Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Physiognomy is real. Which means bitchiognomy is real. You can judge a woman by her cover. As tomjones says,

In my experience, pretty girls have the best face/body AND the best personalities.
Ugly hideous bitches have ugly hideous personalities or okay personalities. I think there is a connection between the physical beauty of the person and the beauty of the soul. Ugly ones still hope that an attractive man will get them pregnant. Then, they can trap the guy.

The Bitchy Hottie is another one of those pervasive sexual market myths that likely has its origins in the seared and stung egos of striver beta males who received polite rejections from hotties and later, reeling from the plugged up poison of their blue ball hallucinations, post hoc rationalized their loss as a victory over a bitch. Genuinely bitchy feminists are also likely candidates for fueling this myth, given that God’s miscreations have an incentive to blaspheme the good nature of Nature’s winning hands.

Yes, it’s a big myth that hot girls are bitches. Some are, sure, (I’ve dealt with a few sassy strumpets), but on the whole pretty girls are nicer than ugly girls. If a woman is treated well her whole life because she’s pretty, she’ll tend to think the world is a great place overflowing with kindness and love. Many betas confuse hot girl rejection for bitchiness, when in reality most hot girls reject men in exceedingly polite terms. It’s the fugs and marginal girls who are nasty bitches when they reject the betas they think aren’t in their league.

Here’s a handy dandy hierarchy of what I’ve observed is the “Bitchiness Quotient” of women at various SMVs along the belle curve:

A BQ of zero means the girl is nearly always exceedingly nice without being cloying. A BQ of 10 means the girl is a fat feminist writer for Salon. (“HB” = Hot Babe. “PJ” = Plain Jane. “UG” = Ugly Girl.)

VHB10 -> BQ 0
HB9 -> BQ 0-1
HB8 -> BQ 1-2
PJ7 -> BQ 3-4
PJ6 -> BQ 5-7
PJ5 -> BQ 6-10
PJ4 -> BQ 4-10
UG3 -> BQ 1-8
UG2 -> BQ 1-4
UG1 -> BQ 0-3
VUG0 -> BQ 0-1

I hope the CH readers have noticed the patterns in the above HB-BQ correlations. First, there’s a general leaning among hot babes and ugly girls toward niceness over bitchiness. Hot babe niceness is explained above (i.e., it’s easy and fun to be nice when the world loves you). Ugly girl niceness is a result of low self-esteem. When you are beaten down by life and have lost all confidence in yourself as a romantic catch, you’ll be nice to people more out of necessity than good will.

UG niceness is similar to the Niceguy’s deference; neither one feels as though they have social elbow room to fly their hate flag or even show mild disapproval when slighted. Neither one would dare express their true feelings to another person or a group if they believed there was even a tiny chance their words would be misconstrued as anything less than fulsome praise or abject supplication. This is the prison low value people live in; a cramped world in which all thoughts are checked to avoid the omnipresent threat, always nearer for them than for their betters, of social expulsion.

However, one difference between the insta-personalities of HBs and UGs is the variance. HBs are rarely unpleasant. In contrast, UGs on the boundary between ugliness and mediocrity span the niceness gamut; not a few are repulsive bitches, having turned to the snark side by an Inner Palpatine coaxing them to embrace their pariah status. Smart, overeducated UGs are the most prominent, and worst, example of this breed. They survive by banding together, so you will rarely deal with them mano-a-monster.

The BQ sour spot is the middle of the female beauty curve, smack dab in Plain Jane country. The 4s, 5s, 6s, and sometimes 7s are the girls who were born into bitchiness, molded by it, and have emerged from the other side skilled at lashing out in the general direction of any approaching man. Plain Janes have enormous chips on their shoulders from endlessly straddling that labial wedge between cute-enough-for-betas and not-cute-enough-for-alphas. The pressure of this wedge is exacerbated by the entitled self-assurance of the omega and beta males who hit on them without their consent, and by the evasiveness of the alpha males who toy with them with their consent.

Plain Janes are as likely, if not more likely, to be bitches as to be half-hearted nicegirls, and when they’re bitches they aim to be the biggest bitches on earth. The Plain Jane is occasionally nice, but then only to men well out of her league, for whom she nurses an unreasonable expectation of reciprocated desire, partly inflamed by the paternal kindness of these men toward her. To all others, including hot women, the Plain Jane is an annoying cockblock too full of herself, unless she has been blessed with a predisposition for circumstance-immune niceness.

High BQ PJs often wind up childless spinsters by their mid-30s because they couldn’t suffer the indignity of settling, especially if they have wasted their prime nubility years on a quixotic quest to ensnare alpha cock beyond the pump and dump statute of relegation. HBs don’t settle (much), and the UG’s gratitude for any man, however lowly, who shows her love overrides her distaste for settling.

Aging beauties are another demo that has a high BQ. Totally understandable, if still noxious. The 21-year-old HB8 who by inevitability of age has degraded to a PJ6 as early as her 30th birthday is right down there with the overeducated UG0 in quickness to resort to repellent bitchiness for no apparent reason. The cunty cougar and odious spinster aren’t stereotypes for nothing.

Ya know, patriarchy would solve all these problems that bedevil mediocre women.

Read Full Post »

There are a few pervasive sexual market myths that cry out for the tender vivisection only a Chateau house lord can lovingly execute. One of these myths is the notion held dear by sour grapes LSMV men that hotties are dead fish in bed.

Reader Passer By comments relevantly,

i remember when an ugly woman (skinny, though) was asking for advice in some men’s forum. She wanted to know if men are going to prefer a pretty woman that rarely makes sex over her, that can offer great sex. The men told her that they will prefer an ugly woman (with good looking body), if she can make great sex, over a pretty women, that rarely makes sex.

So you could give that advice to such women. Sex up!

The men in that forum are lying. It’s what men do when they want to help a distressed woman feel better about herself. But when the rubber meats the hole, men will betray their stated lofty principles and experience hotter, better sex with a hot woman than with a plain jane. Because of this real world dynamic, men will expend a lot of energy seeking one night stand sex with hot women over relaxing in the confines of a secure relationship with a buttaface who puts out more regularly.

Commeter Tarl inserts a pointed shiv,

If you are so ugly that no man will ever climb in bed with you, then your ability to “make great sex” is irrelevant.

True, and it’s a false dichotomy anyway. An unrealistic hypothetical. The “dead fish in bed hottie” is another one of those dumb feminist and butthurt beta male ego-assuaging foundational myths that has no bearing in reality. Hot chicks are actually more passionate in bed because they know their beauty is a turn-on for men, and they get turned on by watching their men lose control. A mind-body arousal feedback loop sets up that can escalate a hot woman’s carnal passion to heights that ugly women only read about in female porn (aka romance novels).

And it’s even more dispiriting for ugly women than that. Not only are hotter women generally MORE sexually wanton in bed than are ugly women, but men are primed to PERCEIVE a hot woman’s sexuality in more glowing terms than they would a plain woman’s sexuality, EVEN IF the plain woman objectively possessed a broader repertoire of sex positions and wider flexibility to accommodate those positions.

There really is no end to the ways in which being a beautiful woman is better than being an ugly woman.

***

I suspect the dead fish hottie myth first circulated among beta male strivers who had accumulated some experience bedding genuinely hot women. Hot women have hot woman standards, which can play out as sexual indolence on the rare occasions when a hot woman hooks up with an uninspiring beta male. Rejection stings, but sexual rejection is a scythe to a man’s soul, and many such betas cut down by the turtled snatch scythe will rationalize a hot woman’s lack of sexual enthusiasm as her own character defect. The male rationalization hamster exists, though we may say the critter is slower and smaller than the female version.

Read Full Post »

A hilarious social experiment unintentionally blew up in the faces of the shitlib academics who ran it when it busted their cherished shibboleths about male privilege and misogyny. An actor and actress were recruited to replay the Presidential debates between Trump and thecunt, except the actor played as thecunt and the actress as Trump, ostensibly to confirm the biases of the liberal academic audience that only anti-woman sexism caused thecunt to lose the election.

Unfortunately for the self-congratulatory libs, their egos were stroked against the grain.

Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

***

“I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

***

We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.

***

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back.

Male shitlib academics are such nancyboys.

The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

Anti-reality: Male privilege.
Reality: Female privilege.

Feminists and Globohomo poz dealers want you to believe in the anti-reality of MUH MISOGYNY, when the reality is that female privilege is the incessant undercurrent of culture, derived from the fundamental premise that governs all social organization and policy: women are more reproductively valuable than are men. The Fundamental Premise — namely, the biological reality that the sexes are innately different in reproductive capacity and in the psychology that must flow from that reality — explains why, for instance, thecunt actually would have done WORSE on election day if she were a he, and Trump would have done better if he were a she.

Female privilege is getting a boost for being a woman, which is exactly what thecunt got, given how her core natural constituency — smug liberal academics — hated her male version.

The opposite of male privilege — male privation — is closer to what Trump had to overcome; a plain-talking, aggressive, masculine man will frighten away a lot of sensitive shitlib snowflakes, whereas a female version of himself would have lowered his natural antagonists’ defenses and rendered them more open to his message.

This also clues us into why Trump supporters tend to be feminine women and masculine men; both groups are more secure in their healthfully polarized sexuality and thus unlikely to be put off by a male leader behaving as an unabashedly masculine man. Masculinized shitlib females and feminized shitlib males often feel threatened by men (and women) who are closer to the SMV ideal for their sex.

I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad.

Generally, people are more accepting of masculine women than feminine men (the latter are bigger traitor risks to the tribe), but neither are loved. Sexual polarity was the God of Biomechanics’ first order of business, and that means we — all of us, whether or not we admit it in heretic-burning company — prefer our women feminine and our men masculine.

I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, “I kind of want to have a beer with her!” The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.

Recall, as uncovered by Jonathan Haidt in his research of the moral priorities of liberals and conservatives, that libs have a more constricted moral universe and are therefore less able to understand and empathize with conservative moral considerations. Conservatives in contrast have a broader and more soundly distributed moral spectrum of concerns that one might call “adult”, (as opposed to liberals’ “juvenile morality” that focuses almost solely on harm and fairness).

I don’t expect any of these eureka moments to crack the libshit facade. The typical post-America libocrite can accommodate levels of COGDIS that would’ve left his lib-lite grandfather a quivering lump of neuroses. No, the only solution to the currently toxic shitlib insanity is a return to the kind of existential pain that can’t be mentally eaten away.

Read Full Post »

*scraaaaatch*

*freeze frame*

Let me tell you why I preen so much. Because ¡SCIENCE! can’t stop slobbing the CH knob!

The Chateau was out there early laying realtalk on the stubborn ears of the eunuchracy about the male enthusiasm for no strings attached sexual release and the opposite female preference for sex swaddled in the comforting confines of commitment.

Now a study had rediscovered the wisdom of the ancients: Women regret one night stands, men regret not having more one night stands.

Feminists have striven for decades to emancipate women sexually, but when it comes to casual promiscuity, the female of the species is still more straight-laced than the male. And evolution is to blame.

The prime lie of feminism is that women are sexually and romantically wired like men. Therefore, the feminist goal of liberating female sexuality from any and all constraints will run headlong into the reality that women don’t do well pursuing the same sexual liberation that men take to more instinctively.

Only one in three women said they were happy about their casual sex experience, compared to more than 50 per cent of men.

However far more men regret saying no to a one night stand than women. Eight in 10 women said they were glad that they had said no to a recent opportunity for casual sex, compared to just 43 per cent of men.

FYI any aspiring womanizer should read this as evidence that it’s the smart move to push a woman for sex sooner rather than later. Waiting too long allows more time for her to rationalize reasons not to sleep with you. Use a Trump tactic and “flood her zone” (double entendre intended).

(The 43% of men who regretted their one night stands were the ones fucking fatties.)

“We’re not saying that there aren’t men who regret casual sex,” added Prof Kennair. “But it is far more common for women to regret saying yes. They are also less unequivocally happy about the experience.

“Women regretted having a one-night stand the most, but they weren’t sorry about saying no at all.”

High cock count sluts have that tell-tale thousand cock stare for a reason: they’re wracked with regret and a gnawing feeling of worthlessness.

Men in the study were also found to enjoy the actual sex more, with more men saying they had achieved orgasm than women.

Feminists BTFO……..by literally thousands of years of common human knowledge about sex differences!

“Due to selective pressure from the big difference in parental investment, one would expect men and women to regret different aspects of casual sex decisions: having casual sex with the wrong partner versus missing a casual sexual opportunity,” the authors conclude in the study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.

Men can theoretically father thousands of children and are only limited by the supply of willing, fertile women. In the past those who could reproduce freely could have so many children that it would not matter if some did not survive.

The “scatter-gun” strategy means that the quality of a sexual partner for men does not have to be as high as for women, the study suggests. Men who moved from woman to woman and got them pregnant would have scored best in the evolutionary race.

When Whites and Asians evolved in their high paternal investment environments outside of Africa and its particular selection pressures, the men picked up a stronger discriminatory taste in women because they would be sticking around to help raise their kids. So this evo psych assertion needs trimming to account for race differences in male mate acquisition. Black men honestly will fuck anything, and that simply doesn’t apply to nonblacks to the same degree.

However for women, partner quality is far more important and adding additional sexual partners does not increase their chance of reproductive success.

The BLEEDING obvious.

“Many social scientists expect that in sexually egalitarian cultures such as Norway, these sex differences would disappear. They do not. This fact makes the findings on sex differences in sexual regret in modern Norwegian people so fascinating scientifically.”

Nordic Feminism is a luxury of a decadent people who can afford to entertain lies and fantastical interpretations of human nature.

The researchers conclude that cultural changes since the 1960s have not altered underlying gender differences in how men and women view sex.

The God of Biomechanics laughs at your idiotic human ideals.

Read Full Post »

berkeleymasculinize

Freshman – would marry.
Sophomore – would date.
Junior – would bang.
Senior – would mistake for a boy.

The Berkeley Effect isn’t limited to Berkeley. Libtard colleges and universities all over the West are busily turning our fresh-faced innocent waifs into indoctrinated man-hating aggrocunts with chips on their shoulders and sexual histories that would scandalize de Sade. There’s a Frenchman on Twatter who runs an account (@adoisdepois?) dedicated to showcasing the university corruption of these delicate flowers into hardened cuntzu. Every week he features a random girl who has undergone the nightmare transformation that occurs after four years of university: from a pretty girl with long, natural hair color into a brutalist feminist with short, laboratory hair.

Save our women, cleanse academia in fire.

Any parent of a daughter would be smart to encourage her to marry young and marry well, and to start popping out kids instead of destroying her number one asset — her feminine beauty and charm — at a university delusion mill. Leave the multiple degrees and cubicle careerism for the ugly women who never had a chance in the marriage market.

Read Full Post »

Women by their nature want to submit to a man; the only question is to which men they will submit.

Hint: It’s not weak yes-men who flatter feminists’ childish world views.

Canadian Friend winces with disgust at the wont of the fairer sex,

A bit off topic,

another submissive feminist,

take a look at the prime minister of Ontario ( population 14,000,000 ) a lesbian feminist, a strong independent woman who turns into a submissive woman and acts as if she is inferior to men the second she steps into a mosque

they made her wear a veil and sit separately from men, a woman who is in charge of 14 million Canadians, she became docile like a battered wife, like a battered dog in the presence of muslim men.

I’m looking for s stronger word than scandalous.

the photo alone is mind bogglingly shocking. ( first link large photo + second link details by Milo )

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/02/wynneing-57.html
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/02/canadian-politician-mosque-corner/

wynneing

“Wynne didn’t complain about degradation of women. Nor did she, although gay, say a word about the statements of the imam at the mosque she visited.”

Let’s just say the imam’s words would easily qualify as hate speech under the Berkeley code of acceptable discourse.

The GAYNADIANS are the most nauseatingly cucked of the Anglosphere nations. At the very top of GAYNADA power prances an effete SJW closet case, Justine Truvada.

Did the Russians hack the GAYNADIAN food supply and slip megatonnes of soy into the poutine and Horton’s hot beverages? The only grace that is saving GAYNADA’s bacon for the time being is their skills-based immigration system, but expect that to be challenged in short order and overturned in even shorter order.

But never mind GAYNADA, an afterthought of a country. The real issue illuminated by this story is the BIG MISTAKE it has been handing the reins of power over to women. And especially to lesbian ferengi-faced women. We can see in technirainbow glory how hypersignaling women are driving the West off a cliff, as they sneer at and belittle their own White men, (who can’t stop sucking up to feminist twats for POZitive press in the VeryFakeNews papers), while literally sitting shoeless and veil-clad in the mosque dunce corner at the demand of dumbfuck sand wops, submitting to the strong horse quicker than you can say “Obama is a secret Muslim”.

Feminism is the final shit test because if we men of the West don’t pass it — i.e., brutally ridicule and ostracize women like Wynne — then the West will fall into the hands of men who don’t pass shit tests….they give them. And feminists will happily, joyously, even relievedly, oblige their patriarchal supplanters.

Read Full Post »

The two most virulent and mentally handicapping strains (perhaps the only two strains worth noting) of feminism in America are Nordic Feminism (NF) and Jewish Feminism (JF). Those BitterBitchMarch protest photos of screeching SJW fish-mouthed feminists? Odds are those lovely ladies have a dollop of Nord DNA. And all the feminist bilge pouring out of the anti-White Krull machine known as Hollywood and academia? That’s created by Jewish women (and their astoundingly cucked men).

Commenter PA explores the two feminism camps and how they may differ.

There is a strain of feminism native to Nordics that’s driven to break boys. It comes from a fear of strong or dissolute men. What makes it different from Jewish feminism is that it doesn’t seek to corrupt the famiIy, only to subordinate the famiIy to the woman’s authority. Those kinds of women aren’t inclined toward hypergamy — they despise alphas, marry betas whom they might henpeck but to whom they’ll stay faithful, and they will castrate their sons.

I think that’s basically right, except that NFs only superficially despise alpha men; I’ve known too many NFs with sexual histories that could read like instruction manuals for how to fall into bed with alpha badboys and bitch about the inevitable pump and dump for months afterward.

Same for JFs; they’re very adept at rationalizing a vocal hatred for masculine alphas, but when push comes to love, they can’t resist the crow of the cocksure cock.

I also have noticed, to buttress PA’s insight, that NFs do often settle down into egalitarian anhedonia with the wimpiest honey-do betaboy male feminists. JFs are more ethnocentric in their settling calculus, preferring the betas of their own tribe, male feminist or not, or when they out-marry, preferring to engage in long-term subterfuge to mold their goy toys into affiliative Jews. The NFs tend to choose born-cucked hubbies who come pre-equipped with the whole suite of insipid feminist fantasy beliefs.

Another difference (besides the relatively greater ethnocentricity of the JF and the more sincere universalism of the NF) is the anger that fuels their man-hatred. Give or take the expected slate of exceptions, in my observation NFs are ANGRIER about their feminism than are JFs, who wield their feminist ideology more like a lawyerly brief to undermine goyciety than like an emotional call to arms against the patriarchy which will never go anywhere but in the battlefield of their fevered imaginations.

It’s all a bit odd when one considers that

  1. Judaism is traditionally a patriarchal religion and
  2. the Nordic countries are among the most sexually dichotomous in practice, according to research, where men take man jobs and woman take woman jobs and physically their women are among the most beautiful on earth.

I’ll open the floor to more discussion of this topic, since it’s a fascinating one that potentially can reveal a lot about the female-driven leftoid hysteria and demand for open borders to the swarth world that is currently gripping America and fated to destroy the nation as we’ve known her.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: