While Implicit Bias tests are a widely discredited instrument for predicting prejudice, they may reveal some insights.
TL;DR What if Kate Millett’s Patriarchy Theory is Bull Shit?
My first 36/50 articles reference Dr. Laurie Rudman’s paper Gender Differences in Automatic Ingroup Bias, based on her research while at Rutgers University.
Rudman’s findings are largely consistent with the moral research of Dr. Tania Reynolds.
For example, Rudman never found any evidence of a male group cohesion mechanism that would be expected for the Patriarchy to exist as described in Kate Millett’s foundational 1970 book, “Sexual Politics.”
I predict this cohesion mechanism will never be found because it is a cognitive illusion, caused by a parity assumption of ingroup cohesion in women. This is enforced via an ASCH-Conformity mechanism.
These are big claims. Too big to decide with Implicit Association Tests (IATs).
Many, many smart gender theorists suggest the dynamics between George Floyd and Derek Chauvin can be best explained via Patriarchy Theory.
Dr. Laurie Rudman and Dr. Reynold’s research would suggest otherwise.
I suggest the ASCHITI Model of Gender Perception based primarily on the of Dr. Laurie Rudman and Dr. Tania Reynolds is more accurate.
Millett’s Patriarchy Theory suggests all men coalesce to oppress women.
Rudman’s research suggests this is impossible, Reynold’s research suggests it’s not just impossible, but that the opposite is true.
This illusion would be measurable.
I further predict this social illusion will be measurable, and create legally actionable claims under the U.S., British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Constitutions.
