This is Ada Lovelace, the first ever Computer Programmer

Thoughts about her, IQfy?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd give her one, if that's what your asking.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Modesta pozzo btfo

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How the frick did she do it?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      proto-onlyfan club

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder how she'd feel if you brought her to the present day and told her there's an altcoin named after her?

    Also, would.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She wasn't a computer programmer or even a noteworthy mathematician.
    Charles Babbage's machine was never even made in his or her lifetime. She literally had no computer to program with.
    Also the Babbage's machines didn't run programming languages, they were designed to calculate basic operations faster than people. So mechanical calculators.
    She was extremely rich though.
    Babbage was using her to fund his ideas as the government funding dried up.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My dear boy...

      >they were designed to calculate basic operations faster than people. Mechanical calculators.
      She was extremely rich.
      Babbage was using it to fund his ideas as government funding dried up.

      so he created something, which was good and feminine merit, especially for the time.
      She was a great female inventor and basically did it alone, the examples are always supposedly "distorted" here, aren't they?
      Hypatia, you never bring up the subject, do you? Grow up boys

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you a feminist by any chance?
        Lol

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hello!
          It depends on what you define as "feminist".
          which wave, historical context, thinkers, etc.
          First wave feminism was naturally considerable in many ways, particularly on the issue of the right to vote and the right to go to war....
          look;
          feminists at the time said that the government would send women to war if women's vote was considered, as a consequence... anyway, the opinion you have about feminism as something uniform and linear is extremely poor historically... feminism has many branches, some very distant from each other that are like a big tree, so using the term "feminism" is like using the term "Scythian" or "Celtic".
          However, I consider myself a classical "feminist" (I'm not) thinker, a thinker about the usefulness of women in civilization

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't that complicated anon. Feminists are pathological liars that want women to have more rights than anyone else because they are women.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already explained this in my other comment....
            I'm not going to waste my time, but answer me something young man;
            What would you think of an anti-war attitude towards young people dying in the First World War? naturally a good deed, right? well then.
            feminist groups did this.
            but to be honest, at the same time some wanted to dismantle the social fabric.
            That's why I say;
            Treating feminism as something universal, as an immutable idea, is stupid.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I already explained this in my other comment....
            You haven't explained anything. You're just lying about everything as feminists do.
            >I'm not going to waste my time, but answer me something young man;
            You're a stupid black teenager that can't read.
            >What would you think of an anti-war attitude towards young people dying in the First World War? naturally a good deed, right? well then.
            >feminist groups did this.
            No they didn't mentally moronic anon.

            "The suffrage movement seemed stalled by the first decade of the 20th century. But World War I changed the dynamic and ultimately strengthened the suffrage movement. The industrial demands of modern war meant that women moved into the labor force and contributed to the war effort on the home front."
            https://news.stanford.edu/2020/08/12/world-war-strengthened-womens-suffrage/

            "The Order of the White Feather was founded in Britain in August 1914 as part of a strategy to encourage women to pressure their family and friends into enlisting. White feathers were given to young, fit men who did not volunteer for service, implying they were cowards."
            https://www.awm.gov.au/about/organisation/corporate/disclaimer

            >Treating feminism as something universal, as an immutable idea, is stupid.
            The definition of feminism is literally "the advocacy of women's rights ".
            It cares about nobody else and never has.
            You don't even know the meaning of basic words.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you couldn't handle it and insulted me...
            This is a problem that you men have, the idea of treating any discussion, even with "reason", the use of means of force, in this case, of argumentative anger.
            ana campgnolo argues about this.

            but about your arguments;

            "The suffrage movement seemed stagnant in the first decade of the 20th century. But the First World War changed the dynamics and ultimately strengthened the suffrage movement. The industrial demands of modern warfare meant that women entered the workforce and contributed to the war effort on the home front."

            Here you commented something interesting, I don't know how exactly you wanted to refute me with that?
            the same happened in Russia. women were extremely useful and necessary.
            next

            "The Order of the White Feather was founded in Britain in August 1914 as part of a strategy to encourage women to pressure their family and friends to enlist. White feathers were given to young, fit men who did not volunteer for service, implying that they were cowards."

            to start young....
            We have no quantitative idea of how many white feathers were "hitting the streets" and can you tell me which specific group? Did you know that there were several "white feathers"? In New York State alone, there were almost 5 different groups with different ideas.
            That's why I said earlier that "feminism" is not unilateral, there were groups and groups, and in general, the groups did not come together to call men cowards, in fact some were even against the entry of men into war.
            be honest

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're not quoting comments properly and you once again haven't provided a single source for your claims because you are a moronic autistic black girl making shit up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            young man, I thank you for the arguments and insults (at my age, I couldn't care less about that) but I withdraw, do you want the feeling of victory? stay with him.
            I withdraw and you can have your taste of "I won" that I know you men like.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're an autistic moronic black b***h speaking in ebonics who hasn't sited a single source for your claims because you're just making shit up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I showed my source (not Wikipedia) and you don't accept it just because.
            young! you won ok? You can boast!
            don't answer me.

            war of the sexes? At my age this is already meaningless.
            I wonder about you here.. maybe 17?
            and answer me something;

            you couldn't prove anything except that men have some merits when they are married

            oh?
            So you're a useless old feminist?
            How do you feel about women being mostly secondary characters in the history of the world? and even though it has one of the simplest but noble functions, throwing everything in the trash to be written by the elite???
            Congratulations women, you are moronic to Dragon Ball levels.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I showed my source
            you literally haven't provided a single source of any sort you stupid dementia ridden autistic shitskin.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you still insulting me?
            why? Aren't men the masters of reason?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you still insulting me?
            >why? Aren't men the masters of reason?
            They are, that's why they are calling you an idiot. Because you literally are an idiot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you couldn't prove anything except that men have some merits when they are married

            LOL LOL LOL
            little woman, you literally said it randomly without any basis, you literally said it without any reason... who is talking about marriage or how useful men are? Why do you like saying random things?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the young man was unable to prove anything except that men have some merits when they are married - that is, when they are united to a wife. Now, I don't deny it, but without the help of their wives, men are like unlit lamps: by themselves, they are useless, but, when lit, they can be useful to have at home.

            In other words, if a man has some virtues, it is because he inherited them from the woman he lives with, whether she is a mother, nurse, sister or wife, because over time, inevitably, some of his good qualities will disappear in him.

            In fact, regardless of the good examples women set for them, all men's best and most virtuous achievements derive from their love for women, because, feeling unworthy of their mistress's grace, they try by every means they can to become her. please her. in some way. That men study, that they cultivate virtues, that they prepare themselves and become well-educated men of the world – in short, that they end up endowed with countless pleasant qualities... it is all due to women... and you yourself see this in your works or indirectly in cultural form, whether artistic or social.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're a samegayging autistic black moron who hasn't provided a single source in your entire stupid thread.
            You are literally just writing and listening to your own made up bullshit fantasy story.
            You are the stupidest person to post on IQfy in half a year.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I did not speak with you
            and I'm not the OP.
            Besides, did my text make you mad? young man... just don't answer me

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are obviously the OP you stupid autistic frick.
            You haven't provided a single source for anything you've blatantly made up.
            You're a fricking moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it only when a man gets married that he is considered a real man and reaches the heights of happiness, honor and greatness?

            The Romans of their time did not confer any important responsibilities on any man who did not have a wife; they did not allow him to assume public office or perform any serious functions related to the Republic.

            Homer used to say that men without wives would hardly survive.

            And if you want further proof of the superior dignity and authority of women, just think of the fact that if a man is married to a wise, modest and virtuous woman, even if he is the most ignorant, shameless and corrupt creature that ever lived.

            lived, he will never, despite all his wickedness, be able to tarnish his wife's reputation. But if, by some misfortune, a woman is lured by some persistent and unscrupulous admirer into losing her honor, then her husband is instantly and utterly ashamed and dishonored by his act, however good, wise and respectable he himself may be. - as if he depended on her, and she did not depend on him. And, in fact, just as a headache makes the whole body waste away, so when women (who are superior by nature and, therefore, legitimately the bosses and superiors of their husbands) suffer some affront, so do their husbands, as appendages and dependents, are also subject to the same misfortune and come to share their wives’ evils as well as their good fortune.
            You lost? Young man

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where's the source stupid autistic moron OP.
            Where's your fricking source.
            You're just endlessly making shit up.
            Pure schizophrenic psychobabble.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What poor people are the men who don't respect us as they should. We care for their families, their possessions, their children, their lives – they have no hope without us and are incapable of doing anything well. Take away this little matter of making money and what are they for? What would they be like without women to care for them? (And with such devotion) I suppose they would trust servants to manage their families – and steal their money and reduce them to poverty, as so often happens

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What poor people are the men who don't respect us as they should. We care for their families, their possessions, their children, their lives
            Feminist countries have the lowest birth rates in the world and the most frequent abortions.

            Giving women equal rights is like giving guns to toddlers.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sources????

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it only when a man gets married that he is considered a real man and reaches the heights of happiness, honor and greatness?

            The Romans of their time did not confer any important responsibilities on any man who did not have a wife; they did not allow him to assume public office or perform any serious functions related to the Republic.

            Homer used to say that men without wives would hardly survive.

            And if you want further proof of the superior dignity and authority of women, just think of the fact that if a man is married to a wise, modest and virtuous woman, even if he is the most ignorant, shameless and corrupt creature that ever lived.

            lived, he will never, despite all his wickedness, be able to tarnish his wife's reputation. But if, by some misfortune, a woman is lured by some persistent and unscrupulous admirer into losing her honor, then her husband is instantly and utterly ashamed and dishonored by his act, however good, wise and respectable he himself may be. - as if he depended on her, and she did not depend on him. And, in fact, just as a headache makes the whole body waste away, so when women (who are superior by nature and, therefore, legitimately the bosses and superiors of their husbands) suffer some affront, so do their husbands, as appendages and dependents, are also subject to the same misfortune and come to share their wives’ evils as well as their good fortune.
            You lost? Young man

            This pre-eminence is something you have all unfairly arrogated to yourselves. And when it is said that women must be subject to men, the phrase must be understood in the same sense in which we are subject to natural disasters, diseases and all other accidents of life:

            It is not about being subject in the sense of obeying, but rather suffering an imposition; It is not a question of serving them, but of tolerating them in a spirit of Christian charity, since they were given to us by God as a spiritual test. But they interpret the phrase in the opposite sense and place themselves as tyrants over us, arrogantly usurping that domination over women that they claim is their right, but which is more properly ours.

            For don't we see that the legitimate task of men is to go out to work and exhaust themselves trying to accumulate wealth, as if they were our taskmasters or administrators, so that we can remain at home as the lady of the house directing her work? and enjoying the profit of your labor? This, if you will, is the reason why men are naturally stronger and more robust than we are – they need to be, so that they can endure the hard work they must endure in our service.

            Feminism..... lol

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where's the source stupid autistic moron OP.
            Where's your fricking source.
            You're just endlessly making shit up.
            Pure schizophrenic psychobabble.

            Where's the source stupid autistic moron OP.
            Where's your fricking source.
            In all the Abrahamic religions women are below men you fricking moron.

            Bible
            1 Corinthians 11:9
            Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.
            https://biblia.com/bible/csb/1-corinthians/11/9

            Koran
            An-Nisa verse 34
            Men are in charge of women1 by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard.2 But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance3 - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly].4 But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.
            https://quran.com/4:34?font=v1&translations=149%2C136%2C167%2C203%2C20%2C131%2C84%2C17%2C85%2C95%2C207%2C19%2C22%2C206%2C31

            "Recent studies conclude that men on average have higher intelligence than women by 3-5 IQ points. However, the ultimate evolutionary question of why men should have evolved to have higher intelligence than women remains."
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20066931/

            refute this

            Where's the source stupid autistic moron OP.
            Where's your fricking source.
            In all the Abrahamic religions women are below men you fricking moron.

            Bible
            1 Corinthians 11:9
            Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.
            https://biblia.com/bible/csb/1-corinthians/11/9

            Koran
            An-Nisa verse 34
            Men are in charge of women1 by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard.2 But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance3 - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly].4 But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.
            https://quran.com/4:34?font=v1&translations=149%2C136%2C167%2C203%2C20%2C131%2C84%2C17%2C85%2C95%2C207%2C19%2C22%2C206%2C31

            "Recent studies conclude that men on average have higher intelligence than women by 3-5 IQ points. However, the ultimate evolutionary question of why men should have evolved to have higher intelligence than women remains."
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20066931/

            About intelligence..

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >refute this
            It isn't an internet link...
            It gives no IQ score...

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

            "Structurally, adult male brains are on average 11–12% heavier and 10% bigger than female brains."

            "men slightly outperformed the women in both the verbal-numerical reasoning and reaction time tests."
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

            " people who do well on the Alice Heim 4 test of general intelligence also tend to have faster reaction times"
            https://academic.oup.com/book/28470/chapter-abstract/229100183?redirectedFrom=fulltext

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >11– 12
            >10%
            >slightly
            😉

            https://i.imgur.com/Obz8LOc.jpg

            [...]

            [...]
            refute this
            [...]
            About intelligence..

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>11– 12
            >>10%

            >;)

            All the research I've done points to a gender difference in general cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points. The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus as there are women.

            I don't know why this is, all I can say is that we have a huge amount of data.

            In my 2005 paper in the British Journal of Psychology we looked at 22 surveys sampling 20,000 university students. In 21 out of the 22 studies males always had an advantage. That's a lot.
            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >five IQ points
            >twice

            Do you realize how you proved my study?
            the differences are not very high and not general. and even if they were general, they wouldn't represent much....
            your studies focus on specific skills****
            just like my study says.
            look at this graph (you know how to read, right?)
            he says that men are at both EXTREMES;
            DONKIES AND GENIUS.
            But I don't think you consider yourself a genius, do you? Therefore, this proves that men in general are not more intelligent. There is no average, and the differences are in specific skills, easily explained by the hunting-gathering system.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Therefore, this proves that men in general are not more intelligent.
            It literally states that the average man is more intelligent that the average women.
            It literally states that most of the world's geniuses are men.
            You're too stupid to understand anything.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Read your studies***
            LIGHTLY******
            Have you ever studied quantitative questions at school? I've been saying this for a million years.
            Quantitatively, men in general are not more intimate. the difference is minimal. 5% points...
            and it is still very variable
            You didn't refute my comment at all.
            refute it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It literally states that the average man is more intelligent that the average women.
            It literally states that most of the world's geniuses are men.
            You're too stupid to understand anything.
            Yes, 5 points is significant. It doesn't magically become insignificant just because you say it is, once again without a source.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            your own study refutes you;
            lightly
            You lost.
            and research how quantitative matrices work

            https://i.imgur.com/LHjLNEC.jpg

            What poor people are the men who don't respect us as they should. We care for their families, their possessions, their children, their lives – they have no hope without us and are incapable of doing anything well. Take away this little matter of making money and what are they for? What would they be like without women to care for them? (And with such devotion) I suppose they would trust servants to manage their families – and steal their money and reduce them to poverty, as so often happens

            Why is it only when a man gets married that he is considered a real man and reaches the heights of happiness, honor and greatness?

            The Romans of their time did not confer any important responsibilities on any man who did not have a wife; they did not allow him to assume public office or perform any serious functions related to the Republic.

            Homer used to say that men without wives would hardly survive.

            And if you want further proof of the superior dignity and authority of women, just think of the fact that if a man is married to a wise, modest and virtuous woman, even if he is the most ignorant, shameless and corrupt creature that ever lived.

            lived, he will never, despite all his wickedness, be able to tarnish his wife's reputation. But if, by some misfortune, a woman is lured by some persistent and unscrupulous admirer into losing her honor, then her husband is instantly and utterly ashamed and dishonored by his act, however good, wise and respectable he himself may be. - as if he depended on her, and she did not depend on him. And, in fact, just as a headache makes the whole body waste away, so when women (who are superior by nature and, therefore, legitimately the bosses and superiors of their husbands) suffer some affront, so do their husbands, as appendages and dependents, are also subject to the same misfortune and come to share their wives’ evils as well as their good fortune.
            You lost? Young man

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >your own study refutes you;
            It literally states that the average man is more intelligent that the average women.
            It literally states that most of the world's geniuses are men.
            You're too stupid to understand anything.
            Yes, 5 points is significant. It doesn't magically become insignificant just because you say it is, once again without a source..

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Read your studies***
            LIGHTLY******
            Have you ever studied quantitative questions at school? I've been saying this for a million years.
            Quantitatively, men in general are not more intimate. the difference is minimal. 5% points...
            and it is still very variable
            You didn't refute my comment at all.
            refute it

            Read your studies***
            LIGHTLY******
            Have you ever studied quantitative questions at school? I've been saying this for a million years.
            Quantitatively, men in general are not more intimate. the difference is minimal. 5% points...
            and it is still very variable
            You didn't refute my comment at all.
            refute it

            Read your studies***
            LIGHTLY******
            Have you ever studied quantitative questions at school? I've been saying this for a million years.
            Quantitatively, men in general are not more intimate. the difference is minimal. 5% points...
            and it is still very variable
            You didn't refute my comment at all.
            refute it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It literally states that the average man is more intelligent that the average women.
            It literally states that most of the world's geniuses are men.
            You're too stupid to understand anything.
            Yes, 5 points is significant. It doesn't magically become insignificant just because you say it is, once again without a source....

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289604000492

            "A meta-analysis is presented of 57 studies of sex differences in general population samples on the Standard and Advanced Progressive Matrices (SPM and APM, respectively). Results showed that there is no difference among children aged 6–14 years, but that males obtain higher means from the age of 15 through to old age. Among adults, the male advantage is 0.33d equivalent to 5 IQ points. These results disconfirm the frequent assertion than there are no sex differences on the progressive matrices and support a developmental theory that a male advantage appears from the age of 15 years. A meta-analysis of 15 studies of child samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices showed that among children aged 5–11 years boys have an advantage of 0.21d equivalent to 3.2 IQ points."

            5% is not significant

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >5% is not significant
            It's significant.
            It's the difference in performance between not sleeping at all the previous night and getting a full 8 hours sleep

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289604000492

            "A meta-analysis is presented of 57 studies of sex differences in general population samples on the Standard and Advanced Progressive Matrices (SPM and APM, respectively). Results showed that there is no difference among children aged 6–14 years, but that males obtain higher means from the age of 15 through to old age. Among adults, the male advantage is 0.33d equivalent to 5 IQ points. These results disconfirm the frequent assertion than there are no sex differences on the progressive matrices and support a developmental theory that a male advantage appears from the age of 15 years. A meta-analysis of 15 studies of child samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices showed that among children aged 5–11 years boys have an advantage of 0.21d equivalent to 3.2 IQ points."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wft? How???

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Romans preferred bussy, they didn't see their wives often

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Romans of their time did not confer any important responsibilities on any man who did not have a wife; they did not allow him to assume public office or perform any serious functions related to the Republic.

            Homer used to say that men without wives would hardly survive.
            What is your point???

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Romans of their time did not confer any important responsibilities on any man who did not have a wife
            Contrary to popular opinion the Romans actually hated homosexuals.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            moronic
            If what you say is true, and men are as flawed as you say, then why have they always been women's superiors? This only changed with feminism.
            Cope, old woman

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This pre-eminence is something you have all unfairly arrogated to yourselves. And when it is said that women must be subject to men, the phrase must be understood in the same sense in which we are subject to natural disasters, diseases and all other accidents of life:

            It is not about being subject in the sense of obeying, but rather suffering an imposition; It is not a question of serving them, but of tolerating them in a spirit of Christian charity, since they were given to us by God as a spiritual test. But they interpret the phrase in the opposite sense and place themselves as tyrants over us, arrogantly usurping that domination over women that they claim is their right, but which is more properly ours.

            For don't we see that the legitimate task of men is to go out to work and exhaust themselves trying to accumulate wealth, as if they were our taskmasters or administrators, so that we can remain at home as the lady of the house directing her work? and enjoying the profit of your labor? This, if you will, is the reason why men are naturally stronger and more robust than we are – they need to be, so that they can endure the hard work they must endure in our service.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where's the source stupid autistic moron OP.
            Where's your fricking source.
            In all the Abrahamic religions women are below men you fricking moron.

            Bible
            1 Corinthians 11:9
            Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.
            https://biblia.com/bible/csb/1-corinthians/11/9

            Koran
            An-Nisa verse 34
            Men are in charge of women1 by [right of] what Allāh has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allāh would have them guard.2 But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance3 - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them [lightly].4 But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allāh is ever Exalted and Grand.
            https://quran.com/4:34?font=v1&translations=149%2C136%2C167%2C203%2C20%2C131%2C84%2C17%2C85%2C95%2C207%2C19%2C22%2C206%2C31

            "Recent studies conclude that men on average have higher intelligence than women by 3-5 IQ points. However, the ultimate evolutionary question of why men should have evolved to have higher intelligence than women remains."
            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20066931/

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't exactly agree with much of what you say, but damn, you good at writing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't exactly agree with much of what you say, but damn, you good at writing.
            Your writing sucks OP...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            thanks
            What do you agree with and not?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You're a stupid black teenager
            why would a black teenager care about defending feminism on IQfy?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >My dear boy...
        The only people who say that for no reason are BIPOC morons...

        >so he created something, which was good and feminine merit, especially for the time.
        Charles Babbage was a man anon. Nothing feminine about him.

        >She was a great female inventor and basically did it alone
        Ada Lovelace didn't design the difference or analytical engines. In fact she contributed absolutely nothing.

        "Babbage is considered by some to be "father of the computer".[2][3][4][5] He is credited with inventing the first mechanical computer, the Difference Engine, that eventually led to more complex electronic designs, though all the essential ideas of modern computers are to be found in his Analytical Engine, programmed using a principle openly borrowed from the Jacquard loom."
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage
        Not a single mention of Lovelace.
        >Hypatia, you never bring up the subject, do you? Grow up boys
        Hypatia was a librarian at the Library of Alexandria. She maintained ancient texts. She didn't come up with any new ideas.
        Still she does deserve credit for being one of the top intellectuals of her time.
        Ada Lovelace on the other hand was just a rich woman being used for money by Charles Babbage.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Ada Lovelace did not design the difference or analytical engines. In fact, she contributed absolutely nothing.
          I don't use Wikipedia as a source, and I believe you should do the same, young man.
          Anyway, the question of the password Ada, a better source (even one who isn't feminist or anything like that) tells her life and how she, in fact, contributes to computers.
          Since she was 12 years old, she was good with numbers and her father sometimes asked for her help to count some things.
          photo from the book below.
          >Still, she deserves credit for being one of the leading intellectuals of her time.

          here we agree, she was intelligent and an avid reader, firstly for obtaining a new job for her time and culture and for, contrary to what you hide, debating concepts and ideas, not creating "something" is not the same as not "contributing" or even analyze. According to your logic, we should throw everything in the trash can, 50% of Aquino's works, as he discussed pre-created concepts

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't use Wikipedia as a source
            Because you're literally just making shit up.
            >here we agree, she was intelligent and an avid reader
            She was nothing more than a well-read librarian who only got her position from her far more accomplished father.
            Hypatia is famous because she was a pagan intellection who was killed by Christians.
            >firstly for obtaining a new job for her time and culture
            Female library workers were not unusual at all in the period. She wasn't breaking any social taboo.
            >ot creating "something" is not the same as not "contributing" or even analyze. According to your logic, we should throw everything in the trash can, 50% of Aquino's works, as he discussed pre-created concepts
            Aquino built upon pre-created concepts. Hypatia didn't. Like her father she merely corrected scriptural errors in old manuscripts and cleaned/organized papyrus scrolls. She was a librarian, not a philosopher.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >because you are literally making shit up.

            it was not an argument.

            >She was nothing more than a cultured librarian who only inherited her position from her much more talented father.
            Hypatia is famous because she was a pagan intellectual who was killed by Christians.

            in truth no. Have you read your bibliography of Maria Dzielska?
            Besides, you're wrong again, young man...
            She was a charismatic speaker and remained single, declaring herself "married to the truth". He wrote commentaries on classical works, such as Diophantus' Arithmetic and the Sections. she was a writer and debated philosophical subjects. you shouldn't argue without reading.

            >Library workers were not uncommon in the period. She wasn't breaking any social taboos.

            Not as many as you think, in fact, there weren't many.
            but that is not important, important and noteworthy was his work. I mentioned above..

            >Aquino built on pre-created concepts. Not Hypatia. Like her father, she only corrected scriptural errors in old manuscripts and cleaned/organized papyrus rolls. She was a librarian, not a philosopher.

            Hypatia wrote what she did, in different ways and with different objectives, we are not debating whether she and Aquinas had the same objective, we must judge from the perspective of each person's personal objective...
            And my little boy, whether he liked it or not for some reason, she wasn't just a "librarian", he wrote, debated and analyzed.
            Naturally it wasn't accepted at the time, but she did it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it was not an argument.
            Nothing you've said is a valid argument.
            You never even source your claims.
            >in truth no.
            In truth yes. She was literally a librarian of Alexandria who was killed by Christians.

            >Have you read your bibliography of Maria Dzielska?
            >Besides, you're wrong again, young man...
            >She was a charismatic speaker and remained single, declaring herself "married to the truth". He wrote commentaries on classical works, such as Diophantus' Arithmetic and the Sections. she was a writer and debated philosophical subjects. you shouldn't argue without reading.

            All she did was copy and correct scriptural errors in the works of others.

            "Hypatia is now known to have edited the existing text of Book III of Ptolemy's Almagest."

            "Hypatia wrote a commentary on Diophantus's thirteen-volume Arithmetica"

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Independent_writings

            This is it. This is all she ever did.

            >Not as many as you think, in fact, there weren't many.
            >but that is not important, important and noteworthy was his work. I mentioned above..

            What in the frick are you even trying to say stupid black anon?

            >Hypatia wrote what she did, in different ways and with different objectives, we are not debating whether she and Aquinas had the same objective, we must judge from the perspective of each person's personal objective...
            >And my little boy, whether he liked it or not for some reason, she wasn't just a "librarian", he wrote, debated and analyzed.
            >Naturally it wasn't accepted at the time, but she did it.

            You're speaking broken moronic ebonics to yourself. You're making up bullshit with no sources.
            Are you autistic as well as black?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >because you are literally making shit up.

            it was not an argument.

            >She was nothing more than a cultured librarian who only inherited her position from her much more talented father.
            Hypatia is famous because she was a pagan intellectual who was killed by Christians.

            in truth no. Have you read your bibliography of Maria Dzielska?
            Besides, you're wrong again, young man...
            She was a charismatic speaker and remained single, declaring herself "married to the truth". He wrote commentaries on classical works, such as Diophantus' Arithmetic and the Sections. she was a writer and debated philosophical subjects. you shouldn't argue without reading.

            >Library workers were not uncommon in the period. She wasn't breaking any social taboos.

            Not as many as you think, in fact, there weren't many.
            but that is not important, important and noteworthy was his work. I mentioned above..

            >Aquino built on pre-created concepts. Not Hypatia. Like her father, she only corrected scriptural errors in old manuscripts and cleaned/organized papyrus rolls. She was a librarian, not a philosopher.

            Hypatia wrote what she did, in different ways and with different objectives, we are not debating whether she and Aquinas had the same objective, we must judge from the perspective of each person's personal objective...
            And my little boy, whether he liked it or not for some reason, she wasn't just a "librarian", he wrote, debated and analyzed.
            Naturally it wasn't accepted at the time, but she did it.

            You didn't argue or refute anything.
            I literally gave you my source....

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            oh?
            So you're a useless old feminist?
            How do you feel about women being mostly secondary characters in the history of the world? and even though it has one of the simplest but noble functions, throwing everything in the trash to be written by the elite???
            Congratulations women, you are moronic to Dragon Ball levels.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You didn't argue or refute anything.
            >I literally gave you my source....
            That's you anon. You literally criticized me for quoting Wikipedia and you haven't provided a single internet linked quote to back up any of your claims.
            You're a fricking moron of the highest order.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pretty smart cookie, but "first ever computer programmer" is feminist bullshit. even finding the first male computer programmer is some bullshit for historians to write useless papers on, they just make up a definition of computer and programming and then see who they can find notes on.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >pretty smart cookie, but "first ever computer programmer" is feminist bullshit. even finding the first male computer programmer is some bullshit for historians to write useless papers on, they just make up a definition of computer and programming and then see who they can find notes on.
      Well that isn't very complicated either.
      punched card in jacquard looms are by definition the first example of machine instructions.
      The inventors of that technology were all men.
      Joseph Marie Jacquard, Basile Bouchon (1725), Jean Baptiste Falcon (1728), and Jacques Vaucanson (1740)...
      So it doesn't matter how you cut and dice the facts. Women weren't the first programmers and didn't invent computing.
      The OP is a mentally moronic imbecile.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >pretty smart cookie
      There's literally zero evidence of her being a smart cookie. Zero, nil, blank, Kaput.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Romans preferred bussy, they didn't see their wives often

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    she was blackkked

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What poor people are the men who don't respect us as they should. We care for their families, their possessions, their children, their lives – they have no hope without us and are incapable of doing anything well. Take away this little matter of making money and what are they for? What would they be like without women to care for them? (And with such devotion) I suppose they would trust servants to manage their families – and steal their money and reduce them to poverty, as so often happens

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lord Bryon's daughter, pure nepobabby.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She. Was. BLACKED.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You suck black dicks for breakfast you white b***h.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So is your mom you punk ass white b***h.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So is your mom you punk ass white b***h.
      Have you shown your mother your BBC porn lol.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Super Switch NX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUJtIK94Djc

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh hey it's Byron's daughter

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is it true she was blacked?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes
      in fact i saw it with my own eyes

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like her clothes. They're pretty.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    She looks particularly ethnically English.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *