Leave a Comment Johan
Survey on media and same-sex marriage
October 9, 2011
By Adam Bink
Pamela Jo Brubaker, a Ph.D candidate at Penn State, reached out on this topic. She’s conducting research on blog readers’ perceptions of media messages on legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, and asked if some folks here would mind completing a quick survey on the topic. I took it and it’s fairly interesting.
If you’re interested, more details and the link below. Note: the last question asks the source of the survey. You can enter P8TT, but because the survey does not allow numbers or punctuation in that response field, I had to change it to “PropEightTrialTracker”. Please do so, and I alerted Pamela to this issue.
This is an open thread.
Supporters and opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage are needed for an online research study concerning communication messages about legalizing same-sex marriage within the United States.
Share your opinions by Oct. 25. Click here to take the survey, or copy and paste this link into your browser: http://pennstatecomm.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5q0jBQGKH2DXFWs
The survey takes less than 15 minutes to complete. You are eligible to participate if you are at least 18 years old.
This research study is being conducted as part of a doctoral dissertation at The Pennsylvania State University. It is NOT funded or commissioned by any political, religious, or advocacy organization. If you have questions about this study, please contact Pamela Brubaker at pjb943@psu.edu.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
32 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Rob in CA | October 9, 2011 at 7:15 am
Here's an interesting op-ed piece from this morning's New York Times on the effect of gay marriage in Portugal.
Rob
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/…
2.
aquaCA | October 9, 2011 at 8:02 am
Rob, you beat me to it.
That was probably one of the few things I'm proud of in my native country (Portugal) in these past 10 years. Now I just wish the US would follow quickly. I guess 50 years of fascism can make you very conscious of loss of civil rights and freedom, but with a heavily catholic influence I'm still (delightedly) shocked that Socrates managed to pull this one off. It helped that the Portuguese for historical reasons, have a hate/love relationship with Spain and we see them as the "Joneses" that we must compete with.
Whatever works. Good for Socrates to have the guts to do it in spite of heavy opposition from the less enlightened Portuguese people, politicians and church.
3.
Ann S. | October 9, 2011 at 8:17 am
§
4.
johnfromco | October 9, 2011 at 9:03 am
Unfortunately the demographic questions were limiting and offensive.
"Biological Sex" is an unnecessary and transphobic distinction, particularly when what they are looking for is "gender", not "sex". What is "biological" sex? Does the sex of the brain count, or is the brain not part of biology? If someone has mixed gonads? If someone had gonads removed and is using hormones? If someone has had surgery to bring their genitals into conformance with their gender?
They were trying to ask, "What chromosomes do you have?" That is offensive and frankly none of their business for this type of research – it's irrelevant. It implies that transpeople aren't really who they say they are but are really more like the category they were miscategorized under. Yes, I realize chromosomes may be important for some research – just this isn't an example of that. In this case, the role the person assumes in society is the critical aspect. That's not sex ("biological" or otherwise). That's gender. And you can ask gender without insulting trans people or reminding them of the pain of not being fortunate to have the right genitals at birth.
For a survey about bias in the media, I found that bigotry rather offensive. I also saw there was no "I am not sure/these categories just don't fit" option for sexual orientation.
5.
Ronnie | October 9, 2011 at 9:25 am
Subscribing & sharing…. Today's 2011 LGBT History Month Icon…
“To stop the flow of music would be like the stopping of time itself, incredible and inconceivable.” ~ Aaron Copland, was a world-renowned composer, teacher, writer, conductor & "a key figure in forming the early 20th century American style of music & composition". His 1944 score for "Appalachian Spring" earned him a Pulitzer Prize. Read more about him here: http://www.lgbthistorymonth.com/aaron-copland?tab…
<3…Ronnie:
[youtube 5GfUQbjchME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GfUQbjchME youtube]
6.
Sam_Handwich | October 9, 2011 at 9:33 am
john — yep..i was struck by that "biological sex" question, too.
also, the article we were asked to read seems to be entirely fabricated .. i can't find "freedom journal" on the net….or any articles about marriage equality by a "casey williams".
7.
Alan_Eckert | October 9, 2011 at 9:46 am
I wish there was an opportunity to write in explanations, especially when asking what we thought about the blog post. I wish I could have added in that FRC is a SPLC-certified hate group, but there was no representation of the bias of that group. I too was struck by the "biological sex" question. It didn't seem to fit and may even be off-putting to those with opinions opposite of mine. I would like to know if there was even a thought process behind the decision to word it this way, or if it was just casually changed because the researcher just thought on a whim that this is the "better" way with no research at all.
8.
Michael | October 9, 2011 at 9:54 am
Regarding "Biological Sex" and some of the opinions expressed here…
Let's be careful not to place assumptions as to why that question is asked and/or what they intend to do with that information. None of us were briefed on why that question is asked, and frankly, none of us have to answer that question if we feel uncomfortable with it. As with most research surveys, you can skip a question and still complete the survey.
Research involves gathering data for statistical analyses. And for all we know, one of the analyses might be to report perceived "biological" identity against one of the other issues… or "% of respondents who did not answer this question and its relationship to ones position on same-sex marriage." That could be a very relevant topic of research.
I guess what I'm saying is… let's not get our proverbial panties in a bunch or all fists-and-elbows over simple data gathering. This particular survey was actually constructed in a relatively neutral and objective manner compared to some purported "research" surveys (*cough* family research council).
9.
johnfromco | October 9, 2011 at 10:06 am
If the question on sexual orientation was, "Are you attracted to the biologically normal gender for someone of your sex?" I think people would – rightfully – be upset. Or more to the point, "Are you a nigger?" if asking about race. There are other ways of asking how someone sees themselves.
They asked a bigoted question. Maybe it is valid research. Maybe not. But it's an ugly question, even if designed to see how people see themselves.
10.
Alan_Eckert | October 9, 2011 at 10:41 am
I also wonder what difference it makes not being able to reference the article versus having it on hand. That in itself is a critical difference when trying to judge the bias or non-bias. I hope that part is addressed in the final paper.
11.
michael | October 9, 2011 at 11:48 am
Your two examples are laced with a biased adjective ("normal") and a racial epithet. Neither of those word types, nor any remotely like them, are contained in the allegedly "bigoted" survey question you are referencing. Asking someone's biological gender, and not being "inclusive" through omitting the infinite number of "in between" spectral possibilities, is not in and of itself an attack on any single person. This is no different from having a variety of ethnicities and not seeing your unique assemblage in the available listbox. You may or may not agree with me.
Another important consideration to keep in mind is that this may be state/federally funded research. The question may actually be a required item for the researcher to receive funding.
12.
johnfromco | October 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm
"Biological sex" is biased, just as racial epithets are and biased adjectives are.
As for asking about biological gender, that was NOT done in the survey. Biological sex was asked about. Sex is not equal to gender, despite common confusion and equating of the two terms. Gender is the role you fill in society. Sex is the physical and biological attributes. What I have between my legs is sex, as is my chromosomes, as is my hormonal levels, as is my gonads, as are my secondary sex characteristics (facial hair, chest development, bone structure, etc). Words to describe sex are things like "male" and "female". But that's completely seperate from whether or not I'm a man or a woman (man/woman describe gender). For most people, male and being a man go together. Female and being a woman go together. Not for everyone though.
That aside, unless there is a medical reason why gonads, chromosomes, secondary sex characteristics, or genitals matter (in which case questions specifically about those should be asked – for instance, you would want to differentiate post-menopausal females from non-post menopausal females if you were studying hormone-related-attitudes and were conducting good quality research); Likewise on gonads – if you want to know if someone has testes or ovaries, that's what you should ask, and you should recognize a non-trivial number of people have neither, due to health concerns. If you are going after actual sex characteristics, but you don't control for these things, I think the research you are doing is probably beyond your level to do it well.
However, most people when they ask a question like this are asking "Do men and women have different attitudes about this?" So it's really simple: You have four options (not an infinite number), and you call the question "Gender". That said, I will contact the researcher and find out what was intended.
I also would be very surprised if any government research grant on attitudes towards media included stipulation that required differentiation based on sex characteristics vs. gender or even if such a grant was sophisticated enough and demonstrated enough understanding of sex and gender to not completely confuse the two terms.
13.
Sagesse | October 9, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Marine recruiters reach out at gay pride event in Pasadena
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1009-gay-…
14.
Elizabeth_Oakes | October 9, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Spoiler alert, so if you're going to take the survey don't read this until afterwards:
I believe the article was fabricated, and that subjects are not allowed to reference it after reading it because the researchers are testing the *impression* the article leaves depending on one's mindset and political identification, rather than a statistical assessment of whether or not there's a greater amount of material that's biased one way or another. If I recall correctly, there were an even number of lines asserting each point of view so it could be argued the article was "neutral," though some of the stated items were biased in themselves (e.g. "research shows having a mother and father is optimal" –paraphrase.) All this is IMHO, of course, but I read a fair number of studies on cognitive stuff and this seems to be set up that way.
I also disliked not having the option of commenting and say *why* I answered as I did, but sometimes researchers aren't interested in the why. Which is why one should be skeptical of polls and studies sometimes. "Why" matters.
I was undercaffeinated this a.m. when I filled out the survey, and though it vaguely occurred to me that the article was contrived as I read it–it was far too studied and fakey-balanced to be a real article–I am embarrassed to admit I checked "vaguely" on the question about being familiar with the name of the paper because it sounded like a name I had heard before. Good choice of generic + fictional journal title, Penn State Research Team! Suckered me in.
15.
Sheryl_Carver | October 9, 2011 at 4:44 pm
A new version of "Sunrise, Sunset" (Fiddler on the Roof)
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/mira…
Officially & Legally updated for same-sex weddings. Unlike NOM, Joshua Ellis, the minister who requested it, has ethics & a true understanding of right & wrong. From the article:
But why not change the lyrics under the radar? Who would find out? As a man of the cloth, Mr. Ellis said it was out of the question to do so without getting permission from the show’s creators.
“I wanted them them to be sanctioned,” said Mr. Ellis, who was a press agent for the original productions of “Into the Woods,” “Nicholas Nickleby” and many other shows. “If I’m going to do it with a Sondheim lyric, why not ask him first? It’s the professional thing to do, the ethical thing to do and the classy thing to do.”
He continued: “If the marriage is now equal, the copyrights should be equal too.”
16.
olandp | October 9, 2011 at 6:18 pm
I took the survey, and was bothered by the party affiliation question as the option was "Democrat" as opposed to Democratic. I emailed and got a reply shortly after that the word had been changed.
The email:
Thank you for making me aware of this issue. I previously included the word Democratic, but the survey software did not save my changes. The issue is now completely resolved.
Thank you for taking the survey. I really appreciate your help.
Pamela
Perhaps if you make Ms Brubaker aware of your feelings about the Biological Sex question, which also bothered me, she will respond.
17.
MFargo | October 9, 2011 at 6:20 pm
I too was troubled that both "sides" of the issue were presented with presumed equanimty. Saying there was "research" to support both sides of the argument was misleading. I couldn't click on which articles they cited, but it inferred the research was of equal quality, and at the trial we saw…it ain't.
18.
Sagesse | October 9, 2011 at 8:16 pm
LGBT rights as the bargaining chip again.
McKeon threatens to kill defense bill over same-sex weddings
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/10/09/mckeon-…
19.
Elizabeth_Oakes | October 9, 2011 at 8:33 pm
NOW who's infringing on the religious practices of others??? The rights of chaplains to practice their beliefs as they see fit? Did it ever occur to this schmuck that some chaplains WANT to perform same-sex ceremonies? He's threatening not to pass this bill unless it includes provisions restricting freedom of religion for clergy. Hmmm….mightn't he want to think twice before setting THAT precedent?
20.
AnonyGrl | October 9, 2011 at 10:27 pm
I believe the same thing, Elizabeth. It was TOO neutral and too balanced.
21.
loaferguy | October 10, 2011 at 4:49 am
LGBT History Month.
Philadelphia Freedom: The Dewey’s Lunch Counter Sit-In:
http://www.queerty.com/philadelphia-freedom-the-d…
22.
Josiah Rowe | October 10, 2011 at 6:16 am
Yep — I think that the survey creators made up that article, intending it to be neutral. However, as others have noted, the line about "Research has indicated that raising children in an environment with a biological mother and father creates environmental advantages that are difficult for two people of the same gender to replicate" (or whatever the wording was) was inaccurate and misleading. It probably does accurately represent the beliefs and opinions of opponents of marriage equality, but as we know, the limited research that's been done comparing families with two opposite-sex parents with families with two same-sex parents has shown very little difference in outcome for the children (aside from greater tolerance).
I thought that it was interesting that the fake article had some of the text in blue, to make it look like there was a link for further reading. Of course, there wasn't any link, but I wonder whether to some readers that gives the impression of greater authority or reliability to the claims about "research".
23.
Sam_Handwich | October 10, 2011 at 6:17 am
I'm not sure that a federal statue blocking military chaplians from performing SSM's would pass constitutional muster. As i understand it, military chaplains, like any other civilian clergy, are licenced by STATES to solemnize marriages. If such marriages are recognized by the state in which the clergy has 'jurisdiction', then it's their option whether or not to perform the ceremony.
All the Pentagon changed recently was a *policy* that banned chaplains from officiating at SSM's … a policy they probably anticipated would be challenged in light of DADT repeal and the DOMA legal saga.
24.
Steve | October 10, 2011 at 6:30 am
There was no such policy. They just issued guidance on what to do in the future. It's a memo, not a legally binding directive
25.
Sam_Handwich | October 10, 2011 at 6:39 am
Ok. ty for clarifying that.
26.
Straght4Equality | October 10, 2011 at 7:53 am
I felt the article was biased against same-sex marriage from the first time they used the "redefine marriage" terminology. I believe that even in the supposedly pro-SSM part they talked of redefining marriage. I don't care if they had the same number of lines for each side. That terminology is very biased.
27.
Lodi Gal | October 10, 2011 at 8:23 am
That was my thought EXACTLY.
28.
Sam_Handwich | October 10, 2011 at 8:28 am
Agreed. . Did ending racial segregation lead to the "redefinition" of the terms "bus", "lunch counter" or "school" ??
29.
Lodi Gal | October 10, 2011 at 8:54 am
Yes. Exactly. I wonder why the same haters are not trying to argue that allowing gays in the military is "redefining soldier". We could go on and on with the analogies. The term "redefinition of marriage" is very biased.
30.
Xandoz | October 10, 2011 at 11:41 am
I am so ashamed that "Buck" McKeon is from my city. This is exactly the type of behavior I would (sadly) expect from him.
31.
Glenn I | October 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Gah. What a crappy survey. I was infuriated that the survey writers sold whole hog the idea that "traditional marriage" is opposed to marriage equality. The two easily coexist. One who believes in marriage equality does not want to abolish "traditional marriage." Nor, for that matter, do all who believe "traditional marriage" is right for them (or the better choice or whatever) believe that the law should punish those for whom "traditional marriage" is not an option.
The USA Today article we were supposed to respond to was terrible cut & paste journalism. The "writer" grabbed some handouts from the two "opposing sides" and whittled down their arguments, stacking one set here, the other set there and framing this business with the news out of New York State. What a waste of time.
32.
Deeelaaach | October 11, 2011 at 2:39 am
I wonder if this is a case where the survey reveals a bias in the experimenter. It has happened before, and it will happen again. It sounds like it has happened here.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.