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:
February 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am - IP Man-Hash: 001a1de92075b
An ideal western society would treat women as at least putative adults, responsible for their decisions, rather than the literally free to get away with murder, abuse, and violence creatures they are not infrequently presently treated as.
Women would, as a general rule, no longer automatically get custody because it’s apparent that single mothers are statistically horrible at raising children. This isn’t to say women wouldn’t get custody; I can think of many examples where it’s better that the woman get custody. But it would no longer be the rule.
Divorce would be harder to obtain and there would be economic sanctions for those who cheated, of either gender. There would be staggering economic sanctions for women who made false paternity claims of any kind.
Work to prevent child abuse (especially the 2/3rd’s that’s caused by women) would be expanded, and considerable work on domestic violence, patterned after the work and research of early feminist Erin Pizzey, who suggested, apparently correctly, that in about 2/3rds of the cases she observed, women were more violent than men.
False rape accusations would be punished by 20 to life in a men’s prison.
I believe in a fair and equitable society where we work to protect innocent children — indeed every innocent — from being murdered, abused, raped, or tortured.
That’d be a start.
-wolfe
February 10th, 2007 at 11:43 am - IP Man-Hash: d6460726e635d
The stats speak for themselves Wolfe. The only time a mother should ever be given custody of a child is when the father is a serial killer in jail. But even if he is a reformed serial killer and not currently incarcerated, he would be a better parent than any woman.
For adulturey fines would be a joke - how liberal of you. Like women care about debt as is.. We need robust criminal penalties for adultery for both sexes.
How disgusting it speaks of the West that you can get locked up for shoplifting petty items yet the harlots who ruin families and lives go unpunished - and encouraged by “people” like feminists.
February 10th, 2007 at 2:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1e9a4fd46c3a7
I blame some religions and feminists for confusing everyones sense of morality so we are as we are now. Not saying religion is bad, but theres a big influence from it.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8df4b9656c70a
Fair call.
I’m glad you said “statistically horrible”. I would prefer a society that would devote funding to looking into the qualititative dimension of why this seems to be the case and then, even further, implementing intervention programs that would address the issues found. This isn’t to say this isn’t being done already, but it obviously isn’t being done enough. Call me draconian, but I prefer community development to laws that try to restrict women’s behaviour and free will.
Another fair call. I particularly am against rulings where mothers are given custody over fathers even when it has been demonstrated in court that the mother has a boyfriend or defacto that would be considered a safety risk to her biological children. This happens far too often.
I disagree this would be a good thing or a solution. This will simply trap women and men! in situations that would best be free of, e.g DV spring sto mind. I am also surprised you say this considering every male here quotes stats that say women are far more prevalent as domestic violence abusers, and now you are saying that you want to make it more difficult for men to leave such marriages?
I disagree. What if someone cheats because they are in a DV situation and this leads them to draw closer to someone else? I really feel that the financial penalities which ensue after marital breakdown are punishment enough for people.
Fair enough.
Work to prevent child abuse (especially the 2/3rd’s that’s caused by women) would be expanded, and considerable work on domestic violence, patterned after the work and research of early feminist Erin Pizzey, who suggested, apparently correctly, that in about 2/3rds of the cases she observed, women were more violent than men.
It is difficult to prove rape in many cases where the offender is careful about his DNA, thus, what if someone was raped but the DNA wasn’t obtainable? I would hope this wouldn’t fall under the category of a false rape claim. I’m not saying at all that that is what you are implying or what may happen but I think you need to be very careful about defining what is and isn’t false. I don’t disagree that women or men who make false accusatons of rape or sexual harrassment do need to be taken to task over it.
Okay, I don’t disagree…in a perfect world…however the way you have written that makes it seem as if feminism advocates for these things to occur as desirable.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0f5b41af55b91
Shit talk the right religions.
The “distilled Judaism” of Christianity and it’s Christ-crazy forgiveness cuckold passiveness is responsible.
Islam has a clear moral code that makes no bones about the power and destiny of manhood.
February 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: adc0a2c9dafc9
Christianity has become passive bcause many misquote when Jesus said “who he is sinless cast the first stone.”
It wasn’t his place or the mobs to decide her fate.
He didn’t come to change the law and the law said that She should have been stoned to death, but not by a mob; the decission was to be upon the government who was to judge her crime first.
Women are nortorious for encouraging other women to commit these acts. Afterall life is just a soap opera to them. Stone a few and I’m sure they wouldn’t be so encouraging.
February 10th, 2007 at 7:34 pm - IP Man-Hash: e8fb9e24ece69
Billy, I think your point is correct, but I have a different view of the reasoning behind it (according to my interpretation of the scripture).
It is my understanding that the woman was the neighborhood slut. The reason that Jesus said “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.� (John chapter 8, verse 7) was because all the men present had probably fucked her already.
I think that Jesus was just trying to tell the dudes there that although she was a whore, that she couldn’t be a whore if they weren’t fucking her. In other words, they were just as guilty as she was. Jesus was pretty good at pointing out hypocrisy.
But, as Billy says, people have grossly misinterpreted that whole passage, and have thus applied it incorrectly.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: d7d1223f77785
What’s your point then?
Why Christians have become degenerate pigs that the pagans could have never dreamed of being isn’t the point.. only that they have.
February 11th, 2007 at 12:59 am - IP Man-Hash: adc0a2c9dafc9
Sots you need to reasearch Pagans.
That is witchcraft and Satanism.
Many of these are encouraged to join Christain Churches and disrupt or cause confusion. Some Pagans are into human sacrifices, Goddess worhship and anything goes. Read about the bohemian grove.
February 11th, 2007 at 5:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 1e9a4fd46c3a7
Actually Billy pagans are not directly linked to witchcraft or satanism. The pentacle is a pagan symbol and the pagans didn’t do hocus pocus, just did ceremonies. Yes satanism uses the pentacle but pagans argue that it was theirs first.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:37 am - IP Man-Hash: c15e433dc66ed
Pagans are a generic term for all the pre-Christian western peoples.
Orgies, sacrifice, infidelity, etc.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am - IP Man-Hash: 1e9a4fd46c3a7
Not sacrifice. And thats wiccans where they like to use sex and sacrifice.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: dbae3cec95168
Pagans are a generic term for either polytheistic religions, animal tomems or anyone that doesn’t follow the God of Abraham. Several different sects of pagans did in fact use human sacrifice, however others didn’t.
I will note the hypocrisy of several of the Christians here, who fail to note that the Jews sacrificed animals in the old testament or the torah. Ritual sacrifice, isn’t simply inclusive to pagans.
-Strength and Honor-
February 11th, 2007 at 7:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: adc0a2c9dafc9
We were talking about human sacrifice not animal sacrifice.
Big difference. hypocrisy? I think not.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: dbae3cec95168
Are we not all animals?
-Strength and Honor-
February 12th, 2007 at 1:06 am - IP Man-Hash: adc0a2c9dafc9
Yes but killing the human kind is a bit more serious, unless you’re a peta fanatic.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:43 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Well, sometimes, not having killed something prior, for example to skinning it, can be quite disconcerting. But not to all.
Look how much cuter fuzzy wuzzy is squirming with his insides in view.
Though the version I linked to is edited(quite short and lowres - peta nicked it off some French antifur site), possibly due to hosting cost for streaming content, you can see the critters writhing in pain, clearly alive despite the dazing from the head pounding and choking, as they’re being skinned.
Though I’ve none to wear nor any inside my car I’ve no real qualms about fur or leather. Also, putting money for animal healthcare before people and aiding critters but not the destitute does not sit well with me.
However, it’s only humane to kill the animal before making a coat out of it.
As a sidenote, I didn’t realise akamai.com’s business is so prolific. It seems they’ve coined the market.
- Alcazar - Almost Famous
February 12th, 2007 at 5:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 1e9a4fd46c3a7
This was actually mentioned on Metal gear solid 2: Sons of liberty. An AI was confused that ‘Although there are people suffering in poverty, huge donations are made to protect endangered species’.
Just something neat I wanted to add. Makes a good moral point.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:10 am - IP Man-Hash: 001a1de92075b
I’ve always wondered why environmental-lefty types have so much trouble with the concept that maybe some species are endangered for a reason. Or are they just against natural selection?
-wolfe
February 12th, 2007 at 11:01 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Because it’s far to easy to abuse the notion and blame it on the dead. You could pass most anything off as natural selection. From toddlers killing themselves with a dometic firearm to having such lack of inspiration or clairvoyance as to choose a fatidic flight, like USAir Flight 427, or to fly with the Kennedies.
What, isn’t it obvious? It’s the dead guy’s fault. Only mildly intriguing, the aircraft manufacturers and various airlines’ management display somewhat of a propensity, though albeit completely unbiased, towards attributing crashes to pilot error. The people that chose the flight simply should have had the smarts not to.
Of course, I’ve no idea what the evolutionary rationale is with parents who die survived by their children. But the again, I’ve always thought much of evolutionary since is anything but and really a crock of bull, especially the part where they rebuilt lucy’s, aunt trice removed, from part of a swine mandible some odd years old.
Of course species are endangered for a reason. They can’t simply invalidate causality, now can they? They’re endangered from being hunted to the verge of extinction with no planning or foresight whatsoever.
You could blanket plaster natural selection over this, but then you’d be equating human beings to dumb animals. Granted, telling some apart can prove quite vexing at times.
- Alcazar De Sevilla