7.9 KiB
Woman
A woman (also femoid or succubus) is one of two genders (sexes) of humans, the other one being man. Women are notoriously bad at programming, math and technology: in the field they usually "work" on bullshit (and harmful) positions such as some "diversity department", marketing, "HR" or UI/user experience. If they get close to actual technology, their highest "skills" are mostly limited to casual "coding" (which itself is a below-average form of programming) in a baby language such as Python, Javascript or Rust. Mostly they are just hired for quotas and make coffee for men who do the real work.
Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical (e.g. 100 m sprint women world record is almost a whole second slower than that of men) and mental such as chess. Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (According to Elo rating the best woman chess player in history would have only 8% chance of winning against current best male who would have 48% chance of winning). On the International Mathematical Olympiad only 43 out of 1338 medals were obtained by females. There are too many funny cases and video compilations of women facing men in sports, e.g. the infamous Vaevictis female "progaming" team or the football match between the US national women team (probably the best women team in the world) vs some random under 15 years old boy's team which of course the women team lost. Of course there are arguments that worse performance of women in mental sports is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there are fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. This may be partially true even though genetic factors seem at least equally important and it may equally be true that not so many women play chess simply because they're not naturally good at it; nevertheless the fact that women are generally worse at chess than men stands, regardless of its cause.
But of course even though rare, well performing women may statistically appear. The issue is women are very often involved with a cult such as the feminists who waste their effort on fighting men instead of focusing on study and creation of real technology, and on actually loving it. They don't see technology as a beautiful field of art and science, they see it as a battlefield, a political tool to be weaponized to achieve social status, revenge on society etc. They can't understand the pure joy of programming, the love of creation for its own sake, they think more in terms of "learning to code will get me new followers on social networks" etc. You will never find a basement dweller programmer or demoscene programmer of female gender, a hacker who is happy existing in a world of his own programs without the need for approval or external reward, a woman will never be able to understand this.
Of course, LRS loves all living beings equally, even women. In order to truly love someone we have to be aware of their true nature so that we can truly love them, despite all imperfections.
Is there even anything women are better at than men? Well, women seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (feminism of course sees this as a "weakness" and tries to change it), though they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive. They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel (still it seems that if men focus at a specific tasks, they will beat a women, for example the best cooks in the world are men). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, psychologists, massage therapists etc.
Women In Tech
Finding famous women capable in technology is almost a futile task. One of the most famous women of modern tech, even though more an entrepreneur than engineer, was Elizabeth Holmes who, to the feminists' dismay, turned out to be a complete fraud and is now facing criminal charges. Grace Hopper (not "grass hopper" lol) is a woman actually worth mentioning for her contribution to programming languages. Ada Lovelace cited by the feminist propaganda as "the first programmer" also didn't actually do anything besides scribbling a note about a computer completely designed by a man. This just shows how desperate the feminist attempts at finding capable women in tech are. Then there are also some individuals who just contributed to the downfall of the technology who are, in terms of gender, probably more on the woman side, but their actual classification is actually pretty debatable -- these are monstrosities with pink hair who invented such cancer as COCs and are not even worth mentioning.
In the related field of free culture there is a notable woman, Nina Paley, that has actually done some nice things for the promotion of free culture and also standing against the pseudoleftist fascism by publishing a series of comics with a character named Jenndra Identitty, a parody of fascist trannies.
In science at wide we occasionally find a capable woman, for example Marie Curie.
Men Vs Women In Numbers
Here is a comparison of men and women in some randomly chosen disciplines that are easy to quantify by numbers. Of course, the numbers hold for the time of writing of this text, at the time or reading they may be slightly outdated, also keep in mind that in the future such comparisons may become much less objective due to SJW forces -- e.g. because of trans athletes in sports we may see diminishing differences between measurements of performance of men and "women" because what in the future will be called women will be just men pretending to be women.
Note: SJWs will of course say this is "misleading" statistic. Three things: firstly chill, this isn't a scientific paper, just a fun comparison of some numbers. Secondly we try to be benevolent and not choose stats in a biased way (we don't even have to) but it is not easily to find better statistics, e.g. one might argue it could be better to compare averages or medians rather than bests -- indeed, but it's impossible to find average performance of all women in a population in a specific sport discipline, taking the best performer is simply easier and still gives some idea. So we simply include what we have. Thirdly any statistics is a simplification and can be seen as misleading by those who dislike it.
| discipline | men WR | women WR | comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 200m outdoor | 19.90s (Bolt) | 21.34s (G-Joyner) | best W ranks lower than #5769 among M |
| 60m indoor | 6.34s (Coleman) | 6.92s (Privalova) | best W ranks lower than #3858 among M |
| raw deadlift | 460kg (Magnusson) | 305kg (Swanson) | best M lifts about 50% more weight |
| marathon | 2:01 (Kipchoge) | 2:14 (Kosgei) | best W ranks #3935 among men |
| 100m frees. swim | 46.8s (Popovici) | 51.7s (Sjostrom) | best W ranks lower than #602 among M |
| chess | 2882 Elo (Carlsen) | 2735 Elo (Polgar) | best W win 8%, lose 48%, draw 44% |
| speedcubing 3x3 | 3.47s (Du) | 4.44 (Sebastien) | best W ranks #16 among M |
| Starcraft II | 3556 (Serral) | 2679 (Scarlett) | best M has ~80% win chance against W |
| holding breath | 24:37 (Sobat) | 18:32m (Meyer) | Ms have ~35% greater lung capacity |