Male And Female Brains Are Wired Differently, Alert The Feminists

Sane people don’t need studies to confirm the bleeding obvious, but it’s nice to reference them when they become available, if for no other reason than to remotely relish the psychological pain such studies assuredly cause the insane platoon of pretty lie pushers. Our latest ♥science♥ shiv is a feminist id killer. 1,000 brain scans were analyzed and averaged and a pronounced difference in the neural circuitry of male and female brains was discovered.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

I propose a meme. Instead of elaborately trolling feminist, cismutant and porksternormative boards to elicit fits and wiggles, or futilely peppering freak covens with hatefacts (you may as well put an algebra book under a retard’s pillow and hope he wakes up fully versed through osmosis), try dropping this pointed, simple meme in every fembot comments’ section you can find, JERKBOY CHARISMA emoji-style:

You could title it the “Salty Feminist Tears” meme, and send it on its way, like an ugly truth vector through a population of immunity-compromised boobarians. More:





Comments


  1. It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

    Carl Sagan

    Like


    • Whenever any animal’s behavior puts it out of touch with the realities of its existence, it becomes extinct.

      – Michael Crichton

      Like


      • on December 4, 2013 at 7:47 am Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

        “(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; …the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained…” George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

        zllzozolzoz

        Like


      • Don’t call it a comeback! GBFM’s been here for years!! Puttin’ suckas in fear!!!

        Like


      • Libertardian

        Whenever any animal’s behavior puts it out of touch with the realities of its existence, it becomes extinct
        —————————————————————————————————

        So our lies to each other will end existence for us all?

        Sounds like devolution to me.

        Like


    • Then what are you doing when you tell a lie Carl?

      Like


      • Carl Sagan’s words were ‘to persist in delusion’. A lie that you believe is delusion. He then further qualifies it with the word ‘persist’. He’s not talking about simple lies.

        Like


      • Hey Carl, I’ll ask you AGAIN;

        Have you EVER lied to another person?

        Don’t make me start asking if you speak English.

        Like


      • Your point being, thwackjob? I can tell you hate the fact that men’s and women’s brains are scientifically proven to be different. So you try to latch on to some side issue you can attack in order to vent your hatred.

        Carl Sagan obviously did not mean that any little lie will doom a society. But a society built on great lies that impede our efficiency (that hateful, fascist male word) will be held back, and will lose out in the on earth’s broad threshing floor, where the meek are beaten straw.

        Case in point: the Mayans, focusing their energies on a nothing-must-ever-change religion with human sacrifice as the center. They never even invented the wheel. More recent examples: the Soviet Union. Poland. Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia. North Korea. Vietnam. Laos. Cambodia. Cuba. Did communism help them prosper? An enormous delusion.

        Like


      • Carl Sagan has been dead for many years you fucking retard.

        Like


  2. I disagree:

    John Scalzi – still a mystery!

    Like


  3. Its amazing that this kind of study is even needed. This was common fucking knowledge in antiquity.

    Like


    • I’m not sure who originally said this, but we’ve spent the last 50 years proving that what men thought about women for the past 5000 years was correct.

      Like


      • I always adhered to this ancient, Ionian postulate:

        “the sight of the naked old wrinkled women showing their agility in the palaestra will certainly not be a vision of beauty,”

        Like


    • by “antiquity,” you mean about 50 years ago?

      Like


      • Back in Roman, and Greek times. Probably before that, but I am familiar with the quotes of men from those times.

        This viewpoint lasted up until about 50 years ago, for the most part.

        Like


      • And then The Frankfurt School started flexing its muscles – taking off its gloves – or, as it were, taking off its sheep’s clothing.

        It’s curious that that was just about exactly coincident with the assassination of JFK, by The Frankfurt School disciple, Lee Harvey Oswald.

        And even curiouser that Oswald himself was quickly assassinated by an actual Frankfurt School Tribalist, Jack Ruby.

        Like


      • on December 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm haunted trilobite

        Who had a chance to ponder such curiousities, with Beatlemania and jabberwocky suddenly sweeping America?

        Like


      • I thought nobody believed any more that LHO killed JFK. The single bullet theory would fail elementary mechanics.

        Like


      • The single bullet was shot from a very rare Italian rifle, and the bullet itself was very different from typical bullets.

        It was longer, heavier, more stable, more precise on top of being full metal jacket.

        There was documentary about this on PBS a couple of weeks ago.

        They did various tests with that rifle and bullet and all the theories – most of which became popular thanks to a Hollywood movie about JFK – fall flat.

        That bullet can easily go trough at least two human bodies and come out undamaged.

        Now was it really Oswald that did it? there are still certain “grey areas” about that.

        Or why Ruby shot him…that too remains unclear…

        But the bullet/the rifle, it has been debunked toroughly.

        Like


  4. Most of the men who hate feminists don’t really understand the meaning of the term.

    [CH: it’s like dog shit. you know it when you smell it.]

    And they most likely fall under one of these 3 categories:

    [an expert is about to speak! an expert in manginatude, that is.]

    a) non college-educated, blue-collar types (or they are unemployed) who are angry that they cannot compete sexually for college-educated, urban, alpha females, so in their sexual frustration blame “feminism”

    [most blue collar types never read the vapid blatherings that feminists vomit online. they’re as far removed from “rape culture” fantasyland discourse as they are from hedge fund holiday parties.]

    b) men who went through an extremely bitter, protracted divorce where they lost everything and are forced to pay child support, and somehow in their minds blame “feminism” for their troubles in life.

    [feminists advocate for family laws that discriminate against men and favor women. in your leftoid worldview is there no room for legitimate complaint?]

    Ironically, the women they divorced most likely do not harbor any traits of feminist ideology in any way, shape, or form.

    [avowed feminists are submissive cock gobblers with powerful, dominating men. the rest marry betas who are happy to suffer their whippings.]

    c) self-described “pick up artists” who fail with women in real life.

    [false premise.]

    The end result? Blame “feminism”.

    [or maybe smart, charming SOBs like yours truly just enjoy shitting in the faces of liars and losers.]

    Class dismissed. I await your reps.

    [how often do you vacuum your pubes out of the couch crease?]

    Like


    • Most men have little issue with feminism in non-radical form: hey, women can vote. Hey, if a woman wants to work, cool man. Hey, if a woman enjoys sex it’s not a bad thing.

      The modern form is this: women and men are exactly the same and want the same things. Women MUST work. Women who sleep around indiscriminately are not to be judged in any way.

      idk this is probably a troll tho

      Like


      • idk this is probably a troll tho

        Not a troll. A leftoid bonehead from DC.

        Like


      • ‘leftoid bonehead?’ When did you sink to redundancy? 🙂

        Like


      • on December 3, 2013 at 10:20 pm Hugh G. Rection

        Women are not to be judged negatively in any way. Fixed that for you 😉

        Like


      • Yeah….

        …which is WORSE! because they still pay the same price they would have paid years ago for their behaviors. Only now a lot of them don’t seem to understand wat is going on. Don’t men like really smart “sassy” women who have an “empowered” sexuality and sleep around? Why won’t any commit? Oh they must be “intimidated.”

        😦

        Sadness of not telling truffs.

        Like


      • Yes, that would be misogyny.

        Like


      • Most men have little issue with feminism in non-radical form: hey, women can vote. Hey, if a woman wants to work, cool man. Hey, if a woman enjoys sex it’s not a bad thing.

        That’s not “its non-radical form”. Feminism is and always has been derived from the Marxist worldview that claims the earth’s population is divided between “oppressors” and “oppressed”, an excuse to win followers by promising them loot from the “oppressors”, i.e. people who have done better than them in life.

        ALL the founders of feminism were Marxists: Susan Sonntag, Margaret Mead, Andrea Dworking, Naomi Wolf, etc. Their books are full of hatred against men and quotes from communists. They even talk openly in Marxist terminology.

        So no. There is no “non-radical form”. Don’t be fooled. Ordinary, peaceful co-existence between men and women is not “non-radical feminism” but a threat to feminism. Just like Medieval alms for the poor was not “non-radical communism” but normal European life. The leftist groups do NOT have a monopoly on charity and peace, they only lie and say they do. When in fact they are the least charitable and the least peaceful, only seeking to loot, destroy and control.

        As for women and work: women have ALWAYS worked and men have had no problem with that. What kind of bullshit statement is that, that women working would be “non-radical feminism”? In the past, taking care of the home, washing and sewing clothes, baking and cooking was a full-time job, left to women while men broke their backs working the fields in rain and hail, and dying in wars.

        With the technology invented by Western men the household chores were no longer a full-time job, and it was inevitable that women would seek some or a lot of work outside the home. All major changes in the world lead to friction, but Western society always straightens out the rules and settles down again. But the feminists used the friction to start a hate campaign against men as “oppressors”, aided by the leftists in the media. (Leftists take over the media because by definition they hate productive work, and prefer professions where they can manipulate and control, like in schools, academica and media. While conservatives by definition prefer productive work, preferably producing goods and services that are useful.)

        Just like the leftists used the major change when farmers, multiplied in numbers thanks to Western medicine and inventions, moved to the cities to work in factories. The inevitable friction in such a massive change would have settled down just fine, but the Marxists used it to fool the illiterate peasants into thinking that the owners of the factories and the strange people who sat behind desks writing symbols on paper did no work and should be killed, because they were in a conspiracy to hold down the worker while pretending to work. A simple discussion between followers and leaders, farmers and nobles, workers and employers is not “non-radical communism”, it is the opposite of communism which seeks to shut down all peaceful co-existence.

        Like


      • With the technology invented by Western men the household chores were no longer a full-time job, and it was inevitable that women would seek some or a lot of work outside the home. All major changes in the world lead to friction, but Western society always straightens out the rules and settles down again. But the feminists used the friction to start a hate campaign against men as “oppressors”, aided by the leftists in the media.

        sikk way to gloss over the non-radical part of feminism while pretending there is no non-radical part to it. The “friction” was that pushback you described. The non-radical part was to say ‘ya, if they want to find some fulfillment outside of the home, fine.’

        if you want to characterize the non-radical form of X as “normal way of life,” that’s fine.

        Was Plato a Marxist, too?

        Like


      • on December 4, 2013 at 2:26 pm haunted trilobite

        This blog attracts some very insightful commentators. Of course it’s probably destructive to societies in general, but I do give people in the entertainment industry credit for some of the great comedies, music and some of the movies out there. And a lot of it is authored by YKWish names

        Like


      • To the extent it’s destructive to societies, societies are overrated.

        Like


      • Great comment Tenet.

        Sadly most people do not have what it takes to understand these things or they simply don’t care.

        And those are the people the leftist/Marxist/ anti-whte male propaganda is aimed at, the propaganda that is embedded in their tv shows, tv ads, movies etc etc disguised as ” just entertainment”

        Like


      • Except that women voting and working brought us to this point.

        Like


    • on December 3, 2013 at 12:43 pm Joachim Peiper

      This bitch was over at Roosh’s making the same lame claims. He’s definitely a troll.

      Like


    • Class dismissed? Haha please. You must be a troll.

      Like


    • CH was actually not mean enough here- this is a glib, uninformed comment. Word to the wise: don’t bring a straw man to a flame war.

      Like


    • DC’s Finest indeed, very apropos name you have there buddy. I see you out all the time in DC lapping up the scraps some over-educated politico or lawyercunt will occasionally throw your way.

      Couldn’t land one of those same said women under your own steam if your life depended on it.


      a) non college-educated, blue-collar types (or they are unemployed) who are angry that they cannot compete sexually for college-educated, urban, alpha females, so in their sexual frustration blame “feminism”

      I live in the same city as you. I’m quite educated and a white collar type. I’ll also make more this year then you will in the next 3. I routinely chump soft pliable men like you for fun whilst the ‘strong empowered’ DC women lap up the alpha predator temporarily dispersing one of the jackal like orbiters, if only for a little while.

      Might as well have a fucking barcode on your head buddy. You are a dime a dozen inside the beltway and as boring as the day is long. That is the -only- good thing about DC (besides the foreigners!), as it becomes more and more emasculated (which it is), my type of game requires lower and lower effort.

      Like


      • Only a gamma would make this lame attempt to improve their status in the midst of alpha greatness. Go chump yourself in the dark alleyways and seedy bars of the Beltway.

        Like


    • It is not the meaning of the term feminist that matters, it is what feminists are doing.

      And what they are doing is creating a very hostile anti-white male society.

      Feminism has become a tyranny against straight white males no matter what the Merriam Webster’s definition of feminism is.

      Like


      • on December 3, 2013 at 1:17 pm Hilary Clinton

        You’re always the best, Canadian Friend!

        Like


      • Thank you… whoever you are…

        Like


      • Give them what they want. Let the west collapse.
        We shall see who needs who.

        Like


      • Canadian Friend

        And what they are doing is creating a very hostile anti-white male society.
        —————————————————————————————————–

        When “they” were creating an anti black male society; what were you doing?

        Or were you too focused on COLOR to see that your ass was next?

        Like


      • “an anti black male society” LOL Like the one where Black gangrapes and massacres go unreported by the mainstream media, and Blacks get Affirmative Discrimination to put them in classes and jobs stolen from Whites who worked harder for them?

        Go out and do some “knockout game” with your Black homies, attack Whites, Asians and Jews in the streets, and have the media cover up your crimes. If White gangs attacked Blacks randomly in the streets it would be front-page news in all the media, Marxist Obama and his handlers would scream about it every day, and it would be in European media and school textbooks.

        If you are actually serious, it is just another example of a Black guy being delusional, ignorant of real statistics and anti-White race laws, and hateful against Whites. You have to follow your Marxist-taught pretention that Whites are oppressors, like men are oppressors of women and “capitalists” oppressors of workers, because you CAN’T STAND accepting the truth about your own personal failure.

        Like


      • This reminds me of an article I read a couple of years ago that unfortunately ( and very suspiciously ) disappeared from the internet and left no traces.

        It was an extensive list of all the large companies such as Coca-Cola, Boeing etc etc that after they had been threatened with law suits by black organizations had surrendered to the black mail ( no pun intended ) and had donated hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars to such organizations.

        They also had to change their hiring and promoting methods to please those black organizations

        there were also fascinating numbers on the over representation of blacks in goverment jobs ( in the USA, here is Canada such numbers are much harder to find, we are kept in the dark much more here than in the USA )

        Before reading the article I was puzzled with the author’s calling this ” Black run America”, but after having read it, I realized he was 100% right.

        Just like white women, blacks in America are the most pampered and most protected demographic in the world, yet both of them cry and whine non-stop that they are the most oppressed …

        Like


      • on December 6, 2013 at 12:42 am Hilary Clinton

        Yes. A friend of mine said that as a White man I should never apply for a public sector job. Complete ziomarxist terror and bullying.

        Like


    • evanj83 u r clueless

      Like


    • actually, dickfucker, feminism is responsible for most divorces. #truth

      Like


      • Dickfucker.

        Like


      • Uh, duh. That would be because feminist women know they don’t deserve being treated as lesser than man, and will rightfully fight for themselves. Divorces aren’t the problem-marring some one you don’t love/want to have children with/want a legal relationship with.

        Like


      • “marring some one you don’t love” Actually, “marring” someone is criminal.

        Now, if you mean “marrying”, then the problem is leftists dumbing down the population, attacking parental authority and all natural authorities, removing discipline in schools and making sure children grow up to be lazy, violent adult children who don’t want to work. Perfect socialist voters. Who can’t handle the responsibilities in a marriage, which is why so many of them break down.

        Funny. In the 1920s the marriage rate among Blacks was even higher than among Whites. But later the socialists started bussing and other campaigns to break down natural cohesion and local authorities in Black society in order to use them as footsoldiers, and now 70 percent of Black children are raised by their mothers, as the men abandon the women when they get pregnant. Black women therefore have twice the purchasing power as Black men, because they get welfare money. When it is about Blacks, will you dare make the claim that the insane divorce rates and single-parent households is because more of them are bad spouses? Somehow I think that you will be silent in that case, since it would be “racist” to use the same logic against Blacks as against Whites.

        Like


      • on December 4, 2013 at 2:40 pm haunted trilobite

        http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/cleeses-23m-divorce-unfair–leaves-me-poorer-than-her-20090818-eo2c.html

        “I got off lightly. Think what I’d have had to pay Alyce if she had contributed anything to the relationship.”

        Like


      • “Fawlty Towers star John Cleese claims a reported $23 million divorce settlement with this third wife will leave him poorer than her and bound to work well into his 70s.”

        Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times…

        Like


    • Nice demonstration of the ad hominem fallacy.

      Like


    • “Most of the men who hate feminists don’t really understand the meaning of the term.”

      People who argue semantics ought to shampoo my crotch.

      I don’t give a fuck about what you consider a feminist. You know what we mean and why they are filth. That is all.

      Like


    • “you gotta pay the troll toll, if you want inside this boys hole”

      or was it “soul” hmmmmmmmm

      Like


    • Speaking as a college-educated blue collar type, I rebel against feminism purely as a reformed feminist who has finally figured out that all my misogynistic, chauvinistic, socially conservative Christian friends are actually onto something. America prospered under the old system. America was the king of the fucking world under the old system.

      Under the new system, the only good thing that can truly be said of it is that the system that creates 40 year old neckbeards masturbating in their mother’s basement also creates great programmers. What revolution goes hand in hand with the feminist revolution? The computer revolution!

      I would go so far as to say our technological society depends on neck bearded incel dweebs whacking it to Japanese tentacle rape cartoon porn in their mother’s basement, and I’m not really trying to change the entire world. I just want to stop being one of them. My goal in life is to become like the annoying frat boy assholes I used to revile so much in college.

      Like


    • Hmm, none of the above.

      Could it be that there are just people who see reality for what it is, “equality” rhetoric or not? I also notice your post doesn’t really address this study.

      Like


    • In response to b)

      They don’t “blame feminism”
      Just imagine if you went through such a divorce, and then someone comes up to you and tells you how “privileged” you are for being a man, when you’ve just had your life shat on for being a man?
      It’s more like feminism kicks them when they’re down.

      I’ve always said that the biggest victims of the “man oppressor, woman victim” mentality, are the genuine male victims. Because male victims don’t fit into that mentality, so they often get ignored, whether they are victims of a biased family court system or victims of genital mutilation or victims of rape or whatever.

      Oh, and nobody “hates” feminists, don’t be silly. Plenty of people, including myself, dislike feminism, but I wish no harm upon feminists. Instead I would like to help these people who I believe are misguided.

      Like


      • A lot of the social attitudes of feminists and attributable to feminism can make you hate them, in social, marital and work situations.

        Like


      • Yeah, but that’s like hating a kid for believing in santa, or a little girl for believing in one direction. They’ve been sold a lie, and they’re too stupid to think for themselves (which isn’t their fault). That’s no reason to hate someone though, they just need to be better educated.

        Like


      • Nah, it’s the women’s fault if they are hateful. Don’t make excuses for them. (Or are you just playing white knight, guess so.)

        Women always kick men when they’re down. That’s when the men aren’t stimulating the vaginal tingles that elicit proper behavior from the woman.

        Like


    • “b) men who went through an extremely bitter, protracted divorce where they lost everything

      …Ironically, the women they divorced…”

      Wowjustwow. Another feminist troll who thought he could slip this elementary cause-and-effect fail right past us. It’s “the women who divorced them”, obviously.

      Like


    • >>>Ironically, the women they divorced most likely do not harbor any traits of feminist ideology in any way, shape, or form.

      I think they harbor traits of feminists in shape. round is a shape, right?

      Like


    • Hey! Hey Evan! You left “have small dicks” out…

      Like


    • Nature’s progress is made more from sweat equity than design, and leaves in its wake these sort of things from time to time.

      Like


    • I don’t hate feminists – I just hit it and quit it.

      Like


    • on December 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm angry feminist

      lost puppy eyed look YET AGAIN.

      Damn, is this the herb gene that makes your eyes big and droopy and your politial views leftoid?

      Like


  5. on December 3, 2013 at 12:10 pm RappaccinisDaughter

    That’s not how to make a feminist cry. The feminists will simply paint the above evidence as proof that women are *better* than men.

    Want to make them cry? Tell them the pay gap is a myth. Once you correct for women who leave the workforce for a few years to start families, or who take advantage of less-strenuous “flex-time”-type jobs while their kids are young, it virtually disappears. Women who remain in the workforce and continue to work full-time—with or without kids in the picture—tend to be promoted and paid at rates very comparable to that of their male peers.

    If anything, there’s a little bit of a pay *advantage.* Even in the private sector, most employers are so sensitive to the prospect of being sued for discrimination that they’ll go out of their way to promote women.

    Take away one of their favorite talking points that they continue to use as “proof” of why feminism is relevant. Then you’ll see the bitter, salty tears.

    Like


    • They know better than anyone that it’s a myth, because they came up with it as a strategic disinformation campaign. The less evidence there is, the more outrageous the lie, the better the propaganda works

      Like


    • RIght- it’s about the behavior of large numbers of men and women based on lifecycle decisions related to prgnancy and motherhpod, not brain wiring. (though obviously at a base level those are related). so three of the items above (glass ceiling, pay gap, male privilege) can be shown to be false based on the statistical evidence of individual choices being made- and brain wiring doesn’t have as much to do with it.

      [CH: wrong. follow this reasoning:
      brain wiring influences –> 1. innate desire to compete and reach the top, 2. innate desire for high pay fields that are typically more math oriented, 3. the disparate outcome fallout from the above brain-modulated desires.]

      Gendered toys- for sure.

      [gendered toys are a window into much deeper sex differences.]

      also math/verbal abilities, sex roles, aggression, individual vs collective thinking, etc. But not really the “pay gap”.

      [culture emerges from a genetic and neural substrate. it does not magically appear out of thin air.]

      Like


      • “culture emerges from a genetic and neural substrate. it does not magically appear out of thin air.”

        Well said.

        Indeed, just as art is a reflection of the dominant ethos and culture – not the other way around.

        Like


      • As if it’s impossible to create original art that goes counter to “the dominant ethos and culture”.

        Like


      • “culture emerges from a genetic and neural substrate. it does not magically appear out of thin air.”

        False alternative. Of course it doesn’t “magically appear out of thin air”. That doesn’t mean that human culture can be explained deterministically. Man has free will.

        Like


      • man has free will, yes

        but the low-information/low-IQ masses…not so much

        Like


      • Canadian Friend

        man has free will, yes

        but the low-information/low-IQ masses…not so much
        ———————————————————————————————–

        How much information and IQ does it take for a person to tell a lie to another person?

        Like


      • Thwack, how old are you?

        A lot of the time you simply throw some weird question out there because it is all you’ve got.

        A lot of the time you sound like you are about 16 years old.

        Like


      • Free will is an oversimplification of the illusionary nature of consciousness.
        People always act in their own perception of best interest, consciously or otherwise.

        Like


      • So you’ve used your mind to realize that you have no mind. What an accomplishment…

        That’s what you’re conditioned to believe.

        Like


      • Even they are free to think. But in a leftist culture, they get very bad information.

        Like


      • Wrong interpretation.
        Quit assuming everything you dont understand is. leftist.
        Consciousness is illusionary in the sense that the brain is nothing more that a massively complex neural network, and through the interaction of billions of neural pathways, an illusion of a seamless stream of consciousness is born. Cause and effect buddy.

        Like


      • Not everything that is wrong is “leftist”

        true.

        but most things “leftist” are wrong.

        Just look around you.

        Like


      • Patriarch I think you are wrong about the brain. It also can act as an antenna to receive wisdom from elsewhere. Sometimes I operate mainly that way.

        Hey try this. Say you want God to move your lips and go up to a set of 9’s. See what crazy stuff comes out. I bet the chicks will have very interesting reactions that will leave you in a good situation. You won’t be beta, I am almost sure of it.

        Like


      • Joan of Arc Game? It’s original, I’ll give you that.

        Like


      • If your brain is recieving wisdom transmissions you’ll need to have your lithium dosage upped.

        Like


      • “Consciousness is illusionary in the sense that the brain is nothing more that a massively complex neural network, and through the interaction of billions of neural pathways, an illusion of a seamless stream of consciousness is born. Cause and effect buddy.”

        What’s an illusion?

        Like


      • “Man has free will” says the socialist only when it suits him.

        Culture springs from a people’s genetic predisposition as shaped by evolution. For example, all peoples around the world have invented marriage, a cornerstone of culture, as it is beneficial for survival of the offspring, and so those who had a behavior gene leading them to marriage would have more surviving offspring that carried on their behavior. Thus, marriage as cultural cornerstone.

        The only way this is changed artificially is through constant propaganda by a leftist network occupying the media, as the Left is focused on attacking while the Right is focused on building. So the Left seeks out professions where they control and manipulate. As several conservative actors have testified, they are discriminated against in Hollywood for having conservative views, and so they have to hide those views in the beginning of their career. Clint Eastwood never got an Oscar and Kelsey Grammer has testified about being held back in several ways, though he is one of the few conservative actors who managed to make it anyway.

        Even with the leftist media networks massive propaganda effort, they only manage to change cultural behavior temporarily and partially. Hard Scientific Facts can often cut through tons of leftist cobweb, so their struggle is a never-ending, never-won effort. Sucks to be a leftist.

        Like


      • Since I am not a socialist I say that “man has free will” all the time.

        Sure, man have had the capacity, given to him by his nature, to reach the conclusion that some form of marriage is beneficial. So? That doesn’t mean that it actually is beneficial for everyone (for instance, for men). It doesn’t prove that it cannot be modified. Etc.

        You really need to read more history. All change in Western societies has not been the result of the leftists through the media. People are perfectly able to notice problems with various institutions such as marriage without the Left. Besides, the Left, on your premises, must ultimately be a product of genes, too. – Here I agree. The Left has realized that what controls society is the power of ideas. So your genes cannot save you.

        Actually, they manage to change a helluvalot. You need to read about how the West was during the 19th century, especially America. What they cannot change are certain fundamentals of man’s nature and the nature of human society.

        Like


      • Why would I read about the 19th century when I can simply watch a Clint Eastwood movie?

        Like


      • Effects without causes is the realm of impossibility.

        Like


      • How do you reach that idea without a mind?

        Like


      • The same way you reached your conclusion. See above response.

        Like


      • “The same way you reached your conclusion. See above response.”

        How can someone without a mind respond to anything?

        Like


      • on December 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm Mr.magNIFicent1

        Free will? You obviously have not attempted meditation.

        Like


      • I have. Still have free will.

        Like


      • Ahhh, free will.
        The hobgoblin of first year philosophy students.

        Like


      • “Ahhh, free will.
        The hobgoblin of first year philosophy students.”

        Ah, materialism, the theory that there are no theories…

        Like


      • I’ll accept the “innate desire to comete and reach the top”, based on brain wiring differences, as a significant contributing factor to the pay gap/glass ceiling. In that reading, there are simply fewer women than men with the drive, discipline, stamina, and ability to make it to the top of any organziation. So I stand corrected.

        RD’s point, though, was that “women who remain in the workforce and continue to work full-time—with or without kids in the picture—tend to be promoted and paid at rates very comparable to that of their male peers”. Which is contradictory to the above.

        Honest stats (i.e., those not compiled by HR departments or feminist groups) might shed light on which is which. I’m sure the data is out there. Probably a little of each.

        re culture emerging form a genetic and neural substrate- that’s only partially true. That’s the age-old nature/nurture debate. Despite basic common elements derived from genetically-driven behaviors, cultures and social norms can differ, and change over time, quite radically- as we know. Compare the U.S. today to 50 or 100 or 200 years ago. Compare the West to the Bushmen or the remote tribes in Brazil.

        The “pay gap” did not exist in earlier generations- women were nurses or teachers or (later) secretaries only, and did not compete with men for the same jobs. If you went back in time and tried to explain such a concept to someone in, say, 1750 or 1800 or 1850, they would have trouble believing you, or would laugh at you. That’s not something that emerges out of a “neural substrate”. A little of each- nature and nurture, genes and culture. Fundamentalists of one or the other are usually wrong.

        Like


      • Good post, but you are overthinking this. All our dear host was communicating, in his neural substrate comment, is that individual neurology impacts decision making, and since culture is comprised of individuals making decisions, neural substrates impact culture. That isn’t to say that people aren’t in turn influenced by the environment they inhabit.

        In other words, brain wiring explains many differences in workplace preferences of the sexes, and perhaps why the gendered industries you site in the 1750’s emerged.

        Like


      • I’ll buy that too, but CH has a fairly long and consistent record of insisting that much of what is cultural is geneticalyl determined. Much is, but far from all.

        Like


      • maurice:

        “re culture emerging form a genetic and neural substrate- that’s only partially true. That’s the age-old nature/nurture debate. Despite basic common elements derived from genetically-driven behaviors, cultures and social norms can differ, and change over time, quite radically- as we know. Compare the U.S. today to 50 or 100 or 200 years ago. Compare the West to the Bushmen or the remote tribes in Brazil.

        The “pay gap” did not exist in earlier generations- women were nurses or teachers or (later) secretaries only, and did not compete with men for the same jobs. If you went back in time and tried to explain such a concept to someone in, say, 1750 or 1800 or 1850, they would have trouble believing you, or would laugh at you. That’s not something that emerges out of a “neural substrate”. A little of each- nature and nurture, genes and culture. Fundamentalists of one or the other are usually wrong.”

        Add “free will” and I’m in agreement.

        [CH: strawmen everywhere. no one argues that there isn’t a feedback loop in action between genes and culture. only that genes inform cultural expression first and foremost, and do so to a much larger degree than most people (especially people currently in power) want to believe. once genes set culture in motion, cultural changes wrought by the genetic architecture further exert selective pressures on the people.]

        Like


      • “CH: strawmen everywhere. no one argues that there isn’t a feedback loop in action between genes and culture. only that genes inform cultural expression first and foremost, and do so to a much larger degree than most people (especially people currently in power) want to believe. once genes set culture in motion, cultural changes wrought by the genetic architecture further exert selective pressures on the people.”

        The Greeks discover and develop philosophy and a sophisticated culture. Then, thanks to Christianity, that culture withers away. Then the Arabs finds the texts of the Greek philosophers and built another sophisticated culture upon them. Then the Christian West rediscover Greek Philosophy and within a short number of centuries, we have science, the Enlightnment, the Industrial Revolution, and the freest nation in the history of the world, America. Then Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant kills the Enlightnment, and, via Marx, we’re in the present dispicable time.

        How does genes enter into this (besides the obvious fact that our nature give us senses and reason, which you yourself must necessarily use in order to think and write your posts)?

        Like


      • If you do not approach this question froma basis of materialism, the answer Iisn’t going to make sense.
        Everything about your physical make up,
        Including how yourneural pathways reacts to stimuli, is determined by your genetic expression. There is no ghost in the machine. Before you ask, yes, some people are superior to others, and no this is not fair, and no, the universe does not and cannot care.

        Like


      • If you do not approach this question froma basis of materialism, the answer Iisn’t going to make sense.Everything about your physical make up,Including how yourneural pathways reacts to stimuli, is determined by your genetic expression. There is no ghost in the machine. Before you ask, yes, some people are superior to others, and no this is not fair, and no, the universe does not and cannot care.

        Like


      • “If you do not approach this question froma basis of materialism, the answer Iisn’t going to make sense.”

        Yeah, sense, that really sounds like terms that materialists have the epistemological right to use…

        “Everything about your physical make up,
        Including how yourneural pathways reacts to stimuli, is determined by your genetic expression.”

        Yes. So? How do you know this without a mind? (No, you have’t explained that.)

        “There is no ghost in the machine.”

        I have no need for ghosts. Consciousness is a self-evident fact. You have to use it in order to know that we have brains (and, of course, everything else that we know).

        “Before you ask, yes, some people are superior to others, and no this is not fair, and no, the universe does not and cannot care.”

        Idiot. I am not a leftist. People with superior genes still need to choose to think.

        Like


    • “Once you correct for women who leave the workforce for a few years to start families, or who take advantage of less-strenuous “flex-time”-type jobs while their kids are young, it virtually disappears.”

      Yes, virtually, because when women’s pay is corrected for all their slacker behaviors, they actually make more than men.

      Like


      • What are our options here? If women intend to work full time their whole lives, you call it career shrikery. If they take time off, you call it slacking.

        I recall that there is actually no pay gap for childless men and women under 30. You don’t even have to correct for what fields they go into or what hours they work. It’s true. There is no pay gap.

        Like


      • Women should work, at home, with children and house chores. Once they leave the workforce, men would be able to staff the positions left by women. Wages can increase naturally, unemployment drops significantly, and production can surge forward with the the worry of workplace sexism and pc quotas greatly dimished, of course, this will never be allowed to happen, but it is still the only logical solution.

        Like


      • If one also factors in all the things married and divorced women do not have to pay for, women have a better deal.

        The pay gap is a big feminist lie no matter how you slice it.

        Like


    • Good thing it doesn’t matter what feminists say.

      Like


    • on December 3, 2013 at 6:01 pm RappaccinisDaughter

      In addition, this new study helps put my mind at ease that I am to blame for my wretched existence.

      I have already been out’d at being unfeminine in every sense of the word, and I have learned to come to terms with it: I don’t want kids, I chain-smoke, I drink whiskey, I shoot guns, I have a jaw that can crack walnuts, I have a special place in my heart for thugs that hit and rape women, and as the most recent comment of the week blog post by CH pointed out – I even write like a man (so much so that it’s hard to separate the real posts from the fake ones). My gender-bending tendencies are that much deeply ingrained in my limbic system.

      (The fact that, because of the ensuing discomfort created when any of this is pointed out, I change the topic into red-herrings and go off into long off-topic fantastical tangents that talk about my burning lust for my opponents’ 60+ year old menopausal mothers is a fact that I attribute to my sensitive status of being an emotionally-damaged and pitiable rape victim that can easily veer off into incoherency, however.)

      But this new scientific research provides evidence for the fact that this isn’t really my fault. I was born this way, and perhaps the neural wirings of my brain did not form properly as they would in a more normal feminine woman, like the ones that were used in the study. Maybe my malformed brain makes me do these manly things, and predisposed me to the typical alpha pump-and-dumps.

      Like


      • on December 4, 2013 at 10:51 am RappaccinisDaughter

        To everybody else, the way you can tell if you’re reading something written by the ORD, or by this little twerp who has apparently become obsessed with me, is by that little upside-down uterus in my avatar. By mine sigil shall ye know me.

        Hey there, Greensleeves-Masquerading-as-Me!

        Check this shit out!

        So last night I was hanging out at your mom’s house again, and once again, she asked me if I’d re-enact some of her favorite scenes from “50 Shades of Grey.” I agreed, because I’m cool like that, and went into the other room to put on my costume. I grabbed a pair of her black panties and wrapped them all the way around my body to use as a cape (good news! There was puh-lenty of fabric.), then I stuck a couple of candy corns over my canine teeth to simulate fangs.

        “Hurr durr, I’m a Mormon abstinence vampire, transported out of my canon and into a poorly written fanfiction!” I ad-libbed.

        She told me that what she’d really like to do is to re-create that scene where one lead character sticks ben-wa balls up the other lead character’s sausage wallet. Luckily, I’d anticipated that she’d want this, so I’d brought a set along.

        The problem was, once I macheted my way through that massive gray bush, I realized that the balls I’d brought were way too small. Forget trying to throw a hotdog down a hallway; this was going to be like throwing a grape into the Grand Canyon. So, first things first, I took a 30-pound ham and jammed it up in her axe-wound. Then, I pulled the bone out. Instant twat recondition!

        Next, I went for a more appropriately-sized toy: Two 11-pound bowling balls. I rubbed them up and down on your mom’s larger belly folds to grease them up (good thing she hadn’t had a shower since the last time she went to KFC, amirite?). Then I shoved them up into the ham/tuna crevasse. Your mom was THRILLED! She couldn’t wait to re-enact the next part of the story, where the protagonists head out to a fancy-dress ball.

        Only problem with that is, your mom doesn’t own a fancy dress, and all the balls I had were stuffed up her minge. So instead, I took her to the bowling alley. We were sitting at our lane, enjoying a Natty Lite (only the finest for your mom!) when the joy that the ben-wa bowling balls finally overwhelmed her, and they came rocketing out at a velocity that was truly something to behold. It was like a surface-to-air missile, only with bowling balls and your mom’s flange.

        STRIKE! Hooray! The end.

        TL;DR: Another chapter in “50 Shades of Your Mom.”

        Like


      • on December 5, 2013 at 2:19 am Green Sleeves

        Oh look the same old and stale copypasta fantasy/romance drivel from the EL James wannabe. I thought only 2nd graders were juvenile enough to still use ‘yo mama’ type jokes.

        Great job – you sure showed me by making up a BULLSHIT fantasy story about trying to fuck an old 60+ menopausal woman. Ouch, showing how deranged your fantasies are surely hurts me!

        Now let’s get back to reality: you are a chain-smoking, whiskey-drinking, gun-abusing, unfeminine whore of a she-male – with A-cups and a manjaw which would repulse every single Chateau resident – that is devoid of natural motherly instincts and who has spread her legs her entire life for abusive men that have hit and raped her on her eventual way to spinsterhood.

        In contrast to your story, that is ALL TRUE.

        Ouch – that’s gotta sting. CH was right – once you hit a woman where it hurts (namely, her low SMV value) she becomes so apoplectic that her mind leaves the realm of reality and into delusional fantasy.

        Oh let’s not even mention the countless times you’ve been embarrassed yourself during your posts. Speaking of which. have you apologized to Patrice yet for your ignorance?

        Jeez, even your own writing sounds like that of a man’s. How sad is that?! Are you really a woman?!

        I laughed hard that you actually had to tell people how to know when it’s the real you. Your posts have become so inane, deranged, and so easily predictable that you begin to blur the lines of real and fake and start to parody yourself. You are a specimen of high-art of the ironic sort. Man, that’s really pathetic.

        CH himself: “PS The reason I don’t think this is the ORD is that the writing, stylistically as well as substantively, sounds *like the voice of a man* (!). But bell curve tails exist to add a little spice to the patterns of life.”

        LOL. So pathetic.

        I await your new fantastical insipid drivel that desperately tries to change the topic from how pathetic your life is. Get to it!

        Like


  6. Who of ya’ll dumbasses invited the troll?

    Like


  7. Reblogged this on The Andrade Archive.

    Like


  8. The last picture with ‘John Scalzi Explained!’ was epic… and this post goes to show everyone the problem with feminists and lefts is that they want everything to be equal when in reality it isn’t… I wonder how they would have survived hunderds of years ago with noone helping them out.

    Like


  9. on December 3, 2013 at 12:53 pm Holden Caulfield

    Stop the presses: LAZY FAT ASSES ARE UPSET BY HOTNESS

    Also file under women are the biggest misogynists

    http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/mom-under-fire-post-baby-body-selfie-215700858.html

    Like


  10. While I think the guy was a dipshit, please let’s not all fall into the trap of assuming that someone posting something this stupid is a troll. This is an accusation I see bandied about far too often.

    Like


    • Indeed.

      “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.”

      Like


      • Occam’s Razor

        Like


      • actually Hanlon’s razor is an eponymous adage that allows the elimination of unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. It reads:

        Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

        This particular form is attributed to a Robert J. Hanlon. However, earlier utterances that convey the same basic idea are known. my bad

        Like


      • Hanlon’s Razor is enemy propaganda.

        Like


  11. “Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, whose name can be rearranged to spell ‘Vagina Reamer’…”

    Like


  12. Who will be the first to claim this is how social conditioning rewires the brain?

    Like


  13. OT: Have y’all seen the trailer for Jen Aniston’s new movie? LOL. She’s officially in panic mode, knowing her youth is gone. She is the definition of aging without grace. The good news is she’s still hot and she’ll probably appear totally nude soon. She’s doing the opposite of Jenny McCarthy’s career: playboy at 20, but not naked for the past 30 years.

    Like


  14. the nature of our grievance against feminism is that women want equality when they want equality and chivalry when they want chivalry. no sooner do feminists ask for equality then the next thing out of their mouth is to make absurd and outrageous demands. if you want something as an adult such as daycare for your child you should pay for it out of your own pocket as an adult. people who are not related to each other don’t treat each other like family and it is unrealistic to expect them to; and no that’s not misogyny.

    Like


    • Very few men are misogynists. Our entire beta society, however, is misandrist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry. A significant number of women are misogynist and many women are misandrist.

      You hit the nail on the head about them wanting special treatment combined with false, legalized “equality” where it suits them.

      Like


    • Oh my, another dog bites man story. Women like what they want when they want it and want no consequences when they screw up. Stop them presses.

      Like


    • The fact women want equality only where it suits them makes then unequal to men.

      hehe…

      Like


    • The nature of the widespread grievance against feminism is that feminists want the benefits of agency without all that icky accountability.

      Like


    • >>>the nature of our grievance against feminism is that women want equality when they want equality and chivalry when they want chivalry.

      it’s similar to the way they demand affirmative action for college admissions on one hand, then demand we be impressed by Barack Obama’s “accomplishment” of being admitted to Harvard on the other.

      Like


  15. Reblogged this on aneroidocean and commented:
    Just some more goodness from the Chateau.

    Like


  16. While I won’t say it explains EVERYTHING. May I get a nice, thunderous, resounding, ‘DUH!’

    Bitch please. Of course the brains are wired differently. Evolution for each gender was different. Feminists can try to deny it, but that doesn’t make their shiat true.

    Like


    • Wait wait wait…if evolution was different for the seperate genders, then what about…my god. The racial implications…
      Better kill off the stone cold northern neanderthals.

      Like


      • Less than you think for men. Hunt, kill, provide, procreate. Women, a little more varied, but still, look at the facts: latch onto the alpha. Open her legs, get a prime seed, find a provider.

        Like


      • Hunting enviroment plays a big role.
        Watch Africans hunt by chasing their prey to heat exhaustion.
        You can tell where this is gonna end up…
        The NBA.

        Like


      • I’m going to get in trouble for this:
        For me ‘spear chucker’ isn’t derogatory. I’m part Irish (bog dog, bog trotter) because that’s what we were. We hunted that way, Africans hunted with spears. We were in an environment unsuitable for chasing down prey (ice, et al.) so to me these things harken back to our primeval roots. I think of them as our truest, early, tool user selves.

        Of course people have used them as racial epithets. They denigrated our early prowess because THEY lacked it themselves. Can’t throw a spear? Denigrate the guy that can. Can’t hunt in a bog, stalk hunting especially? Call the guy that can a bog dog.

        Emphasize racial male strengths, and you see the ‘spear chucker’ in his Alpha form: hunter, provider, supreme male of his domain.

        We need to take these alpha forms, names, BACK. We need to accentuate strengths. This is why I’m not a racial guy. The hordes of Khan were amazing to me. The Native Americans, the Inuit, the Nords, Teutons, Saracens, all excelled and passed on their DNA. My ancestors, their ancestors. Embrace the strength.

        Like


      • So. You’re saying you like spears? Don’t matter what color. You like to take a spear?

        Like


      • Racism is natural buddy.
        Open up your heart and let the hate flow out.
        Me and mine, fuck everyone else.
        If Europe was a little more racially aware, you wouldn’t feel the need to preface your post with “I may get in trouble for this” even though you had a few interesting points, minus the race supplication.

        Like


      • @Matthew

        So you’re saying you want to remove your spear and get a gash?

        Go troll someone else junior – we used to ‘pillow’ smartass guys like you in boot. You don’t know what that means? Go find a vet and ask him what group did when someone was an idiot.

        Like


      • ya. it’s kind of a paradox, but it’s true — the more people talk shit on you or try to push your buttons, the more of a threat you are seen as. human nature is very strange.

        Like


      • Alex, I saying that you’re deracinated because you’re too pussy to be racist. Or else you’re a lying YKW.

        Like


      • I find that racism isn’t worth my time. Kill the feminist cathedral, the others will fall off. Women are the root of all troubles. Treat them like whores if they are, cows if they’re fat, gold diggers if they are. Kill feminism and you’ll be shocked how quickly other things right themselves.

        Like


      • You’re wrong. Girl’s have the option of bending over.

        Like


      • That’s as clearly as I’ve ever seen it stated.

        Let’s make sure there’s an OOPS on the last step. Don’t date single moms. If you fuck them, be damned sure you have protection that works.

        Like


      • It is never worth sticking your dick in a radioactive pit.

        Like


  17. These are brilliant. Can I put the one about male privilege on my sidebar if I link to your site, CH?

    Like


  18. Feminists have been alerted:

    Like


    • http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html

      “The police reportedly told the media they were unable to intervene because “they are women.” ”

      http://m.imgur.com/AXacOo9

      Like


    • holy shit, how much you want to bet Open Society or some offshoot has it’s money all over this?

      Like


    • Feminism! making women and the world we live in uglier by the day.

      Like


      • I view it as an act of cannibalism. They are attacking the same beta/chivalrous foundation that cocoons their naked display. Once they saturate themselves with their own toxic waste of prison row spawn, the pirates of Barbary will return with an easy means of sorting through the quality of female flesh. If only their attacks were more lethal.

        Like


    • Looks like a great place to accidentally grab a couple hundred different tits…ooops.

      Like


    • Grotesque.

      And it goes without saying that those feminist cunts (and their mangina allies) only feel empowered – or should that be entitled – to provoke, abuse and assault those stoic men because they’re supremely confident that no retaliation will be forthcoming. You can see it written all over their smug fucking faces.

      Apparently the cops wouldn’t intervene “because they’re women.” Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is female privilege.

      Have to admire the extreme self restraint exhibited by those blokes, and it nicely illustrates, amongst other things, the lie of feminism regarding the universally one-way victim-oppressor relationship between the sexes, but I kind of would’ve liked to’ve seen the men snap and beat the ever loving shit out of all those bitches. God knows they were asking for it. [Heh, RAPE!]

      However, that would’ve handed a propaganda victory to the cunts, so it’s perhaps just as well that that didn’t happen. Maybe next time, lads, only so much you can be expected to take.

      Like


    • boobiiez!!!! (putin face)

      Like


  19. now show me the same study and diagram of a psychopaths brain……….

    one thing at a time i suppose.

    Like


  20. It’s not just the wiring that different but even the gene expression in different.

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131122/ncomms3771/full/ncomms3771.html

    and that’s not even looking at the nc RNA.

    Executive summary: It’s not just the wiring, but the componentry is different as well.

    Like


  21. Sorry for the spaz.

    It’s not just the wiring that’s different but even the gene expression is different.

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131122/ncomms3771/full/ncomms3771.html

    And that’s not even looking at the nc RNA.

    Executive summary: It’s not just the wiring, but the componentry is different as well.

    Like


  22. on December 3, 2013 at 6:04 pm Ternarydaemon

    It is only logical and natural. Men’s brains evolved to confront and adapt to their environment, as well as to develop and use the tools to fight against other men and beasts. Then, the connections between men’s neurocortex and limbic system (or paleomammalian brain) are more developed, allowing men to overcome feelings such as fear, happines or hate and to take objective decisions for suvival.

    Women’s brain evolved to sense and understand passive cues of enemies within the tribal group, and then using deceit, lies and phsycological warfare to survive. Then, the connections between women’s neurocortex and limbic system (or paleomammalian brain) are less developed, allowing women to be overcomed by feelings such as fear, happines or hate, and making it difficult to take objective decisions for suvival.

    Like


  23. Based on my observations, the overwhelming majority of women who describe themselves as ‘feminists’ are fug, bitter control freak bitches with attitude.
    I don’t want to make them cry, in fact, I’d very much prefer they wouldn’t exist and will ignore them completely at every opportunity.

    Like


    • on December 3, 2013 at 10:28 pm Hugh G. Rection

      It’s also interesting to see how for many women, “feminist” is a bad word. They don’t want to be painted in that corner.

      Like


      • Right, and it’s a pretty shallow rejection. Most young women today reject “feminism” because it stereotypes them as ugly harpies and means fewer men open doors and pay for dinner. They’re not rejecting it because it marginalizes men, destroys the nuclear family and leads to a general societal decline. Heck no.

        Women in my generation (and probably the one preceding) are raised to believe they don’t have to make any tradeoffs in life. None at all. Women can have anything and everything they want; they shouldn’t have to sacrifice anything based on life choices. They can be “independent” and still expect a man to financially support them. They can be “liberated” and still expect to be treated like a lady.

        I enraged a group of women once by stating something that, to me, is obvious and practically an objective fact: White western women are by far the most protected and pampered population in the world. We have all the benefits of feminism with almost none of the consequences. (Yet)

        Like


      • on December 4, 2013 at 9:56 pm FuriousFerret

        “Most young women today reject “feminism” because it stereotypes them as ugly harpies and means fewer men open doors and pay for dinner”

        There is no need to be a ‘feminist’ anymore because almost all Western women are de facto feminists as defined thirty years ago. That’s how complete the victory is. Only the loony toons carry the label ‘feminist’ anymore and they simply do so because they are too ugly to be anything else.

        Like


  24. Can’t wait to pass this on to my self-styled feminist (but ultra-feminine) work wife tomorrow… and wait for the tingles.

    Like


  25. Heck, fucking, yeah!!

    Oh, and Merry Christmas!

    Like


  26. The kneejerk leftoid response is to dismiss the possibility these differences are genetic and insist they are the result of cultural/social condition. I imagine these folks didn’t bother to read the actual paper, which clearly suggest that the differences are genetic

    “With the aim of identifying at what stage of development these

    sex differences manifest themselves, we analyzed the population

    in three groups that align with childhood, adolescence, and young

    adulthood. The connectivity profiles showed an early separation

    (Fig. 2B) between the developmental trajectories of the two genders, with adolescent (Fig. 2C) and young adult (Fig. 2D)males

    displaying higher intrahemispheric connectivity and females of

    the same age displaying higher interhemispheric connectivity.”

    In other words, the differences are manifested early on and are consistent across all ages, suggesting a genetic cause rather than a cultural cause. If the case was the latter, we would expect these differences to be small for young ages and become larger for older ages. This is not the case

    “With the aim of identifying at what stage of development these

    sex differences manifest themselves, we analyzed the population

    in three groups that align with childhood, adolescence, and young

    adulthood. The connectivity profiles showed an early separation

    (Fig. 2B) between the developmental trajectories of the two genders, with adolescent (Fig. 2C) and young adult (Fig. 2D)males

    displaying higher intrahemispheric connectivity and females of

    the same age displaying higher interhemispheric connectivity.”

    In other words, the differences are manifested early on and are consistent across all ages, suggesting a genetic cause rather than a cultural cause. If the case was the latter, we would expect these differences to be small for young ages and become larger for older ages. This is not the case

    Like


  27. Sieges of walled towns and forts was common in the Iberian Campaign of the Napoleonic War. A Practicable Breach had to be made in the walls by enfilading siege guns to allow the besieging forces entry. Engineers would always advise that the bombardment be directed towards any section of the wall where the stone was sur-bedded (quarried horizontally and laid vertically) as that section would be a weak point.
    Directing a structure shaking, scientifically propelled enfilade toward the sur-bedded walls of the gender difference deniers is the fastest way to make a Practicable Breach in the Cathedral walls, through which the plunder hungry, Forlorn Hope of reality can flood. These findings make a thirty two pound, social construct bullshit smashing battery all on their own.

    This comment comes to you courtesy of reading too much Bernard Cornwell.

    Like


  28. on December 3, 2013 at 8:50 pm Vito Corleone

    I like to drink wine more than I used to. Anyway, I’m drinking more.

    Like


  29. Before we celebrate, I must remind everyone that leftists are perennial science deniers when it comes to things they don’t like.

    Oh sure, they’ll rail about creationists or climate change deniers, but put them up against some evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, or even genetic heritability, and out come the excuses. These are the same people who accuse the fields above of political bias, flawed methodology, personal interpretation, and unethical conclusions (as if that affects reality), yet take fields founded on political bias like sociology and critical theory as gospel. So it’s not likely that they’ll take this study to heart.

    Like


  30. Being the eternal optimist, I would like to say women joining the workforce will lead to smarter geniuses in the future.

    Well nowadays, people are marrying based on similar jobs and education (which also means marrying based on brains) than ever before. That means smart women will marry smarter men (due to hypergamy) and have even smarter kids.
    Before, people married based mostly on wealth and social status, but those things don’t correlate well with intelligence.

    Now with more intelligent women marrying more intelligent men, the quality of geniuses will increase. Already, this phenomenon is playing out in silicon valley where the chillen of engineers are already inventing stuff.

    What does it mean for you and me? It means that humans will benefit from these nerds screwing other nerds and raising even nerdier offspring, which have only been made possible by women joining the workforce.

    Like


    • Huh? We’re living the opposite — smart people are having fewer children than they used to. The result is dysgenic, as noted by Lee Kwan Yew and Idiocracy.

      Like


  31. This fact isn’t even that new. It’s been known for decades that the corpus callosum in men’s brains are narrower on average than in women’s brains. It’s a tradeoff between analytic focus and the big picture.

    Like


  32. Oh….I get why there’s a lot of womenz r evil on here now. I forget that a lot of the commenters are MRA’s of the MGTOW-variety.

    Food for thought, my kinda-bitter-dudebros —- blaming hypergamy and feminism for everything sounds a lot like blaming pig-headed men and the patriarchy for everything.

    Like


    • Shouldn’t you be out punching a pregnant woman in the abdomen?

      Like


    • Pull your petticoat down, dear, your mangina is showing.

      Women aren’t evil, or even immoral. What they are, by and large, is amoral (and utterly solipsistic). They’ll follow the tingles and ride the hamster and rationalise away why only afterwards, since quaint notions such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and ‘truth’ are subordinate to their feeeelings. That might lead to the womenz doing wicked things, and usually does, but it’s a mistake to judge them as beings capable of making moral choices, the same as men who actually understand the concept.

      Chicks ain’t ‘good’ or ‘bad’ they just is, and understanding what that isness is may make some men bitter, at least for a while, but it doesn’t mean those men are wrong either.

      Nice strawMRA there too. I don’t know anyone who blames feminism and hypergamy for everything, but those two factors EXPLAIN quite a lot. Bit of a difference.

      Like


      • yeah, yeah whatever. you d00ds don’t seem to understand how petulant all of that bellyaching sounds. instead of people who have some strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others, now they must be evil creatures who lack morals — and they probably have cooties, too. Just like men, according to feminazis — men are evil and lie and have no moral code and blah blah blah blah blah blah. You are your enemy.

        Rise above the temptation to turn your enemies into caricatures. First you have to realize that they aren’t your enemies. Then maybe you can offer them what they need. Radical feminism really doesn’t mean shit, it’s just yet another manifestation of….the lesser parts of female nature. It’s more shameful for you, and the MGTOW-ers to respond in kind to women, because ultimately….it just makes you come off like women.

        I’m not saying you ignore wrongdoing where you see it. I’m just saying that the way a lot of the MGTOW’ers write suggests a general lack of intimate contact with women and thus a general inability to humanize them.

        Like


    • Also, I forgot to mention what a monstrously false equivalence it is to compare the genuinely dingbat Patriarchy [conspiracy] Theory to simply pointing out how feminism has infiltrated and undermined Western civilisation. The latter isn’t even strictly an MRA/MGTOW position, it’s the position of anyone capable of noticing the bleedin’ obvious.

      Or are you seriously trying to claim that feminism hasn’t had a profound, far-reaching – and, most here would argue, malevolent – influence on society?

      Likewise, are you trying to deny the reality of female hypergamy? And are you saying that it doesn’t profoundly influence female behaviour, and that recognizing its existence doesn’t have enormous and wide-ranging explanatory power?

      This is some retarded shit, bro.

      Like


    • You rang?

      Like


  33. on December 4, 2013 at 1:38 am Days of Broken Arrows

    The differences in brain wiring could possibly — possibly — explain why virtually everything around you, including what you’re reading this on now, was built and designed by a man.

    Sometimes things are so obvious we fail to see them. And other times, the educational and political system deliberately obscures such things.

    It’s telling that this comment would likely be considered “hate speech” in the very educational system men built but unfortunately left to women to run.

    Like


    • When women enter an institution in any but the smallest numbers, that institution starts to degrade.

      Look at the governments across the world, education, the military, companies needing HR departments.

      Hell, I can’t even watch some college football games because ESPN has a woman doing play by play.

      Like


  34. Ladies and gentlemen…the hamster has been located.

    Like


  35. on December 4, 2013 at 6:47 am Flashing Lights

    All this study proves is that the patriarchy has a dramatic effect on shaping women’s brains as they develop.

    Because everyone like totally knows that newborn babies have no neural wiring and that develops as they age.

    In order for the womyn to be truly liberated they need to be raised from birth by people who are not subjects of the patriarchy.

    Like, c’mon.

    Like


  36. On another note, although this kind of research is good for debunking shibboleths in our unique socio-historical situation, it seems a waste to invest so much research time and money into “discovering” what all of our grandparents and previous ancestors knew intuitively…it’s like reinventing the wheel.

    Like


  37. Yeah the world is fair to men. Way to give a presumption of innocence to a loving father and husband. no lzozlzozlzl http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Like


  38. “Sane people don’t need studies to confirm the bleeding obvious”

    More relevant than merely face value. Common knowledge does not lack truth. It lacks status and accreditation. Junk science is just another spin off of the prestige pricing of knowledge. The same knowledge just sparkles. Its more evidence of the feminization of the culture that all things of value must be recognized as valuable by the hierarchy. If an anthropologist with a PHD processes Cassava in tha Amazon, something that a “savage” in his own culture does expertly, its just so impressive because its the stamp of a PHD.

    The funny thing too is that the common knowledge that is more often wrong, often used a a means to distrust it entirely, is of a genus which is not first hand experience, usually from “an expert”. For example 8 glasses of water a day was from some sort of false authority which turned out to be false. However the things that people observe on their own are basically true.

    Truth of the people, and by the people is very reliable.

    Like


  39. Doesn’t matter, the UK is,already trying to change laws to allow women to,commit crimes and not,be,punished. Cuz they r special “pheeeeels”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/too-many-women-are-jailed-says-top-judge-argues-lady-hale-518161.html

    Apart,from a charming accent we are thoroughly fucked……sir.

    Like


    • Meanwhile, a woman–by definition incapable of thinking logically, especially during fits of hamster/time of the month periods–can literally sign a piece of paper and have a man thrown in jail and his life and career ruined using an “ex parte” restraining order. For you nonlawyers, “ex parte” means she can do it without him getting notice and an opportunity to be heard. But the man is not sent to jail until he is first arrested at his place of business or perhaps at home in front of his children. #fuckusdudes

      When I mentioned 240 experiences a few threads back, I was not claiming 240 lays. I mean 240 encounters with female hamster rationalization craziness, spread over about 15 LTRs in the past 20 years. Okay? When one has experience with women past about age 35 (Scray does not have a large enough sample size yet), one inevitably sees them in a pure crazy mode where it is literally like a demon has taken over their brain or they are a crazed robot — like, literally 0% capable of using *any* logic or rationality.

      Yet they now vote, serve on juries, serve as judges, etc. There is a reason why all societies until “the west” since the 1960s did not allow this. For 8,000 years men have known their true nature and inabilities without the need for any scientific journals.

      Like Scray says, but from a different angle: just interact with them. If you are at least midlevel greater beta, you will have some sexual success with a fair amount of 7s or 8s, have LTRs with them, marry them — you will see the demon.

      It’s written about on page 2 of the Bible — the Eve story GBFM likes to recount. Whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or in any God or whatever, the Bible is just one of many historical texts (great books) that shed light on the nature of humanity.

      When normal male behavior becomes criminalized, we are fucked. What is now called “stalking” is a normal male reaction to a beta male losing a woman he “owned” previously, and he owned her if she was fucking him.

      As others have pointed out, hypergamy means a natural state is polygamy–few alphas get all the women and betas and omegas live sexless lives.

      Until the 1970s, the last 40 years being a blip on the history of the universe, the law (humanmade law, not natural law) was purposely created–for the good of overall society–to combat the natural law of female feral nature. That is why the (former) laws of property and marriage forced women to need a man, one man, a husband, the father of her kids. Some of you guys get it, CH gets it, but some of you don’t get it. “No fault” divorce and the Cathedral’s purposeful attack on the nuclear family is literally the reason for MOST of the problems in our society, not just some of them. Women are now economically independent (because of affirmative action/preferential treatment/big daddy govt) so they are now free to be feral cock carousel riders from age 19-35, when they *finally* start thinking about marrying a beta and having kids.

      Law matters. Policy matters. Our law (destroying the sanctity of marriage) literally is what permitted this sad state of affairs to exist. It’s bad for women, men, and children and all of society.

      Like


      • I agree about no-fault divorce, if only because people should take the institution more seriously. The problem is to pretend like the era before this was a utopia — it wasn’t. If a woman truly loves a man and gives him her love, it’s his to lose. So, don’t LTR a woman who doesn’t truly love and submit to you. Or, don’t beta yourself out if you’re in an LTR with such a woman.

        Women can be all these nice things you’re talking about for men (or people) that they love. When they start doing the ‘wicked’ things and ignoring or being apathetic, then ya….the love is gone. Women are hardwired to only give a shit about those with high reproductive value to them. What’s so bad about doing what you can to stay on that short list?

        Like


  40. This why I tell men to make best friends with your guy buddies, not your girlfriend or wife.

    Like


  41. “Your Daily Hoax Crime. … Time to start calling these race hoaxes what they are: blood libel against whites.”

    If they don’t start prosecuting these things, they’re going to continue until everyone’s first reaction upon hearing of a hate crime is to assume it’s a hoax.

    Like


    • “If “Dark Enlightenment” proponents want to avoid softballs for their foes they need to drop the goony D&D stuff.”

      From the link:

      “The Dark Enlightenment: The Creepy Internet Movement You’d Better Take Seriously”

      “Creepy”, the go-to nebulous pejorative for women, leftoids, and Hugo Schwyzer.

      “What is the Dark Enlightenment? As the term suggests, the Dark Enlightenment is an ideological analysis of modern democracy that harshly rejects the vision of the 18th century European Enlightenment—a period punctuated by the development of empirical science, the rise of humanist values and the first outburst of revolutionary democratic reform.”

      The smear by association, another slimeball tactic. If you reject our multicult utopia, then you must also hate empirical science and humanist values. This, incidentally, comes to you from the people who hysterically reject any fact that doesn’t conform to their equalist fantasies, and who are engaged in a total war on humanist values, or any values.

      Stopped reading there. I’m too old to go wading in the sewer.

      Like


      • Agree. I could not even read past one sentence of that bullshit. As I always say, CH, I don’t know how you can stand to read the leftoid shit about which you tweet. You are a fucking soldier, dude.

        Like


      • Ironically, it’s the so-called enlightened crowd who does the most ardent rejecting of certain kinds of empirical science.

        Like


  42. on December 4, 2013 at 8:23 pm walt maystorm

    alpha in training needs some advice:

    met girl though friends, flirted some for a few weeks. her boyfriend dumps her a few weeks ago, she claims heartbroken, buys new lingerie on facebook. message her saying my guinea pig needs advice (inside joke) asking her for drinks. She writes back in 10 minutes inviting me out with friends saturday night to a band at a bar. I think I should ignore this and insist on meeting without her friends–am I right?

    Like


    • Doesn’t really matter. It depends on your strength. You can either decline and put it in your terms or go there with the intent to mix and mingle with not only her friends, but anyone else. Disappear for awhile and then reappear. Chat with her friends. All that is required is a scenario that does not remotely match with her plans.

      Like


  43. Alright so, today marks the beginning of my study of routines. Haven’t really used any up to this point (other than good girl, bad girl) and while I’ve been working on YaReally’s missions (leading, heavy leading, escalating, isolating, group theory, storytelling are what’s left… i know, been going way too slowly…), it’s way too slow going and i don’t know where to the lead the conversation through, well, my conversation. Probably should’ve started learning routines earlier. But I got a shitload of fuckups, so whatever, approaching’s handled 🙂

    Report back soon with hopefully better FR’s.

    Like


    • Also YaReally or anyone else, how do you incite shit-tests? I want the hotties.

      Like


      • Generally, just act larger than life. Just do and say whatever the fuck you want. —k, that’s the attitude, now here’s some specific stuff

        “Hey watch it guys, I have high standards.”

        “So, there’s 5 girls out tonight standing in a group………I can’t be with all of you though.”

        “Do you believe in love at first sight?
        ….
        Cause there’s this girl over there I’m really into. Can you introduce us?”

        The point here (these are all ok, not the best) is that you are behaving in a way that suggests you are higher value than she probably perceives you to be. When this happens, and you have a modicum of attraction, you will get her attention and she will shit test you to see if you’re the real deal.

        Like


    • Take it at your own pace. Awesome that you’re going to start getting some routines down. It’ll be awkward for about a month, but then you’ll realize that 99% of all flirting is a variation on some form of stupid roleplay — which these routines usually have.

      Like


      • Hey man, can you give your top 3 role-play routines? i don’t incorporate this into my game enough.

        No biggie if you can’t but it would be hella helpful.

        Like


      • Hey Immoral, here’s a routine manual:

        http://infothread.org/Pick%20Up%20Artist/LoveSytems%20Routines%20Manual.pdf

        @Scray yeah dude, I’ve got three to four months before it starts getting warm again, so I’m game!

        Like


      • For attraction, the routines are short-and-sweet and more about setting a frame.

        So, it’s just generally —

        “Is this how it’s gonna be in our relationship….? blah blah blah whatever….”

        “K well when we’re married you’re gonna have to stop/start…..blah blah blah blah….”

        Just riff like crazy after you start it: “Is this how it’s gonna be in our relationship? You always busting my balls like this. because it’s just gonna end with me storming out, which you love because I don’t take any of your shit and then we’ll end up having sloppy makeup sex in the backseat when you run out behind me and catch me before I get in the car. Great. My backseat will always smell like sex. Real mature.”

        I mean, the general pattern of riffing that has success for me is — relationship frame, something sexual, the intense sexual relationship leads to something funny, then blame it on her.

        Like


  44. This is bad.

    Feminist will use this as basis to jump start creation of mechanical brains to replace female brains.

    They will demand scientists to wire it just like how the male brain is wired, according to what the brain scans revealed.

    On a much more terrible note, they can also demand that men have their brains replaced by mechanical brains that are wired to function like female brains.

    What have you done, CH!!??

    Like


  45. “Make no mistake, the technical wizardry involved in creating a brain wiring diagram – researchers call it a “connectome” – is awesome. I’m sure Leonardo Da Vinci, who used hot wax to create a cast of the brain’s ventricles (the fluid-filled hollows), would have been mightily impressed. But unfortunately, this wiring study and the subsequent press coverage has got a lot of things in a tangle. First of all, the differences in brain wiring between the sexes were not as noteworthy as the researchers imply. They say they are “fundamental,” but other experts have crunched the numbers and they state that although the differences are statistically significant, they are actually not substantive. And remember, these are average differences with a lot of overlap. It’s possible that my male brain is wired more like an average female brain than yours, even if you’re a woman.”
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/12/getting-in-a-tangle-over-men-and-womens-brain-wiring/

    Hey, check you out, early adopters.

    Like


  46. Adding to this, gender realism means nothing if you’re just pretending to know how science works, celebrating and cheering discovery, like some kind of football game, to support your aesthetics rather than critically understanding discovery.

    It makes you no better than the “science is sexy” clique.

    That is, it isn’t “open and honest” like you gender realists espouse — you’re being an intellectual opossum, using equivocal language and sophistry to suit your needs.

    Real shiny, chaps. Carry on.

    Like


  47. I look forward to seeing this study replicated with racial data cross sections broken out.

    Like


  48. It took nearly a thousands test subjects to get p-values below 0.0001, which means there is a lot of overlap. Men and women’s brains are ON AVERAGE different, there is variance and overlap though, a minority of women with “masculine” brains and minority men with “feminine” brains. This means that we can’t expect to achieve a 50:50 gender equality on all things (like gender ratios in jobs) but can’t expect 0:100 either. The idea of the 50:50 quota is incompatible with reality, but so is the idea the men and women are fundamentally different. People need to be judge individually via universal standards and no special privileged grant to their race, creed or gender.

    Like