You have a very skewed outlook. Sexism is not highlighting one person nor is it to obscure reality. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender, end of. You've spewed a lot of nonsense in the attempt to back your opinion. In fact the only thing you've said that was worth reading was "There are no winners or victors in assault. Life isn’t supposed to be battlefield covered in blood and fear for anyone." And, "each person is equally valid." Both of which you seem to be willing to completely disregard in an attempt to attack men because of one man's response to a headline about a criminal that got caught. This to me is only highlighting your own prejudice that you've couched in fluff in order to justify your viewpoint. You don't stop violence by hitting back harder you stop violence by making sure no one punches in the first place.

The proper term is Sexism. Nothing like advocating against sexism by promoting sexism.

Yes, and giant bugs and whole lot of other things too.

I would eat that.

Yep.

The pizza bites I get say to cook at 425°. I suppose you could cook them at 420° and just add 20-30 seconds.

present it coherently and hopefully concisely. This also assumes there are no issues with picking a leader or following the time table or anyone mistaking what they're supposed to do. Plus, simply because of the numbers involved the larger group must turn in their work 76 times earlier so everything that needs to be done before the presentation can get done. So could a system that works for 5 work for 380? Kinda, but not really. Everything got way more complex simply because of the numbers involved. And remember this isn't taking into account personalities that may clash or division in how something needs to get done. So @princessmonstertru was right in saying this shouldn't be and apples to apples comparison because at best it would be an apples to orchard of apple trees and that makes a huge difference.

I would disagree. Here's an example I think you can understand. Now this isn't completely accurate but it's simplified. I'm sure you've worked on a group project. So lets say that group has 5 members. Each of the 5 has their jobs and they do it and turn it in to the group. Now with 5 it's easy to see which members did a great job, which did okay, and which if they even did their part is mediocre at best. Worst case scenario the rest of the members work harder to pick up the slack of that one bad member. Now lets say your group has 380 people. Same scenario. Only now you need people whose job is nothing but checking others work. People whose job is nothing but picking up the slack. People who have to organize all the work into a cohesive unit. People whose job is to check that. How about presenting the work? The group with 5 can each do the bit they know because they did the work. But the 380 have to choose a group of people who then have to learn everyone else's bit so they can

That is indeed a major factor. To put things in perspective Florida, a single state, has a population of over 21 million, while Denmark a single country has less than 6 million. That's well over 3x the population to manage. Governments, which by definition doesn't make money, need to be of a certain size to manage a country or state. I'm not even referring to military just civilian government employees. Population is a major part in determining the amount of people needed to successfully run a government. Downside is that larger governments require more money. Governments, let me say it again, don't make money. They are parasites. Necessary yes, but still parasites. I'd be more interested in these types of topics if someone did an after tax/after bills comparison between countries. Like at the end of the day when everything is paid for, food, housing, etc..., taxes are taken, how much money can they reasonably expect to pocket every paycheck? I think the answers would be interesting.

College courses can be fun.

It's the Kansas City Shuffle.