Non-sex philosopher/blogger Matthew Yglesias of TheAtlantic.com points out the process whereby gaps in stereotypes get filled with “logically” satisfying but basically pulled-out-of-someone’s-butt stuff.

One anti-Obama meme that I notice has gotten a lot of support even among people sympathetic to his cause is the notion that he’s somehow shallow or insufficiently well-versed in policy matters. Obviously, I can’t crawl into either candidate’s brain and take a look around, but this idea doesn’t seem to me to be especially well-supported by the evidence. Instead, it seems to draw support from a kind of implicit Law of Conservation of Virtues — the pretty girl can’t be smart, the not-so-good-looking guy must be really nice — that has people notice that Clinton is well-versed in policy but isn’t a charismatic figure, and Obama is charismatic so it “must” be that he’s not well-versed in policy. He’s cool and she’s the nerd.

This suits the media’s taste for parallels and lazy narratives into which events can be squeezed. But there’s really not much basis for it.

Read what he wrote in context here.

Sounds familiar outside of politics as well, eh? For instance can it really be that all the mirrored gender differences in all the Mars/Venus books and their derivatives are accurate and well-founded?