It turns out that women penalize highly successful women just as much as men do, but for seemingly different reasons.The researchers had male and female participants rate a newly appointed female vice president, described in a personnel file, on measures of hostility, antisocial traits, and overall likability. Both male and female participants were prone to punish her, socially, by inferring norm violations—for example, manipulativeness, coldness, aggression—unless given specific information about her feminine virtues and good behavior. In which case, the “social punishment” effect was blocked for male and female participants. However, crucially, only the female participants then had more negative self-evaluations. This supported the researchers’ hypothesis that penalizing successful women serves an ego-protective function (only) for other women. It defuses the threatening sense that a similar—and similarly good, decent, and/ or “real” woman—is more competent or accomplished than they are. And, tellingly, it appears that this is linked to a lack of self-belief that can be assuaged by positive feedback.
In the first experiment, the researchers blocked women’s punishment of other women by describing the subject as having feminine-coded, prosocial tendencies. In the second experiment in the same research paper, they achieved a similar magnitude of the same effect by priming participants (all of whom were women) in the experimental condition with positive feedback about their own exceptional business acumen. They were no longer motivated to penalize the female high achiever.
Whatever the case, it seems plausible that white women had additional psychological and social incentives to support Trump and forgive him his misogyny (among other things). Such incentives are due to the fact that (1) on average, white women are considerably likelier than their nonwhite counterparts to be partnered with a Trump supporter, and (2) again, on average, relatedly in some cases, white women would generally have greater incentives, and hence corresponding dispositions, to try to get or stay on the good side of powerful white men of Trump’s genre.
Whatever the case, it seems plausible that white women had additional psychological and social incentives to support Trump and forgive him his misogyny (among other things). Such incentives are due to the fact that (1) on average, white women are considerably likelier than their nonwhite counterparts to be partnered with a Trump supporter, and (2) again, on average, relatedly in some cases, white women would generally have greater incentives, and hence corresponding dispositions, to try to get or stay on the good side of powerful white men of Trump’s genre.
The point can be extended. As white women, we are habitually loyal to powerful white men in our vicinity (e.g., those who outrank us in our workplaces, communities, and other social institutions, including the academy).
This suggests it’s not just a matter of gendered double standards, then; gender biases in politics encompass this “split” in social perception.
The evidence I refer to here comes from a recent study in social psychology, and it is still early days for this hypothesis. It is nonetheless so explanatory of otherwise bewildering impasses as to be worth canvassing with this caveat. Participants in the study read anecdotes about parents who left their young children home alone, for a variety of reasons. The participants were then asked to assess the degree of risk or danger to which the children had been exposed. The parents who left to play Pokemon Go were judged to have put their children at greater risk than those who left them to go to work. And crucially, for my purposes, the woman’s behavior was judged riskier than the man’s, all else being equal (i.e., holding fixed the reasons why they left, for how long, the children’s age, etc.) (Thomas, Stanford, and Sarnecka 2016).
Now consider prejudice against women in certain social positions—those aspiring to masculine-coded power positions, as in politics. Part of what this may involve is moral prejudgment in line with widely disavowed, but not yet defunct, gendered social mores. Someone like Hillary Clinton is frequently cast in the moral role of usurper. And unsurprisingly so (which is of course not to say justifiably); she threatens to take men’s historical place or steal their thunder. If she wins, the game is rigged. She could not have won it fairly. And her behavior and she herself seems to be careless, shady, and crooked (so the thought continues).
Women in positions of unprecedented political power, or right on its cusp, are also prone to be perceived as rule-breakers generally. They are not to be trusted to stay in line, or respect law and order. These perceptions are understandable, because they’re not baseless so much as defunct: these women are breaking the rules of an unjust patriarchal system that is still in the process of being dismantled
When men engage in these actions, it is unremarkable, and hence tends to go unremarked on. But when a woman encroaching on men’s turf does the same thing, her actions—and she—may seem deceptive or negligent.
When it came to Bernie Sanders’s controversial remarks about Clinton’s being unqualified he ascribed to her “bad judgment,” in reference to her voting for the war in Iraq. And Trump echoed the phrase repeatedly in subsequently debating Clinton. Donald Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, also voted for the war in Iraq. But according to Trump, Pence was entitled to make such mistakes “every once in a while.” “She’s not?” CBS’s Lesley Stahl asked Trump, of Clinton. “No. She’s not,” was Trump’s full answer. “Got it,” Stahl blinked, and proceeded with the interview.
報道の核心は、「総理のご意向」文書（が存在したのだと仮定して）の適法性や、当該の獣医学部認可や規制緩和特区の選定への総理の関与の有無を追及する声から、次第に、政府が関連文書を隠蔽し国会答弁を拒否している姿勢への攻撃にその重心をシフトしていった
「説明してください」
「文書がありません」
「えっ？ どうして」
「廃棄しました」
「認可の過程を教えてください」
「議事録がありません」
「どうしてですか？」
「個別の議事録は作成していません」
「学園長を参考人招致したい」
「招致の必要を認めません」
これでは、まるでらちがあかない。
念のために列挙しておけば、森友・加計問題が浮上させた問題点は、以下の通り。
・国会軽視：質問のはぐらかし、証人喚問、参考人招致の拒否、度重なる強行採決と審議拒否、臨時国会開催要求に対する3カ月に及ぶ放置、臨時国会冒頭での首相の演説を経ない解散、再開国会での野党質問時間の短縮要求
・行政への不当介入：行政文書の廃棄、国家戦略特区ワーキンググループの議事録と議事録要旨の食い違い（議事録要旨改ざんの疑い）、国会答弁で野党側の質問に対して説明を拒んだ官僚の異例の出世などなど
・公私混同：首相の信奉者であった森友学園理事長と、首相の友人である加計学園グループのリーダーの扱いの違い（国会の証人喚問に応じて事件について証言した籠池泰典氏がほどなく逮捕され、しかも勾留以来、3カ月以上にわたって保釈されないところか接見禁止の状態が続いているのに比べて、首相の腹心の友とされる加計孝太郎氏は、メディアの取材すら一切寄せ付けない環境で守られている）
I wish I could say Devin Kelley is an anomaly, but neither his violence at home nor the mass murder he committed is rare. Every 16 hours a woman is shot and killed by a current or former partner. Meanwhile, on average, there is nearly one mass shooting a day in the United States. These events are not anomalies; they happen every day.
Over the past decade, the FBI has been studying what makes people commit mass murder. The agency came up with such theories as the copycat effect (exacerbated by social media), violent video games and mental illness. What wasn't addressed was the growing research indicating exactly how violence is rooted in the traditional male identity, where male shaming turns into rage. This is not to say women are not violent; only that 98 percent of the time, mass shooters are male.
The traditional markers of masculinity require men to be virile and dominant over women. By holding on to such definitions of self, the male identity is prone to crumble when a man is rejected by the opposite sex. This is why sexual assault is about power, not sex. This is also why up to 75 percent of domestic femicide occurs when the woman is trying to leave her abuser. In order to preserve their sense of control and power, the men in these cases would rather kill a woman than allow her to leave.
Psychologist James Gilligan spent 35 years studying incarcerated murderers. He discovered that the common motivation these men had for committing murder was to preserve their traditional masculine roles. Gilligan identified how these men had felt disempowered and used murder to assert their sense of control. Some of the murderers said they killed for honor or recognition, or to settle a grievance, but it invariably boiled down to the need to “eliminate the feeling of shame... and replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride.” Gilligan explains that shame caused violence in these men because at the root of shame is a desire to be loved and validated, but seeking love or care from others flies in the face of their socialized roles—their need to be self-reliant as opposed to being passive and dependent.
Brown defines shame as the “intensely painful feeling or experience of believing that we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging.
ジャーナリスト
2017年11月16日
⋮
国連の日本の報道の自由に対する懸念はやや過剰すぎると思う。
僕が経験している限り、報道の自由に対する政府からの圧力は殆どない。
むしろ、それぞれの企業の上層部が、いわば自主規制をしているのである。
足立議員は１５日の衆議院文部科学委員会で、「立憲民主党の福山幹事長と希望の党の玉木代表は、獣医師会側から献金をもらっている。お金をもらってあっせんすれば、あっせん利得罪。あるいは何らかの権限がある、例えば自民党の石破氏は、受託収賄などさまざまな疑惑が取り沙汰されている。私は犯罪者だと思っている」と発言。
このような発言を受けて与野党の各党は日本維新の会に抗議し、「事実に基づかない発言だ」として議事録からの削除を含めて強い対応を要請しました。
日本維新の会は１６日の記者会見で片山虎之助共同代表が「足立氏を厳重注意した」と説明した上で、足立議員が発言を撤回して謝罪したとコメントしています
かつては与党議員の依頼で、各省庁が質問を作り、答弁も書く「自問自答」が横行していたらしい。さすがに最近は少ないようだが、この議員は「今でも『貴重な質問の機会を頂いて』とか言いながら、『○○大臣のご決意をお聞かせください』『××に行かれたご感想は』なんて、恥ずかしい質問をする若手がいる。時間をくれと言う前に、質問力を磨くべきだ」と首を横に振るのだ。
では、野党の質問時間を削ることは何を意味するのか？ 田中さんがまとめた。
「今のまま質問時間を減らせば、国権の最高機関として政府をチェックする機能は確実に低下する。これは間違いない。厳しい監視にさらされてこそ、健全な政権や政治が実現するんです。国会が機能しないことが、この国に何をもたらすか、７２年前に私たちは経験済みです。与野党の政争とか、そんな小さな話ではないんです」
米国案は骨抜きだった。北朝鮮への原油輸出を「年間400万バレル（63.6万キロリットル）以下」、石油精製品（ガソリン、軽油、重油など）は「200万バレル（31.8万キロリットル）以下」に制限することとしたが、ＯＥＣＤ（経済協力開発機構）の付属機関である「国際エネルギー機関」の統計では、2014年の北朝鮮の石油輸入は原油が53.2万キロリットル、石油精製品が31.8万キロリットルだったから、安保理が定めた原油輸出の上限は2014年の北朝鮮の輸入量より10万キロリットルも多い。
石油精製品の上限は2014年の輸入量と同じだった。米政府はメディアに「北朝鮮の石油精製品の輸入量は450万バレル（71.5万キロリットル）で、その55％の削減となる」と説明したが、2014年から16年までの間に輸入量が2倍以上に増えたとは信じ難く、トランプ流の成果の宣伝では、と疑われる。
前回10月19日の本コラムで書いたように、韓国政府は北朝鮮の核・ミサイル開発費用は 「昨年200億円以上」と推計していることを日本外務省に伝えている。
これは日本が購入中のＦ35Ａステルス戦闘機（1機146億円）の1.4機分でしかなく、北朝鮮のＧＤＰの0.6％に過ぎない。この程度の額であれば、経済制裁によって「資金源を断って核・ミサイルを廃棄させる」効果はまずないといえよう。
仮に東京の都心上空で北朝鮮の水爆（推定威力は爆薬16万トン相当）が爆発すれば、半径4キロ以内では初期放射線と爆風、熱の相乗効果でほぼ全員が死傷し、6〜7キロメートル以内でもヤケドを負うことになる。
勤務時間内なら、都心の4キロメートル圏内に400万人は居るだろう。日本の政治、行政、経済、情報の中枢は壊滅し、救援も遅れて悲惨な状況になる。米国防長官Ｊ・マティス海兵大将（退役）が「第2次大戦後最悪の惨事となる」として、外交的解決を求めるのは当然だ。
