whether someone says “it’s not fair” is an empirical fact, and has nothing to do with social conditioning. Whether they are justified, or indeed what they might mean, is of dependent on social conditioning. But whether they said it, is not.
I don’t disagree. However given that the statement is made WITHIN an ideological framework, and is a reflections of the entirety of the norms and values that consciously or unconsciously focus and ‘make sense of ‘ the world , whether that ‘fact’ tells us anything of social significance is debatable.
This can be well illustrated by the rather futile debate either the old SUSS laws or stop and search powers today. If we look at police ‘facts’ (ie what actually happens on the ground) we find the vast majority of those who are inconvenienced by this legislation are black and coloured. Objective statistical fact. Moreover, if we look at who , in these same areas are actually convicted of the offenses this type of legislation is supposed to deter, most arrests, most prosecutions and most convictions come from these same social groups .Statistical fact. Moreover the groups who most vociferously oppose this legislation include pressure groups from these communities.
Therefore it is an obvious social fact that this type of legislation works, because exactly those who are profiled as defendants and those subsequently found guilty, reflect the same characteristics as the vast majority caught under so called preventive legislation . Colour and citizenship , a monumental 800 page report first produced in 1969 by Jim Rose and others, and has formed the basic building blocks for British social policy in this area since, made precisely these type of deductions when looking at raw ‘government’ data. It assumed the data was reflective of the true position , and in some way value neutral. Those in radical social policy saw the flaws in the immediately . The basis of these assumptions lay in the notion that’too many’ black migrants could result in racial conflict. Additionally,however, the ‘numbers game’ was tied to the idea that the cultural differences between the immigrants and the host population were a potential source of conflict.
An alternative explanation is , of course, that the cultural assumptions of the state institutions in law, education, politics,etc etc predisposed , for example, the police to target certain groups specifically, which would lead to excess arrests,and convictions for that group compared to the norm and hence reproduce the statistics which justify continued discriminatory intervention, Maybe , for example , these ‘defendants’ are linked by other common social indices, poor housing, poverty,unemployment, unequal access to state services, broken families etc . But these were never seen as prime factors, but secondary to the ‘obvious’ fact in this case skin colour. Thus this was an immigrant problem.
There is nothing that is either an ‘obvious’ deduction from a socially constructed fact, and no deduction which is ‘innocent’. Of course none of us can step outside of our ideological nexus . Value neutral social science is just not in my mind epistemologically or practically possible , unfortunately some conservative practitioners will not ‘get used to it ‘ as they want to see themselves in white coats with a lab bench!!!!!
I’m not , naturally, suggesting that you think in that paradigm 
It’s usually only necessary to provide evidence to support an assertion that is disputed or to refute another’s. If it’s not disputed or it can be readily tested, supporting evidence is not needed. Others can easily judge the validity from their own experiences.
A few years ago, I was helping a neighbour construct a temporary pen, for some livestock, with an electric fence1. I commented that, for a given length of fencing, a circular pen would cover a greater area than a square one. I know several people who would accept that because they either know it to be true or because they can easily test it. My neighbour, however, just gave me a quizzical look and said “Really?”. My assertion was disputed so I felt it incumbent on me to prove it. My proof relies on pi being less than 4. Should I have gone on to prove that pi is less than 4?
Noted. You can judge from your own experiences. I accept we would each only be looking at a very small subset of the general population but, in your experience, are boys more, less, or equally likely to say something is not fair?
Is there really much of a difference? A detention might be supervised by a teacher other than the one imposing it but that could be true of a caning too.
In my experience, classroom slipperings were administered by the teacher awarding them; lines were collected by the teacher who imposed them. In both those cases, any resentment would be directed at that teacher.
Again in my experience, detentions were usually supervised by the teacher awarding them but I accept that wasn’t true in all schools and, in those schools, any resentment would likely be diffuse.
Canings (again in my experience) were a slightly different matter. They were administered by the person (Headmistress, Associate Headmaster or Deputy Headmistress) awarding them but usually only after a report from a teacher. In such a case, will any resentment be directed at the person awarding and administering the punishment or the teacher who made the report? As both played a part, I suggest any resentment is likely to be diffuse there too.
An alternative explanation is , of course, that the cultural assumptions of the state institutions in law, education, politics,etc etc predisposed , for example, the police to target certain groups specifically, which would lead to excess arrests,and convictions for that group compared to the norm and hence reproduce the statistics which justify continued discriminatory intervention, Maybe , for example , these ‘defendants’ are linked by other common social indices, poor housing, poverty,unemployment, unequal access to state services, broken families etc . But these were never seen as prime factors, but secondary to the ‘obvious’ fact in this case skin colour. Thus this was an immigrant problem.
</div>
Well, many people have forgotten (or never knew) that correlation doesn’t imply causation.
But returning to “it’s not fair”: we agree, I think, that you could in principle count the proportions of punished boys and girls who, unprompted, make that remark. I think you are claiming that this is of no use to anyone. My view is that, if there was a difference, it could prompt further investigation: the difference would be a marker of some kind. The further investigation might confirm your view. Or, perhaps, it might suggest that there was in fact a significant difference between male and female psychologies.
I’d be surprised if you were to take the extreme view that, as we all come loaded with cultural baggage, it’s impossible for us to find out any objective facts about the human condition. After all, you have your own cultural background — perhaps it predisposes you to think in this way
Perhaps I should have prefixed the words “In my experience”.
</div>
Yes, I think you should have done. Here’s why.
I had written (carefully avoiding a second “div” tag here 
)
Might it be the case that, in traditional households, boys were brought up to believe that the world was a rough-and-tumble place, and if you were dealt a bad hand then, well, tough; but that girls were taught much more about reciprocity and hence fairness? (Or, for that matter, vice versa?)
Now that is a general question, nothing to do with one individual’s experience: if it had been about my own experience, I would have phrased it as a statement, rather than as a question. But you replied
I don’t believe so. Boys are just as likely as girls to say “it’s not fair”, although they might differ on just what “it” is.
That doesn’t read as though you are just talking about your experience, and there was nothing in the original question to suggest that it should be interpreted that way. That’s why I asked for evidence to support your belief. In your subsequent response you said
If it’s not disputed or it can be readily tested, supporting evidence is not needed.
But it was a question, so supporting evidence was needed, and that’s why I observed that none had been supplied.
As far as the other point is concerned, I think that the fact that a teacher administering CP has invaded your personal space is a significant feature which is not present with detention or other types of punishment.
*****
Incidentally, perhaps your fence had a few microamps running through it, depending on how damp the posts were?