this belief that women should know better,
the part never uttered but implied, is that women should know better THAN MEN.
So is everyone on the same page that men are a lesser gender, too
"Women should know better" is a consistent theme throughout history.
Mothers are the parent most often blamed for their children's misbehavior.
Women are blamed for their husband's ill behavior.
Even when women are harmed by others, they are blamed for their harm.
this belief that women should know better,
the part never uttered but implied, is that women should know better THAN MEN.
So is everyone on the same page that men are a lesser gender, too
We should not be coy about vocalizing the complete sentence, if we are expectant of women to somehow be more superior in knowledge compared to men.
Are we acknowledging that women are superior in intellect, quicker to grasp information,
Are we acknowledging that men are poor at processing information, lack the ability to strategize, lack self control control and are generally poor at making appropriate decisions effectively?
We are all aware that in an organizational structure, the person everyone relies on, and is expected to perform more effectively than others, is the team leader.
If this expectation falls on the heads of women, then women have earned the right to be perceived as leaders in every avenue where that occurs.
By not acknowledging this,
Simply just being born male, implies leadership which is illogical.
The gender excused for less input and laziness is given consolatory titles not earned by work, but because of
And it is a shame that too many men are too stupid to be aware of how embarrasing that is.
You show no leadership in any category of your life, but still puff up your chest to claim the title that someone else working tirelessly actually deserves.
The sooner we stop accepting that we automatically have a harder life because we are women, and start acknowledging that more is expected from
The quicker we will quit working disproportionately for no recognition.
We are forcefed by constant calls to be humble about our contributions and who
How else will our accomplishments be usurped by someone working less than us?
How else will we accept secondary position for primary work?
If reading this thread angers you,
Prove it by assigning blame squarely to men for their behavior.
Prove it by not expecting more from your daughters than you do your sons.
Prove it by judging fathers the same
More from All
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".