One in Three Women is Illiterate
Sometimes the statement men are better than women leaves me wanting a little more in the flavor of substance. It’s not often. Like all men, the shortcomings of women are something I’ve learned to accept and move on. However, occasionally we men need to re-evaluate. We need more than rational hypothesizing and logical conjecture. We need facts for the why’s and how’s.
I pose this as a formal theory. Men are better than women at everything because something like 30% of women are illiterate.
Sounds shocking doesn’t it? But really, when do women need to read? Numbers don’t count as reading, so illiteracy does not impede women from writing checks or measuring all the progress they’re not making while they’re not working out at the gym.
Before I get too ahead of myself let me quote some statistics. UNICEF and UNESCO say that two out of every three illiterates is a woman. They give the world-wide feminine literacy rate in the sixtieth percentile, while the male literacy rate towers above that number at nearly 90%. I think you’ll agree that that’s plenty of numerical majesty to spare.
Initially, when I saw the figures I thought to myself, maybe that’s why women are so shitty at everything. Just like the kid who is really shitty at baseball and then it turns out he just needed some glasses. Maybe women just need to learn how to read.
Then I realized the writing on the walls of every cluster fuck women are about to step into is only metaphorical writing. They also don’t need to be able to read to shut the hell up every once in a while and listen when something other than Oprah or an appliance that resembles Oprah is dispensing sound life advice.
Perhaps instead of Easy Bake Ovens and Barbie Dolls this Christmas, mothers should be buying their daughters Hooked on Phonics.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 34 … 15 14 13 12 11 [10] 9 8 7 6 5 … 1 » Show All
Welcome Alex!
I bid you welcome to our humble board. I wish to add to you to our ever-expanding, but famous “hall of manginas.” We here at MABTW.com are always looking for new blood, especially when they are menstrating. Feel free to be as moronic as possible. Have a nice day.
… I value science, and laugh at creationism. I reiterate: nature contributes to tendencies, but nurture will in fact override it. Which, as I mentioned, explains masculine women and feminine men.
No, the differences between men and women are predominately sociological. Biological differences (i.e., hormones) account for slight tendencies of each gender, but nurture greatly overrides nature. A girl brought up to be logical and rational will be logical and rational. (You can’t argue that there are no logical women.) There are women with masculine tendencies and men with feminine tendencies, and the obvious explanation is that they were socialized by, say, their family, to be that way. If society encouraged different behavior in women, they would exhibit it on a larger scale. But as I mentioned before, it already is obvious that many women do not fit the outdated female stereotype.
You mentioned children, I hope to God you don’t have daughters. Would you ever want your daughter to believe the things written on this site? That she has a “place”, that is she isn’t as intelligent or capable as her male peers, that she is essentially nothing more than a baby-making maid? I should hope that you would realize that she is intelligent, capable of pursuing any career a man could, and that she’s as moral as any man is. And if her boyfriend ever talked about her like the men on this site talk about women, you would probably be outraged.
What makes me so angry about this site is that there’s absolutely no sense of balance and no reason. Both genders can be equally immoral and it’s reprehensible in either case. Men and women are capable of all the same tasks, with the exception of men being larger and stronger (making them better suited for tasks that require physical labor). Facts are also constantly twisted and ignored on this site. If you want to condemn slutty women, be my guest. But if this site is at all rational or fair, then acknowledge the fact that men sleep around as much as women do (if not more), and that that is just as immoral. Don’t say that women aren’t as intelligent when there’s absolutely no facts to support it. Don’t brush off facts that don’t suit your arguments. Remember that for every slutty, manipulative, nagging, incompetent woman, there is a moral, honest, content, capable woman, and that you only have a case against the former. As for the rest, there’s no reason they can’t be treated as equals to men and get along with men.
Sadly for you, but fortunately for the world, science confounds you. Enjoy your time with the Young Earth Creationists and flat earther’s.
-wolfe
No, the differences between men and women are predominately sociological. Biological differences (i.e., hormones) account for slight tendencies of each gender, but nurture greatly overrides nature. A girl brought up to be logical and rational will be logical and rational. (You can’t argue that there are no logical women.) There are women with masculine tendencies and men with feminine tendencies, and the obvious explanation is that they were socialized by, say, their family, to be that way. If society encouraged different behavior in women, they would exhibit it. That, in fact, is the reason that everything on this site is generalized to to the point of being false; the feminist movement has allowed women to be whatever they want.
Alex, this is the single most ridiculous thing you state. (BTW, please use paragraphs in future).
Perhaps someday you will realize the folly in what you’ve said above. If you have daughters and sons, the non-socialized differences will be made abundantly clear to you.
Every sound scientific study says the reverse of what you say. If you want to be in with the flat-earthers, the Young Earth Creationists, and the Post Modernists, go ahead and believe that male/female differences are purely down to socialization. But don’t expect anything other than derision.
I’d be tempted to argue women are of superior value, but that might make feminists angry.
Wisdom will cure that misperception on your part. Or read Maureen Dowd who probably shared many of your views.
It is not apparent to me that you are evaluating this website or the men who contribute to it logically.
Regards,
-wolfe
The opposite is true and men are.
-Dick
I find it hard to believe that half the things posted on this site are even believed by the people who post them. Men cheat on their girlfriends just as much as women cheat on their boyfriends, for one thing, and I find it interesting that the men here blame the woman for either situation. (If a man cheats on a woman, it’s the woman’s fault for not making him happy, whereas the man is never blamed for a woman cheating). And, by the way, the literacy rate is higher for women than men in the United States, women are more likely to graduate from college, and men are more likely to suffer from learning disabilities. As it was already pointed out, any lag in literacy/academics in women elsewhere in the world is the result of men essentially barring women from education. This site is ridiculous. I don’t understand how the men here can so childishly ignore the fact that personality differences between the genders are purely the result of socialization, that every woman is different just like every man is different (rendering your generalizations meaningless), and that no gender can be inherently superior. At best, you can argue that the genders are different but of equal value, though I would strongly disagree that men and women are even that different from each other. I know women who fit your generalizations perfectly, but most don’t at all. I would never, ever, cheat on my boyfriend, I have no desire for attention, and I evaluate situations logically; I resent the fact that you smear and devalue all women, not just the women who fit your stereotype.
I would like to point out that despite VoR’s name, she has yet to post one reasonable post. Every single post has to do with calling others names, and pretending everyone else is a retard, not with intelleligent-debate.
VoR, can you live up to your namesake and at least introduce some intelligent, REASONABLE, comments? If you call me a moron/dimwit/homosexual, or call out a miniscule error in my post, you will prove my point.
I dont think you’re funny.
-Mr.T
You mean “might have been funny”. Learn to conjugate.
No, spelling corrections are rarely witty. Mine are no exception. Perhaps this is a concept that eludes you.
I’m guessing it could be spelled “be029c53ee13f”
-wolfe
How do you spell “attention whore”?
-Dick
It’s unfortunate that wolfe, like most other posters on this site, lacks anything resembling originality, creativity, or a sense of humor. Too bad, because otherwise the above post may have been funny, rather than painfully not-funny. If you don’t care to read wolfe’s attempt at a witty criticism of my spelling, then just imagine Bob Saget hosting the Oscars and you will have a good sense of what it sounded like.
Btw, you missed “analystical”.
I generally don’t make fun of a poster’s spelling unless s/he has called another out. Given that VoR has done so repeatedly, it’s now weapons free on VoR.
Perhaps you mean ignoramus?
Don’t worry VoR, you’ll catch on to that spelling thing some day. Until then, try literacy. You might find you like it.
-wolfe
Would you please introduce me to your imaginary friend, Dickie? Because it’s rude for you to be responding to all of his/her posts instead of mine.
You see, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt rather than call you illiterate outright. I just may have to acknowledge the sad truth eventually, though, if you continue to prove incapable of responding to my posts without misquoting me.
I agree. The odds are permanently stacked against women.
-Dick
Ah, Dickie boy, I see you need to sharpen those reading comprehension skills. Either that, or you are an impotent weasel who can’t respond to what I actually said, which was:
“…in many (if not most) parts of the world, the odds are deliberately stacked against women from day one.”
In other words, women are often denied the education, jobs and birth control necessary for their autonomy. If you can’t help but confuse this obvious social construct with some imaginary, innate inferiority…well, that just makes you an ignoramous. Clearly, in the countries where these necessities are not forcefully withheld, women are more than a match for their fellow men (which is probably why you’ve got your knickers in a bunch).
Also, I was expecting a wittier reply. You used to be funny. Too bad you’re already losing your touch….
The odds are stacked against women all over the Earth, not just in third world countries. How could they not be? Men are better than women.
-Dick
Also, I’ve noticed that big, hard Dick likes to use the epithet “cluster fuck” (a personal favorite of mine, as well) unusually often.
Well I’ll be beaten with a double-ended dildo…I think I’m in love!
Apparently Dick is ignorant enough to assume that the rest of the world enjoys the same standard of living as those of us in the U.S. and Western Europe. Hence the inane quip about Easy Bake Ovens and Barbie Dolls. I’m surprised that despite his superior, masculine wisdom, Dick is unaware that in many poorer countries the literacy rate is pathetically low among the population in general. It’s lower for women because, in addition to being underprivileged to begin with, they are treated as second class citizens by their respective societies and denied the education of their more fortunate brothers. But to acknowledge this obvious truth would force him to also acknowledge a major feminist grievance: that in many (if not most) parts of the world, the odds are deliberately stacked against women from day one. And we all know that hell will freeze over before ole Dickie boy bends over for those uppity broads.
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert: The literacy rate in the U.S. is close to 100% for both men and women. Who cares? The literacy rate is just a statistic that demonstrates the reality that practically every woman in America possesses the ability to read… And reality has a well-known feminist bias.
And while he’s not at this man’s level, I think that Dick is a brilliant comedian. Keep the jokes coming and I’ll be sure to respond with my unique brand of “cocklashery” (I nearly died laughing after reading that one).
Cheers
I see (thanks to the link you provided), Andrew is also the author of the magnificently titled “On the simulation of postmodernism and mental debility using recursive transition networks”. The paper’s not as interesting as its title, though I do like the Hofstadter reference.
I wonder if there’s a sequel on simulating female ‘thought’ and expression.
-wolfe