Neg Of The Week

Kate gleefully recollects,

Favorite neg (so far) during a conversation about my hair: “You have a face for bangs.”

I dont know if that line technically qualifies as a neg, but it’s close enough for government work.

Lookism

The marching malcontents have identified a new injustice they seek to rectify: Lookism.

The galloping injustice of “lookism” has not escaped psychologists, economists, sociologists, and legal scholars. Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode’s 2010 book, “The Beauty Bias,” lamented “the injustice of appearance in life and law,” while University of Texas, Austin economist Daniel Hamermesh’s 2011 “Beauty Pays,” recently out in paperback, traced the concrete benefits of attractiveness, including a $230,000 lifetime earnings advantage over the unattractive. […]

Tentatively, experts are beginning to float possible solutions. Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness-raising has a role to play, too.

None of these approaches will be a panacea, and to some aesthetes among us, even trying to counter the bias may sound ridiculous. But the reason to seek fairness for the less glamorous isn’t just social or charitable. Our preference for beautiful people makes us poor judges of qualities that have nothing to do with physical appearance—it means that when we select employees, teachers, protégés, borrowers, and even friends, we may not really be making the best choice. It’s an embarrassing and stubborn truth—and the question is now whether, having established it, social researchers can find a way to help us level the playing field.

Harrison Bergeron, please pick up the courtesy phone.

I have an oh so innocent question for the S-M-R-T SMART leftoid equalists pushing this latest load of reality transmogrification: If, as feminists and their consanguineous misfits (hi, fat acceptors!) are constantly telling everyone, beauty is subjective, socially conditioned, and in the eye of the beholder, how is it possible to make laws that punish beautiful people? If there is no innate biologically-based beauty standard (hi, Naomi Wolf!) that is fairly universally agreed upon in practice (if not in stated principle), then there is no way to know who is ugly and who is beautiful. That job applicant you think looks like a toad could just as well look like a goddess to another interviewer. After all, “you are a big, beautiful woman”. 😆 😆

Maybe the equalists want to gum up the machinery of civilization so badly because they harbor a self-annihilating death wish absent any strong authoritarian figure to dispense the discipline they sorely need? It’s as good an explanation as any. Leftoids are like emo Jesse on a meth bender acting out a “stop me before I hurt myself” tard tragedy.

Try to imagine a world where “lookism” laws were rigorously enforced. Will there be a “Caliper General” of the United States who runs the department assigned to measuring people’s faces for closeness to the golden ratio? Who will be qualified to serve as “Beauty Judge” if beauty is a matter of personal opinion, as liberals and fatties and liberal fatties have been swearing for generations? I can tell you if I were a hot babe I wouldn’t want a jury of jackal-faced feminists sitting in judgment of my pretty face. That’s enough psychotically bitter, self-loathing baggage projected onto me to make me persona non grata at any company afraid of attracting attention from malicious government operatives tasked with creating a better, fairer world.

The opportunity for gaming a lookism system created by liberals chin-deep in their self-contradictions is tremendous. Picture a handsome dude at a job interview or admissions office with a cadre of paid witnesses at his side to testify to his ugliness. “Ma’am, the dude is an ugly mofo. Just look at that jaunty cowlick. Have you seen a more repulsive deformity?”, “I wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole. And I know from hunkiness!”, “Ugh, I need a vomit bag. Go ahead. Measure my pupil dilation if you don’t believe me.”

Or maybe an ugly woman will be sitting in an EEOC anti-discrimination government office, and she has brought a penile plethysmograph and a male subject to make her case that his limp member proves she is the ugliest of them all, and she deserves recompense for suffering a lifetime under the cold gaze of looks privilege. Or maybe hot chicks start showing up to job interviews wearing potato sacks. (Won’t help. They’ll still look better than well-dressed fugs.) What will happen when master system gamers bring hard data to the table showing that beauty and smarts and charisma correlate, and thus there’s good reason why people naturally favor the beautiful? Or when the obvious logical connection is made that people shouldn’t be punished for an advantage in life they had no control over receiving? (hi, IQ denialists!)

You can see where this will lead: a mountain of lawsuits claiming reverse discrimination based on a misleading, subjective experience of beauty; an anti-anti-lookism argument, however tactically disingenuous, to which liberals who created the anti-lookism laws will have no counter, without transparently betraying their very own cherished beliefs and principles. Never underestimate the scope of the infinite logic traps into which equalists are capable of boxing themselves. You have entered… The Dissonance Zone.

The only way an anti-lookism legal apparatus could conceivably “work” — that is, operate long enough to generate substantial revenues for interested lawyerly middlemen —  without instantly imploding from internal contradictions is if liberals admit that beauty is objective and thus measurable with precision instruments. Without that cave on one of the liberal core tenets — without that craven loss of leftoid face — an anti-lookism bureaucracy won’t last any longer than the first lawsuit filed by an aggrieved hottie which claims beauty is a personal experience that can vary depending on the person observing it. The platitudes and pretty lies that so entrance liberals will ring like a symphony in the Courtroom of Playing Field Leveling, deafening liberals with their own dulcet ear poison. Oh, the irony, it is delicious.

Even were liberals to happily and expediently kick out a major pillar girding their ideology and proclaim in the interest of wallet-fattening litigiousness that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but is an objective fact of biology and cosmic law, there would still be no way for “anti-lookism” laws to survive their intrinsic parodical nature. For as soon as liberals admit that beauty has a factual, objective basis they will be forced, by circumstance or by subversion, to also admit that other unequal distributions of favorable human traits have a sound, objective biological basis… and then the whole goddamn house of equalist cards comes crashing down in the ensuing rush for biological inequality reparations and anti-discrimination compensation. And once that path is taken, illimitable chaos must follow in its wake. The body politic will be bled dry, or it will seize a rationale for eugenics.

Coerced eugenics, if you think about it, is the logical end game of equalism.

I predict that the advocate of lookism laws in that article is a beautiful woman who feels guilty for catching breaks in life, and wants to atone for her sins. To satisfy my curiosity, I found her photo to see if I’m right.

Curses! Foiled again!

Equalists, I’ll make this very simple for you: Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Study: The Neg Works

Valued commenter chris alerts the CH readership to ♥another study♥ vindicating a game technique, this time the notorious, and notoriously misunderstood, seduction tactic known as the neg.

First, before we begin, a note about negs (aka “negative hits”):

Negs are NOT insults. Negs are backhanded compliments. The purpose of a neg is to subtly ding a cute girl’s self-esteem so that she becomes more romantically receptive to your advances. The field-tested effectiveness of the neg rests on the premise, accurate by all accounts, that hotter girls have higher self-esteems than uglier girls. For this reason, it’s well known among players that the best negs should be reserved for prettier girls. Less attractive girls don’t even need negs, unless the man hitting on them is of equal or lower SMV.

A neg is only successful if the feeling of confusion and self-doubt it creates is sufficiently disavowable by the speaker. That is, a good neg should, as the author of the article linking the relevant study wrote, “leave the speaker blameless”. Straight up insults don’t leave the speaker of the insult blameless for any temporary bad feelings it causes in the listener. But negs do. A proper neg is like a clue to hidden treasure that the girl is meant to discover on her own; except in this context the treasure she’s meant to find is her own slightly deflated ego.

If you insult a girl, she’ll turn on you. If you neg a girl, she’ll turn on herself. Any questions?

So once again SCIENCE has come around to confirming the efficacy of well-known game tactics for scoring poon.

Walster (1965) investigated the influence of momentary self-esteem on receptivity to the romantic advances of a stranger. The researcher arranged for a group of female participants to interact with a male research assistant who flirted with them. The female participants were then given positive or negative personality test feedback. After their self-esteem was increased or decreased in that way, they were asked to rate their liking for the male research assistant.

The results of the study indicated that women who had their self-esteem temporarily lowered found the male research assistant significantly more attractive than the women with temporary high-self esteem. Walster (1965) theorized that this effect occurred for two reasons. First, individuals who feel “imperfect” themselves may demand less in a partner. Second, a person usually has an increased need for acceptance and affection when their self-esteem is low. Overall then, when an individual is made to feel “low”, they find potential romantic partners more attractive.

*boom* And the mic gets dropped… on a dumb feminist’s and game denialist’s pointy heads.

You can argue about the ethics of game till the cows come home, but what you can’t argue is that game doesn’t work. It does, and though the tactics may strike one as manipulative and even mercenary, they exist in their form only because the sexual nature of women is what it is. If women responded sexually to effusive praise and sincere compliments that raised their self-esteems, men would be spitting lines like “You are very beautiful and so very very smart. You will be the first female President of the United States, I can tell. May I touch your wizard sleeve?”, until they were practically supine and begging women to walk on them.

But of course no men besides suck-up orbiter beta males playing the looooong game spits those kinds of lines. If a man of sound mind did that, it wouldn’t take him more than three minutes to figure out it was getting him nowhere with women.

The article includes a section on wifely nagging, which the author attempts to equate to negging. The comparison is a stretch; women become aroused and curious when they are negged, which is very different than what men feel when they are nagged. (Hint: Negged women want to interact more with their alluring tormentors; nagged men want to get the hell away from their annoying termagants.) Plus, wives don’t nag with the goal of getting sexual favors from their husbands. They nag because they’re feeling unsupported or frustrated or menstrual. Men, in stark contrast, neg with the specific goal of inflaming a romantic tryst.

Dealing With Hair-Ruffling AMOGs

Glenn writes,

I’ve got a very specific AMOG problem. I wear my hair slicked back (think Don Draper). When I go to parties, sometimes guys try and ruffle my hair as a power play. I act unfazed by it (stoic personality), but my hair gets fucked up. I need some kind of AMOG way to handle it, but in a somewhat pro-social manner. Since I’m stoic, the goofy/silly Mystery-style stuff isn’t my cup of tea.

For those of you who don’t know, AMOG means “alpha male other guy” or “alpha male of the group”. In its usual context, it’s a long-winded way of saying “asshole”.

The hair ruffle thing isn’t all that common in this cocooning age, but I have seen it happen, especially to guys who like to wear “high hair”, or have ostentatiously stylish haircuts that aggravate the mediocre masses charged with upholding the conformist norms. It happens quite a bit more to bald guys, though in that case it’s more precisely a head rub than a hair ruffle. The principle, and motivating impulse, are the same: To josh around like a fun-loving frat boy and in the process earn a few social status points. (Of course that status climbing, fitness enhancing impulse happens mostly at the subconscious level, where helical gears frantically clank in hopes of attaining for their flesh vessel some quality grade puss-ay.)

Joshing around is what chill, non-spergy dudes do. It’s not a big deal if you’re the victim of it once in a blue moon; just shrug it off and accuse your buddy of being jealous of your glorious coif. If the guy ruffling your hair is a stranger and his intent strikes you as perceptibly malicious, tell him “Whoa, dude, not cool”, or “Hey man, you have a weird fetish for men’s hair?”, or simply “Seriously gay, bro.” If he’s halfway socialized, he’ll get the point and back off. If he doesn’t… well, prepare to escalate.

If you have that annoying buddy making a dominance play who ruffles your hair all the time because he knows it gets under your skin, the next time he goes for it, grab his arm mid-lunge and say “I think that’s enough of that.” Cool, calm, and very effective. If he acts unduly pissed, he was never really your buddy. Initiate weapons class anti-AMOG protocol.

Naturally, most of those above responses to the AMOG require a minimum of testicular fortitude to pull off. That minimum may seem a ridiculously low testosterone bar to hurdle, and in the abstract it is, but you’d be surprised (or maybe not — I no longer am) how many modern American “men” are skirt-tugging manlets incapable of even the slightest exertion toward confrontation. A good thing for the master seducer, a bad thing for civilization.

PS Don’t lean on stoicism as an excuse for inaction or weakness. Stoicism is what a lot of wilting flowers like to call their trembling retreat. It’s a reframe in service to a losing cause.

Lower Your IQ For Happiness

Give this man a VIP pass to Le Chateau.

“you can still write an average rap song” 😆

Maybe it’s the hopeful side of CH, but is anyone else picking up the faint echo of RealTalk signals tripping the cosmic fantastic? Just in the last six months, it seems like a considerable number of mischief making subversives have infiltrated unguarded outposts of the Cathedral, setting the stage for a multi-pronged assault at some unspecified time in the not too distant future.

Eh, who are we kidding? Must be the sound of the wind blowing…

Reader Mailbag: Emailer Gives An Update About Girlfriend Drama

The first subject reader from last week’s Reader Mailbag has responded with an update about his situation involving his Asian girlfriend and her doctor colleague she said was hitting on her. All three were going to be in attendance at an upcoming party, and the potential for some kind of confrontation was high.

Hi guys,

I’m #1, the guy dating the Asian chick who wrote to the Chateau. Thanks to the proprietors and the readers for their help, was most useful.

So Friday night was interesting, when we show up this other guy’s there, I split from my girl to say hi to some friends and see him make a beeline for her, at which point she promptly turns her back on him, one of her other friends (an acquaintance of mine) intervenes and appears to tell him to back off. She heads straight back to me and complains about the ‘creep from work’ hitting on her again.

At this point I’m nigh on certain that she’s not attracted to him, and a little later I introduce myself to this suitor and assertively ask “if hitting on taken women is part of his Hippocratic Oath” (credit to the Chateau). [ed: *preen*] Within seconds it becomes clear why my lover finds this man repulsive – as soon as I corner him and speak these words, he wilts. His body language reeks of intimidation and he stammers out apologies before giving me, my lover and our friends a wide berth for the rest of the night. Just goes to show that even if a man has looks and professional success, he needs the alpha male attitude to go with them.

Later that night she whispers “thanks for taking care of that creep, I heard you scared the shit out of him.” One weekend of rampant sex, home-cooked meals and all round adoration later and seems she’s wrapped around my finger more tightly than ever.

My interpretation of why she disclosed his advances to me: partially to make me jealous and an indirect request for my intervention. Regarding the confusion about blue collar/white collar terminology – I’m from the UK and unfamiliar with this Americanism, ‘white collar’ would be a better description of my profession.

P.S. When I first started reading this blog I thought so much of it was utter bullshit, nevertheless thought I’d might as well try and it and absolutely everything works. Case in point, flirting with a few other girls at this party who I know are into me, one year ago I thought this would make anyone I was dating pissed, uh uh, all the competition seems to do is produce gina tingles. Fuck having wasted 25 years as a blue piller, god bless the day I swallowed the red pill.
-Alex.

Well played, sir, and may the god of biomechanics be ever at your side, (or at least until your reproductive career is over).

It sounds from your update that your girlfriend was following CH reasons #1 and #2. She wanted a touch of drama by inciting jealousy, and a touch of reassurance by inciting signals of commitment from you, usually in the form of a “let’s you and him fight” white knight-ish intervention between her and her illicit pursuer, if necessary.

Those interventions can be tricky; they are high risk, high reward opportunities, and if done properly will cause ginas to explode in a meteor shower of tingles. But if executed poorly, a woman’s admiration will quickly turn to disappointment, even disgust.

The white knight reflex is often misdeployed by toolbags, but it is occasionally called for; one occasion is when your girlfriend is being aggressively pursued by another man who knows she is taken, and has the gall to pursue her in your presence. So I’d say you were justified in confronting the doctor. Once you have probable cause, the next hurdle is to intervene in a cool-headed way. Save the raging chimpouts for the meatheads guarding their tramp stamped whorems. No chick with even a modicum of classy femininity will appreciate a chimpout at some SWPL soiree. If you overreact, you tool yourself. Jealous overreaction is as much a tell of neediness and insecurity as is retiring self-defeatism.

Your handling of the doctor was perfect. I told you most of them are pussies and a pinpoint jab is all you’d need to cut him at the knees.

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.