Reframing

Here’s an example of the utility of reframing to domains outside the sphere of pickup. Reader PA asks,

What is a good, short, SFW [safe for work] response to the 77% [pay gap] lie?

Other than “it’s not true if type of profession, years of experience, and overtime are factored in.”

PA is right to tacitly assert that an effective reframe to a ridiculous but widely-believed PC lie should be short and sweet and digestible. References to arid data or statistical qualifications won’t win over the common plebe or plebette.

One reason why anti-Cathedral dissidents rarely get traction in these sorts of arguments they should be winning handily is that they don’t know how to package their pushback in a way that makes it more receptive to the part of the listening audience who aren’t brain-dead true believers. What is true for seduction is true for persuasion. Terse charm >>> loquacious insistence.

So in that vein, some persuasive, office-friendly reframes to the 77% pay gap lie would be:

“You say that like it’s men’s fault.”

“And secretaries only make 10% of CEOs. We should narrow that gap too.”

“Motherhood really competes with work.”

“Handouts would fix the problem.”

I welcome the readers to add their own pay gap myth reframes.

***

PS On a related subject, change is a-blowin’ in the wind, my friends. It’s small change, but something is definitely happening. I’ve noticed of late a certain reticence by the boyfriends of SWPL girls to robotically agree with their girlfriends’ feminist boilerplate. Instead of the usual head nodding and “yes, yes”s whenever their girls babble feminist cant, these once-sackless wonders have begun to look off into the distance impatiently, and their blank expressions betray conversation thread-killing neutrality. It’s not the CH-style shiv, but it’s better than total supplication.

I’d like to think that the Chateau message is finally influencing the zeitgeist; if so, we may be cresting the horizon to revolution, and moving into a brighter, sunnier, more unapologetically erect day.

Read Full Post »

A Giddy Reminder Of The Evil Influence Of Feminism

For those optimists who don’t think lying liars and the mendacious ideas they propagate matter, President Barry Kenyatta-Downlow Obama today signed two executive orders addressing the so-called “sex pay gap” myth that feminists have been menstruating over the national discourse for decades. In one order, federal contractors will now have to report how they allocate their wages by sex and race to the Inquisition government.

Ideas matter. The public megaphone matters. The pay gap as it is exploited by feminists and their shit lapping allies is entirely explainable by organic forces manifesting from innate sex differences. Hoped-for UGH MISOGYNIST discrimination has got nothing to do with it. Once adjustments are made for variables like occupational choice, downtime, part-time work, leave, hours worked, and natural sex-based variation in ambition and conflict resolution, the pay gap DISAPPEARS. In fact, some studies have shown that, after these adjustments, women actually make a little MORE than men on average.

Why is this important? Because the policies that evil ideas generate are actively harmful to the people who don’t personally benefit from the lies. You can lay at the crooked labia of feminist ideology the consequences of futile efforts to correct the “pay gap” in the name of helping women “lean in”. Employers have a new pointless cost to cover, and undoubtedly they will shift some of that cost onto their male employees. They suffer, consumers suffer, government efficiency (such as it is) suffers. Social distrust leeches into every facet of life. And, in the THX-amplified CH-widescreen picture, lower male wages undermine the marriage market.

Tell me again how feminism is irrelevant. With a straight face.

Yet there are normally clear-thinking scoffers who, emotionally shackled to their manicured knee-jerk caricatures of anti-feminists as *derp incel bitterboys*, fail to grasp what’s happening right before their eyes. Or, grasping it, disregard the tangible evil in favor of fantastical theoretical journeys to the “source” of the evil, which, they reason, is the only recourse to eliminating the influence of deranged and feels-propped ideologies shaping government policy RIGHT NOW.

CH is well-versed in the pleasures of excavating downward through cultural detritus to find the root causes of feminism and it’s parent evilology Equalism, and of offering solutions. Being “anti-feminist” and being a “root cause-ist” aren’t mutually exclusive; if anything, these stances are mutually reinforcing. And, procedural note, managerialism is likely not the ultimate source of feminism; that dishonor more likely belongs to genetic changes brought on by NW European excessive outbreeding.

But yeah, go ahead and spend your sadistic capital mocking anti-feminists as one after another feminist proposal sees the light of day and earns public acceptance and protection from realtalk ridicule. Meantime, see how far talk about “managerialism” severed from the actual lying propagandists thriving within the managerialist system gets you with the voters. Nah, I prefer my shivs aimed for the solar plexus, at the filthy fucking liars pushing their gruel down a gullible people’s throats.

I get why some men dismiss the threat of feminism. Some are low intensity suburbanites happy to have settled for dutiful and loving frump wives who cook for them and pursue lifestyles totally removed from the sphere of feminist babble. Others date cutiepie sorority types who haven’t so much as uttered the word “feminist” their whole lives. Still others have been out of the dating market for ten or twenty years and have lost touch with the energies that guide women’s mate choices and the pro-feminist social lubrications which younger urban SWPLette women easily imbibe and regurgitate.

To these men, white knighting comes naturally because they don’t see any direct line from the easygoing women in their own lives to the feminist assault on innate sex differences and, ultimately, on Western civilization. And yet, when the reasonable women they know enter the voting booth, a majority of them vote for feminism-loving politicians, and the skew is especially pronounced if they’re unmarried. If that gives you hope, do note that single women are a growing demographic cohort.

The day-to-day details of the non-confrontational, marginally empowered, platitude parroting woman hardly impress as antidotes to seismic feminist lies when job purges for crimethink are becoming the norm and government policy is twisting into pretzels to accommodate femcunt poopytalk. Maybe you think-tankingly believe quoting a few Burnham passages is the panacea to the black tentacle goo of feminism and equalism corrupting a new institution by the day. It could be, but people respond better to real world enemies identified and engaged.

Women are natural followers. You attack feminism and ostracize its advocates to lead women away from its carrion call. You do this in conjunction with deeper exegeses on root causes for Western social and cultural dissolution. Every attack angle counts when the castle is under siege. The front line is everywhere.

Or you could derp about anti-feminist bitter divorcees and nerdy incels (characterizations which, by the way, aren’t true to life; the most joyous anti-feminists I know are happy-go-lucky players who get laid at will), and watch from the sidelines as yet another workaday stiff is tossed out on his rump by cackling hags offended by a lame dongle joke.

As a related afterthought, I wonder if leftoids understand the logical end goal of all their anti-pay gap agit-prop? Do they sincerely want a world where everyone, despite his talent or efforts, is awarded a $100K annual lifetime salary? Just level the playing field completely and be done with their griping. Some people are hard-wired to work no matter the recompense or status compression, but surely there will be millions of marginal cases who will say “fuck it” and drop out to collect the same salary doing nothing. And then you can kiss your comfortable cosmopolitan life goodbye.

That’s the thermal exhaust port of leftoid equalists: they never think through the consequences of their spur-of-the-moment feels.

Read Full Post »

The Civilization-Womanization Graph

Put away your history textbooks, this is the only graph you’ll ever need to consult for an explanation why civilizations rise, plateau, and fall.

set a course for vaginaland, sulu

In honor of the factually baseless, feels-fueled, and insipid “””Equal Pay Day“””, this graph represents what happens to civilizations as they slowly but inexorably womanize.

As you can see, the trajectory is back-loaded. The reason for this is that it takes a long time and a lot of realism to build a civilization from the dirt, but a very short time for that civilization to wither and die once an irreversible feels threshold is crossed. Civilizational peak and plateauing typically occur after feels have pushed aside realism and begun consolidating its cultural power and influence. The lag effect is a feels-ifying culture eating its seed corn.

Tragically, this belle swerve is an inevitable consequence of civilizing progress. Like biological death, civilizational death is unavoidable, an emergent property of collective human nature. The hopeful soul might say that curbing women’s political and cultural leverage can stop the bloodletting; theoretically a possibility, but what are the odds? Better to lounge poolside and enjoy the spectacle of civilization’s enemies shrieking in shiv-peppered pain.

Update

“An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline.”
– The Fate of Empires, Sir John Glubb

Read Full Post »

Freelance Comment Of The Week: Quieted Riot Edition

Commenter “Z” over at Cheap Chalupas/Bargain Beans had this to say about poverty alleviation programs,

Welfare programs have never been about solving poverty. Even the most wild-eyed utopian dreamer knows that’s absurd. The poor will always be with us. Poverty programs serve three functions today. One is riot insurance and prevention. The people of Maryland, for example, have a real concern about the ‘citizens” in Baltimore burning the city to the ground. Giving them money to sit home and watch Springer all day is a cheap and bloodless way to deal with that problem. Welfare is just a part of the defense grid.

The other function is to employ an army of state workers that become poll workers, organizers and fund raisers for the political parties. The fact that tax money goes to operations like Planned Parenthood, for example, who then funnel it back to the politicians is a good example of the self-dealing at work. The massive amount of campaign money that flows from government unions back to politicians is not an accident.

Finally, these programs, their university training grounds and the non-profit barnacles attached to every poverty program are excellent dumping grounds for the dimwitted children of the ruling classes. Throughout the state systems you find relatives of state reps and party hacks. In Massachusetts, for example, the state is now largely run by a few Hibernia clans. There are families in Mass that have three generations of hacks.

CH’s advice to leftoids who believe they MUST uplift the poor or they’ll lose out on all that dopamine-boosting self-congratulatory feels is

1. Deal with it.

2. Make transfer payments to the wretched refuse contingent upon temporary or permanent sterilization.

Your typical SWPL high priestess won’t rest until she’s solved the problem of the poor? Solution: Policies which reduce the amount of poor people being born each generation. It’s simple, it’s effective, it robs the insufferable Salon crowd of their religious fervor. And that’s why it’ll never see the light of day.

Read Full Post »

Shakespeare Vindicates Chateau Heartiste

Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,

CH,

I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%

Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.

If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.

“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.

Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!

Read Full Post »

Another Study Confirms Diversity + Proximity = War

Via The League of Extraordinary Sadists comes another study concluding that diversity is incompatible with a sense of community.

Community psychologists are interested in creating contexts that promote both respect for diversity and sense of community. However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community. Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principle of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community. Based on these results, we conclude with a discussion of whether it is possible to create neighborhoods that simultaneously foster respect for diversity and sense of community. (spoiler: it isn’t)

IQ fetishists who want to bring boatloads of Asian to America are almost as silly as pathological altruists who want to import Africa to Minnesota. I say almost because, yeah, at least with the Asians you don’t have to worry about getting jacked while walking down the street. You just have to worry about your finances, bureaucracy and cultural institutions getting jacked.

So here’s another study affirming what Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) found in his reluctantly published study about diversity decreasing levels of social trust. Studies are nice and all, but you don’t need multiple degrees and strict adherence to experimental procedure to walk out the door and notice how different the races of people are, and how everyone, even and especially hypocrite SWPLs, have a natural affinity for their own kind.

Maybe the leftoid lie machine is permitting these studies to be released now because they sense where the logic of their stinking ideology is heading:

Is this actually a breakthrough of any kind, or is it exactly the sort of thing elites will appreciate? The lower and middle classes have been well and thoroughly diversified now. The logic of diversity is pretty clear: the rich white/jewish gated communities should be diversified as well. But before anyone gets around to noticing this, there’s scientific reason to forestall such efforts. Sorry about that, goy, but the arguments we used to obliterate *your* communities don’t work anymore. It’s unfortunate, yes, but there will be tradeoffs. You know how it is.

Does anyone doubt for a second that the richest communities will ensure that tradeoffs in *their* cases go in the opposite direction from “diversity”? These studies aren’t challenging shitlibs at all. They aren’t even advances in our understanding (as PMAN points out, how hard is it to realize these things could be opposed). Instead, it’s just toadying to an elite that refuses to suffer the consequences of its own decisions.

Like Robert Ringer wrote, always look out for #1. And the elite are nothing if not practiced in the art of looking out for themselves.

Sadly, the burdensome diversity is already cooked in the books. CH predicts that within the century America will break up into regional entities, along broad racial and ethnic lines.

Cheap Chalupas would weep if he weren’t an android.

Read Full Post »

Romeo Had Game

A dataslut at FiveThirtyEight tallied the lines each pair of characters spoke to each other and found that Romeo was following Poon Commandment V.

Juliet speaks 155 lines to him, and he speaks only 101 to her. His reticence toward Juliet is particularly inexcusable when you consider that Romeo spends more time talking than anyone else in the play.

And yet these two are the most famous star-crossed lovers in literature. Romeo knew, or more precisely Shakespeare knew, that women — and female readers — love a man who doesn’t give away the store.

In general, Shakespeare’s female lovers lavish a larger share of their lines on their men than the men do on them. This is true not just of “Romeo and Juliet,” but of “Macbeth,” “The Taming of the Shrew” and all four couples in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” The only real exceptions, tellingly, occur in the plays where the women pose as men: “Twelfth Night” and “The Merchant of Venice.” (Antony and Cleopatra spend roughly equal shares of lines on each other.)

😆 There’s more egalitarian relationship communication when the women pose as men. Says it all, really. But you feminists keep telling manboobs to emote like girls; that’ll really make them more attractive to women.

Forget modern culture in its totality. Everything important you need to know about men and women you can find in the works of Shakespeare.

Read Full Post »