sexism | Amplifying the voice, presence, and influence of non-religious women

2015-06-202015-06-20 Jadehawk Jadehawk's Blog

White Chivalric Phallacy

[content note: discussion of violent hate crimes, e.g. lynching; quoting white supremacist killers]

On June 17th, a white supremacist murdered 9 black people at a historical black church in Charleston, NC. A survivor of the massacre reported that the killer told the church: “I have to do it. You’re raping our women and taking over the country.”^[1]

So, first of all, let me make it absolutely clear that I categorically repudiate this use of my body as a justification for racist violence. I am hereby publicly stating my rejection of the spurious and racist “protection” from people who are no harm to me, by people who are much more likely to be a danger to my bodily integrity. And I urge white women everywhere to take that very same public stand.

But, as stated in what I believe is the facebook post that started the #NotInMyName / #NotInOurNames hashtags^[2], the public rejection of this argument can only be a beginning. We white women need to talk about this; we need to talk about the fact that “raping our women” has been a tool of white, colonialist patriarchy for a very long time^[3]. The racial and sexual “purity” of white women, the chivalric protector-role of white men, and the imagined animalistic aggressiveness of non-white men together constitute an important framework for the hierarchies of white patriarchy. When these hierarchies are threatened, anti-black violence in white woman’s name becomes the means to re-establishing them:

Lynching for rape upheld white privilege and underpinned the objectified figure of white women defined as “ours” and protected by “us” from “them” (Fraiman 1994, 73). These beliefs formed what Fraiman (73) calls the white chivalric phallacy: preservation of what masculine supremacy was refigured as protection of white females for white males. […] In this view, interracial sexuality destroyed what it meant to be a man because white masculinity was inextricably linked to race: To be a man was to be a white man who had sole access to, and the duty to protect white women. The lynching and castrating of African American men, founded on the protection of white women, was central to securing white male power and identity and, thereby, reconstructing a hierarchical masculine difference between white and African American men. ^[4]

Meanwhile in Europe, the same sentiment appears additionally as anti-immigrant xenophobia and islamophobia. Anders Breivik, the man who killed 77 people in Norway in 2011, was a white supremacist. Part of the extensive copypasta that is his manifesto dealt with the notion of an epidemic of Muslim immigrants raping white women:

The incidence of rapes carried out by Muslim men in Norway against non-Muslim women is many times higher than rapes by non-Muslim men. The rape frequency in e g Oslo per capita is said to more than five times higher than in New York City. And two thirds of these rapes are committed by immigrants even though they still constitute a rather small part of society.
In Brussels, Belgium, gangs of Muslim immigrants harass the natives on a daily basis. We have had several recent cases where native girls have been gang raped by immigrants in the heart of the EU capital. ^[5]

And let me repeat that this “white chivalric phallacy” is inherent to white colonialist patriarchy. It’s not just fringe elements and “lone wolf” mass murderers; it’s not just something from the history books of Reconstruction in the US. It is found ubiquitously, with not even much of an effort to hide it via dogwhistles. To use one example from the secular/atheist/skeptic community: Pat Condell, a YouTube personality once heartily endorsed by e.g. Richard Dawkins and still disturbingly popular in some atheist/skeptic spaces was one of the voices popularizing the meme of Sweden as the new “rape capital of Europe”^[6] far and wide enough that it can still be commonly found in atheist discussions on any vaguely related topics. Similarly, the effects of this white chivalric phallacy are everywhere: George Zimmerman not being convicted of murder^[7]; misogynoir and the tolerance of violence against black women^[8][9]; the entitlement-and-hate aspect of a lot of MRA/PUA toxicity^[10], violence targeted at white women who’d date an “inferior, ugly black boy” over someone like Elliot Rodger who is, after all, “descended from British aristocracy”^[11]; et cetera. Silence in the face of all this will let it continue. We need to have an ongoing conversation about how to destroy the white chivalric phallacy instead of being its acquiescent tool.

TL;DR: this was a white patriarchal mass murder. It was textbook “white chivalric phallacy”. White women have a responsibility to stand up and refuse to be used like that; not just as individuals rejecting such violence being done in our names, but as a social class rejecting, uncovering and ultimately deconstructing the systemic role in the oppression of men and women of color assigned to us by white patriarchy. That is solidarity; that is intersectional feminism. Let us not be silent and remain complicit with white patriarchy on this.

– – –

[1]http://www.nbcnews.com/video/church-gunman-reportedly-said-i-have-to-do-it-467402819802

[2]https://www.facebook.com/chelseypenny/posts/10152946111175642

[3]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/06/the_deadly_history_of_they_re_raping_our_women_racists_have_long_defended.html

[4]https://books.google.com/books?id=Ehf_uO7cMfMC&pg=PA89

[5]https://politicalaspects.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/accepting-immigrant-rape/

[6]http://socialistunity.com/the-unacceptable-face-of-secularism/

[7]http://mic.com/articles/55035/what-juror-b37-s-comments-reveal-about-white-womanhood

[8]https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/misogynoir-sexism-and-racism-in-the-lives-of-black-women/

[9]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/18/charleston-shooter-black-women-white-women-rape

[10]http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/05/21/white-supremacists-are-convinced-that-a-nickelodeon-show-about-a-girl-quarterback-is-promoting-race-cuckoldry

[11]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/racism-played-role-elliot-rodger-murder-spree-experts-article-1.1806390

2014-09-132015-04-17 Iris Vander Pluym Iris Vander Pluym's Blog, salon

Richard Dawkins, hysterical dumbass.

[CONTENT NOTE: misogyny; harassment; rape; rape apologia.]

Richard Dawkins has been keeping himself very busy indeed during his stay as an involuntary organ donor in the Palace Abattoir. In response to a widely-read piece by Mark Oppenheimer about misogyny in the atheoskeptisphere, he has bravely taken to Twitter to defend his BFF Michael Shermer, the notorious subject of multiple accusations of predatory sexual behavior toward women. Shermer’s MO, as described in the Oppenheimer piece by TAM staffer Alison Smith, shares most of the typical hallmarks of an overwhelming number of rapists-at-large: boundary testing; planning assaults using sophisticated strategies to isolate victims; deploying psychological manipulation, e.g., power, control; and last but certainly not least, using alcohol deliberately in order to render targets more vulnerable if not outright unconscious. They calculate, quite correctly it turns out, that this particular modus operandi puts them at miniscule risk of ever being accused—let alone reported, investigated, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed. Regardless of whether you believe Smith’s or other women’s accounts regarding Shermer, these are just facts, and this is how rape culture works in the real world.

But not in Dawkinsland, it doesn’t. Nope! Yesterday, in defense of Michael Shermer the Infallible King of Reason tweeted:

Officer, it’s not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, somebody got me drunk.” –Richard Dawkins

Astute readers will note that this is Richard Dawkins taking Smith’s allegations as true, knowing that by all accounts (including his own) Shermer was sober during the alleged incident, and then oh-so-very-cleverly sneering that she is responsible—by likening an alleged rape victim to a drunk driver.

Here’s Stephanie Zvan with a nice fisk:

He doesn’t appear to believe Shermer’s story, which is that Shermer had sex with Smith after she sobered up. Dawkins took Smith’s story as read, although he isolated it from Ashley’s story and Pamela’s.

Then he ignored the parts of that story that make Smith’s lack of consent and Shermer’s knowledge of it clear. He ignored that Shermer followed Smith away from the party. He ignored the promise to help Smith back to her room, only to end up in Shermer’s. Instead, he grasped the fact that Smith was drunk to the point of not remembering parts of the evening and used that to assign responsibility to her. He claimed Smith was responsible for the encounter despite the one fact that both parties agree on being that Shermer was sober.

He believed her story, not Shermer’s.

He believed she was intoxicated.

He knew Shermer was not, from all sources of information.

He believed Shermer deceived her in the process of getting her past the point of being able to consent.

Then he tweeted that she was responsible for the encounter.

Then he compared Shermer following Smith away from the party to Smith driving drunk.

Then he compared Shermer taking Smith to a different room than promised to Smith driving drunk.

Then he compared Shermer sexually assaulting Smith to Smith driving drunk.

I’ma say this once more for the cheap seats:

THE ONLY THING A RAPE VICTIM HAS DONE “WRONG” IS TO FIND HERSELF (OR HIMSELF) IN THE PRESENCE OF A RAPIST.

Fortunately, the vast majority of men do not rape. But those who do can always rely on victim-blaming shitweasels like Richard Dawkins to provide comfort and cover, so they can continue to operate unimpeded.

Then the Lord of All Logic tweeted this:

The REAL Rape Culture: “All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is certified evidence to the contrary.” –Richard Dawkins

No, my precious little cupcake: All occurrences of sexual intercourse are rape unless there is consent. This is really not difficult for most people to grok. And I find it… ~~telling~~ interesting when people are so highly motivated not to grok it. Before he deleted this tweet (“claiming it was sarcastic. There’s no word on what part of it he didn’t mean, however…”), he responded to a follower concerned that he “might fall in trouble again with Feminists”:

With a certain kind of feminist, of course. Not with feminists who truly respect women instead of patronising them as victims –Richard Dawkins

This one sent PZ off on a righteous rant (which I highly recommend reading in its entirety):

Who are these mysterious patronizing feminists? They don’t actually exist. You are echoing a strategy of denial: you approve of feminists, but not the ones who actually point out sexist problems in our culture, or fight against discrimination, or point out that they’ve been raped, or abused, or cheated in the workplace, or any of the other realities of a sexist culture. This is what anti-feminists say: be quiet about the problems. If you mention the problems, you are perpetuating the sisterhood of oppression, you are playing the martyr, you are being a pathetic victim who must be treated with contempt.

But if no woman speaks out about the problems, how will we ever know to correct them? If we shame every victim for being a victim and daring to reveal her victimhood, it becomes very easy to pretend that there is no oppression.

Oh, silly PZ! You see, in Dawkinsville there are no “victims,” only irresponsible drunk drivers crashing themselves willy-nilly right into rapists’ penises!

But this morning’s tweet absolutely takes the cake:

Raping a drunk woman is appalling. So is jailing a man when the sole prosecution evidence is “I was too drunk to remember what happened.” –Richard Dawkins

Heh.

Hahaha.

HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now, Twitter is a unique medium with pros and cons like every other; suffice it to say it does not particularly lend itself to schooling pompous assholes on the many wonders of reality. But I did my best:

@RichardDawkins false reports: est. 2-8%. Rape hugely underreported. 3% of rapist[s] do jail time. Now go away and learn how to think. –Iris Vander Pluym

(Incidentally, citations for these statistics can be found ~~all over the fucking internet~~ here and here.)

@RichardDawkins As if men are prosecuted when “the sole prosecution evidence is ‘I was too drunk to remember what happened.'” #dumbass –Iris Vander Pluym

Jeezus. “I was too drunk to remember what happened” is exculpatory evidence: it creates reasonable doubt and nearly always benefits the accused. That is why prosecutors almost universally do not take such cases to trial: when they do, they lose, and this is true even when they present heaps of additional incriminating evidence to a jury. Seriously, this has got to be the stupidest thing His Intellectual Excellency has ever said—and that is saying something, my friends.

PZ’s plea to Dawkins closes:

And could you please stop supporting reactionary anti-feminists? Thanks.

No, he cannot. Because the World’s Greatest Rationalist is a reactionary anti-feminist, and thus there is no reasoning with him.

[for Tony.]

[cross-posted at Perry Street Palace.]

2013-09-12 Secular Woman Interviews

Sikivu Hutchinson on Radical Humanism, Race, and Gender

Black NonBelievers (Mandisa Thomas, President) and Judith Moore recently sponsored an event in Atlanta where Sikivu Huchinson spoke on atheism, race, gender, and a plethora of additional cultural and historical influences that shape our society. The talk was a well integrated and an astoundingly complex weaving of the everyday, the academic, and the lived experiences of people of color as they related to religion, non-belief, education, humanism, prison, and more. Kim Rippere had the pleasure of attending, meeting Sikivu and others, enjoying the post event dinner, and asking Sikivu a few follow up questions:

SW: You said the established secular organizations are fetishistically attached to the separation of church of state. What is your understanding of how this limits the movement both in terms of membership and impact?

SH: Focusing on the separation of church and state limits the range of issues and communities that the “movement” can effectively address. For example, one of the major factors in religious allegiance in communities of color is economic injustice driven by capitalist disparities in access to wealth, jobs, education and housing. If there is no engagement with how economic injustice and capitalist exploitation shape hyper-religiosity in communities of color, then humanist/atheist critiques will be irrelevant for the majority of people of color.

The domino effect of de facto segregation, job discrimination, unemployment, foreclosure, mass incarceration, and educational apartheid has bolstered the influence of religious institutions in many black and Latino neighborhoods where storefront churches line every block. Certainly the experience of surviving racism and racial terrorism has greatly affirmed the role of religious observance in the lives of many African Americans. For example, in the absence of equitable government programs, the Black Church has traditionally been a social welfare resource in African American communities. Social welfare programs such as funding assistance to poor families, food supplies, housing and utilities services, prisoner reentry programs, and day care provision are among the many resources that community-based churches offer… By contrast, relatively low levels of religiosity in Western Europe correlate with the fact that citizens of these countries enjoy a comprehensive social welfare safety net.

On average, Western European health care, child care, unemployment compensation, job security, job benefits, and affordable housing subsidies provide a far higher quality of life and standard of living than that in the U.S. Western European cities generally offer more accessible pedestrian and recreational green space than the car dominated sprawl of most American cities. Miles of undeveloped brown zones and vacant lots are symptomatic of dead commercial development and so-called “park poor” urban neighborhoods of color. In South Los Angeles there are multiple storefront churches for every park. In predominantly white West Los Angeles storefront churches don’t exist and the parks are the most richly appointed and resourced in the city. As in most arenas, racial politics and segregation determine available park space in the U.S. Having the ability to use a clean, safe, accessible park is a luxury that white middle class families take for granted.

SW: Additionally, you stated that this attachment will drive these organizations the way of the GOP and the dodo. Why is intersectionality the growth standpoint and demographic?

SH: We’ve seen numerous instances where a focus on the supposed “ultimate” outsider status of atheists has become a rallying cry for white New Atheists who are staggeringly ignorant of their privilege in a white supremacist culture. I work in school-communities where atheist and agnostic youth of color are disenfranchised not only by their atheism but by criminalization, low academic expectations, lack of college preparation, sexual harassment and homophobic/hetero-normative policing, to name but a few.

This environment severely limits their life prospects and opportunities. Yet, with all of the lip service given to “critical thinking” in the movement there is zero attention to the devastating impact prison pipe-lining has on preventing youth of color from having basic access to college preparation, advanced placement classes (so-called inner city schools have fewer AP math and science classes than do more affluent, predominantly white schools), financial aid and mentoring resources. There is no attention to the narrowing of curriculum caused by high stakes testing, “charterization” and the neo-liberal corporate agenda (brought to you by the Obama administration and billionaire philanthropist allies like the Gates, Walmart and Broad foundations) to gut public education.

As a result of this regime many high school students simply don’t know how to construct a coherent essay, place contemporary events in historical context and analyze texts based on critical literacy. This, and racist/sexist low expectations of teachers and administrators towards students of color, are the primary reasons why so few black and Latino youth go into STEM fields.

However, the movement isn’t focused on these intersectional issues because they don’t directly affect middle class white children. Conversely, progressive atheists of color are interested in building institutions that support culturally responsive humanist curricula, instruction and youth leadership development programs which will facilitate college access, activism and critical literacy amongst youth of color.

SW: One of the concepts you addressed was the secular community’s fascination with charismatic men as leaders and how this mirrors religious culture. What do you see as the negative aspects of this continued patriarchal cultural outcome?

SH: Part of the global success of New Atheism has been best-selling white atheist rock star authors and the popularization of cults of personality like the Four Horsemen. Unfortunately this kind of idolatry has eclipsed recognition of and attention to the ground work being laid by grassroots humanist organizations in their local communities.

SW: What do you see are some concrete steps that secular social justice individuals and organizations can take to increase the diversity of voices that are seen as secular leaders?

SH: Progressive atheists organize around issues that go far beyond the usual church/state separation and “science and reason” agenda. You can’t fight for economic justice in communities of color without advocating for reproductive justice, unrestricted abortion rights and access to universal health care. You can’t preach “equality” of genders without redressing the heterosexist lack of representation of queer and trans people of color in K-12 curricula. You can’t advocate for LGBTQQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning) enfranchisement without confronting all of the mechanisms that criminalize queer and trans youth of color and make them at greater risk for being incarcerated, placed in foster care and/or becoming homeless.

Coalitions that form around these intersectional issues should be actively promoted—especially those that cultivate ties with progressive believers and non-atheist secular community-based organizations. Further, non-believers who write about and organize around these issues should be tapped for leadership positions in humanist and atheist organizations. There are currently little to no people of color in executive management positions in the major secular/humanist/atheist organizations (i.e., CFI, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, etc.). As a result, it is precisely because of the lack of culturally responsive humanist organizations and institutions that the vast majority of non-believers of color do not feel comfortable openly identifying as atheist.

Where are the humanist institutions that support the realities of our lived experiences in a “Christian nation” based on capitalist, racist, sexist, heterosexist class power? When atheism is primarily associated with academic elites patronizingly condemning believers as primitive and backward—while systematically profiting from racial segregation and straight white male privilege—then many people of color will see no compelling reason to ally with atheist causes and organizations by coughing up hundreds of dollars to attend navel-gazing conferences.

SW: You talked about the Christian fascists and their agenda to undermine progressive efforts for social justice. What are your thoughts about those within the secular movement that are opposed to involvement in social justice issues?

SH: Again, the absence of historical and sociological context in atheist politics, and its disconnection from social justice activism, will keep it in the lily white 1 percent column. In my book Moral Combat I address the lived experiences of some of the most religious communities on the planet in one of the richest nations on the planet. What is the sociological context for faith traditions and hyper-religiosity in American communities of color? I say, come to Los Angeles, to Milwaukee, Oakland, Baltimore or Newark where brilliant students of color are disproportionately denied access to college prep courses, suspended, placed in special education and pipelined into prisons instead of being given a decent shot at a science and humanities-based education.

These are not conditions that confront white families and white children—atheist, evangelical, working class, middle class or otherwise. Brilliant white youth who want to be oncologists, like my former student Karly Jeter, who identifies as Christian, are not told that they come from a dysfunctional culture that only excels at sports and making babies. They are also not included from gatekeeping Advanced Placement science courses because their counselors didn’t believe they were capable or the classes weren’t offered on their campuses.

Because of the pervasiveness of 21st century-style mass incarceration many youth of color will not be able to get jobs or housing. They will not be able to vote or pursue a college education. For this generation the promise of upward mobility and the American dream is a sham. Progressive community-based religious organizations grasp the complexities of this reality. The best ones actively seek to redress it. And that is where the gap between the so-called New Atheism and radical or culturally relevant humanism lies.

SW: Can you explain what you mean by “radical humanism?”

SH: Radical humanism holds that religious hierarchies of race, gender, sexuality, and class are harmful to universal human rights and the self-determination of oppressed peoples. Radical humanism in communities of color seeks to allow people of color cultural legitimacy, visibility, and self-determination in the midst of a system that privileges whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality, cis-gendered and able-bodied status as the universal norms upon which all human potential is implicitly based on and judged by.

Radical humanism recognizes the inalienable human rights of all people to an equitable education, shelter, food, affordable health care, a clean, violence-free environment and a living wage job. It recognizes women’s inalienable right to self-determination vis-à-vis reproductive choice, abortion and family planning free of state/religious intervention, authority and control.

It recognizes the inherent morality of love between consenting adults of all sexual orientations and genders as well as the primacy of LGBTQQ identities, families, children and communities in a dominant culture that indoctrinates hetero-normativity and heterosexism as modes of power, authority and control.

2013-06-13 Uncategorized

How Costly is Confronting Sexist Speech?

How Costly is Confronting Sexist Speech?

Take Home: Mildly assertive call-outs of sexist speech can actually be a good thing. Not all confrontations lead to negative outcomes.

Depending on your age, you may remember learning in school that when you need to use a pronoun when gender was unknown, the rule was to use the generic “he” or “his.” I learned grammar in the 1970s. It was common to hear, “Man’s quest for knowledge…,” “Mankind’s greatest victory…” or “…one giant leap for mankind”. I would question my teachers about why we couldn’t just use “humankind” or “humans.” I was never given a satisfactory explanation. My teachers would say things like, “That’s just the way it is.”

But I know that every single time I heard the word “man” used to refer to all of humankind, it chipped away at my identity a little bit. I felt excluded. I noticed this gendered pattern in other language use. I could not find a satisfactory reason for why Wilma needed to be called “Mrs. Fred Flintstone.” Nobody could explain to me why, if I became an adult married woman, I would lose my identity to become Mrs. Husband’s-first-name Husband’s-Surname.

Language matters. It did to me.

In the meantime, I’ve seen change. We are now taught to use gender-neutral language. However, we do live in a gendered culture, and it is easy to use gendered language and be influenced by gender stereotypes (e.g., to assume a doctor is a man or a flight attendant is a woman). The thing is, for those of us who desire social change, we need to be willing to step up and say something when language is sexist. Mallett and Wagner (2011) conducted an interesting experiment to look at the effects of those confronted with a sexist “call out.”

Participants came to the lab to take part in a social interaction or “get to know you” study (common among relationship researchers). The researchers were interested in how men would respond when confronted for making a mildly sexist remark. How do you ensure that your volunteer male participants actually say something “mildly sexist”? The set up is quite clever.

As part of the getting-to-know-you task, pairs were asked to discuss a number of moral dilemmas. Each dilemma involved stereotypically gendered professions. For example, one dilemma described a nurse who discovers that a patient has been given blood contaminated with the AIDS virus.

Most of the time, a male participant would say something along the lines of “I think she should…” (Even when gendered language was not used, all men recalled referring to the nurse as female in the debriefing discussion at the end of the experiment). The female member of the pair (a confederate of the experiment) was trained to follow the same script. Men who were randomly assigned to the sexist confrontation condition heard the following: “I noticed that you said ‘she’ when referring to the nurse. Are you assuming the nurse is female? That’s kind of sexist, don’t you think?” In the gender-neutral confrontation condition, men heard “I don’t think that’s such a good idea. There’s got to be a better way. Do you think they should notify the patient first?” (p. 217). The interactions were video recorded.

Participants were separately asked to make ratings about their partner on items such as, “The two of us worked well together,” “the other participant is nice,” and “the other participant and I could successfully work together on a group project.”

Next, the pair was given a list of topics to discuss for their next interaction. (e.g., study abroad programs, funding for women’s sports programs). After these conversations, participants rated statements about compensatory behaviors, such as “I searched for common ground on the issue,” and “I tried to present a positive image of myself.”

Finally, the participants were asked to help out with a “pilot test” of a proofreading task to be used in another study. The task involved working quickly to identify grammatical errors as well as inappropriate use of gendered pronouns and use of the generic “he” or “his” to refer to all people. This task was used to assess sexist language detection.

Did men respond differently to a sexist confrontation compared to a neutral confrontation? Unexpectedly, men’s rating about how nice the other participant was and how well the interaction went were similar for both types of confrontation. Men were more likely to smile, laugh, display surprise, apologize, justify their responses, and gesture when responding to a sexist confrontation. Only in the case of stammering were there no differences between the sexist and gender-neutral confrontations.

Interestingly, men were more likely to report compensation behaviors during the discussions that followed the sexist confrontation. Men were more likely to compensate by, for example, finding common ground in subsequent confrontations, and this type of behavior resulted in more mutual liking.

For the sexist language detection task, men in both conditions were equally good at detecting general grammatical errors. However, men who experienced a sexist confrontation were better at detecting sexist language in the proofreading task.

As with all psychological experiments, there are limits to how far one can generalize the results. The context here was face-to-face interactions with a new person, thus the implication is that for in-person interactions, a mild confrontation may not turn out as badly as we expect. However, this research does not address confrontations that happen in asynchronous electronic communication, or when one or both parties are anonymous.

When there is dissatisfaction with the status quo, someone has to confront it. Social change starts when someone is willing to make a complaint, be it as simple as pointing out instances of non-gender-neutral language or questioning assumptions about gender roles.

Face to face, mildly assertive confrontations may be less costly than you think.

Reference

Mallett, R. K., & Wagner, D. E. (2011). The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 215-220.