Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

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 »

Vapid shell entity Caitlin Dewey is at it again, snarkily uptalking in her late Millennial patois and squirting out mental masturbation material for bitter feminists left behind by a merciless sexual market. She links to a study which found that male Halo players who were losing the video game badly were aggressively hostile to female players and aggressively submissive to better male players.

Dewey uses the “””findings””” that are a little too conveniently friendly to feminist shibboleths to grind her cunty battle axe. Unfortunately for her religious tenets, the study is so flawed as to make it nearly self-debunking.

Nowhere in the linked source for the study did I see a reference to ages or races of the study participants. Were these all white kids trash talking what they thought were female teammates who were letting the team down? Or was there an unfortunate racial skew the study researchers felt disinclined to note?

And what about the ages of the male players? 12 years old, or 25 years old? This makes a huge difference. No one should be surprised when a 12-year-old boy lashes out at UGH GIRLS. But these natural and normal development behaviors of boys tend to dissipate by adulthood.

Here’s an ugly scientific and common-sensible truth with which the Caitlin Deweyettes of the SJW world should acquaint themselves: Sexist men are more attractive to women. Or, in urban SWPL ditz parlance, sexist men are QUITE LITERALLY winners.

Here’s a quote that will simultaneously trigger Caitlin’s man-hating ego and jerkboy-loving vagina.

And, in what is sure to be a shot straight to the flabby feminist gut, women are more sexually receptive to assertively sexist men.

Sexist men are socioeconomic winners and sociosexual winners. Women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who scoff at feminist poopytalk.

Now, this is not an endorsement of the 12-year-old boy variety of hostility to women. The sexist adult men who win women’s hearts are best classified as “benevolent sexists”; that is, they aren’t hostile to women; they are patronizing to women. Chicks dig a man with amused mastery. You know what chicks don’t dig, in the digging way that truly matters? Avowed male feminists sucking up to them at every turn.

Read Full Post »

Twitter twats hired Randi Lee Harper as an “Online Abuse Prevention” schoolmarm, and continue to employ her, despite a mass (heh) of gathering evidence that she is fat, drug-addicted, mentally unhinged, and a disingenuous liar.

So why is she still working there? Does she have dirt on Twatter executives? Or is the entire Twatter HR department staffed wall to wall by crazy-eyed feminists and pantywaist sycophants allergic to facts and tasked with Narrative dissemination?

A reader muses,

feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… fat… feminist… ”

I see, someone REALLY doesn’t want to be allowed back on the twitter.

Does anyone seriously think a CH house lord would beg a porky misfit like Randi Lee Harper for re-entrance to the club she is inexplicably charged with monitoring? No, that is not how this will go. She will come to CH, on her ungulate knees, to offer an obsequious apology and reconciliation to her betters. As losers are meant to do.

Long-time guests of Le Chateau will recognize the deeper message of this post. They will know this post is not solely about Randi Lee Harper (or about using her SJW tools against her) — she is but a convenient emblem to showcase a much more pervasive societal sickness — but is about, instead, the tentacled mind and body rot oozing out over the commons from the sewage pipes emptying the uptalking id waste of the SJW corporation of bitter, spiteful, loser freak degenerates whose adult sentiments were prematurely calcified into a juvenile philosophy of solipsism as they peered at the world outside through the vents of their high school lockers.

PS Hi Randi! PETA wants to know how your blue-dyed dog is doing.

Read Full Post »

One hundred and one Chateau patrons slipped this juicy omega male shitlibbery — “What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism” — into the combox for cathartic evisceration by yours unduly. The story concerns a “Mr.” “Michael Sonmore” (scare quote usage to become clear in a moment) who professes to an open sexual relationship with his wife and a full awareness and acceptance of his cuckoldry.

As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist.

Mmhmm. This rings authentic.

When I quit working to stay at home with the kids, I began to understand it on a whole new level. I am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing. Now that I understand the reality of that situation, I don’t blame women for demanding more for themselves than the life of the housewife.

LOL. So transparent. Male feminists don’t parade their sickly ids in public quite so pitch perfectly. AlexPareeniks, manlets extraordinaire, usually whip up their self-flagellation with a leavening dollop of bitter regret for betraying the last vestiges of their masculinity.

She didn’t present it as an issue of feminism to me, but after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions: Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control. We aren’t afraid of their intellect or their spirit or their ability to bear children. We are afraid that when it comes time for sex, they won’t choose us. This petty fear has led us as a culture to place judgments on the entire spectrum of female sexual expression: If a woman likes sex, she’s a whore and a slut; if she only likes sex with her husband or boyfriend, she’s boring and lame; if she doesn’t like sex at all, she’s frigid and unfeeling. Every option is a trap.

This paragraph is the crone giveaway. A bitter, lonely cat lady wrote this article as a hoax to fellate her scorched ego and lash out at all the men who pass her by or use her up. True, the lowliest of lowly men COULD have written such excrescence, but the way to bet is that an insol spinster with delusions of vengeance and… sexual agency (heh)… fantasized this whole scenario into existence. She hits too many jargony femcunt talking points too squarely on the whiskered nose. Madonna/whore double standard? Check. Alpha fux/beta bux strategy justification? Check. Anti-judgmentalism? Check. Patriarchal oppression? Check. Dismissing as cultural baggage the real, primal, biologically-founded fear men have for cheating wives who might get pregnant by another man and foist their bastard spawn on them as their own? Checkold.

The point is that it should be women who choose, not men — even the men they’re married to. For my wife, the choice between honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice, another trap. She knew how deep our love was, and knew that her wanting a variety of sexual experiences as we traveled through life together would not diminish or disrupt that love. It took me about six months — many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine — before I knew it, too.

This paragraph contains the second crone giveaway. No man nurses his depression with “an ocean of red wine”. He hits the hard stuff or the beer. Spinster cat ladies, licensed to psychologically project! B-U-S-T-E-D. Great job, Michelle Eatmore.

It does work both ways and, yes, I too enjoy sexual carte blanche. I just don’t use mine as much as my wife uses hers. What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.

How convenient for your imaginary heroine, Michelle. PS Equality of opportunity doesn’t apply to the sexual market because women have a near-monopolistic advantage on sexual commerce (which when they indulge decreases the value of their commitment market value, but femcunts don’t want to hear that part).


Reader NothingMan00 adds,

I plugged each of the paragraphs presented here into the Gender Guesser:


It guessed female writer for each, assuming the piece is an example of “formal” writing.

Another commenter astutely pointed out that no man would worry more about his wife “falling in love” with another man than about his wife fucking another man. This is pure, distilled bitterbitch psychological projection.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,352 other followers

%d bloggers like this: