Hmm, that quoting didn't work. Odd.

To continue on the same line: it's increasingly prevalent among sociologists, and psychologists, that a correct scientific observation will be coloured by the person's own assumptions.

For instance, yes, most of the Irish emigrants going to America in the late 19th and early 20th century were women. Yes, that's an observable fact.

But then to continue this thought and make the assumption that it was because women were less valued - this isn't scientific; it's not something you can test with observable data.

One of the reasons that girls went to America was that the work was there. Boys didn't stay home; some went to America (I know various elderly couples who met while working in America, she in service, he in construction, and brought their savings home to found a family), and many more went to England, where there was plenty of work for "navvies" building the canals and railways and factories of the Industrial Age.

I must really caution against extrapolating emotional explanations from observed data. It gets you into big trouble.

(This isn't particularly you, "Guest"; it's something I've watched with interest for years. I think it has leaked from journalism, where you read "Police were forced to fire on rioters" when nobody forced anyone to do anything - opinions fatally cloud the clear view and tarnish the pure observation.)