Loading...
The Daily Dose Blog The Daily Dose Blog Home

Conservatives Are Prettier Than Liberals

A study says the voting record of a female politician is written on her face.

By Rich_Maloof Oct 22, 2012 5:57PM

Just in case anyone is concerned that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are being debated in terms too lofty or substantive,  the divide is now being drawn along the same lines used between competing pep squads: Which side has the prettier girls?

Psychologists and social scientists at UCLA not only asked the unlikely question, but came up with an answer.

Photo: Rubberball/Mike Kemp/Getty Images“Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat,” said the lead author of a UCLA study due to appear in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, “and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker’s voting record.”

It’s not much of a leap to say that stereotypically feminine is code for pretty. Cracking the rest of the code here, the study is concluding that the prettier a politician is, the more conservative her stand on issues. We’re tempted to cite GOP eye candy like Chris Christie as further proof but, alas, the theory applies only to female members of Congress.

More: Most Iconic Wedding Dresses of All Time

The researchers found that the inverse is true as well: Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine features were more likely to be Democrats. Analyzing features with a computer modeling program, the study determined that the faces of the Democratic women were only half as “sex-typical — or feminine —” as Republican faces. Determining political affiliation based on looks, as 120 undergraduate subjects did with surprising accuracy, is chalked up to what the researchers call “the Michelle Bachmann effect.”

The Daily Show’s Samantha Bee lambasted the UCLA study in a New York Times editorial, calling it “unforgivably retro” and saying the social scientists have “just basically given us the green light to go ahead and judge a book by its cover.”  

More: The Most Bizarre Wedding Dresses of All Time

Bee is right, though the fact remains that physical appearance plays a real role in electoral campaigns, and uninformed voters are prone to choosing a candidate based on looks. A final ugly truth comes in a sidenote from the UCLA researchers, who explain that prior research has demonstrated people tend to view women as either competent or feminine — but not both.

Photo: Rubberball/Mike Kemp/Getty Images

Bing: Who's winning? What the latest polls say.

More from MSN Living:

Celeb-Inspired Halloween Costumes

10 Celebs Who Refuse to Fix Their Flaws

Sexiest Hairstyles for Fall

3Comments
Nov 8, 2012 6:13PM
avatar

Human beings naturally gravitate to people and things that attract them.  But what concerns me is that this article is implying that people would actually be hollow-brained enough to put the Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins above the Condoleezza Rices. 

 

Oh...and for the record, I'm liberal, and not to toot my own horn, but I'm lucky enough to have been told my entire life that I'm very attractive.

 

It would be interesting to read UCLA's report, without the MSN's typically vapid and incendiary headline.

Nov 8, 2012 3:04PM
avatar
Why is this even news?! This is a joke. What a waste of time, energy and money. Really what does it accomplish? UCLA needs to find a better use for their money!

And I'm sick of this issue altogether.  I'm a Democrat and I'm very attractive. My features are very feminine. I have men and women everyday of all races tell me I'm attractive. There are also a lot of attractive Democrats that I know. So where you getting this crap? Its obvious that most Republican women are Caucasian women so smaller Nordic features come with the package. So what are they trying to say?!

And who is anyone to call into question the looks of millions of women who vote Democrat? This is why the GOP is where it is now. Its no secret how the GOP feel about the looks of Democratic women which is not only irrelevant but none of their business. They shout it from the roof top every chance you get. How petty and repulsive can you be?

And for all those "attractive" candidates Republicans have, it didn't win them anything! They lost the election by a landslide and everyone wonders why. Stop being concerned with a woman's looks and be concerned for her personality, education, intelligence and message. If a woman's looks are all you have cling to in your party, you better throw in the towel. 
Oct 22, 2012 10:26PM
avatar
Dumb question. Although in Politics the Republican women are more attractive over all.

But as far as conservative verses liberal, people can pr-addle over that all day long.  I can throw out there:

Janet Reno, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein.

Someone can retort:

Tammy Faye Baker and so on.

I'll say Hillary when she was middle-aged was pretty good looking. Not so much when she was younger and the age monsters are taking their toll now along with the stress she's been under being in office.
Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

inspire: live a better life

Loading...
Most Popular
  • Shared
  • Commented
  • Viewed
about rich maloof
Loading...
buzzing now on msn living
Loading...
inspire videos
editor's picks
Loading...