Is it not absurd to use science to prove that women worry more than men?

Question

Is it not absurd to use science to support that women worry more than men?

in reference to this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070928/sc_livescience/whywomenworrysomuch

and this prior yahoo question (you can add your answer here too):
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApBK9THlWYMWWLpbCD1LTHvsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070928233719AAZh164

My point in the prior question was in regard to the MEDIA DISTORTION that is present in the article. Look at it!

My point here is this: Is it not ridiculous to say that women worry more than men when in fact both men and women undoubtedly worry but the worry manifests itself in different ways? How the heck can you (realistically not theoretically) quantify who is worrying more when worrying itself can manifest itself in many different ways? The public is being fooled (by what is supposed to be objective science, which is a myth) that women worry more than men, which is only inches away from suggesting women are inferior.

SC: point taken, but you're hovering on the naive if you think science can be that objective.

Answer 1

Seriously, why the f' are we spending money in order to attempt to continually justify and reestablish the dominant group's dominance? I also think it's absurd. You're absolutely right.

It was the same with phrenology in the 19th century: science, that almighty infallible institution we learned to believe without question because the common person actually didn't know (and still doesn't know) how to question or evaluate its results anyway, spent much time and effort studying the sizes of blacks' and whites' skulls in order to "prove" that "whites just naturally had bigger brains than blacks and this was why they were just naturally smarter." Said conclusion obviously is good for basically one thing: to justify racism, discrimination, and hatred. Why in the f' is this justification of group dominance the goal of so much "scientific" study ... *still today*? You'd be interested to read some theoretical critique of science; I believe there are several books on Amazon.com . An essay I read a while ago called "The Importance of Feminist Critique to Cell Biology," points out that when scientists intially started studying the process of fertilization, the (male) scientists described it using gendered stories, attaching gendered "behaviors" (like "bravery" and "heroism" for the sperm, "passivity" to the egg, though it's recently been found the egg and other female cellular parts do as much "work" during fertilization as the sperm) onto these little cells. Our society absolutely forgets that objectivity is a MYTH - in spite of how "objective" one can try to be, s/he is always him/herself, stuck inside his/her own mind - and stuck inside the restraints of language, as well. I really don't know how the objectivity myth has become so venerated that people actually still think, in the 21st century, that science is unbiased.

Answer 2

I do not think it absurd, merely challenging to 1) do good social science and 2) get the research presented in an intelligent way by the media.

Some reasons why we might be interested in gender differences in worrying, or in presentation of worryying:
1) Fear, ambiguity, anxiety all affect health (which has been shown in numerous studies, of physical changes from these emotions, of behavior resulting from these emotions) If men and women worry less or differently from each other, it could negatively impact their health. (Insufficient worry could mean NOT addressing a problem until severe; too much or inappropriate worry could not not addressing a problem with focus.) It could even affect what would be effective treatment for their health problems, whether or not any differences were caused or were expressed in differences in brain chemistry or function.
2) Relationships are affected by differences in communication or perception. Understanding those differences might really help communication and thus relationships' health and longevity. The relationships I am thinking of are employment; marriage and social relationships; patient-caregivers;... Better understanding could mean, again, more effective treatments for problems; avoidance of problems; less divorce; less conflict and confusion in many relationships.

I think you may be concerned that it may be difficult to do good research on something as subjective as interior emotional states. It is not easy but it CAN be done, and we can learn things from well designed studies.

As for your other concern: that media misreoresents, poorly reports, and mixes social agendas and stereotypes into reporting all social research - the solution to that is not to reject the research or even to reject reporting, but to patiently continue to insist on intelligent knowledge fair reporting. Reward those who write and those who publish such with your positive feedback. Correct those who fail with negative and educational feedback.

;) Thank you for your question.

Answer 3

it is because worry is a very subjective thing to measure. It is not reproducible because people can change their minds all the time, plus what someone percieves as worrying the other may percieve as just stress. Added to that, such a theory only promotes stereotyping. One of the answers said it helps psychologists help them, no it doesn't. Psychologists are supposed to tune in to the individual and treat the individual. If i went to see a psychologist and they pull out this template of what such subjective studies have shown and then bestow all those attributes on me without knowing me, they are doing me a disservice

Answer 4

Uh...... no. If women really do worry more than men then that might be something a psychologists might want to know so they can be prepared to help them. Anything that science does has the potential to promote further knowledge on a subject. The less we know about something, the less we can do to change it. I don't think ignorance is the best policy.

Answer 5

Most psychological research, whether agenda-driven or not (and agendas of all sorts drive various kinds of research) are riddled with conceptual confusions and dubious metrics. Yes, it's absurd.

Answer 6

And why should we worry about scientific articles proving that women worry more than men? As Alfred E. Neumann of Mad magazine fame said, "What? Me worry?"

Answer 7

Yes it is ridiculous. People are dying of cancer and heart disease, but this is what gets research dollars???

Answer 8

I think the topic is a waste of time. Our research dollars can be better spent.

Answer 9

Not as much as using "political correctness".
Example: (we) women could be offended if it was proven that we worry more than men, therefore, we don't.

Answer 10

It's not absurd; it's just "politically incorrect."