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 … 17 16 15 14 13 [12] 11 10 9 8 7 … 1 » Show All
Nope. Read the thread.
Unless you’re in a state which mandates joint custody (there are very few, and mine isn’t one of them) it is functionally impossible to obtain joint custody.
In order to have joint custody in a state that does not mandate it, the mother must agree to joint custody. in absence of of a compelling reason to do otherwise, the court will award custody to the woman. Since most divorces are acrimonious and the woman uses denying access to the children as a way to make the man suffer, joint custody almost never happens.
My ex assaulted me. She was charged with assault and arrested. Two days later, I was forced to vacate the marital home.
Females assaulting males in divorce cases is so common that the court doesn’t consider it relevant to the care of children.
If I’d assaulted her, you can be sure that I’d never have seen my children unsupervised again.
It is functionally impossible for a man to obtain custody of his children unless the woman is a proven child-abuser. The reverse is not true.
The textbook definition of feminism is inaccurate. Feminism as a philosophy is no longer concerned with equality of opportunity, but in making men suffer for perceived abuses.
If you do not have as a goal the persecution of men, then you are not a feminist by the modern goals of the movement.
On a “whim”? There was no other legitimate reason? Also, if you don’t pursue joint custody, don’t you in a sense agree to put your parental rights in the hands of the person who does have custody? I’ll look into laws on this later, I don’t know enough about the subject. Though, I do know for a fact women can have their children taken away if they’re proven to be an unfit/dangerous mother.
I would consider myself a feminist, in the sense that I believe in social and political equality for women (which is the definition of “feminism”: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism), but I have no animosity towards men whatsoever.
Pardon me, but …
Bullshit.
See the forums — mostly the Politik section, anywhere you see a thread with the word “skank” in it. You can get a pretty good rundown of how precisely few rights men have in the eyes of the law.
You may even note that just this last weekend, the skank — sorry, my ex — successfully denied me access to my children on her whim and with the support of the law.
The fact is, if the mother is made the custodial parent, the father has no rights whatsoever in a practical sense.
Bullshit. See the forums for details.
No, the explanation is that the law is heavily skewed in favor of women, out of all proportion to reality. See the forums for details.
Four individuals are headed for an intersection: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, a man-hating feminazi, and a male-friendly feminist.
Question: Which of them will reach the intersection first?
Answer: The man-hating feminazi.
Why?
Answer: Because the other three are all figments of your fucking imagination.
Men can’t be denied access to their children on the whim of the mother, because the father has parental rights. However, if the father is unfit and puts the children at risk, then he can be denied his parental rights (an unfit mother can also be denied access to her children for the same reasons). As for women being given more social and health funds, do more women live below the poverty line than men? I’m not sure if that’s the case, but if it is, that’s one possible explanation. As for feminists and their goals, the majority have no animosity towards men, they just simply want social and political equality. If men are being discriminated against, then that too needs to be changed.
A person’s sex is not a social construct, however, his or her personality, for the most part, is. (Although, yes, genes do play a role.) I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat it: If nature were the only factor in a person’s personality, then the male or female personality would be as fixed as their sex organs. Men and women will tend towards certain characteristics, but each gender is capable of possessing traits of the opposite gender’s. This is becoming more and more common, because society is starting to expect similiar behavior from each gender. I’ve begun to look objectively at the men and women around me, and I can honestly say that only about 30% of the women seem to have more than one or two of the traits you attribute to them on this site (and, many men have one or two of the traits you attribute to women). It’s absolutely ridiculous to say that all women fit a certain stereotype.
This is one more in a long line of times I won’t check my facts because some woman doesn’t know how to read a chart. Go back to chart reading school, sweetheart. And fuck off my site.
-Dick
So you are saying you have the data for 2006 and that in 2 years…women’s literacy dropped by 10%?
The most up to date statistics I found on it were 2000-2004. If you have some other ones please direct me to them.
2000-2004? This is 2006, Megan. Pick up a newspaper on the way to the salon.
-Dick
Umm…you quoted that some of your stats came from UNESCO so I looked up their statistics and for their 2000-2004 and according to those stats the worldwide illiteracy for women is 23%…less than 1 in 4. While for men it’s 13% a little more than 1 in 10. But that’s worldwide so that includes second and third world counties. When you look at the rate for developed countries which have public education, such as the United States, men and women have equal rates of illiteracy of 1%.
The whole comment about the Hooked on Phonics just shows how ignorant you are if you think that the majority of the world has it as good as we do in America and Western Europe. Most of the women that are illiterate live in countries where they can’t afford enough food, much less afford to pay for an education that is more likely than not funded in anyway by their govenment. Maybe you men should turn on the news sometime and pay attention to what is happening in other countries before you assume the whole world is like the suburb you grew up in.
Why should we believe anything you say James? You’ve lied about your name (3 times) and your gender in every one of your posts so far.
Alex said:
You can’t use your own family as indicative of how an entire society was. My mother chooses to work full-time and would never want to freeload off my father (even though my parents would be fine financially with only my father working), so each family is different. It’s true that women didn’t work outside the home as much, and that the jobs they worked were less prestigious and didn’t pay as well. Things are more equal now, however.
Maybe things are more “equal” for women. However Men suffer through inequality every day. I seriously don’t see you talking about them at all. A typical feminist viewpoint if I have ever seen one. However ignorance must be bliss? Women are allocated far more funds in social and health programs per capita then Men are. Men still work the most dangerous and hardest jobs out there bar-none. Men account for 90% of all workplace deaths in industrialized society. Many fathers are denied access to their children simply on the whim of a women. Feminism’s ideal of equality for Men is actually called “debt slavery” or “peonage” as a “sperm donor”. Man what I wouldn’t do for some more of that “equality”.
Besides all that, from what I have read of the feminist movement, some of their goals are laudable. However much of it is hate-filled drivel. It constantly amazes me that women swallowed all that bullshit whole. Of course many women constantly amaze me with their ability to both spew and swallow bullshit about half of the human race whole and then instantly started talking about equality. You seem to be one of them. Your still talking about gender as a social construct. That is currently being disproven as we speak. Men and Women are humans, however you cannot make a Man into a Woman or vice versa. Now we could go into an arguement about Trans-genders or Homosexuals, however I think that you will find that many of those people have been severely abused throughout their lives.
Strength and Honor
You can’t use your own family as indicative of how an entire society was. My mother chooses to work full-time and would never want to freeload off my father (even though my parents would be fine financially with only my father working), so each family is different. It’s true that women didn’t work outside the home as much, and that the jobs they worked were less prestigious and didn’t pay as well. Things are more equal now, however.
Another big lie is that women rarely ever worked outside the home up until 40 years ago Or was NOT allowed to do so.”
These is more of Feminon-sense.
Women didn’t have to and didn’t want to until the feminist pushed them.
I have several Aunts who worked all their lives outside the home.
One is 87 years old. You want to tell her she never worked outside the home? She refused to marry and no one took care of her until she was about 75. My Mom worked full time about 55 years ago until she could freeload off of Dad and she was a big feminuts at one time yet she chose to kep her lazy arse at home and daydream all day about the Matriarchy.
There are many more I could list but nothing will make sense to most woman today. Lies, Lies and still more Lies.
Is there any truth in what women say?
While I don’t agree with everything Alex is saying, I do agree that the fact that women do generally decide to stay at home and look after the children does impact on their career.
Whether or not women have a choice is irrelevant, eventually most women DO have babies, and a majority do take time out to raise them in their infant years.
Although it doesn’t provide evidence that women are competent or not in the workplace, it does explain the reason why most women do not reach the top of most professions.
If you don’t believe me then please take a look at ChristianJ’s website, there is an article by Thomas Sowell which says the following:-
I think he has a point about radical feminism too. This article is well argued, in my opinion.
Of course the segregation of duties has always been the same. In the past, someone needed to be the hunter, warrior, etc., and someone needed to take care of the children, keep the home, and cook. Men would do the tasks that demanded physical strength, women would do the rest. However, physical strength isn’t necessary in the majority of careers any more. Both men and women are perfectly capable of becoming doctors, lawyers, etc. The reason men are more prominent in these careers can be explained by the “baby track”, and if you need proof that women are capable, simply look at the women in those careers (who, most likely, have chose not to have children or who put their children in daycare). Say women make up 20% of all doctors. Are you telling me they’re all incompetent?
As for proof of nature vs. nurture, it’s the very idea behind discipline. Everyone can agree that the way you raise a child will effect their behavior; otherwise, parents wouldn’t even bother punishing or rewarding their child. If nature alone dictated someone’s personality, females could not possess male traits and vice versa. Also, why would a man raised by women become a criminal?
Women are still dominant in the careers they were previously confined to (primary school teacher, nurse, librarian, secretary, etc.). But as women slowly gain ground in other careers, it’s clear that they’re just as competent as males.
Some select quotes which stand out in your argument.
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
Slight tendencies? Slight? In every anthropological study the segregation of duties lines up the same. Nurture? Nurture may be able to make a gender aware of another method or psychologically damage someone. Imagine a boy raised only by women. One usually gets a criminal. I would really like to see serious studies backing up your claims.
I value science, and laugh at creationism. I reiterate: nature contributes to tendencies, but nurture will in fact override it
As do most of us here. I’m listening and would like to see some of it.
Do I really need to defend the effect of environment on personality? The concept has been well established
For example….
The reason men dominate most professions is that until 40 years ago, women rarely worked outside the home
But they have had 40 years the length of a good career. Men have been able to change entire industries in less than that. See computers and accounting; Steam engine and transportation; assembly lines and manufacturing, off the top of my head.
After centuries of being excluded from the workplace, you expect that women as a whole will suddenly be equally represented in all professions after only forty years
My question is: if women were as capable as men they would dominate at least one profession. Your argument is that women are just as capable as men in any field. I just want you to prove it.
Also, as I mentioned, the “baby track� also effects women’s prevelance in most occupations
So in essence you are saying women are just as capable as men but because of the “baby-track” we will never know? For someone who values scientific thought I would expect more.
You just aren’t reading the statistics correctly.
The baby track isn’t talked about here because its effects are obvious. Truth is, it only adds to women’s incompetence.
Or even more bottom line, as Dick said, its all the same thing.
Certainly correct. They are not the same at all. Women and their failings are a broad and diverse topic.
-Dick
Women are not as prevelant in the workplace as men, look up the statistics. And taking time off to have a baby, or raise children, is not the same thing as incompetence.
Women are prevalent in the workplace. Women aren’t as successful in the workplace as men because they’re not a good fit. You can pull the reasons out of a hat all day and never hit the end. Baby track, incompetence; it’s all the same.
-Dick