Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Recall the CH axiom about any social “””science””” coming out of a feminism-drenched university: If there’s a women’s studies department, the good bet is that the social science department is similarly corrupted, and any feminist-friendly findings are likely to be tainted and worthless. Leftist saturation of academia has become so bad that social expectation bias and self-serving bogus science rubber-stamping the equalist narrative are more the norm than the exception.

On that premise, here’s Greg Cochran sticking the shiv in the hide of yet another crappy feminist study that defies credulity.

I just noticed an new article in PNAS – research by Daphna Joel a behavioral neuroscientist at Tel Aviv University. Using MRI, she concludes that the brains of men and women aren’t really different. She suggests that the notion that men and women behave differently may be a myth.

She is, of course, utterly full of shit. It’s fountaining out of every pore: her hair will never go gray. We know of many sex differences in the brain – not just volume, not just the fraction of gray matter vs white matter, not just big differences in the incidences of neuropsychiatric disorders like autism and anorexia nervosa. In a few cases (like CAH, or androgen sensitivity, or maybe Turner’s syndrome) we know something about the developmental mechanisms involved. We see analogous differences in animal models: and no, it’s not culture. […]

…similarity in gross anatomy does not ensure similar behavioral tendencies. If I compared the brain of a pit bull with that of a similar-sized border collie, I doubt if I could see the behavioral differences in the size of the amygdala or whatever. Those behavioral differences exist, they’re innate, they have a physical/genetic basis – but at the moment I couldn’t tell you what brain differences to look for. Could be differences in the distribution of neurotransmitter receptors, or differences in axon length, or dendrite connectivity – lots of things, including many that wouldn’t show up on MRI.

Anyone who’s lived a day in his life can’t help but notice men and women are on average different in some powerfully fundamental ways. Desire, sexual proclivity, communication, hobbies, occupational preferences, bathroom habits… the list of REAL WORLD sex differences goes on for miles.

Yet we are supposed to believe a raging lunatic feminist burnishing a conveniently pro-equalist study while steeped in the toxins of a feminist milieu? Yeah, no.

Read Full Post »

From a long thread at MPC about the “red pill”, the assertion in this post raised an eyebrow:

One of the major problems with the Manosphere (that betrays the fact that it’s really just a vehicle for misogynists to try and get laid)

What did I tell you about tradcons sounding just like feminists in their shared compulsion to pathologize male sexuality? So now men with a working libido are “misogynist” according to the tradcon worldview.

is that they demonize female promiscuity while glorifying male promiscuity.

I don’t read red pill sites (except on rare occasions when readers send a link to one they regard as worthy of my attention). Speaking on behalf of the Chateau lordship, there is no “demonization” of female sexuality here. The telling of ugly truths about female nature is not the same as railing against female sexual nature and hoping it goes away or can be turned into something more benign to an equalist view of the sexes. (A glib “is, not ought” should suffice here.)

Now, it is true that, in a vacuum, female promiscuity is far worse than male promiscuity.

“In a vacuum”. How sophistic. Since when has the sexual market ever operated “in a vacuum”? Never. And yet, for reasons explained here ad nauseam (although apparently not nauseam enough), female promiscuity is more corrosive than male promiscuity to relationship and family stability and, scaled up, to societal stability. Yes, sluts really are more dangerous to social health than are cads.

However, male promiscuity REQUIRES either female promiscuity or homosexuality in order to occur.

This is the assertion that roused an eyebrow. (Ignore the homo slur, which is typical MPCspeak when faced with the task of explaining vigorous and unapologetic male heterosexuality.) Superficially, it sounds credible. After all, it takes two to tango. More cads must necessarily mean more sluts to complete the pairings.

Except, it doesn’t work that way. Betraying a deep ignorance (or willful dissembling) about the nature of the sexual market and the psychosexual differences between the sexes, this MPC poaster fails to grasp the reality of female hypergamy and male desire for variety, and how those intrinsic dispositions can affect the arithmetic of romantic pairings.

The top 20% of women strongly prefer to be with the top 10% of men. The top 10% of men will spread their seed among the top 30% of women (and often more widely than that), only strongly preferring the top 10% of women when they are serious about commitment and settling down.

The hypergamy-polygyny nexus results in a shaky equilibrium where a small percentage of cads are having sex with a larger percentage of women. But these cads jump from woman to woman, or they keep multiple women as sexual outlets in a de facto harem, meeting up with each one on an irregular basis, (hence the common complaint among woman dating jerkboys that the jerks they love are never around).

What this means in practice is that one promiscuous man will date ten less promiscuous women, since each of his lovers is likely to be with only him and not sharing him with other men in a multiple concurrent sexual relationship arrangement. (Women are more averse than men are to fucking multiple lovers concurrently.)

Conclusion: yes, male promiscuity can coexist with female chastity. Or a reasonable 2016 facsimile of female chastity.

Up to a point.

Eventually, if there are enough cads (cf., Africa) then sluts will have to increase in number to keep up with the changing ratio of fevered flings to lukewarm LTRs. A society in which 90% of men were promiscuous cads would require a boost in the numbers of promiscuous sluts to bring balance to the sexual force. Or one VERY slutty woman to service all those men.

Read Full Post »

If you look hard, there are outposts where Shitlords and Realtalkers feel free to speak unassailable truths. One reader passed along this quote from an Israeli politician who was offering an explanation for Europe’s open borders madness and supine welcoming of their rapefugee replacements.

Israeli politician agrees with your observations on the women of Europe + Migrants.

“Western Europe is kneeling and inviting the noble Muslim savage to rape it,” wrote the maverick politician on his Facebook page. “What is the meaning of this phenomenon? Were there only German women at that train station in Cologne? Where were the men?”

The Muslims who leave their home countries seek Germany, Sweden and Finland not just for financial reasons, he speculated. “There is something much deeper at play here. Western Europe is actually the most secular place in the world. Most of humanity believes in God – the US, too, is mostly populated by believers. Western Europe is an island of atheism; the situation there is reversed.

“This is a culture that has removed God from its consciousness. It took God out of the game and locked Him up in museums,” Feiglin theorized. “The pressure of the Allahu Akbar culture bursts naturally into the irreligious vacuum – it is a matter of physics, really. Of intercontinental maleness and femaleness.”

“Generations of denial of God have engendered a craving for authority and meaning,” the philosopher-politician explained. “The police does not attempt to prevent the rape just as it did not attempt to prevent Kristallnacht, because in truth, it is desired. The battered woman syndrome, the subconscious, the political correctness of Merkel and those who invite in the immigrants, actually desire it. […]

“The circle closes with crazy speed,” Feiglin observed. “Women’s liberation disappears. The State will not protect you – get used to it. Your Godless religion has evaporated. Find yourself a man – a Muslim one, of course – to protect you. There is no other masculinity.

“The battered woman syndrome” is just another way of politely saying “generic female sexual nature”, because all women, to lesser or greater degree, desire their submission to a powerful and dominant alpha male. And the dominant alpha male needn’t be manifest through the individual man; the strict orthodoxies of patriarchal religions like Islam also fill the role of authority that people, but particularly women, deeply and profoundly crave, beyond even conscious apprehension.

This is an important topic, because it befuddles not just equalist leftoids (who were never going to be un-befuddled) but also race-aware white knights who despite their willingness to grapple with many ugly truths that frighten mass media and the culture gatekeepers, nonetheless exhibit a strong allergy to thinking clearly when the subject is (White) women and their peculiar habits of mind. (These alt-white knights also co-opt a rhetorical crutch preferred by the shitlibs they hate: glib and snarky ad hominem against those who do speak truthfully about female nature.)

Men invade, women invite. The essential sex distinction is the male disposition to conquer and acquire power and the female disposition to accede and acquire the charity of the powerful. All real world evidence points to these diverging male and female essences. It would be funny if it weren’t dead serious that every single global crisis contradicts the feminist (and lickspittle manlet) worldview.

Today, a Swedish woman was stabbed to death by a Muslim refugee. Add her body to the running count of White female victims of rapefugee runaway entitlement. It has been three weeks since the Cologne mass sexual assaults on German women at the hands (and groins) of Middle Eastern men. It has been two months since the Paris attacks when Muslims killed hundreds of White Frenchmen and -women.

Dwell on recent history. Now consider this: two days ago, a German poll revealed glaring sex differences in male and female support for various German political parties. “Frauen” are women. The “AfD” is the anti-immigration party.

frauen

I don’t think you’ll see anything more shocking than this snapshot of the German female id. It calls to mind that Plath pith, “Every woman adores a fascist”. What’ll it take to convince White women that it’s in their best interest to shut the borders to hordes of nonWhite orcs?

“Best interest”? Maybe that’s the problem. Women’s best interest isn’t necessarily aligned with their men’s best interest. That Israeli politician quoted above is onto something dark and ominous when he accuses the West of assuming the role of intercontinental femaleness — the psychological condition responsible for civilizational ennui and exhaustion and prostrate submission to invading foreigners. Western men have become their women — gelded freaks who dress in mini-skirts to “support” victims of the Cologne sex attacks — and into that masculinity void unapologetically patriarchal Muslim migrants rush to provide that “other masculinity” which animates the hindbrains, and the ginewaves, of so many young fertile WHITE women.

Because who is going to protect these White women? White men in mini-skirts? It is to laugh. And though many women will claim otherwise to reporters holding microphones and even to themselves when uncomfortably alone with their thoughts, their actions expose a different motivation.

I call this sex-disparate phenomenon “The Feminine Mistake”. It was a mistake to hand to women inordinate power – at 51% of the population, women hold the levers in democratic societies – over public policy and the nation’s constitution. Women are who they are; they can’t help themselves when they vote for equalist leftoid nation-destroyers.

If the White West is to save itself from its worst instincts and sentiments, it’s going to take something that most cucks, manginas, and male feminists are loath, or scared, to do: tell women to step aside, because they are royally fucking up the place.

Read Full Post »

Jonathan Haidt wrote about disgust occupying a dimension of human morality. He found, (unsurprisingly if you’ve trawled the internet for five minutes), that leftoids have a higher disgust threshold than non-leftoids. (That is, they can more happily tolerate disgusting things in their lives.)

I bring this up because a world in which disgust is abandoned as a moral consideration starts quickly filling up with people like the demon mom this post will introduce to you. A society recklessly surrendering even the pretense of monitoring culture health for signs of encroaching trends that elicit the disgust reflex is a society that will in short order be overrun by disgusting people and the disgusting things they do.

Every year, I give presentations about my health classes to the parents of my students. And inevitably, every year, someone will express relief at the idea that I’ll be talking to their kids about sex so that they’ll be spared the awkwardness of doing so themselves.

Numbnuts Class Hivemind Indoctrination incoming!

This reminds me: leftoids always attack. They never relent in their desire to strip the good from the world and replace it with their island of misfit degenerates. The only effective counterattack is to not play the game by their rules. Go on the attack and put THEM in the defensive crouch. Abide YOUR frame, not theirs.

At this point, I almost expect that. After all, for a lot of people, talking about sex with their kids is awkward. As my friend May said of having such conversations with her three- and eight-year-olds, “Their dad and I are nervous about it in general, so I know we’re putting it off.”

You know, there’s a good reason Nature designed it so that talking about sex with your three-year-old feels awkward: because it IS awkward and you shouldn’t be doing it.

Plus, a lot of parents didn’t talk about sex with adults when they were growing up, and so don’t have a model of how to do so.

Amazing the human race managed to survive this long without sex-ed classes for toddlers.

But talking openly to your kids is one of the best ways to raise them with a positive view of sexuality

When a shitlib feminist uses the word “positive” with regards to sex, she means “as often as humanly possible, with a black man, involving depraved acts and rectally-inserted objects, but only after verbal consent is established incrementally on the minute, every minute.”

– and to challenge the conventional and damaging messages so many are getting on the subject.

Like how not to spend the day with a vibrating buttplug slipping dangerously close to irretrievability?

For example, do you want your kids to have accurate information about how their bodies work and to feel good in their skin?

Buffalo Bill here reminding you that it’s possible to feel good in another person’s skin.

Whatever your wishes, having a sense of them will go a long way in helping your children navigate these waters in a manner that feels true to your family.

Female poopytalk. Thank you, women’s studies degree programs! (mo’ money for dem…)

Yet separating sex from reproduction can be hard to do. That’s because then you need to talk about desire, and pleasure, and as I did recently with my nine-year-old,

:shock:

things like oral sex. (“Eeeew,” she groaned after I gave a basic description, “That is so gross. What if someone didn’t wipe!?”)

Smart kid. Dumb parent. Mix the two: child abuse.

But kids find a lot of things kind of gross and aren’t traumatized.

Like steaming dog shit. So the answer is to shove buckets of steaming dog shit in kids’ faces, naturally.

And explaining that many people have sex not to have babies, but because it feels nice and can forge intimacy and connection, isn’t actually all that hard to say.

Grooming your White child for that sweet, sweet 0.7 below-replacement fertility rate.

2. Start Conversations About Consent Early

Feminist cunt mom is about to unload some Holy Matriarchy injunctions on her kid.

When addressing consent with young kids, you can teach them that they need to get permission to touch others by asking peers and siblings things like “Can I hug you?” or “Can I hold your hand?”

Or, “How to turn your emotionally healthy child into a creepy, psychologically unstable, socially clumsy spergatron.”

Children should also have their physical boundaries respected by adults.

But not their psychological boundaries.

Adults often think it is perfectly fine to continue to tickle or wrestle a child who is asking them to stop. But it isn’t – and it teaches kids that they don’t really have control over their bodies.

This psychobitch sounds like a lot of fun to be around.

Kids should also be allowed to change their minds. They shouldn’t, for instance, be taught that keeping a promise is always the most moral thing to do.

Shitlibs train their sprog early in the art of traitorous status whoring.

With older kids, explain that consent for sex can be withdrawn at any time. […] Plus, kids and teens should know that you can stop a sexual interaction at any time, even if both people are naked and fooling around. Even in the middle of a sex act.

Nothing says “this is completely natural and loving” like teaching your daughter to demand consent after every thrust into her vagina, and your son to be ready to stop right up to, and including, the point of imminent ejaculation. Just another feminist whackjob demonstrating a clear lack of understanding and empathy for physical and emotional differences between the sexes (and between children and adults).

It also has to be clear that consent shouldn’t be wheedled or coerced, and that there are circumstances under which consent cannot freely be given – like if you’re asleep, passed out, incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or under age.

And consent can’t be freely acknowledged when drunk, either. Game set match, feminist shrike.

it’s understood that teens who want to drive, or take calculus, or play violin should be given the space to learn how to do so before we expect any mastery of the subject.

But when it comes to sex, we deny children the ability to develop their skills, and then blame them when things don’t go well.

Feminist brainwashing agent thinks sex is like calculus, even though field mice manage it without a propaganda blitz instructing them in the act.

And while there are ways for kids to practice sex, many teens are forced to do so in secret. This can be the result of parents’ rules. But it also happens because things like looking at porn or sexting are illegal for minors.

And while such laws are ostensibly designed to protect children, particularly when it comes to sexting, they can do more harm than good.

“ostensibly”. This is what a disgust threshold set to infinity looks like.

For a lot of American parents, the idea of allowing a teen to have a sleepover with a boyfriend or girlfriend, let alone with a casual hook up, seems either like excessive permissiveness, or actual negligence or harm.

For a lot of American parents, insane feminist nonsense hasn’t yet polluted their ability to think clearly.

I know that was something my parents worried about when the issue came up for me as a teen. Ultimately, they let me stay over at my boyfriend’s, but they also made it clear that they were only doing so because they wanted to know where I was.

Her feeble parents wanted to be sure she was slutting it up at a known address instead of behind the 7-11.

We all knew that they were pretty unhappy with the whole situation, and as a result, my return home the mornings after a sleepover were uncomfortable for everyone.

:lol: :lol: Fucking skank did the walk of shame back to her parents’ house! Why wait until college to experience that shame from peers? She got an early start on her career in whole hog sluttery. Later, in college, shaming glances would bounce right off her.

But in reality, permitting sleepovers with a partner can be one of the healthiest ways to keep teens safe since they are getting to learn about having sex in the security of their own homes

Dads love it when their daughters learn about having sex under their roofs. As long as it’s safe and secure, her orgasmic moans traveling up to Dad’s bedroom can only be the sound of a father raising his daughter right.

Sexuality is not an amorphous entity that lives separately from our children and which we need to protect them from unilaterally. Rather, it’s a part of who they are and something they’ll benefit from nurturing and developing.

Sexuality doesn’t need nurturing and developing. It pretty much happens on its own. But what fun is that when you can be in the running for demon mom of the year and encourage your daughter to take a cock up her ass while dad tries to drown out the sex noises with the Beats headphones you bought him for Kwanzaa?

But many of us live in environments where any openness about kids and sex is seen as potentially harmful. And as a result, the attempt to raise sexually healthy kids can seem like an uphill battle.

Maybe that’s nature’s way of telling you not to do it, you dumb bitch.

But even if you were raised in a household where the topic was utterly taboo, it’s never too late to send more positive messages about sex to your own kids – even if doing so seem a bit unnatural at the start.

Author: Ellen Friedrichs.

Read Full Post »

The above photo was Twatted by @MaryNumair. It was re-twatted 6,000 times and Liked 13,300 times. Mary Mary CuntFermenting attention whored,

Hey I just single handedly broke up a planned parenthood protest by chanting the words “yeast infections”

That’s great. What an accomplishment. This skankopath looks like she draws a little blood with those choppers while giving blowjobs.

Anyhow, moved by the momentousness of this breaking international news, an eager feminist beaver scouting for one of those hard-hitting stories that media oligarcunts love reached out to our intrepid crusader and future Miss Cat Lady.

@MaryNumair well, this is fabulous. I’m a writer for Slate and would love to hear the full story. christina.cauterucci@slate.com if yr down!

Naturally, Mary is too modest to broadcast the details of her personal hygiene through the media megaphone.

cool! I’ll say hi tonight

American journalism: A phony journalist working for a phony media website spends all day scrolling through Twatter feeds to find a feminist-congenial non-story about a slut seeking internet fame for her smelly vagina, which she and her crack team of Slate manlets and bluehairs will later fluff up into a 20,000 word essay on the evils of the patriarchy.

If there was ever a time journalism was a respected field in America, that time has receded so far into the past it is no longer remembered by those who are tasked with transmitting its purpose and its ethical code to future generations.

Read Full Post »

A man was in a Massachusetts park, holding a camera and taking a stroll. A woman got the vapors from this horrible sight, and called the cops to tell them there was a pedophile stalking children. SIX cops surrounded the man and questioned him for twenty minutes, before letting him go. He wrote an open letter to the fevered bitch who wanted to criminalize his existence.

Dear Neighbor,

Yesterday was a beautiful day, I think you will agree. I decided to take a short walk from my house on Hamilton Street to Dana Park, which I have been coming to almost daily since 1989, the year my son was born. As I often do, I brought my camera, sat on a bench for about 10 minutes, did one lap around the park and headed home.

I had barely gotten across the street when three police cars pulled up: I was told to stop, and swiftly surrounded by six policemen. I was “detained” there for approximately 20 minutes and questioned; another officer returned to the park to find out why you had called them.

My suspected crime, apparently, was having a camera in a public park, and allegedly taking pictures of children. As it turned out, I had taken no pictures that day. But I have been photographing in this neighborhood for 30 years, and have published a children’s book of poems and photographs, always with permission.

The policeman returned and wanted to see my “flip phone,” and then asked me if I knew how he knew I had a flip phone: I didn’t. He knew, he told me, because the woman who called the police had taken a picture of ME, sitting on the bench, and shown him the picture. They then took away my phone, scrolled through the few pictures that were on it.

They continued to hover around me asking questions. As it happened, I was standing near the house where my son now lives, and when my wife appeared, walking down the street after work, and saw me standing in front of his house with six policemen, she instantly feared something terrible had happened to our son. She was shaking, and I explained the situation. She is an English teacher at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School; I am a college professor of English. Our son spent much of the first 15 years of his life in Dana Park.

You must be new in the neighborhood. I am often in the park, on foot or on a bike, talking to friends who have children who play in the playground. I know you were standing very near to me for the entire time I was on the bench, though I could not figure out why. Now I know: you were taking my picture.

Suggestion: the next time you suspect someone is up to no good, perhaps you should say hello, speak to them first and, if still anxious, ask what they are taking pictures of. That’s what people do in a neighborhood park: talk to each other. This would save someone the humiliation and degradation of being stopped and held by the police, and might save the police from wasting their time when they could be doing something more useful, like managing the daily mayhem in Central Square.

The fact that you now have my picture in your phone is both sadly ironic and, well, creepy. Could you please delete it?

Your neighbor,

David Updike, Hamilton Street

I’m convinced Americans are currently living through a second Puritan age, and our witch burners are feminists, SJWs, antiracists, and TV talk show snarkmeisters.

Meanwhile, skulking Somalis stream into Maine and Minneapolis. Welcome to anarcho-tyranny. Jefferson wept.

***

Reader Tacitus James writes,

Writing a reasonable letter to a hyper-alarmist egg layer? You might as well try to talk reason to the egg itself. No, the problem we have in our culture is closer to the police on up, especially the men. We are allowing this to happen by reacting submissively to the hyper-alarmist cries of the uteruti. Women will cry, accuse, lie, and manipulate — it is their nature. The movement, our movement, will reach it’s apex when these unsubstantiated cries are met with the skepticism they deserve. The present authorities allow these injustices to happen. We allow these injustices to happen.The police, the law makers–when we finally succeed, they will be the object of our reprimands.

Don’t take women seriously. Where have we heard that sterling advice before? *prepares to preen*

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of Twatter account @MPCtxt, a video of an alpha shitlord crashing a slutwalk protest and provoking gina tingles in a narcissistic, emotionally volatile, BPD feminist, while her white knight manlet looks on impotently and limp-wristedly, wondering if there’s anything at the scene he can put up his ass.

YOU *finger point* WHORE :lol: :lol:

One of the YouGroove commenters summed it up thusly and verily:

Observations from the first few minutes I’ve seen this video.

Dean:
– Alpha Body Language.
– Doesn’t Care if he sounds offensive.
– Based Hat + Sunglasses.
– Nice name, also.
– Defender of truth.

Random White-Knight:
– Manlet
– Body Paint
– Girl doesn’t allow him to slur Dean

Girl:
– Cries because she is having a psychological battle between her feminist ideology and her biological desire to fuck Dean, the alpha Christian.

Heh.

“I was excited for today to be a growing experience for me (in my bra and sharpie skin) and you are making me hurt so bad (in my fetid whore hole).”

This mentally deranged skank must’ve majored in Poopytalk 101. There’s America’s future. Write her epitaph in Sharpie marker on the giant dildo that replaced the Washington Monument.

***

TheDissident comments,

Somewhere around 9 minutes she described the details of her “rape” and it becomes so utterly obvious that she wholly invented a sexual assault as a means of convincing herself and her omega that she didn’t actually cheat on him.

That oft-repeated “1 in 5 college women are raped” lie should be rephrased as “1 in 5 college women whore it up and don’t want their beta boyfriends to find out so they concoct false sexual assault stories for sympathy from gullible white knights, feminists, and university administrators.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: