Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday June 02 2018, @05:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the was-not-expecting-that dept.

White Americans' fear of losing their socioeconomic standing in the face of demographic change may be driving opposition to welfare programs, even though whites are major beneficiaries of government poverty assistance, according to new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University.

While social scientists have long posited that racial resentment fuels opposition to such anti-poverty programs as food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Aid to Needy Families, this is the first study to show the correlation experimentally, demonstrating a causal relationship between attitudes to welfare and threatened racial status.

"With policymakers proposing cuts to the social safety net, it's important to understand the dynamics that drive the welfare backlash," said study lead author Rachel Wetts, a Ph.D. student in sociology at UC Berkeley. "This research suggests that when whites fear their status is on the decline, they increase opposition to programs intended to benefit poorer members of all racial groups."

The findings, to be published May 30 in the journal Social Forces, highlight a welfare backlash that swelled around the 2008 Great Recession and election of Barack Obama.

Notably, the study found anti-welfare sentiment to be selective insofar as threats to whites' standing led whites to oppose government assistance programs they believed largely benefit minorities, while not affecting their views of programs they thought were more likely to advantage whites.

"Our findings suggest that these threats lead whites to oppose programs they perceive as primarily benefiting racial minorities," said study senior author Robb Willer, a professor of sociology and social psychology at Stanford University.

[...] "Overall, these results suggest whites' perceptions of rising minority power and influence lead them to oppose welfare programs," Wetts said.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @11:11PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @11:11PM (#687834)

    I only agree that this study is complete garbage and outrage bait.

    Still, it's amazing how a male like yourself can be so misandrist. What a sad view you have.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03 2018, @12:35AM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03 2018, @12:35AM (#687857) Journal

    Males are expendable, you dumb shit. That's why there are something like 105 males born for every 100 females. We are excess. Females only need maybe five or ten males for every 100 females, but they produce all that excess, so the worthless males can be culled. Check your privilege - you're not as important as you seem to think you are.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @08:02AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @08:02AM (#687956)

      Males are expendable, you dumb shit.

      You're committing a naturalistic fallacy here. You speak in an evolutionary sense, but evolution does not determine ethics. We don't need to run our society that way.

      Maybe you think of yourself as expendable, but not every male thinks of themselves that way. Take your self-hate elsewhere.

      Check your privilege - you're not as important as you seem to think you are.

      Ultimately, nothing is important. The human race could be entirely wiped out and the universe wouldn't - and can't - care. You're making the same mistake as the idiots who refer to evolution as "evilution"; evolution is not a moral system.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03 2018, @09:05AM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03 2018, @09:05AM (#687962) Journal

        I don't give two flips for your version of ethics. Reality is, guys do stupid shit all the time, to prove how expendable we are. And, women keep on living life, in our absence. When any one of us manages to kill our self, a woman or six might notice, but they go on with life. There are few signs that they miss us.

        I observed that when my wife's father died, it upset the sisters some. None were happy, 'cause they all loved their daddy. But, life went on. When their MOTHER died, that was quite different. Each of those girls had a relationship with their mother, that Daddy was never a part of.

        Most people, I believe, are similar. Guys as well as girls. Mother is a more important part of people's lives, even if they have a great relationship with their fathers.

        Find the exceptions, and they will probably only help to prove the rule.

        Back to the bottom line: men are expendable, women are less expendable.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:45AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:45AM (#687982)

          I don't give two flips for your version of ethics.

          Rather, you don't care about ethics at all. I try not to have ridiculous double standards, but I suppose you don't care about small things like that.

          Back to the bottom line: men are expendable, women are less expendable.

          By whose standard? Yours, and those who think like you, of course. To intelligent people who have no interest in trying to replicate the laws of the jungle in human society because they would prefer to be better than that, such a standard is simply laughable.

          I'm not sure what you think you're going to achieve by using anecdotes and hypothetical scenarios to rationalize speaking in absolutes.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 03 2018, @01:56PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 03 2018, @01:56PM (#688010) Journal

            Got it - those who don't share YOUR ethics have no ethics at all. I hear what you're saying though. No one, and nothing, is more important than you are. You, personally, epitomize value in this world. There's are words for that. Hubris. Narcissism. Ostentation.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:30PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @11:30PM (#688136)

              No one, and nothing, is more important than you are.

              Enough with your ridiculous straw men. So because I don't see myself as expendable and less valuable than women and children, that means I'm merely narcissistic? Then, what does that say about the women who are apparently so much more valuable than men? Are they narcissists too? I'm sorry for your self-hate, but I just don't have that issue.

              You rely on faulty logic to reach the conclusion that men should be seen as expendable in human society. We don't need to structure our society that way.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @01:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 03 2018, @01:41PM (#688006)

      Uhh... That is stupid. Males were expendable a long long time ago. There is no science to say there ought to be 1 to 1 mapping of men and women. And YOU could be not as important as you think. *add some abusive words*

      How about you commit suicide to balance the world?