It also confirms just how gullible females are.
Its not that women are gullible, just they (and this is a generalization, so please ladies save the attacks calling me sexist) view and process the world differently.
While I have found women are very good at seeing intersections and interconnections of events in the worlds around the, on average far better then men are. Their prioritization of the importance of those intersections and interconnections are far different.
Safety and security, nesting, etc are very very important... So, when you present a general idea to them, they will prioritize the connections they perceive interconnect with it to those junctions... And prioritize those connections, over connections that they perceive to be less important or impacted by that concept.
So, if you say, free meals for kids in schools... Womens priorities of those connections are generally nurturing, safety, protection, particularly of the young... so, making sure kids get a healthy meal, is important.... So those connections get priority, so the question of what is the cost, is it needed, why are these kids not being fed at home... etc... don’t supersede, or equate to the same level as the rating of making sure kids are fed.
Its a prioritizational bias, not so much a gullibility.
One of my first jobs out of college, was to work on software that utilized the AHP (Analyitcal Hierarchy Process) which was utilized to capture and rank priorities in decision making... at the time the software was largely used by things like government when planning large expensive projects. Basically you enter all the criteria that matter, and then rank each of them relative to every other one of them. Then once you have all the criteria and their relationships weighted against one another, you can then feed the raw data into the system and use the process to determine and justifiy the decision that eventually are made for the project.
Changing the weights between criteria could and did create very very different outcomes, from the same data inputs. It is very interesting to see how the relationship weight of the relationship between just a few nodes can vastly change the output from the same input set.
The issue is that, classical educational systems, particularly in the liberal arts, until very recently have been largely centered around helping men recognize their innate biases and making the more aware of them and to expand their thinking. However, these same biases that men tend to have, and need to work against, to be a more rounded thinker and person, are the exact biases that women tend to have innately... so educational systems that are meant to make you recognize your biases and teach you to work through them, actually REINFORCE innate female biases...
So, where a largely analytical and linearly thinking man, is taught to see more of the picture... an less linearly thinking and less analytical female mind (and by analytical I mean critical linear thinking, not that women do not analyze or think) has its existing biases reinforced instead of being trained to break through those biases and learn to think more linearly.
Anyway, let the flaming begin, but that’s what I see...