Women + Math = Disaster
Harvard University has produced many great men of higher learning since it has been in business. They know who they are. I don’t need to mention any of them here — probably a bunch of presidents and whatnot, all of us men know how the game works. That’s not what’s up for debate.
Actually nothing is up for debate. The head of Harvard University said at a conference recently that women suck at math and science. What he did was grant all women an honorary PhD in In Your Face-onomics.
The point he was trying to make was simple: when it comes to math or science or using your brain, men are using the cream of the crop of brains — the top shelf. We are driving high performance thinking machines. We are moving mountains of thought with our mighty man-brains which operate like huge construction machinery.
Women, the headmaster of America’s top university is saying, are using brains that resemble a broken tricycle one might find at a garage sale in the bad part of town. Women’s brains reek of tetanus and squeak like a hamster wheel.
I checked around for an exact quote from the esteemed president of Harvard: Lawrence “The Never-ending” Summers, but I couldn’t find one. This is probably what he said though:
“Women couldn’t do math even if it tasted like chocolate.”
The fact that he’s right in every way didn’t keep fore-running members of the woman community from throwing major hissy-fits the second the words left his mouth. I’m sure they had been lying in wait for such a baseless, yet socially imposed social faux pas — like rats lurking under the picnic tables at the county fair. That’s how women behave when they land themselves in an industry where good looks and cock teasing won’t save their ass: the man-realm of science.
Related Articles:
Pages: « 11 10 9 8 7 [6] 5 4 3 2 1 » Show All
I can assume all of your English teachers are women as well.
-Dick
Equal? Hardly we men here have a little thing called intelligence and there fore use correct grammar. You however cannot say the same.
- Oldone
For your information, most of the maths techers at my school are woman!!! Only two of them are men, haha rite back at ya!! n most of the students do very well in their maths GCSE! Why is that? you ask, CUZ IT WAZ THE WOMAN WHO TAUGHT THEM!!!!
oh n whats the point in trying to be better than women, we are both equal!! we both do good things and bad things!! so dont try n think your better, just cuz woman dont think like you men!!
crap u say that “Women couldn’t do math even if it tasted like chocolate.â€? well for ur information maths doesn’t have a taste so no matter how hard u try to hurt us gals u will neva defeat us we will always stand above the pittifulness that we call men so take that and shuve it up ur stinkin arse
I also think that the Tootsie Pop owl figured it out as well. Strange how that works.
-Strength and Honor-
So from this we can deduce that a woman’s mental patterns are more closely related to bees, rats, and birds than are a man’s and that women perform at light speed when counting to three. A task that used to take hours but thanks to women takes milliseconds now.
This all discovered by Professor Butterworth, husband to Mrs. Butterworth of brand name syrup fame.
- Oldone
It seems God made women more adept than the putative father at realising at a glance if they’ve still got the whole of the likely maximum lot (3) of progenitures or some wondered off the path somewhere. A few milliseconds’ worth better.
Why, if she gives not enough of a fuck in a glass hut to have lost them in the first place, beats me…
“Strange are the ways of the Lord.”
It tells me women are able to count faster as long as its only a few, when you get more than 3 items to count, women lose it…makes sense to me.
Unless it cock of course, then they can count to 5 real fast!
Well. Who would have guessed?
Cars can fly.
Yes, but common sense can sometimes be wrong, although it is admittedly and proven not so when in regard to the “stereotyping” of women and atmospherically buoyant cars.
I disagree. It would be pointless to perform an experiment to determine whether cars can fly by themselves, because common sense tells us the answer.
Just notice the wording: “slightly, but significantly”. Quite.
“Pointless scientific” is a contradiction in terms. Seems like just more pseudo science senseless babble.
You contradict your own arguement. How like a woman.
This reeks of a twisted, feminized version of a pointless scientific study to me.
I fail to see the point of the aforementioned article actually. All it really “proves” is that women are quicker at simple addition? So what? Is this the big story thats going to bring it all down? What a tremendous waste of time.
-Strength and Honor-
I have no problem with the proposition that women are better than men at acting like bees and rats when it comes to maths.
-wolfe
Actually, Luka. No women are allowed on my fucking website.
-Dick
Quick, quick, can you spot the brass faster than I can hide it?
What results? Women are, on average, a few milliseconds faster at detecting the presence of 3 coins? Or am I just confused?
Actually, Dick. The existence of that scientific study is true. The results are also true.