/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7336334]

Hi /sci/

Without resorting to memes, your task is to explain what is wrong with the way women's studies studiers do research.

Go.

[Anonymous No.7336343]

>what is wrong with the way women's studies studiers do research.
that they don't

[Anonymous No.7336363]

>>7336334
There is nothing to research.

[Anonymous No.7336385]

>>7336334
Same as with all the sciences that aspire to study and affect contemporary culture, they're to a high extent politicied agendas weakly disguised as genuine scientific inquires.
They have a overarching narrative clear to them they set out to prove, datamining for confirmation, stamping the label of 'science' on any findings to lend weight to the argument being forwarded.

Most harmfull to society is that economics are plagued by this big time as well, pretending like they're studying laws of nature rather than a man made system subject to change.

[Anonymous No.7336388]

>>7336343
I'll give you a serious answer: they don't have a very good grasp of statistics. I don't doubt that they collect raw data that could theoretically be meaningful, but they butcher the analysis.

Take the oft-repeated "70¢ to the dollar" factoid. It's ultimately incorrect because it only looks at income/year and general field of occupation. So a high-powered businessman working 8-hour days is being compared to, say, a freelance business blogger who works 3 hours a day from home. It's a meaningless result. If, instead, you look at what men and women in the exact same position make per hour, you find that women actually make ever-so-slightly MORE than men.

But that doesn't get reported, for two reasons. The first is that the researchers don't understand enough statistics to known why they need to normalize their data. The second is that there's an implicit agenda to women's studies. I'm not saying it's a sinister agenda or a feminist conspiracy — it's clearly not. But no women's studies researcher would ever conclude that women make more than men. If they saw the signs pointing in that direction, they would either quietly drop the research project, or fudge the data with sloppy statistics until it fit the agenda.

[Anonymous No.7336405]

>>7336334
What a stupid task. Of course there is bad analysis in women/gender studies - there's bad analysis in every field.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/8/70/

This is a metaanlysis for suicide and substance abuse risks in the LGBT community. They do mention that many of the studies didn't meet their quality metrics for inclusion.

There's bad research everywhere.

>>7336385
No shit. Data fudging, misinterpretation, and personal agenda happen in physics, chemistry, and history too.

>>7336388
Those oft cited statistics are pretty much laughed at by serious social statisticians.

[Anonymous No.7336411]

>>7336334
>strongindependentwomyn.jpg

She really seems to be the opposite of independent

https://youtu.be/uOHDkIxyu2A

[Anonymous No.7336427]

It's a fact that women have different brains than men. Everything with what they call patriarchy or misogyny can be explained by fundamental psychological evolutionary biology. Is there something objectively wrong with how one sex of an animal treats their opposite sex? Everything they complain about isn't cultural or social, it is what we have evolved into over millennia. I trust evolution more than feminist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7336443]

>>7336405
>No shit. Data fudging, misinterpretation, and personal agenda happen in physics, chemistry, and history too.

Of course, but the difference is that there it is not the explicit goal of the entire field.

[Anonymous No.7336450]

>>7336343
>>7336363
>>7336385
>>7336388
>>7336411
>>7336427
>>7336443
wow how offensive guys

you are why womyn are afraid of science stuff

[Anonymous No.7336458]

>>7336443
Can you point me to a set claims perpetuated by respected gender studies researchers that is inherently flawed?

>inb4 hurr durr >respected gender studies researcher

[Anonymous No.7336468]

>>7336450
Well, perhaps if women truly want to be equal to men they need to start being less afraid? If anything that is what will empower a person.
Like having a dick doesn't absolutly require us to be one right? So perhaps having a pussy isn't a valid excuse to act like one of those either.

[Anonymous No.7336472]

>>7336334

[Anonymous No.7336508]

>>7336458
Like I said, the 70¢ factoid is still widely repeated, even by serious journalists and experts.

[Anonymous No.7336526]

Are you asking me to disprove theories on phallocentrism and microaggressions? I'm not going to do that, I will go straight to what matters.

women are just as intelligent as men but they do behave differently, the fact homosexuals share many behavioral traits with heteros of the opposite gender only helps to prove there is a biological process behind this behavior, there is compelling evidence that their brain formed like that of a hetero of the opposite gender

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3

it is not far fetched to assume that this behavior extends beyond sexual orientation, like the theory of evolution the evidence is overwhelming even if the exact process behind it is not fully understood (Darwin never knew about DNA)

you can either deny this out of fear of any evidence of differences being used by evil sexists to claim men are superior, or you can accept this and start figuring out ways to make STEM more appealing to women, figuring out the psychology behind domestic violence and so forth

scientific rigor can be applied to women's studies and you will find it involves abandoning concepts which rely on collectivism, antipositivism and equality

[Anonymous No.7336535]

>>7336508
>serious journalists
English majors? kek
>experts
What experts?

[Anonymous No.7336547]

>>7336526
That post was just beautiful anon. I wish I could express myself with the same level of eloquent bite-size arguments at will.
Including the ability to verbalize wikipedia URL's on the fly in spoken dialouge to source my statements, that'd be extra awesome.

[Anonymous No.7336941]

>>7336547
I'm not sure whether you mean that or this is very subtle sarcasm that wouldn't be out of place on 4chan

coming back to this thread again I thought my post was kind of stupid and off the chain, also pointless because OP was probably gone at that point, but hmmm thx anyway

[Anonymous No.7336976]

>>7336334
they have a clear agenda before they even start writing one of their studies. most of them are severely flawed in every single aspect because of this.

[Anonymous No.7336981]

here a recent study about sexual assault in gym showers I did recently.

[Anonymous No.7337111]

>>7336388
That's an interesting generalization, I know a women's studies researcher who has a PhD in statistics.

[Anonymous No.7337125]

>>7337111
If she is actually a researcher, sir trips, give me a link to her university page

[Anonymous No.7337177]

>>7336526

You claim

>women are just as intelligent as men but they do behave differently
>the fact homosexuals share many behavioral traits with heteros of the opposite gender only helps to prove there is a biological process behind this behavior, there is compelling evidence that their brain formed like that of a hetero of the opposite gender

but this

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3
>...reported the INAH-3 to be smaller on average in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, and in fact has approximately the same size in homosexual men as in heterosexual women

Where is the evidence that a homosexual woman's brain develops like a man's? What do IQ studies of homosexual men say? Do you know if they reflect pic related?

and then you follow up with

>it is not far fetched to assume that this behavior extends beyond sexual orientation

It is far fetched to assume that. Further it is far fetched to assume

>women are just as intelligent as men but they do behave differently

as a conclusion. No evidence has been provided.

>make STEM more appealing to women

Nothing about science should appeal to personal identity. If a woman is competent she should be able to do it. It's still a man's field.

[Anonymous No.7337600]

>>7336334
A lot of the research that is done is taking historical information and manipulating it to their idea of logic.

Taking the suffrage movement and using it as a source for affirming that men can offend and women cannot, because women do not historically have the same societal status as men did.

I also would argue that they often use trivial focus groups and consider it a study. For a women studies assignment I had to use twitter statements as primary sources. GG

>pic related

[Anonymous No.7337604]

>>7336334
It's just as bad as the way the rest of the social sciences do research.

[Anonymous No.7337606]

>>7336450
>you are why womyn are afraid of science stuff
If derision and scorn actually scare someone, they shouldn't be treated as adults.

[Anonymous No.7337650]

I mean the fact that the ideas of Catharine MacKinnon, Mary Daly and Luce Iraguray are still taken seriously is a joke.

To expand on >>7336472 if you want to say anything meaningful about populations you need to use a quantitative statistical approach. Not only does woman studies rely extensively on qualitative research but as a whole is highly dismissive off quantitative research, just look at the response to Ceci and Williams.

Another key thing is that they completely fail to acknowledge any scientific progress made in fields intrinsically tied to theirs ie psychology and biology. For example many of them still believe in tabula rasa and it directly influences their research ie no consideration of heritability. For the few quantitative researchers this means introduction of significant bias into their work and for the qualitative researchers it means there work is essentially worthless.

While it is true that research in any field can be politically motivated, in most fields it is more motivated by individuals with political opinions not the entire field having a political opinion. ie physics may have it's Fred singers which bias their own research but as a whole the field moves forward in a non-politicized manner while a ton of gender studies research is based on entirely political concepts see any research on critical theory / microagressions.

[Anonymous No.7337675]

In women's studies, correlation=causation and deliberate bias is fine.

[Anonymous No.7338177]

>>7336334
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/womens-and-gender-studies/wgs-115-gender-and-technology-spring-2013/Syllabus/

Mi first sight was that it was OK, eventhough I would have loved to see some videolectures. Then I saw the requiered texts
>mfw
This must be a fucking joke

[Anonymous No.7338193]

>>7338177
cont
Also it is fucking bullshit that most of thesse courses requier just 3 motherfucking papers to complete the course. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/anthropology/21a-350j-cultures-of-computing-fall-2011/Syllabus/

This triggered me. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/anthropology/21a-350j-cultures-of-computing-fall-2011/readings/
JUST LOOK AT THIS SHIT. Holy fuck I knew it was sort of a bullshit career but this is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.7338209]

with the way they do what?

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.7338249]

>>7337600
>For a women studies assignment I had to use twitter statements as primary sources.

I don't see how anyone can take women studies serious after that

[Anonymous No.7338284]

>>7336526
>the fact homosexuals share many behavioral traits with heteros of the opposite gender only helps to prove there is a biological process behind this behavior
What
Was this ever tested or is it just your opinion?
The opinion that homosexuals in general behave kinda like the other sex doesn't "help to prove" that there is a biological process behind it, it's just an observation and we "don't know why they do it".
Is it not even MORE plausible that the behavior is chosen? I mean if all gender roles are social constructs and inherently not biological, how come homosexuals adopt the gender role of the other sex as a result of a biological process?

Either you conclude that gender roles are biological and thus establish the patriarchy as rule of nature, which you can't because it's woman-studies and that would directly contradict the foundation of your profession; or you conclude that gender roles are chosen and homosexuals are merely emulating the other sex to attract their own sex (or for whatever reason they choose to do it), saying nothing about the biological legitimacy of their actions, which also undermines your profession albeit not as much.

You did demonstrate what is wrong with the way women's studies are carried out though, you already knew what the results should be before you started "researching".

[Anonymous No.7339256]

>>7336334
>women's studies studiers
why did I laugh at this?

[Anonymous No.7339567]

I don't wanna be studied by a bunch of lesbians, that's what is wrong with women's studies.

go get a normal science degree if you want to be a researcher. don't make us into labrats. don't make the next generation think that women is something that cannot be understood or researched without a university degree. it's a fucking gender, do something better with your time.

[Anonymous No.7339570]

typically they don't do research, they just write essays littered with a few choice anecdotes or illustrative examples

[Anonymous No.7339613]

>>7339567
>>7339570
These.

[Anonymous No.7339843]

>>7339567
I mean you can say that about any other biological or social science research field.
That's a stupid and childish approach to take imo. "I dun wanna have people do research on me cause it makes me feel uncomfortable."

[Anonymous No.7339876]

>>7339843
Are you actually retarder

[Anonymous No.7339884]

>>7336388
>...you find that women actually make ever-so-slightly MORE than men.
Can I have a citation to this? This is pretty fascinating. What field of work is this taken from?

[Anonymous No.7339892]

>>7336334
Motte and bailey tactic towards topics in general, for example the gender wage gap.

Ignore research into the effects of hormones on behaviour. They just dismiss this.

Use exapnding categories to inflate various statistics, for example 1/3 women are raped on campus/in their life etc.

Ignore themselves as a cultural institution when there are many feminist campaigns who engage in the exact behaviour they claim to be against. Example, the NWO in the US (largest feminist organization) claims that mean abuse children more often than men, this is not true. One example here is the homicide of children, women murder their own children at a rate roughly 4 times higher than men.

[Anonymous No.7340539]

>>7337177
>>7338284
So homosexual men and women share certain formations in the brain while heterosexual males do not. Feel free to discuss this with the scientific community if you have any doubts about the correlation. Sexual dimorphism is a well understood thing, this shouldn't be a big deal.

This might be difficult for the opinionated folks of 4chan to understand but someone who is searching for the truth will quite readily support facts and theories regardless of whether they support or counter popular agendas. So it can be confusing. Why did I say something which implies homosexuality is not a choice? Am I for or against women's studies? It could be that women' studies is right about some things and wrong about others.

Women's studies is obviously influenced by the psychological effects of being marginalized, when you look at things like "microaggressions" you see hypersensitivity typical of someone who has been bullied and has started seeing minor events or criticism as a potential repeat of some traumatic event in their past. It would be interesting to see women's studies recognize the effects their experiences have had on them and their ability to make rational judgments, importantly their vulnerability to extremism.

[Anonymous No.7341885]

>Social ''science''

[Anonymous No.7342105]

>>7336334
Who is this semen demon?

[Anonymous No.7342119]

>>7342117

[prof4wymynstods No.7342241]

>>7336334
OP, I hope you know that women studies is a "research subject" just made up to justify politics, feminism and male bashing. :^)

>>7337111
REKT
E
K
T
>>7337125

[Anonymous No.7342324]

>>7342105
alexis ren

[Anonymous No.7342338]

>>7337600

>For a women studies assignment I had to use twitter statements as primary sources.

Jesus fucking Christ

[Anonymous No.7342345]

>>7342324
>those fucking chimp arms

absolutely fucking DISGUSTING. I bet she has some heavy stomach hair game going on.

Dirty unwashed females. FUCK

[Anonymous No.7342346]

>>7342105
>>7342324
yfw when she's only 18 yrs

Grill is looking atleast 5-6 yrs older.

[Anonymous No.7342348]

>>7340539
shut up you pompous fuck. You weren't talking about sexuality being predetermined until you were wrong. The suggestion you made was that women and men must have similar IQs because some men can be born with a female's sexuality.

[Anonymous No.7342353]

>>7342105
>Who is this semen demon?

Could have looked at >>7336411

https://youtu.be/uOHDkIxyu2A