Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Misandry’ Category

Krystal Ball, a “trickle down media whore“, was on MyGyn Kylly’s show last night to menstruate about Trump’s private “pussygrab” locker room talk and how it’s insulting to men (yeah right…maybe to her limp noodle of a husband).

And what does Krystal Ball do during her private time? Why, suck dildos at a BDSM Christmas party!

That last pic is great. There’s Krystal Ball getting groped by the tart in the plaid skirt and having her vagina selfied. This is a woman who deserves to be “championed” and “revered”, right Cuckryan?

Lemme clue in any white knight betacucks who may be reading and wondering if ALL LIBERAL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT.

Short answer: yes.

I’ve been to probably close to a thousand of these urban SWPL shitlib parties over the years, coast to coast and north to south, just like the one Krystal is at in those pics (except with more friends), and shitlib women are a sloot parade waiting for their marching orders. The hypocrisy of the typical urban slut is boundless, and effortless. They’ll feign OUTRAGE in the morning over some bawdy grabbadocio from a man whom the Politburo media has deemed the next Hitler, then that very same night spread their pussy lips for a selfie stick and suck down nose dildos.

These shitlib sluts have no shame, no integrity, and no self-awareness. It’s womanish herd mentality all the way down.

Every Amendment after the 10th was a mistake. They all have to go back. America wouldn’t be circling the drain today if the Constitutional tinkering had stopped at the Bill of Rights.

***

This won’t surprise anyone. Krystal Ball’s house eunuch husband:

krystalseunuch

What a fucking load of low T! Nice lean-in and desperation elbow clawing, once and future cuckold. Yeah no wonder she thinks men are “insulted” by Trump’s masculine banter. Her husband probably menstruated on the spot!

***

More pics of shitlib slut Krystal Ball. Here she is whoring for Israel. (All these personal details seem to go together, ya know?)

krystalisrael

And here she’s virtue signaling hard for her black lover.

krystalblm

Ok, I don’t know for certain that she mudsharked with this dude, but I’d bet good money on it. Look at her face. That’s a slut eye-thousand black cock stare combo for the ages!

***

Tangentially related: On Lew Rockwell’s site, a great article about the RNC-DNC collusion.

Btw, this whole pussygrab story is such bullshit on stilts. I thought shitlibs were big fans of “context” and “nuance”? Point of fact: Trump didn’t say he grabs pussy without consent. He said women will “let you grab pussy” if you’re rich and famous. Which is goddamned motherfucking true. But women don’t want to face their sexual nature so starkly revealed. Freaks in the sheets, hypocritical schoolmarms on the streets.

 

Read Full Post »

thecunt has been saber rattling for war with Russia. I wish that was hyperbole. She is an insane evil witch who hates Putin for whatever godforsaken neocon reason and would work hard to thrust America into a land war in Asia, her finger shaking with Parkinson’s as it dangled over the nuke button.

But maybe there’s another, even more twisted, motivation for thecunt’s rush to an unwinnable war?

Days of Broken Arrows explains,

Hillary wants to send your sons off to war so your daughters will get their jobs. It’s a deliberate attempt to kill off large segments of the male population.

Maybe it’s conscious on her part; maybe it’s unconscious, but the end result is that lots of men will be pulled from the labor force making way for women. I’m surprised no one else has picked up on this. To me it perfectly explains why she’d be gunning for a war with Russia before she’s even in office. Has she been pushing for a female draft? No. Therefore, a large-scale war would be the ultimate “full employment” program for women.

The final solution for feminists, so to speak.

A feminist utopia.

I’ve been saying from the beginning that thecunt is a man-hating dyke. Literally. She hates men and she eats pussy. This is why she was so quick to forgive Bill’s affairs; she didn’t give a shit. Her heart was with other women. This is also why Trump’s unapologetic alpha male masculinity enrages her. She has a visceral hatred of men, and especially of men who act and look like men. It’s no wonder her campaign is filled with bitterbitch cat ladies, gay men, and effete nümales. Not a drop of testosterone between them to offend thecunt.

*The title of this post is modeled on the typical Salon article.

Read Full Post »

The woman who was the subject of Trump’s private “pussy grab” bro banter with Billy Bush is seen here in a 2005 interview discussing her time with Trump when he was on the set of her soap opera to make a cameo appearance. Start at 5:30:

“You recently worked with Donald Trump. Did you flirt with Donald?”

“I did flirt with Donald. He is so cute and charming.”

Arianne admitted that since she had gotten married, she became a lot flirtier with other men.

This video puts the lie to those wilting flowers, cucks and manlets and white knights in particular, who think that an alpha male’s locker room banter means he “hates” women. Nothing could be further from reality. The brash alpha, like Trump, is one way in (assumed) confidence with male friends and another way with female love interests. Anyone who doesn’t understand this social dynamic is a shut-in or an outcast. Or a disingenuous fag, like cuckryan.

Anyhow, while fake phony fraud cuckryanistas bleed out of their wherevers lamenting Trump’s “objectification” of and lack of “reverence” for a flirty soap actress who revered Trump and enjoyed his objectifying charms which left her with good memories of his company, normal psychologically balanced heterosexual men and women get that beautiful starlets will throw themselves at a famous rich man like Trump and that this doesn’t mean an oppressive patriarchal rape culture is about to descend on America, nor does any of it indicate that Trump is a misogynist any more than it would indicate that Arianne is a misandrist.

Bottom line, this latest outburst by the betabitch crybullies is nothing but the release of suppressed resentment at alpha male Trump for reminding the cucks what failures they are with women and reminding the feminist cunts what failures they are at attracting men like Trump.

PS Keep in mind these cucks mewling about Trump’s raunchy private sex talk are the same degenerate hypocrites marching in gay pride parades and supporting slut walks. BAKE THE DAMN CAKE, BIGOT.

PPS A massive spontaneous rally of support for Trump erupted today in NYC when the God Emperor himself appeared outside his Trump Tower. thecunt will never feel this kind of love. Never. And it eats her up inside, what little is left to eat up.

PPPS Here’s video of thecunt and gross fatbody lena dumpham discussing Lenny Kravitz’s dick.

Read Full Post »

Hillary’s id emerges for a romp in this video: a scolding, entitled, screeching, mentally unhinged, hysterical, stilted, crazy-eyed sociopathic harridan with late stage parkinson’s.

Yeesh. Dat awkwardly artificial pitch change at 0:10. This is the look of desperation. Scott Adams on the clip: “the election is over“. Hillary’s voice and mannerism are crypt-onite to straight White men. I can’t listen to her for more than 30 seconds before I want to punch a hole in the wall. She’s distilled post-menopausal evil.

harridanofoz

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of reader BK, a link to an economic analysis of woman-coddling divorce laws.

CH, thought you would like this article – economist looks at how no consent divorces have changed savings rates and women’s leisure time – the result is that men are saving more to protect themselves and women are taking a lot more leisure time.

Quotes from the research paper:

By regulating when divorce can occur and how resources are divided when it does, divorce laws can affect people’s behavior and their wellbeing both during marriage and at divorce. Household survey data from the United States shows that the introduction of unilateral divorce in states that imposed an equal division of property is associated with higher household savings and lower female employment rates among couples that are already married.

This sounds like a legal backdoor to re-institute “barefoot and pregnant” as a family norm.

During the 1970s and 1980s, divorce laws were rewritten around the United States. Until then, mutual consent—the consent of both spouses—was often a requirement and upon divorce, property was assigned to the spouse who held the formal title to it; usually, this was the husband.

Then, profound state-level reforms brought about the so-called “unilateral divorce revolution.” Most couples now entered a legal system in which either spouse could obtain a divorce without the consent of the other and also keep a fraction of the marital assets, often close to fifty percent.

Here come the negative externalities! (which feminists always miss)

This study explores the impact of the reforms—unilateral divorce and equitable property division—on the economic behavior of couples.  In the US, these reforms affect no small number of people, as forty percent of married couples and about one-third of all people over their lifetimes are divorced. So how did the unilateral divorce revolution change the consumption, the labor supply decisions, and ultimately the wellbeing of married and divorced couples?

There are at least two ways in which we might expect the reforms to affect household behavior. First, because divorce is one of those events for which people cannot buy insurance, savings can act as self-insurance, allowing people to face some of the financial costs associated with marriage dissolution. Different ways of dividing property can affect the insurance role of savings. Second, even among couples that do not split up, a change in divorce laws can change a spouse’s options outside of the marriage. For instance, a property division regime change that favors one spouse can improve her position inside the marriage, particularly if she can obtain divorce without the other partner’s consent. This reallocation within marriage could result in changes in private consumption, savings, and labor supply.

Muh incentives and disincentives.

From this “difference-in-differences” exercise, two main facts emerge on the impact of unilateral divorce in states with different property division regimes. First, in states with equal division, households reported higher net savings (around 16%). Second, in such states, women who were already married became less likely to work, by approximately 5 percentage points. By analyzing additional time use surveys between 1965 and 1993, I find that the decrease in the labor supply of women was associated with an increase in the amount of leisure time they enjoyed.

So how is this result explained by the behavior of spouses in marriages operating under no consent divorce laws?

With these features, the model provides a qualitative explanation for the observed empirical patterns. In states with equal division of property, the law favors women at the time of divorce. When the equal division of property grants them more resources in the event of divorce than they are receiving in the marriage, unilateral divorce means that they can use the threat of divorce in their favor while remaining married, thereby increasing their leisure.

How’s that oppressive patriarchy working out for you feminists? Heh.

At the same time, married couples save more because spouses’ individual incentives to save are distorted because they cannot choose how to allocate savings between man and woman in the increasingly likely event of a divorce. Because mandated equal division of property does not reflect the allocation of resources within marriage, it ultimately distorts household saving behavior.

Influenced by the specter of no consent divorce law, marriage has moved from a “build a nest egg” model to a “build an insurance against property loss” model.

So how do divorce laws, which were passed when men and women’s economic outcomes differed substantially, affect wellbeing today? Simulations from the model suggest that, as intended by the policymakers who promoted it, the equal division of property gave more assets to women in the sample compared with a title-based regime that would grant them about 40% of household wealth. Thus, for couples that married before the 1970s, the reforms likely achieved the goal of supporting women through divorce. However, their effect is more nuanced if we believe that today’s couples may have a different, more egalitarian, distribution of resources within marriage.

Here’s a thought: How about crafting equitable divorce law that isn’t deliberately intended to favor women? There must be a word for favoritism in the law…. oh yeah, injustice.

Read Full Post »

Tradcons and feminists have more in common than either would care to confront. Browsing popular alt-right outposts, I’ve found that a significant number of them — not all; I don’t mean this to be a sweeping indictment of the tradcon right — share with feminists a misunderstanding of sex differences and of the functioning of the sexual market (hint: it’s transactional in nature, and sneering at the messenger won’t change that fact).

So what false notions do tradcons and feminists share?

  • Pussy pedestalization

That’s one. Feminists and (some) tradcons reflexively defer to the contradictory premises that female entitlement both a. doesn’t exist and b. must be catered to at all times.

  • Sexual desire uniformity

Tradcons, like feminists, wrongly assume men and women share reproductive goals, or that the triggers and the expression of their desires are similar. They are not.

  • Sinful male sexuality

Tradcons, like feminists, express a wanton cruelty toward male sexuality, never missing a chance to pathologize it. Where it really shows is in their hate for sex differences in attraction and arousal, which they dismiss by denying the biocentrality of visual stimulus and mate variety to male sexuality. Or, if they don’t deny those things, they demonstrate their contempt of male sexuality by deriding its emotional and sensate power over men, and belittling men who “can’t control” their natural urges.

  • Denial of female hypergamy

Female hypergamy is real, (and different in kind from male mate choice motivations). Maybe tradcons are upset by the science-y terminology. That’s another deficiency they share with feminists. If it helps them get over their anxiety about being mistaken for an autistic, they could call it “dating up”.

  • Denial of depraved female sexuality

No one in the “Sex Pill” community argues that male sexuality can’t be depraved. Gang bangs, facials, and homosex come to mind. But tradcons, like feminists, have a peculiar habit of denying the facets of female sexuality that tend toward depravity and darkness. For instance, female rape victims often go on to have consensual sex relationships with their rapists. And, oh yeah, there are all those coercive rape fantasies women indulge.

Similarly, tradcons (maybe not so much as feminists) tend to overestimate women’s inclination toward faithful monogamy. Studies consistently show women are less monogamous than tradcons assume and more monogamous than men as a sex.

  • Denigration of male sexuality as “entitlement”

Tradcons, like feminists, have a hysterical hatred of men trying to improve their romantic fortunes. They slander normal male desire for a quality dating life as entitlement, when it’s nothing of the sort. (Entitlement is the feeling one is owed something for nothing; most men who want to get better girls know that they have to put in the effort commensurate with the quality of girl they’re aiming for.)

The entitlement slur is one of the more toxic tradcon smears against men. The tradcon mercilessly mocks the man who strives for a cuter girlfriend, but lavishes praise on the woman who screens for Mr. Right. Self-discrediting.

  • Belief that marriage is an equal sacrifice

Tradcons, like feminists, want to believe that women sacrifice as much as, or more than, men do when deciding to marry. Not true. Men must tacitly renounce the heart of their natural, God-given sexuality to marry; women don’t. Women have a greater disposition for monogamy than do men, and a weaker urge for sexual variety and profligacy. Marriage is therefore an easier transition for women to make than it is for men to make. This sex discrepancy in monogamous marriage sacrifice demands an array of legal and informal cultural recompense for married men. (This recompense can take form in big and small ways; e.g., “king of the castle” privileges, wife taking his name, etc.)

Btw, Tolkien and CH are on the same page about men and their greater marriage sacrifice:

tolkienmonogamy

  • False equivalence between male and female cheating

Tradcons, like feminists, abhor sex-based “double standards”, refusing to accept that double standards are a fact of life when the species in question is sexually reproducing. Tradcons love to lump male and female cheating under one umbrella of equal awfulness, but the comparison deserves more nuance than that. One, female cheating can result in pregnancy (especially true before the Pill and latex condom, which was the environment humanity evolved in for most of its history). A cheating wife impregnated by her dalliance was a serious cuckold risk to her husband. The same cannot be said of a cheating husband.

Two, when women cheat, they tend to hypergamously cheat, (they turn the sex spigot off to their husbands). Men cheat in the harem-building style, mostly for physical pleasure (as opposed to the yearning for romance typical of cheating wives), and often retain love for their wives even during the times of their extramarital trysts.

***

My evidence for tradcon resemblance to dumbfuck feminists comes from reading what a lot of them who are normally straight thinkers on a number of hot button topics have to say about sex, love and women. I don’t attack all tradcons, but I do note there are quite a few of them who are as dumb about sex as shitlibs are about race.

(This is a good point to remind tradcons that one can be both clear-eyed about innate sex differences in desire AND about the importance of monogamy/marriage to Western Civ.)

The reflexive tradcon white knighting for the female sex finds its source in the same place all people tap when considering the lamentations of the women. It all gets back to the Fundamental Premise. Women are the reproductively more valuable sex (by order of the cosmic overlord), and this eternal truth explains innumerable societal phenomena related to the instinctive urge by both men and women to favor women’s concerns at the expense of men’s concerns.

***

It’s been claimed that the Sex Pill is the gateway drug to the Race Pill. But I’ve noticed a lot of race realists have trouble with sex realism. Is it a problem of demographic bias? Maybe race realists are older (less naive about race) and settled down. They’ve been out of the seduction game for a while and have forgotten what climbing-the-walls horniness feels like, or how much tougher it is to seduce younger, hotter, tighter chicks than older, hoarier, looser women?

Read Full Post »

American men are feminizing. Manboobs are popping out all over the fruity plains. For a supple example of a manboob rack, see this. (and that guy is young, he has no excuse)

But there’s something else I’ve been noticing more of lately. Chickhips. These are the males who have wide hips, making them pear-shaped, like a blobby middle-aged woman. The width of their hips causes them to walk with a swishy waddle. It’s about as ungainly as a man can walk.

Now maybe I’m just more aware of the degeneration of the male sex, owing to the muscular growth of my noticing neurons which I have spent ten cycles of the harvest poon exercising. Or maybe, this is a real trend. (Similar to how I have noticed what I believe is a real uptick in manjaws and mudsharking in the past few years.)

If the chickhip trend is real, it could be something in the water. Put there by (((someone))). Or, more tantalizingly, it could be the result of an epigenetic-type alteration occurring at the source of life: our DNA.

Probably not, but worth the speculation. Could multiple environmental estrogenic insults be a factor in changing Western men’s DNA so that they are conceiving males with strangely feminine irregularities? Is the BPA Silenced Shwing the reason we are seeing more friends of Dorothy like the John Scalzis and Alex Pareenes of the world menstruate all over the public sphere?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: