Archive for the ‘Misandry’ Category

Chateau Heartiste was on top of noticing and alerting the public to this trend of feminizing men a long time ago. And now ♥science♥ is providing the ammunition for CH’s mighty Guns of Pattern Recognition.

During the past two decades, testosterone levels in American men have rapidly declined.

This information comes from a long-term prospective study that evaluated changes in serum testosterone on a population-wide basis.

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

“The interesting thing we discovered was that, on average, when we measured the testosterone in the blood of a 60-year-old in 1989 it was higher than that in a different 60-year-old measured in 1995,” said Thomas Travison, PhD, of the New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Mass. “We observed the same phenomenon over a wide range of ages.”

At baseline, the median serum testosterone level was 501 ng/d; at the first follow-up it was 435 ng/dL and at the second follow-up it was 391 ng/dL.

The estimated cross-sectional decline in total testosterone level was 0.4% per year of age (95% CI, –0.6% to –0.2%). The longitudinal within-person decline was about 1.6% per year (95% CI, –1.8% to –1.4%). The age-matched time trend was 1.2% lower per year (95% CI, –1.4% to –1.0%).

The decline was age-independent. “It is a little troubling,” Travison said. “The average differences are not very large, but they are big enough and occurring over a short enough time period to be the cause of some concern.”

These demonstrated population-level declines are greater than the cross-sectional declines typically associated with age, according to the researchers.

So American men really are becoming more physiologically pussified, emasculated, manboobed and womanish. And this hormonal change is expressing itself psychologically. Cf., John Scalzi.

The million milliliter question: Why?

“This population-level decline in testosterone concentrations in men is not explained fully by the usual suspects: increasing BMI and prevalence of obesity, certain other co-morbid conditions or decreasing incidence of smoking. Although the analysis by Travison et al did reveal significant age-related increases in adiposity and medication use and a welcome decline in smoking, the age-matched decline in testosterone concentrations persisted even after adjusting for these variables,” Shalender Bhasin, MD, of the section of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition, Boston University School of Medicine, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

He voiced concern over the decline and its public health impact on American men.

“This magnitude of change during such a short period is disquieting,” Bhasin wrote. “Although increasing adiposity and lifestyle factors that were recorded in the [Massachusetts Male Aging Study] could not account for the secular trends in testosterone level, it is possible that other lifestyle factors, such as increasing use of tight-fitting underwear, increasing room temperatures in American homes and offices during the past three decades, decreased physical activity with increased body mass indices and decreased smoking could have contributed to the declining testosterone levels in men.”

Answer: No one really knows.

May I humbly suggest some other possible causes for the scalzification of American men?

1. Aggro tankgrrls

When the land fills up with aggressively posturing, careerist feminist shrikes on the divorce court warpath, aided and abetted by Cathedral man-haters, the collective response by society’s testes is to ascend behind the sheltering bony plate of the pubis. You could call it the “Junk Tuck and Shuck” theory of increasing faggotry. How this works on a biochemical level is hard to pinpoint, but it makes some intuitive sense that as women gain more cultural power through their own means or a Big Daddy government check, men rationally respond by becoming either smooth talking cads or mewling beta suck-ups. Do women like this state of affairs? Probably not, but as long as men can get the pussy this way, that’s what they’ll give women. The sexual polarity will find its opposing balance, by whatever means necessary.

2. Estrogen in everything

Soy is in everything. So is the effluvium of the Pill. It seems we can’t go a week without some new study touching down with evidence of increased estrogen in our food and water supplies.

3. Lack of a cleansing war/too many men

A culture’s men get soft in the arms of materialist decadence. Never more so than today with so many hindbrain-targeted pleasure stimulators acquired for a relative pittance. Too many men accumulating from a lack of natural (or unnatural) culling means that, thanks to the cosmic directive of female hypergamy, a lot of dispensable, reproductively useless men are piling up. Combine the softness with the uselessness, and it’s a small leap to infer that the male sex would respond, at least at the margins, with a growing acceptance of testosterone-challenged and sexual marketplace-abstaining gayness, broniness, tranniness, and general supine self-flagellating leftoid-ness.

4. Dem friggin fat cows

Maybe male obesity can’t explain much of the trend toward lower T among men, but perhaps FEMALE obesity can explain it. What’s the point of manning up when all your women have womanned down? After all, you don’t have to be much of a man to jerk it to a digital dreamgirl. Fat chicks and porn everywhere have reduced the pressure to find a sexy babe to love, and testosterone levels have responded in kind. What doesn’t get used, atrophies.

There are three guaranteed means available to you, the big swinging CH reader, for battling this scourge of testosterone shrinkage.

- Lift weights
- Approach and hit on cute girls
- Avoid prostrating yourself at the feet of freaks and whiny grievance whores

That’s really all there is to it. And yet, America the Raisin-balled continues bursting with fruit cup flavor, an army of marching manboobs pegging themselves on the cock of feminism, taking orders from prissy, level 99 nancyboys ashamed of the impudence and pale hue of their own peek-a-boo micropeens.

I say screw that labially-wrapped lifestyle. Live loud, live proud, live turgidly aroused. Humiliate the buttercups. Slap your claymore against their tear-stained cheeks. And enjoy the howls of their crippled pain.

Read Full Post »

Hugo Schwyzer, buffoon. Hugo Schwyzer, hypocrite. Hugo Schwyzer, self-proclaimed male feminist leader. Hugo Schwyzer, lover of porn stars, seducer of younger coeds, defiler of the matrimonial vow, potential giver of the herpes simplex Types 1 and 2, self-pegging fap-exposing murder-suicide contemplating part-time homosexing beacon of hope to dumbass feminists and their suck-up allies.

Now we can add one more honorific to Schwyzer’s curriculum vitae: Disgraced, womanly pity whore.

And who, besides Schwyzer himself, helped bring Schwyzer to the depths of the most public of public humiliations? Who was the first to mock his phoniness, ridicule his idiotic male feminist musings, turn him over on the spit for the world to poke with pointed sticks, implicate his supporters and advocates for hitching their fortunes to his ass-kissing self-aggrandizing lies?

Who, indeed.

Schwyster knows all this, too, which makes him a phonyfuck of the highest caliber. The guy spent his early years as a professor cashing in his higher status for the pleasure of fucking his 18-21 year old students. Maybe he is wracked with guilt, and his current ultrafeminist stance is his form of atonement. Or maybe (and more likely, in my view) his hypocritical feminist sycophancy is a ruse to get in the panties of the deluded naifs who take his classes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The difference between me and a lickspittle errand boy like Schwyster is that I don’t go around claiming there’s something psychologically wrong with men for desiring the hot bods and feminine charms of young women. I don’t blame a guy like Schwyster for wanting to stick his dick in his peak fertility students, nor do I stroke feminist egos to earn PC brownie points and page views.

If you want to know who got under Hugo’s skin the most, you need only see which of his tormenters goes missing by name from his meltdown Twitter feed and from his confessionals to less sadistic bloggers than CH.

The reason Hugo doesn’t want to credit the source of his everlasting torment is because CH stuck the shiv in his mottled hide hard and deep, and it’s the twist that still pains him. Unlike many more charitable judgers of Hugo Schwyzer, I feel no pity toward him, nor any incipient feeling of charity. He is a liar, a phonyfuck, a charlatan, and a male attention whore with flapping labia where his mouth should be. He is an enabler of the worst of society, a useful tool conveying the rotten propaganda of assorted losers and misfits and degenerates, singing their off-key tune while he happily cashed in his exploitative scheming for the very nubile rewards his mass of followers tune in to hear him rail against. He is utterly repellent, a lizard in human clothing. I hope that he slices lengthwise, and should he do so, I will dance a happy snoopy dance the likes of which the dark side of the internet has never seen.

But there is a bigger story here than Hugo’s personal twilight, and that is the quickness with which mainstream, widely read feminist media outlets are attempting to bury and conveniently forget their association with Schwyzer. Hugo was, for a long time, a well-regarded paid contributor to such popular feminist and feminism-favoring organs as Jezebel, BlogHer, xojaneThe Atlantic, and The Good Men Project. As Chuck noted,

But a few outlets like The Good Men Project, Jezebel, and The Atlantic took a chance on the history and gender studies professor from Pasadena City College who established himself as a male pop feminist by kissing the right asses and having sex with the right people.  Those outlets have avoided addressing their relationship with Hugo.  Jezebel’s editor Jessica Coen wrote a slippery post which was clearly about her former writer, but she wasn’t willing to actually mention Hugo by name. The post was evasive, and many commenters at the site called Coen out for it since Jezebel generally has a confrontational style.  I pitched my conversations with Hugo to The Atlantic as a tale of how two adversaries had spoken about his troubles.  Maybe my low Klout score kept the editor there from accepting the pitch.  And I didn’t go to The Good Men Project with a piece because they’re boring.  Regardless, all of those outlets saw the same person before them that me and many other critics of feminism saw, but they hosted Hugo for years.  Behold the power of telling people what they want to hear.

Funny how that works. You tell an ego-parched fug feminist what she wants to hear, and she opens her legs to your cock and her internet real estate to your cockamamie drivel, believing… oh, so very believing!… .that the male feminist lunacy dripping like honey into her ear palate was the Word of Goddess Herself. Hugo had a niche, and his sneaky fucker strategy netted him the adulation and the blowjobs he craved. Such a niche is not without its merits, but do keep in mind that being a community college professor to dimwits, however lowly in the academia hierarchy, is the lube that greases the coed skids. Playing the male feminist for fun and profit is not likely to work for the man who doesn’t have that hypergamously-grooved prof podium from which to tingle the tangles of thick-bushed queer gender studies acolytes. I don’t fault Hugo for pursuing this snatch-accumulating strategy. But I do shit in his lying face, and I do shit again in the faces of those who took his lies for truth.

So this is a glorious time to be an anti-male feminist. The wails and the rending of pit-stained t-shirts of the manboobs and the scalzied and the Dumb Hams of the world are the dulcet melodies of soaring symphonies, punctuated by the thunderous cymbal crash of lies being smashed. Ahhh, indeed.

But Hugo is an impenetrable pathological narcissist. No amount of soul shivving, however poison-tipped or torturously twisted to tickle vitals, will bring him the event horizon pain he so richly deserves. A shell entity who lives and breathes publicity, bad or good, will only welcome the psy knife that surgically pries his id. No, Hugo will only feel pain, real pain, when something else, something much more threatening to his ego survival, is presented to him. And that something else is Ostracism Total.

The targets of tender CH ministrations, then, are Hugo’s benefactors as much as Hugo himself. Jizzebel, The Atlantic, Good Men Project… you were duped, but only because you wanted to be duped. You wanted to believe in equalist, man-hating lies that caressed your stunted, shriveled, gimpy souls. You bent over and received the tepid diseased injection of a broken freak who knew how to locate and lick your ascended testes. Losers of a feather…

Jizzebel et al., you are served notice. I have you and your lackeys in my sights, and your filth that spews from the fountain of filth which is your whole stillborn existence is the effluvium I will shove back down your throats until you choke on it and recede from public discourse to clear the shit from your veins. The days when you can hire gutter liars like Hugo Schwyzer, and wallow in his fetid stink free of consequence, are over. Your only hope is to drive the Schwyzerian rats from your manicured harridan shelters, so that your circle diddles may continue under the radar of stone cold soul shivvers like yours truly with an eye and a scalpel for finding and dissecting egoistic neediness.

Then, when you — Jizzebel and the rest of the twisted sisters — have cast Hugo and his fellow castrati to the icy wastelands, will the real howls of pain fill the air to the delight of CH guardians of truth and beauty. For nothing will torment the likes of Hugo Schwyzer more profoundly than the torment of solitude.

Hugo, I know you’re reading this. If my words will bring any goodness and light to this world, your days as a lying sack of shit media token shilling for other lying sacks of shit are over. No one will call you, not even your former feminist allies. No one will publish you. No one will admire cross-eyed your throbbing intellect. No one will talk of you. No one will even think of you. When that day comes, and the barrel of the pistol is nestled in your mouth, lazing metallically on your tongue as your thinning, middle-aged lips glide over the shaft like long-ago unshaven feminist coed lovers used to do to your anti-feminist, patriarchal boner, no one, not even your family, will give a shit.

And that will be the lonely solitary pain from which you can’t escape or repurpose to your craven desires. In that moment, that sweet final moment of true and real reflection just before self-deliverance, you will think of my words, and my reminder that you had a choice to turn yourself against the mountain of lies you willingly embraced as your totem and your fate and your salvation. Sweet dreams, eternal darkness.

Read Full Post »

Is it really good for the children to see their father so pathetically emasculated on a daily basis? That’s the question that swirls around July’s Beta of the Month candidate, a broken man who continues living under the same roof (for which he likely foots the full bill) with his happy ex-wife in a refitted “divorce house” that’s partitioned down the middle.

Monica McGrath and Kent Kirkland are divorced parents of two young children. They live in one house with their children, call themselves friends and borrow sugar from one another.

The Edmonton family gained Canada-wide recognition this month after media attention turned to their family set-up and living arrangements. Part of this attention was due to their custom-built “transporter” house, with two separate sides and a hallway connecting them, but also because they’re doing what many separated couples say they want to do; put the kids first. [...]

Their family model is a version of a “bird’s nest” arrangement where children stay in the house, while separated or divorced parents come to them. Some see this as a model that helps minimize disruption for children. It means they don’t have to be uprooted, trekking from one parent’s house to another’s on a regular basis. Although this model is still rare, experts say it has become increasingly common over the last 10 years. [...]

The adults live on separate sides of the house with a wall between them. Their children’s bedrooms are at one end of the house and connect to both sides through a hallway with a door to mom’s side and a door to dad’s side. The parents alternate childcare week by week. When it’s one parent’s week, the other locks their hallway door.

“They’re both a lot happier now,” Mr. Kirkland says of their children. “Now if they want to see mom, it’s really easy for them to do it.”

Everyone in this family is smiling except for the house eunuch:

Details of his lurid soul castration follow.

They separated in 2010 and have already crossed the hurdle of dating other people, though both are currently single. Ms. McGrath and Mr. Kirkland say that their family arrangement takes priority and that a new partner would need to respect this.

Nine times out of ten in similar situations it’s the ex-wife who’s doing the banging with newly acquired pump and dumpers while the ex-husband has to stuff his ears with pillows to block the thumping moans of sex emanating through the walls.

But as might be expected, there are cons that come with living next door to your ex.

“The emotional side of things…” says Mr. Kirkland. “As Monica put it, there are still feelings and not all of them positive feelings.”

The only sure cure for an ex-wife is moving out of the country and covering all your tracks. Or, you can be all the beta you wanna be and share an exquisitely demarcated home with an ex-wife who loves taking photos of your hang-dog face to show the world how much she has your balls in a vise.

In related news, the West is still collapsing. Event horizon endgame should be any day now.

Read Full Post »

A recent analysis examining the causes of the infamous and demagogically abused “sex wage gap” has found that more than a quarter of the relative improvement in women’s wages is the result of the decline in men’s wages.

In the late 1970s, after a long period of holding fairly steady, the gap in wages between men and women began improving. In 1979, the median hourly wage for women was 62.7 percent of the median hourly wage for men; by 2012, it was 82.8 percent. However, a big chunk of that improvement – more than a quarter of it — happened because of men’s wage losses, rather than women’s wage gains. [...]

This cannot be blamed on economic stagnation. Between 1979 and 2012, productivity – the average amount of goods and services produced in an hour by workers in the U.S. economy — grew by 69.5 percent, but that did not translate into higher wages for most men. Over this period, the real wage of the median male dropped 7.6 percent. This is a new and troubling disconnect: In the decades prior to the 1970s, as productivity increased, the wages of the median worker increased right along with it.

Furthermore, looking at the median wage understates the losses many men have experienced since the 1970s. For men with a high school degree, real wages have fallen by more than 14 percent. It is not the case, however, that men’s wages have fared poorly since the 1970s because men do not have the right education or skills. In the last 10 years, even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.

Nor are men’s losses are due to women’s gains. The forces that were holding back male wage growth were also acting on women’s wages, but the gains made by women over this period in educational attainment, labor force attachment, and occupational upgrading, along with greater legal protections against discriminatory pay, initially compensated for adverse forces. In the last decade, however, women’s wages have also dropped. [...]

The decline in unionization alone explains about a third of the rise in male wage inequality (and about a fifth of the increase in female wage inequality) over this period.

Together, these policies have eroded the individual and collective bargaining power of most workers, depleting access to good jobs. In other words, these policies have served to make the already-affluent better off at the expense of the rest.

As any halfway informed reader will tell you, the supposed discriminatory basis of the sex wage gap so beloved of femcunts for its usefulness as a blunt semantic weapon to cow lickspittles of the Undescended Testes Society into submission, is utter bullshit. Now there is evidence that some of the wage increase women have experienced is less a consequence of GOGRRL ambition than of FUCK MEN economic policies.

Automation, illegal infiltration of cheap labor, outsourcing, H1B insourcing, the move to a service and health economy that favors women’s strengths, cultural derision of men’s strengths… all these things plus more have combined to economically shaft men. Coupled with the declining attraction of self-sufficient women for beta providers, is it any wonder that marginalized men are faced with the stark choice of cadding it up for muff and puss lips, or dropping out entirely?

The answer to this problem isn’t pat, but we could start with these CH suggestions:

- Stop pedestalizing women on a mass scale. This means drop the “lean in” schtick and the “white male privilege” dorm room BS sessions. Embrace the innate biological differences of the sexes and stop bitching and moaning when the consequence of men and women following their natural compulsions leads to organically emergent disparities in pay or social status.

- End all quota programs and affirmative action. Men, and white men in particular, pay the brunt of these redistributionist schemes.

- Ditch the legal concepts of disparate impact and disparate outcomes. These two fallacious theories have exerted more deceptive subversion on US law and government policy than any other.

- Close the borders. Deport the illegals and their “naturalized” children. Lower supply of labor = higher demand for labor = higher wages. Bonus: Revoke the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

- Immigration moratorium for forty years, followed by a restructured immigration policy that primarily favors Northern Europeans. America was largely built from the ground up by a particular group of people. Radically altering the demographics of America assures that the country will change, irrevocably, in line with the abilities and psychologies of the new and different groups of people comprising her. Some people are fine with this, but what those people won’t be able to say is that America will continue to be anything like the America she has been during her rise to world bestriding greatness.

- Decentralization, and how. The federal government has acquired too much power. The IRS and NSA scandals are evidence of a centralized regime attempting to corral too many people of too many differing temperaments, abilities and behavioral idiosyncrasies into a benign, mollified, indistinguishable mass of Pavlovian consumers. The states must grow in power, or the federal government will cede them their power by events out of its control.

- Gut the humanities departments of colleges. These departments and their increasingly malign spin-offs have become nothing more than warehouses for women pursuing useless degrees in feminist boilerplate and discredited blank slatism. A big chunk of the growth in female college grads is in majors like Communications and Women’s Studies which amount to debt accumulation programs and memetic delivery systems for leftoid propaganda. Online education, tenure abolition, and job-offers-per-graduate debt relief loan contracts are all possibilities to reduce the stranglehold that the Cathedral Hivemind has on higher education.

- End international free trade. Two billion Chinese and Indians is a lot of cheap labor to churn through before the markets rebalance and wage labor costs rise in developing countries. In the meantime, a lot of Americans will suffer with no relief in sight.

- Shorten the work week. Rapid automation of jobs previously done by humans and increasing cognitive demands of non-roboticized jobs means an increase in the number of people who are, for all practical purposes, worthless in the economic market. The upside to automation is cheaper products. This means a four-day work week is feasible since employees won’t need as much money to purchase pleasure-maximizing gadgets.

- Reconfigure finance regulation so that the huge wealth inequality that is a consequence of insiders and the lucky high IQ few taking advantage of private equity markets unavailable to the general public is alleviated. This means some “conservatives” will have to abandon their pro-business mentality in favor of a more nuanced grasp of how the free market shakes out when the cognitive elite are permitted to prey on the less genetically fortunate.

- Make welfare contingent on contraceptive use. Offer the option for a guaranteed lifetime income in exchange for permanent sterilization. All voluntary, all eugenic, all humane. No need to worry about a future of Matt Damons blowing up your Elysium.

- The downside to automation is that, eventually, there won’t be anything left for human people to do. You may call this a Luddite fallacy, but the logic is inescapable: Returns to productivity get undermined by ever larger pools of people unable to generate an income stream. You say there will be more need for people to service the robots, but that requires a baseline cognitive profile that is likely higher than what we have now (thanks in big part to immigration-fueled dysgenia), or higher than what we needed in the past when new tech supplanted older tech. The solution to this problem is the consideration of a government guaranteed income, again contingent upon birth control use.

The tsunami of evidence that men, women, and races are fundamentally and intractably different in important and relevant ways to the hedonistic principle — first, do no self-harm — is going to wash over the ruling class so forcefully that they’ll have no choice but to jettison their ballast of lies and rise to the surface, or sink into a murky oblivion weighed down by hoary platitudes of the past. This means equalists will have to become comfortable with the reality that some people will do better in life than other people, and there is no one to blame for this except the distant cosmic overlord.

Men can win again. And when men are winning, women win too. How is that, you ask? Well… chicks dig a winner.

Read Full Post »

Watch this segment on a gayly gay talk show. The mighty, gray-haired warrior male interviews two “””men””” and a woman living together in a polyandrous arrangement. (It’s silly to bless this perversion with the honorific of a relationship.)

Both of these men are betas. Maybe you could even call them functioning greater omegas. Why not just call them omega males? Because omega males are typically incapable of getting sex from any woman who doesn’t resemble a dirigible or an extra from the Star Wars cantina scene. At least these two males are, presumably, having some kind of sex with this rather fetching woman of desirable waist-hip ratio and slender BMI.

But one of these males is definitely the bottom bitch in this losers’ triangle. He is the one used for purposes of satisfying the woman’s emotional whoring needs, and for puttering around the adult playpen cleaning up the scattered sex-stained undergarments that the other male leaves on the floor after doing his job as the house cockubine.

He is the lesser beta, and his mission in life is asexual supportiveness, LJBF intimacy, trips to the pharmacist to get the morning after pill when male #1 forgets to pull out, and reflections in the cuckold corner hunched over his effortful pud, wet-eyed and trembly, as the other two housemates pound it out for his emasculatory benefit. Once in a blue moon she services him with a dreary handjob so that he doesn’t stray too far from his duty as harem pit crew.

Can you spot which of the two males is the lesser beta? Take a moment.






Watch closely from 0:38-0:42.

Catch that?

A woman’s real feelings — her true unadulterated distilled purified desire — will rarely escape from her lips in the form of words. It will, instead, shoot from her fingertips, or emanate from her pelvis, or infuse the air around her thighs, or pierce the nicety veil from her hardening eyes. A woman’s words deliver the message of her brain. A woman’s body delivers the message of her vagina.

Near the ends her hamster reveals, “It didn’t mean I had to end this relationship with male #2. I could get my needs met with someone else.”

What a glorious hamster. So strong, so fit. This rodent must never stop running, because the three-way polyandrous arrangement is bottled lightning. Even weepy, scalzied lesser beta males have their id-shaped breaking points, and a woman who is getting both her sexy stud and provider dud needs met in one complete, if bifurcated, package requires an elite, special forces hamster that can spin up at a moment’s notice. Translating the above from its original hamsterese, we learn what the woman is really feeling:

“It didn’t mean I had to face the prospect of losing my kitchen bitch right when I was about to have a love child with another man. I could get my pussy ravaged by a slightly less repulsive man while still getting all the household help and emotional indulgence from a beautiful male feminist a mentally unbalanced woman like myself needed.”

It should not surprise the reader with which of the two males she decided to have her über bastard.

The starkness of the perfectly delineated two male-one female polyandrous circus is a powerful metaphor for the much larger and more accessible reality of the looser, serial soft polyandry that characterizes the dating market of late stage cultures in decline. There may not be many women willing to abide dating two men concurrently, let alone living with them in the same love shack, no matter how sufficiently those men placate the female dueling desires for sexiness and provider assurance and are willing to surrender their balls to the chopping block, but there are certainly plenty of women happy to date an alpha male and use a beta male on the down low for his gift of anhedonic attention. The male orbiter beta brigade plus the alpha male lover is a close approximation of polyandry in the wild.

Read Full Post »

PA, one of the dark right’s consistently quality commenters, writes at GLPiggy:

When working on obtaining permanent residency for the foreign spouse, you are both interviewed by an ICE agent whose job it is to decide if you’re a real couple or not. Applicants (US citizen sponsor and the foreign fiancee) are advised to bring photos of the two of you on dates and other evidence that you’re a bona fide couple. They ask you things like the color of each others toothbrush, and things like that.

The agent who interviewed us — I was in my early/mid 30s then and my fiancee in her early 20s — HATED HATED HATED me. She gave out an enormous Ivy League lesbian feminist vibe, and kept trying to trip me up on facts. My demeanor was one of amused mastery layered with crocodile-grin politeness, and I’d produce every kind of documentation she’d ask for. I was genuinely amused by the process. At one point she asked me with a note of exasperation “are you a lawyer?” She ended the interview by telling my fiancee “make sure you get an education and know your rights as a woman!” or something to that effect. Good times.

By the way, I believe we were the only white couple in the entire waiting room filled with hundreds of other applicants that day.

Having known a few European-background foreigners of exceptional mien who journeyed through the (legal) US citizenship gauntlet instead of just doing the easy thing and jumping the border, and having heard their stories of woe navigating layer upon layer of inexcusably combative cunts and sneering diversity hire ballast, I can attest to the authenticity of PA’s experience.

So this is what America is becoming: Land of the Ivy League dyke and home of the anti-white bigot. A degenerate army of feminist and racialist bureaucrat multicultists who not-so-secretly despise white men staffs our government agencies, top to bottom, front to back, floor to ceiling, cubicle to cubicle, shore to shore. The very immigrants we should be welcoming with open arms — smart, white Europeans — are the immigrants to which our (literal) gatekeepers are most hostile, preferring instead to smile broadly and swing the doors widely to indigent Somali tribesmen.

Way to put your best face forward, America!

No homo, but I would trade one million American lesbian feminists for one foreign-born PA. It wouldn’t increase my competition — that’s one million fewer man-hating beasts despoiling my environment and spreading the virus of slothful fatassery among the few remaining slender American women — and it would add one more ally in the war against the ideological perversion known here as equalism. And if you think America isn’t stacked and packed with one million quasi-dyke feminists, well, you haven’t been here long enough to appreciate the comprehensive cave the voices of reason made to the forces of treason.

America is no longer the country she once was. She’s now a fragile papier-maché prop containing nothing but wire hanger and air inside her. Won’t take much more than a match to burn her sad effigy to the ground.

Read Full Post »

Hugs is back in the news, and I can’t resist his mewling charms. So sue me.

Two articles of note. First, a Jezebel twisted paean to May-December romances penned by The Matriarchy’s First Lapdog himself.

Age Is Never Just a Number: How Girls Got Older Men/Younger Women Right

Though “One Man’s Trash” has been the most-discussed installment of this season (and perhaps of the entire show), much of the commentary has focused on the mind-blowingly insipid suggestion that a woman who looks like Lena Dunham doesn’t “deserve” a man who looks like Patrick Wilson. The focus on the imagined attractiveness disparity between the two actors misses an equally meaningful plot line: the appeal and the challenge of age-disparate relationships. [...]

Tellingly, Hannah asks Joshua how old he is before she even knows his name: that Joshua is so much older seems to be an inextricable part of his appeal. The doctor’s affluence and handsomeness and stability are obvious, but Hannah seems more drawn by the age gap than anything else. Joshua, meanwhile, is fascinated, if a little bewildered by her boldness. Though a few male writers found the hook-up totally implausible, the mutual attraction is both believable and instantly familiar.

So Hugs is saying here that it’s totally normal for Lena Dunham’s homely character to be attracted to a high status man 15 years her senior. Ok, for a Hugo Schwyzer mental burp, this shows a reasonable grasp of the reality of sex differences in mate preference. But….

The storyline works because we live in a world where 42 year-old men are taught to find 24 year-old women more appealing than their own female peers.

Ah, that’s the old feminist water carrier we’ve come to know and loathe. Hugs, you are such a darling rimjobber. Do you even believe the runny shit you expectorate, or is it all a dog and fatty show for the benefit of your paying feminist overcunts? To ask the question is to mock you.

Like feminists, Hugo shares a propensity for boldly contradicting himself within the span of two sentences. In the confines of Hug’s hugbox, it’s normal for women to be attracted to older men, but “””society””” has to teach older men to be attracted to younger women. Women’s desires = natural, normal. Men’s desires = unnatural, societally conditioned.

It could never be the case for a felching manboob like Hugs who has sold his soul to the succubus that older men’s attraction for younger women is natural. Or that maybe… just maybe… the innate desires of both men and women, however divergent, are natural and normal and biologically hard-wired.

Yes, hard-wired, Hugo. From birth. Issuing from the hindbrain. Immune to cultural reeducation programs. Cemented in primeval neurons shaped in the crucible of evolution by millions of years of natural and sexual selection.

If it’s mentally taxing for you to grapple with the idea of innate, immutable sexual desire, think back, Hugo, to the time of your blossoming youth, when you first laid eyes on that young man with the broad shoulders, glistening chest, and conspicuous bulge in his Ocean Pacific shorts. Much to your surprise, embarrassment and volcanic shame which would sculpt the trajectory of your life, a boy boner sprouted from the downy thicket of your pubescent pride. You wept, beautifully.

Do you remember that time, Hugs? Yes, yes, of course you do. And you remember, as well, that it was no social conditioning or nebulous cultural influence or amorphous patriarchy that provoked those wild and lustful urges in you. Those urges, you will recall, rose unbidden from the depths of your being, like a thermonuclear blast through your sinew, to explode into the world and forevermore make mockery of the drivel you spew to this day.

Commenter anonymous writes:

…is [Hugo] real or some kind of sockpuppet. Surely no actual man believes that men are merely “taught” or conditioned into being attracted to 20+ yr old women?

He is as real as the beneficiaries of his delusional ego-assuaging largesse want him to be. No, I don’t think Hugo actually believes that men are taught to desire younger women over older women. But I wouldn’t bet on it. The West is filling up with simulacra of actual men who have swallowed the rancid feminist jizzbombs by the bucketload, and are begging for more. A willing mouthpiece like Hugo finds purchase today amongst a cacophony of loudmouthed losers who would have stayed ensconced in their hermit holes fifty years ago, brooding it out to themselves instead of polluting the internet airwaves. The Rise of the Hugo is a story of the Fall of the West.

To demand logic, reason, good faith, common sense, or accountability from the Hugo Hordes is a fool’s errand. There is apparently no contradiction or inconsistency or hypocrisy or lie too craven for the house eunuch to call into service if it wins him a contemptuous pat on his gelatinous bottom from the circle of shrikes. Hugs, is the sacrifice of your dignity worth the accolades from a bunch of psychologically and physically defective losers? Please tell me you are at least tapping some of the better feminist ass your humiliating masochistic spectacle ought by rights to procure you.


Article of note #2 was not penned by Hugo, but it was about him. After a quick read, I’m not all that interested in commenting on the substance of the article (it’s stupid, as is the case of most Atlantic articles lately), but I am perplexed why the Atlantic writer — a Mrs. Raphael Magarik — would write a term paper on Hugo Schwyzer’s internet persona and his psychological motivations without consulting the authoritative reference guide on the matter.

Come on, Raph, how about throwing a link bone to your betters?

Never mind. I can see when I’m not wanted. *sniff*

PS Hey, Hugo! Are gay men taught by society to desire other men?


PPS Even when Hugo stumbles on a truth, he wraps it in foul-smelling lies. Here are two quotes from that Jizzebel article which demonstrate Hugo’s inability to speak truthfully.

Ask 20-something women on OK Cupid or other dating sites how many they receive from men 15 and 20 years older; ask women in their 40s how many guys their own age seem primarily interested in pursuing much younger romantic partners. The “cougar discourse” doesn’t change the reality that most heterosexual relationships with a substantial age gap still feature an older man and younger woman pairing.

Check out this slippery eel known as the male feminist. “[T]he ‘cougar discourse’ doesn’t change the reality…” Well, no duh it doesn’t change the reality! The cougar discourse affirms the reality that men of all ages prefer younger women. Hugo, is the “cougar discourse” saying something to the opposite of that reality, or are you just an oily snake dissembling for the sake of your fat cunt readership?

As she so often does, Hannah reverses the stereotype by being the sexual aggressor —

What Hugo omits here is the more reasonable interpretation that Hannah’s (Lena Dunham’s character, a hard 4) sexual aggression is not a deliberate ploy to flip stereotypes on their heads, but the necessary forfeiture of a dumpy, unattractive woman required to capture the sexual attention of an alpha male who’d sooner pursue a much hotter woman were one conveniently available. Hannah has to literally throw herself at this dude to get him to dump a fuck in her. She has to make it EASY for him. Making it easy is the only way marginal women who aren’t warpigs manage to get laid with attractive men. And then not so much; the strategy fails as often as it works, because men exercise discrimination in choosing mates, although on average men are less discriminating than women when sex is the goal. (Men are more discriminating than women when relationship commitment is the goal, and that’s why frumps like Hannah rarely get high status men to commit to them, which is the true measure of a woman’s romantic worth.)

Even if Dunham didn’t intend this interpretation, this is what actually occurs in the real world. Hugo could note that; but that would mean he had a spine.

and Joshua’s intensely grateful reaction suggests not just surprise at her boldness but also, perhaps a kind of relief that a woman in her mid-20s finds him still desirable.

The relief is for the zero effort he knows he’ll have to put in.

Forget the dick-wringing from male writers

You rang, fucker?

about how a hottie like Wilson would never go for a young woman who looks like Dunham.

Define “go for”. In real life, handsome doctors do not go for tubalards like Hannah, no matter the age. They go for slender babes. The tubalard may occasionally get serviced by a very tired or depressed Joshua who just got off the bender of a bad divorce, but he won’t be dating her or sending her flowers, or even seeing her in public. And your strawman notwithstanding to the contrary, what Hannah does or doesn’t deserve has got nothing to do with it. It’s horny turtles all the way down.

Not only does that woefully underrate the sex appeal of the Girls‘ star,

You’ve gotta be kidding me. Oh man, you are such a lickspittle. Tell me, would you say your wife is more, or less, attractive than Lena Dunham? Try not to squirm answering this.

it also obscures the reality that having a younger woman walk into your house and make the first move is a classic middle-aged man’s fantasy.

Only if she looks like Megan Fox. Try to keep it real, for once in your life, Hugs.

Read Full Post »

Khaaaaan has a post up about a German study which purports to show that the cuckoldry rate — situations where the presumed father is not the biological father of the child — in Germany is around 1%. (Via Glpiggy.)

A few words on that. First, misattribution of paternity can occur in any number of ways. Steve Sailer left some good comments over at Khan’s blog that illustrate in real life, flesh and blood scenarios how cuckoldry rates can be misattributed. Nevertheless, I’m not here to argue that the 1% figure is wrong. In fact, the 1% figure is higher than I assumed. Look at it this way: That recorded 1% cuckoldry rate is more than 30 TIMES the US recorded rape rate of 0.03%.

Besides the actual rate, there are other angles to this id-loaded topic that are worth exploring.

A flaw in assuming present-day cuckoldry rates align with historical cuckoldry rates is the fairly recent widespread availability of contraceptives and abortion. How many women who sleep with interloper males are using birth control? Probably most, and more so if those women are higher SES. How many are aborting the fetus, should contraception fail or not be used, before hubby finds out or is doomed to raise a child as an unwitting cuckold? Again, I’d guess most. That 1% figure may simply be a reflection of the fact that cheap and effective modern contraceptives bite into a possibly larger historical cuck rate. And since our sexual natures are the product of millions of years of fine-tuning, it would make sense for male jealousy and mate-guarding instincts to have evolved, especially if the real cuckoldry rate (and not just the “don’t worry, I’m on the Pill” shadow cuckoldry rate in which the act is performed but the consequence is averted) in the environment of evolutionary adaptation was considerably higher than 1%.

Or: Don’t start hedging your bets that women are no more than 1% evil.

Then there is the issue of serial monogamy. Serial monogamy is much more the norm now than it was in the past. Women on second marriages (or on post-divorce second dating lives) bring their kids from the first marriage into any new relationship. As much as the new boyfriend or husband might not want those bastards around him, he is going to participate in their raising in some form or another if he plans on banging out the mother for any length of time greater than two weeks. He is, in effect, a de facto cuckold, albeit an informed and, presumably, voluntary one. (Though the definition of voluntary is a bit loose when one is put in the position of weighing the odds of future fux against the pain of supporting present bastards. Duress matters if you are a desperate beta male willing to put up with snot-nosed shit to get some floppy, aged action.)

Women, too, are subject to unwelcome participation in the raising of unrelated children if they are in second relationships with divorced single dads, but in practice this punishment is not meted out to women nearly as often as it is to men, because it is usually the ex-wife who has full-time custody of her kids, or the single mom who is solely raising her hatchlings, and hence it is usually the sloppy seconds beta male who is getting the screws by groveling for sexual relief from these SMV leftovers.

So there are really two kinds of cuckoldry: De facto and deceptive. The latter is far worse from a moral calculus (it really is the equivalent of female rape, except the pain is dragged out over eighteen years) but the former is no less an indictment of the growing dysfunction of the modern sexual market.

Read Full Post »

CH, what is best in life?

To mock your enemies, see them driven to hysterics before you, and to hear the mooing of the fatties.

That is good!

You’re damn right that is good. This post will continue a proud tradition.


If someone told me, “Hey, did you know fat women married to in-shape men have worse marriages?”, I would reply “Who doesn’t know that? A man married to a fat sow will be unhappy, and if he has options he’ll start looking elsewhere. Common sense.”

Well, unfortunately for those who are inclined to give the masses the benefit of the doubt, the world isn’t filled with sane people who trust their lying eyes or who grasp rudimentary logic. The world, especially the Western world currently 5,000 feet from terminal velocity impact, is filled with delusional dregs, ego-assuaging equalists, fantasy world feminists, and puling porkers. Great fun if you’re a psyche-smashing sadist; not so much fun for normal people living in post-sanity secular societies who inevitably wind up footing the bills for these loudmouthed  losers.

Hot on the heels of, oh… ballpark estimate… one million previous CH posts about the penalties fat chicks suffer in the dating market and the personal health market (and now, the marriage durability market and happiness market), comes a new study which finds that fat wives of healthy-weight husbands have worse marriages.

Using dyadic models, we found that mixed-weight couples, specifically couples including overweight women and healthy weight men, reported greater conflict both generally and on a daily basis, compared to matched-weight couples; however, general conflict was reduced with greater perceived support from the partner. Mixed-weight couples who reported eating together more frequently also reported greater general conflict. These findings suggest that mixed-weight couples may experience more conflict than matched-weight couples, but perceived support from the partner can buffer this conflict. This research suggests that interpersonal dynamics associated with mixed-weight status might be important for romantic partners’ relational and personal health.

The researchers veer a bit into PC territory in their conclusion, so it will require a truly malevolent force to spell out the take-home lessons of this study in flashing neon lights that no one, not even hare-brained hogs, can possibly misinterpret.

Lesson Number One

Men are repulsed by the sight and feel (and smell) of fat chicks. All further lessons flow from this basic premise.

Lesson Number Two

A man with options to do so will choose a slender babe over a fat chick, EVERY TIME. (Rare exceptions prove the rule. Or: Don’t count on miracles, fatties.)

Lesson Number Three

A man married to a woman who has bloated into Hogzilla proportions will become increasingly unhappy, frustrated and resentful, and will express his displeasure with his fat wife in both passive and active ways.

Lesson Number Four

A fat wife is more harmful than is a fat husband to marital health and happiness. Fatness exacts a bigger toll on a woman’s sexual market value (and, therefore, marital market value) than it does on a man’s sexual and marital market value. Men are more visually oriented than women, and a fat man can compensate for his fatness by being attractive in other ways that women love. Fat women cannot compensate for their fatness except by losing weight and slimming down to a sexy, hourglass shape.

Lesson Number Five

Fat wives increase the odds of spousal adultery and marital dissolution. A wife who lets herself go on piles of cakes and cheesy poofs is primarily responsible for any infidelity her husband commits. Harsh, but true.

Lesson Number Six

A husband will be more likely to love, cherish and support his wife if she is thin. Life is conditional. Stop crying, and deal with it.

Lesson Number Seven

The cure for marital unhappiness and a lowering of the high risk of divorce among fat wife-healthy man couples is the fat wife losing weight until she has regained her attractive, slender, feminine shape. Marriage counselors will invariably bleat tired platitudes about “interpersonal dynamics”, “increasing perceived support”, and “unresolved masculinity issues”, and none of their solutions will work except to line their filthy pockets and turn wives against their husbands. They are worse than useless, because they lead women away from the one tried-and-true solution that *will* fix their marriages: losing weight.

Any questions? Or would you stubborn fatties and fatty apologists prefer the whistling lash upon your stuccoed hides a few more hundred thousand times?

I can already hear the trolls and transparently bad-faith skeptics.

“So fat women should marry fat men. Then all will be good!”

All will be good if you don’t mind living like the walking dead.

Mutually fat couples have no reason to rejoice. While thin husbands are more apt to distance themselves from fat wives, emotionally and sexually, fat husbands feel just as much frustration and resentment. Fat dudes are just as disgusted by fat chicks as are thin dudes. The difference is that fat husbands are less able to act out their frustrations without risking divorce rape and subsequent involuntary celibacy. A man who is forced by his lack of options to settle for a low quality woman will quickly acclimate himself to his dour circumstances, or suffer daily blows to his ego no man could withstand for long without the assistance of soothing psychological contrivances. The Acclimated Man (a subspecies of The Manipulated Man) will then become a simulacrum of the fox who cried sour grapes because he couldn’t grab the juicy fruit dangling just out of reach.

“I’m a thin woman reading CH for the rapturous tingles it inspires in my vaginal core, and all my (carefully screened) girl friends are thin, so how bad could this problem be?”

The Walking Fed

See here for an animated map going back to 1985. Gripping (gimping?) stuff.

“Fatness is genetic. Fat chicks can’t do anything about it.”

Bullshit on stilts. See above graph. There’s no way fat crappery can increase that much in a population of hundreds of millions in the span of 25 years by genetic selection alone. The best the “fat gene” crowd can argue is that most humans are wired to put on excess weight in an environment of plentiful sugar-rich, high glycemic index carb food and sedentary lifestyles. That isn’t the same as saying fat people have fat genes rendering them immune to efforts at long-term weight loss. What it means is that fatsos have to stop eating pastries and pasta, and start getting off their double wide asses and moving their limbs more than they do when reaching like an obese infant for a cookie on the kitchen countertop. The worst of them could begin their training by discarding the Walmart scooters for walking.

No fat gene hypothesis is needed to explain the growing army of lardbuckets and the shitty marriages they leave in their battle cruiser wakes. The answer is staring everyone in the face. The reason there are so many fat chicks in the world, and particularly in America, is because THEY CHOOSE THE PLEASURES OF FOOD AND IDLENESS OVER THE PLEASURES OF PLEASING MEN. That’s it, fatties. You choose… poorly. And you *will* pay the consequences. Forever. Or at least until you push away from the table.

“Thin, attractive wives sometimes suffer spousal infidelity and emotional coldness, too. So how can you say fat is the problem?”

This is the mirror image of the MGTOW false dichotomy fallacy (“If you hit on women, you are a beta because you have to put in effort to meet them.”) Feminists often employ this tactical fallacy when confronted by bleedingly obvious facts of human nature that remind them of their low status in the sexual value hierarchy. Just as MGTOWs, handicapped by their shut-in, stunted understanding of the innate differences between men and women, can’t fathom how a man can be both alpha and happy to approach and seduce women he desires, so too do feminists and their ilk betray a studied lack of comprehension about the effects that women’s degree of desirability has on men’s motivations.

A feminist sees a slender girl get cheated on by her asshole boyfriend, and the feminist’s stretch garment, Möbius strip mind promptly infers that being thin and sexy offers no more protection from infidelity than does being fat and gross. The feminist does not explore other, more likely, possibilities, such as the idea that hot babes are more likely to hook up with alpha males who have more temptations to suppress, or that the thin wife who suffered her husband’s infidelity probably would have suffered a lot more of his infidelities, and a lot earlier in the marriage, had she been overweight instead.

“But I read somewhere that fat people live longer than thin people?”

Not so fast. One dubious meta-analysis that contradicts literally thousands of individual studies showing the deleterious effects of fatness on health should not inspire confidence that being fat is A-Ok. However, let’s assume for the purposes of troll patronizing that overweight people really do “””live””” longer than thin people. Suffice to say, such extended longevity would come at a cost. There are the healthcare expenditures to treat all the illnesses that arise from being fat, of course. Then there’s the fact that most people would prefer a quality life as a thin person that ends, at last, rather peacefully in deep sleep, rather than a stricken life as a fatso waddling out an extra year or two on one diabetic foot and aching joints, wheezing and puffing and pants-pissing recklessly because any visible signs of graspable genitalia were lost long ago.

There is furthermore the obvious point that none of this feeble protesting about the supposed lack of health consequences of fatness has anything to do with the topic under discussion, which is that fat women repulse and drive away their husbands. Even if fat women are the healthiest people in the world and will all live to 110, that doesn’t change the fact that they are aesthetically repulsive to nearly all men. Thin people outcompete fat people in the dating market in the ways that matter because people, all kinds of people at all kinds of weights, prefer to gaze upon the lithe contours of slender bodies (for women) or V-shaped fit bodies (for men) rather than the undulating rolls of blubber on fat people. If fat craps don’t want to lose weight for their health, then they should lose weight for the better impression they’ll leave with others, and especially with those of the opposite sex whom they desire as romantic possibilities.

“Shaming fat women won’t work.”

Oh, really?

A leading health academic has called for fat people to be ‘shamed and beat upon socially’ in order to halt the obesity crisis.

In a controversial article, Daniel Callahan, the 82-year-old president emeritus of The Hastings Center a New York think-tank specializing in health policy ethics, calls for increased stigmatization of obese people to try spur weight-loss across America.

The senior research scholar says fat people should be treated like smokers who have become increasingly demonized in recent years and thus ‘nudged’ by negative attitudes of those around them into giving up the unhealthy habit. [...]

‘The obvious target would be the large number of people who are unaware that they are overweight,’ he writes in the paper printed in the center’s first periodical volume of the year.

‘They need, to use an old phrase, a shock of recognition. Only a carefully calibrated effort of public social pressure is likely to awaken them to the reality of their condition.

Get this hero a free copy of the forthcoming CH book!

Shaming works. If it worked on smokers and “””racists”””, it will work on fatties. Shaming isn’t the sole solution to the obesity epidemic, but it is a powerful weapon against the marching manatees. Shaming fat women to lose weight will bring increased happiness to the world, and that’s a utilitarian argument men can spring to life for!

The shaming stick coupled with the encouragement carrot is a potent combo. Be genuinely helpful and complimentary to women who are sincerely making efforts to lose weight. Remind her, in nuanced language as necessary, that a reward of feeling better about herself and having a more exciting (read: more pleasurably orgasmic) dating life await her on the other side where thin women take their desirability for granted. But the carrot should always follow the stick, like you might give a dog a treat only after it has done what you commanded of it. Too little shame, and the carrot becomes an excuse to avoid the hard choices, or to delude oneself that no improvement is needed.

Let’s end on a positive, uplifting note of encouragement: Shame on you, fatties! Shame! Shame! Look at yourselves. You’re all a bunch of triple decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwiches wrapped in a casing of subhuman sausage flesh. Blue whales sonically laugh at you. Your smegma hiding stomach folds have spawned a new species of armored crevice mice who nibble on your mouth droppings. Your pets eagerly await the feast that will accompany your untimely sofa-bound death. You are the reason a cottage industry of ass-wiping implements exists. The sight of your dumpy hind quarters can reduce a porn star’s viagra- and yohimbe-fueled hard-on to an inverted micropenis in less than a second. Whole villages of gnomes have been found ‘twixt your enormous buttocks. When you pinch a loaf, sewage treatment plants go code red. Your clitorii can fill hot dog buns. Your manboobs can spray milk from ten yards. You sicken me. You sicken everyone. Admit it, you even sicken yourselves. For shaaaaaaaaaaaame.

PS Since lower class women are fatter than upper class women, (smart ladies know what matters in the big picture), it behooves all men of taste who care about preserving pleasing female forms to engage in noblesse oblige, before the habits of the lessers percolate upward and become the habits of the betters, or what zee French call noblesse obese. There used to be a grand Iron Junk tradition where higher class men would scavenge lower class women for their pretty secretaries and nurses, because upper class women tend also to be battle-axes and egregious status whores. And the lower class women, for their part, loved that system. What cute, economically depressed girl wouldn’t relish an opportunity for love with a charming Gatsbian? But now, these men have nowhere to turn for tender female company; the lower classes have become untouchable, in the strictest sense of the word. So this is why the CH anti-fatass campaign is both pro-man *and* pro-woman… and pro-egalitarian! Making lower class women attractive again will help break down class divisions. Never let it be said the Oracles of the House of Heartiste aren’t generous of heart and willing to share their bounty with the rabble.

Read Full Post »

No One is Entitled to Commitment: Why We Should Mock the Great Girls of OkCupid

“I don’t really have a lot of sincere girl friends, nor boyfriends. Most men say I am great, but then don’t call back.”

Those are the words of a solemn, Skrillex-sporting young chick in her dating profile, a profile that recently became the first post of 2013 on Great Girls of OkCupid. GGOKC, Kerry Id-Baker wrote, serves up “a roster of self-proclaimed ‘great girls’ who are actually total sluts;” in quotes culled from each woman’s profile there are familiar laments about being “too intimidating,” getting stuck in the “fuckbuddyzone.” There are also expressions of sheer rage and man-hating threats of violence: “all I want you to do is Lorena Bobbitt yourself, so you know what it’s like to live without penis privilege.”

Great Girls of OkCupid is a “dispiriting catalogue of desperation and man-hating entitlement,” writes Larry Penii for the New Statesman. Pathetic and infuriating in turns, the profiles selected for inclusion elicit gasps and manly chortles – and they raise questions as well. Is it right to mock these aggrieved and clueless young women, particularly the ones who seem less enraged than sad and bewildered at their utter lack of committed romantic success?

“This is the ugly bullying of those who already feel like losers,” says Arnie Fagg, a columnist for the Guardian who writes frequently about femininity. “It’s immoral to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.” In an email, Fagg suggested that GGOKC could be “potentially dangerous,” driving those who are at a “low ebb emotionally” over an edge, from where mainstream feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Shyster have already leapt.

Without entirely dismissing Fagg’s concern that some young women’s rage or despair could be worsened as a result of GGOKC, there’s a lot more to the site than mockery. What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the lovelorn malcontent; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of female romantic entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young women who were told that if they were great, then, as Larry Penii puts it, they feel that men “must be obliged to commit to them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young women feel cheated and used. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to men’s resources and long-term commitment in exchange for rote expressions of sexuality, these girls have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Romance Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Great Girls sabotage their chances of ever getting a husband with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Great Girls of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to romantic commitment. (Except, of course, with one’s own self.) Generations of children have misunderstood Thomas Jefferson’s line that we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. I was one such kid; when I learned those words in fourth grade (in 1976, the bicentennial year), I marched home and told my mother that I was owed joy. Mama firmly set me straight on the distinction between the right to want and the right to be given, and I have taken this lesson in rehashing cliches to heart ever since. Great Girls need a similar sort of come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse them, once and for all, of their insistence that in a just and democratic society, charming, reliable penis ought to be distributed equally to every Tara, Haley, and Deb who demonstrates a minimal level of sexiness. (And then I need a come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse myself of the notion that switching the places of Dick and Harry in the well-worn Tom, Dick, and Harry phrase is the height of creative writing.)

Romance with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional relationships provided for them by others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent aging and cranky women on trips to LA to see romance workers, aka gigolos, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. GGOKC reminds us just how many young women are outraged at this reality that pretty faces, femininity, and commitment-worthiness are not and never can be equally distributed.

Arnie Fagg and others suggest that it’s “immoral” to make fun of young women whose greatest crime seems to be that they’re stuck at the sad intersection of Not Hot and Dimwit. The plea to replace mockery with understanding is a familiar one; it’s what lies behind the calls to stop using the word “slut,” because women find it shaming. But in the case of Great Girls of OkCupid, disdain isn’t rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these girls may be prone to imminent psychosis, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that men owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn’t so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Great Girls’ sense of entitlement to both relationship commitment and sympathy.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Great Girls is their contempt for men’s sexual interest. They rage about being “pump and dumped,” and complain about the hours spent fucking men without being given so much as a candlelit dinner in return for their investment. Sexuality, they make clear over and over again, is a mere tactic, a tool that they were promised would work to give them access to men’s economic and emotional resources. Their anger, in other words, is that their own deception didn’t work as they had hoped. It’s a monumental overask (?) to expect men to be gentle with the egos of women who only feigned noncommittal sexuality in order to get commitment.

So how should we respond, when, as Penii writes, “sexist twatwaddery puts photos on the internet and asks to be loved long time?” The short answer is that a lonely twatwad is still a twatwad; the fact that these girls are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the men they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn’t make women’s pain into men’s problem to solve.

Do these women need dating profile makeovers? Yes, obviously; making an effort to have both good grooming and good manners is seldom a waste. What the Great Girls of OkCupid need far more than feminist braggadocio, tramp stamp removals and binge drinking rehab, however, are two essential reminders. No one is owed committed love. And no one who uses sex as a strategy for romance has the right to complain if she ends up with neither.

This Chateau Heartiste article reprinted from its original publication outlet.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,947 other followers

%d bloggers like this: