I'm not trying to sound offensive. I'll try to be more sensitive. I have a tendency to assert my opinion quite forcefully.

I don't believe that anything I listed regarding perceived weaknesses of females was offensive at all. In saying that those "weaknesses" are offensive, you are being sexist by implying, knowingly or unknowingly, that the abstract skills that females are not evolutionarily programmed to do as well as males are the things that are most important. My point is that human nature is comprised of many varying, imperative qualities that allow survival -- men possess some, women possess some. No one sex has any characteristic more important than any other. You did one of two things: 1) misinterpreted the whole premise of my multi-tracked argument, or 2) disagreed with my argument and sought to refute it by claiming it to be "insensitive" -- a weak emotional appeal and intellectually-dishonest debate tactic.

This is a very simple issue in my opinion. When evaluating ethical issues that impact many people (thousands or millions), I find it most useful to construct and consult a simple pleasure calculus found in the ethical theory of Act Utilitarianism, a deontological ethical argument which proposes that, in specific situations, one should do that which results in the greatest amount of pleasure.

So, regarding drug-testing on animals, the answer is quite simple. Say we get a unit of happiness for everyone ever positively effected by discovers in medicine that directly resulted from testing the medications on animals; these will include all the millions of people saved by cancer treatments, antidepressants, etc., and their nearest and dearest -- many millions. Then take the few thousand who are empathic towards the animals subjected to testing and subtract one unit of pleasure from the total. NET PLEASURE = MANY MILLIONS

Verdict: continue animal testing at all costs!

It is well-known (at least to me) that perfume and other fragrances contain potentially harmful chemicals such as benzaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acetonitrile. But, if perfume was banned in the workplace, it would have to be banned everywhere. The fragrance industry makes so much money that it could never get banned. Many thousands would have to die or face serious bodily harm before any kind of regulation on the wearing of perfume/cologne would ever be considered. I like the smell and have never been irritated by it. Move your desk, ask the person not to wear it, switch jobs. . . why would anyone ban something everywhere in the workplace because you don't like it?

When evaluating this argument through an ethical perspective, it is important to approach it rationally. The death sentence's punishment IS NOT DEATH. The punishment that "capital punishment" imposes is permanent removal from society. Everyone dies; therefore, you cannot "sentence" someone to something that will happen no matter what. Capital punishment is not "an eye for an eye", i.e. you took someone else life so we will now take yours. One can think of it that way, but then emotions get in the way, like "it isn't ever right to kill anyone!" Capital Punishment is reserved for people who cannot be allowed to live in the separate society of prison because their pattern of behavior has demonstrated that, no matter where they are, they will threaten others' rights to privacy, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The death penalty is not about life and death. It is about preserving the rights of persons.

Both sexes have their drawbacks. Men are less empathic, more likely to die from accidents, more violent, and less adept at creating social networks and obtaining emotional support. Women, on the other hand, are irrational, have smaller brains (on average, due to their smaller bodies) which causes less raw computing power (complex problem solving), and have trouble looking at the "big picture". Because I am a man, and I don't value the things I am inherently bad at that women are good at, I think men are better. But either one without the other is doomed.