WE HAVEN’T posted lately about Sarah Palin’s creationism. Our view is that it’s been exposed as a phony issue. Whatever Sarah believes, she’s done nothing to insert religion into the schools of Alaska, and has given no indication of intending to do so. Nevertheless, the issue survives and is endlessly repeated by journalists who should — and probably do — know better.
Here we have a new spin on this worthless old topic. Newsweek has an article by Sharon Begley, a science writer: Election 2008: How Much Do Looks Count?
Excerpts, with bold added by us:
Say what you will about Sarah Palin’s experience, competence and views on (to pick just two of Lab Notes’ favorites) creationism and climate change, give her this: she’s got that whole beauty queen thing going for her. Roll your eyes if you must, but in a finding that will further depress anyone who still thinks that voters are rational scientists, for female pols, looks really, really matter.
That’s what this Newsweek article is all about. Palin’s looks are the only thing that really matters. By the way, in case you missed our earlier reports that the creationism issue is bogus, see: FactCheck.org.
More from Newsweek:
According to a new study, to win the votes of men as well as women, female political candidates need to be seen as attractive. “Even female voters seemed to tap into the cultural expectation that women who are attractive as well as competent are more worthy of high status roles,” said psychology researcher Joan Y. Chiao of Northwestern University, who led the study, which is being published tomorrow in the online journal PLoS One.
One more excerpt:
The scientists put it this way in their conclusion: “Good looks was almost all that mattered in predicting men’s votes for female candidates.”
[Our related articles are here: Sarah Palin & Creationism.]
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.