Use It Or Lose It — No Women In College
It has long been said that university is wasted on women. Grade school is wasted on them as well because women don’t need adding or spelling to sit on the couch all day and shop for fucking chicken ten minutes before their hungry man gets home, but that’s another point.
Unless they have some kind of school I don’t know about where women learn how to look thin, pretty, and shut the fuck up, all school is wasted on women. Want to know who agrees with me? MenAreBetterThanWomen’s Honorary Man of the Month for October, Sharon Dijksma. Congratulations Miss Dijk. Congratulations on the prestigious award and congratulations on having something that looks like dick in your name. That’s manly.
The amount of work a man does with his education is exactly the number of years between his graduation and the moment he dies. You may have some bullshit in your head (which means you shouldn’t be reading this in the first place because you’re a woman) telling you to point out retirement as an equally valid end point to an educated man’s utility, but that is false. Even retired men bust their ass every day. They build shit or they go spread their wisdom — in some cases forcing it down the throats of the young, but the point is men remain manly and productive until death. Fuck retirement.
Women don’t.
Women retire just as they live. They don’t do shit. A woman’s productive lifespan is exactly equal to two years after she graduates university to the moment she falls in love with one of her kiss-ass workmates. Obviously there is some variance depending on how attractive the woman is, however, this variance is normalized by the hiring process. Let me explain.
An attractive woman will be snatched up at the workplace in about six months. An ‘uggo’ or ‘fatty’ as they are called might flop around for an additional six. The she-troll, however, will take about that much longer to get hired in the first place. No woman is ever hired on her skills. It’s not because men are sexist or sexy or whatever women say. It’s because women have the same skills as tulips. They look pretty, they pollinate, and they decorate your mantastically majestic house. That is all.
Miss Dijk proposes and end to women and their sponging up all government subsidized education like it’s trash television. I call it the Use it or Lose it Plan. Would Dijksma’s legislation pass, Dutch women who earn degrees only to fuck and trap one of their statistically much smarter class man-mates — which every fucking one of them does, would be responsible for a whopping fucking fine to reimburse the government. If you ask me, they should be fined doubly for the perfectly well-working man ass they kept out of that classroom seat, but this is a baby step. A baby man-step.
This plan is fucking brilliant. And before you say anything, I know a woman didn’t think of it. Dijksma still gets credit for opening her big fat mouth about it though. Women should always get credit for doing what a man told them to do, even if they merely tried their best yet fucked up catastrophically. Technically, that was your fault as a man for expecting more out of a woman than you would out of a tulip.
The Use it or Lose it plan is exactly the same as taxing cigarettes. Should cigarette smokers have to pay for the increased government subsidy of smoking related illnesses. Yes they should and women have no business in college.
Related Articles:
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8984a7f2a18a3
Rocket scientist? Ha! I guess that must be the newest euphemism for cock-sucking-whore.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7e9f483ab328c
Nope. It’s the layman’s term for my job with NASA.
Z
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: 08d4619cadd08
No, it’s the affirmative action program wasting government funds.
Women should stay at home. Isn’t that what Orca is there for?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:52 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
How nice. Oprah’s a rocket scientist.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:45 am - IP Man-Hash: 8984a7f2a18a3
Why? Why do they always come on this site and make all sorts of grandiose claims about their education and profession?
September 24th, 2006 at 6:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 7e9f483ab328c
If you read back, I was only here to redirect Sandra to a more appropriate thread and to offer some encouragement to a young person. The topic was college, and I spent a good bit of time there.
And sonyad, have you conveniently forgotten that you were interested in my work a couple of weeks ago? We discussed the FUSE program elsewhere on the site.
I mentioned my work - nothing more, nothing less. Only a jealous person would consider that “grandiose.” So you all can just stew about the fact that I have succeeded in a male-dominated field. It doesn’t change my life one bit.
Z
September 24th, 2006 at 6:34 am - IP Man-Hash: 8984a7f2a18a3
Succeeded? Or do you really mean sucked seed?
September 24th, 2006 at 6:45 am - IP Man-Hash: 7e9f483ab328c
Keep proving my point, diamatik.
~Z~
September 24th, 2006 at 8:17 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
No problem.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:43 am - IP Man-Hash: 05bdcb82f843a
Guys, I have to say that I don’t see where zogmama deserves the dog-pile.
As to the point of the article, I’ll re-state what I said about it in the forums:
While I agree that it’s mantastic for Dijksma to have the balls to bring up such an idea, implementing it would have negative consequences.
As you know, I’m all for stay-at-home parents. I think a stay-at-home parent is necessary to raise a well-adjusted human being, and I think what western society is becoming is a testament to what happens when children are raised by the village [idiot] rather than a mother or father that loves them.
The problem as I see it is that too many women go to college solely to get an MRS degree. I don’t have a problem with education, but I do have some personal experience with this: my ex’s maid of honor went all the way through med school and passed the boards, only to leave the field as soon as she was able to marry a doctor. I think this happens a lot.
The problem is government subsidy and the socialist attitude that everyone deserves an education.
In the past, women who wanted to marry doctors would arrange social occasions and invite pre-med and med students. They could meet college men in an acceptable social setting without expending the time and money necessary to meet them in class.
However, that was in an age where someone in college was expected to pay for themselves, not use government theft to finance their future.
If this plan were implemented, what would happen is simple:
Women would still take “free money” via government theft to go to college. They’d meet the man of their dreams, graduate, have kids, and stay in the workforce long enough to satisfy whatever time period the government assigns as their debt to society.
And their kids? Raised by the village [idiot], resulting in an even more unstable and dysfunctional society than we have now.
The real solution to this problem is simple: stop using government theft to subsidize education. Let people — men and women — find private loans, support, or — gasp! — work to finance their education.
Under these circumstances, women will be forced to examine their real goals. If they just want to get married, they’ll probably forego college in favor of resurrecting planned social events to meet men. If they actually want an education, more power to them — and if they decide later to become a stay-at-home parent, no one gets hurt.
Again, the problem isn’t that they’re using government theft to finance their education and then not “repaying” that debt by staying in the workforce. The problem is that government is stealing the money and then giving it to them at all.
If you want to stop the problem, stop the theft. Halt the educational subsidies, and this problem will disappear.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:27 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Have you ever seen abject poverty, Dakota? Have you ever seen people do [what you and I consider to be] ’stupid things’ just because they honestly don’t know any better? Do you know of the Rural Poverty Trap or the Theory of Immiserizing Growth?
These are serious socio-economic conditions that tend to keep the poor poorer, while those who are rich gain all the benefits. One powerful tool that assists in fighting these ills is education. A highly educated populace tends to have less poverty and a higher standard of living; and these happen to be two very important goals of every government. If people cannot afford to educate themselves, then one chance (albeit not the only option) for them to take themselves out of poverty has been removed.
In 1974, Robert Nesta Marley once chanted:
What this says to me is that when the poor see those who are better off it unnerves them. This is especially so when the ‘better off’ look upon them with scorn and disdain, and then condescendingly tell them to ‘get an education’ despite the fact that sometimes the poor cannot afford it. These uneducated poor are now the ones responsible for social upheaval, ‘revolutions’ and [more often than not] petty crime.
So the next time some poor person doesn’t break into your car to steal your stereo, mug you, rob your home, or pick your pocket, please remember that ‘the socialist attitude that everyone deserves an education’ may have had something to do with it.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:28 am - IP Man-Hash: 7e9f483ab328c
Thanks, Dakota. Looks like you and I may have both been taken in by “sandra,” but I appreciated your supportive tone with her. It is apparent that you are a caring father, perhaps unfairly treated in the past.
~Z~
September 24th, 2006 at 12:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 88c1e58dc3ca7
I’m almost sure that most agree that stay-at-home parenting is what’s necessary to have the best possible chance at having a relatively healthy/well-balanced child, when all is said and done…
So why doesn’t it make sense that whomever stays at home[giving the benefit of the doubt that this is an equal opportunity position...] is well-educated and prepared to meet the challenges of parenting insofar as being able to intellectually challenge and stimulate the child(ren)’s minds, keep up with them physically and have the awareness of the psychological dynamics of maintaining a relationship with all members of the family on each of the various levels required, both physical and intellectual, and emotional.
Since it is ‘usually’ women who stay at home, it follows that they should be ‘well-equiped’ to tend to everyone’s needs…as well as their own…
September 24th, 2006 at 1:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
@diamatik, I think zogmama’s ok. She’s certainly been consistent in her behavior and statements, and, unlike the noted science professor, I find zog’s assertions credible, consistent, coherent, competent and cumulatively convincing.
It’s possible she’s lying, but if so, she’s chosen an unusual and slightly obscure field to lie about. She writes like a physicist.
I mostly agree with Dakota, but he and I part company at the “government theft” stage. I recognize his rationale for viewing it that way, but I no longer do.
Moreover, I do believe that everyone in Western country X who is intelligent and capable enough to excel at a given recognized field (engineering, physics, law, medicine, fine art, history, a number of others, but, sorry, not “gender studies) should have the opportunity to be educated in that field. Note that that’s distinct from saying that everyone “deserves” an education, or has a right to it. It’s still probably too socialist for Dakota though!
(How do we provide that opportunity? There’s the rub.)
@diamatik yes, I agree with working to make education more accessible for the poor — and I have some knowledge of this — but I find your arguments gravely troubling.
Then the poor will be always unnerved. This is a dreadful argument. Even when the poor all have 50″ plasma TV’s, they will still see the rich with 150″ TV’s.
The poor, as Christ astutely said, will always be with us.
Moreover,
Nonsense. Massive state-funded education in the UK, yet high crime and robbery rate.
Most terrorism comes not from the poor but from the well-educated yet alienated.
Even if those facts weren’t the case, people would refrain from mugging and murdering because they were moral people.
I find your apparent denial of individual morality disturbing.
It’s why I still closer to the “crazy libertarians” than I am to the statists.
But I am, in the end, a “crazy conservative”.
-wolfe
September 24th, 2006 at 5:50 pm - IP Man-Hash: 05bdcb82f843a
Yes — the worst in the nation. I’ve visited South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. By comparison, it makes Chicago’s Cabrini Green (which I’ve also seen) housing project look like Bill Gates’ mansion.
I’ve also made the drive between Shreveport, Louisiana and Little Rock, Arkansas via country roads. The squalor I observed there was bad, but Pine Ridge is still worse.
The ultimate reason that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is this:
When one gives one’s government total power, that government then attracts those who wish to maintain their power. An all-powerful government is always for sale, after all. Who can afford to buy it? The rich.
So what you end up with is exactly what we have: long-term, institutionalized policies that solidify the position of the wealthy because they have the money to buy the power.
Now, the liberal answer to this problem is to pass laws to prohibit access to government by the wealthy. What the liberals naively do not understand is that it’s never in a legislator’s best interest to limit access by the wealthy. Legislators stay in power by being bought. If they actually passed laws that stopped the money flow, how would they stay in power?
Consequently, the only laws that ever get passed in this regard are window-dressing that could never actually influence conditions.
The real solution to the problem would be simple: adhere to the Constitution, since that would instantly strip governments of most of their power. Without the laws that make it possible to institutionalize poverty, we’d see an immediate and dramatic reduction of it.
However, that’s an impossibility since both the left and right in the US love government power. Neither of them want to actually strip government of its power, since that would make it impossible to force others to bend to their will.
So the problem remains. People are poor, people are rich, there’s less movement upwards, and poverty is chronic. So it will be until the socialist government ultimately collapses of its own instability. Hopefully by then people will have learned the folly of an all-powerful government, but to be honest, I doubt it.
Certainly, but the reason that people can’t afford it at the present time is because government steals from every man, woman, and child in the US at least fifty percent of their earnings. It also, through taxation at every point of production, increases the price on the shelf of every good and service by at least 800%!
Imagine that everyone had every dime they earned to spend as they saw fit and only paid 1/8 their current expenses. I submit to you that no one would be poor nor ignorant for very long.
Nonsense. The reason people don’t steal my belongings is due to my gun rack and the high probability that they’ll die in the attempt. This is why the per-capita crime rate in my state is so low compared to our neighbors within a few miles, Nebraska and Iowa.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: e515291901c7b
Zog, maybe if you quit Nasa it wouldn’t be such a half ass piece of shit organization. These morons are the masters of “fuck up”. I’m a Libertarian but you might as well give have socialized education instead of a bunch of money burning dreamers looking for little green men. Let’s face it, if there was other species they would have conquered, exterminated, or took us under their wing by now as a pupil would a student.
Bush wants to go to Mars and it is bold but I think he’s ill equipped to understand just how much Nasa fucks up everything it’s tasked to do. Might as well kill it, create a Space Force like Rumsfeild wants for future weapons development and hard science innovations.
Let zogmama do some science with some cum and a petri dish and feel important on her own dime. Oh wait she’s a female and can’t generate her own dimes.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 913c4c57e376a
zogmama said:
I’m damn glad I went to college, so that I can support my children. Their father kept the house while I worked for 12 years, then he was unfaithful and fled. I pay alimony, and receive no money from him or from any government entity.
–Well zogmama, I guess you do know how it feels to “take it like a Man” because most of the time thats exactly what we get, a fucking bill for all of our efforts. Maybe if women had to go through what we do on a constant basis, their bitching would cease.
And still I have enough character not to call him a “whore” or “slut” or whatever the mantastic equivalent is for a man who doesn’t support his family, presents a poor role model for his sons, and is content to be supported by his ex-wife, his new lover, and the government.
–Wow, he sounds exactly like a woman!–
-Strength and Honor–
So which of us pissed away a college education?
Z.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: e515291901c7b
So what does it say about her then that she supported some pretty boy who “kept house” for 12 years while she worked?
How modern and disgusting.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2f2d948528fdf
did you guys all have horrible mothers or girlfriends or something? such hate.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: 88c1e58dc3ca7
I’m thinking that they didn’t, but [for the sake of argument] would have us believe otherwise.
Speaking of the ‘other wise’, meaning women, let’s admit that many of us, including myself, can be quite: insatiable, annoying, frustrating, trying, cunning, misunderstood, underhanded[ly clever], unusually well-preserved, cheeky, … tard(t)y, prompt[ly succinct], domestically-challenged, etcetera…but that doesn’t negate the fact that we’ve got the ‘good goods’ that [most] men can’t help pursuing, wooing, getting ga-ga about, lusting after, taking great efforts to garner the affections of, wedding, bedding, etcetera.
Roar.