web
counter
 

The Results of the Pajiba Social Experiment on the Sexist Tendencies of Our Readers (or Lack Thereof)

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Miscellaneous | Comments (37)



socialexperiement.jpg

Yesterday, in a very unscientific experiment, I posted pictures of Gwyneth Paltrow and Asthon Kutcher in separate posts and asked the readers to offer a comment. The experiment had nothing to do with either Paltrow and Kutcher personally, nor was it to see if I could bait the readers into simply commenting on a picture (given the contrarian nature of our commenters, an easier way might have been to posit that the sky was blue). It was an honest experiment, and the results were actually quite surprising.

First, some context: I posted a trailer on Monday for the feminist documentary, Miss Representation. One of the major points in that documentary was how the media trivializes women, how it generally reduces a woman to her looks. One of the major examples in the documentary was the 2008 Presidential election and how, at least according to the documentary, the media was more inclined to comment on the physical appearance of both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton than they were to comment on their credentials. When I mentioned that in the review back in January, a lot of commenters took issue, insisting that your opinions of her had nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her lack of credentials, lack of intelligence, etc. And that’s probably true, although we are a left-leaning site, so obviously there is a skewed perception of Palin.

In the documentary, however, they were able to pull a great many of examples of the media commenting on the female candidates’ appearance instead of their credentials (there was, famously, a small media scandal over a blouse that Hillary Clinton wore revealing her cleavage). On the other hand, very little was said about McCain and Obama’s appearance — the focus was largely on their credentials and experience.

Anyway, what I wanted to do with the social experiment was tease out whether or not our readers would apply more focus on a female’s physical appearance or her personality, experience, and talent (whether positive or negative). I also wanted to compare that to how our readers would comment on a man. I purposely chose two people who I thought would elicit a large number of comments, but I also tried to choose relatively neutral, headshot images only.

Again, this was not scientific. I wouldn’t know how to conduct a proper scientific experiment on the site. It’s purely anecdotal. There are any number of reasons you could use to dismiss the results, from the selection of images, to the people chosen, to the readership being polled, and anything you’re bound to come up with if you think about it for ten seconds or more, including the fact that we have more female readers than male. Obviously, you can take the results with as large a grain of salt as you’d like.

The results, however, were surprising. Even taking into account my own built-in bias toward confirming my hypothesis, the results were the opposite of what I expected. This is an approximate count, of course, because it’s hard to come up with an absolute value for each comment, but, in a 5 to 2 ratio, our readers were far more likely to comment on Paltrow’s substance (personality, talent, experience) than her physical appearance. On the other hand, when it came to the male being judged, while our readers were still more likely to base their observations on substance over physical appearance, the ratio was a much smaller 3-2.

What does that mean? Nothing with certainty, but it does appear that — while physical appearance is certainly a factor — as a whole, the substance of the person was being judged more than his or her looks, and that’s even moreso in case of the female. Obviously, there were a lot of exceptions in the 275+ comments, but collectively, it does appear that substance matters more to our readers than looks. And based on this social experiment alone, it also appears that our readers, collectively, aren’t terribly sexist. You are just as, or more likely, to judge a man by his appearance than a woman and, in both cases, more likely to judge him or her on other factors besides their appearance.

Dismiss it, invalidate it, or take it for what it’s worth (and I’m sure there would’ve been a different result with different celebrities involved), but I still found the very amateur social experiment enlightening, even if obviously the results couldn’t be extrapolated ot the rest of the nation.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Adrianne Palicki's Wonder Woman Costume Take Two (Now in Action with Angry Face) | Oh, Freida Pinto, You Should Have Stuck With That Yellow Scarf









Comments

I guess what the results state is that Pajiba's community of commenters is far more intelligent, world-aware and able to see beyond the trivially-physical.

In short, we rock and are better than most!

(Put that on a t-shirt).

Posted by: Fredo at March 30, 2011 12:36 PM

So I was right? I was right, right? I was right when I guessed that was the purpose of the experiment? I love being right. It happens so rarely. Mostly, I'm wrong. Even when I'm right.

I have so little. Please just say yes.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 30, 2011 12:38 PM

But didn't you skew the results by choosing a female who is rather average pretty-blonde so not much to comment on there, but who inevitably draws most criticism on other fronts because of her extracurricular activities? What if you had picked Julia Roberts or Renee Zellweger? I guarantee 90% of the comments would have been about their physical appearance.

Posted by: PaddyDog at March 30, 2011 12:38 PM

PaddyDog, or someone like Megan Fox, whose entire career has relied on her attractiveness.

Posted by: Fredo at March 30, 2011 12:39 PM

My theory on PaddyDog is still in the beginning phases.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 30, 2011 12:39 PM

I didn't comment on Kutcher because I was too busy at work yesterday (or just busy enough, as my employers would say).

I will comment now that I am sick of seeing him on my TV. I would like him to go away. I actually don't hate him as a person or an actor, but he's way too ubiquitous.

Posted by: Slash at March 30, 2011 12:47 PM

Huh. Well, I apologize for calling you a shepherd on Twitter yesterday, then. You're a hard man to read sometimes, Dustin.

That said, I'm not at all surprised by the results. It definitely seems like the women who post on Pajiba are more concerned with appearance than the men are (or, at least that's how the men here present themselves, while I think the women probably feel a little more freedom to ogle because we're cool with it and don't feel threatened), so it doesn't suprise me that Ashton's ratio would be much tighter than Gwyneth's. And it doesn't surprise me that the majority of commenters wouldn't go that route; anecdotally, I think these results are probably visible every single day on this site. (Minus the posts about Olafantastic and Christina Hendricks, natch.)

I'd be interested to see how the comments broke down by gender, though, that may be hard unless you asked everyone for their "a/s/l" in the initial thread. And that'd just be creepy. Don't be creepy.

Posted by: RobP at March 30, 2011 12:51 PM

I thought the study was a bad idea to begin with. Goopy is far more hated around these parts than Mr. Nikon "Punked" That 70s Show. Since there's less issues with the new Mr. Moore, there would me more comments about his body than Goopy Paltrow, who gives us plenty of substance to work with.

But how could you do this kind of study without this level of bias? Maybe newer starlets? Compare a Jennifer Lawrence to a Jesse Eisenberg? Or perhaps go further and compare a comedic actress to a dramatic actress (and the same with actors)? Just tossing out ideas here.

Posted by: Robert at March 30, 2011 1:01 PM

I knew we had the smarts.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at March 30, 2011 1:05 PM

Stupendous work there chap, proving once and for all most women and gay guys don't treat women as objects. Good show, Prof. Rowles!

Posted by: dagnabbit at March 30, 2011 1:08 PM

I feel so used.

Posted by: klingonfree at March 30, 2011 1:09 PM

In short, we rock and are better than most!

New site tagline?

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at March 30, 2011 1:13 PM

It's an interesting topic for conversation. I went to a lecture once by [woman who was Bill Clinton's press secretary, although I can't remember her name at the moment] who said basically the same thing as that documentary. Women are much more likely to be judged on their appearance, and to worry about that judgment themselves. As she was giving the example of a commentator who had criticized her hair, and how much that bothered her more than any actual criticism of how she did her job, I recalled that when the presentation started I had been thinking about the host's hairstyle, more than actually listening to her. Shame on me.

And I also think your results are largely due to the preponderance of women on this site. Although we be judgy, women don't necessarily judge based on appearance. Many other factors go into our general cattiness.

Posted by: cydeleida at March 30, 2011 1:18 PM

*GASP*

Oh, thank God I can breathe again! I feel like I've had these words in my throat since those pictures went up yesterday:

Gwenyth Paltrow is a skinney, boney, blond dolt with skin the color of slightly yellow freshly-ejaculated milk. Her toe head is revolting and her tits are slangy. She looks like if you pushed her down the stairs she would not only break every bone in her starved body, but all her jagged corners and points would leave the stair-case in ruins.

And the guy! Ugh! He looks like dirty homo-erectus that someone shaved improperly and now the hair is growing back uneven all over his shit-covered body. His grin is smarmy and his skin looks greasy enought to fry potatoes in. I have no doubt that his body is covered in random dark black hairs and sweat pimples, and everytime I see a Canon Powershot camera comercial I feel like I need to wash my hands.

*whew*

Seriously, it was tough holding that all in.

YOUR EXPERIEMENT IS A SHAM!

Posted by: superasente at March 30, 2011 1:18 PM

paddydof beat me to it. Gwyneth is uggo.
Post a pic of Scarlett Johansson in her red emmy dress. Your results would vary.

Posted by: logan at March 30, 2011 1:19 PM

Either way, he's a douscher and she's best-served to have her head in a box.

Posted by: f x b at March 30, 2011 1:25 PM

Dustin is HAWT! I'd totally bang him six ways from last Tuesday's taco dinner at the Outback Steakhouse with a gin chaser and crantinis for whipped chocolate topping.

Posted by: admin at March 30, 2011 1:26 PM

Just post pics of Olyphantypants all day long. I don't care what it does or doesn't prove.

Posted by: Cindy at March 30, 2011 1:30 PM

I commented on Gwyneth's substance because I tend to play devil's advocate when it comes to her, although if there wasn't so much vitriol directed toward her, I still probably would have trumpeted the films of hers that I enjoy and wouldn't have commented on her appearance. A sexier photo of a famous woman I tend to lust after probably would have inspired a shallow comment from me, so the fact that these photos were mundane served your experiment well.

I'm not sure what I would have said had you posted an average photo of Scarlett Johansson instead. It probably would have been reflexively defensive as well. Perhaps a more balanced experiment would have used someone who does not inspire such a negative predisposition. Also potentially biasing the reaction is the fact that people knew it was some sort of experiment, and thus they might have adjusted their behavior.

I did skew the Ashton tally toward looks, but it was a very neutral comment with a personal association, abetted by the fact that I simply haven't seen much of Ashton in film or television.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at March 30, 2011 1:35 PM

it doesn't suprise me that Ashton's ratio would be much tighter than Gwyneth's.
Posted by: RobP at March 30, 2011 12:51 PM .
.

Now you're just asking for it.


Posted by: Odnon at March 30, 2011 1:36 PM

So...we're kinda sexist towards men?

Posted by: zeke the pig at March 30, 2011 1:40 PM

I think the results are skewed by the small sample. GOOPY draws more ire for her website than her looks, and Mr. Moore draws more ire for being man pretty. If you had choosen different actors, say Megan Fox and Roman Polanski, you may have had completely different results.

Posted by: BWeaves at March 30, 2011 1:43 PM

And yes, Roman Polanski is an actor. See "Fearless Vampire Killers, or Pardon Me But Your Teeth Are In My Neck."

Posted by: BWeaves at March 30, 2011 1:46 PM

Now you're just asking for it.

Posted by: Odnon at March 30, 2011 1:36 PM

I believe the proper expression is gagging for it.

Posted by: RobP at March 30, 2011 2:17 PM

I'm curious since we're on the topic of how women are Miss Represented in the media, was Rhianna recently Miss Represented on the cover of Rolling Stone?

Just asking.

Posted by: John W at March 30, 2011 2:21 PM

Forgive me if I'm a little out of the loop here, but I think the main difference in comments could be attributed to Gwenyth being a credible actress, who, despite personal tastes, is actually able to act and has had many decent performances. She's annoying as hell in real life, but she can be good at what she does. Ashton has not once been in a credible acting role. Not saying he can't be entertaining. Dude where's my car? is good for what it is, and I also enjoyed the Butterfly Effect (gasp!). But even his "better" stuff can't be considered credible, which leaves a career based on looks rather than substance. I think Megan Fox would have made a much better comparison.

Posted by: katy at March 30, 2011 2:30 PM

Those two are just about the most regular people you could find.

She is normal-pretty, not at all notable, bland at doing her job, and usually displays below-par notions of the world (in other words, she's kinda stupid). Meaning, she's a completely average girl, both in looks and in general "presence".

He is the pretty boy you see on the street every day, bland (at best) at doing his job, and usually displays a frankly childish approach to most things he makes public. Meaning, the completely average "dude" out there.

Posted by: godzilla_foil at March 30, 2011 3:06 PM

I agree with the above. Or hell, use a photo of Kristen Stewart, you would have gotten a lot of rude comments on her too.

Posted by: Jenn at March 30, 2011 3:08 PM

I judge you by your looks Dustin. I do.

Posted by: JuiceinLA at March 30, 2011 3:33 PM

I don't know If I will see this documentary, though I generally believe it important to keep reminding people that women are still not treated equal.

But I can hear the naysayers now: "Oh and we didn't judge Nixon when he ran against Kennedy?" Because of course we did. Well not me personally, but I know someone.

At some point in my life I realized these 2 things that are somewhat relevant here: (1.) the person who underestimates me because they judge me on appearance will lose, and lose big, because I am the baddest Mothra Faulkner from here to gardenia and (2)Beauty fades.

Posted by: JuiceinLA at March 30, 2011 3:37 PM

You know, the funny thing is, you take any "average" looking man and/or woman and give them expensive clothes and a good stylist and average becomes attractive. Anyone can experience something similar, ride an airplane wearing flip flops and cut offs, then on the return flight wear a business suit. You will be treated differently.

Anyone who has chosen to live a celebrity lifestyle is out there for everyone to criticize, good or bad, it comes with the job.


That being said, there is no substitute for actual talent. Ashton Kutcher doesn't have any.

Posted by: MRod at March 30, 2011 3:54 PM

It's too bad we only had one male and one female example, because it would have been interesting to see how those ratios played out in different situations, especially the beloved (and belusted) compared to the neutral or the disliked.

I think the interesting thing about Pajiba is that when we focus on looks and objectifying a celebrity it is usually positive, and usually a good body of work is integral to our appreciation (we're looking for more than just a good body, if you will).

And I disagree with PaddyDog, because I think Zellweger or Roberts would have been called out for being overrated (undeserving of Oscar-level attention) but I doubt the comments would have been too focused on their looks. Certainly not 90%.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 30, 2011 5:13 PM

Fun! And you know, I think this is a conclusion made stronger by the results we get out of the Pajiba Freebies every year. We almost never pick the mainstream beautiful people, and I think that in almost every instance we pick them more for their work than for their looks alone.

In conclusion: we're such nerds that we even want our fantasies to be with people of substance. I love this place.

Posted by: figgy at March 30, 2011 5:45 PM

@mrs. julien: yes.

@klingonfree: i concur!

Posted by: splinter at March 30, 2011 6:29 PM

Jesus, Dustin, we get it. How many different ways are you going to criticize your study while you introduce it?

I mean, don't take this to be an official poll, and these numbers are meaningless, and it isn't scientific at all, and I probably should have used some other images, and I know what you're going to say, but really I don't mean this to be a serious study, and this is not really the best representation, and I'm not really sure if you can believe anything I'm about to say....

Geesh!

Posted by: John G. at March 30, 2011 11:53 PM

Just going to point out that before revealing the nature of your experiment, you should have done a number of these and included people we love as well as those we revile. For instance, these two above pictures and also a thread for Christina Hendricks and one of JGL. And then maybe one for Heath Ledger and Brittany Murphy. And then Maybe Charlton Heston and Elizabeth Taylor.

And then you'd need a control group. Something like pictures of cars or musical instruments or something... just to see if Pajibans are predisposed to judge merit over looks on everything or just people...

Better science! Do it!

Posted by: Lennon at March 30, 2011 11:57 PM

That said, I'm not at all surprised by the results. It definitely seems like the women who post on Pajiba are more concerned with appearance than the men are (or, at least that's how the men here present themselves, while I think the women probably feel a little more freedom to ogle because we're cool with it and don't feel threatened), so it doesn't suprise me that Ashton's ratio would be much tighter than Gwyneth's. And it doesn't surprise me that the majority of commenters wouldn't go that route; anecdotally, I think these results are probably visible every single day on this site. (Minus the posts about Olafantastic and Christina Hendricks, natch.)

Posted by: cosplay wigs at April 1, 2011 5:43 AM