The Lancet and CFS

This post has been moved to a new website HERE.

 

Evolutionary Biology/Psychology and the So-Called Genetic Adaptiveness of Rape

 

The Pseudoscience of Male Superiority, Entitlement, and Control
Over Women

 

__________

 

In most tribes – which is how human beings have lived through the great majority of their history – males were expected to always be thinking about how to make sure that everyone had enough, to be providing for their families and relatives, to be planning for what would make life work for the whole group. A male who was thinking exclusively of himself was severely reprimanded.

And while some tribes permitted some degree of violent behavior from males, it was only allowed along strictly enforced lines and usually could not be expressed toward anyone inside of the tribe. There is nothing natural, or biological, about boys behaving against the needs of their communities.

As a society… [we hide] behind the unfortunate saying “Boys will be boys”. Adults wring their hands and stand passively by while boys behave selfishly, irresponsibly, or violently. Some adults, particularly some men, don’t just tolerate antisocial behavior from boys but actually openly joke or wink about it, egging boys on. Then we act baffled and concerned when these boys grow up to become the men that adults have prepared them to be – competitive, selfish, and aggressive.

In the words of a wise bumper sticker that succinctly captures this problem,
“Boys Will Be Men”.

Lundy Bancroft and JAC Patrissi

__________

 

Are men, more than women, interested in believing that their choices are not their own free will, but genetic or hormonal?

Rape is not “evolutionary”. It is the result of wrong thinking.

If you are a normal (non-violent) heterosexual man, contemplate raping a woman, if that’s possible for you.

What is your emotional response? What goes through your mind? That the victim’s terror, screams, or fighting back will make the sex more fun? That, afterwards, you won’t be killed by her family members, jailed, outcast or ostracized by good people, but praised and fêted?

Asserting that rape is adaptive genetically is like asserting that murder is adaptive genetically. It is well known that sociopaths don’t live as long as non-sociopaths.

Rape is aberrant behavior, period. Behaviors that cause damage, pain, and fear are fought back against by both men and women; such behaviors tend not to result in the advancement of any species.

We need to take our natural abhorrence of violence into the scientific realm where even today there are those trying to find reasons for its continued existence. I’m looking at you, evolutionary “scientists”.

The evolutionary scientists of today are anthro-apologists looking for the roots of abuse, misanthropy, and misogyny in what they take for granted is the normalcy of such behavior. Their theories fail because abuse, violence, misanthropy, and misogyny are not adaptive on any level.

It is usually the men who presume that violence against women is natural, adaptive, and evolutionarily sound, but many women believe them. We all must stop believing in the idea that violence is natural.

It’s time, not only for our societies and for our species as a whole, for our scientists to stop trying to find the normalcy in violence and fear.

Let’s start by realizing that violence isn’t adaptive and start discussing the scientific reasons for deploring it, and for our species giving it up, not making “scientific” excuses for it, or feeling sorry for the perpetrators of it.

 
Related Posts:

Soon? Time.
February 28, 2013

Science, Math, Men, Women
April 10, 2012

David Barash and the “Myth” of Monogamy
January 10, 2012

Gullible Scientists
January 8, 2012

Orders of Difficulty
July 8, 2011

The Non-Irony of Slutwalks
August 12, 2011

 
Evolutionary Psychology/Biology:

Today’s evolutionary psychology is a materialist pseudoscience based on false scientific premises and on wrong assumptions about human nature which support today’s cultural, not evolutionary, bias toward male superiority (and entitlement) over women.

The fact is that sexual desire, sexual activity, and sexual jealousy are biologically inherent in both men and women (or perhaps it would be better to say all genders of human being) to the same degree equally. There is far more individual variation than variation across the sexes.

The few books available that get evolutionary psychology right (equating the genders) have been written by those rare psychologists who have spent most of their careers talking to men and women about their relationships, how they really feel, and what works and what doesn’t to maintain a happy and successful pair bond – and then have not applied cultural bias to their findings (such as “co-dependence”) or made-up theories (such as the “Mars/Venus” dichotomy).

Examples of Good Science:

Should I Stay or Should I Go?
A Guide to Knowing if Your Relationship Can – and Should – Be Saved
Lundy Bancroft and JAC Patrissi. Berkley Trade, 2011 (book).
- Bancroft and Patrissi provide a far more realistic view of our evolutionary past than most academic evolutionary psychologists. Bancroft just can’t be beat.

Attached:
The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find and Keep Love
Amir Levine, Rachel Heller. Tarcher, 2010 (book). (Kindle)
- Levine and Heller flounder a bit, generalize far too much, and are sometimes very unprofessional in their personal remarks, but their scientific basics are generally sound.

Books that get evolutionary psychology wrong usually were written by materialist (a scientifically out-of-date philosophy) academics who have spent little of their careers actually talking to people; their studies and conclusions are based on and skewed in favor of both their scientific and their cultural biases and preconceptions.

For instance, they usually conclude that men both desire and engage in more sexual activity than women (wrong; this is reporting error, and if scientists thought about it they would realize that it wouldn’t even be possible), that sexual promiscuity is not only natural but desirable (wrong; even apes, chimpanzees, birds, and other animals get jealous and fight to keep their pairings monogamous), and that pair bonding and monogamy are unnatural, undesirable, and anti-evolutionary (wrong, wrong, and wrong, scientifically speaking).

Unfortunately, such thinking is exemplary of the state of the pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology today; worse, evolutionary scientists who engage in such culturally-approved thinking are the ones who get reported upon (and fawned over) in the news media.

Examples of Bad Science:

The Myth of Monogamy
Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
David P. Barash Ph.D. and Judith Eve Lipton. W. H. Freeman, 2001 (book).

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. HarperCollins, 2010 (book).

Mean Genes
From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts
Chapter One at The New York Times (book chapter)
Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan, Perseus Publishing, 2001

Book Review: “Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food, Taming Our Primal Instincts” by Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan
Damian Moskovitz, Atlas Society, October 2001 (book review).

Our Big Brains Can Overcome Our Selfish Genes
Richard Dawkins
From a lecture by Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Understanding of Science, given at the Royal Institution, in London, 12 February 2002.
Posted by Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science,
Oxford University, at The Conversation website.

Under “bad science” there are also the following articles, which are very confused on the science and contain the typical bad advice of reporters not up on the science:

Bad Advice for Cheated Wives
A former escort turned “infidelity counselor” tells women to give their husbands more sex. It’s not the answer.
Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon, April 16, 2013
- Salon’s “sex reporter” writes that “having lots of sex with your husband” is “pedestrian, misguided” advice. She’s wrong. Her parents were right (and so is the woman she writes about, who has listened to the complaints of 1,000 men) that “sex is the glue that holds a marriage together”. Clark-Flory cites only the cultural / evolutionary psychology fallacy that women are, or should be, the “sexual gate-keepers” in a relationship (I shudder for the women who believe this, and the futures of their marriages). Clark-Flory is woefully undereducated about what she writes about; a problem with many reporters, but she can do better (in fact, I list another article of hers in the Resources section below).

I’m Just a Jealous Guy
Carole Jahme shines the cold light of evolutionary psychology on readers’ problems.
This week: Sexual Jealousy.
Carole Jahme, The Guardian, July 6, 2010
- An awful example of how the utter wrongness of bad “evolutionary psychology/biology” has infiltrated the news media and general public opinion. Shame on anyone who promotes such misogynistic wrong thinking.

 
Resources:

Selfish Gene Theory Of Evolution Called Fatally Flawed
Y. Bar-Yam, Formalizing the gene centered view of evolution, Advances in Complex Systems 2, pp.277-281 (1999).

Back to the Stone Age
Two strong believers in evolutionary psychology tell us how we can live better lives.
Erica Goode, The New York Times, December 31, 2000

Sexual Behavior in Pre Contact Hawai‘i: A Sexological Ethnography
Milton Diamond, Ph.D., Revista Española del Pacifico. 2004. 16: 37-58

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis, PLoS, August 30, 2005

They Don’t Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species — and individual races — have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.
Kathleen McAuliffe, Discover Magazine, February 9, 2009

Are we witnessing the end of science?
Almost all the great revolutions in scientific thinking may be behind us,
but the way modern science is conducted stifles radical new ideas
Ehsan Masood, The Guardian, June 22, 2009

Human Nature Today
David Brooks, The New York Times, June 25, 2009
- “Evolutionary psychology leaves the impression that human nature was carved a hundred thousand years ago, and then history sort of stopped. But human nature adapts to the continual flow of information … Individuals aren’t formed before they enter society. Individuals are created by social interaction. … There’s no escaping context. That’s worth remembering next time somebody tells you we are hardwired to do this or that.”

Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?
The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors, but in ourselves.
Sharon Begley, Newsweek, June 29, 2009 (Republished at The Daily Beast)
- A highly intelligent smackdown, um, analysis of evolutionary psych/bio. There was much opposition to this article among evolutionary “scientists” (or perhaps mostly sensationalistic journalists), of course.

Questioning Evolutionary Psychology
Recently, the doubts and questions plaguing the theory of evolutionary psychology
have boiled up to the mainstream press.
Christie Nicholson, Scientific American, July 17, 2009 (notes and podcast)
- Scientific American is not the most up-to-date or reliable resource in general, however.

Skipping Spouse to Spouse Isn’t Just a Man’s Game
Natalie Angier, The New York Times, August 31, 2009
- “Evolutionary psychology” alternative hypotheses.

Why Do Women Have Sex? For the Same Reasons Men Do.
Tracy Clark-Flory, Salon, October 5, 2009

Beyond the Genome
Brandon Keim, Wired, October 7, 2009

Pink Brain, Blue Brain
Claims of Sex Differences Fall Apart
Sharon Begley, Newsweek, September 3, 2009 (Republished at The Daily Beast)

Another Darwinian Fairy Tale Gives Us Old Time Religion in our Jeans.
Or Was That Genes?
Marc Jampole, OpEdge (blog), November 17, 2009

What Do Pleistocene Hunters Have to Do with Poker Anyway?
Absolutely Nothing, Mr. McManus.
Marc Jampole, OpEdge (blog), December 22, 2009

Tiger Woods’ Adultery: The Scientific Defense
A new book argues that dudes just can’t help chasing tail. Give me a break!
Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, March 25, 2010

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
David H. Freedman, The Atlantic, November 2010
- “Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors — to a striking extent — still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.”

Do Humans Prefer Free Love Over the Bonds of Nuclear Family?
Maia Szalavitz, Time – Healthland, November 2, 2010
- No. At least no one in his or her right mind, independently, uninfluenced by cultural pressures to “conform” to counterculturalism.

The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories
Eric Berger, Houston Chronicle, November 24, 2010
- Note that none of the new theories which replaced the old are any “truer”, and will be replaced in their turn; that science is “better” today than in the past is debatable to completely untrue. Or perhaps some of the older theories (especially those not as ancient and thoroughly discredited as those presented in this article – the operative words here are “eventually discarded” – which can take centuries) will be revived in new forms. That happens a lot, too.

A Roomful of Yearning and Regret
Wendy Plump, The New York Times, December 9, 2010
- What it’s like to cheat and to be cheated on.

Nice Guys Finish First
David Brooks, The New York Times, May 16, 2011

Scientist Tim Flannery Ties Darwinian Myths to Politics of Selfishness
and Myth of Free Markets
Marc Jampole, OpEdge (blog), May 19, 2011

Double Inanity
Twin Studies are Pretty Much Useless
Brian Palmer, Slate, August 24, 2011
- Palmer still believes in the “promissory” science, though, unaccountably.

Men Aren’t Funnier Than Women, but We’ll Keep Pretending They Are
A new study says the female funny bone is equal to the male,
even if it’s not perceived to be.
Amanda Marcotte, Slate, October 20, 2011
- Women are as funny as men. And as smart. Period. End of story.

Steven Pinker’s Book is a Comfort Blanket for the Smug
Andrew Brown, The Guardian, November 8, 2011
- “The factual errors in The Better Angels of Our Nature destroy Pinker’s thesis, rendering it no more than a bedtime story.”

Women’s Progress Marches Backward
Whether you look at job stats or the pay gap, at the movie awards or Sunday morning TV,
it’s been a rough 2011
Irin Carmon, Salon, December 19, 2011
- Why?: 1) The outsized influence over news media, and therefore society, of reactionary fundamentalist religious protest due to their misunderstanding of God’s will regarding what are actually human cultural taboos, 2) evolutionary “science”, which, with little to no actual science to uphold them, remains biased toward those taboos, and 3) women’s reluctance to respond to, fight against, and protest those taboos in public and private – due to those very taboos.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, Noted Psychiatrist, Apologizes for Study on Gay ‘Cure’
Benedict Carey, The New York Times, May 18, 2012
- It isn’t just women who suffer from misguided “science”, of course. See below, also.

Regretting the Gay Cure
Psychologist Robert Spitzer has more to be sorry for.
Katie Roiphe, Slate, May 22, 2012

Good Scientist! You Get a Badge.
Precious research money is wasted on unreal results,
but we can change the culture of science.
Carl Zimmer, Slate, August 14, 2012

The Brain Chemistry of Social and Sexual Monogamy
Brian Alexander and Larry Young, Slate, November 27, 2012
- This article makes a couple of good points on this topic that most get wrong – an important one being that the powerful cheat at the same rate as the not-powerful (rather than more), and for the same reasons as the not-powerful (rather than different ones). I’ve been pointing that out forever. However, like most articles it is a mixture of the true and the false. The authors still assume that brain chemicals that somehow spontaneously appear in the brain not just influence but can control behavior. That is false. Thinking – thought – mental activity, generated by consciousness using free will, directs all behavior, period. Brain chemicals are generated according to conscious (or subconscious) thought to set up a physiological response, but the thinker is still in control of his or her behavior at all times, regardless of his or her brain chemicals or physiological response. (Think about it and you’ll conclude that this is true, if you can get over the false materialist beliefs that have been sold to society by wrong-thinking scientists.) As well, comparing primate behavior to voles or other critters is dangerously unscientific. Humans in particular can easily maintain or increase the desire, the sex, and the attachment in a relationship, if the relationship is rewarding and the motivation strong. It’s all about choice. (Note: I replaced the non-sequitur titles for this article generated by some Slate title writer with the article authors’ title – still misleading, but better.)

Generation LGBTQIA
Michael Schulman, The New York Times, January 9, 2013

Darwin Was Wrong About Dating
Dan Slater, The New York Times, January 12, 2013
- Reporters turn to the widely-quoted evolutionary scientist Steven Pinker as a so-called “authority”, but he’s an infamous (to me) hard materialist, and an out-of-date scientific resource. He is often looked at askance, viewed with suspicion and concern, as misguided from within even some of the scientific community.

Science: A Relationship You May Not Understand
Tania Lombrozo, NPR, February 25, 2013
- Terrifically condescending, Lombrozo discounts current scientific method while she also retains unaccountable faith in it. Strange.

 

---

 
© 2013 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission.
 
Last Updated: April 28, 2013
 
Find my book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.

See my profile at LinkedIn.  

Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.

Thank you!
 

America’s Processed Foods, America’s Obesity Problem

---

Chemicalized Food Causes Overeating

---

 

Processed chemical-added convenience foods are the main cause of obesity in America.

But not because of the calories. Because of the unnatural chemical ingredients (including the manufactured vitamins).

These chemicals cause unending hunger. Have you noticed that?

I have. When I eat processed foods I’m always hungry. I eat more, and I gain weight.

When I eat foods prepared from natural ingredients I’m not as hungry, not as often, and not as desperately. I eat far less, and I don’t gain weight.

I deduce that this occurs because the chemicals added to food, unnatural to the body, irritate the stomach. This is interpreted by the brain as hunger.

There are other problems with processed foods as well, such as toxins and the unavoidable contaminants.

It’s not the sugar that’s the problem, at least not the natural sugar, nor is it the fat, if it is natural fat, nor is it the salt, if natural salt. It’s the added unnatural-to-the-body chemicals.

It is not always easy to determine which prepared foods are unnatural-chemical burdened and which are not. Restaurants, cafes, and delis can be tricky. (Starbucks’ food, for instance, for all their promises of serving natural food, is laden with chemicals, and I find it incredibly hunger-inducing.)

Cook from scratch whenever you can, with organic ingredients when you can. And shop at stores that not only promise natural foods, but deliver them. Avoid those that don’t. When in doubt, read labels.

If processed food is an economic miracle (for the corporations that produce it, it may be; but it is not for the consumer), it is a public health failure.

If frequent cooking at home leads to a longer life, as was reported in 2012 (with sketchy evidence but at least with some logic), it would be due to the healthier ingredients, but also due to the lower body weight that results from cooking at home.

The only way to avoid processed food, pretty much, is to cook, and as healthily as possible. Buy organic food ingredients and go to town.

Treats are OK, just make them yourself from basic, organic if possible, ingredients.

(I, personally, was at my thinnest when I was married and cooking every day. Because I preferred the flavor and felt it was healthier, I made our dinners, breads, and desserts from scratch.)

And don’t forget the fiber and water (always, lots of water with fiber, to protect your intestines), the calcium, and the eschewing of alcohol (not even wine is “healthy”, people, no matter what the biased and lazy “research studies” say), if you want not to be fat.

Once you are sure of your goal, the rest is easy.

 
Photo/Art Credit:

Photo by Angela Wylie.
Illustration by Michael Whitehead. Website – flickr

 
Food Resources:

 
Related Posts:

Kids Need The Choice Of Chocolate Milk
June 18, 2011

Put Down That Diet Soda and Back Away
May 27, 2012

 
Articles: (in chronological order)

A role for sweet taste: calorie predictive relations in energy regulation by rats
Swithers SE, Davidson TL. Behav Neurosci. 2008 Feb;122(1):161-73.

Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain
Cutting the connection between sweets and calories may confuse the body,
making it harder to regulate intake
American Psychological Association, February 10, 2008

Thin Can Be Obese Inside
Dan Harrison, WA Today, April 20, 2008

Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury
The Washington Post, January 28, 2009

Process of Elimination
“How much do you actually rely on processed foods in your cooking?
Would you be prepared to cut them out for a week?”
Richard Ehrlich, The Guardian, May 6, 2009
- The “Three’s a Crowd Rule” is a good one. Cooking from “scratch” is the best rule.

High Fructose Corn Syrup Promotes Obesity and Liver Damage
David Gutierrez, NaturalNews, August 9, 2010

Choose Foods, Not Nutrients
Shari Roan, The Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2010

In Times Like These, America’s Diet Of Processed Foods Is An Economic Miracle
Joe Weisenthal, Business Insider, February 5, 2011
- No, it isn’t. Eating processed foods make one hungrier, so one eats far more. No savings there; on the contrary, one spends more on food eating processed food. And then on medical bills later from the chemicals in the foods, and being overweight. No miracles anywhere, Joe, just ill health and a thinner wallet.

Technology, Diet, and the Burden of Chronic Disease
David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, JAMA, April 6, 2011

Food Technology has been Bad for Human Health
Since Long Before the Invention of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
Karen Kaplan, The Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2011

Processed Food: Trick or Treat?
Bruce Bradley (blog), October 30, 2011

Fatty Foods Addictive as Cocaine in Growing Body of Science
Robert Langreth and Duane D. Stanford, Business Week, November 11, 2011
- The headline is misleading. Don’t know why. Article discusses processed food, not fatty foods.

Highly Toxic Mercury Present in Processed Foods, Yet FDA Does Nothing
Anthony Gucciardi, NaturalSociety, December 17, 2011

The History and Problem of Processed Foods
Ellen, The Skinny Code (blog), February 3, 2012

5 of the Scariest Processed Foods
Dana Angelo White, Food Network, March 9, 2012

Gross Ingredients In Processed Foods
Sarah Klein, The Huffington Post, May 14, 2012

Frequent Cooking Will Help You Live Longer
Medical Xpress, May 16, 2012

U.S. Consumers Become Cook Aware:
New Research Details Desire for Cost-conscious, Home-cooked Meals
MarketWatch, May 16, 2012
-This is a corporate press release, which means that it is biased.
Good information about eating. Bad information about cookware.
Do not cook with Teflon. Cook with stainless steel or glass (Pyrex).

Home Cooking Increases Longevity, Cambridge Study Shows (abstract here)
The Huffington Post – Healthy Living, May 18, 2012

Home Cooking Makes You Live Longer
Care2, May 21, 2012

Soft Drink Consumption Not The Major Contributor To Childhood Obesity
Medical News Today, June 18, 2012
- Reliably, a lack of “food security” (which is knowing that one won’t starve, having plenty of food in the house at all times, and not dieting) predicts overeating more than sugar consumption – one reason why low-carb diets (fasting in particular), food guilt, and food shaming are terrible ideas and lead directly to eating disorders.

Sunny-Side Up: In Defense of Eggs
Kristin Wartman, The Atlantic, August 27, 2012

The Not-So-Hidden Calories From Alcohol
Anahad O’Connor, The New York Times, November 20, 2012

The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food
Michael Moss, The New York Times, February 20, 2013

Experts Want More Studies of Diet’s Role for the Heart
Gina Kolata, The New York Times, March 2, 2013
- Article photo caption: “Kevin McNamara, 44, switched to a vegan diet after bypass surgery last year to open two blocked arteries, but they have never been rigorously tested for their impact.”

Health Risks from Processed Foods and Trans Fats: Part II
“Interview with Dr. Mary Enig”
Richard A. Passwater PhD, Healthy.net, Undated
- If you can manage to navigate it, this article is an interesting look into the politics of scientific research.

 
Books:

The Hundred-Year Lie
How to Protect Yourself from the Chemicals That Are Destroying Your Health
Randall Fitzgerald. Dutton, 2006.
(Paperback. Kindle here.)

The Unhealthy Truth
How Our Food Is Making Us Sick – And What We Can Do About It
Robyn O’Brien. Crown Archetype, 2009; Three Rivers, 2010.
(Paperback. Kindle here.)

Salt Sugar Fat
How the Food Giants Hooked Us
Michael Moss. Random House, 2013.
(Hardcover. Kindle here.)

 

---

 
© 2013 Cathi Carol. All rights reserved. Please do not republish without permission.
 
Last Updated: April 28, 2013
 
Find my book, movie, and music suggestions at my Amazon store.

See my profile at LinkedIn.  

Please contact me via my account at Twitter (you have to have one, too) if you have a comment, a related article to share, want to report an editing error, or find a broken link.

Thank you!
 

Women, Pay, and Negotiation

The prevailing explanations for gender discrimination in the workplace are that:

1. women choose to be discriminated against to gain other benefits,

and that

2. we’re not good negotiators.

(1) This odd yet currently prevelant theory is demonstrably false on the face of it, and it reverses the problem, as well – it is negative toward men, who actually do want the same “choices” as women.

(2) If women don’t negotiate as aggressively as men, it’s because of the way we’re treated in all areas of life: it’s been shown that men view women who behave normally as “abnormal”, and view men who behave normally as “normal”. Women don’t want to lose a job offer due to a negative reaction to something we’re frowned upon for doing in daily life – being ourselves.

The truth is that women do negotiate for pay, but that we’re offered less initially, and turned down for higher pay more often. Yet researchers and the defensive general male public, and the average defensive male at work, will insist upon blaming women for the discrimination against them.

Not all male hiring managers, assuredly; there is such a thing as an honest male human being. And not all female hiring managers, either, though discriminatory attitudes are catching, one knows. But there are not yet enough of the honest and fair in the workplace to balance out the discriminatory; there is not yet enough equality at work for everyone, and not just for women.

Women don’t negotiate for equal pay not because we’re afraid of or don’t like negotiation, but because we expect and wish to avoid the discriminatroy consequences when we do.

Regarding:

Perhaps women doctors earn less than men because discrimination is alive and well, readers say.
Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2011

Cracking the Male Code of Office Behavior
Shaunti Feldhahn, The New York Times, February 5, 2011

---

© 2011 Cathi Carol

Here’s a Radical Idea, Psychology

Tell abusers that they’re mentally ill and need therapy, rather than saying that to their victims.

---

© February 5, 2011 Cathi Carol