You're the one that asked for proof, common knowledge is proof, but I will give you that it may not be as common as I thought. You never asked for documentation, besides burden of proof lies with you, not with me. If you prove me wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong. Can you do the same? (Remember that documentation means fully sighting your sources)
You want more, you find it. I already know it. I already read the article that states that females have smaller brains and that males have more neurons (though the reasons why are still up for debate). I know men are more visually oriented because we're more attracted by what we see than women that look for more than visual appearance. I just have to look out the window to see that women are smaller than men. I was taught in my art classes that women look at more detail than men and I've seen it in their artwork. I've gone to the counseling meetings and been told that by the counselors that women stay in abusive relationships longer than men. I read the article that stated women have a different way to commit crime. The overprotective I might be off on because I've only seen 6 overprotective mothers to 2 overprotective fathers. When it comes to crime, every violent act I've seen perpetrated by males and females, I've only seen more vicious attacks made by females than males. That's only a ratio of 5 for male fights 2 for female fights and I can say that the damage I've seen done by those two female fights were far worse than the ones done by males. Males just pushed and hit, the females threw, tore, clawed, pushed, it was like an animal. I guess some people just don't have that much experience under their belt.
I also said torment not aggravate, or taunt. That's not the same as brutal. Read them. I know you can. They're right here. If you need to you can look them up on Dictionary.com.
As far as Kefka, I don't know all the details I was going by my female friend said about. After all I'm a male, and if I want info on females I ask them. Ever try that?
Also, note that Mythbusters did not prove higher endurance. They proved a perception. If they had proved it, then the people being tested would not have been allowed to see the time nor the temperature of the water. If they had proved it, they would have have told the people that the other team did it at a longer time than actually either team actually could and told them to match or exceed. That way it would have eliminated personal perceptions which can alter the outcome. Now if they've gone back and done another pain endurance test since last season, I'd be interested to see. Besides they might be right.
And NO, fighting is not the entire point of the franchise. That's football.
The point of the franchise is to make money. I also wouldn't say that nothing came of it, when referring to the Arcee Spotlight by IDW. (Furman, IDW, 2008) (a little bit of documentation you left out) From what I've read about the story you mentioned, I'd say something very significant came of it, like a bot that went crazy trying to destroy everything she can that goes back to the one that made her the way she is. I'd say something changed. If the writer couldn't come up with something else though, that's a failure of the writer, not the character.
Also, what are you doing? You looking for a fight or just trying to run a douche test?
Either way for the record, I'm an @$$hole not a douche.
