Search Results: is she a risk

President Trump on Thursday announced a slew of punishing tariffs on pharmaceuticals, heavy trucks, kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered furniture, saying import taxes on those products would go into effect on Oct. 1.

The tariffs range from 25 percent to 100 percent, with the highest levies applying to “any branded or patented” pharmaceutical product coming into the United States. That decision poses considerable political risk, given that Americans could face higher prices for drugs, as countries pull back from exporting them into the United States.

Trump said exceptions would be made for pharmaceutical companies that are building manufacturing facilities in the United States.

This year, as Trump has repeatedly threatened to impose tariffs on imported medicines, most of the largest brand-name drugmakers have announced plans to spend billions of dollars building or expanding U. S. factories.

Trump said they would protect American producers from “unfair outside competition.” He said his actions were justified by “large scale ‘FLOODING’” of the products into the USA by other countries.

“It is a very unfair practice, but we must protect, for National Security and other reasons, our Manufacturing process,” Trump wrote.

Higher costs from the new tariffs will be felt across sectors of the economy, from housing and health care to logistics. The president also said the United States would begin imposing a 50 percent tariff on imported kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and associated products, along with a 30 percent tariff on imported furniture and a 25 percent tariff on foreign trucks.

The tariffs will be issued under a national security related law, known as Section 232, that Trump has used to issue tariffs on steel, aluminum, cars and copper. On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced that it was beginning new investigations under the law into imports of robotics, industrial machinery and medical devices, which could result in tariffs.

Kinda related but would a gay man have driven more MAGAs to the polls? More libs?

TO BE CLEAR: The decision is for the parents alone, BUT do concerned relatives coming from a place of the best intentions, have an: Obligation? Duty? Task? Interest? Stake? of inquiring?

The most OBVIOUS AND CORRECT answer is NUNYA & GFY. AGREED! But SHOULD they volunteer their desires for the bundle of joy? Does their proximity to the infant permit a "pass" to do this? Is it ok if they preface it with: "It's your decision but..." or "I support your decision but I'm curious..." or "I care & that's why I'm asking..." or "Have you & X-in-law discussed vaccinating?" Is there a socially acceptable way to do this? Is their legitimate interest in the infants health a valid reason to risk a potentially emotional, awkward or severely damaging result to their relationship?

I was reading this NPR article that reads: "They found that genes associated with African ancestry appear to affect certain brain cells in ways that could increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease and stroke. But genes associated with European ancestry seem to influence other brain cells in ways that could increase the risk of Parkinson's disease, a disorder that is less common in Black Americans."

Although this may be scientifically true, I find it sketchy because it suggests innate differences between the brains of the races. What do you think?

A law in Kentucky setting 50-50 shared custody as the state’s standard was hailed as a victory for fathers, but critics say it puts mothers and children at risk. Do you consider this to be a victory or a risk? - www.wsj.com/.../the-equal-custody-experiment-41e1f7a6

A decline in mutual respect, freedom, and trust in modern relationships — especially among Millennials and Gen Z — is causing love to fail and servitude to rise in its place.

I think mutual respect, freedom, and trust are clearly declining in modern relationships, especially among Millennials and Gen Z, and the data backs it up.
• Respect: Emotional labor is heavily imbalanced. Studies note that women often carry the “mankeeping” burden (managing the relationship’s emotional/social side), while only 12% of men over 30 say they feel fully valued by their partner (The Week, 8 at the Table). Both sides feel disrespected—men for their sacrifices, women for their roles.
• Trust: Gen Z is drifting into “situationships”—36% say they’re unsure how to even define their relationship (American Survey Center). Add in politics, which has become a dating deal-breaker (Newsweek), and it’s no surprise trust between men and women is eroding.

• Freedom: Gender role expectations still dominate. Research across 29 countries shows when men lose jobs in “male breadwinner” cultures, the risk of separation skyrockets—not because of money, but because freedom from rigid roles doesn’t really exist (PMC study). Men feel trapped in provision/protection, while women feel pressured to “do it all.” Both blame the other for limiting their freedom.
• Relationships overall: Gen Z is disengaging—described as a “relationship recession” by researchers. Many are opting out of dating or even intimacy altogether (UCL, The Guardian). Pew found 63% of men under 30 are single, compared with 34% of women (Vox). That gap itself shows massive distrust and disconnect.

So when respect, trust, and freedom are all crumbling, what’s left? Love can’t survive under those conditions. What you get instead is obligation and servitude, one partner bending to the other’s demands just to keep the relationship going.

Her book (1971) argues that men, not women, are actually the ones oppressed through courtship, marriage, and cultural expectations. She compares marriage to slavery, saying men give up independence to provide for women and children in exchange for affection. It’s been called misogynistic, but also brutally honest and thought-provoking.
What do you think—truth or outdated generalization?

📚 The Manipulated Man by Esther Villar (1971) (title changed to “The Tamed Man” for modern audience) remains one of the most controversial books on gender roles.

Villar argues men are not oppressors but the opposite: women use courtship, marriage, and social expectations to make men providers and protectors. Men give up freedom, risk their lives, and work for women and children in exchange for brief affection.

She compares marriage to slavery — the wedding as the day a man loses independence, entering a Sisyphean struggle enforced by culture and government. She also describes “female rivalry,” where women compete to control men, using sex and pressure to keep them loyal.

Other writers, like Chinweizu (The Anatomy of Female Power) and Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power), echo the claim that society is more matriarchal than acknowledged.

Condemned as misogynistic but praised as brutally honest, the book challenges us to rethink who truly holds power in relationships.

- https://a.co/d/3N9xcFt