May 2, 2018 by CH
Gossip and salt and blame-shifting fault, that’s what older girls are made of.
Via reader Pepe, ¡SCIENCE! once again shits in the faces of feminists and pabulum spewing equalists.
This is not the place for this comment, but then again SCIENCE: Women are way less cooperative than men.
This goes against the leftist myth that the world would be a better place if women ruled.
“We confirmed a puzzling gender difference: men cooperate much more than women” [in a repeated Prisoner Game]. Also, cooperation doesn’t fade over time, as previously thought.
And from other study:
No doubt that men are the civilization builders, and no wonder why feminazis and manginas hate evo psych so much.
The Fuggernaut hates anything that disproves their belief that one day, soon, the Armies of the Disfigured will rise up to claim their equally distributed share of Facecock Likes.
The labcoat unearthing of the ancient wisdom that women are far less cooperative than are men is another step forward in the recent progression of scientific studies rediscovering the truths at the center of every stereotype. As usual, I was on top of this before the four eyes crowd…women aren’t cooperative, they’re (superficially) non-hierarchical, which is a different thing entirely (but shitlibs and femcunts are happy to confuse the two).
Besides the primary finding, there are two other results of interest to Chateau readers:
One, cooperation didn’t fade over repeated iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. I’d bet most of the test subjects were WEIRDO Whites, because there’s a racial confound to measurement of cooperativeness. If cooperativeness is partly heritable, then the disposition to cooperate will show durability even under the stress of PD games.
Two, men fight for dominant status, women are eliminationist. As I alluded to in a previous post about credentialism being inherently feminine and hierarchy inherently masculine, research shows men follow a “compete then cooperate” model and women follow a “compete and cast out” model. The two strategies exist because men and women have differing reproductive goals and sex roles. Men must gain status and then use that status to acquire fertile women and resources and to protect those resources from rape and pillage by competing tribes (which requires intratribal cooperation with other men).
Women don’t have the role of protecting the tribe from invading tribes or of accumulating resources to win the love of high value men, so their intrasexual strategy doesn’t require cooperativeness, but since men are attracted to young nubile women and are thus a persistent abandonment threat to women, the female intrasexual strategy does require competing against other women to retain a male provider. Ominously, because other younger women are a continual poaching threat, women will seek to eliminate them from competition rather than dominate them. Intrasexual female domination is useless from a Darwinian perspective because men aren’t attracted to dominant women (they’re attracted to sexy fertile women).
From a Game perspective, these studies basically reiterate CH’s Dread Game — the exploitation of a woman’s fear of abandonment for another hotter, younger, tighter woman via intimations of infidelity and wandering romantic interest.
The compulsion in women to gossip and tear down other women when they’re out of earshot can be exploited by the smart Gamesman. The idea is to raise, in absentia, the SMV of the other woman your girl is bitching about. By raising her competition’s SMV, by the zero sum property of female ego credits, you implicitly lower the SMV of the girl you’re talking to, and thus raise your own SMV. The relative SMV comparisons, now structured to favor you getting the bang, are a key element of pickup.
Women’s Worst Enemies Are Other Women
October 31, 2013 by CH
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.