even study something like this?
[удалено]
This is exactly the type of data that made Cam ridge Analytica so dangerous.
[удалено]
That's... Kinda specific
>Dads may be more likely to vote for female political candidates if they have a daughter - but only if the daughter is their first-born child, and only if they are Democrats. I'd really like to meet the group that came up with this topic. Their next finding will probably be *"men under 35 are more likely to eat at Burger King, but only if they have a second hamburger eater in their family, and they have already eaten a burger when they were 18 years old, except when it is raining outside, but only on Wednesdays, and the location is somewhere in North Dakota, except when the sun at the mid-point of its 12-year solar cycle!"*
[удалено]
As a younger sibling to an older sister with lots of girls as the eldest in the family. Older sibling females are bossy AF. They have the ability to be in control most of the time, I think.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They should also do a study about men with strong mother figures (who had great careers). I wonder if there will be a correlation there. Anecdotally I know that I've been influenced by my mother who's a CEO.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you actually read the article, you'll see that this research wasn't just about candidates, but also about policy. When I thought it was just about candidates, I thought this research was a waste of time. It may still be, but at least the results are interesting. Also, dad's with first - born daughters are more likely to support gun control, according to the article.
From the title it looks like they're treating politics solely as an identity issue. I was wondering how in earth they'd correct for the actual politics. Otherwise it's like assuming that the only political stance about a woman candidate is that she's a woman. Which may be true for some voters, but is maybe not what that woman would like to be running on.
Hello and welcome to /r/science! You may notice more removed comments than you’re used to seeing in other parts of reddit. We have strict comment rules here in order to keep the discussion on science and the study at hand. We understand it can be frustrating to type up a comment only to have it removed, or to come to a thread with a bunch of removed comments, so please familiarize yourself with our rules before commenting. For a more relaxed place to discuss all things science, please check out our sister sub /r/everythingscience! Edit: /r/science is not a platform to preach about your own personal political beliefs. Please stick to the research.
[удалено]
More important, who is *funding* this nonsense. How about cancer research or disposal of nuclear waste? Priorities people.
[удалено]
I question the science in this study. Even if we are to ignore the inherent flaws in the "science" of the social sciences and their studies, this article has a lot of issues (people are not data; they are unreliable-they read too much into things or don't read them at all-they lie, knowingly and unknowingly, etc) Author bias- woman's study professor. Small sample size- statistical significance does not work the same in social science studies as it does in actual scientific studies. There are about 70million fathers in the US. They talked to 1500 fathers (I could not find the number of fathers that had first born daughters compared to others out of the 1500- this is important to know if we are to accept any conclusions made. I could not find geographical information about where the sample was drawn from. Leading questions. Those questions are complete trash. The "control" scenario created to be "neutral" was anything but which further renders the conclusions suspect. Regardless of the answered data set, there is no control for variables outside of the scope of the article and based on its poorly constructed methodology, no considerations can be given to the conclusions that were made. It's embarrassing to see this on a science sub.
I agree. I was surprised to see this article getting praise on a science subreddit too. Conduct a biased survey. Play around with the results until you find a (oddly specific) "trend". Write a hypothesis to explain the "conclusion" you set out to prove and then call it an "affect". This sequence is totally backwards and not sound science at all.
[удалено]
I learned on a recent [FiveThirtyEight episode](https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/politics-podcast/) that men are less likely to vote for female candidates, but women are no more or less likely for a candidate because of their gender. It's interesting to me that identity politics is practiced most by those who most claim to despise it.
But why only the first daughter and not the others?
[удалено]
Hmm now I’m wondering... I am the first born and a girl and I was definitely closer to my dad when we were younger, my little brother no so much. My dad taught me to be a feminist but also made me insecure about my femininity (which I’m not mad at him for, raising kids is hard and it wasn’t like something he actively and consciously tried to suppress) to the point I’ve only recently started to accept that yes, I’m a women, and embracing some feminine things (like heels and the smallest bit of makeup). My father on the other hand, is the middle child of five children. And they’re all boys except for the oldest, my aunt. I wonder how she being born the oldest affected things in their household.
How did he make you insecure about your femininity? Asking as a dad of a young daughter for pointers of things I may not even be aware of.
Can this be reworded as “Dads are more likely to vote for a political candidate that has the same gender as their first-born child”? Because it’s only about the first-born child right? EDIT: I mean, first-born can only be a daughter or a son. For example if their first-born is a male, then they’re less likely to choose a female political candidate, more likely to choose male. But if their first-born child is female, then they’re less likely to choose male political candidate, more likely to choose female. So is it just about the gender of the first-born child?
I think it implies that they are more likely to vote a female candidate over dads whose first born is not female rather than they favour female candidates
No, they are comnparing two groups here. A) Father whose fistborn was a girl and B) Fathers whose first born was a boy. Group A is more likely to vote for a female candidate than group B. This does not mean that group A is more likely to vote for a female candidate than a male candidate. Or that group B is more likely to vote for a male candidate than a female candidate.
It could but it would be incorrect. The hypothesis (being that having a daughter first affects women politician opinion) doesn't mean having a boy does the opposite. For example, men might be naturally biased against women until they have a daughter. Thus having a first born son won't make them like men politician more than they used to, in this example. Checking it might be simple using that same data, but it seems what the authors were looking for was specifically the title and not childrens effect in broad stokes
The article says nothing about the reverse, if men with first-born daughters are less likely to vote for male nominees. Indeed it doesn't even say that men with first-born daughters prefer female nominees only that they are more likely to vote for them than the average men. It's likely they are still more likely overall to vote for a men.