Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Sometimes a song that I’m singing in my head will escape from its skullblocked cage and make a run for it across the border of my lips. When this happens, I can go fifteen minutes, maybe hours given the retrospective nature of the discovery, before my conscious awareness is alerted to the fact that I’ve been whistling a happy tune in public like a damnfool. It’s a bad habit.

One of these times, my whistling must have been especially loud and taunting to fragile ears, because I was shocked into awareness by the shrieking of a chubby gargoylette, who whipped around from in front of me and demanded, “Did you just wolf whistle at me!?”

Caught completely off-guard, I stared at her flushed cheeks and fleshed body for a half second, dumbfounded. She continued glowering at me, as if seriously expecting an answer to her accusation. Pulling my head back a little, knitting my brow and squinting, I blurted, “Fuck no!”

She fumed. If she were a pig, which with a small tweak of one or two genes she could’ve easily crossed the species barrier, she’d have stamped her hooves in the mud a few times, threatening a charge. As it was, she turned on her heels while delivering a perfunctory “fuck you” and flipped me the fat bird over her shoulder as she walked away.

I felt embarrassed for the spectacle that had caught the eyes of a few passers-by, but also satisfied that my reflexive defensive parry poked a pig in the id.

I moved on, pissed that a pig deigned to shovel me a handful of her compacted shit, and pissed that I lost the tune in my head. smh…smh…smh… the rest of the walk I wondered, in vague outlines of indignation, how many American women were miserable in this way, cracking under the pressure of their fat and their delayed marriage schedules and their royalty complexes. How many women I saw every day were hiding blocks of TNT up their asses, just waiting for some misapprehended spark to blow the lid off their facade?

The feminine American woman harboring not a lick of resentment toward men is as rare as the HB10. I wonder, equally, if she knows this? I know it.

Read Full Post »

The idea of a false rape accuser registry has been around for a while (most notably right here at Le Chateau), but lately it’s picked up momentum.

It’s time has come. More precisely, it’s time came ten years ago. We’re already playing catch-up.

False rape accusations put innocent men in jail where they are buttfucked by large black men. Feminists cheer this. Feminists are hateful cunts. It’s time to turn the tables on them and their manlet taint-lappers.

A publicly accessible list of women who have falsely accused men of rape they didn’t commit will go a long way towards shaming these succubi until they slice lengthwise. This will also serve as a lesson for the others.

Call it… David’s List. Would a diligent, energetic entrepreneur care to take up the challenge? Justice and righteousness will guide your path.

Read Full Post »

California has lobbed another salvo in the War On Men: Governor Moonbeam signed into law

a bill that makes California the first in the nation to define when “yes means yes” and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.

State lawmakers last month approved SB967 by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. Campus sexual assault victims and women’s advocacy groups delivered petitions to Brown’s office on Sept. 16 urging him to sign the bill.

De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”

Romance is dead. Long live romance!

I can’t think of many things that would kill the moment faster than whipping out a consent form and a pen as you’re sitting on the edge of her bed. Unfurling a one inch micropeen? Reaching under her dress to grab a handful of frank and beans? Unsnapping her bra to release a bundle of tissue paper and two deflated flapjack tits?

“Every student deserves a learning environment that is safe and healthy,”

Infantilization. Coddling. Child-proofing the cap on women’s brains.

We’ve shifted the conversation regarding sexual assault to one of prevention, justice, and healing.

Poopytalk.

The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent.

Women generally don’t like to verbalize their desire to get banged out. They prefer dropping subtle cues that experienced, confident men will recognize and use to lead the interaction toward the bedroom. They also prefer to put up token resistance before relenting completely. A law that requires women deny these two essential aspects of their nature, or to twist them into something inhuman, is a law doomed to fail… or to “succeed” beyond the wildest dreams of its femcunt sponsors.

Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.

If a drunk woman can’t grant her consent, then a drunk man can’t comprehend her consent. This legal contortion cuts both ways. But of course only men are responsible for their own actions, so loophole exploited!

Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.

Well, that’s a relief! Put away the consent form, you only need a video camera to provide proof to a jury of your feminist inquisitors that you received the requisite head nod and mutually voluntary personal space encroachment to proceed under legal allowance into a reproductively-thwarted union. Wait, it wasn’t thwarted by condom or Pill? Are you evil?

If it wasn’t a travesty, it would be a farce. Worse, it’s humiliation. The point of these toxic, insane, dehumanizing feminist and equalist laws is humiliation of straight (white, beta) men. That’s it. Never forget it. This is your enemy.

***

Reader 1357 quips,

I see a lot more secret recordings of all sexual encounters “just in case”, happening in california pretty soon.

Oh yeah. Externalities are a bitch. What man worth his seductive prowess will risk bedding a slutty headcase now, without video proof of her writhing arousal and surrender? But it would have to be secretly videotaped; not many women are down with a camera rolling on that first magical night together. Keep the closet door ajar, hide the camera behind cable wool sweaters, and don’t forget to put black tape over the red record light.

How ironic if a perverse law designed to catalogue the organic and nuanced stirrings of mutual consent — aka foreplay — were to have the knock-off effect of flooding the internet with more ill-gotten sex videos of regretful feminist whackjobs!

Reader joe sixpack imagines what convincing a girl to sign a pre-sex consent form would entail:

“OMG, lol, what’s that thing on your head?”

“That’s my new GoPro.

Now just look at me and say the following: “I hereby swear of my free personal will, that I do consent to sexual contact up to and inclusive of sexual intercourse whereby I grant unrestricted consent for your penis to enter my vagina, and I duly swear to hold fully exempt from any future civil and/or criminal litigation resulting from said intercourse.

You may not need the GoPro. There’s now an app for that. Good2Go. Nerds rejoice, they finally have a technical means of determining if and when a girl likes them in “that way”. Naturally, whatever slim chances a nerd gets in his life to have sex will promptly be scuttled the moment he pulls out his Good2Go app for permission to continue fondling the girl’s upper forearm.

On a serious note, this law is unenforceable. Last I checked, judges tend to side with defendants in “he said-she said” situations. (Who knows, though? That could be changing, like everything else in America, for the worse.) A law like this is pure signaling by alpha males and omega females. The former get to flex their power over weaker men and demonstrate through their indifference a prowess with women that will never be threatened by morning-after regret. The latter get to make life harder for better looking women of sound mental health, and much much harder for those creepy beta and omega males who sheepishly and awkwardly hit on them in elevators. The nerve! Then there’s the politics of it all. The War On Women rhetoric has ramped up so loudly (and incongruously) that politicians can score a lot of votes by pandering to the worst elements of womanhood. The rest of the women just step in line with these feminist gorgons, because that’s the direction the herd is heading.

Read Full Post »

Feminists… they just can’t keep their stories straight. Here’s Emma Watson, quoted at two different times, contradicting herself with an assurance that makes one wonder if she has an evil twin.

The first quote, from this past Tuesday’s gender equality speech (guffaw), reads “If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive.”

(Never mind that this assertion makes absolutely no sense if you think about it for longer than a second.)

The second attribution, from two years ago, reads “But now Emma Watson has said she doubts she will date a British man ever again – because they are too shy. [...] Instead an American will come up to her straight away and suggest a date – a boldness she finds attractive.”

#HeForShe? More like #HeForHeadCases.

Feminism long ago abandoned any pretense to logic or internal consistency. It’s nothing but feels all day, every day, with an extra helping of feels. Watson’s rationalization hamster, like most rodents residing in the brains of her callow ilk, is 700% thigh and 800% glutes. A swole spinner on the wheel of ego-masturbation.

Not that more evidence was needed, but once more, from the top and with throat cleared:

DON’T LISTEN TO WHAT WOMEN SAY, WATCH WHAT THEY DO.

Read Full Post »

It seems a new book comes out every week now detailing the results from scientific studies proving that ingrained biological sex differences are real, and the “social constructivism” beliefs of feminism are wrong in every way. Here is the latest, a book offering a compendium of evidence into neural sex differences that defy the Standard Social Science Model. Excerpts:

- The biological differences that can be found between the bodies and brains of males and females are largely due to the way these embryos develop in the womb.

- There are also fundamental differences in brain development between men and women, which are clear from the early behaviour of children. A few hours after birth, girls are more sensitive than boys to touch, and 40 hours after birth girls look longer at a face than boys, while boys look longer at a suspended mechanical mobile.

- At four months old, if babies are frightened in a strange room, twice as many girls as boys cry.

- At 12, 18 or 24 months, girls look at dolls much more than boys, while boys look at cars much more than girls. It is hard to attribute these basic differences at such young ages to purely social influences.

- The development of the brain leads to many other differences and it has been claimed that clear sex differences exist in every brain lobe. There are some visible structural differences, such as a cluster of cells in the hypothalamus that is believed to relate to sexual behaviour and which is twice as big in men as in women. Evolution has selected differences between men and women so as to make their reproduction as successful as possible, which is its overriding aim.

- Small boys often get erections after the age of about seven, and by puberty more than half of all males will have tried to masturbate. It is only when girls reach puberty that they may begin to do so.

- About half of men think about sex every day or several times a day, which fits with my own experience, while only 20 per cent of women think about sex equally often.

- Men are far more likely to be sexually promiscuous, a throwback to evolution where procreation was all-important. The need for a more emotional attachment found in women must also have an evolutionary basis.

- Men are more likely to have an orgasm when sex includes vaginal intercourse, while many women are more likely to experience it when they engage in a variety of activities such as oral stimulation

- Hard-wired into the male brain, after millions of years of evolution, is a desire for sex in response to the sight of a good-looking young woman. In contrast, both male and female erotica cause sexual arousal in women, whether heterosexual or lesbian.

- A recent worldwide survey showed that visual stimuli play a much greater role in male sexual behaviour than in that of women, who value status, ambition or wealth more highly.

- Women show their emotions more than men and are more facially expressive for both positive and negative feelings.

- A major difference between the emotions of men and women lies in the expression of aggression, for which men enjoy a pronounced physical advantage. It has an evolutionary origin related to hunting and protection. This matters, as men have discriminated against women and dominated them in all societies from the earliest known times. Women can be aggressive but their aggression tends to be less physical. But girls and women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which increases testosterone in the womb, are more like males, with an increase in physical aggression.

- Almost the opposite of aggression is empathy, an emotion that marks a fundamental difference between the two sexes, being much stronger in women.

- Simon Baron-Cohen’s theory is that the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, while the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for systemising, that is, for understanding and building systems. So, for example, it is claimed that a systemiser will probably choose to read about computers, technology or science, whereas an empathiser will choose romance or fashion. Significantly, boys born with an insensitivity to testosterone are worse at systemising, and girls born with CAH have enhanced systemising capability and lower empathy.

- Other emotional differences are that women generally report greater disgust than men, especially sexual disgust, and men engage in more risky behaviour.

- As regards humour, according to Prof Robert Provine, professor of psychology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, “Females are the leading laughers, but males are the best laugh getters.”

- A surprising finding is that distinctive words, syntax, colloquialisms, repetition and other features of written text can expose the gender of an author. An analysis of 14,000 text files from 70 separate studies found that, while men referred more to the properties of objects and impersonal topics, women used more words related to psychological and social topics.

- The areas in the brain where men and women generate their intelligence differ significantly. Men excel at mental rotation, where a subject is asked to compare two three-dimensional objects or shapes, and say if they are the same or mirror images, while females struggle. Women do better on precision manual tasks involving fine motor co-ordination, such the assembly of circuit boards in a factory, which may be a result of foraging skills that evolved long ago.

- Women perform better than men, on average, in tasks related to declarative memory, the retrieval of long-term memories of specific events and facts, and on tests of object-location memory. They are thus better at remembering family history and where they left the car keys.

- Many illnesses are strongly genetically associated with one or the other sex. Those that are more common in women include certain mental illnesses such as depression, eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, panic attacks and phobias. Also more common in women are autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome and osteoporosis.

- Very few autoimmune disorders show a male predominance. Males suffer more physical illnesses such as heart attacks and stroke. Other diseases more common in men include neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, autism, attention deficit syndrome, dyslexia and addictions such as alcohol and drug abuse.

- Women live longer than men but only by an average of about four years.

***

As the author notes, there are significant and lasting biological differences between men and women that are apparent from even before birth. The life choices the sexes make, on average, aren’t phantoms of a magical patriarchal privilege that drives men and women into stereotypical sex roles, but are instead natural and enduring outcomes of brains that are wired differently in the womb. Feminists who rail against disparate sex outcomes would do well to understand that only a frontal assault on the brain itself, carved in sweeping horror-strokes to equalist specification, will ever change this reality.

The CH worldview continues to be confirmed by science and by this little thing called leaving the house and experiencing the world with both eyes open. It warms our hearts to give such pain to the Lords of Lies. It may sound like a broken record to veterans of the Chateau way of life, but it needs constant reminding, and constant shivving, as long as corrupt femcunts and their crippled manlet Igors command the public megaphone. Today, an ignoramus celebrity termagant empties lie after lie about the sexes into the captured ears of UN globalists, and to standing ovations. While out here, deep in the gray woods where Heartiste acolytes watch the world crumble under the weight of falsehoods, a rebellion of truth gathers strength.

Read Full Post »

A graphic produced by some dumb feminist associated with the dumb feminist Twitter hashtag campaign #WhyIStayed is amusingly, if unsurprisingly, self-contradicting pabulum that works well if read with the opposite meaning intended.

Duluth, Minnesota. Fuckin’ ground zero for empty-headed shrill feminist white girls.

If you didn’t know, #WhyIStayed was a de-clawed internet cat swarm that defensively erupted after video of Ray Rice knocking out his adoring now-wife in an elevator emerged. The #WhyIStayed message, if one could call it that, was “Don’t blame women for anything, ever, that goes wrong in their lives.” Really, how else do you interpret thousands of women offering thousands of lame excuses for why they stayed with their sexily abusive alpha male lovers?

There must be an equivalent hashtag called #WhyIHadNoTroubleLeavingMyBoringBetaMaleBoyfriend. There’s not? Oh too bad.

Anyhow, if you sift through this dung pile of feminist ego assuaging butthurt you find a few curious nuggets of anti-feminist truth about relationships and how to keep them going.

“not take her concerns seriously” — women love love love when a man charmingly patronizes them.

“say she caused it” — it may be unethical, but then why does it work so well?

“use jealousy to justify actions” — chicks do dig occasional flashes of jealousy, as long as it’s obvious the man is expressing them with complete control over his emotions.

“make her feel bad and guilty” — reframing.

“play mind games” — that’s one way to provoke a vaginal gusher.

“smash things” — occasional bursts of anger, when justified, are cues of sexy male dominance and they do turn on women.

“make her do illegal things” — the ghost of Bonnie chortled.

“threaten to leave her” — dread game.

“make her ask for money” — because throwing money at women really makes them fall more in love. /sarcasm

“give her an allowance” — if women have no agency in abusive relationships, shouldn’t they be treated like children for their own protection?

“not let her know about or have access to family money” — chicks dig mysterious men. by the way, this PSA is starting to read like an action plan for fleecing wealthy beta males.

“take her money” — aka make a woman feel like she’s invested in you. she’ll try harder to make it work.

“be the one to define men’s and women’s roles” — chicks dig a leader. and they also dig benevolently sexist men!

“make all the big decisions” — because letting women make big decisions works out real well when they’re trying to decide whether to leave an abusive alpha male.

“treat her like a servant” — 50 Shades of Gray has sold millions of copies. To women.

“act like the master of the castle” — this has got to be a feminist secret wish list.

Another day, another drubbing. Thank you feminists, for revealing the holes in your hearts your beboobed beta male lackeys cannot fill!

Read Full Post »

Stereotypes don’t materialize out of thin air. They exist because people make observations and notice patterns, and then draw generalizable conclusions based on what they see and experience. The accurate observations gain traction and become conventional wisdom, until such time the Krimethink Kommissar orders a media brainwashing blitz and the stereotypes are pushed into people’s subconscious world, where they are extracted by white coats in exercises designed to demoralize the enemy, such as implicit bias tests, and through open-source proxies like neighborhood demographics.

Add another widely-held but covertly-discussed stereotype: Not only are avowed feminists ugly and unhappy, they’re manly too!

Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and dominance: A possible explanation for the feminist paradox.

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e. those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

(From the results section):

In summary, the feminist activist sample had a significantly smaller (i.e., masculinized) 2D:4D ratio than the general female samples. The size of this difference corresponds approximately to a 30 percent difference in prenatal testosterone/estradiol ratio, which was the index found to have the strongest association with 2D:4D (Lutchmaya, Baron-Cohen, Raggatt, Knickmeyer, & Manning, 2004). Directiveness self-ratings also exhibit a large and highly significant difference in the predicted direction. It is notable that the feminist activist sample 2D:4D was also more masculinized than those of the male comparison samples, except for the left hand in the aggregate sample (see Table 2).

As commenter chris, who forwarded this study, shivvily exclaimed:

Biology and ideology are intimately entwined. It should surprise no one who isn’t deliberately self-deluding that screechingly insane man-hating feminists are ugly, biologically masculine women who resent their sexual market invisibility to men and crave to rearrange society to accommodate their freakish unfeminine testosterone-drenched psychologies. To take a feminist seriously is to elevate the deviant to the normal. It’s akin to unloading thousands of liberty-loving Somalis onto Minnesota because you fervently believe they are just like Northwest Europeans in temperament and will assimilate any day now… oh wait.

Not coincidentally, the best allies feminists have got are plush, beboobed, effete male feminists who perhaps suffered a toxic dose of mom’s ovary juice while in the womb. We already have evidence that lardassery lowers a man’s serum testosterone, so given the current obesity plague ravaging the aesthetics of Western nations it makes sense that fat male feminists would suckle at the flapjack teats of domineering femcunts belched from the bowels of the Jezbuzzalon beast.

Talk about a sickly stew: Aggro feminists + mendacious manboobs. All the degenerate freak mafia ugly in the world compacted into a dense turd by the Hivemind megaphone for maximum truth-suppression and gimp ego masturbation.

The occasional concern troll will stop by here and ask “Why do you give feminists such a hard time? It’s not like they’ll listen.”

Ah, but the goal is not to reform lumpencronetariat feminist grotesques. They are laboratory pets from whom to excite howls of limbic pain with both the chainsaw and the scalpel. Amplified through the stone halls and domed atria of the Chateau, their pain serves as a lesson and a warning for the others.

Normal, pretty, feminine women may not know it, but they too are targets of feminist malignancy. Cursed with her unchangeable outer and inner ugliness, the self-declaratory feminist wagging her masculine 2D:4D fingers finds succor cutting her distant competition off at the knees. We are all Harrison Bergeron now, except for the dyke-y pigs making the rules.

That strategy will fail, as long as CH stands a citadel above the fetid swamp engulfing the West. Divide and conquer. Victory comes when the sick and demented are isolated and ostracized from the healthy and normal, the cultural immune system returned to full functioning, and the icy wastelands where spiteful misfits go to drown in tears of their unfathomable sadness are once again open for business.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,030 other followers

%d bloggers like this: