... |
... |
@@ -647,7 +647,440 @@ |
647 |
647 |
|
648 |
648 |
= Dating = |
649 |
649 |
|
650 |
|
-{{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}} |
|
650 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}} |
|
651 |
+**Source:** *Social Forces* |
|
652 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
|
653 |
+**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass* |
|
654 |
+**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"* |
|
655 |
+**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007) |
|
656 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior* |
|
657 |
+ |
|
658 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
659 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
660 |
+ - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site. |
|
661 |
+ - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**. |
|
662 |
+ |
|
663 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
664 |
+ - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts. |
|
665 |
+ - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**. |
|
666 |
+ |
|
667 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
668 |
+ - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings. |
|
669 |
+ - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**. |
|
670 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
671 |
+ |
|
672 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
673 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
674 |
+ - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities. |
|
675 |
+ - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**. |
|
676 |
+ |
|
677 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
678 |
+ - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men. |
|
679 |
+ - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**. |
|
680 |
+ |
|
681 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
682 |
+ - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way. |
|
683 |
+ - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized. |
|
684 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
685 |
+ |
|
686 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
687 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
688 |
+ - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**. |
|
689 |
+ - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**. |
|
690 |
+ |
|
691 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
692 |
+ - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning. |
|
693 |
+ - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism. |
|
694 |
+ - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups. |
|
695 |
+ |
|
696 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
697 |
+ - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it. |
|
698 |
+ - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds. |
|
699 |
+ - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating. |
|
700 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
701 |
+ |
|
702 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
703 |
+- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating. |
|
704 |
+- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**. |
|
705 |
+- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**. |
|
706 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
707 |
+ |
|
708 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
709 |
+1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection. |
|
710 |
+2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**. |
|
711 |
+3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection. |
|
712 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
713 |
+ |
|
714 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
715 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]] |
|
716 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
717 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
718 |
+ |
|
719 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
720 |
+ |
|
721 |
+ |
|
722 |
+Study: “A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"}} |
|
723 |
+**Source:** *Sociology of Race and Ethnicity* |
|
724 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
|
725 |
+**Author(s):** *Andrew R. Flores and Ariela Schachter* |
|
726 |
+**Title:** *"“A Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Cultured”: Are There Racial Stereotypes about Interracial Daters?"* |
|
727 |
+**DOI:** [10.1177/2332649219871232](https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649219871232) |
|
728 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Interracial Dating, Racial Stereotyping, Online Behavior* |
|
729 |
+ |
|
730 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
731 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
732 |
+ - Used **experimental survey data** from a nationally representative sample (N = 1,070). |
|
733 |
+ - Participants evaluated hypothetical dating profiles of White individuals who expressed interest in Black, Latino, or Asian partners. |
|
734 |
+ |
|
735 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
736 |
+ - **White men interested in Black women** were rated as **less cultured, more aggressive, and lower class**. |
|
737 |
+ - White women interested in Black men were **viewed as less intelligent and more promiscuous**. |
|
738 |
+ - **Interest in Asian partners** did not carry the same negative stereotypes; in some cases, it improved perceived desirability. |
|
739 |
+ |
|
740 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
741 |
+ - **Latino partners** were seen more neutrally, though men who dated them were seen as more “dominant.” |
|
742 |
+ - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**. |
|
743 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
744 |
+ |
|
745 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
746 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
747 |
+ - Interracial daters—especially those dating Black individuals—are **subject to negative assumptions** about intelligence, class, and morality. |
|
748 |
+ - Stereotypes persist even in **hypothetical online contexts**, showing deep cultural associations. |
|
749 |
+ |
|
750 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
751 |
+ - White men who prefer Black women face **masculinity-linked stigma**, often tied to “urban” or “ghetto” tropes. |
|
752 |
+ - White women dating Black men are **framed as sexually deviant or socially undesirable**, particularly by other Whites. |
|
753 |
+ |
|
754 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
755 |
+ - The most negatively perceived pairing was **White woman/Black man**, reinforcing long-standing cultural anxieties. |
|
756 |
+ - Respondents judged interracial daters not just by race but by **projected cultural assimilation or rejection**. |
|
757 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
758 |
+ |
|
759 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
760 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
761 |
+ - Reveals **latent racial boundaries** in contemporary dating preferences. |
|
762 |
+ - Uses **controlled experimental design** to expose socially unacceptable but real biases. |
|
763 |
+ |
|
764 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
765 |
+ - Relies on **self-reported reactions to profiles**, not real-world dating behavior. |
|
766 |
+ - **Fails to analyze anti-White framing** in the assumptions about White participants who prefer other races. |
|
767 |
+ - Assumes stigma is irrational without investigating **rational in-group preference or cultural concerns**. |
|
768 |
+ |
|
769 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
770 |
+ - Include **reverse scenarios** (e.g., Black or Latino individuals expressing preference for Whites). |
|
771 |
+ - Examine how **media portrayal of interracial couples** influences perception and desirability. |
|
772 |
+ - Account for **class and education overlaps** that could explain perceived traits. |
|
773 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
774 |
+ |
|
775 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
776 |
+- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their race—particularly with Blacks—are pathologized**, even within their own community. |
|
777 |
+- Shows that **Whiteness is penalized** when paired with non-Whiteness, reinforcing social costs for racial mixing. |
|
778 |
+- Useful for understanding **how stigma around interracial relationships is unevenly applied**, with anti-White moral overtones. |
|
779 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
780 |
+ |
|
781 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
782 |
+1. Study how **in-group dating preferences differ across races** and are morally interpreted. |
|
783 |
+2. Investigate how **class and education** affect perceptions of interracial relationships. |
|
784 |
+3. Examine whether **Whites are disproportionately judged** when deviating from group norms vs. other races. |
|
785 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
786 |
+ |
|
787 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
788 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1177_2332649219871232.pdf]] |
|
789 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
790 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
791 |
+ |
|
792 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
793 |
+ |
|
794 |
+ |
|
795 |
+Study: E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"}} |
|
796 |
+**Source:** *National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)* |
|
797 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2024* |
|
798 |
+**Author(s):** *Umit Gurun, Daniel Solomon* |
|
799 |
+**Title:** *"E Pluribus, Pauciores (Out of Many, Fewer): Diversity and Birth Rates"* |
|
800 |
+**DOI:** [10.3386/w31978](https://doi.org/10.3386/w31978) |
|
801 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Demography, Social Cohesion, Diversity Effects on Fertility* |
|
802 |
+ |
|
803 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
804 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
805 |
+ - Used large-scale demographic, economic, and census data across **1,800+ U.S. counties**. |
|
806 |
+ - Found a **strong negative correlation between local diversity and White fertility rates**. |
|
807 |
+ - Quantified impact: a 1 SD increase in ethnic diversity leads to a **4–6% drop in birth rates**. |
|
808 |
+ |
|
809 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
810 |
+ - Decline most pronounced among **non-Hispanic Whites**, especially in suburban and semi-urban areas. |
|
811 |
+ - **No significant birth rate drop observed among Hispanic or Black populations** under the same conditions. |
|
812 |
+ |
|
813 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
814 |
+ - Diversity increases linked to **reduced marriage rates**, especially among Whites. |
|
815 |
+ - Authors suggest **“erosion of social cohesion and trust”** as mediating factors. |
|
816 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
817 |
+ |
|
818 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
819 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
820 |
+ - Ethnic diversity significantly **reduces total fertility rates**, independent of economic or educational variables. |
|
821 |
+ - **Social fragmentation** and perceived dissimilarity drive fertility suppression. |
|
822 |
+ |
|
823 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
824 |
+ - White populations respond to diversity with lower family formation. |
|
825 |
+ - **Cultural distance** and loss of shared norms are possible causes. |
|
826 |
+ |
|
827 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
828 |
+ - High-diversity metro areas saw steepest declines in White birth rates over the past two decades. |
|
829 |
+ - Study challenges mainstream assumptions that diversity has neutral or positive demographic effects. |
|
830 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
831 |
+ |
|
832 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
833 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
834 |
+ - Offers **quantitative backing for claims long treated as taboo** in public discourse. |
|
835 |
+ - Applies **robust statistical methods** and cross-validates with multiple data sources. |
|
836 |
+ |
|
837 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
838 |
+ - Avoids discussing **racial preference, ethnic tension, or cultural conflict** explicitly. |
|
839 |
+ - Authors stop short of acknowledging **the demographic replacement implication** of sustained low White fertility. |
|
840 |
+ |
|
841 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
842 |
+ - Include **qualitative data on reasons for delayed or avoided parenthood** among Whites in diverse areas. |
|
843 |
+ - Examine **media messaging and policy environments** that could accelerate these trends. |
|
844 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
845 |
+ |
|
846 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
847 |
+- Confirms a **central premise** of the White demographic decline thesis. |
|
848 |
+- Demonstrates that **diversity is not neutral** but **functionally suppressive to White reproduction**. |
|
849 |
+- Offers solid **empirical support against the utopian assumptions** of multiculturalism. |
|
850 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
851 |
+ |
|
852 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
853 |
+1. Examine **fertility effects of diversity in European countries** experiencing immigration-driven change. |
|
854 |
+2. Study **how school demographics and crime perception** affect reproductive decision-making. |
|
855 |
+3. Explore **policy frameworks that support demographic stability for founding populations**. |
|
856 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
857 |
+ |
|
858 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
859 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:12.Gurun_Solomon_Diversity_BirthRates.pdf]] |
|
860 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
861 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
862 |
+ |
|
863 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
864 |
+ |
|
865 |
+ |
|
866 |
+Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}} |
|
867 |
+**Source:** *Porn Studies* |
|
868 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
|
869 |
+**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika* |
|
870 |
+**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"* |
|
871 |
+**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389) |
|
872 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique* |
|
873 |
+ |
|
874 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
875 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
876 |
+ - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women. |
|
877 |
+ - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality. |
|
878 |
+ |
|
879 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
880 |
+ - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**. |
|
881 |
+ - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.” |
|
882 |
+ |
|
883 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
884 |
+ - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue. |
|
885 |
+ - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.” |
|
886 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
887 |
+ |
|
888 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
889 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
890 |
+ - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity. |
|
891 |
+ - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men. |
|
892 |
+ |
|
893 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
894 |
+ - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism. |
|
895 |
+ - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**. |
|
896 |
+ |
|
897 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
898 |
+ - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification. |
|
899 |
+ - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics. |
|
900 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
901 |
+ |
|
902 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
903 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
904 |
+ - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds. |
|
905 |
+ - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia. |
|
906 |
+ |
|
907 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
908 |
+ - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media. |
|
909 |
+ - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison. |
|
910 |
+ - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard. |
|
911 |
+ |
|
912 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
913 |
+ - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres. |
|
914 |
+ - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media. |
|
915 |
+ - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men. |
|
916 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
917 |
+ |
|
918 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
919 |
+- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment. |
|
920 |
+- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity. |
|
921 |
+- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**. |
|
922 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
923 |
+ |
|
924 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
925 |
+1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**. |
|
926 |
+2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**. |
|
927 |
+3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men. |
|
928 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
929 |
+ |
|
930 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
931 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]] |
|
932 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
933 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
934 |
+ |
|
935 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
936 |
+ |
|
937 |
+ |
|
938 |
+Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}} |
|
939 |
+**Source:** *Social Science Research* |
|
940 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
|
941 |
+**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie* |
|
942 |
+**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"* |
|
943 |
+**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004) |
|
944 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy* |
|
945 |
+ |
|
946 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
947 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
948 |
+ - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California. |
|
949 |
+ - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles. |
|
950 |
+ |
|
951 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
952 |
+ - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men. |
|
953 |
+ - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women. |
|
954 |
+ |
|
955 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
956 |
+ - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**. |
|
957 |
+ - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**. |
|
958 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
959 |
+ |
|
960 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
961 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
962 |
+ - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context. |
|
963 |
+ - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**. |
|
964 |
+ |
|
965 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
966 |
+ - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping. |
|
967 |
+ - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race. |
|
968 |
+ |
|
969 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
970 |
+ - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary. |
|
971 |
+ - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.** |
|
972 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
973 |
+ |
|
974 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
975 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
976 |
+ - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles. |
|
977 |
+ - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**. |
|
978 |
+ |
|
979 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
980 |
+ - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users. |
|
981 |
+ - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.** |
|
982 |
+ - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.** |
|
983 |
+ |
|
984 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
985 |
+ - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**. |
|
986 |
+ - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**. |
|
987 |
+ - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites. |
|
988 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
989 |
+ |
|
990 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
991 |
+- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**. |
|
992 |
+- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized. |
|
993 |
+- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites. |
|
994 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
995 |
+ |
|
996 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
997 |
+1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race. |
|
998 |
+2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism. |
|
999 |
+3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites. |
|
1000 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1001 |
+ |
|
1002 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1003 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]] |
|
1004 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1005 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1006 |
+ |
|
1007 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
1008 |
+ |
|
1009 |
+ |
|
1010 |
+Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}} |
|
1011 |
+**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis* |
|
1012 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
|
1013 |
+**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*)) |
|
1014 |
+**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"* |
|
1015 |
+**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication* |
|
1016 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization* |
|
1017 |
+ |
|
1018 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
1019 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
1020 |
+ - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study. |
|
1021 |
+ - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex. |
|
1022 |
+ - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization. |
|
1023 |
+ |
|
1024 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1025 |
+ - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men. |
|
1026 |
+ - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order. |
|
1027 |
+ |
|
1028 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1029 |
+ - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture. |
|
1030 |
+ - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative. |
|
1031 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1032 |
+ |
|
1033 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
1034 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
1035 |
+ - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**. |
|
1036 |
+ - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness. |
|
1037 |
+ |
|
1038 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
1039 |
+ - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism. |
|
1040 |
+ - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism. |
|
1041 |
+ |
|
1042 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
1043 |
+ - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression. |
|
1044 |
+ - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**. |
|
1045 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1046 |
+ |
|
1047 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1048 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1049 |
+ - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon. |
|
1050 |
+ - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory. |
|
1051 |
+ |
|
1052 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1053 |
+ - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative. |
|
1054 |
+ - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish. |
|
1055 |
+ - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.” |
|
1056 |
+ |
|
1057 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1058 |
+ - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being. |
|
1059 |
+ - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**. |
|
1060 |
+ - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism. |
|
1061 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1062 |
+ |
|
1063 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1064 |
+- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**. |
|
1065 |
+- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**. |
|
1066 |
+- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance. |
|
1067 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1068 |
+ |
|
1069 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1070 |
+1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**. |
|
1071 |
+2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men. |
|
1072 |
+3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**. |
|
1073 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1074 |
+ |
|
1075 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1076 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]] |
|
1077 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1078 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1079 |
+ |
|
1080 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
1081 |
+ |
|
1082 |
+ |
|
1083 |
+Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}} |
651 |
651 |
**Source:** *JAMA Network Open* |
652 |
652 |
**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
653 |
653 |
**Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.* |
... |
... |
@@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ |
1183 |
1183 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1184 |
1184 |
1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings. |
1185 |
1185 |
2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies. |
1186 |
|
-3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. |
|
1619 |
+3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. |
1187 |
1187 |
{{/expandable}} |
1188 |
1188 |
|
1189 |
1189 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1191,8 +1191,80 @@ |
1191 |
1191 |
{{/expandable}} |
1192 |
1192 |
{{/expandable}} |
1193 |
1193 |
|
|
1627 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
1194 |
1194 |
|
1195 |
|
-{{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} |
|
1629 |
+ |
|
1630 |
+Study: School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"}} |
|
1631 |
+**Source:** *Social Science Research Network (SSRN)* |
|
1632 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
|
1633 |
+**Author(s):** *Eric Kaufmann, David Goldberg* |
|
1634 |
+**Title:** *"School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education"* |
|
1635 |
+**DOI:** [10.2139/ssrn.3730517](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3730517) |
|
1636 |
+**Subject Matter:** *K–12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training* |
|
1637 |
+ |
|
1638 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
1639 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
1640 |
+ - Surveyed **over 800 educators** and analyzed **curricula, training materials, and administrator communications**. |
|
1641 |
+ - Found that **CSJ ideology is deeply embedded in public school systems**, including charter and magnet schools. |
|
1642 |
+ |
|
1643 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
1644 |
+ - Teachers reported being trained to believe **Whiteness = privilege + harm**, not just historical context. |
|
1645 |
+ - Administrators disproportionately **disciplined or suppressed dissenting White teachers or parents**. |
|
1646 |
+ |
|
1647 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
1648 |
+ - **Majority of educators fear retribution** if they question CSJ orthodoxy. |
|
1649 |
+ - **Curriculum mandates racial self-critique** primarily for White students, often starting in elementary grades. |
|
1650 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1651 |
+ |
|
1652 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
1653 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
1654 |
+ - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool. |
|
1655 |
+ - “Equity” in practice means **dismantling of perceived White dominance**, often through emotional manipulation of students. |
|
1656 |
+ |
|
1657 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
1658 |
+ - White students and teachers report **feeling targeted or dehumanized** in diversity sessions. |
|
1659 |
+ - Minority students were often **placed in victim-centric identity frameworks**, reinforcing grievance politics. |
|
1660 |
+ |
|
1661 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
1662 |
+ - In several documented districts, **student activities included “unlearning Whiteness” workshops**. |
|
1663 |
+ - One district mandated that teachers **“de-center White perspectives”** in all classroom subjects. |
|
1664 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1665 |
+ |
|
1666 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1667 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
1668 |
+ - One of the few empirical studies documenting **systemic ideological bias in education**. |
|
1669 |
+ - Strong evidentiary base drawn from **firsthand educator testimony** and training materials. |
|
1670 |
+ |
|
1671 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
1672 |
+ - Study is based on **self-reported perceptions**, though many are substantiated with examples. |
|
1673 |
+ - Focus is primarily U.S.-centric; international parallels not explored. |
|
1674 |
+ |
|
1675 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
1676 |
+ - Future studies could **quantify the academic and emotional impact** on White students. |
|
1677 |
+ - Comparative analysis with **non-CSJ schools** (e.g., classical models) would clarify causal impact. |
|
1678 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1679 |
+ |
|
1680 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1681 |
+- Documents how **CRT-aligned ideology disproportionately targets White students and teachers**. |
|
1682 |
+- Confirms that **school choice fails to protect against ideological indoctrination** when CSJ is systemic. |
|
1683 |
+- Supports the need for **explicitly anti-indoctrination educational frameworks** grounded in neutrality and merit. |
|
1684 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1685 |
+ |
|
1686 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1687 |
+1. Investigate **legal protections for students against compelled ideological speech**. |
|
1688 |
+2. Study **alternatives to CSJ pedagogy**, such as classical liberal education or civic humanism. |
|
1689 |
+3. Examine **psychological outcomes** of guilt-based racial framing among White children. |
|
1690 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1691 |
+ |
|
1692 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
1693 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:11.Goldberg_Kaufmann_CSJ_Education_Impact.pdf]] |
|
1694 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1695 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
1696 |
+ |
|
1697 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
1698 |
+ |
|
1699 |
+ |
|
1700 |
+Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} |
1196 |
1196 |
**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* |
1197 |
1197 |
**Date of Publication:** *2019* |
1198 |
1198 |
**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum* |
... |
... |
@@ -1261,8 +1261,10 @@ |
1261 |
1261 |
{{/expandable}} |
1262 |
1262 |
{{/expandable}} |
1263 |
1263 |
|
|
1769 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
1264 |
1264 |
|
1265 |
|
-{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
|
1771 |
+ |
|
1772 |
+Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
1266 |
1266 |
**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1267 |
1267 |
**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
1268 |
1268 |
**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver* |
... |
... |
@@ -1318,13 +1318,13 @@ |
1318 |
1318 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1319 |
1319 |
- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals. |
1320 |
1320 |
- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as “racial bias.”** |
1321 |
|
-- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. |
|
1828 |
+- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. |
1322 |
1322 |
{{/expandable}} |
1323 |
1323 |
|
1324 |
1324 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1325 |
1325 |
1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**. |
1326 |
1326 |
2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**. |
1327 |
|
-3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. |
|
1834 |
+3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. |
1328 |
1328 |
{{/expandable}} |
1329 |
1329 |
|
1330 |
1330 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1332,8 +1332,10 @@ |
1332 |
1332 |
{{/expandable}} |
1333 |
1333 |
{{/expandable}} |
1334 |
1334 |
|
|
1842 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
1335 |
1335 |
|
1336 |
|
-{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
|
1844 |
+ |
|
1845 |
+Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
1337 |
1337 |
**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1338 |
1338 |
**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
1339 |
1339 |
**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton* |
... |
... |
@@ -1461,7 +1461,7 @@ |
1461 |
1461 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1462 |
1462 |
1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations. |
1463 |
1463 |
2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in “superdiverse” zones. |
1464 |
|
-3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. |
|
1973 |
+3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. |
1465 |
1465 |
{{/expandable}} |
1466 |
1466 |
|
1467 |
1467 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1682,7 +1682,6 @@ |
1682 |
1682 |
Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts |
1683 |
1683 |
|
1684 |
1684 |
{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
1685 |
|
- |
1686 |
1686 |
**General Observations:** |
1687 |
1687 |
|
1688 |
1688 |
Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising. |
... |
... |
@@ -1703,7 +1703,6 @@ |
1703 |
1703 |
{{/expandable}} |
1704 |
1704 |
|
1705 |
1705 |
{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
1706 |
|
- |
1707 |
1707 |
**Primary Observations:** |
1708 |
1708 |
|
1709 |
1709 |
White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change. |
... |
... |
@@ -1724,7 +1724,6 @@ |
1724 |
1724 |
{{/expandable}} |
1725 |
1725 |
|
1726 |
1726 |
{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
1727 |
|
- |
1728 |
1728 |
**Strengths of the Study:** |
1729 |
1729 |
|
1730 |
1730 |
Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends. |
... |
... |
@@ -1749,7 +1749,6 @@ |
1749 |
1749 |
{{/expandable}} |
1750 |
1750 |
|
1751 |
1751 |
{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1752 |
|
- |
1753 |
1753 |
Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere. |
1754 |
1754 |
|
1755 |
1755 |
Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as “progress.” |
... |
... |
@@ -1758,7 +1758,6 @@ |
1758 |
1758 |
{{/expandable}} |
1759 |
1759 |
|
1760 |
1760 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1761 |
|
- |
1762 |
1762 |
Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics. |
1763 |
1763 |
|
1764 |
1764 |
Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing. |
... |
... |
@@ -1832,7 +1832,7 @@ |
1832 |
1832 |
{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1833 |
1833 |
1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** — how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health. |
1834 |
1834 |
2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns. |
1835 |
|
-3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. |
|
2339 |
+3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. |
1836 |
1836 |
{{/expandable}} |
1837 |
1837 |
|
1838 |
1838 |
{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1840,3 +1840,70 @@ |
1840 |
1840 |
{{/expandable}} |
1841 |
1841 |
{{/expandable}} |
1842 |
1842 |
|
|
2347 |
+{{expandable summary=" |
|
2348 |
+ |
|
2349 |
+ |
|
2350 |
+Study: Cultural Voyeurism – A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}} |
|
2351 |
+**Source:** *Journal of Communication* |
|
2352 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2018* |
|
2353 |
+**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah* |
|
2354 |
+**Title:** *"Cultural Voyeurism: A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"* |
|
2355 |
+**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021) |
|
2356 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Intergroup contact, racial stereotypes, media, identity formation* |
|
2357 |
+ |
|
2358 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
2359 |
+1. **No empirical dataset** — this is a theoretical framework paper, not a quantitative study. |
|
2360 |
+2. **Heavily cites prior empirical work**, including: |
|
2361 |
+ - Czopp & Monteith (2006) on “complimentary stereotypes” |
|
2362 |
+ - Armstrong et al. (1992), Entman & Rojecki (2000) on media distortion of race |
|
2363 |
+ - Pettigrew et al. (2011) on intergroup contact |
|
2364 |
+ |
|
2365 |
+3. **Statistical implications:** Repeatedly emphasizes the role of media in shaping racial beliefs when direct interracial contact is absent. |
|
2366 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2367 |
+ |
|
2368 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
2369 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
2370 |
+ - Defines *cultural voyeurism* as the process of using media to observe and learn about other racial/ethnic groups. |
|
2371 |
+ - Claims it can both reinforce stereotypes and reduce prejudice depending on context. |
|
2372 |
+ - Suggests that Whites’ fascination with Black culture (e.g., hip-hop, athleticism) is a driver of empathy and improved race relations. |
|
2373 |
+ |
|
2374 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
2375 |
+ - White youth are singled out as cultural voyeurs increasingly emulating Black identity for social cachet (“coolness”). |
|
2376 |
+ - Positive media portrayals of Blacks (e.g., in entertainment) said to reduce racial bias. |
|
2377 |
+ |
|
2378 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
2379 |
+ - No case study provided, but mentions “Duck Dynasty” and “hip-hop culture” as stereotyped White/Black identity constructs respectively. |
|
2380 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2381 |
+ |
|
2382 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
2383 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
2384 |
+ - Recognizes media’s dual role in shaping intergroup perception. |
|
2385 |
+ - Accurately captures the obsession with racial “coolness” as a social phenomenon. |
|
2386 |
+ |
|
2387 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
2388 |
+ - Frames White identification with Black culture as inherently progressive, ignoring issues of **anti-White displacement**. |
|
2389 |
+ - Treats *positive stereotypes of minorities* (e.g., athleticism, musicality) as meaningful substitutes for structural reality. |
|
2390 |
+ - Lacks any meaningful inquiry into *reverse cultural voyeurism* (i.e., non-Whites voyeuristically consuming and appropriating White identity or values). |
|
2391 |
+ |
|
2392 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
2393 |
+ - Should confront whether “cultural voyeurism” ultimately erodes group boundaries and majority cultural integrity. |
|
2394 |
+ - Needs empirical validation of claims. |
|
2395 |
+ - Avoids uncomfortable realities about how White identity is increasingly stigmatized in media — which undermines genuine empathy or parity. |
|
2396 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2397 |
+ |
|
2398 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
2399 |
+- Helps explain how **media conditioning** primes young Whites to *admire, emulate, and eventually submit* to Black cultural dominance. |
|
2400 |
+- Directly supports the narrative that **pro-White identity is systematically delegitimized**, while pro-Black identity is commodified and glamorized — then sold back to White youth. |
|
2401 |
+- Useful in chapters/sections covering cultural appropriation *in reverse* — not by Whites, but **of Whiteness** by outsiders for critique and exploitation. |
|
2402 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2403 |
+ |
|
2404 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
2405 |
+1. Are there longitudinal studies showing cultural voyeurism weakening in-group preference among Whites? |
|
2406 |
+2. Does this phenomenon correspond to decreased fertility, civic participation, or political alignment with group interest? |
|
2407 |
+3. How do non-Western societies handle voyeuristic consumption of majority culture — do they permit or punish it? |
|
2408 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2409 |
+ |
|
2410 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
2411 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]] |
|
2412 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
2413 |
+{{/expandable}} |