Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Feminism is a disease that afflicts everyone, including women, but the twisted ideology’s truly innocent victims are boys. Reader Passer By links to a Carlos Slim Personal Blog article on the “decline of men”. He comments,

Btw, just learned about some interesting studies, posted at the (((NYT)))

Basically they argue that single motherhood weakened mostly the male children, because the sisters in such one parent families perform better in life than the brothers. In normal families, there is no difference or brothers perform better.

In other words, the lack of father harms more the male child than the female child. Therefore if you want to weaken men, push for single motherhood. No wonder jews try to destroy the family in the West, while simultaneously strengthening the family in Israel. There is deliberate push to decrease male influence in western society because jews feel threatened by white males, and by their innate nationalism.

So the next time a woman tells you that there aren’t enough good men, you can answer her: there aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women.

That’s a great truth Passer By wrote. There aren’t enough good men because they were raised by women. Trigger the shit out of any feminist or mangina lackey you come across on twatmedia with that stone cold shiv, and link to the relevant study.

From the CSPB article,

In a 2016 paper, David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., and four co-authors, measured academic and economic outcomes of brothers and sisters in Florida born in the decade between 1992 and 2002.

For boys and girls raised in two-parent households, there were only modest differences between the sexes in terms of success at school, and boys tended to earn more than their sisters in early adulthood.

Among children raised in single-parent households, however, boys performed significantly less well than their sisters in school, and their employment rate as young adults was lower. “Relative to their sisters,” Autor and his collaborators wrote, “boys born to disadvantaged families” — with disadvantage measured here by mother’s marital status and education — “have higher rates of disciplinary problems, lower achievement scores, and fewer high-school completions.”

When the children in the study reached early adulthood, the same pattern emerged in employment:

Employment rates of young women are nearly invariant to family marital status, while the employment rates of young adult men from non-married families are eight to ten percentage points below those from married families at all income levels.

Autor and his co-authors conclude that family structure “is more consequential for the skills development and labor market outcomes of boys than girls.”

This study is more interesting than the run-of-the-mill research recapitulating the detrimental effects of single mommery (a major cause celebre of mainstream feminism), because its structure seems to obviate any potential genetic influence into sex-differentiated life outcomes. That is, if genetics were the cause, then the sisters of brothers in single mom broken families would have similarly poor outcomes and behavioral problems. But instead what the researchers found was that single mommery disproportionately affected the life outcomes of boys, leaving their sisters largely untouched (at least as measured by SES outcome and delinquency rate) by the single mommery postindustrial complex.

This isn’t to say genetics aren’t a factor in the shitshow that is single mommery, but it does suggest environmental pressures inherent to single mommery are at least partly to blame for making life harder on boys.

It’s just more evidence that feminism has been, and continues to be, a Hate Machine dedicated to churning out Big Lies about the sexes and about their roles in society, with the express purpose of handicapping boys and men and lavishing extreme favoritism and government largesse on girls and women.

It’s silly to argue feminism is a symptom, rather than a cause, of a broken society when its agenda has directly contributed to so much social disruption, antagonism, distrust, resentment, and national decline. This is like arguing Marxism, Freudianism, Communism, SCALE, and GloboHomoism are symptoms of some deeper, underlying, corrupting force that bedevils the West. Large, society-spanning movements are as much cause as symptom of social degeneration. We’re splitting vellus hairs here.

If one wants to argue for a First Cause of the West’s decline, the most promising culprit would be Hajnalianism, but for some reason those who find SCALE objectionable rarely tackle the subject of inherited empathobesity.

Feminism as a distinctive movement really got started as a vanity project of masculinized or otherwise oddball women who were for various reasons uncomfortable in the world of women. Its leaders — and one shouldn’t neglect to mention the preponderance of feminist leaders were and are Jewish women and their co-tribal male suckups — were able to leverage their gripes to a wider audience of women who had become frustrated and flustered and, in plenty of cases, enthused, by the postindustrial revolution shocks to the social system that, critically, severed fecundity from sex and community from individual.

There was never a feminist movement that had its origins in widespread complaints about male discrimination against working women. That is a myth. Pre-20th Century Western women worked plenty, either on the home or off it. Wives working as apprentices to their husbands’ businesses was fairly common in Medieval Europe.

What feminism has been, and what it remains today, is a propaganda howitzer to mow down the natural order and replace it with an inverted dystopia in which the defining feature is the removal of all constraints on female sexuality and the maximization of restrictions on male sexuality. As in any social movement, the breath of its life emerges first from the sticky goo of the sexual market.

Lies have consequences, and the Big Lies of Feminism and Antiracism have destroyer-of-worlds consequences. They must be fought with a vengeance.

Read Full Post »

Cordelia Fine, feminist, esq., wrote a book titled “Testosterone Rex”, which she padded with lie atop lie to bamboozle her readers into believing that there are no innate psychological differences between the sexes.

Greg Cochran decided to review the book, and a good thing too, because his destruction of Fine’s thesis is total and complete, and should in a sane world discredit her so badly that the media and academia stop providing her a public platform to propagandize her Femcunt Equalism lies.

She does not want her readers to believe that men and women have different natures – apparently because such differences, or belief in their existence, would prevent social equality of the sexes. Personally, I think the more important question is whether it’s true. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Rather than talk much about differences between the sexes, which would do her case no good at all, she talks about testosterone’s role in creating such differences. Testosterone is a strawman theory, here. Sex differences might be caused, in part or in whole, by biological factors other than testosterone: would disproving an incorrect testosterone-based theory make the differences go away? On the other hand, it might confuse people enough to reduce or eliminate belief in such differences. People are fairly easy to confuse.

***

There are psychological differences as well. Boys prefer rough-and-tumble play, girls prefer ‘intimate theatrical play’. Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys like trucks, while girls prefer dolls. Interestingly, we see similar sex differences in play in other young primates, such as vervet and rhesus monkeys. Young chimpettes are known to carry a stick around, sticks that seem to be stand-ins for future babies – like dolls. Since other primates that are not exposed to anything resembling human socialization [they can’t talk] show similar play preference patterns, socialization is unlikely to be the driver of those patterns in humans, no matter how much Fine would like that to be the case.

***

Men are far more violent than women, far more likely to commit murder [and suicide], in every society. Obviously, if we see it everywhere and everywhen, the cause must be … climate change.!

***

Men take more risks, especially after puberty. Fine attempts to talk this away, as she often does. Her argumentative approach sometimes has a certain mad charm, as when she mentions her baby son rolling across the room to a power drill, juggling knives, and trying to plunge a running hair dryer into the cake mix. I guess that no truly educated person could believe in anything so obvious, so… She also steps up to ” No true Scotsman “. She defines what must be the only correct definition of a risk-prone personality – someone that tends to embrace every possible risk – and if those correlations aren’t perfect, how could there be such a thing as a risk-prone person?

***

Almost all men are sexually interested in women, and the overwhelming majority of women are sexually attracted to men. I’ve heard that there are parallels in the animal kingdom. When you think about it, it makes a twisted kind of sense. Isn’t that a psychological difference? [ed: heh]

***

Fine’s fruit fly chapter is completely pointless. This lawyerly rhetorical technique, criticizing an early experiment in order to snipe at a well-established contemporary theory, was also used by S.J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man, when he argued that Samuel Morton had skewed his measurements of skulls to fit his preconceptions. Which was untrue – but it wouldn’t have mattered a rat’s ass if Morton had screwed up, because the art has advanced very far since Morton’s time. Today we use MRI and CAT scanners to image skulls to millimetric precision.

***

Fine takes a stab at showing that there’s isn’t much point [in terms of extra evolutionary fitness] in men getting extra mates. She comes up with an unphysical and absurd example – mentioning how unlikely it would be for 100 one-night stands to generate an extra 100 babies. That’s totally irrelevant: all it shows is that she’s innumerate. Here’s the practical example: suppose some dude has a wife and a girlfriend next door. Suppose he has intercourse 50 times with each of them over a year – both are probably going to have a kid, while with just the wife , he would have had one. 2 > 1. Am I getting too abstract here? By the way, if sexual selection doesn’t really happen, what could explain men’s huge strength advantage? Eating Wheaties?

Cochran’s flaying of Fine goes on like this for a while. Fine (and Fine-ism) must traffic in an endless procession of lies if it is to have any reason for existence. These necessary lies make them easy targets for unruly realtalkers like Cochran. One might say, for masculine truthtellers.

Feminism (aka Sex Denialism) is one of the two pillars — the other being Antiracism — supporting the greatest lie ever told to Man: Equalism, the religious belief that man is interchangeable with woman and the races interchangeable with one another. Both pillars must be attacked and reduced to smoldering rubble if the White West is to have an opening to revitalize and become great again.

Live not by lies. Which means, live not by feminism and antiracism.

PS I highly encourage CH readers to spam Cochran’s review at Fine’s Amazon link to her Book of Lies. As usual, the reviews are all from agrrocunts and mincing phaggot male feminists giving it five stars. All it would take is one brutal predatory shiv of a bad review, like Cochran’s, to send that rabbit warren scurrying in all directions.

Read Full Post »

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 »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: