Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

A year late and a neural synapse short, the New York Beta Times has stumbled upon a dusty CH tome and (re)discovered an obvious fact of the sexes: Domestic servitude makes a man undesirable in the eyes and loins of his woman.

A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.

This news so shocked the NYBTimes readership that the high IQ assembled emptied their bowels en masse and vaulted the article to #1 most-emailed. In a den of liars, a simple truth is meme-king. Quoting the CH bastion of enlightenment,

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology. May the losers of the world quake and fall to their knees before its divine directive.

You may now take a moment to ponder what terrible, horrible, no good, very bad truths the high priests of leftoidism will scare themselves into noticing next. Down the hall, second door on the right… what’s that you’ve found? Biological race differences? Good God, man! Brace yourself against something sturdy! Third floor, door at the end of the hall… women love badboys? Lawdy it’s another breathtaking nugget of common sense! You’ve just loaded your diaper. There there, dear.

Let them have their circus act. Whatever they need to keep those UES cocktail party invites flowing, and their naughty thoughts checked before their self-admiration is wrecked. It’s all fun and games unless $$$trillions$$$ are wasted on turning their self-medicating lies into public policy. Woops.

Read Full Post »

Have you ever wondered what drives some women to the cult of feminism, when every real world observation refutes nearly all the foundational premises of feminism? Why do so many women cleave to such a wrong-headed, insipid ideology?

Chateau Heartiste explained the phenomenon of feminism as shivvily as possible:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Feminists, in other words, nurture a fantasy that by sheer force of blather they can remake the sexual market to suit their every whim and desire while curtailing to the maximum extent possible any romantic choice enjoyed by men.

This theory neatly clarifies the motives of all sorts of poopytalk that dribbles from the cheetos-stained lips of feminists. To wit:

Indignation over fat/slut shaming = Demands to be simultaneously as physically repulsive and depraved as one wishes while remaining attractive to any man one desires, regardless of men’s wishes to the contrary.

Social conditioning of sexual preference = Religious belief that men’s sexual preferences can be changed to find fat, ugly or old women attractive, while at the same time any preference women enjoy is empowering and immediately satisfiable.

Patriarchal oppression/privilege = Unfalsifiable rationale for the depressing consequences that unattractive women endure in the sexual market. Promotes idea that low SMV women can be happy once “male oppression” is defeated.

Rape culture = Limitless choice to women to redefine their sexual experiences however they please, (and to benefit from the labeling as they see fit). Men, in contrast, are burdened with automatically impugned guilt for any sexual transaction they may enjoy.

By the Beard of Amanda Marcotte, alongs comes ♥♥♥science♥♥♥ to slurp the CH knob to completion.

Value-added commenter (yes, value-added… hint hint to you dopier commenters) chris writes,

My God. I think he just described feminism here:

Second, high status and very attractive women need less help and protection from other women and are less motivated to invest in other women (who represent potential competition). Thus, a woman who tries to distinguish or promote herself threatens other women and will encounter hostility. According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

He is talking about this study here:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1631/20130079

Abstract:
Throughout their lives, women provide for their own and their children’s and grandchildren’s needs and thus must minimize their risk of incurring physical harm. Alliances with individuals who will assist them in attaining these goals increase their probability of survival and reproductive success. High status in the community enhances access to physical resources and valuable allies. Kin, a mate, and affines share a mother’s genetic interests, whereas unrelated women constitute primary competitors. From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.

So feminists’ promotion of anti slut-shaming and anti fat-shaming and anti ugly-shaming and anti single-mother-shaming etc, is really just an execution of women’s intra-sexual competitive strategies. It’s the bottom third of women versus the top two thirds. Or perhaps it’s the bottom quarter, as if I remember correctly only 20-25% of women identify as feminist.

With knowledge such as this, you can easily reframe any leftist/feminist argument about a war on women as instead a war by the bottom loser women against the top successful women.

It’s the SU’s (Sluts & Uglies) versus the HB’s.

The benefit of such tactical reframing is; what woman wants to be seen as a loser (ugly and slutty) and not as a winner (beautiful and lovely)? What woman wants to belong to the bottom quarter and not the top three quarters? To admit this would be to destroy their feminine egos. With such reframing, you could get the hamster working for you.

Great stuff. It’s a nifty addendum to the CH Theory of Feminism above. Low SMV women embrace feminism as a social mechanism to alternately decrease competition from more beautiful women and increase the sexual choice of, and the access to societal (read: male) resources for, uglier women.

Elevating the status and the perceived value of the ugly and the monstrous, and simultaneously disparaging the normal and the healthy, is the true motivation of feminists. Their nefarious goal is the renormalization of society and the sexual market to a lower aesthetic; one that is more congenial to the fates of the unloved women.

Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.

Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.

Interestingly, a case can be made — hell, a case WILL be made — that the American obesity epidemic and quack-wave feminism have risen in lockstep out of necessity. As the population of reproductive-age women has increasingly become fatter and uglier, the number of women needing the equalist semantics of feminism to assure their place at the sexual market table has grown (heh) accordingly. More fatsos = more equalizing cant.

So you see how obesity, feminism, and equalism intersect, interweave, reinforce, and gluttonously feed each other. CH makes no glib assertion when we compare the obesity plague to the ugliness and lies of feminism and equalism. They are all born of the same toxic mentality, issuing from the breast of the Lord of Lies himself, and their waste and foulness and repugnance and stink and deception flows outward like hellshit, suffocating truth and beauty under an ash cloud of offal.

To the casual observer, a random fat chick may seem to have no relation to, say, anti-white animus. But they are connected in ways deep and true, even if the players themselves remain unaware of their invisible binds. This is why, when you fight one, you fight the other. Strike a shaming blow against obesity, and you draw blood from a degenerate open borders scumbag and a screaming banshee pushing for women at the front lines.

As a count or countess of CH, your enemy is, and should always be, the enemies of truth and beauty.

Read Full Post »

The title of this post comes courtesy of commenter PA, who writes:

Behold the Twenty Commandments of Involuntary Celibacy:

The comments that follow are awesome — and each is hugely upvoted. A small sampling:

21. Don’t take advice from a columnist that just spews generalizations on Yahoo.
22. Instead, read the Comments section for real advice

Or:

My stomach turned after reading this. If a woman wrote this, no man would want to know her. This is sick. Reason why some men stay players for life, just to remain sane. Even players know when a good woman comes along. Even a player can have a change of heart and or mind.
Such writ-ups are the corner-stones players are built on.

Yes, the “Twenty Commandments of Involuntary Celibacy” is in reference to a Yahoo post called “20 Ways to Please a Woman”, written by a female pop culture borg entity. Here’s a few gems of her vapid boilerplate:

Be understanding if we’re workaholics
Don Draper’s got nothing on us.

Because a woman loves nothing more than a man who only wants to see her five minutes a week, when she isn’t slaving away for the patriarchy.

Don’t expect us to diet
Being skinnier is not that high on our priority list.

But it is high on men’s priority lists. And women don’t stay happy for long when their boyfriends aren’t happy being with them.

Don’t expect us to be gym fiends
Aside from your average stress-busting yoga – but it’s more for the head, not the body. If we want abs, we’ll get them. But not for you.

This is something women tell themselves all the time, but the reality is that looking good feels good because your DNA directive is to make yourself as attractive as possible to men with options, thus ensuring better survival fitness for any future children.

Be cool with the fact that we make more money than you
We can go Dutch!

Then maybe your post should’ve been titled “20 Ways to Please a Man”.

Bring us cookies when we had a crappy day at work.
Storebought or from scratch, either way.

Because there’s nothing like fattening up your girlfriend to make it easier to break her heart and leave her.

Let us watch our Bravo in peace. Better yet, go do something else while we watch.
Tease me all you want, but my addiction to Real Housewives of New Jersey doesn’t mean I’m not still smarter than you. You know it, I know it.

No, watching twat schlock doesn’t necessarily mean you’re dumber, but it is a leading indicator.

Just say what you are feeling instead of being weird.
Use your words like a big boy.

Yes, chicks really dig men who emote profusely like a View hag.

Do the dishes.
We can take turns.

And chicks love men who do the dishes. Oh, wait

Remember our friends’ names, at least the important ones.
No, that’s not Jessica, that’s AMANDA.

You know what you call a man who easily remembers your female friend’s name? A cheater.

Be a good cook.
There’s almost nothing hotter. Especially to a girl who can’t cook.

And there’s almost nothing less attractive than a woman who can’t be bothered to cook a home meal. Be thankful you’re not a fat chick, because that’s worse.

Love our pet, even if you secretly hate our pet.
Especially if it’s a cat.

If you’re considering whether you need to ask permission to do something (like hang out with an ex), ask permission.
She should be cool with it, but it shows that you’re considerate of her feelings.

You know what’s really sexy to women? Toadies.

Read books.
Not just nutritional labels and Men’s Health while you’re on the treadmill.

Swap out Men’s Health for Vogue, and this is about as clear a case of projection as one will find on the vaginanet.

Don’t crash girls nights
No men allowed.

If you’re dating a man who wants to join your girls’ nights out, you’re doing it wrong. Or you’re dating a beta. Same diff.

So there you have it. If you’re a man who never wants to get near a vagina, follow this woman’s guide to pleasing her sex. You’ll be in the friendzone faster than you can unzip your fly and twiddle it to barely legal porn. A leetle rule of thumb you should keep in mind whenever you read nonsense like this article by Anna Breslaw: Women are thinking of that inconsiderate alpha male they really love and whose cock they can’t gobble fast enough when they write empty-headed crap like this. They’re reformulating the alpha’s refusal to commit as their frustration with his inability to suck up like a proper beta male. This sophistic legerdemain makes the pain of the alpha male’s commitment rejection easier to deflect. It’s no longer “his choice”; it’s her choice to live single and free and careening to spinsterhood because he doesn’t do the dishes.

But of course as anyone who’s got the slightest sexual experience with women knows, a woman in love will never let go a man who leaves his underwear on the floor. The alpha male lover is forgiven everything; the beta male wooer nothing.

Read Full Post »

The question put before us, gentlemen, is why the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, lies about the sex wage gap and the nature of its origin and scope, as he recently did during his State of the Union address, and in so doing assists in propelling it further into the media narrative as the nefarious plotting of boogymen misogynists, when an obscene preponderance of evidence exists in the literature on the subject disproving any favored notion that the sex wage gap is caused by male discrimination or similar hobbyhorses of the cackling feminist collective.

Gentlemen, ignorance of the facts is no excuse for propagating lies and stupidity, particularly when those lies cause real suffering to segments of the population, but willful ignorance is especially inexcusable in the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama. Of all men, he should know best the power of lies from a public representative to contort opinion and sacralize injustice against political enemies. Of men of station, he is most keenly aware of the truth and the requisite need to seek it, and so his insistence on spreading bald lies is all the more malevolent, coming as it does from a fount of spite and ill-will rather than a forgivable foolishness usually characteristic of the lower classes.

Why does President Barack Hussein Obama lie, then? More importantly, how can we, the assembled, end his reign of lies? You gather here, under the stone carapace of this haunt, to discuss just these weighty matters. Intimations of revolt whisper in the halls. Mutterings of secession, even civil war, trickle like condensation from winter windows. A slow heating rage, its potency strengthened by patient superintendence, arcs like static electricity on the deep pile rugs.

The verdict is unchallenged. President Barack Hussein Obama is a willful liar. He lies with breathtaking expediency and has as little concern for the truth as suits his political calculations or personal pique. He is aided in his mendacity by coteries of lickspittles and an opposition, such as it is, of cowards. Any hope that the light of truth might penetrate the hardened bunker of the current administration and its houses of sniveling, ineffectual partisans must be abandoned. The truth rarely glides to prominence on the feathered wings of angels. Instead, it drips from the bloody edge of swords.

Read Full Post »

Chuck has a great exposé on Wendy Davis, the Texas Democrat gubernatorial candidate who’s been lionized by the mass liberal media as some sort of working single mom superheroine.

If your values are inverted, then, yes, Wendy Davis would seem to you an icon for the age. Her life resumé reads like a leftoid wet dream.

- Lawyercunt. Could it be any other way?
- Single mom.
- Crusader fighting the good fight against “old boys’ network”.
- Poster bitch for grrlpower.
- Self-supporting Harvard grad.
- Beacon of liberal hope in backward, inbred, red state Texas.

The truth about Wendy Davis is somewhat less heartening for her loyal spinster army.

- Lived with her mom for a while after she dumped her first husband.
- Relied on the patriarchy — her father — for a job as a waitress at the theater he owned.
- Married her second husband, Jeff Davis, who is 13 years older than her.
- Jeff Davis paid for her final two years at college, and then for her Harvard Law School tuition by raiding his 401(k) savings.
- The DAY AFTER he made the final payment on her Harvard school loans, the golddigging, scheming, sociopathic, hypergamous cunt filed for divorce.
- This proud single mom relinquished custody of her kid.
- In Jeff Davis’ divorce affidavit, he cited his ex-wife for adultery.

Heroic single mom, my squat-hardened ass. This anvil-jawed broad is a con artist and a leech.

Allow CH to drop some truly hideous truths into your lap today.

Single mommery is not heroic, apart from a few special circumstances (e.g., war widow). The single mother who has tragically and prematurely lost a husband and a father to her children is not a single mom; she’s a widow, and like any befallen widow her extended families and her neighbors will feel the pull of charity and rally to her aid, and give her and her children comfort and love. This will redound to the children’s benefit. But the single mom who cavalierly disposes of a good husband and father, or who makes a poor, tingle-inspired choice of mate, will not inspire nearly the same outpouring of charity and love from her families or neighbors. Her bastard spawn will suffer in part from this organic casting out by those on whom she expects to rely.

The institution of single mommery — and let there be no doubt that the equalists are attempting to elevate the single mom lifestyle to an honored place in American society — is a cancer on civilization. Single moms who are in their predicament by choice or by cumulative bad decisions are vectors of societal disease, bearing with them the rotten fruit of a new generation of misfits, degenerates, orcs and orc-incubators. They are not to be lauded; they are to be shunned. Ridiculed. Insulted. Shamed. Driven from the body politic like a virus, surrounded by healthy white blood cells and cordoned off from the functioning of vital organs. As a lesson for the others who may be teasing with the idea of following the same malignant life path.

But our body politic is weak, suffering from an autoimmune disorder that is incapable of identifying viral agents let alone expelling them before lethal damage is inflicted. Instead of watching Wendy Davis laughed out of the public sphere, she collects millions in feels money from feminists and their leftoid lackeys who excuse or ignore her malevolence with the same alacrity they pounce on those who commit the slightest realtalk offenses against PC boilerplate.

Wendy Davis is one woman — specifically, she’s one cunt — in the wasteland of a deathstruck nation, but the exquisite arrangement of her life particulars makes her emblematic of the times. It’s rare to find encapsulated in one gnarled specimen so many modern ills and torments and false gods; a woman that lies built. For this reason, Wendy Davis is the iconic American woman for the young century. She is the mudpie that the slouched beasts lift up and proclaim art. She is anti-truth. She is anti-beauty. She is death, destroyer of worlds.

Read Full Post »

DAN IN ATL passes along wise words from a long-gone species of man: The keen observer of reality.

In his classic study “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Tocqueville included this gem:

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things–their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”

The twisted roots of American feminism trace back to the motherland: Europe. To find the malevolent pool of black goo that belched the feminism-equalism battleaxes-of-evil, you need to journey to the ancestral lands of your forebears. For most Americans prior the 1965 White Dissolution Immigration Act, that means the lands of Napoleon, Richard III, and Kaiser Wilhelm.

Weak men and disorderly women. de Tocqueville saw clear what many of us living in the grip of his realized dystopia cannot or will not. Time enough has passed; the weakness spreads and the binds of men and women fray. We had warnings. Why didn’t we heed them? Because, perhaps, free will is illusory. We crash in the machinery of these ageless, infinitely looping social cycles, rattling like loose nuts, dimly grasping the exhausted end we’re hurtling toward, but unable to do anything about it save rust within the decay. Our hopes and aspirations, it appears, exist in precarious balance with an ineradicable death wish.

Read Full Post »

Occasionally, barely concealed incipient concern trolls will ask why CH gives so much shit to obstreperous fatties instead of just leaving them to their moribund misery.

The answer — besides a vigorous reminder that CH is not a camp of saints — is that loud and proud fatso promoters deliver a caustic, soul destroying message that will increase the total amount of ugliness and unhappiness in the world should women reading their lies start to believe them. Fat apologist feminists who insist on writing manifestos excusing or rationalizing or glorifying their fatness, or slandering anti-fat crusaders, will get, and do very much deserve, both barrels of the shivgun. Call it environmental activism. Call it the penile erection protection program.

Lies must be met with truth. Ideally, that truth comes packaged in stylistic ordnance that explodes in a shower of entertaining dazzle for fence-sitting gawkers and liquidates the central processing egos of the blubbery lie machines. Utterly annihilated, their demolecularized fatty essence scattered to the wind, the suffering fat chick (and it’s almost always a chick claiming fatness is fine, which should tell you something) howling in pain and impotent indignation serves as an example for the others: If you spread filthy lies that cause, intentionally or consequentially, women to be stripped of their beauty and thus men deprived of their happiness, CH will be here at the ready, the tip of its nimble hate spear plunging deep into your ululating hindbrain, probing, excavating, and finally stabbing with the force of a thousand unleashed hells the heart of your scarred, coal black id.

Fat shaming now, fat shaming tomorrow, fat shaming forever! MOOAH!

Read Full Post »

This was the advice of an Italian female author of a bestseller book titled Cásate y sé sumisa – “Get Married and Be Submissive”. The book is now a hit in Spain, where the fertility rate of the native Spaniards is very low as one prime fertility generation of women after another squeezes into the crowded and expensive cities to pursue the accumulation of alphas and gadgets instead of betas and cherubs.

Naturally, Spain’s feminists (is there no Western nation safe from the shrieking of the clams?) are outraged, OUTRAGED I tells ya, by the book’s premise, and are, as is the wont of this subspecies of open-minded and tolerant leftoids, calling for it to be banned.

The book, which was a bestseller in Italy, preaches a message of “loyal obedience, generosity and submission” on the part of the new wife and offers nuggets of advice for the newly-wed on how to please one’s husband.

The book currently appears at number 15 on the Amazon bestseller list in Spain but has raised the hackles of modern-minded Senoras who even staged a public demonstration against the tome, where they tore up copies.

Women’s groups are considering legal action to get it banned arguing that it promotes gender violence.

Here is a photo of the Italian authoress, Costanza Miriano, advocating a wife’s submission to her husband:

Here is a photo of a group of Spanish feminists tearing apart copies of the book:

I could drop the mic right here and walk off stage, confident that the argument against the feminist position, such as it is, remains incontestable. But tragically there are still people in the world who believe raw ugliness exerts no influence upon one’s warped beliefs or bizarro worldview, so the shivvings will continue until morale improves.

One passage suggests: “We [women] like humiliation because it is for a greater good.”

The Story of Oaths. Women in traditional marriages are happier than women participating under more “egalitarian” marital auspices. Lovely Costanza is correct; the nature of women… unchangeable, sculpted in the crucible of a millions-year old mating environment that has bred in them an instinctual adoration for the powerful man who by force of will extracts from his lovers a damegeld, i.e., submission to his prerogatives… is a wild beast that needs a dose of loving humiliation to remind it for whom it ploughs and pleases.

Miriano has touched on something important here, something very dark and naturally suited for examination by the learned scribes of Chateau Heartiste. A woman seeks her submission to a better man, belying her own socially greased words to the contrary, and will take the measure of a man in part by his willingness to indulge in humiliations, usually small, sometimes great, as proof of his worthiness.

What does Miriano mean by “for the greater good”? I believe she alludes to an idea articulated at CH in the past: the idea that women’s unbridled sexual nature is wilder and more dangerous than man’s sexual nature, and that leaving women’s ravenous desire to its own devices — that is, giving women the freedom as demanded by feminists to hunt in an endless chase for perfect romantic fulfillment, no matter the consequences — will in the end breed deep discontentment, and the restless queefly quest that can never be quenched will transform the ancient courtship rituals into an acid bath disintegrating the last fibers of social connectedness.

Women, slave to limbic compulsions far beyond the mere abilities of prefrontal willpower to contain, need a man who will stop them embarking on this quest, whether embarking in reality or fantasy (both are caustic to social and familial bonds in their own ways), and the only assurance that a woman will be satisfied leaving the quest behind is if a man wrests her from pursuing it.

The author claims the book is based on the teachings of St Paul and that a perfect wife should be submissive.

Paging Matt King…

“It’s true, you’re not yet an experienced cook or a perfect housewife,” she writes. “What’s the problem if he tells you so? Tell him that he is right, that it’s true, that you will learn. On seeing your sweetness and your humility, your effort to change, this will also change him.

Smart women understand that men won’t move heaven and earth for unfeminine shrikes. Even an ur-leftoid like Maureen Dowd, by way of a fortuitous brush with brotherly reality that would have made her a wiser woman had she heeded the unmissable lesson instead of lied to herself her whole life for status whoring points at her New York Beta Times cocktail circuit, comprehends that feminine niceness, and nothing but feminine niceness, is a balm of which men will never tire.

The sassy, snarky, arch bitch inspires the competitive instinct in men, and weakens their protective instinct. Men won’t feel motivated to change for a woman who isn’t capable of evoking vulnerability and, yes, submission. Men will fuck the invincible modern woman, and then leave her unloved, untroubled that such a woman softly weeps herself to sleep at night.

Granada’s Archbishop Francisco Javier Martinez, who chose to publish the book has defended its content and insists that the furore surrounding it is “ridiculous and hypocritical” in a society that allows abortion, which he argues is a much clearer example of violence against women.

The Fifth Wave Feminist: Keep hacking at those fetal limbs but zero tolerance for awkward nerds committing microaggressions by telling dongle jokes.

The present condition of Western elite thought is unsustainable. Something will give, soon. And then those who always felt the Western world was amiss but were too cowardly to say so without twelve layers of sniveling PC ass-covering will embrace the wrought iron door to the Chateau and enter, imbibing its teachings without apology, without reluctance, and with only regret at having not arrived sooner.

Read Full Post »

Sane people don’t need studies to confirm the bleeding obvious, but it’s nice to reference them when they become available, if for no other reason than to remotely relish the psychological pain such studies assuredly cause the insane platoon of pretty lie pushers. Our latest ♥science♥ shiv is a feminist id killer. 1,000 brain scans were analyzed and averaged and a pronounced difference in the neural circuitry of male and female brains was discovered.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

I propose a meme. Instead of elaborately trolling feminist, cismutant and porksternormative boards to elicit fits and wiggles, or futilely peppering freak covens with hatefacts (you may as well put an algebra book under a retard’s pillow and hope he wakes up fully versed through osmosis), try dropping this pointed, simple meme in every fembot comments’ section you can find, JERKBOY CHARISMA emoji-style:

You could title it the “Salty Feminist Tears” meme, and send it on its way, like an ugly truth vector through a population of immunity-compromised boobarians. More:

Read Full Post »

Senior Management: the harem kings.
Management: the first wives.
Accounts Support: the inner circle concubines.
Sales Support: the trafficked East European sex slave.
Support Team: the royal penis washers.
Account Managers: the threesome coordinators.
Business Managers: the young dick sucking upstarts.

There you have it, the modern corporate harem, in all its flowcharted glory. Seven women per one high status man. A more illuminatingly succinct snapshot of the Western sexual market aligned with the globalizing economic market you won’t see. The only surprising thing about it is the lack of any land whales or witches among the female staff. This is Britain; you’d have to spend years scouring the countryside to find and place that many bangable women under one corporate umbrella. So you know a lot of hard work went into developing a staff that looks like a country with all its men and war pigs removed.

The other thing that’s missing from the chart: Beta males, the invisible demographic.

The four kings at the top of the Spermular Solutions organization may or may not be boffing their happily indentured servants (but if you had to bet…), however the exact dimension of their relationships with their underpantslings is irrelevant in the bigger scheme. These women are, no doubt, enthralled by the power of their male masters. They don’t need to be taking their masters’ cocks to experience the same feeling of submissive joy that a real concubine would feel. All those women are de facto harem girls, at the beck and call of their four alpha kings, gossiping and tittering amongst themselves like court mistresses to determine who is the favored girl of the moment.

This social and quasi-sexual dynamic, playing out across corporate hierarchies all over the West, pollutes the minds of women and renders them less able to appreciate the dull ministrations of the less-than-senior-management beta males that buzz about them outside the office. In the company of beta males, a de facto corporate harem girl is emotionally aloof, cocksure, unfeminine, petulant and entitled. She has felt the presence of a real modern king, a maestro of the symbol manipulation secret society, and now peasant men simply won’t do. So she lashes out at the piss bucket boys with undirected, malevolent spite, for their naive importunings fill her with disgust. Who are these nobody betas, to consult her? She has warmed the cock…les of a king’s heart! No commoner’s girl is she!

What the corporate West is becoming is a soft concubinage of a few alpha males and many attractive female HR drones whose job it is to protect the privilege of the transnational globalists by acting as a gatekeeper against infiltration by wrong-thinking elements and potentially powerful competitors. That’s the real story behind the graphic above: the total disenfranchisement of the West’s beta males. If the poor bastards can’t be disappeared the old-fashioned way, drive them out with “anti-discrimination” sophistry.

Naturally, foul feminist cunts and their bubble-headed beta male toadies immediately saw a “glass ceiling” at work in this corporate chart. For them, a workplace that is 90% female is discrimination against women if the top four positions are held by men. All the lesser men who are missing from the bottom 90% ranks are completely forgettable, nebulous specters resembling some human shape and form. Beta males? Who? What? Is that a new social media app?

I have a helpful reminder for the feminists and kingpin ruling elites waving victory signs and placards demanding further concessions from the sexless masses of men who have little left to sacrifice: When you lock out 90% of men from productive society, really bad things tend to happen in the wake of your short-sighted selfishness.

Update

It gets better. As if more confirmation was needed that what we are witnessing is the legitimization of soft concubinage, the fine alpha males at Spermular Solutions held a bikini contest featuring their charges. The winner was the guy holding his mic.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,842 other followers

%d bloggers like this: