A story produced by the University of Ulster came out yesterday (link) that said that sisters spread happiness while brothers breed distress. These so-called academics quizzed a mere 571 people aged 17 to 25 about their lives and found those who grew up with sisters were more likely to be happy and balanced.
This was covered throughout the UK media (BBC, GMTV, Times, Independent, Telegraph, Mail)
There are a number of specific issues:-
Firstly, the sample size is small (only 579) and because of the myriad of ways that families are constructed (for example, two sisters with one brother or one sister and two brothers etc) these conclusions cannot be drawn. In addition, the research is not quantitative or objective, it is based on the subjective opinions of those surveyed.
Each family is unique - will have different incomes, make up, parental attitudes, geography etc so you cannot draw these types of general conclusions without understanding each family's background.
Plus of course, with the discrimination that boys face especially poor schooling because the education system is geared towards girls plus the problems many boys face if they have no male role models (especially if there is no father in the home because of the family court system), this would also need to be taken into account.
What is concerning is that because this has been produced by 'experts' at a 'university', it is given plenty of coverage by the media even though it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is no quote from anyone anywhere in the coverage that challenges this so all the UK media have done is taken the spin from the university (who make it as sensationalist as possible to get the coverage) and rehashed it unthinkingly. Not one journalist has stepped back for a minute and thought about challenging it.
It also means that it is now too easy for every brother in the land to be labelled and stigmatised as a problem - someone who causes distress. And of course, the generalist nature of it all means that the report is basically stating all sisters are good, when as outlined in this debate on the BBC (link), it is not true.
What this 'university' and the so-called 'experts' are doing is saying girls=good, boys=bad, and the media, because it is socially acceptable to attack boys/men, play along with it. Shocking but alas, not surprising.
Could you imagine the coverage if their research said it was sisters who caused distressed? It would be very little, if any.
"Sisters promote the showing and sharing of ones emotions"
I imagine this is a positive influcence on male siblings, but does your average female really need additional encouragement in this area?
That's like encouraging John Prescott to eat more pies - perhaps he might appreciate it, but really not a good idea in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by: John Kimble | Friday, 03 April 2009 at 02:32