Women can’t spell
Did you know that women are atrocious spellers? It’s an obscure caveat of womankind that will usually elude detection, but I assure that it’s absolutely true.
In order to prove this I’ve compiled a short list of words that women have historically suffered only complete and disastrous failure when attempting to spell. Here is the list:
Chevrolet
bullion
kernels
sandwich
duct tape
beans
trophy
If you want to see this phenomenon in action (and have quite a good laugh at the absurd letters women will attempt to piece together in desperation) prepare yourself for quite a struggle. You see when asked to do things that they are no good at (ie, driving, thinking that does not involve puppies or how much they hate their best friends) women will defer the task immediately to the nearest man. This includes spelling.
Since it is part of our nature to be of assistance — to be constructive and positive at all times (probably because we know so much about so many fucking things), this ploy will work one hundred percent of the time. It’s typical woman manipulation though and nothing else.
I tested woman’s inability to spell properly in the real world by asking a group of ten women to spell the word foundation, which I learned had something to do with make-up completely by accident in an episode of CSI. I felt that this word-familiarity would give women the manufactured advantage that they so desperately need and crave in every fucking thing that they do.
My results not only proved conclusively that women cannot spell, but also that women will refuse to do any task that they cannot.
Now that we say for certain that men are better than women at spelling as well as everything else, I think as men it is our duty as the superior spellers par excellence to save women the disgrace and humiliation of having to clumsily defer any such spelling requests.
To a woman, the alphabet and its inner workings are like the mysteries of a Jack in the Box in the eyes of a child.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 11 10 9 8 7 6 [5] 4 3 2 1 » Show All
Abaddon, women were intended to be property.. period. The day they got “rights” the destruction of man was written in stone. They are the disgusting and carnal properties of humanity, unfished beings without honor unless their fathers beat it into them.. but we know that doesn’t happen any more, because their fathers are blocked from their life.
It will come to armed conflict, that will change the world forever. Billions will die. We will win.
Luka said:
-Both of them, it’s an industry in my view. Women are encouraged to get divorces in general due to the amount of money they would recieve, by lawyers whose vested interest is to get the divorce finalized. This is one of the reasons why we have laws such as this that favor women in divorce. Since women are BY FAR the majority of initiators, they must have laws that makes it easier to initiate.-
I still don’t see how a woman would get MORE money from divorce, wouldn’t she have to pay towards her lawyer? As she gets the house, she would have to support herself (and any children) there on her single income (if she has a job), she may get alimony from her ex-husband, but does that really come to the same figure as it would if he lived with her?
-I never said that they would actually MAKE more money, simply that they’re influenced by what they consider a “better” deal in the area of divorce. If you actually count the cost to society in shattered homes and broken dreams, these laws are anything but good. -
-Something eventually will be done about it Luka or the system will collapse, and yes the situation is like that and worsening everyday. Well the beneficiarys of this racket certainly aren’t going to do anything or find their humanity, most Men that are divorced become rather strapped for cash for some odd reason, so I dont see anything happening there either.
The UK and Austrailia are considering having similar laws enacted for co-habitation. Now you will be considered married if you co-habitate for a period of longer than four months. I believe that I have pointed out in earlier posts that Matriarchal systems are inherently entropic, and this is why Luka. Because it never stops. Make marriage a bad enough situation for a Man and many Men stop getting married. So do we find a solution for WHY this is? No we just infringe upon his rights some more and say that your fucking ROOMMATE can file in court for some of your benefits. How disgusting is that? Are people actually that lazy and sociopathic? Feminism is quickly becoming a joke.-
-Strength and Honor-
wolfe, you can’t be honest about the system of things and not be tainted by a dark shadow.
For a good many women, yes.
I agree.
Well the stats continue to show it’s mostly women that file. There’s no “supposedly” about it.
Initially, ’socially acceptable’ divorces were a boon for two groups of people:
- the nominally (and actually) abused (this includes people married to spouses with mental problems, hence my use of the word ‘nominal’
- Men that wanted to screw around and trade in their wives for a younger model.
(Look at initial filing statistics in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s as divorce was liberalized).
A group of strange bedfellows — conservative men (and women) and feminist women collectively agreed this was not a good thing. Conservatives wanted to stop marriages from being trivially ended by men eager to trade in on a new model; feminists didn’t mind that occurring, but wanted to punish men for doing so, and empower women financially.
And thus we developed our present highly sexist system.
It is hard to argue that a number of women are not motivated by short-sighted greed and malice. Possibly men are the same (though I think less so), but certainly we have a legal system that favours leechers of both genders.
There are certainly examples (rare, but increasing) of capable women married to indolent men being slammed by these laws.
I readily agree my views are somewhat dark. They are inevitably impacted by not only my readings and study, but by my direct subjective observation of the world.
-wolfe
Billy, my post wasn’t meant to be taken as a lecture, just a caution about romanticizing the past.
How you knew it was a lecture, without having read the rest of my post, is still curious to me to say the least.
Quick Lurker grab your keyboard and type some more bullshit fast.. You’re not filling up the pages quick enough.
Women are parasites.
“I find it hard to believe the situation is really as you state it, not because I don’t believe you, or discredit your point of view, just that it is hard to believe that a system would become as corrupt like that without something being done about it?”
For every outraged homocidal young male who sees the corruption and repugnancy of post modernism suicide male/female structure, there is the 90%+ of happy pretty chauvanists who are quite well satiated with bread and circus, and glorious one night stands with feminists harlots. It is a system of the devil himself, where dark souls feed off one another in their evil and the common people are left to their end times prophecies that will never come true. We’ve cloned Soddom and Gamorah really, and the common people can’t wait to see it all flushed away.
Oh yeas sure divorce is horrible for Muffin.. She shouldn’t have to deal with such stress. Damn we should make new laws so that she can skip the court procedures and go straight for the money. Then then gold diggers could just take the money an run..
Geesh Lurker you’re ignorant.
What a Pathetic bunch of parasitic losers you women are.
No Lurker
Really Nothing has ever been perfect or amazing. Humans are imperfect and always will be. But women weren’t the rebellious shits like they are today. Women were kinder and more gentle than today. Women weren’t out to be bitches and whores so proudly.
And the rest of your lecture will go unread by me.
There can be no real debate with a woman.
Grow some balls and get some testosterone in your veins and maybe you would see things clearly.
Women are completely void of logic.
If people are really being encouraged to get divorced, then who really benefits from it…is it just women, or the lawyers as well?
I still don’t see how a woman would get MORE money from divorce, wouldn’t she have to pay towards her lawyer? As she gets the house, she would have to support herself (and any children) there on her single income (if she has a job), she may get alimony from her ex-husband, but does that really come to the same figure as it would if he lived with her?
I find it hard to believe the situation is really as you state it, not because I don’t believe you, or discredit your point of view, just that it is hard to believe that a system would become as corrupt like that without something being done about it?
You think what you like about the truth as to my ‘allegiance’ - whatever that must be. If you want to think that all women are in cohorts with each other, that they are breeding fresh feminist baby girls from their wombs, that can chant the SCUM manifesto with their first words, chop off men’s dicks as a social rite of passage at the age of 4 and they are all there with the sole purpose of destroying men - who am I to stop you? What puzzles me is why you think I would bother pandering to you or anyone. I have no intention or interest in changing you or anyone here into a moderate or anything like that. What would be the point? I don’t see how that would benefit anyone? Least of all myself. Yet you will believe what you will believe.
I am not talking about whether or not cheating was bad, that goes without saying and has been repeated ad-nauseam on this board.
My original point was that it is a mistake to assume that more marriages were happy in the past since fewer people were getting divorced. The reason less people were getting divorced was because divorce was more of a stigma then than it was now, not because the world was peachy before women’s liberation. This is not to say that it is good that the divorce rate is increasing, far from it. I was just stating a simple factor that has always kept the divorce rate low in the past.
Cheating behaviour is not any different now to what it was in the past. The only difference now lies in the fact that women are given more sexual freedom because they can now have sex without getting pregnant. Yet even before the introduction of the pill, women cheated.
My other point was, human nature doesn’t change much over the centuries, but our attitude to human behaviour does. Women cheat more today because they can afford to (they don’t fall pregnant), men cheat about the same as they have always done for centuries. What has changed is the viewpoint that cheating is acceptable, normal part of human relationships. This is not a viewpoint that I personally hold.
As to your statement about a loveless marriage, I disagree - who is to say that a child is happy witnessing a marriage on the rocks between his/her mother and father? I don’t think that situation is any better than putting a child through divorce.
Luka said:
It certainly helps if you aren’t HOMELESS Luka. Ever wonder why the suicide rate for divorced fathers is somewhere in the area of 10 TIMES more than divorced mothers? Or why 80% of homeless people are Men? Stop with the “even if” as well. It’s more along the lines of WHEN she gets the house, car, kids, alimony, child support ect ect. Are Men even helped out at all? Does anyone say something like “I know we’re taking everything you worked for your whole life, just so the woman that you cared for doesn’t have to lower HER standard of living, but how about some help yourself? If women are so independent and strong (just like Men) why haven’t they railed against alimony for the archaic sexist law that it is? If a woman makes a choice to get divorced, why can’t she go about her way without living off of a debt slave? Could it be that many women are complete hypocrites when it comes to equality? Could it be that many women refuse to accept responsibility for there own choices?
-Marriage is a sham, and a con bottom line. Men recieve nothing from marriage that they wouldn’t without it. Luka I do consider it, however I view those women to be the MINORITY. Thats why we have laws that ENCOURAGE divorce. When people are paid MORE to get divorced then they are to stay together, why look at what happens? MORE DIVORCE! Wow! What a concept! Many women fail to look at the REALITIES of marriage, much like a small child, its all fun and games in the begining, but 5 years into it, they finally figure out that it isn’t the fairy tale they thought it would be.-
Well it certainly HELPS doesn’t it? I am pretty certain that women file for divorce with the almost absolute CERTAINTY that they’ll recieve a MAJORITY of the assests from a marriage. Marriage is a trap plain and simple, why do you think that they call it the “ball and chain”? Every Man I meet, I tell them two simple things, Never get married, and NEVER have children or you’ll be a slave for the rest of your life. All to benefit some womans “choices”. You yourself will have NONE.
-Strength and Honor-
You are “barely feminist” in that you’re true allegiance is with your sisters, yet you hold a passionless centrist position here between the sexes, trying to pander to us and make us “moderates”. Moderation is for men with families and futures.
Yes, divorce is without stigma now. How does that prove your point. When’s the last time you fucked your father? Never? Yes, all social stigmas exist for a reason. It’s called “survival”. Cheating from both sides is bad, I’ve never done such a treacherous act and never will. But as I’ve said before, if you calculate that all women are liars and all men fess up for their mistakes, I’d bet my soul that women cheat 2 or 3 times more than men.
Happiness is a point of view… who’s matters more, Luka? Yours or a child’s? We know what your sisters believe. Loveless marriage is a hall mark to tribalism, something I can talk about for days and you wouldn’t understand. The point is we need it now more than ever.
The heart of the issue is all women are fundamentally bonkers. That is exactly why. That is the indellible truth. I too now speak from experience.
The only thing that can keep a nut’s act together is the knowledge that death is not the ultimate and supremely definitive state and the will to better him/herself and thus earn a better life after death.
When, as far as you’re concerned, there’s no remnance after death but the physicality of the being and nothing to earn through virtuousness pending payment on death, is there any really wonder that people act the way they do?
Especially women, who, though thoroughly lovable and cherishable, are all naturally confoundedly deranged.
- The Streets Of Philadelphia
I think you are mistaken if you seriously think that getting a divorce is fun for a woman either. I am talking about real divorces, not like celebrity ra-ra-ra Heather I’m-going-to-bank-my-millions-from-divorce McCartney, not all women get EVERYTHING from a man out of a divorce, for the most part they split assets between them… but even if a woman did get the house, the children and money, do you really think that the material assets heals the disappointment and pain of a broken marriage and family?
Do you not consider that maybe a woman did love her husband, that she is bitterly disappointed that it didn’t work out despite their efforts? I think it would take a horrible and very very very very cold materialistic woman to enter into a marriage with a divorce in mind from the beginning. What draws women into marriage in the first place and why don’t these marriages work out?
What I want to know is why so many women are supposedly filing for divorce? Are you really certain it is because they get all the material goods and the children? If so, how can you be so certain? Financially a woman is better off with a second source of income that comes with marriage rather than living off her own income or even alimony after divorce, so it is hardly fair to suggest that women divorce for the money alone. It doesn’t really add up as far as I am concerned.
You can dismiss my point of view as much as you like son of the suns, but you haven’t even made an attempt to argue why my views are “barely feminist” nor have you suggested where and how these views may be wrong or misinformed.
Am I wrong to say that divorces were more of a stigma before than it is now? Is this not true? Attitudes towards cheating behaviour are more relaxed now than how they once were, is that not correct? There are cases where divorce is necessary and whoever tries to suggest that divorce is simply throwing in the towel in those circumstances is being blind to the complexities of marriage break downs.
Can you not see the danger of painting the past as a gorgeous portrait of happy marriages and loving husband and wives, rather than the reality that it was?
Luka said:
Oh dear, Billy has given into the ‘everything was amazing before women were libeated’ mind-trick.
-Indeed he has-
Billy, the reason divorce rates were much lower was due to the fact that divorce was more of a stigma. The marriages were probably not much better than they are today, the only difference was men and women could not get out of them bak then. Not getting a divorce doesn’t mean that they made the marriage work, or even that they had happy marriages.
-As opposed to nowadays, where there’s more benefits if you get divorced. No-fault divorce has really done so much good Luka. For women at least.-
It doesn’t make sense to measure the divorce rate as a means to define what is wrong with the feminist world, yes it is a symptom but not more than that. I would even suggest that female/male promiscuity has not changed much over the decades, except the attitudes of society towards that behaviour. Before, people looked on such behaviour as wrong, wheras now it is seen as the norm.
-Human sexuality hasn’t changed at all. All we have done is define it better Luka. It does make sense to measure the divorce rate, since 70-80% of the people initiating divorce are women. It seems theres a lot of “irreconcialible differences” or emotional stress or what have you. One reason not to get married.-
Having a divorce is not necessarily giving up on a relationship, if the relationship has broken down due to infidelity and other issues, and both partners are making each other unhappy, then having a divorce is often a courageous choice in the face of beating a dead horse. On the other hand, hanging onto a dead relationship in the small hope of bringing it alive is sometimes due to fear of being alone, not ‘wanting to keep a family together’. It is all in the way you deal with it.
-Sure, everyone lives in a happy little dreamworld where the fairies bring you tea and we all ride unicorns as well. Divorce is probably one of the worst things that could happen to a Man. Women for the most part are given EVERYTHING that a Man has worked for. The current state of affiairs leaves me bewildered. I have no intention to get married at all, ever.-
-Strength and Honor-
Typical “barely feminist” viewpoint Luka.
Oh dear, Billy has given into the ‘everything was amazing before women were libeated’ mind-trick.
Billy, the reason divorce rates were much lower was due to the fact that divorce was more of a stigma. The marriages were probably not much better than they are today, the only difference was men and women could not get out of them bak then. Not getting a divorce doesn’t mean that they made the marriage work, or even that they had happy marriages.
It doesn’t make sense to measure the divorce rate as a means to define what is wrong with the feminist world, yes it is a symptom but not more than that. I would even suggest that female/male promiscuity has not changed much over the decades, except the attitudes of society towards that behaviour. Before, people looked on such behaviour as wrong, wheras now it is seen as the norm.
Having a divorce is not necessarily giving up on a relationship, if the relationship has broken down due to infidelity and other issues, and both partners are making each other unhappy, then having a divorce is often a courageous choice in the face of beating a dead horse. On the other hand, hanging onto a dead relationship in the small hope of bringing it alive is sometimes due to fear of being alone, not ‘wanting to keep a family together’. It is all in the way you deal with it.
Of course a philanderer would strive to keep his family together, while maintaining his philandering ways. What man wouldn’t prefer to shag women on the side, go home to his wife, get fed, have all his ironing done for him, then go to bed and shag her too?
Thank you NO FAULT (as if) DIVORCE, now women don’t have to suffer the insufferably selfish. Men had it so easy in the 50 - early 70s, before they were practically forced by the law to up their standards of decency. Boo hoo, poor babies, I am so upset for you. ha ha.