Women Suck Twice As Hard At Multitasking
Hey here’s a bunch of bullshit:
Men are good at focusing. Women are good at multitasking.
I had to break that woman-maxim into two sentences because not even my mighty man brain could process the fucked up logic there. It’s like trying to dump a bowl of Mueselix into a state of the art DVD player.
Women are shit at doing things — and definitely not as good as men at anything. So we’re supposed to believe that if they do a shitload of things they’re not very good at all at the same time, women suddenly turn into a one-man band with the cymbals between their legs?
Fuck you.
I don’t want to link to an article at the bottom of this page that details an SUV crash in which a woman’s severed arm was found some distance away from the site with a cell phone gripped in her talons like an otter with a delicious clam, but I’m going to. It’s one small example of how shitty women are at doing things at the same time — at multitasking. And that is: completely shitty.
No man anywhere needs any examples on this. Just look at women and their fat asses. If they could multitask at all, they could be running some laps while beating their gums all day long, but they can’t so they don’t. End of story.
The real technical foul here is women and their hand-me-down attitudes toward heaping awards on themselves. It’s women and their society of leftovers. Let me explain.
If men are good at doing things, then women must be good at doing lots of things at the same time, right? Yin and Yang and all that bullshit that no woman has ever actually read but feels as though it speaks to her soul. If men are good at mechanics, women must be good at nurturing. If men are good at making money, then women must be good at managing money or spending it. That’s all a bunch of piddly nonsense.
True, men are good at all those things. Men are good at everything, but no woman has ever proved the same to herself. It’s called the scientific method, proving things, but it should just be called the Man Method because that’s what it is.
Women and their made up Mad Lib character traits, like nurturer and comforter, are like the little brother who gets his older brother’s Batman costume for Halloween and then proclaims loudly that it’s exactly what he’s always wanted.
Then why is there a Superman poster in your room, kid? Why is there a Superman poster?
Harmless Driver. Oops, I meant Armless Driver.
Related Articles:
July 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 766da8096c559
It’s pretty much believed by this site that that goal, while laudable, is impossible, much like trying to push on a rope. I’m glad you believe otherwise; most here don’t. We’ve learned the hard way.
Where were you three weeks ago? I was in the NWFP. I’ll bet you were playing Warcraft.
Nope. Get this in your head Coderch. I don’t give a toss what you do. You want to fight ‘the establishment’? Go for it. But be a man and accept the consequences of your words and deeds.
No, he acts.
No.
If you’re humiliated by it, that’s tough for you I guess. You indicate past abuse; that’s unfortunate, but not something any of us can do anything about other than you.
Not at all demeaning. And I’d treat them differently, better in someways, more restrictively in others. Boys are different from girls. Men are different from women. I don’t much care how sons dress, as long as it’s appropriate to the situation, I’d care a great deal how daughters dress. Boys can stay out to midnight; girls can’t.
Amusing. The sad reality is I simply write the way I think. The volume of my writing makes it pretty clear that I don’t have to wander off to look up ‘big’ words to use. If they seem like ‘big words’ to you, then you simply have a stunted vocabulary. If you knew what the word pedantic meant, you wouldn’t have used it in that fashion. TT for you, as they say in Warcraft.
A non-logical component, yes. Not illogical.
Wow. You’ve convinced me. A Nobel laureate said something about matters outside his field of expertise. It must be true.
In what ways? I don’t think of males as being weaker than females, I think of them as being stronger. That said, if I had a son who was weak, I’d want him to be strong, and would encourage him to be just that.
Heh. Says the guy who’s never successfully grappled with one, and came up with the brilliant ‘Appeal to Authority’ fallacy in his comment on religion, above.
Fair enough. I can’t say I think much of your womanly whining, complaining and demented threats. And I’m guessing that you’d find a quick rousing game of Warcraft more stimulating. Don’t let us hold you back from level 47.
-wolfe
Why do you keep replying to my posts? I have already said that I don’t like you and your ideas, and you keep coming back to take more abuse. You are the one who said that you will teach yous sons to open doors and pull chairs for your daughters. Do you have any idea how demeaning and humiliating this is? You will basically be making your sons employees of your daughters. Chivalry is SERVITUDE to women, which I find despicable. And I find it incredible that you think that a return to the 1950s is the way to go. What I want is for men to not serve women anymore: I want women to fend for themselves without relying on men. As for me being whining, fuck you. I am far more manly than you because I speak my mind and don’t bow down to the establishment like the pussy whipped faggot that you are, I don’t demean myself and my gender by treating women better than I treat my own gender - a courtesy that women would never do for men. As for my threat, you can be sire that it is for real, and you should really be thankful that this is the virtual world because if we met in the real World I’d deck you. as for the opinion of Steve Weinberg, at least he’s the expert on something that has to do with reality(physics), which is far more than can be said about religion, which is akin to gbelieving in the flying spaggheti monster. Wolfe, you fag, you’re nothing more than one of “Female’s” anf the establishment’s lackeys. You are not a real man in my book, but a passive, effete coward who just kow tows like a bitch. Have a nice day.
P Coderch
July 21st, 2007 at 4:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: 766da8096c559
Did you know Moses?
Warcraft is Starcraft’s nephew? Can you get any more stupid? The first version of Warcraft came in 1994, while Starcraft was created in 1998. LOL…dumass.
P Coderch
July 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 766da8096c559
GUYS COP&PASTE MY REPLY TO THAT BITCH “FEMALE” IN THIS THREAD AS IT IS THE MOST MASSIVE PAW4EDGE IJN INTERNET HISTORY. SHE ALSO SAID THAT SHE WON’T REPLY, WHICH IS AN ADMISSION OF DEFEAT.
P Coderch
July 21st, 2007 at 7:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: 349c2dc95fedb
Then are you here to look for a jerk like all those other whores before you? Unless I am mistaken, which I am not, you women seem to love us condescending jerks alot. Perhaps it is because we treat women as what they are - commodities.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 am - IP Man-Hash: c406e944e31e4
MansVoice, just because you and Billy are both here looking for men, doesn’t mean we all are.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 am - IP Man-Hash: c406e944e31e4
PC, thanks for the laughs, as always.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 2f854bed461cf
I have stated my reasons for being here - anti-feminism. Unlike you, I dont squirrel around the issue with an ad hominem. You are here to seek attention. That makes you an attention seeker and a whore. Point!
July 22nd, 2007 at 2:37 am - IP Man-Hash: c406e944e31e4
Then I guess that makes you a vicarious attention seeker through feeding me.
In other words, I wouldn’t call myself a whore but I do feel like you are soliciting my time and attention, and as I’m somewhat bored with you and your obvious attempts to provoke me on another blog, kindly stop.
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 am - IP Man-Hash: addf3d348fa2f
Why not? The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Nay, ’tis professional modesty at work.
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:28 am - IP Man-Hash: 6d589b37beaa5
Then why are you replying if you are bored? To get the last word? Provoke you? You were told to get out of this site or be cursed/sweared at. You chose to stay. Face the consequences. The truth hurts but you are an attention whore. I dont want to be euphemistic and label you a “feminist”(they go hand in hand) because that seems to make you “proud”.
July 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 am - IP Man-Hash: c406e944e31e4
You’re filled with questions MansVoice. Questions I can’t answer unless you pay as per your mandate that I charge for my services.
July 22nd, 2007 at 4:11 am - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
It could well be. Unfortunately, it’s self-ownage. You’re the first (male?) person on this site that I’ve seen lose to Female. In fact, apart from women, you’re the first person I’ve seen that repeatedly gets owned by the [Quote] function of this board.
And you’re right, I really shouldn’t bother replying to you, because your idea of an argument is to repeat what you said, and ignore the fact that your arguments have been logically demolished.
What again makes me think of you as a woman is that all of your arguments are emotional and subjective. At the heart, I’m bad because you don’t like me. That’s fine. But it’s emotional and subjective. If we probe deeper, we find that I remind you of aspects of ‘the establishment’ that ‘abused’ you. It is regrettable that you had a miserable childhood. But this sort of emotional projection is the manifestation of a very fragile psyche.
If you are a woman, then your behavior is probably just barely within normal boundaries of sanity. If you are a man, then your behavior is way, way outside and you need to seek professional help swiftly.
Ah well, PC, onwards to lose, badly, in your perpetual war with the Quote function. To say nothing of your losses in the long twilight struggle with your keyboard and the magic CAPS KEY.
-wolfe
July 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 am - IP Man-Hash: e36376410e1aa
Do it twice as much.
-Dick
July 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 2e9f52b62c482
She is asking me to “pay” her dues, Dick. What say you? Hehe.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 am - IP Man-Hash: 0a97b5a1ff681
Well one thing is for sure, you won’t find us on a womens site trying to convince them that everything they say is wrong and they are to blame for everything. It’s the last thing we want is attention from a bunch of
ignorant women like yourself. Not everything revolves around sex and relationships of the oposite sex.
It goes to show you how much you women really need men.
You couldn’t get nowhere in this world without us. But we built the world and don’t need you.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:24 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Perhaps she is a lawyer, but then she would ask that you remit consultancy fees. She used the word ‘dues’ so I am optimistically hoping that she wants you to join her club/association. I’m quite sure that she means something else, but alas, I shall give her the benefit of my false naïveté.
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:36 am - IP Man-Hash: bf1c132f6631e
Questions you can’t answer unless he pays you? Well, that is the worst defense I have ever seen anyone use to some pretty relevant questions.
By that, I mean these:
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 766da8096c559
al comment”>wolfe said:
It could well be. Unfortunately, it’s self-ownage. You’re the first (male?) person on this site that I’ve seen lose to Female. In fact, apart from women, you’re the first person I’ve seen that repeatedly gets owned by the [Quote] function of this board.
And you’re right, I really shouldn’t bother replying to you, because your idea of an argument is to repeat what you said, and ignore the fact that your arguments have been logically demolished.
What again makes me think of you as a woman is that all of your arguments are emotional and subjective. At the heart, I’m bad because you don’t like me. That’s fine. But it’s emotional and subjective. If we probe deeper, we find that I remind you of aspects of ‘the establishment’ that ‘abused’ you. It is regrettable that you had a miserable childhood. But this sort of emotional projection is the manifestation of a very fragile psyche.
If you are a woman, then your behavior is probably just barely within normal boundaries of sanity. If you are a man, then your behavior is way, way outside and you need to seek professional help swiftly.
Ah well, PC, onwards to lose, badly, in your perpetual war with the Quote function. To say nothing of your losses in the long twilight struggle with your keyboard and the magic CAPS KEY.
-wolfe
It could well be. Unfortunately, it’s self-ownage. You’re the first (male?) person on this site that I’ve seen lose to Female. In fact, apart from women, you’re the first person I’ve seen that repeatedly gets owned by the [Quote] function of this board.
And you’re right, I really shouldn’t bother replying to you, because your idea of an argument is to repeat what you said, and ignore the fact that your arguments have been logically demolished.
What again makes me think of you as a woman is that all of your arguments are emotional and subjective. At the heart, I’m bad because you don’t like me. That’s fine. But it’s emotional and subjective. If we probe deeper, we find that I remind you of aspects of ‘the establishment’ that ‘abused’ you. It is regrettable that you had a miserable childhood. But this sort of emotional projection is the manifestation of a very fragile psyche.
If you are a woman, then your behavior is probably just barely within normal boundaries of sanity. If you are a man, then your behavior is way, way outside and you need to seek professional help swiftly.
Ah well, PC, onwards to lose, badly, in your perpetual war with the Quote function. To say nothing of your losses in the long twilight struggle with your keyboard and the magic CAPS KEY.
-wolfe
How exactly did I lose to female, if I easily refuted everything she said with logic, reason and common sense? I know that you’re her lackey, but being sycophantic towards that cunt even when I owned her is beneath even you - oh, wait, nothing is beneath you.
And how exactly am I emotional? After all, it is you who believes that a circumcised Jew who lived two millenia ago is the embodiment of a God for which there is no evidence that he exists. If this is not hysterical behavior, then what it?
P Coderch
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: 766da8096c559
Translation:
“I got owned very badly and have no arguments to refute anything that Coderch brilliantly wrote, so I will just pretend that his brilliant arguments are not even worth addressing.”
Thanks, Female, for your admission of defeat. I am so happy right now! LOL!
P Coderch