Are Facts Sexist (Racist or otherwise Bigoted)?

[Sean_OBrien]

In the past month or so, there have been a couple of stories which are generally not helpful to science and honest research. The first being the Italian seismologists who were found guilty of not being able to project a volcanic eruption. Although that isn't directly tied to this particular idea, it is relevant in the larger picture and presents an interesting tangent...

In particular though, this is related to a study which looked at whether or not there was a specific factor which might be attributed to female voting preferences. The study was performed by Evolutionary Psychologist Dr. Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio.

In the study, it found that females who were single and not using a birth control which impacted hormones and menstruation tended to be more likely to hold liberal ideals during ovulation than not. In contrast, married females held more conservative ideals during ovulation. There was no significant difference between the two groups while not ovulating. Participants were weighted regarding their age and background to correlate between similar socioeconomic groups (other than their marital status).

While the study generally explains certain differences between married and single female voters political leanings, when it was picked up by CNN a week or so ago - the webz exploded in rage (as much rage as a somewhat obscure evolutionary psychology study could generate). I would link to the original article, but CNN has since taken it down:

[url]http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/24/do-hormones-drive-womens-votes/[/url] - The article is gone, but there is a significant comment stream where you can read the reactions.

You can read one of the more in depth commentaries on the article here:

[url]http://jezebel.com/5954617/cnn-thinks-crazy-ladies-cant-help-voting-with-their-vaginas-instead-of-their-brains[/url]

The problem, according to the detractors, had nothing to do with actual faults in the study or the methodology of it - rather that the study was done at all. Prominent feminist studies experts cited it as just another attempt to reinforce that women should not be allowed to vote and especially not be able to hold a position of authority because they are obviously irrational hormonal creatures. Lots of other individuals voiced similar opinions - again, without actually addressing any of the data presented or the methodology of the study.

On balance the actual impact on female voters is a wash. As the primary function is tied to ovulation, and given a more or less even distribution those in each group balance out those in the other group.

The funny bit is that in the 2008 election a study was performed which tested testosterone levels in male voters which found that those whose political candidates won their race had an increase in testosterone while those whose candidates lost had reduced levels of testosterone. That study also indicated that the level of change was enough to cause ED in certain individuals as a result of the lowered testosterone levels.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/is-america-man-enough-to-vote.html?_r=0[/url] (Just one article which mentions the 2008 study, didn't have a link to the specific article handy though).

Further, one of the feminine studies experts countered that she didn't think that female hormones impacted women's votes any more than testosterone impacted the debate performances. The problem of course is that dozens of studies have shown that testosterone levels do impact debate performance (and other forms of posturing, both political...personal...and professional).

So, are the findings in this study or any other study which might deal with differences between sexes, ethnic groups, religious groups or other differential groups bigoted? I tend to take findings at face value. They are neither racist or sexist - just findings. In general they are not even a particularly important factor in policy decisions, and simply stand on their own.

[Mr Mystery]

Depends on the peer review quality.

For instance, phrenology is long since debunked, but once had support as a 'fact

I don't think there's a black and white answer to this.

[Psychosplodge]

Well to be fair women are controlled by their hormones in the same manner we are.

It's like when someone says Everyone's entitled to an opinion
it's true they are, but some of them are wrong as they contradict facts.

I'd suggest it's how they are portrayed that is the issue. Also some people are just looking for the next thing to take offence at.

[DarkLink]

And, of course, the default presumption is that people are purely rational beings. Just take a glance at human behavior over history and you might start to question that. People are influenced by all sorts of non-rational things. For one group (in this case women), it might be birth control related stuff. On another (men) it might be testosterone levels. And there will be plenty of other factors as well.

It's pretty well established that men and women do act and think fundamentally differently in a lot of ways. It's not sexist to recognize that there are physiological and psychological differences between men and women. It is sexist to use those differences as an excuse for certain forms of behavior.



On a semi-related note, the USMC has opened its Infantry Officer Course to female volunteers, as a test to see how to advance gender equality in the Corps. Women currently can't serve in combat positions, though they can be 'temporarily assigned' to the unit and do serve various unique functions. So far, however, all the females (there haven't been very many so far, the program just started) have been dropped from the course for either medical reasons (probably stress related injuries such as stress fractures) or for failing physical tests. It's important to note that going Infantry is very competitive for USMC Officers. It's kind of the equivalent of going to school to be a doctor or lawyer, becoming an Infantry officer can be a big career booster.

IOC is one of the most physically demanding courses in the Corps, with a lot of rucking with very heavy weight over very long distances in simulated combat situations. This is as much a test to see if any females can sustain that level of physical exertion without injury over an extended period of time. It's a massive waste of time, effort, and money to try and accommodate multiple genders adequately if there's only going to be a handful of females even capable of completing the program.

Related article: [URL]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite[/URL]

[Psychosplodge]

surely they should simply be subjected to the same tests as their male colleagues? Nothing more, nothing less.

[Sean_OBrien]

surely they should simply be subjected to the same tests as their male colleagues? Nothing more, nothing less.

Would that it were - though all too often that is not the case.

On a basic level, female military members are not held to the same standards as male military members in the US (not specific to a job, just general military). You can take a look at the break down of the Army requirements here:

[url]http://www.apft-standards.com/[/url]

In specific career fields, you have a variety of differing standards between men and women (with a few exceptions). Even within positions where a lower strength would be detrimental to their ability to do their jobs (fire fighters and security forces are two that I know of first hand).

Well to be fair women are controlled by their hormones in the same manner we are.

Yes, and the second study which I linked to postulated that that aspect was in fact linked to lower male votership compared to female votership. Because the reduced testosterone levels following losses of people you vote for which is present in males, it leads to a feeling of being generally oppressed. Those who are significantly impacted by a loss are less inclined to go through and vote the next time around.

[Phototoxin]

People will always take offense at perceived insult. This once got me in trouble as a topic : 'In general womens brains are smaller than mens'

It was instantly assumed that I was saying women were stupid, when in fact surely if they are doing better in school & university and have smaller brains there is more smartness per volume than male brains? But yeah it caused hell because people wanted to be angry. So do not despair!

Also hormones have a serious impact on mood, having several different hormonal disorders it is amazing how your mood and thought processes can vary if there is a change in your levels of various hormones.

[DarkLink]

surely they should simply be subjected to the same tests as their male colleagues? Nothing more, nothing less.

That's exactly what the program is doing. They're taking female candidates normally barred from IOC, and putting them through exactly the same thing the males have to go through. It's a feasibility test at the moment, and it only just started a few months ago.

But, yes, generally females are held to significantly lower standards than males, at least physically. USMC physical fitness test has three components, pull ups (max score of 20 for males, while females instead do a flexed arm hang), crunches (which is one area females can generally keep up with males), and a 3-mile run (max score is 18:00 min for males, 21:00 for females).

There are physiological reasons behind this. Females are, on average, 30-40lbs lighter than males. That's a really big deal when you're carrying 100lbs of gear on your back. Females have wider hips than males, which is great for giving birth but inefficient for running, and when you put heavy packs on females have a much higher rate of stress related injuries. Females have an extra ~10% bodyfat over males on average, which is more weight and less muscle to carry it compared to males. And the women's fitness industry is not exactly helping women get better at anything physical except jogging on a treadmill for a half hour at a time. [URL]http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/why-women-cant-do-pull-ups/[/URL]

All told, it's a lot of physical disadvantages to overcome when you're performing high intensity, high tempo stuff.

[Up The Walls!]

I imagine there's nothing more terrifying a prospect for scientist than coming up with answers which come up against public consensus or excessively vocal pressure groups. The entertaining one I'd heard, unsure about veracity, was a scientist getting attacked for posting a study saying that birds weren't that bothered by wind farms. The animal rights lobby* wanted birds to be adversely affected by them so they could have something to fight against (the fight, of course, being far more important than ever actually winning it), he did a long study that found they just flew around the things, got death threats for it. In the 1600s, you had to worry witht he Inquisition. In 2012, you have to worry about people who 'have everything's best interests in mind'.

*Basically, their stance seems to be an increasingly patronising 'animals are really, really stupid and will all die without putting up any effort in the event that a human breathes near them'. If aything, they're pretty intelligent and for the most part, find increasingly ingenious ways to cope.

[Bean]

Really?

"People are influenced by hormones" is news? People are basically elaborate hormone-expression systems--I thought we'd known this for a while?