Devin

""Women have nurturing capabilities that men could never achieve." "with the statement around women being more emotionally attuned." These are not " perpetuating gender inequality" against women.

They self describe it as testing for "sexism against women." Those are positive aspects for women.

I don't think he should tell her his reason for breaking up is attractiveness, that seems to be suggested. I might go with I have some internal work to do that is keeping us from taking our relationship to the next level, I need time without a relationship, and I don't think it would be fair to you to continue this while I work on this if I could anyway because I've realised I'm not even ready for what we currently have, our relationship can't be healthy until I figure this out....

Be a philosopher later, you'll have that looming question stuck in the back of your mind otherwise, you'll probably live till 80, plenty of time to philosophie in your wise years.

For what I do go with a website(stock broker) that does free trades of u.s. stocks. I

I just meant that's why it's ingrained in culture, from those times, now it's 'tradition'.

This is the problem with makeup/instagram culture, we don't have a great idea what women really look like until AFTER you're sleeping with them. It's bad for men and women. Your friends girls may not be as attractive as they appear in the settings you're seeing them in.

That's no different than physical traits, you can, and society does, breed physiological traits in the brain.

There is an ingrained useful bias for women getting the lifeboats, one man can impregnate all the women, if all men lived and one woman survived..... you're hoping for twins. Same with risking your life in anything else like warfare.

Well even in society today in 1st world countries it may actually be better if women were the stronger gender. Consider compared to the past most people knew every single person they would ever even see, nowadays most people are surrounded by 95% of strangers, and a long time ago conflict was due in large part to literally not even speaking the same language. So if women were the larger gender they could protect from assault from all these strangers and if men were smaller conflict would be resolved with communication that we now have. All the child bearing aspects are what is "woman" in terms of biology.

Staying in yields about 7% long term on average, that's making money, and with no work, which is great. I just assumed you were interested in active investing, if you study the industry and market I make about 30%. My long term stocks are what fell in value and I just don't sell, I collect dividends and let them regrow.

What's the percentage of frontline combat in modern warfare? 5%?

The problem with saying the female gender is the smaller gender is that we could obviously breed to where female is the physically larger gender, therefore size is not actually tied to the gender, it's just the historic average. Saying female is the smaller gender implies it is absolutely. For a real world problem, this socially conditions society(biases) to stay with the status quo and not explore(close minded), it's the root of sexist undertones that discourages say women from body building for example, and discourages society from moving/desiring/evolving/breeding toward stronger females, naturally stronger females are not desired in society so we don't breed that direction. "Women are the weak gender" society then does not select the stronger women, it does men. Stronger males were historically the better sex to be stronger, but in 1st world countries these days females being the stronger gender could work, and obviously the future could allow that even further or it could actually be an environment/scenario where it's beneficial that females be the physically stronger sex.

LOL, yes. But for instance most people try to skip 'belonging' for 'esteem' or 'self-actualizing', or they skip health for career, skipping lower aspects seem to make you spin your wheels when you're working on higher ones you're "not ready" for.

Yes it is, that statement does not imply average, consider someone from mars never knowing anything about earth and reading earth men are taller, everyone above the median height is male and below is female then. Its statistically proven on all intelligence tests, which is what is "implied" by the statement. (If you're going to apply the same grace to both statements)

It's not impossible just work at it, following maslow's hierarchy in order and not skipping ahead seems to be the fastest way, if you skip ahead you tend to spin your wheels at the level 'you're not ready for'. Prioritize, cut out bullshit, introspect, quit pursuits when you later see them holding you back.

I think most only get defensive against bigotry when it's stated as if it's not biased, or averages, or generalizations. Or when ancillary variables are intentionally unconsidered in the statements, those statements are usually attacks, conservatives make inflammatory statements with the sole purpose for offending and causing drama, like they're from daytime soap operas or something.

Benevolent means good-intentioned, this is not a feminist's test, bias does not necessarily mean it's bad, it's just recognizing it is bias.

it's obviously not biased to state averages, not sure why you're saying that. Gestation is the only non biased difference. There are women taller and stronger than above average men, so thinking women are weaker(the gender, not the statistical average) is therefore bias.

There's no insinuation that there are not any differences, they're called male and female because of that difference, one gestates one doesn't, that's the only non biased difference though that is not a generalization(bias).

Those are sexist biases though. Like what differences are you referring to? Some women are stronger than some men, some men are more emotional. I think the lynch pin with their bias on bias is that we are bred toward the stereotypical traits, we could obviously breed women to be the physically stronger and taller gender, etc.

I buy into companies I personally feel good about what they're doing, like a perspective as a part owner like you are, this sounds uneccessary but to me the biggest problem for most people is the emotional rollercoaster for ups and downs, investing this way you feel okay when it goes down and you don't feel like panic selling which is where most people get killed. I buy for long term holdings and then whether it's the next day or two years when it spikes I sell. It's usually within a few days if I'm really paying attention and playing hard if I have time, I'll take small margins, watching the news and industry reports because if it spikes due to a windfall I will hold on longer depending on the type of windfall the company came across. I use 'go til cancel' sell orders, and just leave them be unless a windfall is rumored to be brewing. And 'good for day' buy orders. Works great, the harder you work it the more you make, I use free trades brokers. Read the financials and competitors, and industry news.

I don't watch porn, think it's pretty stupid, think bisexual women are awesome, makes perfect sense to me, don't care what guy's do, and I get physically sick at the thought of "Most people would be bisexual", I wouldn't want to be with most women let alone any men, I think this is new age cultural brainwashing.

They're all walking around like normal even at the site, the wind blew it away, sharing is caring. They intentionally burnt off a lot of the standing chemicals. Only 1 mile radius was required to evacuate. The rivers haven't been safe to drink out of since the 1800s, shouldn't even swim in them, roadway storm sewers go to the rivers, asphalt is what's leftover from oil refining(plus gravel added in).

Apparently close enough to it anyway, I can't stand to think of consuming more media though, I'm still actually inching further away.