Just A Reminder

“I say that inner beauty doesn’t exist. That’s something that unpretty women invented to justify themselves.” – Osmel Sousa, honored guest of Chateau Heartiste

Read Full Post »

The Nexus Of Evil And Ugly

It’s the great pumpkinhead, Charlie Brown!

As hideous on the inside as she is on the outside. A monster in our midst.

There’s a reason the ancients equated truth and goodness with beauty. They knew a solid correlation when they saw one.

Read Full Post »

Women’s Worst Enemies Are Other Women

The Jizzebel hokumguzzlers have built a retard empire on the fantastical premise that demonic men oppress angelic women, and that the end of such oppression would herald a femme utopia for land whales, skanks, proud sluts, transborgs, homonormatives, globular polyamorists, selfie-abusers and really cool smart chicks with pink hair who use the word “douchecanoe” a lot and think that makes them a member of the literati.

Except that, out here in the real world where the rubber hits the hole, it’s about as ass-backwards a belief as one can diligently nurture in the face of contradictory facts. If stepping outside the confines of the gloomy bedroom internet portal and listening to ♥science♥ hold any quarter with the self-delusion set, they would have to recant everything they profess, for the facts show that women are the worst enemies of women.

Who hurts women? Real rapists (as opposed to the phantasm of “regret rapists“) very infrequently hurt women. But the threat to women, as measured by battle effectiveness and sheer force of enemy number, is other women.

The rumor spreading, shunning and backstabbing of “mean girls” may be a relatively accurate picture of women’s social interactions, one researcher says.

Though both men and women use such indirect aggression in relationships, women use backbiting to demoralize competition and take sexual rivals out of the picture…

“Women do compete, and they can compete quite fiercely with one another,” said Tracy Vaillancourt, the paper’s author and a psychology professor at the University of Ottawa in Canada. “The form it typically takes is indirect aggression, because it has a low cost: The person [making the attack] doesn’t get injured. Oftentimes, the person’s motives aren’t detected, and yet it still inflicts harm against the person they’re aggressing against.”

Why do women choose the tactically lower risk method of indirect attacks? Because of the fundamental premise that acts like a brain virus upon everyone’s underlying psychology: women are biologically the more valuable sex.

That led Vaillancourt to hypothesize that the behavior is rooted in humans’ evolutionary past. But why would sneaky meanness have become so ingrained in the female repertoire?

In short, because mean girl aggression works so well.

Because of women’s role in childbearing and rearing, they are less expendable than men and couldn’t risk injury by settling disputes with their fists, said Anne Campbell, an evolutionary psychologist at Durham University in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the work. Instead, social exclusion and talking behind someone’s back allowed women to work out conflicts without endangering their bodies.

This research lends support to the suspicion that the feminist zeal to cavalierly throw around the accusation of misogyny at men is really a classic case of psychological projection of their own states of mind. Or: only a real misogynist would impute misogyny to everyone else’s motives. You have to be one to know one, right ladies? Heh.

In related crimethoughts, those who drop the “raciss” accusation on the slimmest pretexts are likely themselves raving racists. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Not only does such cattiness make the targeted women too sad and anxious to compete in the sexual market, some studies suggest it can make men find rivals less attractive — provided the badmouthing comes from a cute woman, Vaillancourt said.

Yeah, that last part is the crucial condition. A fug badmouthing a hottie has about as much influence over a man’s judgment of female attractiveness as another man would. That is to say, none. What would be interesting to follow up on would be an experiment that examined the reactions of hotties and fugs to social ostracism by other women. My bet is that hotties can withstand female cattiness a lot better than can uglier women. Because hotties have constant feedback from men that their worth in the sexual market is unassailable.

Women often punish perceived sexual transgressions, Vaillancourt said. Studies in dozens of countries have found that women use indirect aggression against other women for being “too sexually available,” Vaillancourt said.

“It’s women who suppress other women’s sexuality,” because if sex is a resource, then more sexually promiscuous women lower the price of it, Vaillancourt told LiveScience.

Slut walk sloganeering notwithstanding to the cuntrary, most slut shamers are other women. Men may avoid sluts for marriage, but they won’t shame them. Why shame a snatch freebie from landing in your lap?

One way to avoid the most destructive effects of girls’ indirect aggression is to make sexual policing less powerful, Campbell said.

“We want to achieve a situation where that accusation [of promiscuity] had no power, where we don’t have that double sexual standard,” Campbell said. “But how we get there, I don’t know.”

Good luck with that. She may as well try to get humans to subsist on hemlock.

And women don’t compete over things they don’t value, Vaillancourt said. So women who put less emphasis on dating, or women who are past their sexual peak, are less likely to engage in mean girl behavior (at least over men).

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

So women backbite, backstab and fall back from attacking other women when the heat comes around the corner. That’s some RealTalk™ the Jizzebelers assiduously sweep under their gnarly rugs.

The fembot soul serrating doesn’t stop there. What other sins against women that feminists routinely accuse men of committing are committed by women in at least equal measure? Welp, how about objectification?

A new study has confirmed something women have been complaining about for years.

The research, out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and published in the Springer-published journal Sex Roles, essentially corroborates the belief that people tend to focus more on the breasts and figure of a woman when analyzing her appearance than they do on her face. […]

People tend to focus first on the important information about a woman.

Unsurprisingly, women with narrow waists, full breasts and larger hips – the classic hourglass figure – were rated more favorably than their less voluptuous counterparts, even when men were asked to assess a woman’s personality (rather than attractiveness) based on her appearance in the photos.

But perhaps what’s most interesting is that women also tended to objectify other females in the same way that men did. They, too, spent more time focusing on figure than face.

Can you believe the nerve of those men… hold up, wait a sec… hmm… those women objectifying women that way? Ugh, I can’t even… wow just wow… creepers!

Feminism will go down in history (along with her parent ideology equalism) as the stupidest potpourri of delusions ever propagated by a mass of degenerates sufficient in number and influence to dump their poison in the public’s ear. The Chateau stands ancient and true, thwarting the lords of lies at every point of attack.

“Generally speaking, people are more positive towards a more attractive woman than a less attractive one,” lead researcher Sarah Gervais said. “However, attractiveness may also be a liability, because while evaluating them positively, ‘gazers’ still focus less on individuating and personalizing features, such as faces, and more on the bodies of attractive women.”

There’s an important game concept tucked in the crevice of this quote. Can anyone find it?

.

.

Answer: Thermal exhaust port. Hot women have weaknesses, primary among them the nagging fear that they’re only loved for their bodies. You, as an aspiring assaulter of the pink abyss, can exploit this point of id entry into the attractive female’s ego. Disqualify and challenge — “I only hang with women who have something going on for themselves besides their looks” — then assuage and connect — “I know people judge you on superficial stuff, and how tough that makes it for you to find someone who can connect with you on a deeper level. I get that”.

A cute girl’s ego is like a finicky vineyard. You must first coax the fruit to their exquisite ripeness by introducing slight stresses to the soil of her self-conception; you must avoid overwatering and over-fertilizing, which can cause the grape (ego) to become too plump and lacking in distinction; and finally, you must pluck her exercised ego at the perfect moment and turn it into a fine wine that she is eager to pour a glass of herself for you to appreciate. Chin chin.

Read Full Post »

ABC News “20/20” Segment On The Manosphere

The sensationalist news show “20/20” is purportedly airing a special tonight on “the manosphere”. Two completely unbiased feminists report from the internet trenches, where HATE MACHINE ÜBER ALLES!

Yeah, you can expect as much journalistic integrity from two liberal arts graduate vapid shell entities as you could from a Pravda copy editor with a gun to his head. At least the Pravda guy has an excuse.

CH may not rightly be considered part of the manosphere (our hearts will go on), but this news should interest the CH readership, which crosses over with sites commonly recognized as manospherian. Actually, the news should interest all sorts of non-manosphere readers as well, such as those from the peripheral HBD, PUA, dissident and rascally right, and neoreactionary spheres. Thus, I pass it along.

No doubt this “20/20” exposé will be unfair and unbalanced choir preaching to their fat frump female audience, but that’s largely irrelevant. The take home point is that RealTalk™ outposts are getting noticed by aristocratic Cathedral hacks nervous that their carefully manicured garden of pre-approved public discourse in which they frolic is about to get overrun by revolutionaries happy to take a shit on their marigolds. In response to the growing threat, they will smear and mock at first. And then they will roll over and die.

Pro Tip: The MSM leftoid juggernaut sets the frame and gets to define its enemies. This is, for now, the operating zeitgeist. The best way to win at that game is to not play. At least not on MSM terms, on their turf. But if you decide to enter the equalist arena to do battle, you should have a plan of action for reclaiming the alpha ground. This means, in practice, before you have answered any of their questions or even allowed them to ask a question, announcing for the world your assumption that your interviewers are incapable of impartiality.

“Before we begin, I really wonder if you can approach this subject matter with an open mind, like a true objective journalist. I mean, the mainstream media has a history of distorting the viewpoints of people they don’t agree with, and even lying to set the tone of debate. But maybe you’ll surprise us all by not immediately shouting “rape” when someone talks about legitimate topics that upset you.”

By preempting their attacks in this manner — airing their strategy of slander like dirty laundry — you weaken the effectiveness of their attacks when they want to deploy them later. It’s a classic reframe. Game can win over women and TV audiences equally.

PS For the record, CH has no opinion of Paul Elam, the main rep of the manosphere interviewed by “20/20”. Never read his stuff, so can’t make any judgment whether he’s a suitable spokesman or not.

Read Full Post »

It’s Hard Being A Man In Public

Sometimes you just want to go home, but you’re stuck being a man in public.

You get on the train after a long day. The doors are trying to close and a big fat woman jams them open with her bulk, unintentionally letting on another guy. A man in a military uniform takes his earbuds out and says to the obese door-blocker, “Don’t hold the door open.”

“What did you say?”

“Don’t hold the door open.”

“Did you just touch me? That’s sexual harassment!”

You can’t help staring at the scene, like a rubbernecker slowing down to check out the carnage surrounding a car accident, and unfortunately the nasty fat woman catches you gawking at her. You take a seat as far away from her monstrous apparition as possible and try to disappear into your Kindle, averting your eyes. Everything finally calms down.

The door-blocker, who’s already proven herself to have zero qualms about confronting normal-sized people, is looking at you. You can see her in your peripheral vision — she’s hard to miss — and you can feel her looking hungrily at you.

You’re at a distance, but your suit is faddishly undersized and you’re wearing Sex Walrus cologne so you know she noticed you. Keep reading, keep looking down. You briefly wish you were less attractive or a woman or that you were wearing a rainbow flag t-shirt so she would stop thinking you were interested in her. She keeps looking at you. There is nothing worse than an ugly fat woman with delusions of attractiveness and a penchant for false eye rape accusations making life uncomfortable for you, the average man in public.

The person on the inside of your seat needs to get off. You hold your breath as you let them out and you move in, thinking of all the things you’ll say and do when she tries to plop down next to you like a tranquilized elephant and talk to you when you just want to avoid that gross feeling of a ham-shaped arm pressing into your side.

You exhale when an older woman rushes to take the seat you’ve vacated. You’re safe and insulated by the window now.

Door-blocker exits at the next stop and the imaginary sexual tension leaves with her.

It’s only been a few minutes, but this is what goes through your head when you’re existing as a man in public and ugly fat women assume you want them, when all you were really thinking was “why is this fat bitch hyperventilating?”.

Originally published at the fittingly named Jezebel Groupthink blog.

Read Full Post »

Feminist Catchphrase Translator

The following open source, feminist bromide translation service is offered free of charge. Share with your local warpig!

exploitation, noun
1. anything that gives straight men pleasure.

threatening, adj
1. an instance of consensual lovemaking.
2. an erect penis.

“Men are threatened by [X]”, clause
1. rationale offered when men don’t like what feminists like.

rape, noun
1. regret.
2. unsatisfactory sex with a beta male.

rape culture, noun
1. invisible, unidentifiable, cosmic force that helps provide justification for massive redistribution of wealth from men to women.
2. normal, healthy society.

slutwalk, noun
1. a gathering of half-naked ugly women imagining that men want them.
2. a gathering of half-naked cute women orchestrated by a rich man living in the Upper East Side as a ruse to get laid.

social conditioning, noun
1. biology.
2. all-purpose explanation for any innate human behavior or sexual preference that vexes feminists.
3. hope.

BBW, proper noun
1. a fat woman looking at herself in an hourglass-shaped funhouse mirror.

“smart and sassy”, adj.
1. annoying.
2. ugly.
3. fat.
4. what women with the above three traits put in online dating profiles in lieu of a full body photo.

[X] privilege, noun
1. anything that isn’t immediately recognizable as feminist privilege.
2. the sin of someone being better at something than someone else.
3. the quality of not being a loser.
syn.: envy

creep, noun
1. a boring niceguy who makes an innocent pass at a woman.
2. a male target of a feminist’s psychological projection.

asshole, noun
1. noncommittal lover.
2. sexy cad who doesn’t know feminist exists.
3. irresistible man.

mansplaining, noun
1. logic.
2. reason.

whine, noun
1. legitimate complaint.

double standard, noun
1. a reality of human sexual nature which bothers feminists.
2. holding women accountable for the consequences of anything they do.

“WOW, JUST WOW”, exclamation
1. emotional response to hurtful facts.
2. a resounding admission of defeat in the marketplace of ideas.

War on Women, proper noun
1. a make-believe land dreamed up by feminists and their male enablers to explain away the natural consequences of sex dimorphism.
2. a shibboleth offered by community college professors to starry-eyed, naive coeds, for the purpose of easily seducing them.
3. propaganda to divert attention from the fact that women in the whole receive every societal and cultural advantage in life.

cisgender, noun
1. normal human being.

LGBQT, proper noun
1. abnormal human being.

heteronormativity, noun
1. the imagined cause of a misfit’s deep feelings of shame and inferiority.

“I am a feminist because [X]”, clause
1. rationalization for having no dating life or marital prospects.

Women’s Studies, proper noun
1. lifetime poverty.

“No self-respecting woman would date [X]”, clause
1. An obvious face-saving excuse ugly women say when rejected by men.
2. No True Feminist fallacy.

Read Full Post »

Are Beta Males Responsible For Feminism?

Here’s a theory which I don’t think has been expressed elsewhere, because it seems on the surface to challenge long-held conventional wisdom among the pro-truth, anti-feminist crowd that feminism was the result of an unruly alliance between alpha males seeking to enlarge their pool of attractive, single women and ugly omega females seeking separate status whoring avenues where they wouldn’t have to compete with married mothers on their turf.

Most avowed feminists and feminist leaders are dog ugly, so that part of the alliance rings true. But what if it was beta males, rather than alpha males, who were the other prime movers of Boomer feminism? (Boomer feminism was the beginning of the really warped variety of feminism that supplanted suffrage and Prohibition.) Did beta males enjoin the feminist sabotage of civilization because they thought it would cramp the style of alpha males? The betas probably didn’t grasp the long-term consequences of their project, but crippling their competition was the short-term goal they had in mind when they allied with the femfreaks. They were probably thinking (beneath the layers of socially presentable equalese), “Aha, elevating women to positions of power will help kick out those entrenched alpha males and level the male playing field. More poosy for us!”

Poor pathetic beta male feminists. Little did they realize that helping women become economically self-sufficient and freed from the “slavery” of marriage allowed them to ignore betas for the sexy alphas promising nothing but a good time. The one bit of leverage beta males bring to the sexual market table — their emotional and financial provisions — they trashed in a fit of spite against the jocks they hated in high school.

That’s my theory. I think it makes sense in light of the whiny resentment modern “male feminists” like John Scalzi reveal toward incorrigible charmers who defy the logic of gender politics and not only suffer no consequences for their impudence, but profit from it.

Read Full Post »