Update

woman.md

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ A woman in emergency situations even presents a deadly danger: not only do women
 
 Of course, [LRS](lrs.md) loves all living beings equally, even women. In order to truly love someone we have to be aware of their true nature so that we can truly love them, despite all imperfections.
 
-**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, women seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (although feminism of course views this as a "weakness" and already diminished this moral advantage women used to posses), though they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive and love to plot behind the scenes. Nevertheless there have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
+**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, women seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (although feminism of course views this as a "weakness" and already diminished this moral advantage women used to possess), though they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive and love to plot behind the scenes. Nevertheless there have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
 
 **Can women be allowed in [technology](tech.md)?** Well yes, sure, we don't forbid anyone from doing anything. Can a [dog](dog.md) become a writer? Maybe -- it'll be awesome when he does, but we shouldn't encourage dogs to become writers or see lack of dog writers as a problem. In any case **we need fewer women doing important intellectual tasks**, forcing women to do tasks vital for functioning of society has led to those tasks being done poorly and society is getting destroyed, it's not [fun](fun.md) anymore, the world is literally [collapsing](collapse.md) because women were forced to do important tasks for [political reasons](feminism.md), it is now time to prioritize saving society before [political correctness](political_correctness.md). Just admit women are dumb, stop forcing women everywhere and the numbers will get back to healthy levels. In general something like 1 woman for 1000 men doing intellectual task such as [programming](programming.md), writing or [science](science.md) is about the ratio we are probably looking for.