Study: Women leaders did NOT do better at handling COVID and the reason it was claimed was due to sexism: hyper-focusing on good women, ignoring bad women, hyper focusing on bad men, ignoring good men (the study is generous, women leaders actually did significantly worse)

2,023 points128 commentssubmitted by mhandanna to r/MensRights624& 5 more

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9102585/COVID-19-Countries-led-women-NOT-fared-significantly-better-pandemic.html?login#newcomment

The reason this was sexist nonsense is because the original claim (women leaders better handled pandemic which was falsely claimed by a study then cited bu UN, WEF, Times, Guardian, BBC, etc) was:

  1. Entirely false to being with
  2. Due to Gamma Bias

1) entirely false to being with

See here, not only did female leaders do worse than male ones, but even higher female majority parliaments did worse:

In summary:

  • The median death per capita rate in female-led countries is 60.3 per million. The median death per capita rate in male-led countries is 17.8 per million (Mann-Whitney U test p-value 0.053).
  • The median death rate per capita in countries with national parliaments with at least 40% women is 59.7 per million. The median death rate per capita in countries with national parliaments with less than 40% women is 17.9 per million (Mann-Whitney U test p-value 0.048).

https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/idz5ih/self_according_to_european_cdc_and_oxford/

To be clear, to me with a brain THAT IS NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN... there are countless factors, but it makes it even more hilarious those agenda drive fake researchers tried to say women did better, when they literally did worse. And even if it was due to women as a class, that would still make no difference, as you aways judge individuals, not group identity.

The study saying otherwise was absurd in its logical gymnastics to try and paint a false picture:

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/ie5zng/fundamental_analysis_flaws_underlying_just_about/

2) The reason: due to Gamma bias:

https://malepsychology.org.uk/2018/12/04/why-are-there-so-many-disagreements-about-gender-issues-its-usually-down-to-gamma-bias/

Within the “celebration” cell, for example, the positive achievements of women are routinely celebrated as a gender issue. Within the same cell in the table, the positive actions and achievements of men are not similarly celebrated or gendered. For example, when a group of boys was recently rescued from dangerous underwater caves in Thailand, it was not reported as a gender issue or as a positive example of masculinity, despite the fact that all the rescuers were male.

In the “victimhood” cell, domestic violence against women, for example, is highlighted as a gender issue, whereas domestic violence against men is played down or completely ignored, despite the substantial numbers of male victims. When men make up the majority of victims (e.g. suicide, rough sleeping, deaths at work, addiction), the issues are not highlighted or portrayed as gender issues.

Within the “privilege” cell, male privileges are magnified in our media and politics as “patriarchy” whereas female privileges (for example relating to children and family life) are played down or ignored as gender issues.

The overall impact of gamma bias therefore, according to this hypothesis, is that masculinity is made to look significantly worse than it really is whilst simultaneously femininity is made to look significantly better than it really is.

What are the implications of the routine magnifying of the worst of men and minimising the worst of women? Well, for a start we might need to reconceptualise the ‘crisis of masculinity’ as a crisis in our attitudes towards men and masculinity.

Let’s make 2019 the year we wake up to the need to explore our conscious and unconscious biases against men. We hope that the concept of gamma bias and the gender distortion matrix will help people to think more clearly about gender issues.