At first I thought that the article was a joke. I googled the lead researcher, Susan Fiske, and found that she was a real person, a Professor of Psychology at Princeton University. Her research summary begins with “Professor Fiske’s research addresses how stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination are encouraged or discouraged by social relationships, such as cooperation, competition, and power.”

This was consistent with the subject matter of the article, so I was forced to conclude that this was an attempt at a genuine scientific study.

I would like to say that I think this is one of the most atrocious pieces of science, that I have ever seen. It is a good example of science perverted by a political agenda. The political agenda in this case , is to promote the political idea that “all men are bastards”.

I would be happy to provide details of why this study is so unscientific, if people are interested.

That said I was somewhat troubled by the amount of time CNN gave to Raison’s comments suggesting that men’s tendency to objectify sexualized women is “hard-wired” or evolutionarily advantageous. It seems rather dispositionist, in a sense, to favor an explanation that men are naturally inclined toward this type of reaction, instead of looking first to the sexist situation that men and women are raised in. This is particularly the case in light of the fact that this reaction seems to be correlated with men’s attitudes toward women, which (we imagine) are not hard-wired; thus, Raison is favoring hard-wiring as an explanation even when there’s no evidence for it (as opposed to some other cause, like culture) and some evidence against it. Certainly if this were a regular IAT showing that white men are implicitly racist or that wealthy people are implicitly classist, “hard-wiring” or evolution would hardly be any reasonable person’s #1 explanation.

The truth is that throughout history and across cultures, the degree to which females in a society are treated as regular humans always correlates with the amount of skin they show: evidence against the theory.

I actually wish Fiske’s theory were true. American women want it both ways: to act like sex objects without being treated like sex objects. The logical implication of the theory is that they would have to choose, but unfortunately they don’t since the theory is wrong.

American women want to sleep around like Bonobos, wear almost nothing in the spring and summer, buy personal vibrators, post suggestive pictures on their Facebook profiles as their photo IDs to the world, and pack cinemas for movies like Sex and the City. Some promiscuous college girls even call each other sluts or whores as casual terms of affection. Essentially 95 percent of women are prostitutes. The ones we call prostitutes just have the lowest prices. That’s why Fiske married an endowed professor but likely never considered any drywallers. Women shouldn’t get to complain about being sexualized as long as they continue to sexualize themselves for pleasure and profit.