Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Feminism is a disease that afflicts everyone, including women, but the twisted ideology’s truly innocent victims are boys. Reader Passer By links to a Carlos Slim Personal Blog article on the “decline of men”. He comments,

Btw, just learned about some interesting studies, posted at the (((NYT)))

Basically they argue that single motherhood weakened mostly the male children, because the sisters in such one parent families perform better in life than the brothers. In normal families, there is no difference or brothers perform better.

In other words, the lack of father harms more the male child than the female child. Therefore if you want to weaken men, push for single motherhood. No wonder jews try to destroy the family in the West, while simultaneously strengthening the family in Israel. There is deliberate push to decrease male influence in western society because jews feel threatened by white males, and by their innate nationalism.

So the next time a woman tells you that there aren’t enough good men, you can answer her: there aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women.

That’s a great truth Passer By wrote. There aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women. Trigger the shit out of any feminist or mangina lackey you come across on twatmedia with that stone cold shiv, and link to the relevant study.

From the CSPB article,

In a 2016 paper, David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., and four co-authors, measured academic and economic outcomes of brothers and sisters in Florida born in the decade between 1992 and 2002.

For boys and girls raised in two-parent households, there were only modest differences between the sexes in terms of success at school, and boys tended to earn more than their sisters in early adulthood.

Among children raised in single-parent households, however, boys performed significantly less well than their sisters in school, and their employment rate as young adults was lower. “Relative to their sisters,” Autor and his collaborators wrote, “boys born to disadvantaged families” — with disadvantage measured here by mother’s marital status and education — “have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions.”

When the children in the study reached early adulthood, the same pattern emerged in employment:

Employment rates of young women are nearly invariant to family marital status, while the employment rates of young adult men from non-married families are eight to ten percentage points below those from married families at all income levels.

Autor and his co-authors conclude that family structure “is more consequential for the skills development and labor market outcomes of boys than girls.”

This study is more interesting than the run-of-the-mill research recapitulating the detrimental effects of single mommery (a major cause celebre of mainstream feminism), because its structure seems to obviate any potential genetic influence into sex-differentiated life outcomes. That is, if genetics were the cause, then the sisters of brothers in single mom broken families would have similarly poor outcomes and behavioral problems. But instead what the researchers found was that single mommery disproportionately affected the life outcomes of boys, leaving their sisters largely untouched (at least as measured by SES outcome and delinquency rate) by the single mommery postindustrial complex.

This isn’t to say genetics aren’t a factor in the shitshow that is single mommery, but it does suggest environmental pressures inherent to single mommery are at least partly to blame for making life harder on boys.

It’s just more evidence that feminism has been, and continues to be, a Hate Machine dedicated to churning out Big Lies about the sexes and about their roles in society, with the express purpose of handicapping boys and men and lavishing extreme favoritism and government largesse on girls and women.

It’s silly to argue feminism is a symptom, rather than a cause, of a broken society when its agenda has directly contributed to so much social disruption, antagonism, distrust, resentment, and national decline. This is like arguing Marxism, Freudianism, Communism, SCALE, and GloboHomoism are symptoms of some deeper, underlying, corrupting force that bedevils the West. Large, society-spanning movements are as much cause as symptom of social degeneration. We’re splitting vellus hairs here.

If one wants to argue for a First Cause of the West’s decline, the most promising culprit would be Hajnalianism, but for some reason those who find SCALE objectionable rarely tackle the subject of inherited empathobesity.

Feminism as a distinctive movement really got started as a vanity project of masculinized or otherwise oddball women who were for various reasons uncomfortable in the world of women. Its leaders — and one shouldn’t neglect to mention the preponderance of feminist leaders were and are Jewish women and their co-tribal male suckups — were able to leverage their gripes to a wider audience of women who had become frustrated and flustered and, in plenty of cases, enthused, by the postindustrial revolution shocks to the social system that, critically, severed fecundity from sex and community from individual.

There was never a feminist movement that had its origins in widespread complaints about male discrimination against working women. That is a myth. Pre-20th Century Western women worked plenty, either on the home or off it. Wives working as apprentices to their husbands’ businesses was fairly common in Medieval Europe.

What feminism has been, and what it remains today, is a propaganda howitzer to mow down the natural order and replace it with an inverted dystopia in which the defining feature is the removal of all constraints on female sexuality and the maximization of restrictions on male sexuality. As in any social movement, the breath of its life emerges first from the sticky goo of the sexual market.

Lies have consequences, and the Big Lies of Feminism and Antiracism have destroyer-of-worlds consequences. They must be fought with a vengeance.

Cordelia Fine, feminist, esq., wrote a book titled “Testosterone Rex”, which she padded with lie atop lie to bamboozle her readers into believing that there are no innate psychological differences between the sexes.

Greg Cochran decided to review the book, and a good thing too, because his destruction of Fine’s thesis is total and complete, and should in a sane world discredit her so badly that the media and academia stop providing her a public platform to propagandize her Femcunt Equalism lies.

She does not want her readers to believe that men and women have different natures – apparently because such differences, or belief in their existence, would prevent social equality of the sexes. Personally, I think the more important question is whether it’s true. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Rather than talk much about differences between the sexes, which would do her case no good at all, she talks about testosterone’s role in creating such differences. Testosterone is a strawman theory, here. Sex differences might be caused, in part or in whole, by biological factors other than testosterone: would disproving an incorrect testosterone-based theory make the differences go away? On the other hand, it might confuse people enough to reduce or eliminate belief in such differences. People are fairly easy to confuse.

***

There are psychological differences as well. Boys prefer rough-and-tumble play, girls prefer ‘intimate theatrical play’. Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys like trucks, while girls prefer dolls. Interestingly, we see similar sex differences in play in other young primates, such as vervet and rhesus monkeys. Young chimpettes are known to carry a stick around, sticks that seem to be stand-ins for future babies – like dolls. Since other primates that are not exposed to anything resembling human socialization [they can’t talk] show similar play preference patterns, socialization is unlikely to be the driver of those patterns in humans, no matter how much Fine would like that to be the case.

***

Men are far more violent than women, far more likely to commit murder [and suicide], in every society. Obviously, if we see it everywhere and everywhen, the cause must be … climate change.!

***

Men take more risks, especially after puberty. Fine attempts to talk this away, as she often does. Her argumentative approach sometimes has a certain mad charm, as when she mentions her baby son rolling across the room to a power drill, juggling knives, and trying to plunge a running hair dryer into the cake mix. I guess that no truly educated person could believe in anything so obvious, so… She also steps up to ” No true Scotsman “. She defines what must be the only correct definition of a risk-prone personality – someone that tends to embrace every possible risk – and if those correlations aren’t perfect, how could there be such a thing as a risk-prone person?

***

Almost all men are sexually interested in women, and the overwhelming majority of women are sexually attracted to men. I’ve heard that there are parallels in the animal kingdom. When you think about it, it makes a twisted kind of sense. Isn’t that a psychological difference? [ed: heh]

***

Fine’s fruit fly chapter is completely pointless. This lawyerly rhetorical technique, criticizing an early experiment in order to snipe at a well-established contemporary theory, was also used by S.J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man, when he argued that Samuel Morton had skewed his measurements of skulls to fit his preconceptions. Which was untrue – but it wouldn’t have mattered a rat’s ass if Morton had screwed up, because the art has advanced very far since Morton’s time. Today we use MRI and CAT scanners to image skulls to millimetric precision.

***

Fine takes a stab at showing that there’s isn’t much point [in terms of extra evolutionary fitness] in men getting extra mates. She comes up with an unphysical and absurd example – mentioning how unlikely it would be for 100 one-night stands to generate an extra 100 babies. That’s totally irrelevant: all it shows is that she’s innumerate. Here’s the practical example: suppose some dude has a wife and a girlfriend next door. Suppose he has intercourse 50 times with each of them over a year – both are probably going to have a kid, while with just the wife , he would have had one. 2 > 1. Am I getting too abstract here? By the way, if sexual selection doesn’t really happen, what could explain men’s huge strength advantage? Eating Wheaties?

Cochran’s flaying of Fine goes on like this for a while. Fine (and Fine-ism) must traffic in an endless procession of lies if it is to have any reason for existence. These necessary lies make them easy targets for unruly realtalkers like Cochran. One might say, for masculine truthtellers.

Feminism (aka Sex Denialism) is one of the two pillars — the other being Antiracism — supporting the greatest lie ever told to Man: Equalism, the religious belief that man is interchangeable with woman and the races interchangeable with one another. Both pillars must be attacked and reduced to smoldering rubble if the White West is to have an opening to revitalize and become great again.

Live not by lies. Which means, live not by feminism and antiracism.

PS I highly encourage CH readers to spam Cochran’s review at Fine’s Amazon link to her Book of Lies. As usual, the reviews are all from agrrocunts and mincing phaggot male feminists giving it five stars. All it would take is one brutal predatory shiv of a bad review, like Cochran’s, to send that rabbit warren scurrying in all directions.

In a fascinating research project, British archaeologists reconstructed the face of a 13th Century laborer from a skeleton excavated in Cambridge.

Physiognomy of the dead is real. The dude even has that alpha smirk.

He was just slightly over 40 years old when he died. His skeleton showed signs of considerable wear-and-tear, so he likely lead a tough and hard working life. His tooth enamel stopped growing during two occasions in his youth, suggesting he likely lived through bouts of famine or sickness when he was young. The archaeologists found traces of blunt force trauma inflicted to the back of his head, which healed over before he died. The researchers aren’t sure what he did for a living, but they think he was a working-class person who specialised in some kind of trade.

Context 958 ate a diverse diet rich in meat or fish, according to an analysis of weathering patterns on his teeth. His profession may have provided him with more access to such foods than the average person at the time. His presence at the charitable hospital suggests he fell on hard times, with no one to take care of him.

Men are expendable, women are perishable. Also, mass scaled society and its attendant disruptions of the link between affordable family formation, fertility, and old age care were evident in Medieval England.

This man looks more alpha than most American men do today. Was he representative of his time? As a poor laborer, I’d guess yes. He didn’t have the wealth or occupational status that would have set him apart physically as well as socially from the masses. His eau de alphatude was likely the norm for his era.

My hunch is that the Good Life has been Very Bad for modern man’s masculinity. We already know testosterone levels are down over the past three generations. Soft hands and crabbed faphands are the mark of modern man, a far cry from the bear mitts of Olde Alpha man. All you have to do is look around at Millennials with their furries and anime and ennui and uptalking and vocal frying and safe spaces and lackey feminism to suspect that a physiognomic, hormonal, physical, and mental degeneration of modren man is rapidly metastasizing.

And perhaps now we have a clue to why modren White woman has taken up the masculinity slack and revolted against her own men.

Physiognomy is real. Which means bitchiognomy is real. You can judge a woman by her cover. As tomjones says,

In my experience, pretty girls have the best face/body AND the best personalities.
Ugly hideous bitches have ugly hideous personalities or okay personalities. I think there is a connection between the physical beauty of the person and the beauty of the soul. Ugly ones still hope that an attractive man will get them pregnant. Then, they can trap the guy.

The Bitchy Hottie is another one of those pervasive sexual market myths that likely has its origins in the seared and stung egos of striver beta males who received polite rejections from hotties and later, reeling from the plugged up poison of their blue ball hallucinations, post hoc rationalized their loss as a victory over a bitch. Genuinely bitchy feminists are also likely candidates for fueling this myth, given that God’s miscreations have an incentive to blaspheme the good nature of Nature’s winning hands.

Yes, it’s a big myth that hot girls are bitches. Some are, sure, (I’ve dealt with a few sassy strumpets), but on the whole pretty girls are nicer than ugly girls. If a woman is treated well her whole life because she’s pretty, she’ll tend to think the world is a great place overflowing with kindness and love. Many betas confuse hot girl rejection for bitchiness, when in reality most hot girls reject men in exceedingly polite terms. It’s the fugs and marginal girls who are nasty bitches when they reject the betas they think aren’t in their league.

Here’s a handy dandy hierarchy of what I’ve observed is the “Bitchiness Quotient” of women at various SMVs along the belle curve:

A BQ of zero means the girl is nearly always exceedingly nice without being cloying. A BQ of 10 means the girl is a fat feminist writer for Salon. (“HB” = Hot Babe. “PJ” = Plain Jane. “UG” = Ugly Girl.)

VHB10 -> BQ 0
HB9 -> BQ 0-1
HB8 -> BQ 1-2
PJ7 -> BQ 3-4
PJ6 -> BQ 5-7
PJ5 -> BQ 6-10
PJ4 -> BQ 4-10
UG3 -> BQ 1-8
UG2 -> BQ 1-4
UG1 -> BQ 0-3
VUG0 -> BQ 0-1

I hope the CH readers have noticed the patterns in the above HB-BQ correlations. First, there’s a general leaning among hot babes and ugly girls toward niceness over bitchiness. Hot babe niceness is explained above (i.e., it’s easy and fun to be nice when the world loves you). Ugly girl niceness is a result of low self-esteem. When you are beaten down by life and have lost all confidence in yourself as a romantic catch, you’ll be nice to people more out of necessity than good will.

UG niceness is similar to the Niceguy’s deference; neither one feels as though they have social elbow room to fly their hate flag or even show mild disapproval when slighted. Neither one would dare express their true feelings to another person or a group if they believed there was even a tiny chance their words would be misconstrued as anything less than fulsome praise or abject supplication. This is the prison low value people live in; a cramped world in which all thoughts are checked to avoid the omnipresent threat, always nearer for them than for their betters, of social expulsion.

However, one difference between the insta-personalities of HBs and UGs is the variance. HBs are rarely unpleasant. In contrast, UGs on the boundary between ugliness and mediocrity span the niceness gamut; not a few are repulsive bitches, having turned to the snark side by an Inner Palpatine coaxing them to embrace their pariah status. Smart, overeducated UGs are the most prominent, and worst, example of this breed. They survive by banding together, so you will rarely deal with them mano-a-monster.

The BQ sour spot is the middle of the female beauty curve, smack dab in Plain Jane country. The 4s, 5s, 6s, and sometimes 7s are the girls who were born into bitchiness, molded by it, and have emerged from the other side skilled at lashing out in the general direction of any approaching man. Plain Janes have enormous chips on their shoulders from endlessly straddling that labial wedge between cute-enough-for-betas and not-cute-enough-for-alphas. The pressure of this wedge is exacerbated by the entitled self-assurance of the omega and beta males who hit on them without their consent, and by the evasiveness of the alpha males who toy with them with their consent.

Plain Janes are as likely, if not more likely, to be bitches as to be half-hearted nicegirls, and when they’re bitches they aim to be the biggest bitches on earth. The Plain Jane is occasionally nice, but then only to men well out of her league, for whom she nurses an unreasonable expectation of reciprocated desire, partly inflamed by the paternal kindness of these men toward her. To all others, including hot women, the Plain Jane is an annoying cockblock too full of herself, unless she has been blessed with a predisposition for circumstance-immune niceness.

High BQ PJs often wind up childless spinsters by their mid-30s because they couldn’t suffer the indignity of settling, especially if they have wasted their prime nubility years on a quixotic quest to ensnare alpha cock beyond the pump and dump statute of relegation. HBs don’t settle (much), and the UG’s gratitude for any man, however lowly, who shows her love overrides her distaste for settling.

Aging beauties are another demo that has a high BQ. Totally understandable, if still noxious. The 21-year-old HB8 who by inevitability of age has degraded to a PJ6 as early as her 30th birthday is right down there with the overeducated UG0 in quickness to resort to repellent bitchiness for no apparent reason. The cunty cougar and odious spinster aren’t stereotypes for nothing.

Ya know, patriarchy would solve all these problems that bedevil mediocre women.

There are a few pervasive sexual market myths that cry out for the tender vivisection only a Chateau house lord can lovingly execute. One of these myths is the notion held dear by sour grapes LSMV men that hotties are dead fish in bed.

Reader Passer By comments relevantly,

i remember when an ugly woman (skinny, though) was asking for advice in some men’s forum. She wanted to know if men are going to prefer a pretty woman that rarely makes sex over her, that can offer great sex. The men told her that they will prefer an ugly woman (with good looking body), if she can make great sex, over a pretty women, that rarely makes sex.

So you could give that advice to such women. Sex up!

The men in that forum are lying. It’s what men do when they want to help a distressed woman feel better about herself. But when the rubber meats the hole, men will betray their stated lofty principles and experience hotter, better sex with a hot woman than with a plain jane. Because of this real world dynamic, men will expend a lot of energy seeking one night stand sex with hot women over relaxing in the confines of a secure relationship with a buttaface who puts out more regularly.

Commeter Tarl inserts a pointed shiv,

If you are so ugly that no man will ever climb in bed with you, then your ability to “make great sex” is irrelevant.

True, and it’s a false dichotomy anyway. An unrealistic hypothetical. The “dead fish in bed hottie” is another one of those dumb feminist and butthurt beta male ego-assuaging foundational myths that has no bearing in reality. Hot chicks are actually more passionate in bed because they know their beauty is a turn-on for men, and they get turned on by watching their men lose control. A mind-body arousal feedback loop sets up that can escalate a hot woman’s carnal passion to heights that ugly women only read about in female porn (aka romance novels).

And it’s even more dispiriting for ugly women than that. Not only are hotter women generally MORE sexually wanton in bed than are ugly women, but men are primed to PERCEIVE a hot woman’s sexuality in more glowing terms than they would a plain woman’s sexuality, EVEN IF the plain woman objectively possessed a broader repertoire of sex positions and wider flexibility to accommodate those positions.

There really is no end to the ways in which being a beautiful woman is better than being an ugly woman.

***

I suspect the dead fish hottie myth first circulated among beta male strivers who had accumulated some experience bedding genuinely hot women. Hot women have hot woman standards, which can play out as sexual indolence on the rare occasions when a hot woman hooks up with an uninspiring beta male. Rejection stings, but sexual rejection is a scythe to a man’s soul, and many such betas cut down by the turtled snatch scythe will rationalize a hot woman’s lack of sexual enthusiasm as her own character defect. The male rationalization hamster exists, though we may say the critter is slower and smaller than the female version.

The Cycle Of Strife

I was having a foreplay-slicking conversation with a talented shivlady about the Scandinavians. (She called them the Ikeans.) She wondered how the Scandis went from savage warrior Vikings and continent conquerors to the weeping pussies they are today. I told her it is one of the world’s greatest mysteries, then explained to her the Cycle of Strife.

Basically, I said, the warrior blood gets washed out after many generations of losing the strongest men to attrition on their rape and pillage high adventures. This leaves the gene pool full of the tepid seed of weaker men, the ones who stayed behind to help raise the children of the warriors when they went off to claim new lands. A new, more compliant, people is born on the home front. Civilization needs these domesticated men. All our modern conveniences — a CH reader says that nearly every invention of the 20th Century occurred in a 300 mile radius around Chicago, which is the settlement of the German and Ikean diaspora — are the result of tamed men cooperating toward the goal of easing the burdens of life, especially those burdens that fall most heavily on the women.

But domesticated men have a fatal flaw: they build civilization only to surrender control of it when comfort and prosperity, and haranguing by their social justice ladyfolk, lull them into a defenseless stupor. Weak, domesticated men like the modern Scandinavians are doomed to roll over to foreign invaders and their single White women sponsors. Then their blood is washed out, and into the vacuum the warriors rise again, reclaiming their homeland, crushing the invaders, and putting their silly women to heel. The Cycle of Strife. It is required.

It’s the cycle of strife
and it kills us all
through phony virtue
through hugs and tropes
till we find our place
overrun with ISIS
in the cycle
the cycle of strife

%d bloggers like this: