You are just addicted to logical fallacies apparently...
Nope. Case in point: I don't need to know why someone says "all men are smelly violent thugs who will rape women given the opportunity" to know that they're a bigoted fool.
False equivalency. You have evidence of behavior but not attitudes. Your example also was giving REASONS for why someone should be avoided while the study included no reasons at all. A reason is a why.
Your study includes none of that.
A better example would be:
""we have evidence that women will cross the street statistically in when groups of men approach.""
That includes no why or reasoning. We can infer it but those inferences will be suppositions and not conclusive.
What is more, my example like the article includes no context. For example, in my study what is the significance of the danger in the neighborhood itself? Maybe in my study, what is going on is that women do that in bad neighborhoods but not good neighborhoods. And simply because it happens in bad neighborhoods, if you combine the two data sets, the average is still that women tend to do that.
In this way, you'd have misrepresented the data by implying that the casual factor is that it is men and not that it is men in a bad neighborhood.
Statistics are complicated and really most people don't have the logical discipline to be able to deal with them. People tend to mistake their biases and assumptions for being causal evidence. It doesn't work that way.
You're reading more into the data than is actually there.
As to you not speaking to motivations, then you can't cite bias or prejudice. That is a why.
As to reasons being of cold comfort, the reasons would give you the ability to address any problem if it exists at all. Absent reasons you don't know why it is happening and you don't know how to fix it. You just have some statistics. Absent the why you can't criticize or point to this as being evidence of prejudice.
The why is quite important, I am afraid. You need it to morally and ethically judge the issue.
You are attempting to use this study to make a moral and ethical point. You can't do that without the "why".
As to plenty of women disagreeing with universal suffrage, the majority of MEN agreed with it or women wouldn't have it today.
We're talking about statistics. Statistical outliers are not going to help you because we're talking about averages. You can't cite the possibility that some small portion of women might be biased against women when the study was showing that the women are JUST as likely as the men to do it and that they were doing it with some consistency.
You're not rational enough to have this discussion. You need to be much more anal and literal with your data... or you really can't delve into statistics to this degree. I know that comes off as insulting and that isn't my intention. The issue is that you're not taking the data seriously enough or limiting your conclusions to the scope of the data itself. If you don't do that then you start spewing bullshit.
I'm regret that this has become hostile and personal and that you're going to feel badly towards me here after. That was not my intention and I regret the inevitability of it.
I ask only this going forward... consider what the data actually is LITERALLY saying and process it literally. I'm struggling for examples to express the problem. It is sort of like when you play minesweeper or sodoku and you mistake a high probability of something for conclusive proof of it. It works out most of the time but the likelihood of something is not evidence of it. And every so often when you just run on those hunches and assumptions you screw yourself because it turned out the assumption was wrong.
Keep in mind, I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. I believe in the equality of the sexes and if and when there are problems there, I think we should look into them so we can address those problems.
However, it is important to remember that equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome. Some statistics may never balance. We may never have as many women working in financial banking as we do in maternity wards. That doesn't mean that women are being discriminated against in investment banking.
Some jobs require a given personality type or philosophy to be successful or even competent. And for various reasons the sexes have different distributions of these personality types which in itself is going to lead to statistical differences.
There are lots of other things that could happen that don't have anything to do with prejudice or discrimination. And it is not helpful when examining these things to immediately approach them from the perspective of a moral crusader. You're not helping anyone with that. You're alienating people, making people feel defensive, making people clamp down in self defense, and generally making any investigation of the issue much more complicated and time consuming.
I am not your enemy. I am not an idiot. And I am not a bad person. I am trying to address this issue in an adult, measured, , and rational manner. While I am sure you mean well, I don't think you're being so kneejerk and group think about the issue that you're not actually engaging your brain. I don't think you're stupid or ignorant. I think you might lack some intellectual discipline so you can compartmentalize your feelings appropriately. But beyond that, I'm sure you're an otherwise intelligent, educated, and reasonable person.
I regret that our discussions left something to be desired and hope that in the future we can have more productive engagements.