Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Another cherished feminist and equalist shitlibboleth falls. Fat chicks were never attractive to men. There never was a “fatopia” in history when low sexual market value manatees battled the patriarchy’s beauty standards and won. Fat women have ALWAYS been repulsive to the vast majority of men.

And CH has long been on record reminding the fat acceptors and fatty fat apologists that their quest to overturn men’s innate preference for slender babes is a quixotic one doomed to end in oleaginous tears.

As if ❤️SCIENCE❤️ hadn’t already stamped more than enough Chateau real world observations with its liberal-approved (heh) imprimatur, along comes another trove of historical research (re)discovering the wisdom of the ancients that men prefer slim-waisted beauties, and that this preference is about as universal as a human mate preference gets (h/t thejerk):

Slim waists have been the mark of attractive women throughout history, says a US scholar who has analysed thousands of ancient texts.

Dr Devendra Singh scoured references to fictional beauties from modern times back to early Indian literature.

He found that slimness was the most common term of praise from an author. […]

In the most recent research, he looked at how ‘attractive’ women were depicted in literature, analysing more than 345,000 texts, mainly from the 16th to 18th centuries.

While most of the writings were British and American, there was a small selection of Indian and Chinese romantic and erotic poetry dating from the 1st to the 6th century of the Christian era.

While the most-often mentioned feature was the breasts, waistlines were mentioned 66 times, with a slim waist predominantly linked to attractiveness.

Objective female beauty standards are timeless, unchangeable, and hated by the ugly, fat, and misshapen.

This shiv gleams with the bloody blubbery wetness of a skewered fatty, but the good doctor Singh has one more wound to carve in the distended porcine bellies of the slovenly shambling mounds.

Dr Singh said: “The common historical assumption in the social sciences has been that the standards of beauty are arbitrary, solely culturally determined and in the eye of the beholder.

“The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”

And that is why America has never been uglier, in body and spirit, than she is today, groaning under the weight of an obesity epidemic and fracturing from the tinnitus caused by the whiny wails of a million butthurt losers.

******

And that is not all the shiv we have today! There’s yet more shanky goodness. CH has written about the grade inflation in women’s dress sizes to accommodate, physically and psychologically, the zaftig proportions of the modern emporkered American woman with an ego as thin-skinned as her hide is thickly equipped.

And no wonder manufacturers have sought to “vanity size” their dresses for sale to a growing (heh) market of waddling wursts. The average American woman today weighs about as much as the average 1960s man! To my American male readers, the odds are good that you are banging a woman you’d have as much trouble throwing over your shoulder as you would have had with your father or grandfather in their primes. Sleep on that.

A follow-up to that CH post about women’s dress sizes comes via reader Critical Eye. Inflation strikes again:

A size 8 dress today is nearly the equivalent of a size 16 dress in 1958. And a size 8 dress of 1958 doesn’t even have a modern-day equivalent — the waist and bust measurements of a Mad Men-era 8 come in smaller than today’s size 00. […]

Enter the era of vanity sizing. Clothing manufacturers realized that they could flatter consumers by revising sizes downward. The measurements that added up to a size 12 in 1958 would get redefined to a size 6 by 2011.

And Lena’s getting laaaaaaaaaarger!!

Critical Eye observes that the Fat Acceptance bowel movement “comes with Offishal Imprimatur:  the clothing sizes are maintained by the American Society of Testing and Materials.”

Fat fucks can take a backhanded comfort in the assuaging of their wide load egos by Offishal government organizations devoted to spreading a Valdez-sized oil slick of lies over everything true and beautiful in the world, but in the end the only imprimatur that matters is the serrated CH Shiv leaving its insignia in the marbled vitals of these filth-peddling grotesqueries.

******

This is a truthnbeauty post, so hatefact news about Diversity™ is related to exposing the lies of the Fat Acceptors: diversity lowers a firm’s market value.

Most likely share values drop when a firm’s board adds more women because investors are discounting the future rate of return of the firm based on two unflattering facts about the Diversity Danegeld: one, that a company which moves its focus to social justice adventurism loses focus from its profit-making ability, and two, an increase in female board members will result, given time, in a decrease in firm performance. (Hi, Carly!)

PS Commenter JP makes a great analogy between stock portfolio diversity and racial/ethnic diversity:

When you over-diversify your stock portfolio, you don’t ever outperform the market. You just sort of putter along, rising and falling with the all-share index while everyone else gets rich. The same applies to diversity uber alles.

PPS

Yes, I know it’s ‘shopped, but the visual alone sans placard (the hooters chick was originally carrying a drink order) would’ve sufficed to get the point across. A happy, smiling hottie, content to be a pleasing decoration for men, horrifies an ugly feminist by her mere cavorting presence. Low mutational load rape!

Read Full Post »

Does Roosh have any recourse to sue this feminist, Haley Yael, into submission?

Posting flyers with a man’s photo and an accompanying “sexual predator” libel seems to me to violate some basic international legal protections, not to mention common decency. Not that I would ever expect common decency from feminist cunts, but it’s always helpful to remind people how deranged the mouthpieces for the “social justice” movement have become.

Upside: This will immeasurably boost Roosh’s infamy, which will not coincidentally increase the pool of women, feminist or otherwise, who secretly and not so secretly want to experience his Bang philosophy firsthand.

PS Kudos for the trolling operation here.

Canada… where the men put things up their butts and the women fantasize about being attractive to rapists.

Read Full Post »

This is funny. Roosh was attacked in a Montreal bar by a shrieking mob of hags and male feminists, aka Canadians. It’s all on video.

Canadians once again demonstrating their open-minded tolerance for differing points of view. O Canada: Land of the raving lunatic femcunts who LITERALLY throw a man in jail for six months on the charge of disagreeing with a feminist.

Roosh has taken to the stage to deliver a Trump-ian victory speech.

It’s all well and good. Anytime a malignant leftoid creampuff gets humiliated is a good time. I do have a word of advice for Roosh: Next time you’re in enemy territory, make sure you roll with some dudes who have experience throwing punches and pimp slapping skanks, or at least look like they do. When the internet SJW gets a little too big for his underoos and tries something in real life, like flicking a limp wrist in your general direction or tossing a beer on your head, he or she will be met with a very upsetting macroaggression. And it’ll all be legal, assuming Canada still honors the principle of self-defense.

***

In related ♂SCIENCE♂ news, there are few women in STEM fields because… wait for it… women don’t know math. But no worries, Jessica Valenti, et al, will be along shortly to tell you just how goddamned much math women really know if only the patriarchy weren’t keeping them down, and they’ll wave their Wymyn’s Studies degrees in your face as proof.

***

VICTORY IS AT HAND! update: In a post-debate Iowa poll, Trump maintains his commanding lead over the warren of GOP cucklets in his wake.

Read Full Post »

Did you know Megyn Kelly, Cuck News airhead, is a lawyercunt? After last night’s debate, her former vocation makes perfect sense. Watch the first 0:45 seconds of this outtake.

Trump effortlessly bats away her attempt to entrap him into cuckservative apologia for imaginary misogyny. Can’t stump the Trump! The audience (including women) applauds. MegYn fumes and tries to shout over Trump’s shit-eating grin (it’s a loud grin).

At 0:30, watch for Megyn Kelly’s Resting Bitch Face. You can see her Nurse Ratched butthurt driving her into a seething rage. She must be loads of post-coital fun.

Feminist idiocy is out of control. Trump’s mild rebuke of another instance of femcuntery polluting “the national conversation” is so rare to hear issuing from these insipid public spectacles that have become evermore the trademark of late stage democracy, that it was like a refreshing blast of cool mountain air, clearing away shrike noise.

Hey, MegYn, the Trumpenkrieg (h/t MPC) has called lots of men bad words too. Do you think this means Trump is a man-hater, like yourself? Logic trap much? Projection much?

Or maybe it means that when Trump levels an insult at a fat bitch dyke, the recipient really is a fat bitch dyke.

If you want presidential debates to be female solipsism cranked up to jet engine volume, if you yearn for a political platform that is ALL ABOUT MEGYN KELLY’S FEELS and war on women garbage, and not at all about the mortal threats — immigration, debt, unaffordable family formation, foreign entanglements, anti-white antiracism, White dispossession of the nation they created, oligarch control of the political process — facing America, then by all means let’s bring ALL THE WOMEN into the political arena. They’re really good at turning what should be serious debate into feminist twaddle and their hurt feelings.

The more the Hivemind (and this includes Cuck News) goes after Trump with no pretense of fair play or objectivity, the more I’m convinced there’s a directive from the ruling class to their minions with the megaphones to take him down no matter the cost. Trump makes them deathly afraid. Why are they so afraid of him? They can’t buy him. Ok. That’s one reason. He shits on their Open Borders agenda. That’s another.

Mostly though, it’s that Trump isn’t a piss-ant, puling, wind-up betaboy toy, the controlled opposition ready and willing to dance to the tune of the Narrative Enforcers. He’s the renegade outsider, bringing the cleansing chaos of Realtalk, however fledgling, to the Old Order of Lies.

Read Full Post »

Cuckservatives, leftoid equalists, and feminists all share a mental disorder in common: the habitual denial of human nature. The ways in which these groups deny human nature are far too numerous to list in one blog post, but commenter Tempus Fuckit (heh) tangentially reminds us of one way that often escapes the notice of even steely-eyed realists.

This. Hit. Hard.

My oneitis is currently on a career tankgrrl rampage (she’s 22)..

“My mom told me not to rely on a man for money.”

..to the grave.

The cultural embrace of the iconic gogrrl careerist femborg isn’t just a feminist and equalist rallying cry; one will often hear cuckservatives mouth the very same “encourage our young women to succeed in the workforce” platitudes that animate their supposed ideological opposites.

And now mothers. If the denial of human nature is a barometer of societal illness, then the wholesale acceptance and advocacy of the careegrrl lifestyle by mothers forecasts the arrival of some seriously inclement weather.

Platitudes like “don’t rely on a man for money” have a way of gripping less agile minds and taking hold for life. Superficially, it sounds sensible; one may convince oneself, “if men won’t commit and ‘man up’ for women, then women should take the necessary precautions against indigence and establish self-sustainable careers for themselves.”

The problem with this simplistic formulation originates in the faulty premise that men and women are alike in all ways but the genitalia. This flawed premise allows for the psychological projection of the female-specific predilection for receiving material support onto men; it tacitly assumes, in other words, that women are as comfortable providing for themselves (and for others) as men are, and that men will promptly abandon their intrinsic role as resource providers as soon as women agree in principle or practice to be dependent upon men.

The core plank of modern feminism — careergrrl empowerment — rests on a horrible misunderstanding of human, and especially male, nature. It’s a misunderstanding, deliberate or deluded, that follows from an arid, de-sexualized, transactional view of relations between men and women.

“If/Then” algorithms are shaky substitutes for human sexual market feedback loops. While transactional analysis of human behavior has some usefulness as a predictive model, it quickly reveals its limitations when we draw comparisons between the decision-making processes of the sexes. An error in thinking of this magnitude will result in wrong conclusions like the one above: That men are as fickle and uncertain about providing for women as women are about providing for men, and therefore women ought to ensure their own economic self-sufficiency.

The reality is much different once we account for continuously operating SMP feedback loops. The vulnerable unemployed or underemployed young woman arouses the natural instinct in men to provide for her and protect her against hardship. As long as she has the requisite physical attributes to catch men’s eyes, there will be more than enough (white or asian) men happy to share their hard-earned material abundance with her in implied exchange for her sex and love and fidelity.

This is what feminists, cuckservatives, and Narrative-soaked social scientists don’t get about the sexes: What one sex may do in response to a given stimulus is not necessarily what the other sex would do. Men possess a moral sense, (or a character trait, if you prefer less loaded language), that compels them to provide generously for pretty young women who prove their sexual loyalty and low partner count. Women don’t have this moral sense, not in the way it is used here. Women are eager to provide many things to the men they love — most of all their bodies — but they aren’t psychologically driven to transfer their own material resources to indigent men the way men are driven to lavish largesse on indigent, comely women. Women may do this when circumstances align just right, but it won’t come from a place of deep personal fulfillment from the act of doing so. It will come from a place, instead, brewing with resentment and confusion.

So, the career tankgrrl’s mom is wrong. Tankgrrl, assuming she has the goods to attract a sufficient number of decent resource-ready men, should rely on men for money, because men are happy, indeed driven as if by some otherworldly force, to give to women for whom they feel intense physical desire and love.

Once Tankgrrl has stopped relying on men for money… once she has traveled far down the road of invulnerable feminist empowerment, leaning in the whole way… she should not be surprised to find that fewer and fewer men along each mile marker are waiting and willing to give to her what she has already given to herself.

Feminism, in this way, becomes a self-fulfilling whine. The more feminist a woman gets, the more men will retreat from her, and the more her feminist man-hating will seem like the appropriate response to her romantic failures.

There will be exceptions, of course. There always are when human nature is the topic. Ugly or old women may really have no choice but to become financially viable on their own, and for them a healthy society recognizes their need of taking the “feminist” path. But a healthy society would never elevate those exceptions to a 24/7 propaganda blitz, insisting that every woman follow the same life script as those poor unfortunate souls who have no choice in the matter.

As always, it comes down to exalting beauty, rejecting ugliness, and living not by lies.

Read Full Post »

Reader corvinus paraphrases a recent Chateau contribution to our collective understanding of feminism:

Feminism: teaching women to be second-rate men rather than first-rate women.

An earlier Chateau definition of feminism stated the following:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

The two CH definitions are related, the first being a subset of the second. To the second, I would only add “sexuality and morality” for completeness, as the sexes in their natural states tend to stress accordance to differing, yet complementary, moralities.

The goal of feminism is thus the destruction of the feminine in women and of the masculine in men. Feminism as an ideology seeks the annulment of sex-based distinctions and dichotomy, to be replaced by an androgynous slop that vulgarizes women and enfeebles men, and is at its heart dehumanizing.

Brief historical aside: The origin of American feminism as an organizing principle goes back to the 19th century, although there were rare, individual (European) women who lived well before then authoring proto-feminist books, and probably not coincidentally, these women were usually ugly and/or forced by circumstance to provide for themselves.

As was the case with Rome, the rise of feminism parallels the accumulating wealth and prestige of nations or empires. Affluence may be a causative factor of feminist idiocy, or it may be a correlative factor. Either way, once a nation has succumbed to materialism, it has succumbed to feminism, and once a nation has allowed feminism a toehold in the body politic, decadence and decline are not far behind.

The roots of feminism are found primarily in the suffrage movement, and secondarily in the effects that growing wealth have on the behaviors of men and on social equality. (It’s not well-known that many of the American first-wave feminists were Evangelical Christians who wanted the government to have a stronger role promoting morality, e.g., the temperance movement. These ur-feminists were in many respects decidedly conservative women.)

As the wealth disparity between the mass of beta male providers and the fat cats grew, women began to feel insecure that marriage to the average joe would save them from a life of penury. It was from this seed that the feminist “careergrrl” movement germinated, and it was this seed that the proto-globalist cosmopolitan fat cats wanted so eagerly to plant, to enlarge their customer base and divide families against themselves.

Whatever righteousness there could be found in the ideology’s original intent, feminism regressed rapidly (in nation-state life-cycle times) to a twisted, brutish, stupid dogma, that today has reached its inevitable nadir in campus rape hoaxes, Title IX, and fat acceptance, among many other bizarro world feminist social incursions that blatantly defy human nature. Inevitable, because as with all leftist missions, satisfaction from earlier victories only encourages more bloodlust, and the course of conquest always ends in desolation when the last enemy of the movement has been picked clean to the bone.

So we have as explanations for the rise of feminism affluence, wealth and income inequality, and decadence. To this we can add out-breeding, the marriage pattern among White Europeans (and, later, Americans) that split cousin-marriage kinship ties and created evolutionary selection pressures leading to a people with a high degree of trust and out-group altruism. Taken to extremes, this characteristic feature of Whites, genetically embedded for maximum staying power, promotes the beliefs and consequent social policies of “gender egalitarianism”, which is nothing less than the total rebuke of the existence of natural, organic, and psychologically healthy sex-based differences in mind and body.

Feminism is lies, ugliness, and malevolence, and that is why it must be opposed by any shiv necessary.

Read Full Post »

Via: (zoom-able link)

Sounds reasonable. Now, compare and contrast with this 2015 “guide” to brainwashing re-educating your daughters to be cock carousel-hopping urban careerist manjaws with the femininity of a toad.

Beginning at a very young age, kids notice differences between girls and boys that can develop into narrow understandings of gender. Cultivate family practices that widen kids’ sense of gender roles and alert them to bias.

Yes, nothing quite like making a kid miserable and confused and man-hating and turning her against her healthy, natural psychology to serve as a guinea pig for your twisted feminist sociological experiments.

Leftoid feminists = anti-human wreckers of souls.

I spot a contradiction in leftoid poopytalk. What about those boys who “feel like girls on the inside”? Your typical child-corrupting leftoid would encourage a boy like that to go the full transgender, because “that’s who he is”. Similarly, boys (and girls) who think boys are better natural leaders should be encouraged in their beliefs as well, because “that’s who they are”.

Eh, why bother? Nothing will get through to these malevolent cunts, besides this:

Swing High Sweet Lariat

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,326 other followers

%d bloggers like this: