So which the fuck is it, asswipe?!?
Man, you gotta love Science. I'm not talking about science, the slow and laborious process of carefully accumulating minor facts to either inductively demonstrate effects or deductively articulate underlying processes in nature. I'm talking about Science(tm), the sort of Science(tm) that owns the copyright on sentences that start with "scientists now claim" or "experts believe". Because the beauty of this kind of Science(tm) is that you can't argue with it:
- It holds the higher intellectual ground, because the people engaged in it are experts. They are experts because they are scientists. They are scientists because they engage in science. And also wear ties a lot of the time. And have letters after their name. You, ridiculous upstart with no tie and no letters after your name, can't be an expert, and non-experts can't exert authority in discourse.
- It claims to be evidence based, which means that if you just happen to know it's wrong then that's not good enough - knowledge and fact aren't "evidence", only data produced by the awesome patriarchal machinery of universities and research councils is "evidence". So science is evidence based because evidence can only be produced by science, you unwashed ignorant plebe.
- It sees itself as a system of pure reason, unswayed by prejudice, impervious to misapprehension, immune to bias. The people practicing the system are objective, level headed and superhumanly unfettered by ego and ambition. They are presumed so because they follo9w an objective system. The objectivity of the system is safeguarded by the objectivity of the practitioners.
This kind of Science is perfect for shoring up the status quo; because the only counter evidence it will accept is counter evidence from within its own paradigm, oppressed groups in society are guaranteed to be unable to mount an effective counter attack, since their access to the tools of that paradigm is by definition limited. It's also a fantastic way of dressing up prejudice as fact and silencing criticism. Both of these factors together with the importance that our culture (rightly) imbues science with make bogus pseudo scientific claims irresistible fodder for patriarchy supporting or otherwise status quo enabling journos who get an ego kick from dressing up their opinions (which they know are stupid, bigoted, and wrong) as "value free" reportage.
Anyway, by way of IBTP, two Science reports saying exactly opposite things while perfectly reflecting patriarchal attitudes towards women and girls. The first one says that having girls in the family breaks up marriages; the second, that having girls in the family makes everyone happier. Both articles are based on "research", and neither article links to it, - one of Ben Goldacre's justified bugbears - so we don't even know if the research they're talking about is saying what they're saying it's saying, but hey, that's Science(tm) for you. The little people are too little to be told the complicated details.
So which is right? Both, of course. It is the presumed role of women to be the civilizers (that's why when the Home Secretary's husband watches a blue movie, it's her fault for not stopping him), peace makers and harmony breeders. Enough of us internalise this role to take it seriously and work at fulfilling it - hence, having more women in the family can have a superficial positive effect. Then again, since it's our jobs to make everybody happy, when they're not, it's our fault. Duh.