Double-Standards in Sociology (Rant)

[Master of Ossus]

So I went to this talk by a sociologist who was discussing the gymnasiums and how they tend to be male-dominated. As part of her project, she compared two local gyms (Curves and Club Sport), and came to the conclusion that Club Sport was a male-dominated gym. Her methodology was EXTREMELY questionable. Basically, Club Sport divides various machines by type. Most of its cardio machines are in a particular room, while the weight room also includes a few cardio machines for track work and speed conditioning. Curves is, apparently, an all-in-one room gym. Women walk to different stations every three minutes (or however long), and complete each of the different stations twice as a workout.

Okay.

So, she focuses ONLY on the weight room at Club Sport and points out that virtually all of the machines there are designed for building upper-body strength. She argues that the decor (mirrors on the walls for people with free weights) are obviously masculine, while the decor at Curves demonstrates a softer, feminine side by having walls with silhouettes on them of women having fun while working out.

She goes on to claim that Club Sport is obviously a male-dominated environment, which oppresses women, because the machines at Curves are designed specifically for the female body. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? If anything, it shows that Curves is a FEMALE-dominated environment (which, afterall, is ALWAYS how Curves advertises itself--it doesn't even accept male members). Nevermind the fact that 55% of Club Sports' members are women. Nevermind the fact that most of the classes are dominated by women at Club Sport. Nevermind the fact that she TOTALLY IGNORED a majority of the facilities in drawing this conclusion. Club Sport is a male dominated environment which oppresses women.

How the flying fuck can someone come to a conclusion this ass-backwards and claim it to be of academic interest? If this were any field other than Sociology everyone in the audience would jump down their throats for ignoring the most obvious conclusion. Let's see: men aren't accepted as members at Curves, all of their machines are designed "specifically for the female body," all of their decor is designed exclusively for women, that means that ANOTHER gym is obviously designed for men (as opposed to being unisex)?

Fuck you, Sociology. This is why hard science and other social sciences invariably look down on your field.

[Darth Wong]

I'm somewhat curious why this is in the ARSE forum. Other than that, I agree; sociologists can get away with all kinds of shit that wouldn't be tolerated in the hard sciences.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm somewhat curious why this is in the ARSE forum. Other than that, I agree; sociologists can get away with all kinds of shit that wouldn't be tolerated in the hard sciences.

The rant focused on the gender issues of the gym, but it could've gone virtually anywhere. I also thought about putting it in the HoS, Off-Topic, and even SLM. Go ahead and move it, though, if you think somewhere else is more appropriate.

[Avalon616]

You know, it's not sociology's fault that that woman was an assclown. Anyone can come to a false conclusion in science- you'd be amazed the things I said could happen doing physics equations my senior year. But yes, she omitted evidence, skewed the findings, and was completely biased- definitely a bad scientist, whether a social scientist or a "real" scientist.

[Darth Wong]

You know, it's not sociology's fault that that woman was an assclown. Anyone can come to a false conclusion in science- you'd be amazed the things I said could happen doing physics equations my senior year. But yes, she omitted evidence, skewed the findings, and was completely biased- definitely a bad scientist, whether a social scientist or a "real" scientist.

There's plenty of bullshit like that in published sociology papers. It's not just some kid spewing nonsense in school.

[Lagmonster]

I'm going to send this to Off-Topic.

Gender segregation isn't even an evil, as this person seems to want to make it out to be. Men and women differ in very obvious ways. These differences are important in some situations - such as in reproduction or fitness or medicine - and completely irrelevant in most other situations.

I've heard more than a few social-sciences-professionals rant that segregation is an evil in all its forms, but these people are taking political correctness to an obscene art form.

[RedImperator]

Sociology's problem is that it's horrendously politicized. There are far too many sociologists whose conclusions are custom tailored to support their political point of view. All the social sciences suffer this problem to one extent or another, but sociology, from what I've seen, is the worst.

[Durandal]

This would seem to be more at home in SLAM, where we've discussed pseudo-sciences like sociology before. Any objections?

[Master of Ossus]

You know, it's not sociology's fault that that woman was an assclown.

This woman has a PhD in sociology, and I defy you to find a scientist in a respected field like physics who comes to a conclusion that runs exactly counter to what their own data says.

[Avalon616]

You know, it's not sociology's fault that that woman was an assclown.

This woman has a PhD in sociology, and I defy you to find a scientist in a respected field like physics who comes to a conclusion that runs exactly counter to what their own data says.

Wow. I stand corrected.

I can honestly say, I had no idea that soc was that biased. I've taken Intro level courses, and I'm in the humanities, but I honestly thought standards were higher. That pisses me off hardcore, cause it makes those of us who might go into the social scientists look illegitimate. Everything I've ever been taught by any sociology teachers or other humanities professors always follows the scientific method for analysis- I've never seen a "legitimate" source so skewed. *Fumes!*

I do want to blame the scientist though, not the science, but it seems that that field fosters biased opinions, especially biased opinions that concur with popular sentiment. Politics + Science = bad!

I still say the woman's an assclown, PhD or no.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sociobiology... the only social science that does not defame the ology in its name.

[Durandal]

I can honestly say, I had no idea that soc was that biased. I've taken Intro level courses, and I'm in the humanities, but I honestly thought standards were higher.

If the humanities improved their standards, the result would be millions more college drop-outs throughout the US. I have yet to meet anyone who's ever failed out of a sociology or psychology program because they're both so deplorably easy that one has to wonder why they're four-year programs.

[Durandal]

Moved to SLAM.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I can honestly say, I had no idea that soc was that biased. I've taken Intro level courses, and I'm in the humanities, but I honestly thought standards were higher.

If the humanities improved their standards, the result would be millions more college drop-outs throughout the US. I have yet to meet anyone who's ever failed out of a sociology or psychology program because they're both so deplorably easy that one has to wonder why they're four-year programs.

I would suggest that enough plagerism gets caught to cause quite a few failures.

As the son of a Sociology Ph.D I am obliged to defend the profession. It's got a lot of merit and promise after roughly a century and a half of work. It's certainly got less bullshit than, say psychology, and I would attribute most of the bullshit and assclownery to pomo(or as my mother puts it, claptrap) as opposed to the entirety of sociology.

Red, I could point you to one or two physicists who will vehemently insist that God created the universe 6000 years ago, but that's because they've allowed a bias to take control of their conclusions.

The fact that the stupid assclown was diddling over such matters suggests to me that she's a self-absorbed hypersensative pomo feminist, the pomo part, especially in its more nonsensical variaties, is all about rejecting old methodologies for no good reason. There is an underlying problem with pomo, it is attempting to be more radical, to be more out there, for the sake of being more radical. It perpetuates irrationality in a highly liberal group that otherwise could be achieving much better things. The fact that it is attempting to break away from scientism and eurocenterism, and push science away from scientism and eurocenterism, is a GOOD thing. But the assclowns out there manage to do so without thinking first where to go aside from away from these things and subsequently end up going every direction, leaving only a few to actually think about it.

At the moment it's all about separating the law of gravity from the myriad theories of epicycles, or relativity from the ether.

If you want to see REALLY stupid pomo wankery, read Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense.

[Darth Wong]

Red, I could point you to one or two physicists who will vehemently insist that God created the universe 6000 years ago, but that's because they've allowed a bias to take control of their conclusions.

You would have considerably more difficulty finding any who directly studied the subject in question, ie- they would have to be geologists or astrophysicists, whose area of specialization happens to be the origin of the Earth. Not to mention the difficulty of finding any who managed to get papers by the peer-review process while promoting such nonsense.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

So, which social sciences are the most reliable? What about Anthropology (physical/cultural) or archaeology? THey are considered SS's here. It's not the same at each college though. SOme consider them sciences, some consider them arts here.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So, which social sciences are the most reliable? What about Anthropology (physical/cultural) or archaeology? THey are considered SS's here. It's not the same at each college though. SOme consider them sciences, some consider them arts here.

'

Archeology followed by both branches of anthro and psych(cognitave and biological)

[HemlockGrey]

As the son of a history Ph.D I've gotta pimp history here. Not that bullshit "Ethnic Studies" shit, but the work of actual historians.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Red, I could point you to one or two physicists who will vehemently insist that God created the universe 6000 years ago, but that's because they've allowed a bias to take control of their conclusions.

You would have considerably more difficulty finding any who directly studied the subject in question, ie- they would have to be geologists or astrophysicists, whose area of specialization happens to be the origin of the Earth. Not to mention the difficulty of finding any who managed to get papers by the peer-review process while promoting such nonsense.

I certainly wouldn't argue against that. I'm simply saying that no field is without hatfuckers, the nat sciences have far better ways of dealing with them.

[NecronLord]

My mother did a degree in Sociology, and even she thinks it's often a bunch of wishy washy bullshit.

[Master of Ossus]

So, which social sciences are the most reliable? What about Anthropology (physical/cultural) or archaeology? THey are considered SS's here. It's not the same at each college though. SOme consider them sciences, some consider them arts here.

Archaeology is technically a branch of anthropology, but it's pretty reasonable. History and Econ are also pretty reasonable.

[Anarchist Bunny]

I'm in a sociology class right now, and let me tell you, everyone in that room is dumb as shit, including the prof, except for me, two girls from germany, and a 13 year old genius kid. And the prof. likes to have lots of class discussion, which are just painful.

[Keevan_Colton]

I've ranted here more than once about the absolute horseshit they spouted in the sociology course that they made me take last year...

I've had great fun every time one of the pomo pimpers opens thier mouth in any of the modules I've been in...it is fun though how offended some people get over a little swearing...I mean, what is wrong with telling the lecturer they're full of fucking shit when you can show why in detail?

[Lord Zentei]

I've ranted here more than once about the absolute horseshit they spouted in the sociology course that they made me take last year...

I've had great fun every time one of the pomo pimpers opens thier mouth in any of the modules I've been in...it is fun though how offended some people get over a little swearing...I mean, what is wrong with telling the lecturer they're full of fucking shit when you can show why in detail?

Because everyone's opinion is equally valid. And the professor is way smarter than you, knowing all sorts of deep stuff about, like, values and meaning.

And if you can't see the flaw in that kind of attitude...

[Mobiboros]

I have yet to meet anyone who's ever failed out of a sociology or psychology program because they're both so deplorably easy that one has to wonder why they're four-year programs.

That varies from school to school. I have a bachelors in Psych and I can tell you that at the school I went to the failure rate in the junior and senior level courses as well as the dropout rate (meaning changed majors out of psychology) was very high. History, Anthro and Archeo were the same way. People get into them, thinking they are 'easy' and change majors rapidly when the realize the volume of info they need to know just to get through sophmore classes.

Sadly, Soc is not as such. I know a lot of people from many different colleges who picked up soc as a double-major with whatever else they were doing because it's such an easy course-run. The hardest courses tend to be basic statistics courses.

What it sounds like, in this case, wasn't really the fault of the field so much as one woman's desire to add more 'evidence' to the idea that there is a grand male conspiracy to keep women opressed. I'm willing to bet she has a bachelors in both Sociology and Womens Studies.