Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Besides a wispy thatch of blonde pubes cresting a slow wave of inflamed pink, this might be the most beautiful thing I’ve seen all week.

Early this morning, an anonymous person or persons put up posters around Columbia University—in the 116th Street subway station, outside of Tom’s Restaurant, on stoplights and construction walls—emblazoned with the image of student Emma Sulkowicz and her now-iconic mattress. Since September 2014, Sulkowicz has been dragging the mattress around campus as a protest against the school’s handling of her rape allegations against another student. (That student, Paul Nungesser, has since sued the university.) This morning’s posters accuse Sulkowicz of making it all up, dismissing her as “Pretty Little Liar” with the caption “Emma Sulkowitz” [sic] and “RapeHoax.”

A new Twitter account, @FakeRape, has been tweeting pictures of the posters for the last five hours. Another poster, picturing Lena Dunham sticking her tongue out, is clearly part of the series, emblazoned “Big Fat Liar,” with the same #RapeHoax hashtag.

A graduating army of Chateau Heartiste shock troops likes the feel of their heavy scrota, and the joy of placing their stones on the chins of malicious feminist cuntrags. For this reason, the Columbia University anonymous Realtalker™ earns this edition of Shiv of the Week.

Shame, mortify, and ostracize feminists until they slither away to their dank bedrooms in solidarity with their bruised egos, or they self-deliver in the gloom of their despair. Cantankerous and cancerous feminist attention whores fear nothing more than total social expulsion. When the tide finally turns, and it will, even their closest sistren will betray them for the mercy of the cool mean girls.

Read Full Post »

Reader chris wonders if IT’S HAPPENING.

New TV show for kids on nickelodeon’s promotes race cuckoldry.


The official twitter page for it admits to it by implication of their favourites.


This shit is really happening.

Here’s the IMDB entry for Bella and the Bulldogs. Co-creator, Jonathan Butler, also wrote and directed a movie called The Cuckold. He sounds psychologically balanced.

Bella and the Bulldogs, besides promoting anti-white (and consequently pro-black (heh)) race cucking, wallows in a panoply of filth and lies. Ridiculous grrlpower fantasy? Check. Weak whytes? Check. Evil redneck whites? Check. Numinous negros? Check. Transgenderism? Good lordnbutter, we may have to check that one off too.

Keep in mind, Bella and the Bulldogs is a children’s show. Your little white daughter, apple of your eye and continuance vessel of a glorious heritage of European civilization, sits zombiefied in front of the TV imbibing this sewage by the truckload.

Do the Western cultural elite have a death wish? Do they WANT normal, good people to hate them with a fury? Because that’s what’s gonna happen if they keep it up. And the washout won’t be pretty in pink.

It’s time to turn to lessons from Weimar Republic Germany, and the cataclysm that can bring doom to the earth when a native people feel cornered and despised by their own elite and the dominant culture. The Lamppost Swingularity… the point at which the intensity of leftoid propaganda exceeds the tolerance level of the targets of leftoid hatred… is closer than you think.

Read Full Post »

Check out the WOWJUSTWOW face on this broad (at 4:02) after Gavin McInnes drops a steaming deuce on a Feminist First Principle.

He’s basically right. Most women (read: non-reptiles) are happier raising kids than they are raising profit margins. Most men are happier in the office than they are at home changing diapers. Men and women are different to their cores, and feminism is a project of lies with the goal of eradicating those core differences. And if they can’t succeed at erasing biological reality, they’ll take their consolation prize by mangling public policy and laws until all men and women are miserable.

We need more hardcore pushback against feminism, and more WOWJUSTWOW faces wrested from the wretched witches.

Related: Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” book more likely to hurt women than to help them.

Ms. Sandberg goes clueless on science throughout her book…


Read Full Post »

The UMB (Urban Millennial Bitterbitch) wants you to know she’s a tankgrrl rolling over your male privilege and patriarchal assumptions.

Don’t they know it’s different for men?

Best advice CH could give women like her: Get off this:

Related: Sexual consent is implicit in the marriage contract.

Read Full Post »

Recalling that feminist “””social experiment””” video which triggered millions of androgynous Millennials to ecstatic retweeting, commenter “anonymous” hit upon the primary design flaw which renders the feminist-friendly result absolutely worthless:

Experimenter bias

In social science, especially in an experiment like this, the experimenter interacting with subjects should be blind to the hypothesis being tested.

The 1989 Clark and Hatfield study mentioned in the page linked to had it right. Asking a random sample of unwitting subjects to proposition other random subjects of the opposite sex. 70 percent seems about right to me with that methodology.

With what was done in this video, the experimenter can give all kinds of subtle cues pushing the guys to give the answer they want. In addition they can exhibit selection bias- choosing guys that seem likely to give the answer they want. You should notice there were more yes answers in the beginning and more no answers later. She gradually got better at getting the answer she wanted later. (The video seemed to be in chronological order). I skipped around and didn’t watch the whole thing, but I also noticed a larger proportion of guys saying they were gay (or that came across as really obviously gay without saying it) than exist in the general population. To me that is a red flag as to the biases (either conscious or not) of those making the video. By the way the real proportion of gays is between 2 and 3 percent; the 10% number that gets repeated a lot is bullshit.

In a nutshell, if they wanted an answer of 0/100 or an answer of 100/100 she (and the people working with her) could “discover” whatever they wanted to discover. It’s not science with this methodology.

She looks good by the way. I would sleep with her. As a woman of course that’s the only thing she’s here on this planet for. Just a reminder

There were, in fact, multiple biases at work in that “girl asks men for sex” femcunt troll job, but experimenter bias is… as a mewling ankle-biter might say… the most “problematic”. Read the CH commenters to learn which other biases corrupted the 30% result.

(Another problem with the experiment design was what I call the “incredulity factor”. The girl gradually learned to deliberately hit on the kinds of men who are least likely to garner the attention of young attractive women, and these men probably surmised as a result that she was part of an underage solicitation sting operation, or she was taking the piss with them.)

Men and women are so completely different in the realm of sexual psychology that it’s not much of a surprise to discover that some men, when openly propositioned by a semi-cute stranger, will immediately doubt her motives. The real surprise is how many men are willing to cast aside their rational doubts and throw caution to the wind; that’s a powerful demonstration of a serious sex difference in predilection for the pleasures of casual sex; men are simply wired to want it, and to avail themselves of it, far more often and with more intensity than are women. But of course, your grandma would be able to tell you this without a stack of social science studies to back her up.

It won’t be long before we’ll have to amend that last clause to specify “great-grandma”, with the way this country is accelerating past timeless truths.

Update #2

Commenter Wake makes some good points.

Her approach induces a mass raising of red flags, it’s sooooo fake. Her body language is not that of a horny chick, quite the contrary (look for crossed arms, backward leaning, etc): it oozes revulsion. Her voice tonality is also incongruent with the message. No sane woman proposes directly and that fast (compare how often did your fuckbuddy/girlfriend /wife do that?). A horny girl would compliment first, chit chat for a minute at least and then would propose to look for an intimate location with a BS pretext, the subject of sex would at best be alluded to.

Most of the men refusing her offer could tell she was insincere. The 30% figure is thus looking like an incredibly high number of positive responses given all the negative body language signals she was sending out.

But, feminists gonna feminist, like shit gonna stink.

Read Full Post »

Feminist quasiovums are crowing about a recent “”””social experiment“””” (via Cheap Chalupas, may the appellation forever stick to him), purporting to find that MEN ARE JUST LIKE WOMEN because a woman who went around asking random men for sex received a mere 30% positive replies, supposedly rebutting previous studies which found that upwards of 80-90% of men would agree to casual sex with an attractive female stranger while 0% of women would agree to casual sex with an attractive male stranger.

Feminists love to push any phony fake-out “social science” if it helps alleviate their pain of accepting that men and women are different in many important and crucial respects. The problem is that nearly every feminist-assuaging study they cite to buttress their twisted cause turns out later to be built atop a mound of bullshit. For instance, in this latest shrike salvo, can you spot the experiment design flaw?

Read Full Post »

A commenter going by the handle Desdinova Superstar (she bright long time) was a little piqued about the crass CH insinuation that makeup is a try-hard, penis-pedestaling beautification routine women religiously perform according to the precepts of an ancient genetic algorithm that subconsciously compels them to attract the highest quality men possible. Her ham-headed feminist gogrrl delusion is the sort of fresh meat I love to tear from the bone.

– “Women should, and will, continue to put the penis on a pedestal and try-hard to please men by using makeup to increase their attractiveness”

I personally do not believe that women use makeup to attract men.

You may not believe in sublimated sexual displays, but sexual displays believe in you.

I believe that women use makeup and clothing to compete with the attractiveness of other women.

Same difference. Women compete with other women to be the one woman men can’t help but notice.

The thought of attracting men hardly crosses their mind.

This is what all girls say. I recall a girlfriend once indignantly proclaiming, when I teased her on the matter, that she dolls herself up for no one but herself. It is to guffaw.

Girlwords carry about as much weight as John Scalzi’s jockstrap. It doesn’t matter that girls say they never think about attracting men when they slip into high heels and a slinky dress. That no-good, horrible, very bad thought doesn’t have to cross a woman’s mind for the underlying function to be the same: Namely, the enhancement of her beauty to attract men from among whom she can choose as her best option mate. Her gene puppeteer has made sure she does the right things to maximize her chances of scoring Mr. Right. Paradoxically, her genes have also made sure she is only dimly aware, if at all, of the procreatively devious machinations of her helical overlord. The transmission signal is strengthened when the electrochemical vessel doesn’t poke around too much in the circuitry.

They want to look better, more attractive, and get the attention of the women they’re competing against.

Look better… for men. Be more attractive… for men. Get the attention of women… to remind them not to poach their men.

Attracting men is just a side effect.

Dear adorably deluded Desdinova, you have it backwards. Attracting a suitable man is the prime directive. Makeup is the side effect.

The only time women think about attracting a man is when they’re competing against each other for a man who has high social value.

Or anytime a charming man enters the room, with or without other women present. Do you think women can only have feelings of lust or love for a man when other women are loitering nearby?

The only time women put on makeup for a man is when they’re self-conscious about their imperfections which usually occurs at the beginning of a relationship.

Or, you know, which occurs every other time a woman wants to feel attractive, including all that time as a single lady bemoaning her singleness.

After she gets “comfortable”, she’s no longer self-conscious and quits wearing makeup.

Clarification: After her boyfriend turns beta, she no longer worries about pleasing him. Which should be a lesson for men who choose the ball and chain. And, fyi, most women deep in relationships continue wearing makeup outside the home and on romantic nights out.

I swear, the argumentative style and peculiar mental contortions that feminists exhibit when reminded of their ultimate purpose here on earth share amazing similarities with the semantic effluvium of game-hating betas angrily whining against “putting the pussy on a pedestal”. Two peabrains in a pod. They belong together.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: