No one who cited it actually read it first?
This paper is a very dumb paper. It demonizes male sexuality. It has been cited over 600 times in Gender Studies. What can we conclude?https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/876813394657062913 …
-
-
-
That's the worst part the did, and they agreed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Conclusion: if penis = weapon, vagina = the hurt locker
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That for many now, "truth" = what a certain circle allows (or encourages) one to say. After 600+ citations, thus must be "science." ;o)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Unlikely, someone said this guy (the author) was couple to Andrea Dworking
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No Dicken's cider?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Validity =/= popularity
- 2 more replies
-
-
-
Holy shit
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That the uneducated are just as bad at reading gender studies papers as they are at physics papers.
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.