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 … 32 31 30 29 28 [27] 26 25 24 23 22 … 1 » Show All
test
Here is why diamonds are better, as I said before, they are the hardest gemstone on earth and that is symbolic because
“Because diamond is the hardest and strongest mineral on earth it was seen to resist fire and steel and thus symbolize the unbending union of a man and woman in wedlock. So it became more commonplace for the European super wealthy and royalty to give a diamond engagement ring at this time.”
You all seem to be blaming women for having to fork out your cash for a ring, however, if you bother to read up on your history, you will see that men invented the tradition…just like they invented marriage.
http://www.diamondwholesalecorporation.com/TheHistoryoftheEngagementRi ng.html
and Billy, it is incredibly easy to see the difference between a zirconia and a diamond. Zirconia’s are brighter, flashier and to put it plainly, they just look trashy and tacky.
and sots, I am not a materialist, in the sense that I won’t die if I don’t wear an expensive outfit or have the latest fashion or wear haute couture, however, I do have an eye for quality and I am VERY discerning. My discerning eye tells me that you should take that zirconia back to the store and exchange it for the real deal.
You’re so right and remember the kind of scum you are talking with.
She is a liberal, materlistic, feminasti, loud mouth tramp and ho.
No, most women have no clue if a diamond is real or not.
Just tell her it’s worth shitloads and she will feel all googly inside.
These childlike ingrates are gullible.
What is the purpose of a ring? What does it symbolize? It’s supposed to symbolize the joining of two halves into a whole in my view. Honestly I don’t see the point of buying an expensive ring at all. Isn’t it the symbol that matters more? Is it the gift itself, or the spirit in which it was given that matters more?
When did it become mandatory for diamonds to symbolize love? Wouldn’t a ring made of iron suffice if you truly “loved” your spouse? All I see is blatant hypocrisy and materialism.
-Strength and Honor-
I wonder what Female’s version of “afford” really means.
What you can afford working 80 hour weeks?
It’s Sentimentality 101, straight from the horse’s mouth. Raise your hand if you didn’t already know everything Female just said.
I thought so.
-Dick
Yea that’s a bit different but highly improbable.
My point is that 1. Diamonds are better than plastic and even if men cannot seem to tell the difference between them, women certainly can. It’s called quality. Therefore, for me personally, I would prefer a cheap diamond to an expensive cubic zircona.
and 2. as I previously explained even if you can only afford plastic, that is OKAY because it is the reasoning behind the purchase that really counts. I like how you have all, true to form, completely ignored my point about that and, Dick, you can shut up.
Dick, if I may.
Female, it seems to me you’ve more or less completely inverted her point. If plastic (or her dad’s aquamarine stone) lasts generations then that’s good too as sentimental value. Suppose her grandfather had been one of the first people to create cubic zirconia in a lab? That’d surely have sentimental family value, wouldn’t it?
And that’s her basic point. It’s the sentimental value of the diving helmet (see post 525) or the ring, not its nominal price.
-wolfe
Then there’s no need to call extra attention to it. Everyone saw it the first time. Agreeing with her doesn’t make you look like any less of a whore.
-Dick
I just don’t think a guy should go broke on it. I would rather have a diamond that had meaning and was worth a lot less than some so called dazzler if I were to be given one. I don’t think I should pick out something someone gives to me either. Again, I guess it has to do with the fact I know nothing about them.
My boyfriend saw some of the jewelry I have been given by my family and he laughed at how naive I was to its value and persuaded me to get it appraised and insured. And upon breaking up with anyone, I always returned any valuable jewelry I received. It just didn’t feel right keeping it. Mine is purely from my family and sentimental. My favorite ring is this cheap aquamarine my father designed for my mom. Knowing my dad is not very flashy, I think it was cute he picked it out and had it designed. Sentimental. And it reminds me, I have to get it fixed. I bent it diving for lobster a short while back in between my tanks.
“Ladies, as Seinfeld so aptly showed us, a stingey man = death”
Stingey = not rich and over 6″ tall.
I’d hardly call living single “death”. Unless you mean “death and enter paradise”. Oh wait, materialists are athiests.
You are exactly the women we moan about.
Sparky just made the other good point about real diamonds, you want to hand them down the generations, that isn’t something you are going to want to do with plastic.
The only diamonds I have ever recieved was a tennis bracelet my mother handed down to me. Her ex of 10 years had given it to her. I wouldn’t know one thing about them. If I was ever proposed too, I wouldn’t even know how to pick them out. I would think it would be more romantic for the guy to do that on his own, like how they did it in the old days. An heirloom would mean a lot more to me for sentimental reasons. My boyfriend tried one time to get me to look one time and I got overwhelmed. The guy behind the counter tried to explain the cuts, the grades, etc. Seriously, I didn’t see the difference until he pulled out this magnifying device.
So who cares, it is not like people walk around with those things to appreciate the money wasted on a stone. I would rather have someone say to me, wow, that is a pretty setting and I can say, my guy picked it out. I just find the hype boring and I never understood it.
My brothers received their heirlooms from my mom years back and I am the oldest. The older brother got my grandfather’s old brass Navy diving helmet (would have loved that BTW). My lil brother, got my mom’s diamond from my dad when he got engaged. She was holding back on giving me my paternal grandmother’s emerald that my grandfather got from a mine in South America until I got married. I argued it wasn’t fair because marriage isn’t something you do or acheive, it is luck. I have an education I got myself and a career. She finally gave it to me for Christmas. I love it because I can say hey, my grandfather got this himself with his own two hands. When I was told to get it insured and appraised, my jaw dropped at the 15 year old appraisal. I am now too scared to wear it after a friend of mine recently got robbed. If I lost that, the money would never replace the actual stone my grandfather got. That is what means the most to me. Sentimental, I know. I actually wish it was worth a lot less in a way, with it seeming less valuable would diminish the chance of it being stolen .
Female, I’ll get married when pigs fly, irregardless of the money I have for blood rocks. My ideal life situation would be a clean one room apartment in a nice city with all-year warm climate, nice gyms, and beaches.
The point is the $54 rock I saw was indistinguishable from the $800 one I bought my ex, except for the fact that the $54 one was 4 times as big.
You say you’re not “the women we bemoan”, yet you just showed your a comfy materialist. You fail it. If you’re a gold digging abomination, just be honest, because no one on this site would like you if you were a Saint anyway.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t propose anything but to put them out of business fair and square in the free market. But women, almost exclusively the purchasers or the true instigators of purchases of jewelry and diamonds, simply won’t play ball.
Take epitome of femininity Female, for example. Bring her a clear, industrial stone home without telling her how much you spent on it and she’ll gladly be the poster girl for that pic I linked earlier.
Tell her the only difference between what she got and what’s in the jeweler’s showroom is a few digits and she’ll trepan you with a stiletto nonetheless.
Women want their diamonds. Would rather you spent it all on a diamond for her than a cruise or trip abroad for the both of you. Or a new tv or such.
- Erreway - Para cosas buenas
No Luka. The diamond industry is itself a problem. A huge one. One driven almost exclusively by the vanity of women and the money of their husbands and fathers.
It functions through hugely draining expenditures of energy, labour and machinery to provide almost exclusively but wearable jewelry. No useful commodity, no usage value above tainted industrial diamonds.
And this in spite of cheaper, industrially manufactured alternatives (the industrial manufacturing process has been sufficiently advanced to churn out clear rocks for quite some time now) to extraction and, I believe, chemically manufactured processes yet more economically viable.
In the face of such competition from netly superior production processes most other industries would have gone extinct. They’ve probably just bought all the patents they could.
It’s only somewhat of an upside in its employment of the unskilled or low skilled wherever that isn’t really literal sclave labour.
It is the industry of vanity embodied. It is oiled with blood.
Who’s to say deBeers isn’t at least in part really selling industrial diamonds? I would, and I certainly don’t put it beneath them.
- Erreway - Para cosas buenas
So, all that effort, strife, misery, treachery and expense for this?
Seems about right…
- Basshunter - Boten Anna
As, wolfe mentioned, there are problems with some areas of the diamond industry as illustrated with Blood Diamond, which used the example of the civil war in Sierra Leone in the 90s.
The people that were making a profit out of the diamonds were the violent guerrilla groups who sold the diamonds to buy arms for their fight against the government. There was also another character in that film that had managed to make a profit both from selling the guns to the rebels (and selling the diamonds to the world market) and also from being paid by the government to repress the rebellion. There is little regard for the lives of the innocent people left in the crossfire. Quite harrowing to watch in places.
Diamonds are not the only product that rests upon the backs of slave-labour and poverty striken countries, unfortunately it is how the world economy seems to work. I think the issue concerning diamonds is that other products can be seen as necessary whereas diamonds are more for reasons of vanity and wealth. At least in my view.
The important point that you are all missing is that the ring is not as important as the reason behind why a particular ring is offered. The difference between a cheap ring that is given because a man cares more about his financial circumstances than he does about a woman versus a cheap ring given by a man who only does so because of his financial circumstances but who wishes he could give more, is fundamental.
It doesnt matter if you give someone a cheapy but if you do so because you are a cheapskate, then you are simply revealing you are ungenerous, not only with your money, but with your heart. If you rationalise that giving an expensive ring isnt smart because that would mean that you would be cowtowing to feminism, then I say that is one pathetic excuse covering nothing more than stinginess. Like it or not but cut, natural diamonds are a part of the western social construct and psyche. A cheap ring given by a man who can afford more doesnt say “I love you” it says, “I really dont think that much of you which is why I chose this suitably crappy ring for you. In case you havent yet worked it out, I love myself and my possessions more than you and I would really like you to be my slave who I can continue to sucker and take advantage of.” I would REALLY recommend that every male reading this considers my words carefully before you go browsing for bling.
If all you can afford is a cheap ring, then that is OK, but if you give it to a woman and try to pass it off as if it is something that it isnt then you are going to seem tight. If you acknowledge that it isnt the greatest and you are sorry about that and wish you could give more but cannot, then that is good and should suffice. If the woman doesnt accept that, then she is obviously only into you for your money, however, if you have no money, then I doubt that type of woman would be hanging around you to begin with, so really, you have nothing to worry about.
I read an obscure little news article some time ago about a purely chemical based process having been discovered to reach the diamond allotropic form of carbon. As best I recall, it somehow involved ammonia and boiling(!) some concoction containing carbon in a metal crucible of sorts, mimicking the process by which snowflakes are formed in the atmosphere.
Supposedly, the diamonds could be made however large, would be completely pure - indistinguishably so from natural diamonds - and would be comparatively to both natural and current industrial diamonds as cheap as dirt to mass manufacture.
If there’s any truth to the story deBeers undoubtedly now owns all rights to the patent and has safely buried it somewhere safe from the unworthy sight of mere mortals.
Diamonds are not an ‘invention’ by any stretch. No more than graphite is.
Also what has capitalism, or socialism for that matter, got to with glory or inherent good? Eulogising our green god again, are we?
- BassHunter - Counterstrike