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 … 19 18 17 16 15 [14] 13 12 11 10 9 … 1 » Show All
Alex said:
Wolfe said:
“Anyway, we’re still waiting for your condemnation of feminism.”
Alex said:
If modern feminism means purposefully disadvantaging men, absolutely, that’s condemnable. I advocate only equal treatment of men and women.
As for government aid, yes, money should go to whoever needs it, and how much they’re given should be based on how much they need. Because more women than men are poor, more money will then be spent on women (as a whole). As for health care, wouldn’t the fact that women live longer account for the fact that they’re given more money in health care? Men die at a younger age, and women continue to need health care for about another five years longer than men.
Why do Men die younger Alex? Is it because they don’t have the same amount of funds or the money to go to the doctor? Isnt that a repeating cycle in itself? Because they cannot speak out due to the fact that they dont have any money, therefore they die earlier? Look at the median for mens death rates. Then correlate that with their level of income? Strange isnt it? How the lower the level of monetary income the higher the death rate? Amongst other thing as well….
I don’t believe I’ve made any ridiculous charges about this site. It holds women to be inferior, unfairly smears all women (”all women are cheating whores”, etc.), and the men (for the most part) refuse to make concessions. You said yourself that you realize the “baby track” keeps women from moving up in their careers, but you wouldn’t write about it on this site.
This is coming from a woman that holds her ideals with the same women that held, “All men are pigs, All men are rapists, every womans son is her betrayer”. What a fucking hypocrite.
The site mocks women for their literacy rate worldwide, even though the reasons for it are obvious (and not the fault of the women). All I would like to see is some rationality and balance. If this site were just about women being given preferential treatment under the law, and the injustice in that, that would be fine. Instead, it degrades women. Also, Wolfe, I would like to hear what you actually believe. Do you believe women are inferior, or just different? If you believe either one, why? You say the genders shouldn’t be treated the same, but in what ways should they be treated differently?
Of course its never your fault, I have heard that so many times its almost gospel. I wish you could understand that feminism DEGRADES all men. How long will it take for you to get that? You still don’t you come on here and say that you are a feminist, however (typical woman) you dont accept the dark side of your own ideology. Its not your fault right? Have you ever read any of these books that I have spoken of? I seriously doubt you have. Or you wouldn’t be talking like this. Or else you are completely ignorant. Either way I am done with it. My beliefs don’t matter in the face of ignorance.
Strength and Honor
Nice apology Alex. You accused me of saying that women were subhuman, I demonstrated how nasty a falsehood that was, and not a word from you on the matter. Amazing.
Now you’re falling back on more niggling about another matter about what percentage “many” is. Get real; I didn’t say what you falsely said I did in either case.
“I know very few women I’d consider “mentally illâ€?. Did you read a single word of what I said? That was the entire point. In any event, we’ve already established the limits of your perspective and experience.
And I’ve addressed all of your points. When Dick approves the post (delayed for length) it’ll go through. That said, I don’t intend to continue addressing your “points” as they don’t exist in a rational sense, and all you do after a ridiculous argument of yours is debunked is either pretend that’s not what you said, not what you meant, or simply ignore it.
And the proper reaction when you falsely accuse someone of declaring women to be subhuman? Guess we were taught different morals after all.
You don’t like this site: fine. But please stop whinging on and tossing up nonsense. You just make women everywhere look foolish.
-wolfe
“(See “because so many womenâ€? — what does that phrase mean to you? Could it conceivably mean “not allâ€?? Astonishing).”
“So many” would still imply a significant percentage, and I know very few women I’d consider “mentally ill”. Also, address some of my other points, please.
“I discussed this with my girlfriend. She explained that it had to do with psychological warfare: the girls were competing not for the stares of guys, but with each other. They were displaying their bodies to each other so as to communicate that they were capable of attracting more guys than the next girl.”
From my perspective, that is indeed irrational behavior. And, admittedly, I do know girls who do things like this. Girls tend to be defensive when it comes to their attractiveness, they feel a need to compete, as if one girl’s attractiveness will somehow take away from their own. (Our disagreement would probably lie in the fact that I feel this attitude is instilled, you would feel it’s inherent.) My issue is that some women (a significant portion of them) don’t share the same mindset. Adherence to gender prototypes is really dying as men and women are beginning to have the same behavior expected of them. But, even if the majority of women were irrational in ways similiar to what you describe, does even that merit some of the things on this website? On anything important, men and women agree on what is or is not appropiate behavior (like the examples I mentioned earlier). We’re generally taught similiar morals, and we’re taught the proper reaction if someone violates those morals. When someone overreacts, they’re told so. If someone is doing something illogical, they’re told so, and if they’re intelligent they usually see their folly. I haven’t seen examples of differences great enough to inspire animosity, render women incompetent at work, or require unequal treatment. If your only complaint is the disadvantages men face under the law, that’s perfectly justified, but everything else on this site is really unwarranted.
This is a common female misperception. While it’s true that both sexes have subtext to their words, it is only women who tend to think things which are diametrically opposed to their words. In general, when a man says something, that’s what he thinks. Either that, or he’s simply decided to lie for some reason. But non-lying subtext which is radically different from what a man thinks rarely occurs.
A good example of irrational behavior an which both sexes can agree. Let me give you an example of irrational behavior that makes sense to women but not to men:
My younger daughter is a dancer. She participates in a regional dance competition every year. This competition has several Saturday rehearsals which all the girls in her dance school attend.
The time of year is January in one of the colder areas of the northern hemisphere. The rehearsal hall is a school gymnasium, badly-heated. The people in attendance are almost exclusively female.
What would be sensible clothing in such a circumstance? Loose-fitting but warm clothing such as sweats and a t-shirt, perhaps?
Yet what are all the high-school-aged girls wearing? Thin, tight pants, rolled down at the waist combined with tight halter-tops — the intent to expose as much of the body as possible.
Now, I can understand the desire to dress like this in the presence of males. But an all-female crowd whose only male members are the occasional father?
I discussed this with my girlfriend. She explained that it had to do with psychological warfare: the girls were competing not for the stares of guys, but with each other. They were displaying their bodies to each other so as to communicate that they were capable of attracting more guys than the next girl.
A perfect example of utterly irrational behavior that seems rational to females.
I have no idea why I’m bothering to respond to this, but I shall. I imply no such thing. You infer, and you infer from a position of at least ignorance and irrationality if not outright malice.
“Human” is the set comprising male and female homo sapiens. By definition. How then, can women be subhuman? This is utterly illogical and irrational, both for someone to say, and for you to draw from my statement.
Let’s parse my original statement.
“[when speaking of disorders], what is abnormal for a human [i.e. take the mean and s.d. of the set of all human beings (comprised of the male and female subsets) collectively, and define abnormal as you wish -- say > 1-2 s.d.] [i.e., the very definition of statistical abnormality] is within the norm for a woman [i.e. 1-2 s.d. from the mean for the subset of women within the set of human beings], because otherwise [if we subjected women to the same standards as either the male subset or the full set] so many women [NB- not all, simply "so many"] would otherwise be diagnosed as mentally ill.”
Any person of reasonable education would have grasped the bits in parentheses. They didn’t need saying, at least not for the men of this website.
Similarly, it should go without saying, but because you’ve shown an inability to comprehend simple english, I suggest no value judgements concerning the terms “normal” or “abnormal”. (For example, having red hair is ‘abnormal’ statistically).
What I said was a simple and unremarkable statement that is mathematically correct, and demonstrably so. You chose to react wildly to this and hurl the disgusting and despicable accusation that I was categorizing women as ’subhuman’. Shame on you.
I’m trying hard to be patient here, because I did just that (See “because so many women” — what does that phrase mean to you? Could it conceivably mean “not all”? Astonishing). Of course not all women are that way, and my very statement said as much to anyone with even a modicum of literacy, let alone mathematical knowledge.
Note that my statement was quite cautious; you chose to distort it and misrepresent it as something it manifestly was not. I frankly resent that. You choose, repeatedly, to demonstrate an apalling ignorance of words and terminology and attempt to use your lack of comprehension as an asset. This is impressively post-modern of you, but it does not imply good will on your part.
-wolfe
Correct. Now try and follow this argument. women lag behind men in virtually every top achievement that involves highly rational thinking, all over the globe. (see below for examples).
Yes! No argument there. Biology plays some role. Just as it very likely plays some role in women lagging behind, as well as socialization.
Look: you can’t have one without the other. You insist the difference between men and women biologically is conceivably so significant that men collectively will have shorter lives than women. It would be irrational not to admit that similarly, there could easily be sufficiently significant biological differences between men and women that would result in women collectively lagging behind men everywhere (let’s simply say at the top of logical rational fields, since that’s trivially demonstrable).
This is more a function of your lack of experience and observational skill. I have; every man here has. Let’s leave anecdotal evidence out of it though. Here’s the list: Show me the number of female Fields medallists, Nobel prize winners in hard sciences, IEEE medallists, etc. Show me the number of female atheletes that, even in sports that don’t require strength, can match the top male atheletes. Show me the number of female International Grandmasters (as compared to male) in FIDE. Show me the number of top specialists in medicine (female vs. male). Show me the number of top-rated physicists, engineers, mathematicians who are female vs male.
Explain to me why this list short-changes women because of socialization rather than biological factors. Some short changing in socialization is undoubtedly true. But, given that most people in most of these fields do their top work in their 20’s, citing the “mommy track” isn’t it. Women generally aren’t distracted by the mommy track in their 20’s. I’ll certainly agree they are at some point in their 30’s. We’ve had preferences for women in academia for a long time now. Where’s the beef?
-wolfe
“do you not think it possible, just possible that there might be socialized reasons for that? Such as traditionally massively more preventative health care for women than men?”
The amount of health care a person gets will obviously affect their lifespan, I don’t dispute that, but men die earlier in almost every part of the world, correct? (I think the exception is in less developed countries where women often die in childbirth). You can debate whether biology or outside factors has a greater influence, but biology without a doubt plays some role.
If — and I say if — there are some biological reasons for men being 10% less long-lived than women, then is it not equally CONCEIVABLE (look it up if you don’t understand the word) — that women are 10% less capable than men at Tasks X,Y, and Z.
This is exactly what I was referring to. Women are less capable at what? You’ve suggested that women are less prevalent in the workplace because they’re incompetent, but you’ve never specified in what ways or at what tasks women would be incompetent. No, I don’t believe it’s conceivable that women are by nature incompetent at everything in the workplace, and I don’t think you do either. I need to know what you’re actually arguing in order to respond. I can say, however, that in my experience, women have been competetive with men. I have not seen a pattern of women consistently falling short to men in academics or careers, there’s always seemed to have been a pretty equal ratio of failing and succeeding between the genders (except, of course, in sports and other physical tasks, where men consistently fare better).
“What Dakota says about OCD (and for that matter other disorders) for women: Yep, quite true. What is abnormal for a human is within the norm for a woman, simply because so many women would otherwise be diagnosed as mentally ill.”
When you say things like this, you make every argument I’ve made against this site valid. For one, “what is abnormal for a human”? The wording implies you consider women to be subhuman. And you call women mentally ill. I don’t think I need to search further to prove the extremism and irrationality of this site. If all you mean to say is that women have a tendency to be irrational, then say that, rather than “otherwise women would be diagnosed as mentally ill”. And it would help your argument if you admitted that certaintly not all women are this way.
“My experience is that most women believe other women to be logical and level-headed. It’s only when a male perspective is introduced that their behavior begins to look bizarre.”
I’m not male, so I can’t speak for what males actually think rather than say, but as long as a woman isn’t acting paricularly crazy, in my experience men and women usually see eye-to-eye on whether or not someone’s acting irrationally. For instance, men don’t call women irrational when they’re angry because their boyfriend cheated, lied, etc. Similiarly, when my (female) friend continually kept breaking up with her boyfriend (only to decide she wanted to date him again), I didn’t understand her at all and thought she was irrational.
On the contrary: when I was a young man, I was a feminist. Cold hard reality knocked some sense into me.
My experience is that most women believe other women to be logical and level-headed. It’s only when a male perspective is introduced that their behavior begins to look bizarre.
The practical matter is that in general, women neither percieve the reality around them correctly, nor respond coherently to that reality. They interpret reality subjectively, trying to decipher how events impact them personally or what an event means to them personally, even if the event had nothing whatsoever to do with them.
The fact is that the universe doesn’t give one whit about anyone in particular. Failure to interpret events based on this fairly simple truth will result in an inaccurate perception of reality and an inappropriate response to it.
It’s true that there are irrational men, just that it’s true that there are rational women. In fact, I would suggest that the instances of irrational men within men as a group is higher than those instances of rational women within women as a group.
Meaning (and these are not scientific figures, but rather an illustration of what I’m saying): in a group of 1000 men, you may have 50 that are irrational. In a group of 1000 women, you may have 1 that is rational.
In other words, the general trend is that women are irrational and men are rational.
And if men were biologically doomed to die years earlier than women, then all of them would, or at least a huge, huge majority. Thus, it cannot be that men die earlier than women for biological reasons by your own arguments.
Good God. The arrogance. Ok honeybabe, do you not think it possible, just possible that there might be socialized reasons for that? Such as traditionally massively more preventative health care for women than men? Do you know that in socialized health care systems that use capitation, as many men are crowded into being seen by a smaller number of doctors as possible to provide more health care “space” for women?
Moreover, you in your ignorance missed the entire point of what I was saying. If — and I say if — there are some biological reasons for men being 10% less long-lived than women, then is it not equally CONCEIVABLE (look it up if you don’t understand the word) — that women are 10% less capable than men at Tasks X,Y, and Z. An intelligent person who is open to ideas will say “Yes, it is conceivable”. You instead pretend to misunderstand the question.
This is the stunning thing. I’m not even bothering to debate you using MY arguments, you’re being refuted and made to look ridiculous by your own arguments. Truly sad.
So far you’re 0 for 9. Care to make it 10?
What Dakota says about OCD (and for that matter other disorders) for women: Yep, quite true. What is abnormal for a human is within the norm for a woman, simply because so many women would otherwise be diagnosed as mentally ill.
-wolfe
“Just anecdotally, I’ve only met one woman in 41 years capable of rational thought on a consistent basis — and she came to this ability after about ten years’ psychotherapy. Women in general are ruled by their emotions rather than their intellect and consequently do not interface well with the world around them. They tend to judge events subjectively rather than objectively.”
I think your judgment of women might be tainted by an already negative perception of them. Only one rational woman in 41 years, and even then, only after therapy? Maybe it’s a generational difference, or regional difference, but I can say very honestly that the majority of women I know are logical and level-headed. Also, I know many men that don’t think things through and act on mostly their emotions/passions.
That’s the entire point, Alex. Feminists have claimed that gender is a social construct, while nature, science, and history has shown the differences between us.
As soon as a man has been chosen over a woman for a position as a result of her lack of competence, feminists will quickly blame it on “socially constructed inequality.”
One of the reasons more women are in the workforce is because of feminist pushed laws. Employers will hire women to keep out of legal trouble. Is this because they dislike women? No, most likely it is because men simply fit the job better.
Also, no one claimed that women are the cause of men’s earlier deaths. You seem to neglect earlier mentions of heavy financial support from the government. That can be quite stressful, and cause more “risky and dangerous behavior,” wouldn’t you agree? Maybe even increase the odds of heart disease?
Why?
Seriously: why? This is not a rhetorical question. Why is it ridiculous to say that men and women aren’t equal?
Well, for example:
In scientific terms, women have more a tendancy toward obsessive-compulsive behavior than men. I discovered this when my ex and I had psychological testing during divorce. There are different standards for obsessive-compulsive, and what might be considered a disorder in men is considered within the norm for women.
Just anecdotally, I’ve only met one woman in 41 years capable of rational thought on a consistent basis — and she came to this ability after about ten years’ psychotherapy. Women in general are ruled by their emotions rather than their intellect and consequently do not interface well with the world around them. They tend to judge events subjectively rather than objectively.
Again, that’s only anecdotally. Your mileage may vary, but the mileage of the men who post on this site seems to generally agree with mine.
“Wow. You presume to know beyond all doubt that 100% of the earlier death rate is biological?”
I wouldn’t presume to know beyond all doubt that the reason is 100% biological, but the vast majority of it is. Men are at greater risk for heart disease and stroke. (Men are twice as likely to die from heart disease). One non-biological reason for the difference is that men are more likely to engage in risky or dangerous behavior, but men do not die earlier because of women. Unless you have science to back up a claim that ridiculous, don’t say it.
“You presume to say that any suggestion women might not be as competent at men could not be biological?”
I already addressed this, but I will again. If women are biologically incompetent, then all of them would be, or at least a huge, huge majority. Women make up a significant portion of our workforce. Are you telling me every single one is incompetent?
Women do not need to be the “princess Privilidge” either but you are. Your selfish sex gets and receives the majority of social security outlays every year, this amounts to billions of dollars. Obviously you do need as women are such victims and incapable of looking after themselves.
Stealing jobs from males is another one the most assiduous function of your sex, women cannot compete so let’s just create a law and place a female in that position regardless whether or not it’s capable.
Check out most of the government departments and services and you will see the selfish incapable women installed, watch the incompetance.
A fine example is that female governor in America having to deal with a disaster was a really great example of how wommyn really deal with anything that’s too stressful, let’s some some leadership. No, let’s just cry.
Women really are spoilt, selfish, inconsiderate and totally incapable of seeing life from any other point of view but their own.
Wow. You presume to know beyond all doubt that 100% of the earlier death rate is biological? You presume to say that any suggestion women might not be as competent at men could not be biological? I’m speechless.
Seeing Alex in action… no wonder society is as badly messed up as it is. Stupid, insane, or evil. Pick one.
-wolfe
Abaddon, prior to the advent of obstetrics, women died a lot more often than men, at a younger age. In childbirth. Providing for men. Typical.
Are you now going to blame women for not upholding this tradition? Your best bet would be to blame men, they rule the AMA.
Women don’t need entitlements and empowerment to survive? If they didn’t have all the outrageous advantages they have now, they’d be bitching and blaming men for all of their own problems.
Oh wait, that’s what has been happening.
“You obviously don’t have children, it seems to me that you are in college, working on your womens studies degree. Women are inferior because they need all of their “entitlementsâ€? “custodyâ€? “empowermentâ€? and government sanctioned monies just to survive. Many Men live without those, thats why we die a lot earlier. To provide for women.. Typical.”
I don’t even know where to begin. Women do not need “entitlements” or “empowerment” to survive. I multiple times have spoken AGAINST preferential treatment. And men die earlier for biological reasons, which is very well known.
Agh. I entered one comment, and it didn’t show up on the screen, so I typed it up again. The second one is probably better worded.
“Anyway, we’re still waiting for your condemnation of feminism.”
If modern feminism means purposefully disadvantaging men, absolutely, that’s condemnable. I advocate only equal treatment of men and women.
As for government aid, yes, money should go to whoever needs it, and how much they’re given should be based on how much they need. Because more women than men are poor, more money will then be spent on women (as a whole). As for health care, wouldn’t the fact that women live longer account for the fact that they’re given more money in health care? Men die at a younger age, and women continue to need health care for about another five years longer than men.
I don’t believe I’ve made any ridiculous charges about this site. It holds women to be inferior, unfairly smears all women (”all women are cheating whores”, etc.), and the men (for the most part) refuse to make concessions. You said yourself that you realize the “baby track” keeps women from moving up in their careers, but you wouldn’t write about it on this site. The site mocks women for their literacy rate worldwide, even though the reasons for it are obvious (and not the fault of the women). All I would like to see is some rationality and balance. If this site were just about women being given preferential treatment under the law, and the injustice in that, that would be fine. Instead, it degrades women. Also, Wolfe, I would like to hear what you actually believe. Do you believe women are inferior, or just different? If you believe either one, why? You say the genders shouldn’t be treated the same, but in what ways should they be treated differently?