This is not so much an 'experiment'. It is much more accurately classified as a study.

I used examples that have indeed occurred in reality and have no need to keep aspects of the study 'secret'. You'll find that social experiments almost always require some form of deception whereas studies tend to be more straightforward. There was no need to deceive anyone in order to find out how they felt about the two scenarios.

But it was a little more than just finding out opinions and gender perception. There were the meta-results as well. Those are certainly worth looking at.

This was by no means any kind of 'formal' study. I felt no need to have any control group, I just wanted to see if those that gave a particular opinion of the one would say something similar or different about the other. Given that both of the examples contain the same crucial elements, the responses should be no different from one to the other.

The first thread shows how quick most people are to condemn a man for 'sexism' without asking for context or giving the benefit of the doubt.

This thread, after excising as much of the contamination as possible, we see that the most earnest responses absent of that contamination (where can be best determined) show a much greater tendency not to judge.

I really have to do it again though because no results from a contaminated study can be conclusive.

As for the single person I did not invite, I'm not sure why you're so curious about it. Regardless, the response of that individual to the question was too likely pre-informed. Although I can't be certain, there are three reasons I didn't bother: The complete lack of coherent reason given by the poster and the deliberate inclusion of further criteria, not the request for context, in order to make a determination, The very high likelyhood of having been given context before participation, and my actual certainty that their answer would not change.

Again, not a formal study.