That was your interpretation.And you have zero justification to back those up. The only link you've provided on it provided a wealth of evidence that you are wrong, that women's brains are better at all the skills that go into negotiations.
Yes I am. One gender is inclined towards some skills and the other isn't, and vice versa. It doesn't mean the skills make someone inherently better. This is your position you brought in and have yet to justify why difference must imply inferiority.You're not acknowledging difference.
Hell, even a neuroscientist says what I say at the bottom:
I don't expect you to stop with this train of thought though.But do these differences mean a superiority/inferiority relationship between men and women?
"No", says Dr. Pearlson. "To say this means that men are automatically better at some things than women is a simplification. It's easy to find women who are fantastic at math and physics and men who excel in language skills. Only when we look at very large populations and look for slight but significant trends do we see the generalizations.
So I've proven some feminists do and some don't. What's your point, exactly? My point is that feminists DO look at it and have done for years. I'd equally accept some don't.If you want to play the quote game, I can too
I have; you just interpreted differently. I then put my interpretation in. You don't "win" because you think you win.You've yet to provide even a shred of evidence that "negotiation" is a sexist practice that women aren't capable of handling as well as men.
Do what you wish.Until you pony up actual neurologically peer-reviewed proof that shows women have brains that simply cannot negotiate well, I'm going to continue dismissing this as a fiction.