Search Results: how to answer that

For me the answer is no.

First, if the NBA didn't subsidize the WNBA it wouldn't exist, or if it did, they would be making less than minimum wage. The NBA runs the WNBA as a net loss.

Second, I can only name maybe one player. Just one. And their stadiums are almost always empty. They get paid less because they bring in less money. And again if the NBA stopped subsidizing them (which in my opinion they should), the WNBA would just disappear.

Third, you could put the very best WNBA team against the very worst NBA team, and they would get smashed. Hell you could put them up against a high school boys team and they would get smashed (kinda how team USA women's soccer, went up against retired wrexham players and got smashed)

Basically it makes no financial sense to pay WNBA players the same as NBA players when the entire league is a net negative, they make no money essentially, and their skill just doesn't match their male counterparts.

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?

There are 100 senators in the US Senate, 74 men and 26 women.

How many of them do you think have at least one tattoo?

There is no correct answer. We really don't know how many have tattoos. Tattoos are pretty popular, and it's fun to make a reasonable guess.

Please vote in the poll and justify your guess in an opinion... if you want to.

Girls, I think this will be an interesting debate, so cast your opinion given the following scenario:

If you're in a relationship and live together, assume that he works full-time Monday to Friday and works 40+ hours a week, he leaves for work early morning, and doesn't get home till 6/7pm in the evening and is the higher earner. She on the other hand works part-time, and doesn't get home until 2, 3pm in the afternoon, and earns less than him.

Who's taking care of household chores during the week, like laundry, cleaning, and hoovering, given that you (the woman) have an extra 20 hours Monday to Friday than he does.

Weekends don't count here, since it should be fair game taking care of things together, and weekends pose a good opportunity for him to do a few things whilst she does a few less. And, time for both to do something together, like shopping.

What are your thoughts? The poll answers are in the woman's context as if she was answering. Since there's a 3-4 hour gap between them getting home, picking answer C would technically mean she gets to relax until he gets home.