Read this 1 page article- http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx
This brief article has a lot to say, however, the following quote is extremely pertinent and therefore deserves attention:
…even where there are patterns of cognitive differences between males and females, “differences are not deficiencies.” She continues, “Even when differences are found, we cannot conclude that they are immutable because the continuous interplay of biological and environmental influences can change the size and direction of the effects some time in the future.”(emphasis mine)
I think too many people, men and women, get bogged down by the idea of differences implying some type of value statement when in fact differences do not need to be viewed this way. When we use the word “equal” we do not mean totally and utterly the same in every facet possible. If this is the standard of equality, then nothing is truly equal. However, equal has a much deeper meaning as it relates to dignity and intrinsic value as an individual human being. Humans are ends in themselves- not simply means to an end. Nor should our intrinsic value be measured by some external number or outcome. If we measure people’s value merely on what they can produce then we are on a slippery slope to a place that has historically been the cause of much pain and death. Men and women have differences but so does every individual within each group.
The question to me is not, whether or not our genes and the environment impact our views and behaviors. The question is- which views and behaviors ought we to have? This question presupposes that we have agency to act outside of the restraints of our sociobiological situation and that there is an objective (opinion independent) standard by which to measure good vs. bad (and what a “good” society or individual might look like). However, this this view immediately throws out naturalistic determinism (no free will) as well as the idea of complete moral relativism. I am under the impression that the vast majority of today’s leading social scientists and psychologists in gender research, take for granted the fact that they are aiming to create a “good” society in the objective sense. For on their worldview, “good” is simply a social construct and therefore they cannot complain when someone disagrees.
Offensive? It shouldn’t be. True? You tell me.
Expressing one’s opinion about life, politics, religion etc… is widely accepted in today’s culture. That is, unless your view is critical of or dissents against the dogma presented in the corporate world, media, and entertainment. I can speak from personal experience (as well as present statistical evidence HERE, HERE, and HERE) that there is an extreme bias towards […]
I read a book recently by William Gentry called “Be the Boss Everyone Wants to Work for: A guide for new leaders” and he makes the simple but profoundly true observation: “…strive to give five positive pieces of feedback over a period of time before you must deliver a negative one.” he bases this suggestion on research done by relationship experts John and Julie Gotterman in their work investigating successful marriages vs. those ending in divorce. according to the research- the ratio of positive to negative interactions for successful/married couples is typically around 5:1, whereas, unstable marriages show a ratio of 0.8:1.
In his book he also points to research showing how non-verbal communication (facial expression, tone, body gesture and proximity, eye contact, etc..) makes up anywhere between 65%-93% “..of the total emotional interaction between two people.”
I know I needed this reminder!
In a bit of a condescending fashion, TIME explains here that Oxford’s word of the year 2016, ‘post-truth’, “…describes a situation in which feelings trump facts” (emphasis added) The word ‘trump’ is a crucial addition as the article goes on to describe the results of Brexit and the U.S. 2016 election of Trump as epitomizing the meaning of […]
Truth be told, the world was surprised by the election results and not just liberals. Work colleagues of mine were literally crying last Wednesday morning. Ivy league schools were canceling exams for students so that they could deal with the emotional terror of the outcome. There is violence and protests in the streets, albeit only […]
I understand the hurt that pro-Hillary voters feel following their surprising loss to Trump. It was a surprise for everyone. And I still remember vividly the pain I felt after losing the last two elections to Obama. Empathy and concern for all Americans has always been a path toward healing following a divisive campaign season. For those who have not been alive long enough to witness a transfer of power, this process can be uneasy to accept. However, we need to remember two things, 1. this is the way that our government was set up to run and it has sustained peaceful transitions of power successfully thus far, and 2. Most election cycles are filled with deep divisiveness and vitriol due to a disagreeing populace. This is not the first or last time we will have disagreement on how to govern our country. Disagreement and diversity of opinion is what makes our world (the U.S.) go around. Majority rule is not the answer. Trashing the Electoral College is not the answer.
Videos: Do you understand the Electoral College? and The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College
Articles: The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We’re Not A Democracy AND Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote and The Heritage Guide to the Constitution and Why the 2016 Election Proves America Needs the Electoral College
Conservative Republicans as well as liberal Democrats all share in the responsibility to hold the President-Elect accountable at every level. The rise in popularity of Trump has been described well HERE but regardless of the reason for his ascent, it is all of our duty as “we the people” to participate in the conservation of this great Constitutional Republic.