Saturday, 19 October 2013

In Which Francis Begbie Proves With Mathemathics that Feminism is a Crock of Shite

Ok, so any stats lads among yous will be able to find holes in this thing like the smelly swiss cheese that those stink monkey fells love so much, it's a rudimentary ols model corrected with heteroskedasdicity and whatnot, so it be flawed en aw, but I believe, in a few simple numbers and comments, we can show, empirically, the effects feminism is having on marriage and that not be a good thing for the lad or lassie no?

Notice the appalling appalling adjusted r-squared and the fucken constant, man what a shitheap. Causality, correlation not causation etc and whatnot, blah blah blah. It passes the jointly significant f test and blech, it's fucking shite, but I might do a proper comprehensive polished up regression in the next bit. Plus, we are talking about 6000 lassies here.

So, lets explain the table. We're testing here the effect of five x variables have on the chances of your marriage ending in divorce. First, we have lifepartners. To put it simply, this variable is statistically significant, and the more men a woman fucks, the more likely the marriage be on the rocks. Next up is if the woman reports that she is religious. Look at that atheistkulty aspergery fuckbutt! Less divorces! Happier families! But christians are fucked in the head no? They so irrational! Variable three is de race. Put it simply, black lassies divorce more than whites and hispanics. Cause I'm a racist ken. Variable five has to do with family happiness and coherence, a mishmash of variables I created with a buttcrumbles algorithim where essentially, the more a lassie reports good relations with her parents, the more likely she will stay happily married. Finally, work1 is a little variable I chucked in for all the empowered women out there. Yous can have it all, am I right lassies? No, ho ho! It looks like yous be putting that strain on your marriage by the looks of things! More hours worked means more time in divorce courts!

Another couple of pointers. Pointer one is that the life partners coefficient is probably far more significant than it is presented here, for the sole reason that a one night stand gets eaten by the hamster and turned intae a peck on the cheek. Pointer two is that yous can definitely make inferences about the population at large and interpret shit accordingly. Pointer three, if yous cunts are interested, I can do more detailed, proper regressions with proper variables. I be a confident cunt though I'd get similar results, and it would be a fuckton bit of work, but yeah, let de Franco know lads!

What have we learned class? Marry a religious lassie who doesn't work much, gets on well with her family, is religious and is close to being a virgin! But of course, yous didn't need maths and data to tell yous that right?

It's numbers like these that make a cunt glad he be enjoying the decline! Meanwhile, you can find the data I used here. 

Edit: I forgot to scale up the variable on life partners. Hence the low coefficient. My bad lads! It should be 6.483 percent. 


  1. I look to astronomy. Black holes get their fill of everything and are never satisfied. They suck out all your energy and always feel there is always a bigger, better, brighter star somewhere.

    However if you are a star and find a planet that takes your energy and produces life...that's a planet you want orbiting you.

  2. Just be too bad that some of them stars have been dead for a long time now, and by the time yous get out to orbit it's all pretty lights and gas ken.