Lies, **bleep** lies, statistics


—————————————————–

Lies, **bleep** lies, statistics
schamber

Two observations:

1. Statistical sampling errors: I’m still going through the data, but I’m guessing that most of the studies cited in this article have significant sampling problems. To wit: There are many more working women of childbearing/marrying age in the country than stay at home wives. Therefore, the sample of working women is far more random (in the statistical sense) than the sample of non-working women. In most cases, this means that it’s more accurate. Furthermore, there might be characteristics of non-working women that incline them towards, say, not cheating on their husbands, that have nothing to do with work status. For instance, many women in the U.S. who make the decision to stay at home do so for religious reasons. Those same religious reasons may incline them to stay with their husbands, even if they aren’t happy. Similarly, working women, who are generally better educated, are less willing to tolerate quasi-abuse situations. In any case, I’m going through the data and noticing that none of the studies seem to try to isolate the effect of working from these other factors.

2. To be charitable towards this journalist, we could assume that the studies don’t have significant sampling errors and decide what follows. In which case my response is: Of course working women are unhappier than working men. I’d love to ask the journalist, if he’s married and his wife works, if he can honestly say that he splits the housework and childcare evenly with his wife. It seems that most of the effects described in this article can be directly attributed to the fact that even though men and women might put in 40 hour weeks at work, in the majority of cases women come home and have to cope with cooking, children, and housework. I’d be depressed, too, and wanting to look for some better deal. But surely, men of the world, the solution isn’t to marry intellectual inferiors, but to pitch in yourselves.

And as for specialization of labor, the author has a point, but one that can be taken a step further. If both members of a couple are working, what follows, economically speaking, is that they further outsource their labor. There’s no sense in an educated woman remaining barefoot and pregnant if a once-a-week cleaning lady has a comparative advantage for cleaning the stove and vacuuming the drapes.

Okay, that was three points, but the inability of this journalist to analyze studies infuriates me.

08-23-2006 04:14 PM

—————————————————–
Re: Lies, **bleep** lies, statistics
khankrumthebulg

Congrats the first attempt by a Feminist to attack the methodology of the Studies that were “Peer Reviewed” for accuracy. Please do read them then make your commments. Seriously it is the first intelligent and real question posed by Women who take issue with Michael Noer’s article.

I would also like to see what you think about Carol Gilligan’s studies which has never been published nor peer reviewed and the basis for the intitiatives in the 1980s for changing education to “Rescue our Oppressed Girls” who were falling behind. She has never published her data or had it peer reviewed. Yet it has become public policy.

This reality has been noted by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book “The War On Boys“. Any comments???

09-10-2006 05:36 PM

—————————————————–

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: