I find a lot of the stereotypes of women & men & the complaints the sexes make about each other come down, at root, to 'reading too much into things' & 'not reading enough into things.' We know that stereotypes have a high degree of accuracy because we are pattern-seeing animals.
-
-
An employer is under no obligation to have to conduct a "great human research project" for the benefit of social activists. The task is to stay in business. I reward when people do well, and fire them when they don't. Anything else is not by problem unless it's a crime.
-
Not sure how employment is relevant here. I am talking about those of us who look at gender equality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sounds like another very interesting book idea. I'd buy it. How will you ever be able to write it, though, if you spend so much time Tweeting?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Aaaaaaand followed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Good thread, thank you.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would like this final message twice if I could
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A sensible outlook. But when feminists say male eye-contact must be controlled because it upsets women, they are making exactly the same argument that Islamists make with respect to the "immodest dress" of women. At root, it is a pathological response to a biological impulse.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When ideology is the hypothesis it will always* be proven in social experiments. Yet when attempting to reproduce that ideology in a more or less clean room you generally fail to find it again. (see stereotype threat)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.