SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02 2018, @01:36PM (12 children)
I read the article. Complete, and utter bullshit.
For starters, the sample size is pretty small. Second, it's not clear where they found the "candidates" for their surveys, or what their social class might be. (I thought there was a link to a PDF, but I'm not finding that now.) Third, it's Berkeley.
My attitude toward welfare has remained pretty damned consistent all through my life. No matter how far "up" or how far "down" I may have been financially, I've always felt that a man who doesn't work doesn't deserve to eat. You pay your way, or you go hungry. Women and children are another story - I'm willing to help provide for them. Men? Hungry? What are you willing to do for me? Mow my lawn? Feed my animals? Paint? Fix my car/truck/tractor/POS trailer? Want to repair my fence, maybe? Sure, I'll feed you, and give you a few bucks! Oh - you aren't willing to do ANY of that? Well, in that case, maybe I can find you a bread crust, if the wife hasn't thrown them all out to the birds.
Race means absolutely nothing. Upward or downward trends for whites means nothing.
This is just another "feel-good" nonsense study, to justify liberal hatred of hetero white males.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:42PM (2 children)
Ugly evolution-induced human behavior issue here:
The trouble with providing for women and children is that it encourages broken families. Why bother to resolve relationship problems? It doesn't matter. Nobody will go hungry.
If women don't need men as providers, then they simply don't need men. There is no shortage of sperm, and a desirable supplier can be used for a day. There is no need to bother with a relationship, from her perspective at least. Children thus grow up without fathers. Fathers have a hugely positive impact on children, doing much to reduce delinquency and generally set children on the right path in life.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 02 2018, @03:57PM
Welllll, that's the theory, anyway. There is that other popular theory, that it takes a village to raise an idiot.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday June 02 2018, @11:21PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @06:31PM
Women who don't work deserve to go hungry too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02 2018, @11:11PM (7 children)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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
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
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?