... |
... |
@@ -647,440 +647,7 @@ |
647 |
647 |
|
648 |
648 |
= Dating = |
649 |
649 |
|
650 |
|
-{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace โ 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="๐ 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="๐ฌ 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 โless desirableโ** 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** โ 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="๐ 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 โ 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="๐ 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 โproblematicโ 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="๐ 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 โ exoticization, integration, or guilt projection. |
712 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
713 |
|
- |
714 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ 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: โA Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Culturedโ: 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:** *"โA Little More Ghetto, a Little Less Culturedโ: 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="๐ 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 โdominant.โ |
742 |
|
- - Across the board, **Whites who dated within their race were viewed most favorably**. |
743 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
744 |
|
- |
745 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ฌ Findings"}} |
746 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
747 |
|
- - Interracial datersโespecially those dating Black individualsโare **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 โurbanโ or โghettoโ 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="๐ 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="๐ Relevance to Subproject"}} |
776 |
|
-- Highlights how **Whites who date outside their raceโparticularly with Blacksโare 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="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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 **4โ6% 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 **โerosion of social cohesion and trustโ** as mediating factors. |
816 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
817 |
|
- |
818 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ฌ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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 Manโs 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 Manโs 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="๐ 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 โothersโ 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 โcolonial guilt.โ |
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 โWhite supremacy through porn.โ |
886 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
887 |
|
- |
888 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ฌ 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 โliberatesโ 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 **โtransgressive actsโ 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="๐ 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 โ 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** โ not just White-directed media. |
915 |
|
- - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men. |
916 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
917 |
|
- |
918 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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 oneโs own race as **โracial exclusionโ**. |
957 |
|
- - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**. |
958 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
959 |
|
- |
960 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ฌ 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 **โreinforcement of racial hierarchiesโ**. |
964 |
|
- |
965 |
|
-2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
966 |
|
- - The study suggested **White womenโs 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="๐ 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 โ **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="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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 โ Psychoanalytic essay publication* |
1016 |
|
-**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization* |
1017 |
|
- |
1018 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ 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 maleโWhite 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 womenโs 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="๐ฌ 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="๐ 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 โ 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 โnatural.โ |
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="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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"}} |
|
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"}} |
1084 |
1084 |
**Source:** *JAMA Network Open* |
1085 |
1085 |
**Date of Publication:** *2020* |
1086 |
1086 |
**Author(s):** *Ueda P, Mercer CH, Ghaznavi C, Herbenick D.* |
... |
... |
@@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ |
1616 |
1616 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1617 |
1617 |
1. Investigate **implicit bias training outcomes** in real-world institutional settings. |
1618 |
1618 |
2. Study **the ethical limits of psychological reprogramming** in DEI policies. |
1619 |
|
-3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks.ย |
|
1186 |
+3. Explore **natural ingroup preference across all races** using morally neutral frameworks. |
1620 |
1620 |
{{/expandable}} |
1621 |
1621 |
|
1622 |
1622 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1624,80 +1624,8 @@ |
1624 |
1624 |
{{/expandable}} |
1625 |
1625 |
{{/expandable}} |
1626 |
1626 |
|
1627 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1628 |
1628 |
|
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:** *Kโ12 Education, CRT, Indoctrination, Teacher Training* |
1637 |
|
- |
1638 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ 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="๐ฌ Findings"}} |
1653 |
|
-1. **Primary Observations:** |
1654 |
|
- - CSJ ideology **functions as an implicit worldview**, not a neutral teaching tool. |
1655 |
|
- - โEquityโ 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 โunlearning Whitenessโ workshops**. |
1663 |
|
- - One district mandated that teachers **โde-center White perspectivesโ** in all classroom subjects. |
1664 |
|
-{{/expandable}} |
1665 |
|
- |
1666 |
|
-{{expandable summary="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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="๐ 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"}} |
|
1195 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Segregation, Innocence, and Protection: The Institutional Conditions That Maintain Whiteness in College Sports"}} |
1701 |
1701 |
**Source:** *Journal of Diversity in Higher Education* |
1702 |
1702 |
**Date of Publication:** *2019* |
1703 |
1703 |
**Author(s):** *Kirsten Hextrum* |
... |
... |
@@ -1766,10 +1766,8 @@ |
1766 |
1766 |
{{/expandable}} |
1767 |
1767 |
{{/expandable}} |
1768 |
1768 |
|
1769 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1770 |
1770 |
|
1771 |
|
- |
1772 |
|
-Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
|
1265 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations"}} |
1773 |
1773 |
**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1774 |
1774 |
**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
1775 |
1775 |
**Author(s):** *Kelly M. Hoffman, Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, M. Norman Oliver* |
... |
... |
@@ -1825,13 +1825,13 @@ |
1825 |
1825 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Relevance to Subproject"}} |
1826 |
1826 |
- Shows how **DEI-aligned narratives exploit limited findings** to vilify White professionals. |
1827 |
1827 |
- Provides an example of a **legitimate medical education issue being repackaged as โracial bias.โ** |
1828 |
|
-- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**.ย |
|
1321 |
+- Highlights the **lack of reciprocal scrutiny** of how minorities may receive **preferential narrative framing** or **programmatic support**. |
1829 |
1829 |
{{/expandable}} |
1830 |
1830 |
|
1831 |
1831 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1832 |
1832 |
1. Study whether **DEI training reduces false beliefs** or simply **induces White guilt**. |
1833 |
1833 |
2. Investigate **biases against White rural patients**, especially regarding **opioid or pain management stigma**. |
1834 |
|
-3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**.ย |
|
1327 |
+3. Conduct **clinical outcome studies**, not self-reported vignettes, to test **real-world disparities**. |
1835 |
1835 |
{{/expandable}} |
1836 |
1836 |
|
1837 |
1837 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -1839,10 +1839,8 @@ |
1839 |
1839 |
{{/expandable}} |
1840 |
1840 |
{{/expandable}} |
1841 |
1841 |
|
1842 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
1843 |
1843 |
|
1844 |
|
- |
1845 |
|
-Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
|
1336 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Rising Morbidity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans"}} |
1846 |
1846 |
**Source:** *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)* |
1847 |
1847 |
**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
1848 |
1848 |
**Author(s):** *Anne Case, Angus Deaton* |
... |
... |
@@ -1970,7 +1970,7 @@ |
1970 |
1970 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
1971 |
1971 |
1. Study the **psychological impact of demographic displacement** on native European populations. |
1972 |
1972 |
2. Examine **rising crime and social fragmentation** in โsuperdiverseโ zones. |
1973 |
|
-3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration.ย |
|
1464 |
+3. Analyze how **housing, schooling, and local economies** are impacted by mass migration. |
1974 |
1974 |
{{/expandable}} |
1975 |
1975 |
|
1976 |
1976 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -2191,6 +2191,7 @@ |
2191 |
2191 |
Subject Matter: Advertising Trends, Racial Representation, Cultural Shifts |
2192 |
2192 |
|
2193 |
2193 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Key Statistics"}} |
|
1685 |
+ |
2194 |
2194 |
**General Observations:** |
2195 |
2195 |
|
2196 |
2196 |
Meta-analysis of 74 studies conducted between 1955 and 2020 on racial representation in advertising. |
... |
... |
@@ -2211,6 +2211,7 @@ |
2211 |
2211 |
{{/expandable}} |
2212 |
2212 |
|
2213 |
2213 |
{{expandable summary="๐ฌ Findings"}} |
|
1706 |
+ |
2214 |
2214 |
**Primary Observations:** |
2215 |
2215 |
|
2216 |
2216 |
White Americans have become increasingly receptive or favorable toward Black figures in advertising, even over timeframes of widespread cultural change. |
... |
... |
@@ -2231,6 +2231,7 @@ |
2231 |
2231 |
{{/expandable}} |
2232 |
2232 |
|
2233 |
2233 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Critique & Observations"}} |
|
1727 |
+ |
2234 |
2234 |
**Strengths of the Study:** |
2235 |
2235 |
|
2236 |
2236 |
Large-scale dataset across decades provides a clear empirical view of long-term trends. |
... |
... |
@@ -2255,6 +2255,7 @@ |
2255 |
2255 |
{{/expandable}} |
2256 |
2256 |
|
2257 |
2257 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
1752 |
+ |
2258 |
2258 |
Demonstrates how White cultural imagery has been steadily replaced or downplayed in the public sphere. |
2259 |
2259 |
|
2260 |
2260 |
Useful for showing how marketing professionals and researchers frame White displacement as โprogress.โ |
... |
... |
@@ -2263,6 +2263,7 @@ |
2263 |
2263 |
{{/expandable}} |
2264 |
2264 |
|
2265 |
2265 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
1761 |
+ |
2266 |
2266 |
Study how overrepresentation of minorities in advertising compares to actual demographics. |
2267 |
2267 |
|
2268 |
2268 |
Examine whether consumers feel represented or alienated by identity-based marketing. |
... |
... |
@@ -2336,7 +2336,7 @@ |
2336 |
2336 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
2337 |
2337 |
1. Investigate **reverse parasocial effects** โ how negative portrayals of White men affect self-perception and mental health. |
2338 |
2338 |
2. Study how **mass entertainment normalizes demographic shifts** and silences native concerns. |
2339 |
|
-3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives.ย |
|
1835 |
+3. Compare effects of **Western vs. non-Western media systems** in promoting diversity narratives. |
2340 |
2340 |
{{/expandable}} |
2341 |
2341 |
|
2342 |
2342 |
{{expandable summary="๐ Download Full Study"}} |
... |
... |
@@ -2344,10 +2344,8 @@ |
2344 |
2344 |
{{/expandable}} |
2345 |
2345 |
{{/expandable}} |
2346 |
2346 |
|
2347 |
|
-{{expandable summary=" |
2348 |
2348 |
|
2349 |
|
- |
2350 |
|
-Study: Cultural Voyeurism โ A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}} |
|
1844 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Cultural Voyeurism โ A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Interaction"}} |
2351 |
2351 |
**Source:** *Journal of Communication* |
2352 |
2352 |
**Date of Publication:** *2018* |
2353 |
2353 |
**Author(s):** *Osei Appiah* |
... |
... |
@@ -2411,3 +2411,4 @@ |
2411 |
2411 |
[[Download Full Study>>attach:Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf]] |
2412 |
2412 |
{{/expandable}} |
2413 |
2413 |
{{/expandable}} |
|
1908 |
+ |