Thread by @HeatherEHeying

@charlesarthur I don’t think the @frasureyokley paper does what you’re suggesting it does—and it certainly doesn’t do what the NYT op-ed says it did. So I have two distinct critiques: one of the NYT mischaracterization and deception, the second of the original research. 1/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley Re: the NYT mischaracterization of Frasure-Yokley’s work—I don’t know if it was intentionally misleading, sloppy, or both. But what the NYT publishes is certainly not the original researcher’s fault or responsibility. 2/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley Re: Frasure-Yokley paper: It isn’t a serious attempt to ask white women “what were you thinking?” It is a serious (I assume) attempt to find out if personal views on sexism was a better predictor of your presidential vote if you were a white woman, vs. a woman of color. 3/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley The question is a good one, and I wish that it had been written with clarity as to what the hypothesis is, and the predictions that follow from it. Here is my attempt to state her hypothesis: 4/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley White women who don’t view sexism as a particular problem in the world were more likely to support Trump than either a) white women who are concerned about sexism, or b) women of color, regardless of their feelings about sexism. 5/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley Frasure-Yokley is effectively comparing four populations:
1. White women who are ambivalent about sexism
2. White women who are not ambivalent about sexism
3. Women of color who are ambivalent about sexism
4. Women of color who are not ambivalent about sexism 6/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley And her prediction is that only the first population, white women who are ambivalent about sexism, will have preferred Trump, because they didn’t care about his sexism, and their race is already privileged in society. 7/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley The language of “intersectionality” muddles the logical waters, & is unnecessary when we already have statistical language for this: it’s multivariate. As I read it, Frasure-Yokley makes a valid point, but does so in a confusing way, & overreaches in the conclusion. 8/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley The point being (I think), that for women of color, their personal views on sexism didn’t correlate with their presidential vote, while for white women, it did. Putting aside the easy “correlation isn’t causation” critique, we are left with: 9/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley Women aren’t a monolith. We don’t all have the same concerns, biases, world views. So far, so good. However: the grievance studies that the NYT op-ed is immersed in would have us all in lockstep, going so far as to claim that women out of step are “gender traitors.” 10/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley My criticism of the NYT op-ed is unflinching: it is race- and gender- baiting agitprop. My criticism of the original research cited is far less harsh: it is unclear and verbose, but has at its heart a fairly simple and, as it turns out, testable hypothesis. 11/

@charlesarthur @frasureyokley To anyone with an actual desire to understand and better the world, to address real inequality and injustice, rather than to inflame and destroy, it should be obvious that the original research could contribute to that goal, whereas the NYT op-ed can only do the opposite. /end