• News

Women Who Go Into The Workforce Are Ugly, According To Rush Limbaugh’s Wildly Inaccurate Twisting Of Study

On Marrying Up
Let's be realistic about the finances it takes to raise a family. Read More »
Worst Jobs Ever
What was the worst job you've ever had? Read More »
Limbaugh's Insult
rush limbaugh photo
The conservative host calls Sandra Fluke a "slut." Read More »
woman working photo

I’m fairly certain that Rush Limbaugh could take Goodnight, Moon and twist it into a tale of shrill harpies hellbent on John Bobbitt-ing the male species and strangling newborn babies with their long, flowing strands of armpit hair.

That is the only explanation for his wildly inaccurate (and, it should go without saying, wildly sexist) April 16 interpretation of a study published this month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. According to Rush, the study concluded “the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.” (He also wondered, “Is this the real reason liberal women insist on working?”)

According to the actual study … not so much.

It’s the UK newspaper the Daily Mail‘s fault as well, for twisting the study in the first place: a study on whether areas with a scarcity of men affect a woman’s career choice and time she starts a family somehow turned into a piece bombastically titled “Do girls only want a career because they can’t attract a man?” The article claimed:

Forget ambition, financial security and that first-class degree. A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.

What the study really said? Uh, not that. I will implore you to read the media watchdog group Media Matters’ very thorough analysis of this study and the subsequent complete distortion by the Daily Mail and Rush Limbaugh. But, to summarize, the study examined how women in areas where there aren’t a lot of men pursue careers. They found women “seek lucrative careers because of the difficulty women have in finding an investing, long-term mate under such circumstances.”

In other words:  if you don’t think it’s likely you’ll have a life partner and/or someone to share in the breadwinning, you’re likely going to seek out a job that pays better. Yeah, no duh.

The attractiveness aspect that Rush Limbaugh seized upon and distorted refers to one experiment (one of four, in fact) performed by the study’s authors. It asked participants to rate their “self-perceived mate value” — i.e. what you have to offer — and found that women who rated their “mate value” low were more motivated to have careers over families.

Of course, there are many, many, many factors to take into consideration when discussing “self-perceived mate value” and although physical attractiveness is one of them, it is not the only one, nor was it the main one examined in this study.  Physical attractiveness is just what the Daily Mail inferred and what Limbaugh seized upon. But I would assume other factors like education level, spiritual/ethnic background, physical health, and mental health just aren’t “sexy” enough topics.

[Media Matters For America
[Daily Mail UK]

Contact the author of this post at Jessica@TheFrisky.com. Follow me on Twitter at @JessicaWakeman.

Posted Under: , , , , , , ,
  • Zergnet: Simply Irresistible

  • HowAboutWe

  • Popular