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 »

The Nuts And Bolts Of Cathedral Indoctrination

The Cathedral — the term of art for the social and political apparatuses of equalist progressivism — is mentioned in the abstract quite a bit at Dark Enlightenment idea factories, but seldom are the actual, unholy workings of the Cathedral’s machinery explored in excruciating detail. This post sets to rectify that oversight. Reach for your vomit bag, because what you’re about to watch is a video of the nuts and bolts of Cathedral indoctrination. We are about to descend into the Ninth Circle, a place reserved for the vilest of sinners…

The subject is the Common Core educational reading and writing recommendations for primary age students in the state of Utah. Primary age is first grade — 6 year old children. It’s never too early to infect curious minds with distilled evil.

Right from the get-go, look at that book cover and tally the number of Cathedral propaganda symbols (you could call it Cathedral branding): The rainbow umbrella, the three races of children (and the white representative is, of course, a girl), the invidious title (voices — they all matter!) and subtitle (“good neighbors” — don’t build fences!), and is that black kid wearing a hoodie? 😆

0:39 – “…students use their voices to advocate solutions to social problems”. And right underneath that, where it says “Central Question: What makes a good neighbor?”, it appears the Cathedral wishes to impart the lesson the the most important goal for a six year old child is to advocate for social justice.

The narrator then explains that the book teaches the teachers how to properly brainwash illuminate their charges.

1:24 – Chapter 1: “How to use emotional words… have the students use emotional words to get readers to feel so strongly about the problem that they want to do what is asked of them.” 😯 The Cathedral wants children to dispense with logic and reason in favor of emotionally charged words (i.e. “dat raciss!”) that appeal to the leftoidian exaggerated sensitivity to the moral dimensions of harm and unfaaaairness.

2:34 – “By stating the worst that could happen, if the company builds houses, the writer appeals to the readers’ feelings of anger.” When I first read this, I thought this excerpted red part was supposed to be a message to the kiddies about what NOT to do. Then that sinking feel came over me as I realized it’s actually an Alinskian call to arms to load up the kids’ brains with effective agit-prop. Gotta love the anti-capitalism touch, too.

3:20 – “Emotional Words.” The verdict is out: Education has become a cat lady ghetto. Boys and their unique way of thinking are cast to the icy wastelands, where hairy-armed, manjawed gorgons wielding bullwhips break them over the psy ops wheel until total obeisance to the feminist imperative is achieved. End result: John Scalzi. What is the point of this Common Core curriculum except to train a new generation in the ways of shitlib whining, passive-aggressiveness, and shrieking, womanish hysteria?

5:30 – Assessment Manual. It’s time for the children to try out their street theater tactics on their parents. Yippee! Do the kids even spell?

6:55 – More vibrant cover art. Is there even a token white boy on this cover? I guess we’ve progressed far enough to dispense with that formality.

7:15 – The goal is for teachers to measure students’ “attitudes, beliefs and dispositions”. Goodbye, budding thoughtcrime!

7:47 – “Does the student [ed: note, these are third graders] effectively use the first-person plural ‘we’ and ‘our’ to advocate ways to solve social problems?” The first thing that must die in a leftoid utopia is the individual. Can’t risk any free thinkers upsetting the narrative. The next thing that must die is straight talk.

So there you have it. Is anyone else indulging fantasies of America slipping into the sea and through the gates of hell? I mean, the Cathedral has certainly earned a place seated beside the Lord of Lies himself. It’s as if every lesson the West has learned to teach children to be virtuous citizens the Cathedral rejected and inculcates the exact opposite. Truth = lies. Beauty = ugliness.

PS Homeschool. Your children’s sanity depends on it.

Read Full Post »

Recommended Great Books For Aspiring Womanizers

Michael Blowhard once challenged CH and readers to look at what the great writers in the Western literary tradition had to say about courtship. Many responded.

Alas, it is not God’s plenty. A man who relies on literature for his models can easily get swept away by the glorious pedestalizing.

Ovid’s seduction manual, The Art of Love, is pretty uneven in its advice. Stendhal’s On Love is pretty good. Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier is a good manual for how to be an overall attractive man. (Both were used to good effect by Robert Greene in The Art of Seduction.) Moliere shows what not to do in The Misanthrope, as does Flaubert in Madame Bovary. Byron has some scattered good thoughts. Burke, from a more traditionalist perspective, has some profound thoughts on masculinity and femininity. I’ve never read Casanova’s memoirs so I cannot tell you how good they are as literature or as pickup advice. I haven’t read Laclos’ Dangerous Liasons either. It’s been a long, long time since I read Richardson’s Clarissa, with its famous seducer Lovelace. Freud expounds nicely on female narcissism.

I’d also throw in How to be the Jerk Women Love by F.J. Shark (truly a great classic in the annals of lit-ra-choor), Nine and a Half Weeks by Elizabeth McNeill, and Story of O by Pauline Reage. Even pulp romance novels, however hackish, can be helpful to your learned pursuit of utterly dominating a woman’s will and heart. As with the last two book recommendations, female authors will invariably reveal their pulsing erotic ids through their characters. The trick to reading romantic literature written by a woman is to pay attention to what TURNS ON the female character. Not what the character claims to want in a hypothetical boyfriend or husband, but what she specifically describes that got her tingling like a Van de Graaff generator. Editorial commentary can be ignored, because the prerequisite for becoming any woman’s ideal lover is to first become her actual lover.

Read Full Post »

Hate Mail Of The Week

This one comes from “Roger Rabbit”,

So you guys have your opinions and all.  Is this like a website just for trolling? What’s with all the anger? because i cant figure out who gives enough of a shit about fat chicks, omega males, or anything else presented here to create a whole site about it.  You don’t respond to anyone that challenges you with anything more than a fuck-off or “you must be a fat chick/omega male/feminist bitch” – take your pick.  Which is fine, that’s your right as the alpha male gorilla, chest-beating idiots you are.  But it’s so ridiculous I think it’s gotta be just a place for you to troll.  Are you actually like 12?  That’s rhetorical. By the way, I’m sure you already guessed it, but I am a 520 pound white chick with a dark mustache, slimy stinky cheese growing in my fat folds because I can’t bathe properly, hairy arms, legs, & pits because – well for obvious reasons.  I’m so pathetic I let my dog lick my cunt and clean the curdled scum nestled in my fat folds while I eat cheese puffs, smoke, and look at porn of gorgeous 18 year old girls I will never look like and can never have.  As a favor to you and everyone who knows me (that’s not many people) I think I will try to end my miserable existence later on tonight.  No thanks necessary.  I can imagine your appreciation even as I type.  Thank the good lord for survival of the fittest.  Oh before I die, I’d like to leave you with this idea – why not start fat camps but when us fatties get there, you shame us and over feed us and insult us while torturing our fat-asses in the most sadistic ways you can come up with.  Almost like concentration camps.  Instead of the gas chamber, lead us to a room promising a huge buffet, then force us to eat to death.  Keep up the good work on this site, encouraging all of us disgusting low-lifes in whatever form we take to off ourselves and therein paving the way for the rise of your super breed of men and women.  Better save a few of us though, just so you’ll have someone to kick around.

You ever notice how deeply unaware the equalist losers in life appear to be to their own psychological projection? It’s similar to how the first commenter to drop the n-word in a thread about a racially-charged news story is often a leftoid saying “Yeah, you wingnuts want to off the niggers and spics, just come out and say it.”  The id revealed, indeed.

For the record, “Roger Rabbit”, fatties and other assorted misfits who know their place aren’t the primary designated targets of CH’s very special lessons. It’s the loser apologists and degenerate freak mafia claiming the equal worth of medusas, monsters and manboobs who earn the privilege of serving as voodoo dolls to poke with pins and laugh at as they twist convulsively from searing psyche pain. Twisting which you have illustrated quite spectacularly here, for the sadistic pleasure of all reading.

So, yes, CH will continue making an example of you and your ilk to serve as a warning for the others who might get it in their heads to propagandize equalist bullshit that makes the world an uglier, fatter, gloomier place.

Read Full Post »

Mainstream Feminist Outlets Try To Bury Their Association With Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer, buffoon. Hugo Schwyzer, hypocrite. Hugo Schwyzer, self-proclaimed male feminist leader. Hugo Schwyzer, lover of porn stars, seducer of younger coeds, defiler of the matrimonial vow, potential giver of the herpes simplex Types 1 and 2, self-pegging fap-exposing murder-suicide contemplating part-time homosexing beacon of hope to dumbass feminists and their suck-up allies.

Now we can add one more honorific to Schwyzer’s curriculum vitae: Disgraced, womanly pity whore.

And who, besides Schwyzer himself, helped bring Schwyzer to the depths of the most public of public humiliations? Who was the first to mock his phoniness, ridicule his idiotic male feminist musings, turn him over on the spit for the world to poke with pointed sticks, implicate his supporters and advocates for hitching their fortunes to his ass-kissing self-aggrandizing lies?

Who, indeed.

Schwyster knows all this, too, which makes him a phonyfuck of the highest caliber. The guy spent his early years as a professor cashing in his higher status for the pleasure of fucking his 18-21 year old students. Maybe he is wracked with guilt, and his current ultrafeminist stance is his form of atonement. Or maybe (and more likely, in my view) his hypocritical feminist sycophancy is a ruse to get in the panties of the deluded naifs who take his classes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The difference between me and a lickspittle errand boy like Schwyster is that I don’t go around claiming there’s something psychologically wrong with men for desiring the hot bods and feminine charms of young women. I don’t blame a guy like Schwyster for wanting to stick his dick in his peak fertility students, nor do I stroke feminist egos to earn PC brownie points and page views.

If you want to know who got under Hugo’s skin the most, you need only see which of his tormenters goes missing by name from his meltdown Twitter feed and from his confessionals to less sadistic bloggers than CH.

The reason Hugo doesn’t want to credit the source of his everlasting torment is because CH stuck the shiv in his mottled hide hard and deep, and it’s the twist that still pains him. Unlike many more charitable judgers of Hugo Schwyzer, I feel no pity toward him, nor any incipient feeling of charity. He is a liar, a phonyfuck, a charlatan, and a male attention whore with flapping labia where his mouth should be. He is an enabler of the worst of society, a useful tool conveying the rotten propaganda of assorted losers and misfits and degenerates, singing their off-key tune while he happily cashed in his exploitative scheming for the very nubile rewards his mass of followers tune in to hear him rail against. He is utterly repellent, a lizard in human clothing. I hope that he slices lengthwise, and should he do so, I will dance a happy snoopy dance the likes of which the dark side of the internet has never seen.

But there is a bigger story here than Hugo’s personal twilight, and that is the quickness with which mainstream, widely read feminist media outlets are attempting to bury and conveniently forget their association with Schwyzer. Hugo was, for a long time, a well-regarded paid contributor to such popular feminist and feminism-favoring organs as Jezebel, BlogHer, xojane, The Atlantic, and The Good Men Project. As Chuck noted,

But a few outlets like The Good Men Project, Jezebel, and The Atlantic took a chance on the history and gender studies professor from Pasadena City College who established himself as a male pop feminist by kissing the right asses and having sex with the right people.  Those outlets have avoided addressing their relationship with Hugo.  Jezebel’s editor Jessica Coen wrote a slippery post which was clearly about her former writer, but she wasn’t willing to actually mention Hugo by name. The post was evasive, and many commenters at the site called Coen out for it since Jezebel generally has a confrontational style.  I pitched my conversations with Hugo to The Atlantic as a tale of how two adversaries had spoken about his troubles.  Maybe my low Klout score kept the editor there from accepting the pitch.  And I didn’t go to The Good Men Project with a piece because they’re boring.  Regardless, all of those outlets saw the same person before them that me and many other critics of feminism saw, but they hosted Hugo for years.  Behold the power of telling people what they want to hear.

Funny how that works. You tell an ego-parched fug feminist what she wants to hear, and she opens her legs to your cock and her internet real estate to your cockamamie drivel, believing… oh, so very believing!… .that the male feminist lunacy dripping like honey into her ear palate was the Word of Goddess Herself. Hugo had a niche, and his sneaky fucker strategy netted him the adulation and the blowjobs he craved. Such a niche is not without its merits, but do keep in mind that being a community college professor to dimwits, however lowly in the academia hierarchy, is the lube that greases the coed skids. Playing the male feminist for fun and profit is not likely to work for the man who doesn’t have that hypergamously-grooved prof podium from which to tingle the tangles of thick-bushed queer gender studies acolytes. I don’t fault Hugo for pursuing this snatch-accumulating strategy. But I do shit in his lying face, and I do shit again in the faces of those who took his lies for truth.

So this is a glorious time to be an anti-male feminist. The wails and the rending of pit-stained t-shirts of the manboobs and the scalzied and the Dumb Hams of the world are the dulcet melodies of soaring symphonies, punctuated by the thunderous cymbal crash of lies being smashed. Ahhh, indeed.

But Hugo is an impenetrable pathological narcissist. No amount of soul shivving, however poison-tipped or torturously twisted to tickle vitals, will bring him the event horizon pain he so richly deserves. A shell entity who lives and breathes publicity, bad or good, will only welcome the psy knife that surgically pries his id. No, Hugo will only feel pain, real pain, when something else, something much more threatening to his ego survival, is presented to him. And that something else is Ostracism Total.

The targets of tender CH ministrations, then, are Hugo’s benefactors as much as Hugo himself. Jizzebel, The Atlantic, Good Men Project… you were duped, but only because you wanted to be duped. You wanted to believe in equalist, man-hating lies that caressed your stunted, shriveled, gimpy souls. You bent over and received the tepid diseased injection of a broken freak who knew how to locate and lick your ascended testes. Losers of a feather…

Jizzebel et al., you are served notice. I have you and your lackeys in my sights, and your filth that spews from the fountain of filth which is your whole stillborn existence is the effluvium I will shove back down your throats until you choke on it and recede from public discourse to clear the shit from your veins. The days when you can hire gutter liars like Hugo Schwyzer, and wallow in his fetid stink free of consequence, are over. Your only hope is to drive the Schwyzerian rats from your manicured harridan shelters, so that your circle diddles may continue under the radar of stone cold soul shivvers like yours truly with an eye and a scalpel for finding and dissecting egoistic neediness.

Then, when you — Jizzebel and the rest of the twisted sisters — have cast Hugo and his fellow castrati to the icy wastelands, will the real howls of pain fill the air to the delight of CH guardians of truth and beauty. For nothing will torment the likes of Hugo Schwyzer more profoundly than the torment of solitude.

Hugo, I know you’re reading this. If my words will bring any goodness and light to this world, your days as a lying sack of shit media token shilling for other lying sacks of shit are over. No one will call you, not even your former feminist allies. No one will publish you. No one will admire cross-eyed your throbbing intellect. No one will talk of you. No one will even think of you. When that day comes, and the barrel of the pistol is nestled in your mouth, lazing metallically on your tongue as your thinning, middle-aged lips glide over the shaft like long-ago unshaven feminist coed lovers used to do to your anti-feminist, patriarchal boner, no one, not even your family, will give a shit.

And that will be the lonely solitary pain from which you can’t escape or repurpose to your craven desires. In that moment, that sweet final moment of true and real reflection just before self-deliverance, you will think of my words, and my reminder that you had a choice to turn yourself against the mountain of lies you willingly embraced as your totem and your fate and your salvation. Sweet dreams, eternal darkness.

Read Full Post »

How Women Tool Men

White knights are front page news at the Chateau this week, so today we will examine the myriad ways women tool men and make fools of those duty-bound chowderheads with aspirations to white knighting.

1. Let’s You and Him Fight

This is a classic, and often successful, tooling tactic that women throughout history have employed to great personal advantage (or just great personal entertainment). The preferred subterfuge of drama-craving cunts, the LYAHF method — also known as the “got volunteered” method — typically relies on “harmlessly” flirting with a man to encourage his boldness, and then complaining about his reciprocated flirtations to another man, usually a dopey boyfriend, in hopes of inciting the two men to duke it out for make benefit of her joyous glee and erupting ego. The drama-craving cunt (DCC) is found throughout the world, but its natural habitat is in the US, where she rules the land with an iron clit. She ‘mirin, alright… ‘mirin herself. For what is more exciting to a woman, more validating of her labially-engorged ego, than to watch two men pummel each other for her maiden honor?

The man who falls for the “Let’s You and Him Fight” ruse is truly a dumb fuck, the biggest tool in the toolbag. The only proper (and alpha) response to an obvious LYAHF is one that yer humble host, CH himself, once said to a DCC years ago when confronted with the exact scenario described above:

“Does this do it for you? Are you turned on? Don’t call.”

2. A House Divided/Guilt by Association

A woman’s strength is not in her muscles, it’s in her forked tongue. With well-poisoning whisperings of malicious slander, she turns the group against those members she hates, and hopes to draw white knights looking for an illusory pussy pass to her cause. You can read a  great example of a woman using the “House Divided/Guilt by Association” strategy over at this comment thread. Search for “lucretia”. Many a white knight will be duped by this female tactic, because their reflexive disposition to group loyalty and alleviating female distress will override their good judgment of the individual under attack. If a woman cannot win a direct confrontation with a stronger foe, she will act to enlist white knights to isolate, ostracize and destroy the “iconoclasts” that bedevil her.

3. Appeals to Male Honor

The cunning woman knows that a man’s Achilles’ heel is his sense of honor and stoic duty, virtues that, by nature of their sacrosanct inviolability in the male psyche, are ripe for subversion and mobilization to malevolent causes of the woman’s choosing. A woman who can appeal to male honor is a woman with an army at her disposal. And none are more self-righteously believing of their strict adherence to a code of honor than the wannabe white knights.

A well-known example of a woman using the “Appeal to Male Honor” ruse is the single mom imploring a beta boyfriend to marry her and take on her bastard spawn as his own. With wet eyes and craned neck, the woman manipulates the beta’s wellspring of duty-bound honor to her advantage. Marrying a single mom “for the children” is a form of white knighting to which many beta males will acquiesce and post-rationalize as favorable to their individual circumstance. Similarly, the single mom can marshal the power of a million honor-fueled white knights — the State — to shame, hunt down, and squeeze dry deadbeat dads, or, as is more the case recently, newly acquired live-in boyfriends. For what is more honorable (from the distressed woman’s point of view) than a man who is not the father of her bastard spawn taking up the duty to help raise them without complaint or recompense?

4. Damsel in Distress

Perhaps the most renowned of female tooling tactics, the Damsel in Distress ploy, aka the Wounded Gazelle Gambit, has lured many a man into precarious, and sometimes life-threatening, situations to ostensibly “save” a woman usually from a predicament of her own making. Or, just as often, from a manufactured predicament that serves no purpose other than to redistribute time, energy and resources from the man to the scheming woman. The toolbag with white knight pretensions will not be able to resist the siren song of the damsel in distress, and he will often be lavishly rewarded for his assistance with a strong hug and admittance to the woman’s circle of asexual male feminist friends.

5. Why Did You Make Me Hit You?

Ah, there’s nothing quite as exasperating as the stone cold bitch who makes it seem like her bitchiness is all your fault. While this particular tooling tactic is not gender specific, women are most often the ones to use it. (Violent manipulative jerks are too small a percentage of the total population of men to account for more than a minority of this tactic’s adherents.) The woman relying on WDYMMHY will disparage her boyfriend, reducing him to an incoherent lump of uselessness, and then manage through psychological trickery to blame him for her cuntery. He, being a tool-able white knight, will accept his blame and proceed to prostrate himself even further to win back her good graces. This never works.

6. Self-Harm Emotional Blackmail

A girlfriend threatens to off herself. Perhaps she enlivens the scene with a dramatically and conspicuously placed half-empty bottle of pills, a few scattered on the bedsheet. She turns to you, tears falling from her eyes, begging for your love or your understanding or whatever happens to be her craving du jour. You, being the white knight in training you are, can’t resist her calculated vulnerability, and rush to her aid, promising her everything her heart desires. She cuddles, another victory notched on her id-post.

Arguably the most dangerous of the female tooling tactics because of the limited options to defend against it, Self-Harm Emotional Blackmail draws its power from reliance on total female enfeeblement, manipulating the male instinct to protect and serve to whichever ends the woman desires. Even a man who is an avowed anti-white knighter will find it difficult to resist consoling the woman in the middle of deploying a SHEB psy ops campaign. The best defense is also a simple defense: Call her bluff. Throw the razor blade at her and remind her to slice lengthwise. Naturally, she won’t do this, (if she does, you just lost a perennial headache), and your relationship can then proceed with you firmly in the driver’s seat, owning all the hand.

***

This is a list of the most common female tooling tactics. Men tool women, as well, the most obvious example of male tooling being the cad who makes promises of commitment. But tooling as a form of art was perfected by women, and it is women who are quickest to resort to tooling for personal gain, and who possess the greatest tooling acumen. Women can do this because there is a ready and willing supply of white knighting men who welcome their own tooling, usually in the misdirected hope that it will advance them to the pudendum gates of pussy paradise. So ignorant of the role the white knights play as the chump and so dumbly prideful of their histrionic savior complex, that they don’t realize they are kissing cousins of the manboob and the male feminist, two specimens of quasi-men privately loathed while simultaneously publicly lauded by women for their self-castration.

Not every woman with the means (i.e. the prettiness) is a tooling maestro. In fact, the majority of women aren’t. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say 30% of women regularly tool beta males men. This means, if you’ve been in three relationships in your life, odds are one of those women tooled you, with or without your awareness. If you plan to make any sort of career out of seducing women, or, conversely, if you plan to settle down in high-risk matrimonial bliss with one woman forever and ever, you had better get up to speed on the dark arts of emotional manipulation that are regularly availed by women if you want to avoid getting taken to the soul cleaners. A stay at Chateau Heartiste is a first step to clearing the mind.

UPDATE

Folks, here’s the main drawback with following “manly”, “honor-bound” codes of masculine conduct regardless of the particulars:

If you never hold a woman accountable for her actions, she’ll keep doing what she’s doing. And if that means tooling you, that’s what she’ll do.

Read Full Post »

Playing Mind Games With Feminists

Reader “A G” gleefully proposes a psychological torture mechanism to send feminists writhing in paroxysms of hamster-rending pain.

How to destroy a Cathedral feminist’s brain with two simple questions:

1. Doesn’t it suck that racist white people, any time they see a black person walking the streets late at night, automatically fear that person because they think black people are more likely to be thugs?  Obvious manifestation of white privilege.

2. Doesn’t it suck that sexist women, any time they see a man walking the streets late at night, automatically fear that person because they think men are more likely to be rapists?  Obvious manifestation of female privilege.

Inspired by a facebook friend who literally wrote a post stating that white privilege is the reason white people often fear black people.

Masterful bait and switch. They’ll never see it coming.

On a more general note, AG illustrates one attack strategy that is effective against whiny, sophistic leftoids making appeals to empty emotion. The leftoid, as a species within which the feminist is a subspecie, has more of her ego invested in her ideology. It is her religion. This is why when leftoids and non-leftoids get in political arguments, it’s typically the non-leftoid making diplomatic half-apologies and concessions. The non-leftoid does not feel as strong an ego attachment to his ideology, because he assesses his value more broadly. The result of this personality difference is an arena of leftoids constantly on the attack, getting their way like children throwing tantrums under the weary authority of amiable parents.

A mocking shiv jab will hurt the leftoid feminist, but it will also cause her to retreat into a shell of platitudinal self-protection, and to ensconce herself in the group hug of trite-minded allies. Better is to flatter the feminist’s self-conception, and when her guard is down to rain a shivstorm of hell upon her vulnerable id. You can stab all day at the hardened ego, but a single killing blow to the id laid bare will send even the most obnoxious femcunts like Amanjaw Marcuntte slinking to dark bedrooms in silent shame and consideration of alternative life paths.

To defeat the leftoid, use their power against them. Shiv on, shiv off.

Read Full Post »