SRAT RANKINGS 2023

haterrrr u just luv to hate

Women are real people just like men, some are awful and some are great, most lie in between. I find it highly improbable that for some reason all UofT sorority members would display levels of excellency above what could be expected from the average person.

Citation:
Krys, Kuba et al. “Catching up with wonderful women: The women-are-wonderful effect is smaller in more gender egalitarian societies.” International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie vol. 53 Suppl 1 (2018): 21-26. doi:10.1002/ijop.12420

I find it rather difficult to understand how that study referenced relates to this thread. I took a quick read of it and seem to be rather puzzled. The study seems to focus on a broader societal perspective, particularly on how perceptions of women vary in different societies based on their level of gender egalitarianism. It does not specifically evaluate individual excellence or the characteristics of members of sororities or any specific group. As the main post highlights the positive characteristics of each sorority, I find it difficult to connect these two things. Therefore, I believe the study may not be directly relevant to the comment about the characteristics of sorority members.

1: op exhibits women are wonderful effect
2: study argues gender egalitarianism is negatively correlated with effect
3: ____________
if you cannot draw your own conclusions from this you should not be a university student.

this is the most uoft discussion😭we really are nerds

1. The post describes various sororities at UofT positively, emphasizing their kindness, beauty, and other virtues. This should be seen as a personal perspective rather than a demonstration of the “women are wonderful” effect, which is a societal bias favoring women as more agreeable or nurturing. The post’s content reflects individual experiences and opinions, and it doesn’t necessarily indicate a generalized bias towards women.
2. The study focuses on the “women are wonderful” effect in the context of societal gender egalitarianism. The argument that gender egalitarianism is negatively correlated with this effect may not directly apply to the original post. The original post is a subjective account of specific groups at this school, not a general statement about societal attitudes towards women, which the study tackles. The study’s broader societal focus doesn’t directly challenge or support the specific, personal experiences shared in the original post. It would need to be seen the op finds ALL women wonderful. Perhaps “sorority women are wonderful effect” is a better term.
3. ____________

>This should be seen as a personal perspective rather than a demonstration of the “women are wonderful” effect, which is a societal bias favoring women as more agreeable or nurturing

The only place societal biases necessarily manifest is in personal perspectives.

>The post’s content reflects individual experiences and opinions, and it doesn’t necessarily indicate a generalized bias towards women.

Not necessarily, but its an indicator

>The argument that gender egalitarianism is negatively correlated with this effect may not directly apply to the original post. The original post is a subjective account of specific groups at this school, not a general statement about societal attitudes towards women, which the study tackles

It may not. I'm using this account to indicate the possible role of inegalitarian views of gender in forming this possible individual manifestation of the WAWE.

>The study’s broader societal focus doesn’t directly challenge or support the specific, personal experiences shared in the original post. It would need to be seen the op finds ALL women wonderful. Perhaps “sorority women are wonderful effect” is a better term.

You do not understand the research on the WAWE, because finding all women wonderful is not the standard for displaying such a trait.

Conclusion:
You have mistakenly believed that the study is meant to support the contention that op is displaying the WAWE, however this is not why I cited it. The citation is meant to broaden the implications of such behaviour and allow the reader to understand the worldview these opinions are possibly rooted in.

Citation: Eagly, Alice & Mladinic, Antonio. (1989). Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Women and Men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 15. 543-558. 10.1177/0146167289154008.

Wait so you’re citing something basically unrelated just to sound smart

To educate and inform. You are indeed welcome.