Women Consistently Scored Lower on Abstract Moral Reasoning Tests in the 1960s and the 1970s. The tests were then edited Post-Hoc to Accomodate and Increase their Scores (the rise of Social Science Slop)
In the late 1950s, Developmental Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberger followed dozens of boys and theorized 6 levels of moral development, which can be read about here: https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html#Level-3-%E2%80%93-Postconventional-Morality The subject's advancement to each stage can be assessed by asking questions, usually hypotheticals, such as 'is it wrong for a man to rob a store at gunpoint to feed himself' 'is it wrong to steal a toy you want' etc. The stages were highly intuitive, replicable. There was just 1 issue. In 1969 a study by Kohlberger and Kramer found the average adult woman was scoring a level 3- a full level lower than your average man, a statistically significant difference https://karger.com/hde/article-abstract/12/2/93/155966/Continuities-and-Discontinuities-in-Childhood-and?redirectedFrom=PDF 1976 Holstein studies replicated this result. It is referenced and discussed below. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/humandevelopment/chpt/gilligans-theory-feminine-morality#:\~:text=Holstein's%20longitudinal%20study%20found%20that,of%20rights%2C%20laws%2C%20and%20social Kohlberger himself began to flagellate at the alter of feminism, rather than concluding that women generally had or chose lower abstract moral reasoning, he instead decided they needed to tweak the stages of his system so women were not left out. Later, Carol Gilligan, one of Kohlberger's research assistants, formulated a more female friendly development stages test, emphasizing care and harm: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-carol-gilligan-theory-and-a-woman-s-sense-of-self-5198408 We are now seeing research in recent years suggesting women favor Deontological ethics over men. These studies tend to use the same trick, only emphasizing care (trolley problem) but do not emphasize if a woman stays consistent if they need to punish a sympathetic self-insert. This is a consistent trend and why social science has degenerated into utter irreplaceable silliness. Studies with unsavory results are openly post-hoc revised to achieve certain results.
It looks like this post will not be approved on main PPD, so I will post it here.