The study, “Can an Agentic Black Woman Get Ahead?,” gauged the reactions of 84 non–black people to scenarios in which fictitious business executives were shown to be either reprimanding employees, or encouraging them, in an online poll.

The study is pending publication in the journal Psychological Science. It is co–authored by Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, an associate professor of management and organization at Duke’s Fuqua School of Business, and two others from the Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management.

“There’s a substantial (body of research showing a) penalty for women when (they) display dominant or assertive or angry, commanding or demanding (behavior),” Rosette said. “All of those resources presumed that the women under consideration were white, but hadn’t necessarily looked at what would happen if the women were of a different race,” she added.

According to the study, the authors considered several possible reactions from the study. One of those possibilities was a scenario in which black women leaders would see a greater backlash to dominant behaviors because they would not have gender or racial characteristics typically associated with leaders.

They also considered a possibility in which black female leaders would see less of a backlash because would not have characteristics said to normally be associated with the prototypical black person — who is male — or the prototypical woman — who is white.

“Because a black woman does not meet either criterion, (it) renders her invisible with regard to negative evaluations,” Rosette said, explaining the concept.

Rosette said she and the other authors predicted that black female leaders would not see as much of a backlash for dominant displays.

Their results showed that study participants gave a median rating of 3.05 for black female leaders showing dominant behavior, and a median rating of 3.32 for more encouraging behavior.

Comparatively, white female leaders were assigned a median rating of 2.23 for dominant behavior, and a median rating of 3.85 for more encouraging behavior.

“Our findings show that black women are evaluated comparably to white men,” Rosette said. “If that’s the case, why are there not more black women represented in top leadership positions?”

Divya Menon, public affairs coordinator for the Association of Psychological Science, whose flagship journal is the journal Psychological Science, said the paper has been accepted and is expected to be published in a forthcoming issue.

Related articles

• Why is Hollywood So Afraid of Black Women? (alternet.org)

The officials say that Israel must act by the summer if it wants to effectively attack Iran’s program.

A key question in the debate is how much damage Israel, or anyone else, can inflict, and whether it would be worth the risk of a possible counterstrike.

Israel has been a leading voice in the international calls to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Like the West, it believes the Iranians are moving toward nuclear weapons capability — a charge Tehran denies.

Israel contends a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its survival, citing Tehran’s calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and its support for anti-Israel militant groups. It also fears an Iranian bomb would touch off a nuclear arms race in a region still largely hostile to Israel.

Israeli leaders say they prefer a diplomatic solution. But — skeptical of international resolve — Israel refuses to rule out the use of force, saying frequently that “all options are on the table.”

In comments Friday to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called for even tougher sanctions against Iran and said time was running out for the world to act.

“We are determined to prevent Iran from turning nuclear,” he said. “It seems to us to be urgent, because the Iranians are deliberately drifting into what we call an immunity zone where practically no surgical operation could block them.”

Returning Monday to Israel, Barak added: “We must not waste time on this matter; the Iranians continue to advance (toward nuclear weapons), identifying every crack and squeezing through. Time is urgently running out.”

Key Israeli defense officials believe that the time to strike, if such a decision is made, would have to be by the middle of this year.

Complicating the task is the assessment that Iran is stepping up efforts to move its work on enriching uranium — a critical component of bombmaking — deep underground. Iran’s enrichment site at Fordo near the Iranian city of Qom, for instance, is shielded by about 300 feet (90 meters) of rock.

A team of U.N. nuclear inspectors, including senior weapons experts, is in Iran this week, and the findings from the visit could greatly influence Western efforts to expand economic pressures on Tehran over its uranium enrichment.

The European Union this month decided to stop importing oil from Iran — just weeks after the U.S. approved, but has yet to enact, new sanctions targeting Iran’s Central Bank and, by extension, its ability to sell its oil.

Several officials at the heart of the decision-making structure, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing some of Israel’s deepest secrets, said they feel compelled to give the sanctions time.

In this way, somewhat paradoxically, the new economic sanctions the U.S. and Europe are imposing — while meeting a repeated Israeli request — have emerged as an obstacle to military action.

An Israeli strike would risk shattering the U.S.-led diplomatic front that has imposed four additional rounds of sanctions on Iran and jolt the shaky world economy by causing oil prices to spike. Still, officials say, if Israel feels no alternative but to take military action, it will do so.

Israel possesses dozens of F-16s and F-15s, some customized with long-range fuel tanks, and has bought additional Dolphin submarines from Germany capable of firing nuclear missiles.

It introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes known as Heron TPs that can reach the Persian Gulf, provide surveillance and be used for aerial refueling — likely a critical aspect of any Iran mission. One of the Herons, which are the size of Boeing 737s, crashed during a test flight Sunday.

The U.S. has sold Israel dozens of 100 GBU-28 laser-guided “bunker-buster” bombs. The 2.5-ton bombs are capable of penetrating more than 20 feet (6 meters) of solid concrete.

It’s not clear how much damage the bunker-busters could actually do. Iran’s main enrichment site at Natanz is believed to be about 25 feet (6 meters) underground and protected by two concrete walls.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told The Wall Street Journal last week that even more sophisticated U.S. bunker-busters aren’t powerful enough to penetrate all of Iran’s defenses.

While the rewards of an attack are uncertain, the risks are great.

Many believe Iran would likely unleash its large arsenal of missiles capable of striking Israel — and its local proxies, Hezbollah to Israel’s north and Hamas to the south, possess tens of thousands of short-range rockets and missiles. American soldiers in the Persian Gulf might come under fire. Islamist backers of Iran could target civilians all over the world.

The prospect of a new conflagration in the Mideast is one reason cited by some influential Israeli figures, like recently retired spy chief Meir Dagan, when arguing against an Israeli military attack.

But that view is beginning to be challenged. In a radio interview several weeks ago, Barak played down the risk of Iranian missiles, saying casualties would be limited.

Perhaps the biggest factor in the Israeli thinking is how much damage an airstrike could even cause.

“What will tip the scales in favor or against an attack is whether we will really be able to do inflict serious damage,” said Yiftah Shapir, an expert in nuclear arms proliferation at Tel Aviv University. “That will be more important than whether we are ready to absorb (the casualties) of an attack.”

“If you are talking about the use of power against Iran, any kind of power, and create any damage over there, yes, it can be done,” a senior Israeli military official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity under military guidelines.

Israel has a history of taking action against perceived nuclear threats. In 1981, it destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor, and in 2007, it struck what is believed to be a nuclear reactor in Syria.

An Iranian mission would be far more complicated.

Israeli officials believe the Iranian nuclear program is so far advanced that any attack would delay it by two to three years at best, but not destroy it.

And unlike the Iraqi and Syrian targets, Iran has spread out its nuclear targets across the country and buried the installations deep underground. This has created a huge logistical challenge.

“It’s a very advanced program with many facilities, some very large and some very fortified. To destroy them you need a series of massive assaults for two to three weeks, a month, something like that,” Shapir said.

A one-time surgical strike, the most likely attack by Israel, “can’t do more than politically declare that we aren’t willing to tolerate” a nuclear Iran, Shapir said.

That has raised speculation that Israel’s veiled threats are no more than attempts to get Iran to back down.

Israeli warplanes would have to travel 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) to reach Tehran. This would mean crossing through potentially hostile Arab airspace and could require warplanes to refuel along the way, a time-consuming process that could leave aircraft vulnerable.

There are other options. Israel has been widely blamed for a computer virus that attacked Iranian centrifuges, sophisticated equipment needed to enrich uranium, as well as the mysterious assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. Israel has never confirmed involvement, and Israeli cyberexperts say such activities are unlikely to deliver the program a major blow.

Israeli officials have also floated other scenarios, such as crippling Iranian ports or oil fields.

Israel clearly prefers the U.S. to lead any military operation against Iran, in which case Israel would presumably commit, as it did in the 1991 Gulf War, to act in coordination with the U.S. and operate missile defense systems.

Israeli defense officials estimate that because of its superior firepower, the U.S. could wait until next year and still have the capability to act.

U.S. military and political officials have spoken out in the past against an Israeli attack. Israeli defense officials say they haven’t committed to giving the U.S. significant notice of an Israeli airstrike.

But the U.S. and Israel are working together on projects to improve combat jet range, communications and refueling. They also share intelligence reports and are jointly developing missile defense systems.

The race for former State Senator Carl Kruger’s seat is really getting nasty. In an appearance at Brooklyn Young Democrats meeting at a bar in Sheepshead Bay last night, Councilman Lew Fidler was filmed by the Sheepshead Bites blog blasting his opponent, David Storobin, for having ties to extremist groups.

“David Storobin, a guy who can’t even fess up to what he writes on his web pages anymore and is busy scrubbing what little history he has, because he’s embarrassed about his ties to skinheads, and neo-Nazi groups and white supremacist groups,” Mr. Fidler said.

Councilman Fidler’s comments referenced controversy over Tweets by the @Storobin4Senate account implying President Obama is a Muslim and a blog written by Mr. Storobin that was linked to on white supremacist sites. In his speech, Councilman Fidler said Mr. Storobin’s campaign is the beginning of a plan to take out Democratic politicians in Southern Brooklyn hatched by Republicans emboldened by Congressman Bob Turner’s upset victory in the special election to replace Congressman Anthony Weiner.

“The fact of the matter is, that we have lived most of our lives here in Southern Brooklyn believing and knowing that Democrats win. And we had a misstep a couple of months ago when we lost a seat in Congress that we never should have lost. We lost a Democratic Congressman we never should have lost and now the Republicans believe, they really believe, that they can win.”

Councilman Fidler cast the race as a high stakes contest that could have huge consequences for the Democratic Party in Brooklyn if he loses.

“If I lose this race, they’re coming for Steve Cymbrowitz, and Helene Weinstein, and Bill Colton, and Alec Brook Krasny and every single one of us here in Southern Brooklyn,” Councilman Fidler said. “They’ll be no telling them that, forget about it Democrats are the people who represent the people of Southern Brooklyn. They’re going to change politics for the rest of your adult lives here in Southern Brooklyn.”

J.T. Ready, a member of the U.S. Border Guard, a group of typically-armed volunteers who patrol the U.S.-Mexico border, is seeking to become the next sheriff of Arizona’s Pinal County now that Sheriff Paul Babeu plans to run for Congress, MyFoxPhoenix.com reports.

Ready, a former Republican, has switched parties and plans to run as a Democrat. He has filed paperwork to form an exploratory committee and began communicating with potential supporters on his campaign’s Facebook page.

“This is a white European homeland,” Ready said at a Neo-Nazi rally in 2009. “That is how it should be preserved if we want to keep it clean, safe and secure.”

Ready had his first taste of politics in 2006 during a City Council run in Mesa, Ariz. But Ready’s stance on illegal immigration and past inflammatory statements have some concerned about his political aspirations.

Bill Straus of the Anti-Defamation League characterized Ready’s attempt to enter politics as “very, very frightening.”

“The fact that a Neo-Nazi, then a member of the National Socialist Movement, the largest Neo-Nazi group in America, was working its way into mainstream politics was very, very frightening,” Straus said.

Related articles

• Rocking out with Neo-Nazis; free speech or inciting hatred? (radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com)
• Is Your Neighbour a Neo-Nazi? (edinburghanarchists.noflag.org.uk)