Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Misandry’ Category

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 »

A man was in a Massachusetts park, holding a camera and taking a stroll. A woman got the vapors from this horrible sight, and called the cops to tell them there was a pedophile stalking children. SIX cops surrounded the man and questioned him for twenty minutes, before letting him go. He wrote an open letter to the fevered bitch who wanted to criminalize his existence.

Dear Neighbor,

Yesterday was a beautiful day, I think you will agree. I decided to take a short walk from my house on Hamilton Street to Dana Park, which I have been coming to almost daily since 1989, the year my son was born. As I often do, I brought my camera, sat on a bench for about 10 minutes, did one lap around the park and headed home.

I had barely gotten across the street when three police cars pulled up: I was told to stop, and swiftly surrounded by six policemen. I was “detained” there for approximately 20 minutes and questioned; another officer returned to the park to find out why you had called them.

My suspected crime, apparently, was having a camera in a public park, and allegedly taking pictures of children. As it turned out, I had taken no pictures that day. But I have been photographing in this neighborhood for 30 years, and have published a children’s book of poems and photographs, always with permission.

The policeman returned and wanted to see my “flip phone,” and then asked me if I knew how he knew I had a flip phone: I didn’t. He knew, he told me, because the woman who called the police had taken a picture of ME, sitting on the bench, and shown him the picture. They then took away my phone, scrolled through the few pictures that were on it.

They continued to hover around me asking questions. As it happened, I was standing near the house where my son now lives, and when my wife appeared, walking down the street after work, and saw me standing in front of his house with six policemen, she instantly feared something terrible had happened to our son. She was shaking, and I explained the situation. She is an English teacher at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School; I am a college professor of English. Our son spent much of the first 15 years of his life in Dana Park.

You must be new in the neighborhood. I am often in the park, on foot or on a bike, talking to friends who have children who play in the playground. I know you were standing very near to me for the entire time I was on the bench, though I could not figure out why. Now I know: you were taking my picture.

Suggestion: the next time you suspect someone is up to no good, perhaps you should say hello, speak to them first and, if still anxious, ask what they are taking pictures of. That’s what people do in a neighborhood park: talk to each other. This would save someone the humiliation and degradation of being stopped and held by the police, and might save the police from wasting their time when they could be doing something more useful, like managing the daily mayhem in Central Square.

The fact that you now have my picture in your phone is both sadly ironic and, well, creepy. Could you please delete it?

Your neighbor,

David Updike, Hamilton Street

I’m convinced Americans are currently living through a second Puritan age, and our witch burners are feminists, SJWs, antiracists, and TV talk show snarkmeisters.

Meanwhile, skulking Somalis stream into Maine and Minneapolis. Welcome to anarcho-tyranny. Jefferson wept.

***

Reader Tacitus James writes,

Writing a reasonable letter to a hyper-alarmist egg layer? You might as well try to talk reason to the egg itself. No, the problem we have in our culture is closer to the police on up, especially the men. We are allowing this to happen by reacting submissively to the hyper-alarmist cries of the uteruti. Women will cry, accuse, lie, and manipulate — it is their nature. The movement, our movement, will reach it’s apex when these unsubstantiated cries are met with the skepticism they deserve. The present authorities allow these injustices to happen. We allow these injustices to happen.The police, the law makers–when we finally succeed, they will be the object of our reprimands.

Don’t take women seriously. Where have we heard that sterling advice before? *prepares to preen*

Read Full Post »

You can tell a lot about what people really value by… eureka!… listening to their conversations.

Women sometimes talk about sex — and they can be surprisingly raunchy recalling or imagining the details of intimate congress — but sex talk is hardly a major focus of their socializing amongst girl friends. Usually, one girl (the token slut) will crack a joke about the shape of the penis she inhaled and the others will collaterally cackle as part of an alliance preserving exercise. The smutcluck is dropped quickly for extended emphasis on subjects nearer and dearer to the female heart: Relationships and love.

(Slutwalk women who stick with the raunch talk for an awkwardly uncomfortable length of conversational air space tend to elicit disapproving glares and then social abandonment from their girl friends. Chicks have a limited capacity for enduring sex talk, even in their female friends.)

When women veer into R&L, as is the frequent wont of their meandering sex, their conversation assumes a VERY SERIOUS TONE.

***

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “We’re back together.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “Oh really! I didn’t know…”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #!: “You didn’t know?”

[twenty  more minutes of delicate social maneuvering before getting to the meat of the topic]

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “It’s just that he did this really nice thing and I really love that.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “mmhmm, yeah that’s sweet.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “And anyhow I think he tried to say he loves me.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #1: “He dropped the L word! Wow, that’s big.”

INTERCHANGEABLE GIRL #2: “Yeah, I know!”

[two more hours of hot debate about the precise wording of the boyfriend’s confession and whether it counts as a sincere exclamation of love. tack on another hour of girls #1, 3, and 4 alternately affirming girl #2’s decision to stay with her boyfriend and playing a gentle devil’s advocate for dumping the guy.]

***

Men, in the starkest of contrasts, rarely, if ever, have conversations about R&L. Instead, what do cool dudes talk about when the subject isn’t sports, work or hobbies?

***

ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #1: “So what happened last night? I saw you hitting on that hot blonde.”

ALSO ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #2: “Dude, I got her back to my place!”

VERILY, ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #3: “No shit! Did you tap it?”

ALSO ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #2: “Oh man, she was crazy. She was down on my knob, doing this thing…”

[twenty minutes of high fives and rapt attention as excruciatingly crude, detailed account is told of sex positions and composition of female squirt juice.]

NOT SO COOL DUDE #4: “Man, great stuff. Does this mean you’re gonna date her for a while?”

[sound of air being let out of balloon. full-body group cringing and disappointed looks exchanged.]

ONE OF A KIND COOL DUDE #1: “How ’bout those Dodgers?”

***

The examples I presented here are highly illustrative of real life among normal psychologically healthy human beings, but neither presupposes that men never concern themselves with relationships and love, nor that women are never interested in talking about sex. The key difference between the sexes is this:

Women are primarily interested in R&L, and secondarily interested in sex. Men are primarily interested in sex, and secondarily interested in R&L.

To punctuate the point, try to imagine a conversation between men that focused on R&L without any familiar, tension-alleviating digressions into sex talk.

***

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “We’re back together. It’s been one month.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “Aww! Tell me all about it!”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “Wellllll… she’s been really good to me lately.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “That’s really great.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “AAAAaaaand… I think she might’ve said she loves me.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “Wow, that’s huge! How did that come up?”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #1: “I’m not ENTIRELY sure she said the EXACT words ‘i love you’ but it sounded like she was trying to say them.”

BUTTPLAY ENTHUSIAST MANLET #2: “I knew there was something between you two!”

***

Preposterous on the face of it. No straight man has a conversation like this with his buddies, unless he’s auditioning for a part in a Broadway play called “My Colon For Old Fags” or “My Own Private Hide-A-Pole”.

Yes, yes, so many of you are shocked by this news. “Tell us something we don’t know, CH.” But we have entered a cultural dystopia when this common sense is rapidly being distorted and replaced by feminist and manlet poopytalk. Tragically, some of the SJW poopytalk is reaching the ears of impressionable naifs, and setting some of them on a course for self-destruction, especially those whose emotional stability is marginal.

There are CH readers with children. One of these naifs swallowing feminist slut cunt lies by the bucketful could one day be your daughter.

When bitterbitches ape the mannerisms and sociosexual predilections of men, their butthurt try-hardness is a transparent ruse all but the lappiest lapdogs can see through. A girl screeching about “opening her legs for every man BUT YOU” is assuming a twisted, false pride in a domain normally and healthfully reserved for men which she knows, deep inside where the armor of her lies yields to the rumbling growl of her id, is a phony front serving no purpose other than blind rage at the retreating world of a good man’s sincere love leaving her behind.

Case in point: The “dick is abundant and low value” girl I had to disembowel as a lesson for the others. With much pain and sorrow in my heart, I took the shiv to her exposed ego and performed a necessary duty. A duty that perhaps would, one day, somewhere, and in a fashion that social science studies would struggle to capture in their arid data sets, rescue an innocent young woman or young man from living by the lies of a loser in love.

For those still wondering what this is all about, a revelation. Above all, Le Chateau abides the Keats’ ode: “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.” Our glorious, gleaming civilization is getting uglier and further from the truth by the day. A mind full of lies contorts the body into misshapen ugliness. An ugly visage will infect the mind with ego-assuaging lies. Lies must be exposed at birth, or they will grow monstrous and consume everything beautiful in their path. In the wake of lies, ugliness follows like a toxic spindrift.

Therefore, the CH Excalibur… the Holy Heartistian Shiv… drives through the bullshit until the gore stains the hilt, so that beauty and truth may once again assert their rightful place as earthly host to humanity, and the loveless lampreys, despite their worst fears, find to their surprise a new hope for a better life…… or slink away to the icy outback where their limbic disease is quarantined to their own souls.

UPDATE

❤️SCIENCE❤️ presents her rump and accepts a meaty intrusion from yours truly before looking over her shoulder with love in her eyes.

Findings reveal that while communication patterns tend to be supportive and relationship-focused in women’s bathrooms, the graffiti in men’s bathroom walls are replete with sexual content and insults, in the course of the construction of hegemonic masculinity.

H/t commenter Strahlemann. The sex-based difference in predilection for R&L or sex talk is evident even in anonymous bathroom stalls. Chicks scrawl odes to LTRs. Men scratch sonnets to sexual slang.

If you play on Team CH, you bat 1.000. How can you not like those odds?

Read Full Post »

Sweden is the experimental lab of the deranged feminist and equalist revolutions. Manjaw and manlet Mengeles perform a gruesome vivisection of Swedish society, reattaching parts until a bolt of lightning gives life to the ünterandrogyne as zie menacingly rises from the operating table.

The “Together” project is another weapon against Racism.

Motala Municipality’s summer home is the scene of a project that’ll see young Swedes and refugees from Somalia and Afghanistan build bridges together.

here comes the cuck shot…

Camp organizer Kajsa Nilsson was asked why the camp only allows Swedish girls, but allows foreign man and girls, who are sometimes much older than the Swedish participants. “In the countries that many of these young men come from, they are used to dating girls younger than themselves, so we see [this] as a cultural compromise.”

“I mean, what a welcome to Sweden, right, when you meet a friendly young lady?” he added.

the very best of welcomes.

The camp is held at Motala summer home in the hope the Swedish girls may create “interfaces” with strangers.

The different activities to bring the two groups together include draktillverkning,

swedish for “rape play”.

This post was a delayed April Fool’s prank. But you believed it, because it was, sadly, believable. Ten years ago, you’d chortle skeptically. Today, you assume Swedish self-cucking is par for the course.

And your assumption would be more right than wrong. A Swedish “multicultural center expert” converted to Islam and joined ISIS. That story is true.

I’ll leave this post on a hopeful note. There are nationalists — aka sane people — in Sweden. One lovely Swedish nationalist lass did her own compare & contrast experiment.

It’s funny cuz it’s self-evidently true.

Read Full Post »

Census Bureau data show that 70% of men aged 20-34 are unmarried. The trend is unmistakable, and predates the current recessionary unpleasantness: More men are dropping out of the marriage market, and this gradually escalating abandonment has been going on since the 1960s.

CH has discussed ad infinitum the various causes for the marriage strike (hint: it’s not just men avoiding the altar). Sometimes, theory isn’t enough to wake people up. You need to hear the pained words echoing from the charnel house known as the modern secular mating market. A commenter to that linked article, Tom Watson, writes,

This isn’t an article about maturity, its about conformity. Society is upset that men aren’t conforming to some crazy imaginary standard being set for them. This isn’t the the 1950’s, the economy has entered permanent contraction, so it’s pretty simple, we can’t afford to marry princess and give her the castle she wants. I don’t want want to be a cog in the machine, I want to see the machine grind to a stop.

What was it? 80% of women list shopping as their number one hobby? But you want to attack men for playing video games? Pretty selective. I want to live a life of minimalism, where I have enough money to cover the basics, I don’t need a 2000 square foot McMansion in burbs to get by, I don’t want to commute to a soul crushing job and end up like the age 50+ man drones I see drowning themselves in alcohol, fast food and TV just to numb their existential pain.

Modern culture to me is spiritually dead, I don’t feel like using my one shot at life running on the never ending treadmill of materialism just because cupcake wants me to, what kind of man would I be then? Definitely not my own. F#CK THAT!!

Yes, the trope about vidgya gaming and porning men as the cause of marriage dissolution conveniently neglects to include materialistic, shopping and social media whoring women. I do think technology has contributed to divorce, but technology cuts both ways; it’s enabled the worst instincts of both men and women.

One other point which Tom didn’t mention, (but which was strongly implied): Fat, classless, slutty women aren’t high grade investment properties. No man wants to slave away to buy a 2,000sq ft mcmansion for a blob. As I keep reminding tradcons like Douthat and Murray, the obesity epidemic is as much a cause, perhaps a bigger cause, for the retreat of men from marriage as any economic factor.

Tom is also a victim of SCALE. When he says, “Modern culture to me is spiritually dead”, what he’s really saying is, “The nation is too big, diversity too overbearing, community too shattered, women too morally base, for me to feel any sort of connection or duty toward it.”

Tom, you can be your own man by learning how to charm women, falling in love, and making them a part of your life…. outside the realm of the state. Feed your heart, starve the beast.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,541 other followers

%d bloggers like this: