She is such a masochist. Women bring misery wherever they show up. IT has been fun for such a long time. But they will destroy anything so it is all about them. The Womym. Always suffering, always unhappy, always about THEM. How can you even be poor when a software developer? This takes some serious clinically recognized masochism to be so!
I think he is right. Many depressed, long-term unemployed folk must have had pains of various kind as depression symptoms. I think most folk have used opioids to "treat" their depression, nothing else.
Something like Ruskies with vodka when their empire was collapsing.
The difference is at least their elites weren't in denial about it.
yeah, because they stand away from risk. Looks like a good idea in 2008-2010 (that's why Ginnie). Not as much when you have had bull market for over a decade.
Yes, but that's like having 10 usd plan for truly unlimited in NYC alone. It's different to build mobile network for a small country. It's different to build it from Ocean to Ocean.
> We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight.
I love this comment, so I'm going to start here. This very sentence: "We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight". By all you mean which class? Poor? Middle class? Middle-upper class? Rich? Wealthy?
Don't you see how we're tricking ourselves by believing in this false male/female dychotomy? Let's look at it from Marxist perpective:
Poor -- male and female work
Middle Class -- male and female work
Middle Upper Class -- sometimes one of the partners male OR female will work, while the other will not.
Upper Class -- both men and women don't work. They earn passive income on their investments, business onwership, real estate ownership, stocks and bonds profits.
So, while we here are arguing if women "should" work or not, the healthy attitude seems to be to do anything possible to be as high on the ladder above as possible. Because the reasons if we work or we don't work have nothing to do with what we believe or want. But they have everything to do with our social status, or as Marx would call it "class". If you are poor you and your partner work. If you are wealthy you and your partner don't work. If you're in one of the middle classes it's a combination. Talking about "women rights" in this scenario is just side-tracking and being blinded by the reality of social classes and social status.
This being said, there is bunch, really a lot of research in psychology strongly suggesting that women are attracted to males who are highly successful. Basically poor woman (low class) will be definitely attracted to a guy in higher class. Based on his class / social status alone. This is basic science of psychology backed by a lot of research. Declining simple biology for signaling reasons just looks so... desperate? (sorry, couldn't resist myself)
Male psychology is to do pretty much anything to get as high in the socio-economic ladder as possible. To achieve as high status as one can. Starting with lobsters about 300 milion years ago. Deeply encoded in our bodies in all types of weird places like for example endocrine system. Females don't have that. They are rather wired to find males who posses high status as attractive partners. So they are wired differently to males in this regard. And of course, you see the difference, it's just that it is not this comfortable talking about obvious truths nowadays. Even when these basic truths are backed by hard science.
Yes, we have known it since human genome was decoded. The DNA tests always indicate that a person who took the test had twice as many female ancestors than male ancestors. There is no other way than twice as many females procreating than males for it to be true. I hope you are not one of the "DNA deniers"... leftists/marxists are capable of dismissing all types of knowledge to still believe in their rel... err... ideology.