bad interpretation of social science


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – bad interpretation of social science

bad interpretation of social science
storresharding
Newbie
storresharding

As a social scientist, naturally, I had a lot of problems with Mr. Noer’s ‘interpretation’ of a lot of complex studies. He keeps qualifying his answers but yet still picks and chooses the bits and pieces and mightily overreaches to try to support his controversial contention. However, presenting the science in this way is simplistic and inaccurate, and I am sure that the NONE of the authors of the studies would ever present their findings in such way (and I am sure that they would be appalled that someone has twisted their work in such a way to make their case.) The reality is that whether marriages work or not is extremely complicated. The factors that contribute to the success or failure of a marriage is extremely complex; and divorce is not always a negative outcome! An example of how he twists things around is that he says that divorce leads to a drop in income for ‘individuals’ –however, if you break out the statistics separately for men and for women, men tend to have an increase in income after divorce, where women show a decrease. It is just this kind of dishonesty that I found even more dangerous than the patronizing tone he adopts when speaking about women, because the reader can easily pick up on his contempt for ‘smart, educated’ women, but often people are not knowledgeable enough about science in general or this field in particular to know that he presents a gross misrepresentation of research in this area. Shame on you, Mr. Noer, for contributing to harmful misrepresentations and inaccuracies around gender, and for being so sloppy in your editorializing. However, if you wanted to generate controversy and get lots of personal attention with your ‘politically incorrect’ views, congratulations, you got what you wanted!

08-24-2006 04:41 PM

Re: bad interpretation of social science
Antiriad
Regular Contributor
Antiriad
>if you break out the statistics separately for men and for women,
>men tend to have an increase in income after divorce, where women
>show a decrease.

Here is how many women view income:
His money = family money
Her money = her money

Obviously, therefore, a man’s “salary” tends to increase after a divorce while a woman’s tends to decrease.

Funny, by the way, how feminists use precisely the same tactics to convince the unsuspecting masses that domestic violence (which according to feminists is always defined as man on woman violence, since women are not intrinsically violent according to feminist doctrine) is reaching alarming proportions, that women make less than men in the same position (in reality they make as much, or typically more), that fathers abuse children more than mothers (the opposite is true), etc.

So let me ask you, Storresharding: on what feminist boards can one find your criticism of feminist falsifications and misuses of statistics that aim to present nonsense as “fact?” Since you’re a social scientist and all, one would think you would have noticed their egregious falsifications of reality, which have made their way into public policy (via VAWA, etc.).

Message Edited by Antiriad on 08-24-2006 05:02 PM

08-24-2006 04:58 PM

Re: bad interpretation of social science
vegasmike
Contributor
vegasmike

Antitriad, you are right on.

Feminazi use only studies that support their theories and ignoring the rest.

What is wrong with men choosing not to get involved with a career woman?

08-24-2006 05:03 PM

Re: bad interpretation of social science
Jahfre
Visitor
Jahfre

Here’s a better interpretation of social science: OXYMORON.

The “science” in social science can be debunked with a little pamphlet called “How to Lie with Statistics”

Social science postulates theories then manipulates statistics to “prove” them. It is a tool of manipulation used against the gullible.

This is simply another source of weaponry for the academic elite who have taken up the crusade to pit citizen against citizen in order to shepherd them into the polls on the right or the left.

Jahfre Fire Eater

“We need education in the obvious more than the investigation of the obscure.” – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

08-24-2006 05:22 PM

Re: bad interpretation of social science
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

Here is how many women view income:
His money = family money
Her money = her money

Obviously, therefore, a man’s “salary” tends to increase after a divorce while a woman’s tends to decrease.

Even as a generalisation, I wouldn’t say that view of finances is true by a LONG shot. Years ago, when the lion’s share of the income was both earned and distributed by men, it might have been accurate — but only because the woman working part-time was considered almost a recreational activity, a way to earn pocket money.

Either way, “salary” would not be defined as you have above. “Spending money” would. A salary has nothing to do with how it’s divvied up at home, it’s all about the amount the company hands you in a cheque.

As for the social science, I agree with the first poster that this is a bad case of cherry-picking arguments to get the spin the author wants.

Message Edited by Pelican on 08-24-2006 11:30 PM

08-24-2006 11:28 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: