Women Are Less Principled Than Men

Do women have an underdeveloped sense of justice? Is the adherence to principles primarily the domain of men?

Anecdotal evidence would suggest both the above propositions are true. Certainly, Chateau field marshals have previously turned their awesome powers of observation to the task of illuminating the wide gulf between the sexes in how they understand and apply the notion of fairness. For instance, in this Chateau post from long ago it was noted that women’s sense of justice flows from a refined but wholly self-interested pragmatism.

Women as a whole are more coldly calculating than men, and the worst of them can challenge the top 1% of sociopathic alpha males for deceitfulness and cavalier betrayal. It is the prerogative of women that practical concerns, and how to achieve them, dominate their thinking and catalyze their emotions. They are the ones stuck with nine month pregnancies. Morality was codified by men; amorality perfected by women. And no one is more versed in justifying and rationalizing their own shitty behavior than a woman.

And in this Chateau post, it was boldy stated that women’s morality is geared toward the welfare of the social collective regardless of first principles, and that the beliefs of the most popular in status and numbers often become the beliefs of women who, as is the whim of their historically vulnerable sex, fear exclusion from the group more than anything else, except carrying the seed of a beta male.

[W]omen by nature are followers, and where the pack goes, so go they. Women self-govern by a simple (simplistic) motto: “It’s all in the numbers.” Once a tipping popularity point is reached, women will abandon their old principles for the new principles with a speed that will prove the shallowness and expediency with which they hold their beliefs.

But to date, little science has been done to examine the evidence for the Chateau and common man wisdom that men and women hold different moral values. Until recently.

The scientific literature is accumulating that points to fundamental sex differences in morality.

Some studies show that women are more empathetic then men, and that this difference increases over child development (for example, there’s a nice study showing this trend in Spain by María Mestre and collaborators).

This is evidence that group cohesion informs women’s morality more than it does men’s morality. If someone is distressed in the group, it will be more empathetic women who tend to that person’s gripes. This is a good thing when the group is the nuclear family; you want a wife and mother who will defend your family, right or wrong. It’s a bad thing when the group — such as the society in which women live — is exploited by bad people who can convincingly project a victim mentality and, thus, hijack women’s empathy compulsions.

• When looking at pictures of immoral acts, women’s judgments of severity correlate with higher levels of activation in emotion centers of the brain, suggesting concern for victims, whereas men show higher activation in areas that might involve the deployment of principles(Carla Harenski and collaborators).

Women are less principled than men. A woman’s sense of fairness and moral disgust can be manipulated by emotional pleas. This is why you often see women defending hardcore killers when they are bombarded with sob stories about those killers’ sad upbringings. The upside is that women’s gravitation to the travails of victims can insulate true victims from egregious applications of principled but misguided retribution.

When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators).

Again, more evidence that women’s morality rests on feelings rather than on abstract devotion to principles. This is why you will often see women (and this includes nuns) sympathizing with death row scum of the earth. Their empathy modules have trouble distinguishing between real victims (the dead at the hands of killers) and sentimental victims (the condemned about to die).

Women are more likely to factor personal cost into decisions about whether to punish an unfair stranger, which suggests that women are more context-sensitive, and men adhere to principles (Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman).

Women are unprincipled pragmatists. They must be, because, evolutionarily speaking, they have been the more vulnerable, weaker sex. As evolutionary psychology would predict, women simply can’t afford high-minded adherence to principles the way men can.

Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

Female generosity with strangers is likely an evolved trait that furthers group cohesion, or prevents the outbreak of intra-, or inter-, group violence. Male selfishness with random strangers likely evolved because men’s mating value rests to a greater degree on their acquisition of resources. (So if women complain about men being selfish, well, they should remember who it is exactly that motivates men to horde their winnings.)

• Numerous studies have found that women are more likely than men to reciprocate acts of kindness (reviewed by Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy).

Another example of female predilection to see to the collective good in order to strengthen group cohesion.

• Women tend to be more egalitarian then men, and men are more likely to be either completely selfless or selfish (James Andreoni and Lise Vesterlund).

I should hope it’s pretty well known by now that women have been voting for more liberal policies and candidates than men since suffrage. In other words, women will discard principles when voting in favor of the expedience of spreading around harmonious tranquility with other people’s money.

Women are more likely than men to think it is okay to imprison a person on trumped up charges in order to stop violent rioting in the streets (Fiery Cushman and Liane Young). But women are also less likely to endorse diverting a runaway trolley down an alternate track where it will kill one person instead of five (John Mikhail).

AKA: Where the desire for group cohesion bumps up against overcharged empathy.

• Women are more likely than men to blame a shipwreck survivor for pushing another survivor off a small plank of driftwood in order to survive (Stephen Stich and Wesley Buckwalter).

“Someone, somewhere, is hurting.”

Women are less likely than men to be politically conservative (Karen Kaufman; Terri Givens), though the reverse pattern was true in the 1950s (Felicia Pratto).

I’m guessing the pattern was the reverse in the 1950s because more women were married and getting their provisions from provider husbands instead of grievance shakedown rackets and sugar daddy government. A married woman with children is a woman whose worst moral instincts are muted. Alternate explanation: political conservatism was of a lot different complexion in the 1950s than it is now.

This range of findings resists an easy summary, but, on the whole, women seem to be more empathetic and more focused on the collective good. This is broadly consistent with Gilligan’s suggestion that women are more likely than men to base moral decisions on a care orientation, whereas men gravitate more towards principles.

Once again, the science confirms horribly evil and politically incorrect Chateau observations. I don’t post these studies because I like to have my balls gently caressed by reams of scientific papers proving the rightness of my worldview. Though that is a nice side effect, my primary purpose in highlighting these scientific explorations is the warm glow I get thinking about the eyeball-popping rage that reading these posts must bring to my haters. Their pain fills me with good cheer!

What the scientific conclusions mischievously suggest is that female care-oriented morality is best suited for small-scale communities like families and neighborhoods, but is not so good when expanded to a national scale (see: mass immigration). Male principle-oriented morality, in contrast, is a much better guard rail for steering a nation along the right path (see: fiscal restraint).





Comments


  1. Schopenhauer said all this 200 years ago.

    Like


    • on November 16, 2011 at 6:18 pm Rant Casey - BR

      And Otto Weininger.

      Like


    • The father’s house has many mansions. There are many ways to righteousness.

      If Heartiste’s balls are cossetted by a certain stock of scientific paper, send in the reams. If feminism wants to submit to the scientific method, we can do it that way. Whatever language you have to speak to get to the truth, fine. We are in the age of scientism, so we will rely on the pretensions of natural science to illuminate our behavior.

      Verify it by controlled and duplicate experiment, by observation and insight, by hearsay, by heresy, by instinct, or by faith in Sixteen Commandments. But the core truths remain these: men think in abstractions, women think in particularity; men are lovers of the good, women are lovers of their own.

      Everything else flows from those truths. In this forum we may render them abstractly because we are men here. For a woman you have to prove by example, and allow their intuition to see concretely what their minds are not conditioned to receive. This is why you don’t convince women with logic or with your speech. You convince them with your presence and your actions. Game is female catnip for this reason, and it will destroy a million abstract feminist theories and just as many “scientific studies,” not just because feminism is wrong, but it is unfemininely abstract.

      Like


    • This is pretty obvious by now: http://goo.gl/YcBpI

      Like


  2. Plus I would think that the fact that principles are abstract concepts and women tend to be weaker abstract thinkers would also cause women to be less principled.

    Like


    • While the dangers of excessive empathy and generosity are real, what’s missing in this conversation is a discussion of the dangers of devotion to abstract principles.

      It is virtually impossible to dehumanize an individual and cause him suffering because of excessive empathy. In contrast, it is a trivial matter to find historical examples of a devotion to abstract principles, combined with the power of the state, leading to human suffering on a massive scale. The perpetrators, in all cases, were certain that their actions were “right.”

      A state dominated by “empathy morality” is not necessarily worse than a state dominated by “principle morality.” Given a Hobson’s choice, I think I would choose the empathy nightmare. At least it allows for a strategy that gains attention for human suffering. The principle nightmare, at its extreme, renders suffering irrelevant.

      Like


      • It is virtually impossible to dehumanize an individual and cause him suffering because of excessive empathy.

        DO NOT FEED THE BEARS.

        Like


      • “It is virtually impossible to dehumanize an individual and cause him suffering because of excessive empathy.” SEE: BLACK AMERICA.

        You along with the rest of the femiginas did make that Hobson’s choice of the empathy nightmare 50 years ago and it has brought us debilitating human suffering with no end in sight. It has brought a nation to its knees.

        What is more evil than destroying the very family unit, along with its surrounding culture?

        REPEAL WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE NOW!

        Like


      • From what you read, you only understand what you want to empathize with; but you can’t see that a morally baseless empathy is the worst kind of empathy. Just a little bit of toxicity is good for you, but too much will kill you.

        Hyper-empathy or sympathy is what creates the Leviathan. Sympathy for the devil is what saves the whales at the expense of males. Hyper-empathy is telling me that I really really need what they are selling me, because it’s GOOD for me. Masculinely balanced morality is what creates the science of jurisprudence. Medication and rehab in the name of HEALING and MEDICINE is what creates a never-ending pharisaical burden. A penal law which subverts merit for therapy and subordinates healing over punishment in order to “cure” the criminal shows no regard for justice.

        C.S. Lewis dissertated on this topic in Res Judicatea, vol. 6 (June 1953), pp. 224-30:

        “My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants….a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive…those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

        Like


      • @Joe K

        You are dancing around the real issue there; no one wants to say the word.

        Psychopaths are people whose inherited brain defect makes them unable to feel they’ve done anything wrong. There are millions of them, all races, both men and women, rich/poor, etc. They feel just fine telling any lie or killing any one in pursuit of their goals.

        Great science has been done on this subject; check out Cleckley, Hare, Stout, and Raine.

        Like


      • Don’t forget…there’s more than just Psychopaths (ASPD) that FEEL that they’ve done nothing wrong with what they may do- and their feelings are what dictate their reality. An ASPD feels no empathy whatsoever. A BPD or NPD will have the sort of Empathy we’re discussing here- to the point of doing horrific things in the name of “doing the greater good”.

        Like


  3. Well-supported assertion. With deep implications for the takeover (handover, really) of leadership of almost all aspects of American life by women.

    Like


  4. Schopenhauer was right. Women cease maturing, he observed, at the age of eighteen (I’d say twenty-one). Women cannot be relied upon to give truthful evidence in court and women judges always become sentimental (as I have often had occasion to observe) – and now it is being proposed in England that they should be given priority for judicial appointments! Insanity!

    I cannot say however that I find women particularily empathetic. Quite the reverse in fact. What they do, however, is weigh-up all possibilities from their own point of view – but that is not empathy but narcissism.

    Like


  5. Yes, women can be quite “empathetic” to a suitor if she considers him above her status. That’s a feminine principle for you.

    Like


  6. In the 50s, pre “great”(sugar daddy) society, the left was much more intellectual and abstract. Now it’s about Obama paying ones mortgage. Also, in the 50s, socially liberal meant guys bopped their secretaries. Most women were housewives without much in the way of opportunity to act “liberated” anyway.

    Of course, in a resource scarce environment, societies where each individual/each sex get to play a role that their genetic makeup is maximally optimized for, WILL beat out societies where they are not. The mega bounty delivered by fossil fuels kind of softened resource constraints for awhile, but growing populations (and impending peak oil) is bringing age old dynamics back to the fore. Ergo, “we”, unless “we” change, are toast. But what else is new, right?

    Like


    • “In the 50s, pre “great”(sugar daddy) society, the left was much more intellectual and abstract. Now it’s about Obama paying ones mortgage.”

      STFU about the fifties. Obama ain’t paying anyone’s mortgage. He is, however, compensating bankers for their failed investments.

      “Also, in the 50s, socially liberal meant guys bopped their secretaries.”

      Most guys did not have secretaries. They worked in factories. Today, most guys have neither secretaries nor factory work. Guys with secretaries today are still banging them

      Like


    • Yeah, I don’t think the guys down at the union hall were very intellectual or abstract.

      I would say it’s just the opposite. New Deal leftism was focused on economic equality and preventing concentrations of power. Modern leftism only pays lip service to the economic aspects and instead deals in social equity and identity politics.

      Like


      • Leftism is leftism… Socialist systems have been proven to pretty much not work- period. It’s slowly (or quickly in some cases…look at Cuba…) killing off the nations that have done this. China’s not hurting right at the moment only by virtue of the fact that they’ve discarded some of the Socialist/Communist notions and are screwing with their currency in a long-term negative way, hoping to beat the odds, much like we have here in the States for the last 30 or so years.

        Anything that needs an appeal to emotion to justify it’s being done is immediately suspect.

        Like


    • More likely women (of voting age) were more conservative in the 50’s because the bulk of them were composed of Greatest and Silent generations (i.e. Generational theory ‘Hero’ and ‘Artist’ archetypes) who would be more pragmatic and conformist. Today the woman’s vote is dominated by Boomers and Gen-X (Gen Theory ‘Prophet’ and ‘Nomad’ archetypes) who are their over-indulged/self-absorbed opposites. The worm will eventually turn again when the Millennial and ‘Homeland’ generation females (the next Hero and Artist generations) dominate the distaff population in about 20 years or so, though how far may depend on the depths and desperation of the coming crisis era (financial crash, followed by civilizational war). A worst-case crash and war killing a couple billion worldwide ought to focus the rationalization hamsters all right.

      Like


  7. Once again, the pretty lies perish here at Chateau Heartiste.

    Of course, at an individual level, there are exceptions to the rule: think Margaret Thatcher, who had more balls than Barack Obama has seen in all the basketball locker rooms he’s frequented. Certainly more balls than he himself has.

    Then again that Thatcher’s angular masculine face suggested there was quite bit of testosterone running in those veins.

    Like


    • I almost vomited when O!BA!MA! based his Sonia Sotomayor nomination on the “empathy” a judge should feel for the participants in a case. And this sh!thead actually went to Harvard Law???

      Like


      • nah he just based it on wanting to get a piece of the increasingly large female voter demographic. hence, Hillary Clinton assecretary of state.

        Like


  8. on November 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

    when left to their own devices,

    womenz MURDERED over 50,000,000 innocent unborn human beings
    fifty MILLION

    this iw why
    the warmongering neoocn neocons like jonah goldberg love fmeinsismssmsm
    it is the ultimate pre-emptive war
    it also dehumanizes the mother and father
    and fuckes them up for life
    and da neoocncnsnsn go

    lzozozllzzzlzoz more warz power monye for me in da beltway of dc where i stuff my fat momma boys fat cherubic fce with pizzaassaaazzz lzozlzlz nuff sai! lzozlzlzozozlzzz

    Like


  9. CH said: “I’m guessing the pattern was the reverse in the 1950s because more women were married and getting their provisions from provider husbands instead of grievance shakedown rackets and sugar daddy government. A married woman with children is a woman whose worst moral instincts are muted. Alternate explanation: political conservatism was of a lot different complexion in the 1950s than it is now”

    You actually answered this question in your own post. The answer that seems more plausible is that the political climate in the 50s was more conservative, but as that slowly changed, there was a new tipping point to which women simply adjusted.

    Like


  10. Women shouldn’t vote. I realize that now.

    Like


  11. There was a discussion about the fact that conservative books focus on ideological issues while liberal books focus on policy issues without concerning themselves with first principles. I doubt any of the individuals fingered women as the cause of this difference, but it seems plausible.

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/a-liberal-reads-conservative-books.html

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/the_great_books.html

    Like


    • Have noticed this difference myself. There are hundreds of left-wing “think tanks” with far-reaching effects in policy; where the right has … well, you know.

      Women befriend; men withdraw. Policy, activism, agitation and social programming of all sorts can be seen as “befriending”, where the right can only choose to flee.

      Like


    • What strikes me about Arnold Kling’s article is that the left originally presented itself as the “logical” part of the political spectrum. Socialism claimed to have developed a scientific and “logical” management of the means of production. Hayek discussed this at length in his “Counter-revolution of Science.”

      Like


  12. What it also suggests (correctly) is that the liberal male is an abomination and is responsible for the continued proliferation of collectivism, statism, and neoliberal feminazism.

    Like


    • Would you argue that the liberal male is an abomination if their voting compass points towards purely social causes; IE, a libertarian removal of govt. from personal decisions? Couldn’t that also be viewed as principled?

      Like


  13. Plato or Aristotle said women have no sense of justice. No secret really. Do we have scientific justification for suffrage yet?

    Like


  14. on November 16, 2011 at 6:00 pm Johnycomelately

    Well, don’t women rationalize the termination of beta seed as ‘choice’.

    Like


  15. What the scientific conclusions mischievously suggest is that female care-oriented morality is best suited for small-scale communities like families and neighborhoods, but is not so good when expanded to a national scale (see: mass immigration). Male principle-oriented morality, in contrast, is a much better guard rail for steering a nation along the right path (see: fiscal restraint).

    I disagree here, because I don’t believe that principles and “care-oriented” morality (as you put it) need to be separated which seems to be what you are suggesting. After all, principles come from a sense of morality and empathy, which otherwise would make principles meaningless.

    For example, cruel and unusual punishment (eight amendment of the US constitution) is a specific safeguard that falls along the lines of empathy or morality and the “principles” argument you are making on a national scale.

    Fiscal restraint, another item you bring up, actually depends on both principles and care-oriented morality. For example, in an economic downturn as what we are experiencing right now, do we not do anything? You can make both a principled argument and a care-oriented morality argument for either case for a nation on a national level. Or, how about healthcare? When someone is sick, do we adhere to a principle that you do not get assistance if you cannot provide payment or insurance? Again, principles become meaningless unless underlying them are base elements of empathy and morality.

    Of course, underlying all of this is seemingly your implication that women should be stripped of their right to vote because they hold empathy over principles. This is nearsighted at best when you look at the harm done when you hold principles above all else. Advocacy of principles above all leads to the very things that we strive to run away from.

    Like


    • ‘This is nearsighted at best when you look at the harm done when you hold principles above all else. Advocacy of principles above all leads to the very things that we strive to run away from.’

      yes, an aspie application of justice that would result in a wretched world nobody would want to live in. not for nothing do we have a system that weighs mitigating factors in the application of justice, e.g., the judge’s discretion. the prosecutor’s as well for that matter.

      Like


      • If it weren’t for the fact that you two women perfectly illustrate the point of the post, I’d suggest you go find somewhere else to diddle each other.

        Like


      • is that your idea of a closely reasoned response? asshole.

        Like


      • You nailed it. I am astounded by the vast emptiness of these two replies. No, not emptiness, rather the total and complete indoctrination of not being able to think and reflect and only being able to regurgitate complete and total nonsense that has been spoon fed.

        Like


      • She also hopes for a world full of Brad Pitts. Aryan fetish in Hollyweird makeup.

        Like


    • The post above suffers from several problems, starting with who the “we” are.

      I would like to re-frame the difference between men and women as that men are more likely to look at long term consequences, whereas women’s reactions are more geared to the immediate situation.

      Another take is that women are more prone than men to fall for the “poster boy/girl effect”. (But men are quite susceptible too.) This is were focus is brought to some individual case, no matter how oddball (and usually selected by somebody with an agenda, even if the agenda is just sensationalism to sell papers or airtime).. Thus, new rules/laws whatever that would be favorable to the poster-boy are called for, even though the net impact might be much negative. (Of course, as a practical matter, the “negative” etc is subjective, but note the women’s larger unwillingness to
      redirect the runaway train so that one person dies instead of 10. One death is a tragedy, lots of deaths is a statistic, and women are more vulnerable to this.

      Thor

      Like


  16. I seem to recall years ago reading a historian noting that in his study of human slavery over the millenia, female slaveowners were the more calluous and cruel towards household slaves.

    Like


    • probably because they suspected, with reason, that her husband was bopping said slaves. (read mary chestnut’s observations of southern slave society)

      [Heartiste: From what I’ve read recently, there wasn’t nearly as much slave boffing as modern leftist academics and pop culture consumerists believe. Of course, this may or may not mean antebellum wives were suspicious of their slave owning hubbies, but it does suggest that there wasn’t very much reason to be suspicious.]

      Like


      • [Heartiste: From what I’ve read recently, there wasn’t nearly as much slave boffing as modern leftist academics and pop culture consumerists believe. Of course, this may or may not mean antebellum wives were suspicious of their slave owning hubbies, but it does suggest that there wasn’t very much reason to be suspicious.]

        And millions of light-skinned blacks came from where?

        [Heartiste: Jesus krist on a cracker, here we go again. I didn’t say there was NO slave boffing. I said it wasn’t as widespread as believed by a lot of blacks and liberal whites. And has there been no interracial lovin’ since slave times? Come on, people, this lame strawman bs is getting tiresome.]

        Like


      • fyi, about 30% of the average modern-day black’s dna is european derived.

        Like


      • 20% according to the Census Bureau. I think its exaggerated.

        Like


      • Not to carolyn, who is anti-white. She requires white admixture in the black population to continue believing one of the main tenets of the anti-white religion: that slave owners very often raped their chattel and sired bastards. This is also supposed to neutralize anti-black sentiment among whites, who are, of course, not permitted (by YKW) to maintain group identity nor act in their interests as a race. And anyhow, “race does not even exist”, except when a leftist needs to score a point against her own race.

        That’s “carolyn” for you.

        Like


      • Yeah, cuz, black men never have sex with white women….naw…

        Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 9:34 pm rocket science

        Do some reading. Only about 1-2% of black males in the USA carry a European Y chromosome. The exception was New Orleans before Katrina, about 10% there.

        The high value there was due to the Frenchmen from Haiti and their black wives, who fled the white genocide in 1801 in Haiti.

        Why so many light skinned blacks? Look at the skin complexion favored by black men.

        Like


      • [I said it wasn’t as widespread as believed by a lot of blacks and liberal whites.]

        Define that. 10% less? 50%? And please cite your source.

        [Heartiste: Even if it’s 10% less, that’s still less than what people currently believe to be the rate. When I have time I’ll look up the cite.]

        [And has there been no interracial lovin’ since slave times?]

        Actually, not a lot.

        [I didn’t say there was a lot; only that there has been enough to create a minority population of light-skinned blacks within the total black population. Btw, the DNA evidence that American blacks have 30% euro ancestry is mistaken. The latest data show somewhere in the range of 10-20% euro dna. Again, when I have time I’ll look up the source.]

        Blacks couldn’t legally marry whites nationwide until the 1960’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) and even today there is a huge stigma against it.

        [Forget all this grievance industry claptrap talk. It’s irrelevant. Only thing that matters to this discussion is what percent of present day american blacks have white dna, and of those that do how much of their dna is white.]

        Back in the 1960’s and before blacks were killed or beaten for even hanging out with white women.

        Your argument is weak.

        [The facts are strong.]

        Like


      • [When I have time I’ll look up the cite.]

        OK. Somehow I have a feeling that you won’t “have the time” anytime soon.

        Just a hunch.

        [Heartiste: You’ll just have to stay tuned!]

        Like


      • Malcolm X had a few white girlfriends he was screwing when he was a criminal. This was the 40s. Interracial sex went on in big cities. Lynching happened in small towns.

        Like


      • This “watteck” is living in a book — Roots or some shit. Grievance industry claptrap talk is the entirety of his view of African-American history since emancipation. He is underinformed, misinformed, and not at all concerned to be better informed, but in following the establishment lies that hold all white men are rapists, descended from slave-holders, and blacks were always and everywhere savaged for so much as looking at a white woman, despite tyrone’s observation that Malcolm X had a little harem of white whores going before heading to the big house. The trouble here is we have been given to consider only the southern / country experience of racial politics; look to the cities where propinquity happens. Why do you think the Nazis went on about “the black-haired Jew lying in wait for the blond German girl”? think they were exaggerating?

        Go to Hollywood sometime.

        Like


      • heartiste’s very credible arguments regarding the prevalence of female hypergamy gives doubt to the unicorn and rainbow revisionist claims of slave resistance to seduction by white masters. what slave woman in her right mind wouldn’t succumb (or even initiate), if having a white father gave her progeny a better chance?

        heartiste, look at west africans who i’m sure you see in dc, and compare them to african-americans. who are you gonna believe, the apologist books or your lyin’ eyes?

        [Heartiste: I’m not in DC, but I’ll tell ya what. This subject — slave history — doesn’t interest me that much, but as a bone to the loyal commenters I’ll spend some time this week looking up statistics on racial admixture and slave/master sexual liaisons. We’ll all get to the bottom of this if we hold hands and sway rhythmically to the tune of awolnation’s sail.]

        Like


      • kumbaya, i’d guess.

        Like


      • Exactly and the man either put her up in a cabin on the other side of the plantation or brought her into the big house. This also assumes a one per county or several counties level of wealth to even have enough slaves to do this discretely.Most independent farmers did not even own slaves and the average number was five slaves per household.

        Its simple really. Who wants to keep a smelly, worm infested, wrinkly and worn out field hand as a mistress? How many of you pointy headed Yankees have ever smelled a black field hand after a hard day’s work in the Alabama sun? Did you say zero? I thought so.

        Like


      • carolyn,

        What is your stake in this matter? CH freely admits he isn’t really interested, but will compromise and shower you with statistics and citations — which of course you will nitpick and ignore. So can you admit why this is of such pressing concern to you? why this need to assert, to prove or see disproved, or merely to believe that x% of Anglo slave-holders (-2% of the American population, you understand) seduced (= “raped”) their female chattel?

        Answer me honestly. Don’t dodge. Tell us what you think of the white race, or in your lingo “white people”, of whom you are one, I presume.

        what slave woman in her right mind wouldn’t succumb (or even initiate), if having a white father gave her progeny a better chance?

        Useless, baited speculation. Though given the fact of mixed parentage, mulattoes or more usually quadroons and the like did attempt to pass, as a rule. This is a frequent theme in southern literature, especially Louisiana creole. That is relevant. I don’t see full-blood Africans having such thoughts — as I don’t today. The rarest pairings are white male / black female for all the obvious reasons your kind like to deny, and our kind think must be proven by “statistics”.

        look at west africans who i’m sure you see in dc, and compare them to african-americans. who are you gonna believe, the apologist books or your lyin’ eyes?

        CH is probably correct that more recent cross-pollination is responsible, to the extent that lighter African-Americans are not purely African with lighter features, as can be seen among the Fula, Khoisan, Berbers / Moors, and Ethiopians. Now, the question becomes, do you know so much about African anthropology and history to say with confidence that admixture among these groups was impossible or unlikely to have produced light-skinned Africans in situ? Because if you can’t, you’re looking at a very plausible rival thesis to the one handed to you, voll verkochte, by your YKW minders.

        But let’s restrict ourselves to the first questions: What do you think of white people? what is your stake in this matter?

        Like


      • what is your stake in this matter?

        Moral vanity, perceived redemption, assuasion of a sense of collective guilt.

        Like


      • on November 16, 2011 at 9:58 pm John Norman Howard

        And millions of light-skinned blacks came from where?

        From the cohabitation that went on in the shanty towns, where freed negroes and white trashed intermixed early and often…. as we witness to this day in the poorer sections of most cities.

        If anyone thinks the miniscule population of semi-aristocratic slave owners had the hots for their Hattie McDaniels and Butterfly McQueens, and this led to the current levels of cream in the coffee, well… think again.

        Like


      • Excellent angle. Read about the Depression, read Steinbeck novels, read memoirs like MX’s. This is exactly how the Coloured race in South Africa came about. The image of cruel massa bending little Binka Wokofoko over the dining room table is a political lie to spread resentment of whites and guilt by association.

        But carolyn can’t be arsed to have a broader view of this. No, black Americans must have a substantial dose of white DNA; there’s just no other way such a phenotypic variation can happen but white massas slyly shagging black slaves. Just like Thomas Jefferson u know!!! OMG America’s so HYPOCRITICAL. Did u know Shakespeare was GAY????? Hitler had one ball LOZLLZZOZOZOZ!!!

        Funny, yea, but that’s really where the carolyns of our society are coming from.

        Like


      • ‘But carolyn can’t be arsed to have a broader view of this. No, black Americans must have a substantial dose of white DNA; there’s just no other way such a phenotypic variation can happen but white massas slyly shagging black slaves.’

        i never claimed it was the _only_ way. sure there had to be a good deal of miscegenation between white trash and freedmen/women, as someone here mentioned. what does your knowledge of human nature tell you will happen when you have white men (not just ‘massa’, but all of such in the househod) relatively powerful compared to enslaved women, some surely attractive, they saw daily.

        i have no ax to grind here.

        Like


      • i have no ax to grind here.

        Then why is your imagination populated by “white trash” philanderers and “some surely attractive” black slave girls? ever read about the Moors as described by eyewitnesses to their occupation of Spain? All agree they were a mix of racial types ranging from Sub-Saharan to Europid. I wonder how many of them miscegenated? when were the Portuguese in Africa again? the Arabs? and this pesky fact that darkies seem to favor lighter women even when not dominated by whites?

        what does your knowledge of human nature tell you will happen when you have white men (not just ‘massa’, but all of such in the househod) relatively powerful compared to enslaved women,

        Again, I don’t doubt it happened. Mainly because I’d have done it myself. But this presumes far too much of the socialization of whites and attractiveness of blacks. Like it or not, white slaveholders were probably not the demons portrayed in your college books. It is blacks, and not whites, who can’t seem to control themselves sexually, if studies and numbers mean anything. This entire notion depends on a specter of out of control white sexuality that doesn’t square with reality. Last time I checked, black music is all about weed and pussy, while white music is all about heartache and abstract bullshit.

        Anyhow, the other guy provided the best explanation for large-scale interbreeding that may have occurred here — propinquity in Hoovervilles and the like. The slave model is founded on slanderous motive: to make whites (guilt by association you see) feel responsible for the alleged sexual exploitation of black women.

        The other side is white American obsession with muddling their own identity with pedigree myths — nearly always the “Indian ancestor” but often enough to annoy, a black relative. This makes them feel better about being white, which is evil and guilty; and all of which is perfectly untrue. Very few white men reproduced with either black or injun women. The societies were simply not so permeable as leftists pretend. Again, the secret intent is to broadcast an image of white men as bloodthirsty rapists who would fuck and breed with anything. Never-mind their ethics, their religion, family obligations, their personalities — we all know white men just can’t help themselves around those luscious Nubian houris.

        It’s a just-so story issued by the left to cover up genetic drift, in sum.

        Like


      • And millions of light-skinned blacks came from where?

        Africa, dipshit. But you and carolyn, who in public would nervously declare your belief in equality, reduce Africans to mere glyphs in your ideology by completely ignoring, and willfully misinterpreting, African biodiversity. But you do this because you are indoctrinated. Go to Morocco or Mauritania, go read Cavalli-Sforza, google “African genetics” or as CH suggests “interracial porn” — something other than embarrass yourselves, and waste space, with your politicized anti-white bullshit.

        Like


      • http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2006/12/skin-color-preference-in-sub-saharan.html

        I’ll summarize the findings of the link, which won’t be read by the anti-goy opposition: Africans across the continent exhibit preference for light-skinned females among their own.

        May have something to do with the known fact that women are usually lighter than men of the same race. May also have to do with those curious little boxes of “skin whitening cream” I see at the black beauty supply shelf at Wal-Mart, and all the pleas of “wheat-color skin” I see in matrimonial ads at The Hindu.

        Wait, let me guess. “Legacies of colonialism”? ALL of it?

        An alternate explantion is that human skin color varies in response to both natural selection and sexual selection (Aoki 2002; Frost 1994, 2007; Manning et al. 2004). Female hoe-farming societies, with their weaker sexual selection of women and different mix of wife-choice criteria, would shift the selective balance further away from sexual selection and further toward natural selection. In other words, natural selection for darker skin, to protect against sunburn and skin cancer, would encounter less resistance from sexual selection for lighter-skinned women.

        Today, hoe farming is disappearing. As agriculture becomes mechanized and as people move off the land, Africa is entering a new social environment where men no longer choose wives for their ability to work hard in the sun. Increasingly, African women are supporting themselves and their children through work in the service economy—with its emphasis on charm and visual presentation. The circumstances of life are now promoting rather than hindering the aesthetic preference for lighter-skinned women.

        Africans are aware that their behavior has changed in this regard, as it has in others. But why is less clear. Many black intellectuals, especially those of the diaspora, imagine a past where African men preferred black as the color of female beauty—a past before slavery, colonialism, and glossy magazines. In fact, the reality was more complex. Before European contact, black Africans saw themselves neither as ‘black’ nor as ‘Africans.’ They saw themselves as … people. Like people elsewhere, they admired physical beauty. But beauty does not fully determine mate preference, just as mate preference does not fully determine actual mate choice. In the transition from thought to act, the circumstances of life can get in the way, in Africa as elsewhere.

        File under: “Africa Disproves Anti-Racist Homilies”.

        Like


      • uh quoted: “Today, hoe farming is disappearing.”

        Not in my hood, cracka. Shiiiiiiiiiit.

        Like


      • was hoping someone would pick that up, lolzlozz

        Like


      • I read that 60% of American Blacks had American Indian DNA. Runaway slaves frequently lived with Indian tribes or renegades. Some tribes kept slaves. The Cherokee did. They fought for the Confederacy and lost some of their land because of it. The land was given to freed slaves. Many light-skinned blacks are probably part Indian.

        Like


      • The same argument goes both ways. White wives were bopping the slaves too.

        Like


      • doubt it. not when there was a significant social penalty for women of a certain class if they bore dark babies. white women mating with black men was a product of early colonial times before indentured servitude morphed into lifelong slavery along racial lines.

        Like


      • on November 16, 2011 at 9:59 pm John Norman Howard

        Like most of your ilk, you’ve been fed on too steady a diet of South Park and Neil Young music.

        Feh.

        Like


      • I’m sure there was plenty of slave boffing. Look at Schwarzenegger and his beastly Mexican maid lover.

        If Massa wasn’t boffing the slaves, then his boys might have. Modern studies show that 20% of boys who grow up on farms admit to some kind of “sexual contact” with farm animals Hard to imagine a 15 or 16 year old, horny boy being able to resist taking liberties with some young slave girls.

        Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm John Norman Howard

        Odd, then, that back then YT allegedly couldn’t keep his hands off the nigra wimmenz… yet today, in the age of rampant sexual freedom, White males on the whole have no interest in them.

        And no, the plantations were not rife with specimens such as Halle Berry or Vanessa Williams.

        The governator banging his willing and endearingly submissive ersazt hausfrau as apposed to that scrawny Harpys Bizarre of a wife does not a trend make, Skeezix.

        Like


    • Good observation explains why it was the gaddafi son’s wife who boiled the caretaker on a whim and not any of the men.

      Like


    • This could be due to the fact that the wives were in charge of the household and had to make sure things got done.

      Like


    • “Crucify that slave!” says the wife. “But what crime worthy of death has he committed? ” asks the husband; “where are the witnesses? who informed against him? Give him a hearing at least; no delay can be too long when a man’s life is at stake!” “What, you numskull? You call a slave a man, do you? He has done no wrong, you say? Be it so; but this is my will and my command: let my will be the voucher for the deed.” Thus does she lord it over her husband. –Juvenal, Satire 6, early 2nd century A.D.

      Like


  17. H.L. Mencken noticed this back in the 1920s. In one of his essays he mentions how women in criminal trials lie shamelessly.

    Like


  18. Off-topic, but I want to give the Chateau a heads-up about this great article I stumbled across this morning:

    http://www.wealthwire.com/news/economy/2213?r=1

    22 signs of impending societal collapse in America.

    Like


  19. on November 16, 2011 at 6:33 pm MayaCantStopHatingMen

    You hate stupid people and liars.

    [Heartiste: ftfy]

    Like


  20. women’s morality looks to be one where justice is tempered by mercy.

    and that’s not a good thing?

    [Heartiste: Not when the mercy is undeserved.]

    Like


    • This makes perfect sense. Here is a video of a woman practically begging for men to come back and rule the world. Why? Because she has two sons:

      Like


      • Good god, the scoffing asides and sanctimonious delivery is almost impossible to take. She is generally right on, but her delivery was learned in Womyn Studies’ symposiums, I fear.

        Like


      • I was impressed by the video. I think her Womyn’s Studies demeanor serves as a nice head-fuck to the uninitiated.

        Like


    • No, it’s not a good thing; when you sacrifice justice to mercy, the only possible result is the victory of evil at the expense of the good. Any act of mercy can only sanction evil; the just never have to ask for mercy.

      Like


      • What if your judge is Ivan the Terrible? People are often unjustly accused and convicted. Think about this some more.

        Like


    • carolyn wrote: “women’s morality looks to be one where justice is tempered by mercy.”

      Wrong, heathen! That’s not women’s morality, that’s Christian doctrine.

      And all “mercy is undeserved.” That’s what elevates it above justice.

      Mercy is weakness. Unless you are God, or united to his will, which transfigures it into a strength. There it becomes the foundation for the continuation of all life, which, absent mercy, is hopelessly depraved. Don’t feminize the eternal truth, because all that does is bring erroneous hotheaded opposition in these parts.

      “Sweet summer rain,” says the devil in O Brother. “Like God’s own mercy.” Even the prince of lies knows that truth.

      Our attempts to effect “justice” are elaborate justifications of revenge. That is the best we can do on our own. Two wrongs making a right. Eye for an eye. Ultimately mercy is called for, but it is not our call to make. Alone, it is impossible to make, just as bringing the murdered back to life is impossible, forcing us to, at best, return murder with murder.

      “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Grace (mercy) is the undeserved gift. Great news for sinners! Right? Wrong. Because truth (justice) is just as important. You don’t violate justice with impunity and then regard mercy as your right. God didn’t overlook this cosmic loophole. The throne of judgment cannot be deceived, God is not mocked, and his word will not return void.

      You are correct to remind the Chateau that there are more factors in any controversy to consider than simple truth, or seeing the “pretty lies perish.” But fie, FIE on your implication that mercy is the exclusive concern of women. It is the highest concern of creation, the prerequisite for all life.

      It may seem to you that mercy is feminine because mercy carries the postlapsarian odor of weakness, and women qua women embrace and more characteristically display weakness. But that “weakness” has since been restored to its prelapsarian strength, which makes it the mark of the strongest men and the transformed internal power of women.

      Like


      • well, that was the first time i’ve been accused of being a heathen. in my other life it’s more like uptight lapsed catholic.

        true, protestant christianity is relentlessly masculine as is the source of unmerited grace, even more so in its stern calvinistic form. (john calvin was not a warm and fuzzy kind of guy)

        catholics otoh are enveloped in the compassion of the virgin mary, our intercessor to a severe god the father. jesus’ talk of mercy was more or less hijacked by his mother, at least in the way we were taught as schoolchildren. it’s not theologically correct to see mercy’s source as female, but there it is.

        anyway, do please continue your fiery rants and well articulated jeremiads, even if it’s to castigate me. i can listen to you for hours. 🙂

        Like


      • Problem is the vast majority of people, and especially women, who are in a position to inhabit halls of power like courtrooms, have never spent time with a bunch of street nigguz like I have. These guys have a completely predatory, warrior outlook toward society, and they are beside themselves with joy at how weak, pacifistic, and “empathetic” our society and court system has become. Our weakness allows them to run roughshod over law-abiding citizens every day of every week. They have nothing but sneering contempt for people like you carolyn, because they see you as weak, cowardly, and absurdly naive. Power ONLY respects equal or greater power, and if you don’t have their respect, you are just another victim. The street thugs are playing America’s “justice system” like a fiddle, then laughing among themselves at how fucking stupid we are to let them get away with it.

        Like


      • It’s no coincidence that “street nigguz” are balanced by their diametrical opposite within the same community — the preachers of mercy and forgiveness and salvation in black America. The faith they wear on their sleeve and put into practice makes SWPL moral therapeutic deism look like the (literally) pale shadow of faith it is.

        In other words, the best of those who are “laughing among themselves at how fucking stupid [white people] are” eventually wise up and realize 1) they aren’t destroying anything so much as themselves and their community, and 2) they ain’t gettin’ away wit’ shit. “[The Lord] will bring into the light of day all that at present is hidden in darkness, and he will expose the secret motives of men’s hearts.” What if it’s true, nigga?

        Because — and all you nominally faithless prick up your ears — faith is the proposition to live “as if.” What if it’s true? is the proposition that can never be verified but becomes operative in directing our behavior, not just in the extremely unlikely chance that it is true, but to fill the space of the unknown with something intuited as wholesome to drive out the place-holders provided from sources that wish us harm.

        It is impossible to live without a metaphysic that silently motivates your decisions. Most people do not wrestle with their metaphysic consciously, they simply inherit it and assume its veracity (and its beneficence). Religion is nothing more than consciously discussing the veracity of one’s inherited metaphysic. And faith is the acknowledgement of the limits of our understanding.

        Where were you when I laid the foundation of the universe? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements — surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? … On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone…. Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?

        You don’t have to know Who (if anybody) was present at the creation (if there was a creation). You just have to know you weren’t there, and you really have no idea.

        Or were you present at the beginning of all existence, when the law of, say, gravity, was instituted? What makes you think you’ve been given special access to understanding its purpose, from which you derive your purpose? The beginning of wisdom is acknowledging our insuperable ignorance in this regard. Forget about God; are you wiser than Socrates who said, “I know one thing, that I know nothing”? All else is unexamined solipsism. (Which, after Socrates again, “isn’t worth living.”)

        You have to know what you don’t know before you can know anything. “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Is “fake it till you make it” not a core principle of game? Practitioners of pick-up would not be motivated to depilate their crotch and cover themselves with Axe body spray on their way out to the club if they weren’t already riding on an article of faith, the “assurance of things hoped for” which promises them, If I Do This, Chicks Will Cum.

        Or did you think “Inner Game” was invented sui generis in millennial America? Call it whatever you want. But faith is faith. The difference is, we unabashed faithful are aware of what drives us, and have been given an opportunity to affirm or reject our masters.

        Like


      • Well KA you are nothing if not an absorbing, challenging writer. I shall reflect on your musings…

        Like


      • carolyn wrote: “well, that was the first time i’ve been accused of being a heathen. in my other life it’s more like uptight lapsed catholic.”

        Catholic, unlapse thyself! And use a capital-C.

        You will be far less confused. What you “lapsed” from is a child’s understanding of the faith. For instance, your grade-school Mariology is too desiccated to be redeemed. Yes, it is easier for a young girl to look at mom’s softness and equate it with mercy, or dad’s toughness and equate it with justice. But you should be shocked to find these embryonic notions still directing your adult understanding of things. I am no longer surprised, however, at the kindergarten catechesis coming out of the mouths of otherwise mature adults. “Lapsed Catholic” is the second largest denomination in the United States.

        There is a connection between “uptight” and “lapsed,” not “uptight” and “Catholic.” Your still-operative adolescence long ago rendered uprightness to be uptightness, and you haven’t revisited the notion with all the wisdom and experience you have gained since Confirmation. “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” The glory of God is a human being fully alive (St. Irenaeus).

        “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.'” Come back in, revert. The water is not as cold as you remember.

        Like


      • ‘And use a capital-C’

        i got a balky shift key.

        the faith you speak of, very movingly, is something i envy but can’t reclaim. to do so would be dishonest and i have too much respect for christianity to pretend. my catholic upbringing and education is something i’ll never regret, giving as it does a solid grounding in morals and ethics as well as a sense of identity never to be lost. my finding-and i imagine yours too- our host’s nihilism disturbing is attributable to that background.

        the young men here need to hear another voice as compelling as our host’s. most i think are decent types and despite all the bravado and bitterness shown in the comments probably only want to find and keep a girlfriend. your presenting them with a 21st century version of muscular christianity does provide them an antidote to what may have been an feminized religious education.

        in short, they need not be ashamed of their masculinity. they may pursue their sexual prerogatives and remain good men. i wish you luck with this mission.

        Like


      • Balky keyed carolyn wrote: “the faith you speak of, very movingly, is something i envy but can’t reclaim.”

        Horseshit. You can’t “reclaim” it because you have an arrested-adolescent understanding of it.

        Either you are interested in the primary things of life or you’re not. If you are, we’ve been having a conversation about them for 2000-5000 years. We have art, beauty, philosophy, example, music, and the meaning of life, each grounded in the scrutiny of a hundred generations’ criticism, reinforced by an accumulating storehouse of practice, knowledge, and wisdom. That is the insuperable advantage of orthodoxy.

        If you aren’t interested in the primary things of life — too bad — ignorance won’t avail you. “You may not be interested in the war. But the war is interested in you.” In other words, if you don’t do the examination yourself, you are relying on someone else’s account as a place-holder. The least you owe your existence is an attempt at an examination.

        That is the beauty of (no-balky) small-c catholicism. The church universal is designed for all, from the lowest to the highest. She is made for everyone (Faulkner: church = “here comes everybody”), to contain theologians and imbeciles, noble-born and wretched, saints and sinners, all in communion at the same table, each with an idiosyncratic path to the truth.

        To the person without analytical skills or inclination, the wager is simple: what other institution has existed for twenty centuries in essentially the same form without interruption in the history of mankind? The great and venerable constitution of the U.S., oldest in the world, has been around for 1/10th the time. The Roman Empire lasted, what, 500 years? China might have a claim, but the thread is nominal at best and besides, the last emperor is dead as Kung Pow Chicken. But the church? “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” There must be something to her longevity. You don’t have to understand every part of her to make use of the whole. And yet she is available for understanding if you have the capacity.

        This does not strike you as urgent because lack the courage to face the fact of your inherited metaphysic. You don’t even know what is controlling your presumptions about the world, which dictate your behavior. If you can’t/won’t take an active hand in that dynamic, at least play the probabilities better.

        Like


      • the faith you speak of, very movingly, is something i envy but can’t reclaim.

        That is fear talking, Carolyn (I’ve been there, and in a lot of ways I still am). You can, if you want it.

        Some place to start:

        Father Barron’s Word on Fire – also he is very soon coming out with a documentary about the church.

        Catholic Answers

        I Know King A will be able to add much more, but these are good places to start.

        Like


      • That thing Jesus said about “faith the size of a mustard seed is enough to move a mountain” (not an exact quote) has been horribly misunderstood for nearly 2ky .

        It’s not a promise of the power of faith – it’s a warning against too much faith. Faith is such a powerful influence on human consciousness, it is easy to have far too much. A tiny bit – like, a mustard seed – must be balance with a HUGE amount of knowledge of objective reality.

        The “people of faith” have extremely, inappropriately excessive faith.

        P.S.
        “Balky keyed Carolyn” was even funnier than “Maya Hates Gay Puppies”. I lol’d.

        Like


      • attractionreaction wrote: “Faith is such a powerful influence on human consciousness, it is easy to have far too much. A tiny bit – like, a mustard seed – must be balance with a HUGE amount of knowledge of objective reality.”

        I believe in God on average maybe once or twice a year, for a split second, and then it is gone. Everything else is staring into the abyss, practical atheism with an occasional vacation into agnosticism, “the experience of nothingness.” I laugh when grade-school atheists try to tell me my faith is premised on avoiding the horror of the nihil. I live in the nihil. Playing pretend, and whispering fairy tales to oneself doesn’t mute the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar.”

        St. John of The Cross’ “dark night of the soul,” St. Thérèse of Lisieux, Mother Theresa; some of the greatest saints were convinced of the nothingness for decades. The accomplishment of faith is to disallow the nothingness from directing one’s life. Faith “is the evidence of things unseen.” Faith isn’t pretending to see what is invisible and calling it evidence. Faith is treating an assumption as knowledge when you are consigned to live the overwhelming majority of your life in the absence of evidence. Faith is founding those life-or-death assumptions on answers large enough to fit the scope of the question.

        The affirmative decision to act “as if” is not a declaration of the truth of the “if.” It must remain an “if” perceived through a glass darkly. That’s the nature of the unanswerable questions. You don’t get answers, you posit answers best your rational faculties and experiences allow, and act accordingly.

        If my experience of the good and the beautiful and the true is not what a glimpse of them indicates, so be it. Some curse the darkness. Some light candles.

        The “move mountains” metaphor is not the only reference to the mustard seed in the Gospels. “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed…. it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree….”

        My split-second insight into the truth beyond the nihil does indeed grow large enough to direct my life, despite its brevity. If you saw the face of God in one moment, you would proceed to disbelieving or explaining it away in the next. The a posteriori knowledge of the senses are shackled by the gravity of natural skepticism. And yet, those occasional mustard seeds of insight will motivate me for years, and grow into a sturdy structure of faith, contingent but consistent and reliable.

        “Faith is such a powerful influence on human consciousness, it is easy to have far too much.”

        That’s called credulity, which is what the faithless assume faith must be. Which is tiresome. Like any virtue, there is more than one opposite of faith. Faith is the golden mean between disbelief and credulity.

        Like


  21. I just had a conversation about this with someone. All morals are fundamentally based on emotions, just like science is never 100% objective. It doesn’t mean principles (or science) are useless. Basing your actions on feelings alone is like trying to build a spaceship based on what “looks right” without any scientific knowledge. This analogy is kind of stretched though, as science is still way more objective than principles and much less based on emotions. But just like knowing laws of physics will help you build things, principles will help you decide, when feelings alone are not enough.
    I totally feel sorry for those who tried to hurt me because they are suffering in some way. But those are just feelings, and learning to differentiate between pity for the deserving and the undeserving is not that hard. It won’t make feelings go away, but at least you won’t help the undeserving people.

    Like


    • on November 16, 2011 at 8:04 pm someguyontheinternet

      All morals are fundamentally based on emotions

      i like how you state that (absurd) premise as though it was so obvious that it requires no supporting logic or evidence. Actually, morality does not derive from emotion. Morality is the universal code of conduct that is necessary for civilization to exist. When your society doesn’t share common moral principles like “don’t steal shit” and “don’t murder people,” the result isn’t just that some people feel bad, the result is that your entire civilization collapses.

      That’s a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a woman, there. Morality is just based on feelings. Feminism in a nutshell, amirite?

      Like


      • Yeah, but why would you care if civilization collapses or not? You can live a pretty good life doing all the things that are bad for it without any consequences to yourself for quite a while, perhaps for all your life. If you could kill 3 random people for no reason without affecting civilization and get away with it, would you do it? Why do you care more about civilization than yourself and your own good?

        Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm someguyontheinternet

        Yeah, but why would you care if civilization collapses or not?

        You should watch the Vice Guide to Travel: Liberia on Youtube.

        Genocide, rape, torture, cannibalism, utter depravity and desperation on every level. See why morality is important? When society as a whole dispenses with morality, you get Liberia.

        You can live a pretty good life doing all the things that are bad for it without any consequences to yourself for quite a while, perhaps for all your life. … Why do you care more about civilization than yourself and your own good?

        Because I’m not a sociopath. Healthy human beings have an innate moral compass that tells them that rape and murder are not good things to do, even if they’re not insightful enough to deduce the sociobiological roots of their compunctions.

        You look at the emotional ramifications of evil actions and assume that that’s as deep as morality goes. But the real reason you have a conscience is because it’s an evolutionarily advantageous trait for a social animal like Homo sapiens to have.

        Like


      • Sociopaths exist in all societies, including the civilized ones. They are too few to cause a collapse, so you can totally get away with being one in such a society. Why don’t you do anything against the rules, if it benifits you? Not because your emotions are telling you?

        And even the preference for a calm life rather than chaos is based on emotions, Your values are based on emotions. They might have evolved and natural, but there is no such thing as objective value. Some people happen to value chaos more than civilization, and you don’t. If you don’t get it, look up this:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism
        Don’t get morally superior with me. It’s not “female logic”, most of the philosophers for moral emotivism are male. It’s just that I realize what morals are really based on, and you don’t.

        “Healthy human beings have an innate moral compass that tells them that rape and murder are not good things to do”
        That is emotions.
        “But the real reason you have a conscience is because it’s an evolutionarily advantageous trait for a social animal like Homo sapiens to have.”
        It’s also advantageous to be a sociopath amongst the moral crowd. If you’re gonna argue that morals are based on what’s advantageous, you have to conclude sociopaths are moral.

        Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 8:53 pm someguyontheinternet

        Sociopaths exist in all societies, including the civilized ones. They are too few to cause a collapse, so you can totally get away with being one in such a society.

        Orly? America’s current downward spiral could easily be interpreted as a direct result of sociopaths seizing control of the levers of power. The kleptomania of the financial institutions, the bribery masquerading as ‘campaign contributions,’ the collusion between the regulators and the regulated: these are all the result of people living in exactly the way that you suggest. The problem is that it does collapse society. A body politic can only support so many parasites.

        This isn’t an isolated example. Many civilizations throughout history have disintegrated because the ratio of parasites simply got too high, and there were too few moral people left to keep the machine working. And what follows is always hellish.

        All social animals have morality in some form or another. Ants don’t eat their queen, bees don’t steal all the honey, etc., and it’s not because they’re worried about feelings.

        And even the preference for a calm life rather than chaos is based on emotions, … Some people happen to value chaos more than civilization, and you don’t.

        Find me someone who has actually lived in a place like Liberia, experienced true chaos, and prefers it to order and civilization, and I will show you a sociopath.

        It’s also advantageous to be a sociopath amongst the moral crowd. If you’re gonna argue that morals are based on what’s advantageous, you have to conclude sociopaths are moral.

        But I didn’t say that morality is whatever is advantageous to the individual. I said that morality is an evolutionarily selected trait that is necessary for humans for form complex civilizations. If a sociopath’s actions are detrimental to civilization, then it follows that those actions are immoral. See?

        It’s not “female logic”

        I would never suggest such a thing! We both know that such a concept is oxymoronic.

        It’s also advantageous to be a sociopath amongst the moral crowd. If you’re gonna argue that morals are based on what’s advantageous, you have to conclude sociopaths are moral.

        Like


      • I’m pretty sure a sociopath is different from normal people to the core. They don’t have conscience, Their brains are different, you can see it even in their childhood. You don’t get more sociopaths, you can only increase the opportunities and pressures to be evil in a society. it’s not like normal non-sociopath people are incapable of selfish acts. Bad order and badly constructed society leads to collapse/suffering, not a few sociopaths (true sociopaths/psychopaths will always be few).

        I didn’t say that social animals have morals because they are “worried about feelings”. Their morals ARE their feelings. Their feelings (you can say evolutionarily advantageous instincts, but you can also easily call it feelings) tell them to act morally. Sociopaths don’t have the same feelings and therefore don’t act like us.

        Like


      • Another thing. I don’t think all the things that are good for civilization come as naturally to us as you say. Sure we have those moral feelings, but there is evidence that to keep a civilization intact, you have to supress women’s sexuality and make sure they stay a bit powerless, so their hypergamy doesn’t destroy the society. You have to have tedious enforced monogamy to keep civilization strong. And men have to go to war to protect civilization against other civilizations, or get punished for “cowardice”. Basically being legally killed for nothing. To hold up civilization, you need the sacrifice of many personal freedoms, not just to be nice. Moral feelings non-sociopaths have and what is good for civilization are often not the same thing.

        Like


    • I have to disagree. Vulcans had a sense of morality that was close to Kant’s categorical imperative and this was developed long after they purged themselves of their green-blooded emotions.

      Like


    • Emma the Emo wrote: “All morals are fundamentally based on emotions, just like science is never 100% objective.”

      I love having a couple fearless girls in our boy’s club here. Otherwise we might forget perfect distillations of female “logic” like the one above.

      But don’t let me discourage you, Emma! Your typical beta might be instinctively annoyed by these flaky flights of female fancy, but those men who know women, who really know women, we consider them endearing. They are perversely cute reminders of your hopeless femininity.

      Making that statement is as good as posting a picture of your pink-nippled tits. (Well, almost as good.)

      Like


      • How cute, you’re using the “everything she does is cute” technique on me 🙂
        That’s real alpha. Keep it up.

        But since you find that making a statement is almost as good as showing nakes pictures of myself, I will stay and continue making statements.

        Like


      • It’s not a mere technique, my sweet lil sugarplum. I have forced myself to regard the vapidities that regularly issue forth from the mouths and fingers of females as cute so that I am not slave to my overwhelming desire to suffocate the words along with the word-maker. If I treated your utterances like I would a man’s, it wouldn’t be pretty. And you wouldn’t be pretty, either. (Cf. our discussion of mercy above.)

        “But since you find that making a statement is almost as good as showing naked pictures of myself, I will stay and continue making statements.”

        Operative word is “almost.”

        I’ve hole-punched one quotum on you cuteness card. You get two more before pix are required or GTFO. Full frontal and profile.

        Like


      • Nice, now you’re threatening me with beatings. Have I insulted you, King A? I made a statement that was, to me, perfectly philosophically valid, and you responded dismissively and made fun of me. I’m not easily offended and didn’t take it seriously, so I made fun back. I’m sorry if it was offensive, but I only did what you did, and assumed you were as laid back as me about humor at your expense. It is, after all, just internet. But now I know you are not, and will terminate this conversation.

        Like


      • Try reading a little closer. He didn’t threaten you.

        (Nice try with the “I’m a victim” routine, though.)

        Like


      • “If I treated your utterances like I would a man’s, it wouldn’t be pretty. And you wouldn’t be pretty, either”
        What’s this then? He said he would react with violence if a man said the same.

        Like


      • “If I treated your utterances like I would a man’s….”:

        “If” is the word you’re missing. Are you a man? Are you planning on being a man? Will you ever be a man, Emma? No. Therefore, no threat has been leveled towards you. Unless you are planning to be transgendered via surgery and/or other means, perhaps?

        “And you wouldn’t be pretty, either.”:

        Well, of course you wouldn’t be “pretty” if you were a man. Or would you? Men aren’t typically pretty; they’re usually described as “handsome,” or maybe even “hot” or “cute” by the tweens/Twilight set. But “pretty”? It’s women that are pretty (hopefully).

        He was quite intentional with his wording, I’d wager. The first line you cited was likely crafted as it was to avoid its being construed as a threat (ha). The second line was probably a subtle joke, and you missed it.

        (Reading comprehension and critical thinking, punkin.)

        Like


      • PS, where’s the “violence” you’re claiming? Even if he *did* threaten violence (which he did not), the target of any possible action on his part would be your “utterances,” not your person.

        Sheesh.

        Like


      • Emma wrote:

        “I made a statement that was, to me, perfectly philosophically valid, and you responded dismissively and made fun of me. I’m not easily offended and didn’t take it seriously, so I made fun back. I’m sorry if it was offensive, but I only did what you did, and assumed you were as laid back as me about humor at your expense. It is, after all, just internet. But now I know you are not, and will terminate this conversation.”

        Can you unpunch a cuteness card? The detailed explanation-cum-lecture over what you have labeled a “joke” is the antithesis of cute. It is shrewish and naggy, not to mention a crime against the laws of humor (NEVER EXPLAIN A JOKE!).

        I’m all for “humor at [my] expense” — as long as it’s humorous, of course. Unfortunately you are burdened with the large disadvantage of your vagina and the fact that women simply are not funny. Your “joke” sailed right over the Atlantic and right over my head. Maybe it’s a Scandanavian thing? My gene pool isn’t far from yours (though four-generations Americanized), however; I should in theory be able to get it.

        Here’s the problem, though. When I joke, you joke back, and I continue the joke, you can’t suddenly take your tongue out of your cheek and start clucking at me with it. Either we were having a semi-facetious exchange or we weren’t. This is what I mean about broads and humor. Aieee.

        I don’t like discussions that end with the cowardly “just kidding!” so let me not leave you with that impression. If a man made vapid statements like you, I would have treated them (and him) much differently than I would treat you. Now I know this admission will get me excommunicated from the church of female equalism, but it is what I was trying to get across. This is the proof that I am not a misogynist in the slightest. If I were, I would treat you like a man, and the “threatening … with beatings” would be something to genuinely worry about. But along with the privilege of not being a candidate for my fist, you have to accept my condescension.

        “I made a statement that was, to me, perfectly philosophically valid, and you responded dismissively and made fun of me.”

        Aye. I did indeed. For several reasons. 1) It is “perfectly philosophically” invalid. 2) I tell you, if I were silent, the very stones would cry out for your notion’s “dismiss[al].” 3) You are dominated by ovaries and estrogen and all the cultural expectations that accompany that domination, so merely being “made fun of” is an act of mercy possible by the fact of your more vulnerable, less accountable sex.

        Girls repeating airhead philosophies on a man’s man’s blog might have to endure a little blowback. That’s why I called you “fearless.” You should have extracted the compliment and left the rest alone for the audience of men to which it was addressed. It would have hurt less.

        Like


      • That is exactly what I mean. People who get violent at the drop og a hat with men are still violent people, and not to be joked with. My joke flew over your head, and yours flew over mine (humor about how violent you can get is usually not very funny and is taken seriously by most people who care about their wellbeing). You can think whatever you like about me.

        Like


      • Driveallnight,
        “If a man made vapid statements like you, I would have treated them (and him) much differently than I would treat you. Now I know this admission will get me excommunicated from the church of female equalism, but it is what I was trying to get across. This is the proof that I am not a misogynist in the slightest. If I were, I would treat you like a man, and the “threatening … with beatings” would be something to genuinely worry about. But along with the privilege of not being a candidate for my fist, you have to accept my condescension.”
        There, he said it again. He’s not just talking about verbal beatings. I met people like that before and now I’m all paranoid. But since I know them so well, I will tell you: a man saying that he only hits men (after they say something he finds wrong and stupid) and not women doesn’t mean he is a stable human being who won’t hurt a woman. The presence of one amoral trait often means there is more.

        Like


      • Emma the Emo wrote:

        That is exactly what I mean. People who get violent at the drop of a hat with men are still violent people, and not to be joked with. My joke flew over your head, and yours flew over mine (humor about how violent you can get is usually not very funny and is taken seriously by most people who care about their wellbeing). You can think whatever you like about me.

        1) Not all violence is an evil

        2) I withdraw my judgment of your fearlessness

        3) The funniest people are often the most violent. You must have never met a Drill Instructor

        4) Whenever I witness people trying to artificially circumscribe the bounds of humor (“humor [about violence] is … not very funny”!), I think of the classic punchline to “How many feminists does it take to screw in a light-bulb?” A: “That’s NOT funny.”

        [N.B. Before you get your skirt up over your head again! “Punchline” not meant literally!]

        Now come back here, Em. I would never send you off to your room in tears and with a red bottom. The hand that punishes is also the hand that caresses. After the forgiveness and the crying.

        Like


      • 1)Violence provoked by mere words that you find stupid is evil and amoral, and anyone who acts like that doesn’t belong among people, but in a cage at a zoo.
        2)Fearlessness is not a good trait. It’s stupid to be completely fearless. But I changed my mind – it’s not like you’d want to “get” me even if you wanted to, unless I really occupy that much of your headspace (which I don’t, since you aren’t even talking to me, you are talking “through” me).
        3)In some neighborhoods, jokes about how violent you are, unless obviously jokes, will get you taken very seriously. Because usually, they are not jokes at all. Don’t confuse jokes about violence in general (like this: http://manboobz.com/2011/11/22/why-fucking-their-shit-up-is-fucked-up/comment-page-1/ ) with thinly veiled warnings like the one you displayed there.

        Like


      • @King A,

        “I have forced myself to regard the vapidities that regularly issue forth from the mouths and fingers of females as cute so that I am not slave to my overwhelming desire to suffocate the words along with the word-maker.”

        Sorry for the mean comment I made above, but you have to know that no one will respect you for forcing yourself to like comments you don’t really like and for suppressing your “overwhelming desire to suffocate the words along with the word-maker”. Your posts are often quite annoying and I wonder how are you able to talk to females in real life if you have to constantly force yourself into tolerating our stupidity?! If you talk to them like you talk to Emma or me (excluding occasional inspiring and really helpful posts) I’m convinced that they run away from you … you have very powerful anti-game.

        “If I treated your utterances like I would a man’s, it wouldn’t be pretty. And you wouldn’t be pretty, either.”

        Then treat her comments like you would treat any man’s comments. It would be very pretty and refreshing.

        Like


      • “Sorry for the mean comment I made above …”

        I mean below …

        Like


      • Herewith is today’s free liberation for you. You are not a special snowflake. There are only a handful of female types and I’ve seen them all and I’ve been to the bottom of them all. You and Emma are no different.

        Let me try to describe it from my perspective on the other side of that quiet table in the pub. When we are deep into a truth session, that dangerous but exciting place where you whisper and feel nervous and your heart rate doubles, when we both get to that special place, you all get the same look in your eyes. It’s hard to explain, but the look communicates something like, “Omigod, no one has ever said that and it’s hard to admit but it’s true and I hate you for saying it but keep telling me more because I can blame you for being mean rather than facing the hard facts of my existence.” You all essentially melt the same way. “I’ve never told anyone that before! I’ve never even said it out loud!”

        When women have achieved that state of ultimate intimacy, they spill everything. Lucky for them I’m no cad. You think I’m mean? Do you understand the kind of suicidal damage I could do once I am that deep inside? I’m a fuckin humanitarian.

        You’re “convinced that they run away from” me? I’m convinced I’d have you weeping and confessing in the space of an hour, and serving up your brown-nippled virginity on a weekday night. Even without a fruity cocktail lubricant.

        Maya wrote: “Sorry for the mean comment I made above…”

        “I mean below…”

        Emma wrote: “I’m sorry if it was offensive, but…”

        All apologies accepted. Acceptance for everyone, the round’s on me! Apology amnesty!

        Like


      • lol, you rly MUST be hot to think in such ways

        your people were once targets for Ivan the terrible and behaved like same massacring barbarians. what you have today in swpl norway is not better?

        why is Russia still crime empire?

        why o why can you NOT see the difference between Liberia and Norge?

        Like


      • Sure I like to live in calmer countries better, I didn’t say sociopathy was better. I just said that morals come from emotions (a dirty word in this part of the internet, I see. Call it evolved instincts if you want). Principles are more than that though.

        Like


      • King A,

        “Making that statement is as good as posting a picture of your pink-nippled tits.”

        Can *I* post a photograph of my huge brown nipples (on small tits)? Would it be CUTER than my “pig-headed” comments?

        Like


      • Maya wrote: “If you talk to [women] like you talk to Emma or me (excluding occasional inspiring and really helpful posts) I’m convinced that they run away from you.”

        You still have no idea how any of this works, do you?

        Girls are embarrassed when I call them on their shenanigans, sure, but the better part of them, the honest part of them — the only part I am interested in — is appreciative. It is the grudging appreciation that comes with self-improvement, rather like the sting of alcohol cleaning a wound.

        When one is dumb and loud or a congenital liar, to be called out is an act of charity. It is a liberation. Liars and fools are imprisoned by their stupidity and dishonesty, and silence is the enabler they depend on to the point of expecting it as a right. If their pride is stronger than their will to improvement (i.e., “pigheaded”), then yes, they will take offense at my mentioning the obvious and miss the lesson.

        Besides, I’m not really talking to Emma so much as I am talking through her to the men who have the requisite frame-of-reference to recognize an instance of Female Bizarro Logic. My impolite connection of her sex to her vapidity will come off as condescending to someone who is used to giving deference to the cultural white lies (e.g., women are equal participants in logical conversations). I can see why you’d rather avoid the tough news about your sex. All of the cultural cues that surround you — except for this site — will support such an avoidance.

        As far as the accusations of anti-game — whatevs. First of all, your warped understanding of the concept renders you probably the least reliable judge to ever appear on this blog in the history of the website. Second, I couldn’t care less what my official score on the Game-o-meter registers. Somebody call a pollster! What do the focus groups say! Third, to what extent is The Mystery Method supposed to be applicable to blog commentary? Was I trying to game Emma? I wasn’t even really talking to her.

        None of the men misinterpreted my trash talk to Emma. The two who did were women. Men are simply more accustomed to this kind of blunt speech; we were forced to learn long ago that manning up when your gym teacher calls you a pussy is better than crying and calling mommy.

        Are you getting a small idea what’s actually going on here? Maybe?

        Like


      • “Second, I couldn’t care less what my official score on the Game-o-meter registers.”

        Paraphrased for the more visually inclined:

        Like


      • on November 21, 2011 at 3:22 am MayaHatesMenNewsAt11

        “You still have no idea how any of this works, do you?”

        idk.

        “When one is dumb and loud or a congenital liar, to be called out is an act of charity. It is a liberation. Liars and fools are imprisoned by their stupidity and dishonesty, and silence is the enabler they depend on to the point of expecting it as a right. If their pride is stronger than their will to improvement (i.e., “pigheaded”), then yes, they will take offense at my mentioning the obvious and miss the lesson.”

        you mean me? i’m a stupid liar?

        [Heartiste: You’re a man-haitng troll who plays the naive act.]

        Like


      • Heartiste, i love your new banner. + i don’t hate men and i’m not playing naive … can you now stop accusing me of that? let’s be friends 🙂

        Like


      • Embarrassment is a wonderful teacher, especially if you can avoid letting it turn to anger.

        Like


  22. While I don’t dispute the sex differences in what one might loosely term “principles”, I think you’re overlooking the idea of incentives. In many traditionally male hierarchies, “principles” are just a form of status and a way to ensure long-tern resources. In business, for instance, i’ve always been scrupulously ethical — not because I’m morally superior, but because in my line of work that’s the best way to secure long-terrm capital.
    There’s no analogy for women. When was the last time you heard of a woman (apart from martyred saints) institutionally praised for her “principles”?

    In male hierarchies where “principles” don’t work for status, or even work against it — think ponzi schemes, drug dealing, etc. — you will find males whose duplicity puts the most two-faced women to shame.

    Like


  23. Women are also better than men, I find, at keeping other people’s secrets secret.

    Like


  24. Newsflash: Do you expect prostitutes to have morality?

    Sleeping with 5+ men was very rare historically in civilized christian nations. Wives were expected to be virgins until recently. Today, the average urban girl has a glorious sexual past on par with a porn star of 40 years ago. Given this sexual debauchery, why would you expect them to have any morality?

    Banging that random chick you should have sent home will fuck with her head.

    So, the whole blog’s principle message of knocking women off the pedastal is really a reaction to the pedastal that they deserved to be on 80+ years ago. It is a change in female morality, largely post WWI and induced by promiscuity and delayed marriage.

    Take home: Marry a virgin isolated from cultural marxism and you might have a chance.

    Like


    • ‘Today, the average urban girl has a glorious sexual past on par with a porn star of 40 years ago. Given this sexual debauchery, why would you expect them to have any morality?’

      well, there’s ‘morality’ and then there’s ‘ethics’ and its close relative, justice. our esteemed host has several posts ago spoke to the difference- can’t find it, but he wrote about the fundamental hesitation men, themselves loose, had to making wives of loose women, iow, the double standard. that this abstruse sentiment was deeper than abstract concepts of justice.

      so, there surely are women who may be loose but do have a sense of the ethical and the just. these are two different systems exist side by side.

      Like


      • on November 17, 2011 at 12:35 am John Norman Howard

        Spin, little hamster, spin!!!

        Like


      • Yea…. um… Carolyn??you are really splitting hairs “morality vs. ethics”.. sorry me forgets that class in college.

        the point is simple: If I had been banged up the as and gotten facials from dozens of men, I’d be batshit too and popping pills liking m&m’s. This was typically the fate prostitutes had, but today it is a rite of passage for college girls. The real problem is that women prone to psychological problems get utterly crushed by the sexual market, where they are passed around like a bong at an OWS rally. They get worse, and then they get mixed up with a guy like heartiste, compounding their ills.

        Like


    • Ironically, prostitutes often understand the need for morality better than most.

      Like


    • Dude, get over that performance anxiety!

      Like


  25. “the warm glow I get thinking about the eyeball-popping rage that reading these posts must bring to my haters”

    Very empathetic of you! lolz

    Like


  26. I’m guessing the pattern was the reverse in the 1950s because more women were married and getting their provisions from provider husbands instead of grievance shakedown rackets and sugar daddy government. A married woman with children is a woman whose worst moral instincts are muted.

    This is correct. Even today, married women vote almost as conservative as their husbands. In contrast, unmarried women went 70/30 for Obama.

    Like


    • In the final days before the voting stations opened, I would talk with my sister about the sham of democracy, how it didn’t matter for whom one votes as it’s merely a rotating cast of puppets serving the same godlike interest networks, so on. Sensing I’d begun speaking over her head I decided to just ask whom she favored. Her husband is a Republican and was adamant that both should vote for McCain, but she confessed to a secret tingle for Obamana. I fanned this a bit because I actually wanted Obama to win — a black President, in my estimation, was what America deserved and would be emblematic of its decline. So she decided she would secretly vote for Obama. Yet on voting day … she voted McCain. Now my sister is easily manipulable, but such is woman, and I think this is a great capsule illustration of her pathetically limited nature: do what daddy says or sneak out and fawn before the kaffir idol.

      Like


      • If you banged your sister, she would have listened to you instead of her husband. Women’s vote follows the cock. Plus the irreSIStible frisson of secret subversiveness. Would’ve been a lock, alpha brother.

        I therefore call into question how much you wanted Obama to win and cast doubt upon your dedication to the cause. I think a part of you — that trace of Moors blood trickling up the boot of Italy to your rarefied family tree of Northern climes — secretly wanted to thwart the elevation of the kaffir idol.

        Like


    • What you’re describing is the basic formula of US presidential politics. The swing vote consists mainly of unreliable ‘low information’ single mothers. When the Democrats have an appropriate Daddy Figure that tingles them, such as Clinton or Obama, they come out in droves. When the Democrats don’t (Dukakis or Kerry), it’s a losing campaign.

      It’s not even a deep commitment to the welfare state, or they would show up more often than once every 8 years or so.

      Like


  27. Women are unprincipled pragmatists

    How does your irony meter not explode when you write stuff like this? especially in light of the following.

    • Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

    • Numerous studies have found that women are more likely than men to reciprocate acts of kindness (reviewed by Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy).

    [Heartiste: I don’t think you understand the term pragmatism. Being pragmatic does not necessarily mean being selfish. Think about it.]

    It’s just what I said in the previous thread. In order to get “coherent” concepts of what men and women are like, you must engage in an endless game of “But that doesn’t count… neither does that. Neither does that. This doesn’t count either. Nope, that thing is irrelevant. The data over there is useless. Etc, etc.”

    [It is very easy to argue that a pragmatic morality for women involves, essentially, paying off potential troublemakers.]

    Like


  28. good article, and the banner is shit

    Like


  29. American stranded in Ukraine in online dating scam: Former write-in candidate for Arizona governor found ill on streets

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45329512#.TsRykXM4PRk

    Like


    • I looked into a trip to the Ukraine. Hookers there cost about what they do here – I was shocked. And with the cost of getting there, not to mention hotels in Kiev are on the expensive side, its cheaper to stay here and do hookers than it would be to go there and get it free every night for two weeks.

      Like


  30. I agree that women are very “fluid” in their principles.

    I’ve known women who were very conservative (or liberal), who met a guy, fall in love and suddenly their political views fall right in line with their husbands.

    Like


    • I find most women vote as their husbands do too. But the demographic in question is also inherently more conservative, so both are right as I see it.

      Like


      • not me! i cancel my husband’s presedential vote out every time.

        aha hahaha

        Like


      • If you were married to me, you’d vote as I do.

        Like


      • on November 18, 2011 at 9:58 am John Norman Howard

        Not surprised… my cunt mother in law is the same way… taken care of all her life by the sweat of daddy and husband, yet votes democratic. Go figure.

        I stopped voting decades ago… don’t see the point in supporting a system that allows the vote of a welfare recipient to cancel out that of a producer.

        Like


    • I have seen the opposite, men and women who marry or go into LTR, both maintaining their separate views. But notwithstanding that, I know several women who are very “liberal” in theory, but the moment “liberalism” does not serve them, they will switch opinions ON THE PARTICULAR ISSUE, in a jiffy.
      One gf I had for a while was flamingly liberal except that she was an ardent supporter of school choice for her (very smart) daughter. Use this as a test case: “If you had (or have) a child (especially a smart one) would you want school choice. Other test questions would be “Would you be OK with your house being re-assessed and taxed at a higher rate?” (Does not work in this particular economy). Or any question where the liberal credo would interfere with them personally.

      Thor

      Like


    • Women generally respond more affirmatively to ‘values’ statements versus the argumentative approach. That’s the basic secret of manipulating them 🙂

      (On that note, the big reason Feminism is dying out is because they abandoned the moralizing rhetoric of the second wavers and replaced it with a situational anything-goes Girl Power.)

      Also, voting/party affiliation isn’t necessarily a very reliable measuring stick, more of a cultural marker, and people are often quite fluid with their political views anyway.

      Like


  31. Re: the banner. “Chateau Heariste doesn’t need to appear twice. Once on the masthead is enough. It can be deleted from the photo.

    The motto might need a little adjustment once the title is removed from the photo. But ultimately we come for the words, not the pretty pictures.

    Roosh’s new logo is a bit out there as well, but again, who cares what the stuff looks like? Words: awesome. Branding package: whatevs.

    Like


    • Agreed… if your slogan is “where pretty lies perish” then put it somewhere that a search engine can find it, not melt it into an image.

      And put some outset or outline on the lettering in the image if you want anybody to be able to read it.

      Like


    • Ya, but it’s better to make a minimal branding effort, using plain old default wordress themes, than a personalized branding effort that’s crappy.

      Like


  32. Yes yes and yes.

    Even though I dislike you, Excellent Excellent Post.

    Hey….here’s just a thought thrown out there….Does this apply equally across all the races? Obviously this is the de-facto description of white women.

    Like


  33. The most obvious reaction is to want to remove female suffrage.

    But on consideration, a more effective and at the same time easier idea to market would be, at least in the US, “no representation without taxation”. Those familiar with the tea party (the one in the 1700s) will receive this message clearly enough, even if not living in the US.

    This would remove a lot of women, and in general a lot of people who, regardless of gender,live off the public dole.

    In European countries where a very large part of national taxation is via VAT and similar constructs, the formula becomes more complicated, and a harder sell. But some formula that at least removes those who are obvious net drains on the system might do. But the devil is in the details….

    Either way, the average voter will be a more responsible person than under the current system.

    Cf. “Starship Troopers”. The criterion was quite different (only veterans of the armed forces could vote) but, again, the results would be similar.

    But, none of this will happen until the respective Western country goes through a hard and painful reset. In the case of the US, we might not have to wait long….

    Thor

    Like


    • American democracy (one person, one vote) is a fucking disease. It basically empowers manipulators by allowing them to rally the lunatics.

      Neither the Greeks nor any great civilization in human history has ever had “democracy”. America is always bombing the shit out of other people to spread this filthy brand of “democracy” and destroy nations & cultures.

      Like


  34. Dude, I’m finding that your site is unreadable on an iPad.

    Like


  35. on November 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm AnotherCommenter

    You open with a claim that women are cold and calculating and can be worse than male sociopaths.

    [Heartiste: No, I didn’t open with that claim. That is a quote from a long ago post in the archives that I happened to append to this post because it covered related subject matter. You’re fishing for contradictions that are tangential to the thrust of this post in an attempt to divert attention from the study conclusions that you find so unpalatable.
    As for cold & calculating… it’s not mutually exclusive with generosity.]

    Like


  36. Most people are liberal if it benefits them and conservative if it’s going to benefit someone else.

    Like


  37. So who linked our venerable host to bakadesuyo about a week ago?

    Like


  38. on November 17, 2011 at 12:13 am Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, D.R.G.

    True indeed.

    Even a cursory glance at the “empathy industries” (e.g. divorce, animal rights, childcare, healthcare, counseling of all types) reveals that they’re dominated by women. This isn’t a coincidence. Likewise, the “principle industries” (e.g. jurisprudence, law enforcement, military service, politics) are dominated by men. These observations are even more apparent if you examine more patriarchal (read: non-sissyfied) societies.

    Like


  39. you are a fantastically undisciplined writer. The extravagant inferences you draw betray your utter lack of respect for, and ignorance of, the (sober and modest) scientific method. For example, you take the well-known fact that women are more empathetic than men and extrapolate from this fact that therefore, the ethics of women are far more influenced by “group cohesion”? What an embarassingly sloppy thinker you are.

    [Heartiste: You didn’t read any of the studies linked in the post, did you?
    ps you sound uptight.]

    Like


    • Empathy = “feeling for” others = concern for others’ standing in society, i.e. the largest “group”.

      How very EXTRAVAGANT. So difficult to conclude that a demographic high in empathy would be more likely to act in the interest of group solidarity at the expense of principles.

      Hence those golden Zarathustrian verses,

      With difficulty did I get out of the crowd of the pitiful,–that I might find the only one who at present teacheth that ‘pity is obtrusive’– thyself, O Zarathustra!

      –Whether it be the pity of a God, or whether it be human pity, it is offensive to modesty. And unwillingness to help may be nobler than the virtue that rusheth to do so.

      THAT however–namely, pity–is called virtue itself at present by all petty people:–they have no reverence for great misfortune, great ugliness, great failure.

      And every “group” protected by female empathy, empowered by the principled state, is a great failure.

      Like


      • My master’s tldr “science” argument can be boiled down to the following:

        1) Gender Realism is true (reasonable premise).
        2) Therefore, “game” works on VIRTUALLY every woman (extravagant and utterly unwarranted conclusion).

        Laughably ridiculous website.

        [Heartiste: You seem to suffer from an advanced case of reading incomprehension aka ‘i didn’t read shit because the message makes me hurty all over’. Gender realism includes the true observation that men’s attractiveness is more fluid and relative than women’s, and hence more amenable to active manipulations (eg, game).]

        Like


    • Ad hominem’s a wondrous thing, ain’t it?

      Like


  40. What the heck happened to the “Beta of the month” contest? Bring it back!

    Like


  41. on November 17, 2011 at 2:30 am antifeministatheist

    Your “science” is not very empirical. Your evidence is taken from some person’s blog. It is this person who looked up the quotes that you used, I don’t even see a bibliography on their page or yours saying where these original sources came from. Okay, these were scientific studies…from where? Out of a group of 15 people? Out of a 1,000?

    Stringing together a bunch of quotes (and including your own) is not science.

    Like


    • I’ve bristled at CH’s shallow pop psychology arguments.

      But then I realized this is exactly how narratives are built through the mainstream media and social consensus. Very few people are interested in the actual science, but are looking for a high-line “experts agree that…” takeaway.

      Like


  42. I think you leave out one salient point: as morality goes, it also changes according to mans social standing. If a man is alpha, he has no need for morality. If a man is beta, morality is propped up to gain power over alphas. It is no less utilitarian than the “morality” of women. Morality is just a term for strategy for will to power. We all try to create our own personal utopias where (very conveniently) we are at the top.

    It is simply convenient for beta men that their morality happens to resonate well with building civil and thriving societies.

    Like


    • In other words, those without personal power will band together with like minded socialists. Those with it will fend off socialists.

      Like


  43. on November 17, 2011 at 2:58 am Obstinance Works

    Joseph. Potiphar’s wife.

    Like


  44. holy shit , so much grl hate here you must have hit close to home.

    Have you ever tried bargaining a sale with a girl? In the heat of the moment I think ive gotten stuff at antique stores for a third of the marked price. If we didn’t have wal mart and everyone would buy/sell at trade fairs, farmers markets, etc. no one would hire girls, cause you could hit them repeatedly with haggling or sob stories, and tada cheap stuff. Life would be more interesting that way.

    Like


  45. “Yet another study proving a core game concept: girls prefer badboys to niceguys. http://t.co/vti7IXU9

    Byron was a pimp.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Byron#Affairs_and_scandals

    Like


  46. Woman Suffrage is based on the idea of the equality of the sexes, and tends to establish those competitive relations which will destroy chivalrous consideration.

    Like


  47. Schopenhauer noted these things in his work, “On Women.” Here is a very pertinent excerpt:

    It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.

    Like


  48. I come from the PUA/Seduction aspect here at CH. While I love the top down scientific approach to confirming that women are less principled than men, it’s not needed when you see it every day in the field while gaming women.

    Let’s talk about the principle of loyalty. A quality that is only deserving and upheld by true, honorable men to other honorable men. Since women are inherently driven by emotion, they are incapable of such an admirable principle. Loyalty for a woman will erode as quickly as her emotional state changes to serve her needs. Whether it be a close girlfriend, a BF, a husband…whatever.

    Oh, I know what you’re thinking: “but my wife is loyal to me!” Perhaps. And if she is she’s most likely fat, ugly, old, pregnant, nursing, too busy raising kids = no longer has options.

    Because if she (the westernized woman) does have options I guarantee you she is not principled enough to deny her emotional need for the attention and validation of her physical appearance by multiple men at a given time frame. And eventually when hubby or BF squanders the last bit of attraction she had for him, her principle of loyalty bound by her “words of commitment” couldn’t be forgotten faster than the synapses in her brain fire electron neuro-transmissions compelling her to serve the need for the ultimate level of validation, by another man.

    But it sounds so evil. It can’t be like this. Women are principled. Women can be loyal. Eventually, they can. But only after they have no choice but to be.

    But Ripp, show me the study, the scientific data that supports this.

    Like


  49. “When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators).”

    I’ll say that when Osama Bin Laden died, me and my more macho friends were overjoyed, and threw a party where we drank 12 beers each. One of my female roommates, however, was extremely upset that the terrorist was sleeping with the fishes. All the nancy boys I knew wanted to “be above celebrating a man’s (mass murderer’s) death.” Fuck them.

    Men are more selfish, single minded and principled. Women are more compassionate, contextual and morally flexible. These descriptions remind me of comparisons between how Caucasoids and Mongoloids see the world.

    I think that Caucasoids, especially Western Europeans, have a much more masculine mindset, insofar that we’re abstract-minded, focused on immutable laws and are individualistic. We look at individual parts, and then work them into systems. A Westerner’s identity is usually seen as what he is born as, or what he does in life.

    In contrast, Mongoloids (not just East Asians, but also Native Americans) see the the whole first, and then examine how the individual parts relate to one another. They’re focused on concrete, practical matters (compare Confucius to Plato), and see the world as an interconnected realm, where one aspect cannot operate without the others. In Mongoloid societies, a person’s identity is usually seen as how he relates to someone else. Of course, the general will comes before what an individual wants.

    Complicating this is how Mongoloids tend to have better visuo-spatial (mathematical) skills than verbal ones, which is a masculine trait. So, it’s not true to say that Caucasoids are more masculine than Mongoloids. I think that Mongoloids have a more masculine intelligence than Caucasoids, but Caucasoids have a more masculine worldview. Cultural factors matter, but this is a case, I think, where culture is a preceded by, and a product of, biology.

    Like


    • “I’ll say that when Osama Bin Laden died, me and my more macho friends were overjoyed, and threw a party where we drank 12 beers each. One of my female roommates, however, was extremely upset that the terrorist was sleeping with the fishes. All the nancy boys I knew wanted to “be above celebrating a man’s (mass murderer’s) death.” Fuck them.”

      What a bunch of bullshit to suggest that someone’s alpha characteristics are related to how excited he is when he sees a wrong righted. I am as alpha as they come, the kind of guy people do not want to fuck with, and women want to fuck, but you didn’t see me out partying when OBL was killed. I was happy we got him, but it’s not really a cause to throw a party, IMO.

      Like


  50. on November 17, 2011 at 5:16 am Too Smart To Fail

    • Some studies show that women are more empathetic then men, and that this difference increases over child development (for example, there’s a nice study showing this trend in Spain by María Mestre and collaborators).

    -Not towards Nice Guy Beta’s

    • When looking at pictures of immoral acts, women’s judgments of severity correlate with higher levels of activation in emotion centers of the brain, suggesting concern for victims, whereas men show higher activation in areas that might involve the deployment of principles(Carla Harenski and collaborators).

    -Woman fucking beta’s over left(with alphie) and right(divorce court), and having concern for there victims? LOL!

    • When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators).

    -Forgiving the Cheating Alpha!

    • Women are more likely to factor personal cost into decisions about whether to punish an unfair stranger, which suggests that women are more context-sensitive, and men adhere to principles (Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman).

    -Let’s see, is he Alpha, or Beta?

    • Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

    -Not so when the division of assets come into play in divorce court!

    • Numerous studies have found that women are more likely than men to reciprocate acts of kindness (reviewed by Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy).

    -You’re such a nice guy beta, will you take care of my bastard spawn? Love you!

    I’ve read enough..

    My research indicates that woman wouldn’t have it so easy if us Menz wouldn’t hand over our balls to woman! As an astute observer noted,”What you think is a pot of gold between her legs, is really a pale of fish!”

    We really need to legalize whore houses in the USofA, woman in Germany know every man can get his sack drained by a 10 female for the price of a nice dinner. As a result, a satisfied male population with no complaints and a grateful woman at home!

    Like


  51. Recently I was the foreman on a Jury for a assault charge. It lasted a whole week. The Jury consisted of me one other guy and 10 women. During the whole we were given ton of character witnesses massive sob stories about his great future career and how much his family loved him. And the only evidence we had against him; A video of him doing it. The only piece of proof we had was a blow by blow video of him actually committing the crime.

    After two days of ‘discussing’ the case there was a split the men were sure he had done it (what with the video evidence and everything) the women all were going with reasonable doubt, desperately not wanting to ruin a nice young man life!

    Two day of repeating the same argument fell on completely deaf ears. In the end I had to tell the judge that the only agreement we could 10 to 2.

    Kudos to him though he just stood up and said ‘This is ridiculous this man is clearly guilty, I move for a retrial’.

    I’ve never seen a so polarised example of gender bias, where the women were going from emotional point of view and the men were going from principle.

    Like


  52. Islam is the solution.

    oh wait, Women can vote in Saudi Arabia now. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15052030
    Lol

    Like


    • The arabs will soon have their big balls served to them on a platter because their local whores are demanding freedom :

      http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-casbah/nude-photos-female-blogger-creates-stir-egypt

      And the local manginas will sacrifice their lives to grant freedom to these whores. We all know what will happen next: sexual freedom, unleashed hypergamy, the local betas will turn to mosques and extremist fucks instead of WoW and porn… It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
      They’re better off taming their women the way they’re doing it now.

      Like


      • yeah I blogged about that.

        Just wonder about those local manginas. jihadists are already calling for lashing her in public.

        I think we should lobby for free porn for arab betas. If they are whacking off then wont go out bombing themselves.

        They’re better off now, but WE’re better off if they go feminist.

        Like


  53. […] bakadesuyo.com (H/T ch) comes a very, very interesting post from Psychology Today (yes, the place where Satoshi Nakagawa […]

    Like


  54. ‘Not to carolyn, who is anti-white.’

    you have no idea.

    what’sYKW?

    Like


  55. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html

    Made waves here in the UK for a couple of days. But then the deluded masses ignored its terrifying message. Oh well.

    Like


  56. Women can be amazingly principled about denying sex, however.

    Like


  57. ‘What is your stake in this matter?’

    none at all. sometimes i enjoy a little light sparring for the hell of it. i’m sure our host does too.

    ‘Answer me honestly. Don’t dodge. Tell us what you think of the white race, or in your lingo “white people”, of whom you are one, I presume’

    i think there’s not enough of them, and too many brown folks in this country and worldwide. so there, i admitted it.

    allow me to rant a bit- the discrepancy in the white vs brown birthrate will in a short timeframe render this country majority non-white (mostly hispanic). other than blocking immigration and tinkering with welfare rules, i don’t know what can be done to reduce it. the trouble is that both groups are behaving rationally. (whites want to preserve their standard of living in a wage stagnant world, browns think the usa’s wonderful compared to the hellhole they came from and a good place to have kids.)

    did you know that of those born last year, white babies were a slim majority? i for one don’t want my 5 and their descendants living with the dismal consequences, and understand, they will be dismal for everyone and not just whites . maybe it’s time to move to canada.

    now aren’t you sorry you asked.

    Like


    • No, I for one am relieved. More white people need to start thinking this way. The other option is for the war between the sexes to end ASAP and white people start having legitimate children again and raising them to adulthood. Cutting off public subsidies for brown children is another way we can right this ship.

      Like


    • i think there’s not enough of them, and too many brown folks in this country and worldwide. so there, i admitted it.

      Oh. Why didn’t you say that earlier?

      other than blocking immigration and tinkering with welfare rules, i don’t know what can be done to reduce it.

      Nothing at all. We’re too far into it. One would have to, I don’t know, destroy grain crops all over the world to hope for a die-back in populations.

      Well, before I gnaw on my shoe here, let me tender an apology for the ungracious presumption that you are the enemy. WAY TO MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A DICK LOLZLOLZZOZOZZ.

      Like


      • Operation Wetback

        Like


      • ..and e-verify, as well as penalizing employers who pay cash to avoid e-verify.

        Like


      • ‘Nothing at all. We’re too far into it.’

        yes…no need to do anything. the coming malthusian catastrophe will afflict the 3rd world soon enough.

        ‘let me tender an apology’

        accepted 🙂

        Like


      • What “malthusian catastrophe?”

        Will it be like all the other ones, you know, the ones that never happened?

        Tell me about this one, carolyn. Tell me about how “this time, it’s different.”

        Like


      • ‘What “malthusian catastrophe?”’

        the one norman borlaug warned us about when he said the ‘green revolution’ would only buy some time to get world population under control.

        malthus’ timing was off, that’s all.

        Like


      • Since there is no indication that Malthus is ever going to be right, we’ll simply have to agree his “timing was off” until the heatdeath of the universe.

        Like


    • One thing we can do is stop requiring employers in the USA to pretend that everyone is equally capable of doing all jobs.

      Like


  58. Very interesting studies. Though I think that women, in general, aren’t truly concerned with the common good. It seems like most women are concerned with winning the approval of the herd or her current authority figure (be it her boss at work or the alpha she tingles for) and showing concern for the common good is one way to do it.

    Now, I wish someone could find an explanation for why 99.999% of women seem completely unable to grasp the concepts of general rules and exceptions. Even when someone takes the time to write or say “most” or “in general” (as in “most X are Y”) women, so far, always, always respond as if the statement was an absolute and start coming up with ways to prove said absolute wrong (“Oh, but not all X are Y. My ex-BFF Cindy has some distant relative who lives in the depths of a tropical jungle nobody knows about, and this relative happens to know an X that is Z, not Y”)

    Like


    • Now, I wish someone could find an explanation for why 99.999% of women seem completely unable to grasp the concepts of general rules and exceptions.

      Here is my opinion. We tend to see the world through the spectrum of our own lives, our own experiences. When Heartiste writes any piece about women the first thing we do is compare that to ourselves and then try to figure where we might stand. If we appear to fail whatever is being written about we feel shame and immediately want to defend ourselves. Worse yet, if we are the exact opposite, but most other women do fail, we feel the need to validate ourselves. The urge to do this (damn hamster) most often completely overrides the ability to internalize the most or generally speaking. The other part of this is pride. When we are not like whatever bad thing might be written about we become proud and feel the need to announce it to the world. An attempt to qualify again.

      One can overcome that damn hamster, but it takes a lot of self reflection and an ability to distinguish when the hamster is on the wheel and when one has control over her own faculties. Even then, depending on the situation letting the hamster take control will still happen from time to time.

      On a side note, I have seen men do this often as well, though not to the same degree as women.

      Like


      • How abstract and analytical of you.

        Like


      • You two should get a room.

        Like


      • You sure you want us to get a room? Then you couldn’t Anonymously watch and fap.

        Or was your suggestion an offer? No need to clear the porn off the bed. Your clothes hamper or kitchen counter (or wife’s face) will suffice.

        Like


      • Wrote spam-bin-mail on name field.

        Interesting that you wrote “When Heartiste…” and then followed up with an explanation that somewhat fits into what I wrote on my first paragraph.

        As for your opinion in general… I like how introspective it is. It kind of makes sense as well. Thanks for your input Stingray

        Like


      • I see it as more simple than all that: women demonstrate that they see the world through an “us versus them” mentality where they would rather lie to protect their female peers, than acknowledge truth. Time and again you see examples of women siding with the ‘sisterhood’ above honesty, reason, fairness, or justice. See: family court and alimony laws.

        The projection they entertain is that men are all like this too, hence the invention of anti-male tropes like “the old boys club”. It’s all just projection.

        Like


      • Wow, DiamondEyes worded it better than I could. For women, allegiance to the group will trump all else…this is why, in a nutshell, modern feminism is so messed up!

        Like


  59. • Women are more likely than men to blame a shipwreck survivor for pushing another survivor off a small plank of driftwood in order to survive (Stephen Stich and Wesley Buckwalter).

    “Someone, somewhere, is hurting.”

    How is that not a principled position to take? You have a terrible double standard going here. When men ascribe to a ruthless utilitarian equation for moral outcome (and a highly questionable one), you still seem to think they’re being more principled?

    Like


  60. I covered this in War Brides:
    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

    “Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.”

    Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since our hunter/gatherer past, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed without warning. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women.

    Stockholm Syndrome is far more pronounced in female captives (the story of Jaycee Duguard comes to mind), why should that be? Because in our evolutionary past women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

    How that squares with a male interpretation of morality is where the conflict starts, but from an evolutionary perspective female perfidy is simply a very effective survival trait.

    Like


  61. You know that you are getting near the target when you start receiving flak, and Heartiste is getting quite a lot of that on this thread (carolyn chickenwelfare anothercommander etc).

    How often have we seen a woman completely change her political views, social set, even sexuality, on meeting the ‘right’ man. Women follow male leadership and being more adaptable are thus inevitably less principled.

    Like


  62. Next time just put up an article titled “sexual dimorphism” with the word “duh” as the sole text.

    Like


  63. Women are less principled because they do not have the capacity to produce enough testosterone to have a well adjusted sense of fairness.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2009/12/08/tech-biology-testosterone-behaviour.html

    The study explains why women and low testosterone males tend to be adept at subterfuge and amorality, while high testosterone males appreciate direct competition due to it’s fairness.

    “May the best man win” was a quote undoubtedly born by an alpha.

    Like


  64. Opus

    Schopenhauer was right. Women cease maturing, he observed, at the age of eighteen (I’d say twenty-one). Women cannot be relied upon to give truthful evidence in court and women judges always become sentimental (as I have often had occasion to observe) – and now it is being proposed in England that they should be given priority for judicial appointments! Insanity!

    Ol’ Schopy sure was a pill.
    In the USA, insanity has long been practiced by PC appointments to our Supreme Court.

    Further reducing its effectiveness, is the enthroning of Hispanic lesbians.

    Like


  65. I am confused as to how those studies show that women are less ‘principled.’ If you are considering a ‘principle’ to indicate a consistent rule that actions are based upon, it seems that women consistently place more emphasis on the collective good, because that is what generally benefits them. It is rational. Men, being physically stronger and socially dominant, can afford to be more selfish and less merciful and still get what they want. This is also entirely rational.

    So this is my question. If we operate under the ‘principle’ of utility maximization, then wouldn’t the behaviors of both men and women be wholly consistent with this? And wouldn’t the behaviors that would provide maximum utility be entirely context dependent? I know that most of you probably do not ascribe to pure utilitarianism, but sociobiology and evolutionary psychology seem to incorporate utilitarian concepts.

    I do see your point that the contradictory findings from the Cushman and Young study and Mikhail studies indicate that women may be less consistent. Are there a number of other studies that show this? Are men actually showed to more consistently adhere to principles in studies? I am a biologist, and I know that I can find experimental studies that both support and contradict most of the topics that I research, so I’m sure this applies even more to psychological/experimental philosophy research. And when you do hundreds of studies, you’re bound to find significant results both supporting and contracting your hypothesis, just based on the rules of probability. I’m not saying that you are incorrect, because I am certainly no expert in philosophy or evolutionary biology, so I am not criticizing your analysis- I’m just curious.

    Like


    • Interesting tangent, sally.

      So this is my question. If we operate under the ‘principle’ of utility maximization, then wouldn’t the behaviors of both men and women be wholly consistent with this?

      My answer: we don’t — always. “Utility maximization” does not apply in one baboon hitting another because its superior took a swipe at it five minutes before. There is no utility beyond working off anger and asserting oneself upon a being of lesser value. I don’t know if any modern utilitarian can account for this, but H. Spencer certainly did not; English moralism filled the gap.

      it seems that women consistently place more emphasis on the collective good, because that is what generally benefits them. It is rational.

      Eh. Behavioral finance would call that irrational, if the collective results of the “general benefit” — its many horrific fruits chronicled here — are allowed as negatives. I mean feminism involved women in a trade-off between superficial politics benefits / powers like voting and work (necessitated first by urbanism) and family with all its implies. Family is a life-long commitment; voting is a specious reward cycle. Sexual liberation destroyed the family, i.e. the long-term benefit. This is irrational behavior precisely: trading the long-term goal for the short-term indulgence.

      Like


      • The swipe allowed the baboon to assert its dominance and remind the other baboons of their places in the pecking order, right? So, the swipe would be in the baboon’s best interest.

        And I don’t think that uncertainty in the long-term consequences of an action (or the consequences of an individual’s action on a societal scale) would render that action irrational.

        Like


      • sorry uh, the ‘anonymous’ response from above was actually from me (sally).

        Like


  66. Didnt read 99%. Just know I appreciate the job my wife does with the kids. I would not have done half the job.

    Like


  67. Been a jury foreman. Most folks are idiots.

    Like


  68. “When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators)”

    If this is true, then why do tribal peoples often assign their women to carry out the torture of captives?

    Perhaps the reward vs pain center activation *is* culturally determined…and/or maybe it is a matter of whether the wrongdoer is perceived as a *personal* threat to the woman and her children (as a tribal enemy well might be) rather than just an anonymous person.

    Like


    • “on the whole, women seem to be more empathetic and more focused on the collective good.”

      If the collective good, in the case of a tribe, is extracting information and torturing a captive, you can bet a woman will carry it out. I don’t think it shocks anyone here that under the right circumstances, IE threat from outside forces or threat to order, that woman are capable of mind-blowing cruelty.

      Remember, the cruellest Kapos in Auschwitz were female.

      Like


    • maybe it is a matter of whether the wrongdoer is perceived as a *personal* threat to the woman and her children (as a tribal enemy well might be) rather than just an anonymous person.

      I think you hit the nail on the head right here. If any one caused serious harm to my husband or children I shudder to think about what I would be entirely capable of doing to that person.

      I do not believe that women should be in the military. However, I do believe that there are certain, small sections that women would be stellar at. If we can empathize with a cause (a cause usually stemming from something our men are heavily involved in), we can be utterly ruthless to our enemies.

      Like


  69. had a woman ask if we could hurry, because she had a hair appointment? WTF?

    Like


  70. It was a federal case. I thought I could consider better from our citizens. Although it pains me, R is probably right. Sad but true. Love the Metalica

    Like


  71. Sorry. I think I ended up in the wrong posting.

    Like


  72. Live for The Lord. Its all that matters.

    Like


  73. Do you realize the end game? It wont end end well for most. Im very sad. Dont want anybody to be lost,. Folks realize Jesus is the only answer that makes scences.

    Like


  74. sorry for the misspelling

    Like


  75. Thread Contamination Status
    Imminent

    Like


    • on November 17, 2011 at 4:56 pm John Norman Howard

      Just as I suspected… raspberry and orange sherbert.

      And when she’s not having sex, Campbell’s Cream Of Mushroom Soup.

      Like


  76. It sure seems like they couched this study in bullshit. The first few statements are about how wonderful women are. “Women have no principles” is added almost as an afterthought.

    Like


  77. 8 year old article, but still pertinent:

    http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/

    Never doubt the wisdom of the Chateau.

    Like


  78. […] Heartise: “Women Are Less Principled Than Men“, “Sexual Dystopia: A Glimpse At The Future“, “Feminists Are Afraid Of […]

    Like


  79. […] Women Are Less Principled Than Men – Heartiste First click on the link above and read that post. Heartiste often has some insightful posts that describe societal and sociological implications of the natures of men and women. Unfortunately the comments devolve very quickly. His post deserves to be explored from a Christian/Complmentarian point of view. […]

    Like


  80. “What the scientific conclusions mischievously suggest is that female care-oriented morality is best suited for small-scale communities like families and neighborhoods, but is not so good when expanded to a national scale (see: mass immigration).” (Chateau Heartiste)

    I have come to similar conclusions.

    Therefore any discussion, brainstorming session, futurizing, or goal-envisioning exercise of a better way of life should include this detail. Civilization can be organized in more healthy ways it just requires people to make it happen (we call these people “leaders”).

    Leaders provide purpose, direction, and motivation. The masses need leadership and there’s nothing wrong with this fact; the same way there’s nothing wrong with the fact that civilization would be better off if women specialized in family and the local community (women could run the whole social welfare state, but men should decide who utilizes the social welfare state).

    Redirecting civilization (into a healthy direction) requires individuals (leaders) to stand up and present better ideas in an aesthetically impressive and pleasing manner. These leaders must re-frame the masses understanding of the possibilities and give them something meaningful to work towards.

    Like


  81. Criminal behavior is alpha, its success against an individual leads to the criminal’s increased smv, at the expense of the victim. By contrast, not only is preventing the behavior worthwhile for all other men, but humiliating said criminal increases the smv of everyone else at his expense.

    Evolution should obviously reward protecting SMV.

    Like


  82. Game question for CH and others… What’s a good response to “What’s your type?” My go to answer is always “hot and rich.” That normally that gets a good laugh, but lately I’ve had a few girls press the issue after they already tell me theirs. I gave general responses like fun, open-minded, feminine, but I’m wondering if there’s a better one. Thanks.

    Like


    • on November 19, 2011 at 12:16 am John Norman Howard

      A good-lookin’, blonde swinger who runs a liquor store.

      Like


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm Obstinance Works

      Just one take on this. Whatever your responses, do not placate or show weak body language. Use it as an opportunity to tease and segue to the next subject. Don’t play into her frame. Control the flow. This sounds like a qualification stage of the seduction or maybe a comfort and rapport stage. Calibrate the C&F cockier earlier or funnier later in the seduction.

      Like


  83. Dear Stingray,

    My love, my love who will never be MY love, but the love of one who has already taken her heart,
    You inspire me to great depths with your accurate insight,
    Your words flow like a cascade of tears from the audience in a grandiose opera,
    Your inner beauty proliferates through the keyboard like a timeless masterpiece once again played on the loudspeakers,
    Your ability to use both sides of your brain are akin to Kobe Bryant’s usage of ambidextrous jump shots,
    Your serene calm sincere and lovable demeanor warm my brain up with the embers of 1000 charizards, and allow the blood in my penis to flow from the Yellow Sea to Mandnigo status,
    Your ability to separate your ego from the truth with such precision is the way Noah managed to salvage animals into the ark!

    With the Dark Lord Heartiste professing truths in a sadistically gleeful manner,
    With Ricky Raw T bringing much honour to the smart Blacks of this nation,
    With your personal insight into the female psyche,
    With King A’s religious and scientific knowledge!
    A new era has dawned upon us..
    An era of “truth, grace, beauty, freedom, honor, loyalty, excellence, seduction, love!”

    The World is y’awls for the taking,
    Make chateau King
    Close to post-mortem, a normal life is boring… but superstardom
    She opens her mouth but his cock won’t come out, shes choking now, “Where have all the good men gone?” Snap back to reality, oh there goes her virginity, oh there goes her honor, oh there goes her chastity, but the music goes on badaadumdumdudm.

    Allow me the privilege of writing a poem in lieu to the great character you have within you,
    Roses are red,
    Violets are Blue,
    It takes a great deal of courage and intelligence to say what you say,
    And that does not make you gay or someone who betray (the other women)

    Maybe I’m just too demanding?
    Maybe I’m just like my father..
    Maybe I’m just too romantic,
    In a world so lonely and cold…
    What I really mean to say is that..
    Goddamn I wish there were more women out there like you!

    Play on players!

    Like


  84. In the MBTI system, T stands for Thinking, and F stands for feeling; most men have an inherited preference for T, and most women have an inherited preference for F. This is easy to accept, because of hormonal differences (testosterone for men, estrogen for women).

    However, I have concluded it would be more accurate to say the T stands for Tough-minded, and the F for Friendly; this is consistent with the results described in the original blog post^.

    Like


  85. Which sex commits far more crime? MEN. So arguably, men are also far less principled.

    Like


  86. I already knew this.

    -Woman, scientist

    Like


  87. Lol great post mate just added you on twitter 😉

    Like