It gives great pleasure to the Chateau lordship to bestow upon deserving women the honor of Feminine Woman of the Month. Alpha and beta males, manboobs, and feminists all get their due here, but it is the feminine woman, the woman who defies the weight of social pressure urging her to advance an androgynous ideal with her own clarion call for a triumphant femininity, who more than earns the Chateau’s respect and admiration. In this twisted transculture, few voices, outside of men with descended testes, will speak for the rare woman who accepts her natural feminine role, embraces it, and revels in it.
So the first recipient of the coveted CH Feminine Woman of the Month is Kirsten Dunst.
“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued,” Dunst, 31, said in an interview for next month’s Harper’s Bazaar UK.
“We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking — it’s a valuable thing my mom created.”
“And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armor. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work.”
Some would call this madness. But madness is simply temporally displaced truth.
The sisterhood went psychotic.
The stuck pig always squeals loudest before the killing blow. A vapid feminist entity politely demurred,
“Kirsten Dunst is not paid to write gender theory, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’s kind of dumb about it,’’ wrote Ryan, who evidently considers herself an expert on gender theory.
Notice how this VFE defines the worth of an idea: Are you getting paid to propagandize it? If not, your opinion is automatically discredited. This, folks, is what runaway credentialism unmoored from accomplishment or truth value looks like.
“So I guess my marriage is doomed to fail because I don’t have kids and write d- -k jokes for a living and my husband is more of a cat person than a dog person,” Ritzen concluded.
Her marriage may “survive” — in the loosest interpretation of the word — but her lineage will die.
“THANKS, KIRSTEN DUNST.”
Such butthurtness over a few harmless words about femininity. Why, one would almost think this feminist cunt wasn’t so satisfied with her egalitarian romantic life.
In the newly released issue of W Magazine, Dunst was asked by the mag’s guest editor, filmmaker Sofia Coppola, if she was ever hit on sexually by a director.
“I don’t give off that vibe,’’ she said. “I think that you court that stuff, and to me it’s crossing a boundary that would hinder the trust in your working relationship.’’
Smart girl. Feminists cleave to their victim card like a newborn chimp to its mama’s teat. But it takes two to tango. When young starlets are “preyed upon” by older, powerful directors, it never occurs to these “gender theorists” — or rather, it does occur to them but they choose to ignore that tiny part of their brains where reason and recognizable humanity reside — that women are attracted to powerful men and will flirt with them and encourage on-the-job trysts that can be later back-rationalized as sexual harassment when regret begins to assert its domain.
Maxim #67: Women regret the cocks unwrapped; men regret the poon untapped.
A resurgence of femininity — not “womanization“, which in this zeitgeist is the opposite of femininity — would be a step toward restoring what America has lost. Kirsten Dunst may not be a raving beauty, but she’s cute enough, and who among you men, reading her words like they were an arterial sip from a chalice of life-giving blood upon parched heartlips, didn’t bump up her SMV a half point?
Men desire vulnerable women as women desire self-confident men: Ravenously.