Isn't there a qualitative difference between damaged and destroyed? If ruffians tore up a house, tearing, breaking, slashing everything in sight and knocking holes in all the walls, it might be called completely damaged; if a meteor landed on the house and flattened it, then it would be destroyed. Possibly 'damaged' implies at least a remaining framework, whereas 'destroyed' gives the implication of nothing useful remaining of the original form. Of course, we could also be wandering into the realm of local dialects, where we each look at Gandle's truck and use a different word or phrase in description.

A sad day all around for you Patti. You are in my thoughts. Anne

Yeah, menopause (and periomenopause...and post-menopause...) are really rough. I encourage you to check with your doctor, though, and make sure you don't have another issue like a thyroid imbalance.

The thing is, people are people and a person's gender should NEVER be used to judge them by. You say the young women you see are far too bold - OK we were having a discussion on women so I said that the timid mouse image that was being painted is not my experience so the statement of too bold applied to women only because we were talking about women. There was no statement about men at all, so don't infer it. I never said or even implied that the behavior is any different than young college men or that it is more acceptable in men. In fact, I said both young men and women were too bold. Since the innuendo is getting me in trouble, the statement is probably going to get me hung but what the hell. I was specifically talking about the all too popular trend of asking any guy you like for d#ck pics, and reciprocating with topless photos. I get a few drunk pics of some guys junk several times a year. Believe me, I think they are too bold also. I never said that bias doesn't exist. I am just referring to the evidence that all biases seem to be lessening, thus studies centered around younger adults may be more relevant. There is still plenty of every bias to go around. You guys are really looking for a fight, that quite frankly, I don't want to be in. So you win. Risk aversion/acceptance varies widely within the genders and I suspect that women may be, on average, more risk averse than men. - Let me explain in greater detail. EVERYONE has different risk appetite. Older people are more risk averse than younger, poor people are less risk averse than the upper middle class, different races have different risk tolerance, different geographic areas have different risk tolerance, and all of those are gross generalizations. The reason why risk doesn't matter between men and women isn't that they don't have different risk tolerance, it is that everyone has different risk tolerance. So the first thing you learn in finance is establishing acceptable risk. There is no right answer. As long as the desired rewards match the risk, you are right. As investors both men and women learn about the market (become sophisticated), we usually see risk seekers temper their desire to make it big in the market, and we see risk avoiders start to focus more on the rewards, realizing that complete risk aversion may not achieve their goals. In the end, the two sides, whether they be race, gender, or just personality, get reasonably close together. So what I am saying is there really is no issue for gender to effect. Once you have a risk appetite that you are comfortable with, you control for it. Controlling for it simply means selecting the investments that will most likely get you to your goal at your stated risk and realizing that not every investment needs to be at your risk appetite.