is it sexist if it's based on a scientific study?

[QuestionMark99]

Hello all,

I'm doing some research on sexism/feminism and I came up with a kind of philosophical question (I'm a cis gendered male, btw, new here):

Let's say (hypothetically) that a scientific study was done on the difference in intelligence between men and women. Let's say the results showed that men are, on average, more intelligent than women. Would it then be sexist to make the claim "men are, on average, more intelligent than women" if it's based solely on this study? Would the scientists who conducted the study, in publishing the results, be sexist for publishing them?

I've always thought of sexism as an attitudea derogatory oneand not just a belief in certain differences between men and women if it's meant in or based on a scientific/objective context.

My personal opinion is that if the hypothetical study above was conducted and published and someone who had read it brought it up in a conversation (because it was relevant to the discussion), he/she would still have an obligation to be sensitive about it. It's still not an excuse to go around spouting out unflattering information just because it happen to be proved in a scientific journal. It's not a free license to say things like "men are, on average, more intelligent than women" without any concern for how that affects the listener emotionally. That's not to say I think it's sexist to bring a point like this up, just that it would be appropriate to say it in the right manner, something like:

"Now, I don't say this to be sexist, or to offend anybody, but it happens to be a proven fact that men are, on average, more intelligent than women. I only say this because it's relevant to the discussion and it's important for my point."

What do you think? Is it acceptable to bring up scientifically proven facts about certain differences between men and women (where one ends up seeming "superior" in some way to the other) if done in a respectful and polite manner?

Ha MyEmpireOfDirt I read your username before reading your post and my immediate thought was 'oh, I love that song!'

(Sorry for being completely irrelevant to the thread, was going to reply to the OP but I think he's gone...)

"it's easy for you to focus on hypotheticals, and theories, and principles, when in practice you aren't the one who is going to be on the receiving end of the real life experiences of prejudice and misogyny"

this!

OP, I'm sure you mean well, but what is hypothetical and abstract for you is real for us.

No one ever seems to discuss the hypothetical possibility that women are more intelligent than men. It always goes the other way and it's disingenuous to say it's all abstract when it always seems to coincide with the attitudes we experience in real life.

My dad always used to make claims about women this men that. When I got upset he would say he was just joking. But it never felt like a joke because what he was "jokingly" telling me always matched with what people told me in the real world.

It is spectacularly depressing to always have one's intelligence always called into question, to always feel the need to prove something. It is utterly draining. You have no idea how privileged you are -as a man - to never have the hypothetical limits of your intelligence called into question. I envy you.

Well said TheSameBoat.

Hypothetically were such a meticulously conducted conclusive study to exist there would be no point discussing it with women. Men are cleverer best discuss it with them.

Don't give up OP. Keep trying. Don't quit. A valid question will come along eventually.

And as for where the boundary of sexism exists, it exists right where people think the world can be neatly divided in two according to gender alone and that it consists of two groups, people and women.

Perhaps the OP has gone off to cause offense elsewhere.

Such as discussing "hypothetical" studies showing that people of colour are less intelligent than white people, with black people. Or that homosexuals are more likely to commit sexual offences, with gay people. Or perhaps a hypothetical study showing that Jewish people are more likely to be dishonest or that Latinos are more likely to be dirty.

Or, yunno, some other offensive stereotype.

Honestly OP, what exactly did you expect from this thread? That we would all fawn over a male poster wanting to discuss a MADE UP "study" showing that women are pretty thick after all?!

I mean really??

And you don't even have the manners to reply properly to some of the very good points made on this thread. Instead of discussing your hypothetical study proving that women are a bit shit really, why don't we discuss why men think they can waste women's time with stupid, offensive, pointless and sexist discussions and then get all sweary and flouncy when the wimmenz don't applaud the level of discussion??

Sheesh.

Your choice of example was a very poor one and it was guaranteed to get a negative reaction here. Perhaps that was your intention though?

Taking your question at face-value, however, I think there is a great deal of evidence to say that people will never accept new information that contradicts their beliefs.

I think the reasons you are finding it difficult to get responses which you would find helpful are because:

1. You are asking too many questions whilst making assumptions all rolled into one post.

1. The hypothetical question you have given as an example is a particularly poor one as there are many forms of intelligence and there is agreement that the previously regarded gold standard (IQ) can no longer be regarded as valid.

1. You are writing about feminists, a large group of people, as if they were a homogenous body who all think similarly and have similar background and knowledge of scientific method and interpretation.

I am afraid you are going to have to break it down if you want any valid information.

For a start you are going to have to define "feminist". This is crucial. You can't make assumptions in this area.

Secondly you need to pose a valid hypothesis. This could be, and lets take one of the frequently quoted anecdotes, map reading. The nul hypothesis would be "There is no significant difference in the time taken between men and women in driving to a unknown locations using a map" . If the study is well designed and sufficiently powered and shows a clear difference, one way or the other between the sexes, and if the study is replicated by another group or groups, then most people, men, women (and yes, even feminists!!) with an understanding of scientific research would accept the conclusions, acknowledging it is possible there is undeclared bias or even fraud and being prepared to reconsider in the light of new or better evidence.

I am wondering about your level of scientific knowledge. It may be best to be honest. If this is a GCSE project and you don't have much baseline knowledge, it would be better to do some reading first.

Buffy - it is a dangerous argument to say that because there is prior stereotyping that the study should never be conducted.

It may show women on average take a shorter time, it may show no difference or that men take on average a shorter time.

Effects of stereotyping is one form of confounding factor.

If the presence of confounding factors excluded the possibility of research, there would be very little research outside laboratories taking place. Confounding factors have to be recognised and built into interpretation of results, and may influence further research.

It is important that correlations are not seen as cause and effect. For example if the study showed a correlation between a longer time to find the location and female sex, this in itself does not explain why there is a difference between the genders. The explanation may lie in socialisation, effects of stereotyping, innate brain differences etc, etc and only further research can help answer this question. If the initial question is never asked we only have the stereotyping to live with.

Unless of course buffy it turns out women are not shit at map reading and the null hypothesis is true. (Your posts seem to suggest that you expect women would do worse.)

It may also depend on the type of map.
And the situation the navigation takes place in. I would be interested in a study that looked not at speed/time as this may depend on rate of travel (the driver/mode of travel) and not the navigator but instead the number of correct v incorrect and revised choices made. Then comparing m / f navigation teams, f / m, f / f and m / m.
It might turn out that some drivers are worse at taking instructions.

I am a pretty competent navigator and map reader.however I used to find navigating for my VA and EA ex extremely unsuccessful. For various reasons most of which were his twattery and refusal to believe I, a mere woman, might be correct.

Also if the study looked at e.g. maps of the layout of shops in a shopping centre, stalls at a conference or houses in a street or parts of a game board there might different result to route maps.

Don;t know if it has already been mentioned (I'm knackered from being up all last night with kids so haven't taken in the full thread), but in the history of psychology there have been numerous studies conducted by white male psychologists which 'proved' that black males were mentally inferior to white males. These studies, like most historical psychological studies, were conducted on males not females. Since that time other studies have since contradicted the initial finding, and own race biases were seen to be in effect with the older studies. We would now label these findings as being racist - and rightly so. They were conducted in such a way as to prove the researchers own biases. I feel that the lessons from these studies apply to any hypothetical studies you are talking about between males and females.

Sorry for the appalling grammar and spelling. I am barely staying awake atm!

We are meandering skilfully away from the OP, to a more interesting area.

There seem to be two different emphases - firstly the best interpretation of science and secondly the interpretation by the media and even the suggestion that some research should not be performed because of the likely bias of the researchers /methods and the interpretation of the results.

I have much sympathy with the concerns about the very damaging way the media, and even the researchers can interpret research (the MMR vaccination disaster is a spectacular example of both) but I think that is a separate issue and cannot draw a halt to well conducted research that could be presented misleadingly in the media. Good research can lead to further good research within the scientific community and increase our knowledge to the benefit of many. We shouldn't be denied that because of the daily mail et al.

Having a real (not hypothetical) teenage son, I wanted to add that I would expect the average teenager to be able explain some of the basic reasons why scientists would be unable to demonstrate that group x are more intelligent than group y. So much of GCSE Science is about the scientific method, limits of interpretation, construction of hypothesis etc that all young people should have some basic awareness of the flaws.

Agreed Buffy.

Yes Manly, it's true - GCSE science students should have that knowledge.

is it possible, in principle, that a study could be conducted with thorough meticulousness and objectivity

No. Anyone claiming complete "objectivity" is not to be trusted, IMO.

I recommend reading "Feminist Approaches to Science" (Ruth Bleier). You can pick it up online very cheap. It's dated but relevant.
Apologies if I'm making assumptions (and it's not an insult, I'm in the same position) but it's a decent/quick/easy read for someone early on in their studies...

No it wouldn't be sexist. But you also wouldn't go around claiming such a thing on the basis of one study.

And, the people who conducted the study would not be the ones who published it. Scientific papers need to go through a process of peer review before they even get published with no guarantee that they will. Then the study would need to be replicated and go through the process of falsification. This is what makes science science and not just opinion.

Also, these studies have been done. And they have gone through the processes of the scientific method. And while there are measurable differences between men and women, none of them equate to inferiority in intelligence.

It would be sexist however to do a study like this, and seem to find measurable average differences, to lie about your methods, to be falsified and still attempt to stand by the study.

Science is descriptive not prescriptive.

"the people who conducted the study would not be the ones who published it"

they should be, or you have an authorship problem contravening publishing ethics

Petula, I think pp meant the journal's publishers.