One Reason Why Feminists Are So Ugly

Besides being objectively ugly, that is.

A study found that angry female faces look less feminine.

Rockville, MD – “Why is it that men can be bastards and women must wear pearls and smile?” wrote author Lynn Hecht Schafran. The answer, according to an article in the Journal of Vision, may lie in our interpretation of facial expressions.

In two studies, researchers asked subjects to identify the sex of a series of faces. In the first study, androgynous faces with lowered eyebrows and tight lips (angry expressions) were more likely to be identified as male, and faces with smiles and raised eyebrows (expressions of happiness and fear) were often labeled feminine.

The second study used male and female faces wearing expressions of happiness, anger, sadness, fear or a neutral expression. Overall, subjects were able to identify male faces more quickly than female faces, and female faces that expressed anger took the longest to identify.

When was the last time you saw a happy feminist? Never. Anger and feminism are so inextricable that the phrase “angry feminist” has  become redundant.

Biological defectives are drawn to feminism because the diseased ideology allows them to undermine their ancient foe: Normality. (In times past when people were refreshingly judgmental, normality was also called “truth and beauty.”)

So there is a selection effect for physically ugly feminists, but they make their ugliness worse by walking around with a chip on their shoulders and a scowl perpetually hitched to their manjaws. Angry women are so off-putting to our ingrained aesthetic expectations, that it takes a long time for people to recognize sputtering, vein-bulging femborgs as female.

Men prefer feminine women, as women prefer masculine men. This is the cosmic law of sexual polarity that by its mere immutable existence will always make mockery of the various stripes of gender equalists and their self-serving beliefs. Some emotions, like anger, are perceived by uncontrollable subconscious mental algorithms as more male, and hence can be said to be “sexist” emotions.

“This difference in how the emotions and social traits of the two sexes are perceived could have significant implications for social interactions in a number of settings. Our research demonstrates that equivalent levels of anger are perceived as more intense when shown by men rather than women, and happiness as more intense when shown by women rather than men. It also suggests that it is less likely for men to be perceived as warm and caring and for women to be perceived as dominant.”

When women are angry, they appear more masculine, and therefore less attractive to men. Perhaps the solution to this disparate emotional impact is for angry feminists to battle the “culture of sexist emotions” by demanding equal gesticulation. The “glass feeling” must be broken so boardrooms and bedrooms can make way for histrionically happy men and spittle-flecked enraged women, coming together at last as true equals, totally and equally repulsed by each other. Ah, nirvana!

The game lesson here should be obvious: If you are a man, stop smiling like a Special Olympics winner. Show a little anger once in a while. Look like a brooding bad-ass instead of a gleeful gaywad. Girls will find you more masculine, and men will take you more seriously.

Biology is not a trifle easily subverted with sophistry. Underlying our reflexive perceptions that seem superficial without deeper understanding lies a foundation of incorruptible truth. In this case, that truth points at a terribly discomfiting fact for our moralizing misfits: angry women appear less feminine because they possess more of a male temperament, and possibly even a male hormonal profile, all of which signals to men that the angry bitch is a low fertility prospect not worth pursuing.