How is Gender Studies pseudo-science?

Plastic_Town_7060 · 2025-05-05T15:01:33+00:00

Biased Frameworks: Gender studies and sociology often start with assumptions rooted in feminist ideology, such as the existence of pervasive patriarchal oppression or systemic gender-based power imbalances. These assumptions can skew research design, data interpretation, and conclusions, undermining claims of objectivity. For example, studies like Blau & Kahn (2017) on the gender wage gap often emphasize systemic discrimination while downplaying factors like occupational segregation, hours worked, or individual choices, which may explain much of the gap.
Empirical Weaknesses: While these disciplines use empirical methods, their methodologies can lack rigor. Small sample sizes, non-representative datasets, or reliance on self-reported data (common in sociological studies) can lead to unreliable results. The WHO (2021) report on patriarchal impacts on health, for instance, may conflate correlation with causation, attributing health disparities to "patriarchy" without adequately controlling for socioeconomic, biological, or cultural variables.
Non-Falsifiable Claims: Many feminist frameworks, including intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), rely on subjective or unfalsifiable concepts like "lived experience" or "systemic oppression." These are difficult to test scientifically, as they can be interpreted to fit any outcome, resembling pseudo-scientific practices that resist disproof.
Peer Review Echo Chamber: Peer-reviewed studies in these fields often circulate within ideologically aligned academic circles, limiting critical scrutiny. Journals may prioritize narrative-driven research over rigorous, replicable findings, reducing the credibility of works like those cited.
Overreliance on Qualitative Data: Feminist scholarship frequently leans on qualitative methods (e.g., narrative analysis or case studies), which are prone to researcher bias and lack the predictive power of quantitative sciences. Intersectional frameworks, while influential, often prioritize anecdotal evidence over generalizable data, weakening their scientific grounding.

While gender studies and sociology may employ empirical tools, their ideological commitments, methodological flaws, and resistance to falsification can render them closer to advocacy than science. These fields often prioritize narrative over evidence, undermining their claims to rigor.

HonestlyKindaOverIt · 2025-05-05T15:12:14+00:00

The patriarchy doesn’t exist, so an examination on “the patriarchal impacts of health” is like doing a study on how the earth being flat is a major factor of global warming. It’s incorrect from the start, so anything that follows is nonsense.

SarcasticallyCandour · 2025-05-05T15:04:32+00:00

Just look at stata on DV within feminism. This is clearly not scrutiny driven.

Also look at boys lagging in school and how it is ideologically dismissed as boys losing male privilege. It ignores how women are running schools and are grading both sexes through a female lens. The hypocrisy is unbelievable in feminist "research".

Its ideological framework which is produced first.

The pay gap is extremely complicated, women often outearn men so how we explain that exactly?

skcuf2 · 2025-05-05T15:35:41+00:00

This is like asking how flat earth science is pseudo science. It's all based on bullshit and confirmation bias.

Upper-Divide-7842 · 2025-05-05T15:36:13+00:00

Empirical data can be misleading depending on how it's presented. Just saying "there is impirical data that supports this idea" really is not good enough.

"Women make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes." This is the wage gap often quoted by feminists. It was quoted by Obama.

And it is TECHNICALLY impirically true. However that does not mean that it proves the contention that feminists then go on to claim it does. That women are being descriminated to the tune of one quarter of their salaries just for being women despite performing a similar or as is often argued greater quality of work.

This is not a reasonable assumption based on the existence of this gap. An equally impirically true fact is that men do different jobs, work longer hours in those jobs, face a considerably higher risk of death or injury while performing these jobs and generally hold more work related qualifications.

You see how so called "impirical data" can be misleading?

Sometimes feminists will occasionally be a little more honest and refer instead to an "adjusted" pay gap. Where some or all of these metrics have been accounted for. I've seen various estimates for this one, the highest being 10%.

Now, to be honest I'm already pretty skeptical that feminists are honestly accounting for all the variables it is possible to account for as they've made it clear historically that they are already willing to essentially lie about this fact.

But let's take that 10% on good faith and assume that they really have accounted for all variables it is possible to account for.

Now is it reasonable to assume that women are being short changed the 10%? Yes. It's reasonable to think that may be the case.

However. Just because you have accounted for all variables that you can does not mean you have actually accounted for all variables.

Though, it may be unfashionable to presume that men are just doing a better job than women on average are the truth is from the data we have (which is just the general fact that on average women receive at most 10% less pay) that is just as reasonable a conclusion.

If you are the kind of person who ON AVERAGE works longer hours is it not unreasonable to believe that you might be the sort of person who ON AVERAGE gives slightly more effort to your employer while you are there. If you are the sort of person who is ON AVERAGE more willing to work a job that might kill you, it is not unreasonable to believe that you might ON AVERAGE be more likely to take risks that pay out more for your company and yourself.

This is not definitely the explanation either but it is as reasonable a thing to believe.

Much of the wage gap data suggests that men under the age of 30 are earning less than their female counterparts. Is that because men are necessarily being descriminated against?

Maybe. The world does seem to have swallowed a lot of feminist bullshit lately but it's also not reasonable to just assume that.

When you say "the wage gap" is an empirically proven phenomena you may not realise you are lying, but you are.

And this kind of data manipulation holds true for the bulk of social so called "science" only worse. They frequently rely on subjective data from surveys (so what people reckon) that are then interpreted by highly ideological researchers (so what people reckon about what people reckon). The fact that this slop gets "peer reviewed" is only as valuable as the quality of the peers. If they all started out with a prefabricated view on the world that they are seeking to prove (whitch they overwhelmingly do) then their bias will effect their individual output and that of the field as a whole.

And even then there is often conflicting studies that prevent there from being a clear consensus on the things that feminists like to claim as fact. Many of the studies have not even been replicated.

And to be fair to the social sciences it's hardly a unique problem, unaccounted for variables, lack of replication, ideological bias, these are problems that can and do arise in even in much "harder" scientific fields.

What you are left with is a giant soup of various, completely impirical, studies leaning you towards various conclusions. People with a prexisting ideology simply pick the ones they like to cite and ignore the ones they don't.

The reason I reject feminism is because it is not consistent with the reality that exists right in front of me, or even with itself.

Edit: Why the hell are you putting "intersectional frameworks pioneered by Kimberlé Crenshaw" up along side supposedly empirical data like Studies that prove the wage gap?

Even a true believer could not reasonably claim that an epistemological framework is anything like empirical evidence.

This is like saying "How can you not believe in god when Thomas Aquinus said there was one."

Thomas Aquinus may well have very convincing arguments for god but the framework itself (simply that god exists) isn't proof of anything.

Fair-Might-5473 · 2025-05-05T16:37:44+00:00

As someone who is in Academia. I lost total hope in science in general, ever since I started reading all the psychology papers. I cannot take it seriously anymore.

AbysmalDescent · 2025-05-05T16:46:46+00:00

Because it is very evident that there is a bias in the way the information is sought out, gathered, compiled, presented, interpreted and communicated. It is also very clearly done from a top down approach(starting out with a conclusion and then doing whatever it takes to curate whatever data is necessary to reach that conclusion) as they will often ignore or invalidate countering evidence/data or simply twist definitions to fit their own preconceived notions(which are often very misandric or blindly adhering to feminist rhetoric). A very common example of this is how you will often find acts against women boasted and used as evidence of patriarchy/misogyny, while acts against men often dismissed outright or, worse, used as evidence of patriarchy/misogyny when it is, in fact, misandry and counter-examples to patriarchy.

SpicyTigerPrawn · 2025-05-05T15:50:29+00:00

Can you guys debunk them?

If being male is all it takes to be gifted a privileged life why are so many boys and men doing so horribly? Why are men and boys giving up and killing themselves at an ever increasing rate while women can wear performative harm like a badge that engenders endless sympathy? Each imbalance that feminism sought to "equalize" is now even worse but in the other direction. How do "gender studies" curriculum explain the objectively negative fates of men and boys without resorting to endless victim blaming? The one thing feminism proved is that patriarchy never existed in the way they claimed it did, because the moment they tested their theory it imploded in a cloud of fairy dust.

MRAFacts2 · 2025-05-05T18:14:00+00:00

My personal opinion regarding Gender Studies is that from what I've read about it, focuses too much on social and cultural factors.

It seems to ignore significant biological factors as well. There are so many biological differences between men and women, a lot of which is an open secret to many. Even the brains of men and women differ quite a lot in their structure and function. Studies have shown that these differences exist even at birth and during the development of the fetus, so all of these are due to biology not due to socialization. Even in other mammals, we're aware that there is sexual dimorphism in neurons and inherent behaviorial differences, so why should humans be exempted from that?

A lot what we consider "socialization" and "culture" seems to be biologically driven. I personally believe understanding and taking that into account is necessary when need to help people of both sexes.

The "patriarchy" which people refer to is also what I would call quite nebulous. What exactly is it supposed to mean? The most common definition for me makes it seem like people believe that men were united together in wanting to somehow opress women and put them down.

However, this is also highly contentious and does not make any sense, since even in the past where rulers and all people at the top were predominantly male, they were a very low percentage of the male population and males also dominated the lowest bottom of the society, which they even do now with homeless people being predominantly male.

Men have always predominantly done the toughest and most dangerous tasks in history. Men have also been conscripted and used as cannon fodder for which women were exempted. Men alway restricting women from working is also a myth since women have always been doing some sort of work or the other.

Apart from this, during wars, androcide was very common, with armies killing all men and boys of the opposing tribe or nations. How is the benefiical for men?

Even universal suffrage wasn't present for the majority of men and was generally for highly privileged for men or was given to men by men literally selling their body for the draft.

If there is a patriarchy today, why are men on average doing worse than women on almost all indicators? Why are the vast majority of homeless males? Why are women such a big majority in colleges? Why is there affirmative actions, scholarships, and financial aids specially for women?

Also a lot of what we call the "patriarchy" is obervable in almost all societies around the globe, many of which were separated from each for thousands of years. No way on Earth (literally) there could've been such a coordinated effort globally. A lot of this has a biological component to it and women have also never been passive bystanders.

whordeum_sp · 2025-05-05T23:52:52+00:00

Can i debunk them? Sure.. right after i debunk the slop studies put out by antivaxxers and oil industry execs.

Feminists lie like a fish breathes water.

The sheer level of intellectual dishonesty in feminist "literature" makes it unironically less credible than a study on deforestation funded by the timber industry. Usually at least some amount of data is collected or analyzed in some capacity but the results are misinterpreted.

Feminists dont collect data. They dont measure anything. And on the rare occasion they do, you can say with 95% confidence that the data has been tampered with (gender pay gap slop) so as to not agitate the feminist hivemind. Its just bottom barrel regurgitatation to confirm pre-existing world views.

For example: how can the WHO determine the effects of ""patriarchy"", when the term has never been defined?? Feminists just accept this vague concept as fact and reference it in literally everything: but straight refuse to come up with any measureable data for what constitutes a patriarchy.

And btw yes ive read more feminist slop than every 1st world feminist combined.

Tldr: Read one feminist slop study and youve read them all. Lazy, dishonest, grifters.

SoseeyouPathic · 2025-05-08T09:16:57+00:00

Because ladies teach it

SoseeyouPathic · 2025-05-08T09:18:07+00:00

I heard jenifer Lawrence pitching about the gender pay gap. Talk about real pseudoscience. Bitch you make like 10 mill a movie stfu

Title	How is Gender Studies pseudo-science?
Author	Gamilat
Upvotes	0
Comments	16
Date	May 5, 2025 2:50 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1kfdhzo/how_is_gender_studies_pseudoscience/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-is-gender-studies-pseudo-science.1551515 https://theredarchive.com/post/1551515

Comments