4 ms·

This doesn't make any sense. The oppression of women wasn't because someone went "Oh, I read a study and I have the proof now!". Oppression of women has nothin

This doesn't make any sense. The oppression of women wasn't because someone went "Oh, I read a study and I have the proof now!". Oppression of women has nothing to do with scientific endeavor to study differences in gender. Science has no agenda besides understanding nature. Women's oppression has been going on for many centuries in every single culture independently before we even had scientific literature in this area.

etrabroline 6y ago
While an understanding of male/female difference has only of late become "scientific", the bases for discrimination between the two had roots in these kinds of observations, and feminists will be the first to point this out.
- google234123 6y ago
  So is the solution to close our eyes and prevent these kinds of observations?
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    Yes. That is the egalitarian/feminist position. There are no upsides to knowing the truth, so we should ignore it and attack anyone who starts looking at the data.
bitwize 6y ago
Science is carried out by humans, and humans act on ulterior agendas all the time. There's a whole class of facts called "hate facts", which are putative facts you would do well to doubt, and even if they were true pretend they are false anyway, because of the ammo they would give to people who want to oppress certain groups if they were true or widely accepted as true. One particularly volatile example is the supposed race-IQ correlations. Even if they were true we would be socially obligated to deny them, because letting that sort of thing become public knowledge would encourage the wrong sorts of people and groups. I suspect the same is true of sex differences in cognition, personality, or interest because it would enable misogynists to enact anti-woman policies in the name of "well, women just aren't interested in/don't have the personality required for that anyway".
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  A minuscule number of people read any of these studies or literature. To stop progress of scientific understanding because of some far fetched consequence isn’t a worthwhile trade off. My crazy sexist Uncle doesn’t conduct a deep thorough review of scientific literature before spewing his deep contempt for women. If I were to guess the number of people reading gender studies to bolster their biases, it would be in vanishingly small.
  - mLuby 6y ago
    You're right, in a narrow sense. But there's a game of amplified telephone going on. Researcher publishes: "Survey finds that undergrad males with heterochromia are 12% less likely to be leaders of student orgs than their homochromia male peers." Science communicator simplifies: "Having the same color eyes may make you more of a leader." News agency runs clickbait: "Eyeing the throne? Here are 5 kinds of people Science says could tank your company." Online forums spew anecdata: "I knew this one guy with different eyes who ran his org into the ground and also he was a predator. No way, me too!" The fringe group Securing our Homochromia Future starts getting mentioned by not-so-fringe people: "I don't agree with their methods, but they aren't entirely wrong about heterochromia either; did you read that study? No me neither, but the gist was…" (BTW if it wasn't already super clear I'm 100% making up these statements about heterochromia.)
    - guerrilla 6y ago
      This is beautiful. You captured exactly what's going on. That research published also probably only had 30 participants and wasn't the meta-study covering thousands of participants which said there's a tiny correlation between eye-color and assertiveness but they aren't totally sure because too many studies were of poor quality and couldn't even be included.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      Impressive strawman, even if this were remotely true, just because news channels twist the scientific conclusions outcomes to suit their biases. The problem is with the media and their pre-equipped intentions, not the scientific community. Otherwise, you will need to cease conducting science all together. Stop all nutrition studies because some wacko nutritionist is going to spin it off as a magic snake oil cure. Blaming scientists and impeding scientific exploration is preposterous and dangerous.
golemiprague 6y ago
I don't understand why peoople think there was "opression" of women during history. Men and women had different roles in society because of the various differences between the sexes. It doesn't mean they were opressed, it was just the most effective way to arrange things at those days or even today. Women as a whole are never opressed, not then and not now, the whole thinking is a devisive idea invented by feminists to advance their political ideas by putting a wedge between males and females.

etrabroline 6y ago

While an understanding of male/female difference has only of late become "scientific", the bases for discrimination between the two had roots in these kinds of observations, and feminists will be the first to point this out.

google234123 6y ago
So is the solution to close our eyes and prevent these kinds of observations?
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Yes. That is the egalitarian/feminist position. There are no upsides to knowing the truth, so we should ignore it and attack anyone who starts looking at the data.

bitwize 6y ago

Science is carried out by humans, and humans act on ulterior agendas all the time. There's a whole class of facts called "hate facts", which are putative facts you would do well to doubt, and even if they were true pretend they are false anyway, because of the ammo they would give to people who want to oppress certain groups if they were true or widely accepted as true. One particularly volatile example is the supposed race-IQ correlations. Even if they were true we would be socially obligated to deny them, because letting that sort of thing become public knowledge would encourage the wrong sorts of people and groups. I suspect the same is true of sex differences in cognition, personality, or interest because it would enable misogynists to enact anti-woman policies in the name of "well, women just aren't interested in/don't have the personality required for that anyway".

systemvoltage 6y ago
A minuscule number of people read any of these studies or literature. To stop progress of scientific understanding because of some far fetched consequence isn’t a worthwhile trade off. My crazy sexist Uncle doesn’t conduct a deep thorough review of scientific literature before spewing his deep contempt for women. If I were to guess the number of people reading gender studies to bolster their biases, it would be in vanishingly small.
- mLuby 6y ago
  You're right, in a narrow sense. But there's a game of amplified telephone going on. Researcher publishes: "Survey finds that undergrad males with heterochromia are 12% less likely to be leaders of student orgs than their homochromia male peers." Science communicator simplifies: "Having the same color eyes may make you more of a leader." News agency runs clickbait: "Eyeing the throne? Here are 5 kinds of people Science says could tank your company." Online forums spew anecdata: "I knew this one guy with different eyes who ran his org into the ground and also he was a predator. No way, me too!" The fringe group Securing our Homochromia Future starts getting mentioned by not-so-fringe people: "I don't agree with their methods, but they aren't entirely wrong about heterochromia either; did you read that study? No me neither, but the gist was…" (BTW if it wasn't already super clear I'm 100% making up these statements about heterochromia.)
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    This is beautiful. You captured exactly what's going on. That research published also probably only had 30 participants and wasn't the meta-study covering thousands of participants which said there's a tiny correlation between eye-color and assertiveness but they aren't totally sure because too many studies were of poor quality and couldn't even be included.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Impressive strawman, even if this were remotely true, just because news channels twist the scientific conclusions outcomes to suit their biases. The problem is with the media and their pre-equipped intentions, not the scientific community. Otherwise, you will need to cease conducting science all together. Stop all nutrition studies because some wacko nutritionist is going to spin it off as a magic snake oil cure. Blaming scientists and impeding scientific exploration is preposterous and dangerous.

golemiprague 6y ago

I don't understand why peoople think there was "opression" of women during history. Men and women had different roles in society because of the various differences between the sexes. It doesn't mean they were opressed, it was just the most effective way to arrange things at those days or even today. Women as a whole are never opressed, not then and not now, the whole thinking is a devisive idea invented by feminists to advance their political ideas by putting a wedge between males and females.