Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

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

Experimenter bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update #2

Commenter Wake makes some good points.

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

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

But, feminists gonna feminist, like shit gonna stink.

Read Full Post »

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

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

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thought of attracting men hardly crosses their mind.

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

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

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

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

Attracting men is just a side effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

False Rape Accusations made by women are a systemic problem, and deserve scrutiny in the interest of justice. False Domestic Abuse Accusations are a slightly less malign version of FRAs, and for this reason perhaps occur more frequently. This video and story are an interesting insider look at the mechanics of an FDAA, how it unfolds, and how it speaks to a particularly vile part of female nature few people are willing to confront: The part that trips into action when a woman wants to hurt a man and chooses the expedient of enlisting white knights to serve as her violence and punishment proxies.

It’s time to fight the false rape accusation and false domestic abuse accusation cultures. Empowered women and dopey, gullible white knights conspire to put innocent men in jail. Active and persistent shaming of the women who lie about being victimized by rape and domestic abuse (and lie about both being a bigger problem than they are), and active and persistent shaming of the white knights who mindlessly rush to the defense of these wicked women, will help put an end to the twisted judicial and corrupt family court systems that have slowly and inexorably morphed over decades into an anonymous, gluttonous, anti-male woodchipper.

It’s time to have a national dialogue about FRAs and FDAAs.

Do women really want men to secretly videotape every moment of every day spent together as a means of self-preservation in the event of an emotional female outburst? Because that’s the world women and their feminist leaders are creating, whether they know it or not.

Read Full Post »

From an American Sociological Review research paper, 💋SCIENTISTS💋 (as opposed to feminist “””scientists”””) discover that egalitarian marriages — ones where in practice husbands shoulder a significant amount of the household chores traditionally the province of wives — are arid, sexless wastelands.

This article began by noting that American marriages are more egalitarian today than they were in the past, but scholars have found it difficult to offer a clear interpretation of how egalitarianism has changed the nature of marriage itself. One broad interpretation of egalitarianism is that couples exchange resources across various domains. Moves toward more equality in one area, such as earnings, might thus induce more equal distributions in other areas, like housework, a suggestion that has certainly received extensive investigation. In this article, we asked whether men and women use housework and sex as resources for exchange, or whether other logics govern sexual frequency within marriage.

Following up on the widely publicized claim that by doing more housework, husbands in more egalitarian marriages got more sex, we sought to investigate the links between men’s participation in housework and sexual frequency using nationally representative data. Our findings suggest the importance of gender display for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage: couples where men participate more in core tasks—work typically done by women—report lower sexual frequency. Similarly, couples where men participate more in non-core, traditionally masculine tasks report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender-typed participation in household labor. Additionally, although our main results examined core and non-core labor separately, we note that regressions using the share of total housework (core and non-core combined) also show a negative and significant coefficient for men’s share of housework.

Game, set, match, Sheryl “Lying Shrike” Sandberg. Doing more women’s work in the home will NOT improve a husband’s sex life, as you feminist creeps assert. It will result in the opposite: A gradual weakening of the sexual polarity until a unisexual listlessness consumes the relationship in a quellfire of anhedonia.

Any male feminist who at this point still claims that chipping in with the housework will make his wife happier and their sex life hotter is just fooling himself. Or rationalizing his abject supplication to an overbearing shrew. Housework doesn’t lubricate vagina; acting a dominant man with dropped testes who’d rather swing a splitter than scrub a toilet is what turns on women.

These results—whether using both men’s and women’s reports in a pooled analysis, relying on opposite spouses for reports of our key variables, or relying on men’s or women’s results alone—show that households with a more gender-traditional division of labor report having more sex. The pattern of results suggests the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity.

Sex-traditional division of labor is sexy because, stop the presses, masculinity in men is attractive to women and femininity in women is attractive to men.

Many confounding variables were accounted for in the paper, including overall marital happiness, religion, and sex ideology. None of them mediated the housework-sex frequency interaction. Men who did more girly chores got less nookie; men who did less girly work and more manly outdoors work got more nookie. Women who did more girly work got more nookie; women who did more manly work did no see a change in their sex frequency.

(The bottleneck variable appears to be the type of work that men do. As long as the husband is the whip-hand, the wife will desire him, regardless how much non-core housework she does.)

The lack of interactions or mediation lends support, we argue, to the notion that the operating mechanism is one that links within-couple displays of masculinity and femininity to sexual scripts leading to sexual frequency. […]

Men or women may, in essence, be turned on (however indirectly) when partners in a marriage do more gender-traditional work. Of course, men and women could also be turned off by doing work that is not traditional for their gender.

Feminists and their down-filled male lackeys trying to convince people that women “leaning in” like men, and men “cleaning in” like women, will heat up the bedroom are fighting a losing battle. Because no matter how much propaganda the Hivemind Hatemachine churns out, there’s simply no substitute for the rude reality-based imperatives that harden dicks and slicken pussies.

At the very least, our results are difficult to reconcile with the idea that women trade sex to men for doing what is traditionally viewed as women’s work. Based on our findings, sex seems to lie outside the realm of conventional exchange.

Why do feminists argue against common sense? Why are feminists anti-pleasure? Why do feminists loathe male prerogative? One answer has to do with the intrinsic character of feminists. Most feminists like Sheryl Sandberg are masculinized women, in body and/or in psyche. This deformity of nature arouses their bitterness and motivates their desire to upend normal society to not just acknowledge, but exalt, their peculiar disposition. A psychologically manly broad like Sandberg is nothing like the majority of women, but that leetle inconvenience doesn’t stop her from trying to poison sex relations and rework society to assuage her low-E ego.

The importance of gender has declined over time, but it continues to exert a strong influence over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

Clarification: The importance of gender as a matter of legal redress has increased over time, but despite these immense social and legal pressures to obliterate any differences between the sexes the natural and evolved compulsions deriving from our gender continue to have the final say over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

***

Executive summary: As per usual, non-feminist science shits in feminist faces and slobbers kisses all over the Chateau Heartiste worldview. To preen, or not to preen… that is a silly question. *preen*

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Read Full Post »

Five-star commenter chris marshals ¡SCIENCE! to support the theory that feminists are masculine women who use the ideology of feminism to rearrange normal society into a twisted slutscape that serves the interests of less attractive women who fail at extracting commitment from high value men. Quoting him in full:

******

Here’s a theory for you:

Feminists are a phenotypic morph.
Feminism is political-ideological weaponization by that phenotypic morph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

Polymorphism in biology occurs when two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species—in other words, the occurrence of more than one form or morph. In order to be classified as such, morphs must occupy the same habitat at the same time and belong to a panmictic population (one with random mating).

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977

“Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women”

This study shows there are two distinct phenotypes within human populations. Promiscuous people and non-promiscuous people. Promiscuous = low digit ratio=higher testosterone=short-term mating strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250010

“Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox.”

This study shows that feminists are masculinised in terms of digit ratios=low digit ratios=higher testosterone.

This explains why feminism is about changing society from long-term to short term mating. It explains why they defend women being sluts. It explains why they defend women cuckolding. It explains why they defend and agitate for women to pursue careers and achieve self-provisioning sufficiency. And it explains why they try to change the culture to support these values and necessarily oppose their anti/inverse values.

Thus, there is no right-wing war on women. There is a right wing war on the short-term mating or feminist or matriarchal morph.

Likewise there is a left-wing war on the long-term mating or anti-feminist or patriarchal morph.

And here’s the catch: most women are in the long-term mating / anti-feminist / patriarchal morph.

In other words. feminism is anti-(the majority of)-women.

******

A powerful shiv to the bloated gut of feminism is to remind normal, attractive women of the gross, ugly, and deranged feminist women (and their effete male lackeys) who purport to speak for all women. Women are nothing if not herd followers, and if it’s made clear to the Normal Majority of women that feminists are unbangable fugs no worthwhile man would touch with a manlet’s micropeen, then the herd will change course and leave the losers in its dust.

CH is doing its sadistically fun part of getting that message out to the masses.

Chris’s theory jibes closely with CH’s theory of feminism:

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

Masculinized feminism-congenial women want an unnatural order instituted that grants them the shame-free sexual freedom inherent to men while simultaneously restricting any expression of the natural sexual impulses of men themselves. Feminists want to be able to call all the sexual market shots, take no heat for misfires, and publicly excoriate anyone who fires back. This is the dictionary definition of insanity.

National Review, in a rare moment of ballsiness, also corroborates the chris/CH theory of feminism:

Feminism has become something very different from what it understands itself to be, and indeed from what its adversaries understand it to be. It is not a juggernaut of defiant liberationists successfully playing offense. It is instead a terribly deformed but profoundly felt protective reaction to the sexual revolution itself. In a world where fewer women can rely on men, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity.

Allow me to reword the conclusion of this NR statement for endarkening clarification:

“In a world where fewer ugly, unfeminine, financially self-sufficient women can or need to rely on provider beta males, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity that leaves them feeling gross and unloved the next morning after Jack has slipped out the back.”

The view is coming into focus now.

Loudmouthed feminists are more often than not:

ugly,
out of shape chunksters,
unfeminine androgynes,
older, Wall-victim spinsters,
spiteful, LSMV misfits…

who simultaneously loathe and envy the natural freedom and energy of male sexual desire. Because feminists are losers in the sexual marketplace, (and because they know it), they seek to tear down the organic, biomechanically-grounded social and sexual orders and replace them with bizarre androgynous dystopias that help them feel better about themselves. Their justified feelings of low self-worth cause them to lash out at men in the aggregate, (and particularly at lower value beta males), and at prettier, feminine women who by their mere existence daily remind feminists of their pitiful ranking in the hierarchy of female romantic worth.

When losers stop knowing their place, and begin insisting their betters are no such thing, and worse when the losers have acquired the power and means to punish their betters, you get what we have today: A failure to propagate; to propagate as a race and to propagate as a successful civilization.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,264 other followers

%d bloggers like this: