There is a famous study conducted about 20 years ago at the University College of London (It’s hard for me to type that 2006 was 20 years ago. Damn.) In the study 16 men and 16 women participated in a game against paid actors (the participants didn’t know they were actors) where some of the opponents were playing fairly and others were blatantly cheating. Afterwards, the participants received brain scans while they watched videos of their opponents receive painful electrical shocks.
If the sufferer was someone who had played fair, areas of the brain linked to empathy and pain were activated in both male and female volunteers. But if the actor being shocked had cheated, the response from men and women differed.
Women’s brains “lit up” in a way suggesting they still felt empathy for the person, though the response was weaker than for fair players. When men saw cheats being shocked they showed little or no activity in the empathy parts of the brain but a surge of activity in the reward areas of the brain.
This indicates the women felt empathy and an emotional connection to the person who had wronged them. Their feelings of empathy were unconnected to the evils perpetrated against them. This is why you see women dating “bad boys.” This is why you see women try to fix men who are obviously not good choices as a mate. This is also why you see juries with women on them free the guy for robbing his 23rd victim.
The obvious conclusion here is women are not good at being judges, members of a jury, or voting. They are going to feel empathetic and sorry for the guy who just isn’t a good choice. They are the ones who voted for Bill Clinton because he was cute and could play the saxophone, and asked him questions like, “Boxers or briefs?” When women’s suffrage became a thing, we as a nation screwed up.
13 Comments
Old Maine Farmer · July 19, 2026 at 4:06 am
So a study that included 16 women and 16 men is solid proof that all women do not deserve the right to vote or be part of the judicial system based on empathy feelings? Do we know that the feelings of empathy would translate to stupid decisions? One can feel empathy for someone or some thing and still kill them/it because it is best for society.
As for voting, it is not just some women who are stupid voters. I know young men who are ardent Bernie Sanders supporters. Some of the judges letting evils off are men, although most seem to be women who should never have been judges.
Then you get into the big concept; that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, knowing we would crucify Him. Was THAT too much empathy? And God is a man. If your concept holds, God Himself should not have any role in the judiciary, yet He will judge us all one day.
Divemedic · July 19, 2026 at 6:17 am
Thats how studies work- a random sample is tested. Other studies attempt to disprove its results.
I dont get involved with religious questions. There is no way to debate someone on their belief in words written in a 1500 year old book.
Old Maine Farmer · July 19, 2026 at 7:50 am
I’m not disputing the study; I just find it curious that a small study could be used to justify removing half the population from voting and all judicial activities, especially when the connection with empathy and action is not firmly established. For example; I have had to put down a beloved pet; I had empathy but it bit someone and I could not let the possibility arise that it would do that again. Empathy does not mandate a certain action.
Divemedic · July 19, 2026 at 11:16 am
except this study does nothing more than confirm what we already know- women as a general rule make decisions based upon empathy. While that is a good trait to have when dealing with individuals, it’s not a good trait to have when making societal rules.
Barefoot Peckerwod · July 19, 2026 at 9:43 am
This 1 study is also indicative of people. It doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum you look at. Most, if not all women, are incapable of making logical decisions for critical events. Just look at recent events here with SCOTUS, judges, DAs, he’ll just watch TikTok.
Steve · July 19, 2026 at 9:46 am
That one can point to exceptions says little about whether there is a general rule. If you had said, “Most guys I know are Bernie Bros”, that might be worth investigating. But the way you phrased it is highly suggestive that you, too, consider them exceptions. Exceptions to what? To the rule.
Treefarmer · July 19, 2026 at 10:03 am
Although there are always exceptions, I can verify that small study based on a lifetime of meeting and getting to know thousands of men and women. Can anyone else here add to my personal sample size?
/
Unknownsailor · July 19, 2026 at 10:28 am
Go back and re-read the OP.
The women in the study were applying empathy to people who cheated them and those that had not.
That is not a trait you want as a judge, or as a prosecutor. We already know that women are biologically evolved to be consensus seekers, and submit to group think, so repealing the 19th Amendment would be justified on that alone. Women’s suffrage was never all popular with women in the first place, and those who were activists for it were man hating sexual deviants.
I would like to see that study made larger, with over a thousand men and a thousand women, so as to establish a much more statistically relevant result, but good luck getting that funded.
ghostsniper · July 19, 2026 at 6:38 am
Old Maine Farmer brings up some good points. I’ve always had a problem with the idea that 51 votists get to tell 49 votists what for (majority rule).
I don’t agree with the “system” itself and have never voted and never will.
I will never choose someone to rule over you, and me.
And then there’s the whole “bait n switch” thing, where future politicians lie their asses off to get in, then flip and do the opposite once they are elected.
All of it is a farce and criminal as far as I’m concerned.
Divemedic · July 19, 2026 at 11:18 am
That’s valid to a certain point. That’s why the founders placed limits upon the powers granted to the government. Of course, we now know that people don’t like to be ruled over, but have no problem being the ruler. That’s why they keep voting to give power to the government when their side is in charge, forgetting that those same powers are still there when the other side rules.
Don Curton · July 19, 2026 at 8:14 am
When discussing jury duty in mixed company, I’ve heard more than a few women say straight up that they just couldn’t convict someone and send them to prison. Even if they 100% knew the person was guilty, they didn’t want to think they were the deciding vote to put someone in prison. So, yeah, pretty much agree with the study.
Tom Hyland · July 19, 2026 at 10:13 am
I always appreciated Maine as a solid conservative state blessed with a landscape of unique artistic appearance. However, this url link says probably all you need to know about how their Senate race is shaping up. https://moonbattery.com/democrat-senate-candidate-says-he-menstruates-out-his-behind/
The Southern Nationalist · July 19, 2026 at 11:19 am
It has long been said that women “think with their heart” whereas a man will think with his head.
I too must agree that allowing women in positions of public power was a bad idea.
However, a man should listen to what his wife says especially concerning interactions with other people as they seem to have a better perception of them. This can be valuable in business deals and other opportunities. Maybe this is where the phrase “behind every successful man is a woman”.