"The same evolutionary & biological processes that. . .result in a shorter average lifespan for men than women also contribute to the sex differences in economic outcomes (e.g., annual income) & political participation." #Quillette authors
The whole paragraph is a trip.
The whole paragraph is a trip.
https://twitter.com/thebirdmaniac/status/1424523972142682112
Should the two men who wrote this #Quillette article be competing for their sexual selection via the category of fastest argumentative shortcut?
"Given this evolutionary history and the costs of competing, a biological basis is the most parsimonious explanation."
"Given this evolutionary history and the costs of competing, a biological basis is the most parsimonious explanation."
"From this perspective, there will never be as many women as men sufficiently motivated to make the trade-offs required to achieve at high levels in economic and political spheres."
*raises hand*
"What's the mechanism for natural selection in this case? Rates of assassination?"
*raises hand*
"What's the mechanism for natural selection in this case? Rates of assassination?"
"Measures such as the GGGI are based on an implicit assumption that women and men have the same preferences in life, but this is a faulty assumption, at least when it comes to the economic and political spheres of life emphasized by the GGGI."
I dunno, how about the assumption that men in politics & business could gain in status not only by being selfish, hyper-competitive workaholics?
Or, how about the assumption that we could prefer fewer unhealthy hours and less status obsession in political and economic spheres?
Or, how about the assumption that we could prefer fewer unhealthy hours and less status obsession in political and economic spheres?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
