>>82876498
>superior sat scores are gender bias, i swear
lol. do you have any evidence the "bias" would lead to parity? even if it was just parity, women were subjugated for basically all of history and quickly caught up with men. just because women aren't
>actually the numbers are slightly different
lol
>>82876506
>>82876526
the prize for having more than the average woman's physical strength is increasingly lower in society, but men most certainly have an easier time at most of our grunt work that's costs a bit too much electricity to be done by robots yet.
>>82876510
>its men who want children
wtf are you sperging about? i said that because only we can have kids, we're given priority in life-or-death scenarios (which will probably never happen to you or anyone you know lol). if you don't want kids idgaf you probably weren't able to anyhow.