Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Misandry’ Category

The Fundamental Premise (introduced to a curious world on this blog) states that the biological reality of women’s higher reproductive value relative to men’s results in an inborn psychological bias in both sexes that manifests in favoritism toward women and indifference toward the plight of men, at the individual and societal levels.

Institutions will, over time, take on the complexion of this innate bias favoring women, and the smallest inconveniences women suffer are blown up into national emergencies while grave insults that are suffered predominately by men are minimized in their significance, ignored, or cruelly inverted to lay blame for that suffering on men and to make restitution demands for women who are the “real victims”.

Now the World’s Foremost Newspaper of Record has broken ranks and defied the cuntventional wisdom to report on a global study showing that men are the real victims of sex-based discrimination.

Men are disadvantaged in 91 countries compared to 43 nations for women

The UK, the US and Australia all discriminate against men more, a study claims

Italy, Israel and China are harder environments for women, researchers say

Scientists created the Basic Index of Gender Inequality to assess inequality

Closer the BIGI score is to zero the greater the level of equality is in the country

[…]

The UK, the US and Australia all discriminate against men more whereas Italy, Israel and China are harder environments for women, according to the study.

Researchers say this is due to men receiving harsher punishments for the same crime, compulsory military service and more occupational deaths than women.

Those are coarse metrics, but the Fundamental Premise acts on innumerable, less conspicuous social dynamics shaping the life outcomes and well-being of men and women.

The study was carried out by the University of Essex and the University of Missouri-Columbia and published in the journal Plos One.

Scientists created a database which deciphers a nation’s discrimination called the Basic Index of Gender Inequality (BIGI).

The closer the BIGI score is to zero the greater the level of equality is in the country.

Zero is a perfect score, indicating absolute parity between the genders – and Italy came the closest with a score of 0.00021. Slightly favouring males.

The top ranked nation to favour women over men is claimed to be Saudi Arabia, with a score of -0.001554.

If it is a negative number it indicates females are better off and if the BIGI score is positive it shows males are less discriminated against.

I doubt any regular readers of the Chateau are surprised by this study’s findings that the Anglocuck nations (where post-sanity feminism and the divorce industrial complex were invented) are the most discriminatory against men and their interests.

Professor Stoet also believes the complexity of the Global Gender Gap Index makes  it difficult to distinguish whether gender differences are the result of social inequalities or personal preference.

The simpler BIGI method, he says, is a much sounder alternative.

He said: ‘No existing measure of gender inequality fully captures the hardships that are disproportionately experienced by men in many countries and so they do not fully capture the extent to which any specific country is promoting the wellbeing of all its citizens.

Hillary Clinton would call Professor Stoet a misogynist while cavalierly dismissing the premature deaths of millions of opioid-addicted deplorable men in the heartland.

PS The Sex Pay Gap is a lie. I’ll keep saying it until the media stops credulously reporting on it as if it hadn’t already been debunked a thousand times.

Read Full Post »

If you think women aren’t capable of scamming a system already designed to favor their interests against the interests of men, you haven’t been paying attention.

Nothing quite says “upholding the spirit of child support law” like an evil, diseased cunt sport fucking five different random men in one month and trying to ensnare one of them in eighteen years of indentured financial servitude to the bastard issue of a gotcha pregnancy.

And instead using the child support winnings to buy herself new lingerie to impress the next five lovers while her kid scrapes by on a soda diet paid for with food stamps, and huffs paint behind the Piggly Wiggly before his 14th birthday.

America!

DEUSVULT puts it more succinctly,

Translation: “I’m a whore. Who do I sue?”

There’s a reason why healthy, confident, rising societies keep checks on female sexuality, and why failing societies are marked by female libertinism and indulgence of female whims.

These kinds of women aren’t made; they’re released from guardianship.

You don’t have to “make” girls into materialistic, exploitative, amoral whores. It’s the natural state of femaleness. All you have to do is remove social constraints on female sexuality and let nature take its course.

The child support system was built upon over the decades, starting from a worthy premise — to protect children who are victimized by divorce during a time when most women were SAHMs — and morphing into a man-hating resource extraction racket for despicable whores to have their alpha fux and get beta bux to foot the bill for the exploding single mommery if there’s no alpha around to pay.

What man in his right mind would sign up for that? What man with a shred of dignity would willingly and happily support a rotten system that rewarded and incentivized dysfunctional female behavior while maximally punishing men for the briefest and most trivial of courtship transgressions?

No man would. Only psychological eunuchs cheerlead for such a system. In the end, what men won’t tolerate will fail to survive. The majority of men will not tolerate the status quo, and so one day, soon enough, this gynarcho-tyranny will crumble to dust.

Read Full Post »

You’ve gotta get a load of this slore. She’s taken enough loads, it’s time for her to give one back. Wear a biohazard suit.

An inquisitive sleuth [name redacted] provides the backstory:

A 3 year old son by one man, currently pregnant by another man, and she still manages to rope in some poor sick cuck to clean up the mess

Is that a cuckfecta? Not one, but two fathers of bastards which she is currently shopping to a beta bux sap to raise as his own, for the reward of pregnancy sex with a petri dish vagina that can comfortably fit a V2 rocket. What level of cuckoldry are you on? Hold his beer…

Who said romance is dead?

B.J. has fucktoy face.

She better have a vagina that can do its own calisthenics.

A good bet is that any male who shells out for a diamond ring to wife up a literal camwhore with one bastard sprog and another on the way is a total loser. An omega dreg. The filthy crust on the floor of a dive bar’s restroom. A pap smear with a penis.

Any woman “bragging” about snagging one of these desperate losers knows in her heart that she’s settling so far down the male smv ladder — after all, what kind of man but a loser would beg for the hand of a slore — that the reflected misery of it will make her feel like shit for years to come. Naturally, she will take out her bitterness and spite on her children, especially sons.

And right on cue…

This poor kid is gonna need years of therapy.

(A reader quips, “and a presidential pardon in fifteen years”.)

(Another commenter, “Such things always backfire. In 20 years from now, her son will be the leader of the “New American Nazi Party”, the “punisher of thots”.”)

The vile slattern featured in this post is too souldead and psychologically syphilitic to affectionately grace her with the thot label. She’s a level above that…she’s a torc: a “tri-orificed chattel“.

With a circulation of about 300,000, Your Ward News has drawn a barrage of complaints from recipients in and around Toronto and as far as Ottawa. The federal government temporarily barred Canada Post from distributing the publication in 2016 and recently made the ban permanent.

The publication, Flumerfelt said, demonizes feminists as “dangerous people” and calls women “tri-orficed chattels.” It brands most feminists as “satanists exhilarated by abortion,” claims women are inferior, are “natural liars with no sense of justice,” and that feminist behaviour encourages rape.

Where is the lie?

Btw, thank God America has the First Amendment. Canada sucks.

This is a good time to mention that the percentage of married American women with premarital double digit cock counts has increased from 2% in the 1970s to 18% in the 2010s:

The only premarital sex partner categories that showed a decrease as a percentage of the total married female population over the last fifty years?

Virgins and good girls with one or two premarital lovers.

Think about that.

In the 1970s, among married women 80% had fewer than three premarital cocks.

By the 2010s, 61% of the married women cohort had three or more premarital cocks.

A total inversion of the sexual market, vaulting tramps into the position that damsels used to occupy.

No wonder the marriage rate is declining. Men have no incentive to invest in spoiled vagina.

Sex frequency may be decreasing as Pillennials retreat to their fapatoriums and cat cafes, but cock carousel riding is spinning faster than ever. Just because women don’t linger longer with their flings doesn’t mean the cockas aren’t accumulating.

Is it worse that women are cock hopping more but having less sex now than they did in the past when they had more sex with fewer men? Contrary to conventional wisdom, a lack of sex isn’t necessarily a positive social indicator if it’s accompanied by an increase in sex partners. A few heady romantic long-term relationships that end in heartbreak might not be as bad on a woman’s morale and sanity as a parade of prematurely aborted short-term flings punctuated by grinding bouts of loneliness.

What’s worse, the “sexless slut” who has had ten cocks in ten nights over ten years, with lots of ice cream and Tumblrrhea down time in between, or the well-sexed faithful girlfriend type who has had three cocks at three years apiece over ten years, with fleeting periods of clitoris-gazing solitude filling the short stints between boyfriends?

This question is not so easy to answer, but I lean toward believing sexless sluts are a bigger drag on functioning society, going by the rapid onset of pussyhat lunacy that has gripped our nation’s single women.

PS Dating in the Year 2018:

#ThotAudit

Read Full Post »

The Case Against Tipping

Tipster thoughtfully rants about “tipping culture”, labeling it a wealth transfer from men to women, and therefore a reinforcement of a structurally misandrist system.

Tipping is just another forced transfer M>>>F

I don’t tip. Why should I tip the person who brings food to my table, but not the chef? I don’t tip retail workers, fast food workers, or my delivery guy, so why am I expected to tip at a restaurant?

White knights will screech that wait staff can legally be paid less than minimum wage. So what? Take another job if that’s such a problem.

I think the Euros have it right and we in America should have laws against service industries underpaying wait staff on the expectation of customer tips covering the difference. Oh, but then Fatty Matty Yglesias will have to pay more up front for his authentically amerindian infarction platter.

The REAL reason we’re expected to tip wait staff is that they’re mostly young women. Fuck off, it’s not my problem, pay them a decent wage.

In the cities, the wait staff are young women, gays, or vibrants. White, conspicuously heterosexual male servers are a dying breed.

Escorts give WAY better service than waitresses but they come with an agreed price up front. If I don’t have to tip a woman for pounding her in every hole, why should I tip her for moving some plates around?

The final argument I’d like to address is the “it’s the only job many single mothers can get”. If a MAN was in that position no one would care. “Hey bro, truck driver is the only job I can get, give me an extra fifty for delivery of the pallet.” His feet wouldn’t touch the fucking ground on the way out.

Tips are a semi-forced transfer of money from men to women. Ideally stop tipping completely, practically stop tipping anywhere that you’re not a regular.

The reason the entitled male truck driver would get laughed out of the deal for demanding a tip is the same reason women in general are coddled and men have to stoically endure their hardships:

The Fundamental Premise.

Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. Every psychological dynamic you see playing out in mass societies liberated from artificial constraints on the sexual market flows from this premise. This means, as a systemic matter, women are coddled, men are upbraided. Women are victims, men are victimizers. Women need a leg up, men need to man up. Women have advocacy groups, men have equal opportunity violations. A woman subjected to the indignity of eavesdropping on a tame joke about dongles makes national news, while the chilling fact that 95% of all workplace deaths are suffered by men barely pings the media consciousness.

It is what it is, and it will never change so long as humans are a sexually reproducing species. All the laws in the world can at best only paper over the very primal compulsion of people to value the life of the average woman more than the life of the average man, and sympathize accordingly. Railing against it is akin to shaking a fist at sunspots and gamma rays.

Commenter PA once had a suggestion that you should only tip young White men, reasoning that economically self-sufficient White men are more critical to healthy sexual and marriage market functioning than are young women with spending cash (who are liable to ride the cock carousel with their economic freedom and liberation from needing beta male provisioning). Not to mention, young women can spread their legs for the easy life, which is an option unavailable to men.

I think that’s a good rule of life, and if you balk in the manner of a purs’d-lip white knight or quivering mangina, maybe you should remind yourself that tipping, however generous, never got a man laid.

Read Full Post »

Another tale of marriage dissolution horror. Luckily, this one has a happy ending (i.e., the man didn’t get reamed by the State for once). From shivsnasty,

The mental gymnastics that women exercise to excuse what I would deem evil behavior is something I could never wrap my head around until I stumbled upon this blog.

That mental gymnastic has a name:

Many years ago, my older brother had three children with his now ex-wife. Great father, great provider. Worked a steady job plus extra gigs on the side to bring in extra income. Bought into a business and became the sole owner. Things were good, kids doing well in school, family vacations – the whole bit. He catches his wife in an affair, files for divorce. She goes crazy because Virginia is one of two states where infidelity voids all spousal support. She took him to court to sue for support anyway – and actually tried to make the argument that the amount of work and amount of hours he put into his business was proof that he had walked out on the marriage. Her argument was that her having an affair wasn’t really an affair because his “abandonment” was where the marriage really ended . The judge – who incidentally was a woman – gave her the most brutal verbal beat-down I’ve ever seen. She told her that she was the living embodiment of self-centeredness and had an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Found her guilty of infidelity. She had to get a job, sell the house and share custody. She also had to watch helplessly as he went on to expand his business and rake in even more.

It was divorce porn for men.

“Evil” is the right word to describe a woman who cheats and then tries to shift the blame onto her husband for working too hard to prevent her from cheating.

Learn Game, Wives Tamed. Game can spare the world of Evil!

Read Full Post »

Chalk up another loss for the “divorce experts” (aka the “man-hating feminist cunts, phaggy white knight enablers, demagogic politicians, and greedy lawyers”): the financial impact of divorce hits men hardest.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found divorced people aged over 55 had less disposable income and fewer assets than their married counterparts.

The study also said men end up worse off, but this is in contrast to the views of divorce experts, who say older women are the ones who are missing out financially. […]

The study examined the financial consequences of divorce for up to 3,000 older Australians between 2001 and 2016, using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Surveys.

It found that during this period, there had been a 10 per cent increase in divorce.

The research also found that men were slightly [ed: “slightly”? see below] worse off than women when it came to household disposable income.

Click on the direct link to the study for actual numbers on how men are getting ass-raped by the divorce industrial complex:

Australian Institute of Family Studies Director, Anne Hollonds said the study focused on people who had divorced on average 15 to 20 years ago and found their finances remained in a weaker position than their married counterparts.

“Our analysis shows that divorced men and women have less household disposable income than their married counterparts at this later stage in life. On average divorced single men were $10,000 worse off and divorced single women were $6,300 worse off over the 16 years,” she said.

This is in Australia, an Anglosphere nation as overrun with man-hating feminist idiocy as any Inner Hajnalian formerly all-White nation, so you can assume the same study in the US would have similar results.

The study doesn’t speculate why divorced men are financially harmed worse than are divorced women, but I can offer a few guesses why:

  1. there is more institutional discrimination against older men in the job market than exists for older women seeking work
  2. divorced men (have to) spend more of their own money to attract a new lover, whereas divorced women can leverage their cooking skills and holes to gain access to a new man’s money
  3. divorce on the whole redistributes money from men to women
  4. alimony and child support costs fall largely on divorced men

What’s funny is that a raft of studies show that men are financially more responsible than are women, so the “divorce gap” in household disposable income that favors women could conceivably be a lot smaller or even reversed if divorced women didn’t have the option (mostly unavailable to divorced men) to cajole new lovers to pick up the tab.

***

From very occasional poster,

My ex gets 30% of my military retirement until I die (her lawyer screwed up twice–she was eligible for 34% and he didn’t even ask for SBP until it was way too late and he was legally not allowed to). She $2,000 a month in alimony for the first four years after the divorce, so she got over $3,200 a month free and clear. Yet she somehow managed to run up $80,000 in debt in the first year after we divorced.

Wait, the children lived with me. After a few years she was up to $30,000 behind in unpaid child support. Took her to CS court, was asked why I was harassing this poor woman. After the first hearing, I told my lawyer that if the roles were reversed I would have left that hearing room in cuffs. My lawyer disagreed. After the second hearing where the judge nearly held her in contempt just for attending (child support court is technically the state vs the payer, as the father I was irrelevant), she agreed.

Five years after the divorce, my first child is a full ride scholarship at a decent private college. My second is a senior in high school. I am wasting money fighting her annual round of contempt claims, but so what, I managed to rear them safe from her and her thoroughly documented physical and emotional abuse. I make a healthy six figures.

What made it possible was I read all the warnings about divorce and divorce court, and took them seriously. I documented thoroughly. I didn’t waste the court’s time or my money on anything irrelevant to the well-being of our children, who were themselves insistent to the social welfare thugs that they wanted to live with their father, period. I knew that any financial good deed to the ex would be wasted and would mean nothing to the court, so I gave none. Her lies to people cost me jobs I had lined up, so I went unemployed for years and let her deal with the consequences.

I’ve told many men this, but they don’t get it. They are their own worst enemies. Develop a cold heart and steel yourself so that you don’t react to anything she does or says. Concede nothing, so many men give away the farm. I had to flee the house in the middle of the night with our children, but I had a place to go to and called the police along the way. Guess what, it’s just a legal for men to do that as women. I filed for the TCO, the TRO and the house, how many men do that? What did the constabulary say when they arrived at my refuge? “About damn time you did something, mate.”

I am the exception to the crippling poverty, and there is a ton of luck behind that outcome, but fortune favors the prepared. I knew the truth about women, and about the family court system, so I didn’t let myself get financially raped while crying about fairness. Finding myself on a tilted playing field, I figured out how to tilt it in my children’s favor. I was accused of being dirty, cold, unkind, unforgiving, I never cared. No one, but no one, cares about my children like I do, no matter how much they say they do (usually for a gummint paycheck). No fucks given.

These war stories from the divorce trenches are tough to read, but every man should read them because a little preparedness and clarity of mind beats getting caught in the id-shredding shrapnel of a scorned woman with her merc army of lawyers and judges.

Read Full Post »

37 women before and after their impact with cunt’th wave feminism.

The transformation above 🖕🏻 is the most heart-wrenching to me. Something snapped in her. You can see the joyous femininity in the first pic replaced in the second pic by a seething bitterness. Alpha widowhood?

Total destruction 🖕🏻. Could be two different species.

Women, DON’T DO DYKES. And stay away from the buffet.

Lesson: feminism is as destructive of female beauty as is hitting the Wall.

Why would pretty women hideously disfigure themselves? Jack McKrack writes,

women are literally psychologically handicapped. if you were a young hottie, think about what it would take for you to turn your back on a life of privilege – thousands of beta orbiters ready to serve your every beck and call, free drinks, free food, endless favors, etc. – to be a hideous freak who’s despised by all but those in your freak sorority?

i get why fugs go 3rd wave. they’re a laughingstock, or worse – they’re invisible. feminism at least makes them into *something* that has to be acknowledged in a room. but why on earth does a hard 7 with the world as her oyster go 3rd wave?!

It would be as if mark zuckerberg threw away his billions, his houses, his cars, and drove his company into bankruptcy…..

hm wait, it kind of is still like that for him.

Speculating, I offer the following explanations for uglifying behavior that seems to defy the Darwinian Directive.

  • fatherlessness, weak fathers, slutty mothers, and supplicating millennial males.
  • burned by a jerkboy lover, the embrace of ugliness “protects” these girls from getting burned again
  • disgusted by cloying beta males, the ugliness likewise “protects” the girls from “creeps”
  • basic bitch misandry (“i hate men so i will deprive them of their greatest pleasure: pretty girls”)
  • experimental lesbianism that went too far
  • feminist brainwashing by evil professors filling her head with garbage
  • and finally, don’t underestimate the impact that shifting cultural mores can have on individual behavior: the culture inculcates rabid man-hate and toxic grrlpower. it shouldn’t surprise that marginal, weak-willed chicks heed the agitprop and conform to the new norms.
  • F YOU DAD
  • you know how some men have a fear of success because success means they have to abandon their excuses and rationalization for inaction? feminism disfigurement could be similar for women: a fear of romantic success because they don’t want to abandon their excuses and rationalizations for failing to secure a man in a committed relationship.

Ironsides looks on the bright side,

They’re revealing their inner selves as a warning for those who observe the world with a trace of sanity.

In doing so, they’re most likely removing themselves from the genetic future of our race.

This is a good thing. More power to them. The monster within has decided to show itself outwardly as well.

We can’t afford to lose very many pretty White girls to the Feminism abattoir. The death of a million fugs is a statistic; the loss of one cute girl to feminism is a tragedy. It’s a goddamned shame to lose any of these girls to their inner demons. Some of those girls were downright hot before the feminism cerberus ate their souls and turned them into unlovable, unfuckable monsters. A shame for them, and a shame for the newly minted incel betas who now have fewer cute girls available to them.

PS Totally related: The JQ: An Empirical Examination.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: