Skip to main content

A field guide to chauvinism

This is part one of "A field guide to Chauvinism". You may find the other parts here:
  1. A field guide to chauvinism, part 1

  2. The conquering archetype and the nurturing archetype, part 2.

  3. Why we still need chauvinism, part 3.

  4. The singularity age, part 4.


This is in response to a quirky and yes, feisty new blog on Thoughtleader called On Cue. The entry in question is What to know about women. Check it out!

woman's movement black feminism chauvinism humor

Defining chauvinism


Contrary to popular belief, being a chauvinist does not make you a guy who treats women as your subjects. Chauvinism means that you are particularly enthusiastic about a cause without valid reason. Therefore, a guy who is misogynistic is a male chauvinist, because he is particularly enthusiastic about keeping girls out of his clubhouse for no clear reason (and most girls are suspicious about the kind of clubbing that goes on in that clubhouse). A girl who is a radical feminist is a female chauvinist, because she is particularly enthusiastic about keeping guys out of her hornet's nest for no good reason (and most guys are thankful).

Feminism originally meant campaigning for the equal rights of both sexes. This is why the smart girls like Wendy McElroy can call themselves feminists, while supporting individual rights and opposing affirmative action, while seeing the value of the freedom in a society that allows pornography, while still getting a guilt-free bee in the bonnet every now and again. They are truly supporting equal individual rights and not blanket female chauvinism.

Milk, sausage, tits and ass


"Why buy the whole cow if you want a little bit of milk? Why buy the whole pig if you want a little bit of sausage?" - Anon

The sausage: Men are shallow thinkers


Men are shallow. Guys are calculating creatures. I'm not saying that this calculating equals smart, I mean trying to divide by zero is still calculating, but it is based on cold if inaccurate logical reasoning. When it comes to relationships, this reasoning takes the shape of: "Tits and ass good.. must have tits and ass!". Hey, I warned you that it doesn't have to be smart.

The milk: Girls are deep feelers


Girls are feeling creatures. This internal dialogue does not resemble cold calculation, because feelings carry more weight. This is why girls can go from calling each other bitches, to crying together calling each other best friends forever, to calling each other bitches again in mass hysteria all in the course of one pyjama party. Yes, Doppelganger is not only rooted in fantasy.

When it comes to relationships, I have no idea what kind of reasoning girls use to get involved with a beer guzzling, wife beating, Volkswagen beetle bench-pressing grease monkey, but somehow that happens. I can only imagine what the internal dialogue of such a girl must be like: "I wonder what he sees in my tits and ass. All girls have them, I don't think they're that great. I hope he's not just after my tits and ass, that would make me feel like a tramp. Then again, maybe my tits and ass are great, I mean the guy at work always stares at them. Perve! But I kinda like it. Oh my god I love those shoes! They would probably never fit me. Maybe they would. I don't know, but they look good on her. OK now I hate those shoes. Oh look, a sale!"

Clearly, to me the female mind is the kind of mysterious abyss that Nietzsche had in mind when he said that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you.

Tits and ass with personality go all the way


I've heeded to the warnings of smarter people than myself who stated that I should never try to understand a woman, because I will be wearing a Napoleon outfit and a white jacket before the week is over. What I've managed to observe is that if a guy makes a girl feel good, he can get away with nearly anything. If a girl can somehow short circuit the cold calculation of a guy, she can get away with nearly anything.

Unfortunately for smart ugly girls, guy calculations tend to be short circuited by attractive tits and ass. Unfortunately for us guys, girls tend to take unkindly to the manhandling of their tits and ass unless you make them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

This would explain why a guy starts dealing the psycho-card if a girl sees her unborn children in your eyes after the first date. Guys are programmed to calculate how to get tits and ass. Girls are programmed to get the maximum amount of feel good. A long-lasting relationship will only result of the guy thinks the trade-off between getting tits and ass and enduring a particular set jaws that comes with them are worthwhile, and if the girl gets the right amount of feel good knowing very well that the guy is most likely only interested in tits and ass.

What I'm saying is, a girl with tits and ass with personality goes all the way. A girl with only personality alone gets entry into the clubhouse. You could have more ambition than Napoleon, Nobel prizes enough to use as toilet paper dispensers and enough diplomatic skill to negotiate peace in the Middle East, but without good tits and ass, guys will treat you as if you were one of them. That is, a member of the no girls allowed clubhouse. Hey, I did point out that our calculating is not always that smart.

Similarly, guys can be the nicest creatures in the world, but without a conquering streak that manages to make a girl feel good about proverbially being dragged back to the cave, the nicer you are the more likely you are to end up at the all girl equivalent of the no girls allowed clubhouse: the pyjama party.

This causes the metrosexual syndrome. Metrosexuals act like girls because their cold, calculating sides are hampered by the oestrogen treatments of our food to think the law of attraction has merit by virtue of being shown something to that effect on the Oprah Winfrey show. They are actually consciously trying to get into the pyjama party. While wearing girl pyjamas. That's not really what the no girls allowed clubhouse captain had in mind when he said: "Let's try to get into their pyjamas!"

You might think that this mode of thinking is old fashioned, outdated and no longer valid. Allow me to convince you:

Paris Hilton naked. No, not really, but she is a vacuous socialite

Paris Hilton. Socialite. Parasite. Capable of messing up classic horrors all by herself thanks to starring in their remakes. Do we hate her for it? Aikona wena.

That's Paris Hilton. Why is she famous? Tits and ass. Why is she popular? Tits and ass. Why is she socially acceptable? Tits and ass. If you are reading this and it doesn't make sense to you, you are a woman. If you are reading this and you are a guy, (assuming you carried on reading after the picture of Paris Hilton), be honest: What was your first reaction upon seeing this picture? Did you wonder what her IQ was? I say nay nay.

What do you think? Feel free to send me hate mail or leave a comment.

Comments

Jack Payne said…
Quite a probe of the plusses and minuses of each sex.

I still wonder, though, when blondes have more fun, do they know it?
Dante said…
That was very interesting! I think I've got the The Fourth Wave by Alvin Toffler (?) in my library, is that the origin of this theory?
If so, I'll have to read it.

As for the sexual selection thing, men choosing women on the basis of looks is only evolutionary good sense. Beauty conveys a number of positive reproductory signals: youth, good genes, healthy immune system, childbearing ability and so on.

Women choosing men for personality traits like dominance also makes good sense: "conquerors" will be better protectors and providers, both for her and their children. One interesting aspect of this is the whole "cads and dads" aspect which suggests women prefer the first archetype for sex and the other for (gulp) marriage.

As far as I'm concerned, both beauty and dominance as means of selection are equally shallow taken by themselves. So don't let these feminazis give you any guff for digging the bewbage, it's good for the species.

Popular posts from this blog

Fist bump the Trump

I must confess that I did not follow this election as it unfolded, because I have no skin in this game. I only became interested when I saw the crocodile tears on Facebook.

What fascinated me more was that the Trump supporters came out of the closet for the first time to voice their opinions. Virtually none of these Trump supporters espoused racist, misogynistic or any of those kind of deplorable views. Most of them were just pointing fingers at the know-it-all Clinton supporters.

What characterised this election? Rather than enlightened liberals waging a culture war with backward rednecks and hayseeds, three things characterised this election for me:
Shared hubris: Our candidate is bad, but the other candidate is even worse. Both parties seemed to espouse this sentiment.Joe Sixpack's Revenge: Based on voter turnout and based on for whom the largest voting group voted, this election was the revenge of the average American. That is average American by sheer number. Nobody bothered t…

Why has outrage come to dominate platforms like Twitter?

This question was posted on twitter by Sarah Britten Pillay. I shall try to answer that here, or at least address some of the topics surrounding this notion.

What makes a platform like Twitter more outrageous than the next? A brief summary of my thoughts on the topic: It would be interesting to contrive some outrage meter that could detect outrage levels in a piece of text.Plenty if not most of social media outrage is manufactured as a distraction.Outrage that isn't manufactured can be analysed by means of kin selection concepts from biology.If you aren't entirely sold on the sociobiology idea, then the balance of risk and incentive from game theory can also shed some light on the rationale behind social media outrage. Outrage levels are too damn high I do agree that social media platforms tend to be filled with more outrage than others, but as far as I know there is no means of detecting or measuring outrage. The need exists for some outrage quotient or some method of classify…

White tears the most valuable currency but not as valuable as fauxtrage

This formerly glorious publication which I shall not even bother naming has also fallen into the habit of censoring its comments section, at least when it comes to white tears. Fortunately, I could still save this obviously far superior comment from the rather myopic agitprop from whence it came. I know it is superior because the quality of your commentary is inversely proportional to how long it stays unscathed. That's why the sanctimonious finger-wagging op-eds rarely get deleted, but the comments rarely last long.
Anyone - black or white or of any other pigmentation persuasion - with a Rhodes Scholarship can but only cry White Tears. Someone with a Rhodes Scholarship is in the very lap of privilege, the likes of which not even the majority of pale South Africans born with a silver spoon will ever see. That is why it is not uncommon to see their ilk waiting on tables instead of whipping their slaves on their ill-begotten land, which they refuse to give up, you see.
A similar campa…