Chateau Heartiste Called Me a "Butthurt Feminist"

[Desdinova]

I think I'm gonna go into the corner and cry

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/what-a-butthurt-feminist-sounds-like/

:crackup:

 

[Jaylan]

Typical manosphere blog douche. Many of those dudes can never disagree on anything without labeling one another beta, mangina, liboorawl, feminists, etc etc. Its similar to the infighting I see online between moderate feminists, and the more hardcore man-hating types.

All Heartiste does is blabber enough insults to get his jockriders to pat him on the back about what a great post he just made. That said, I am a little surprised that he would throw the feminist tag at you of all people.

That said, Ive even had certain feminists call me a woman hater which is hilarious.

 

[Stagger Lee]

The quoted parts are yours? I tend to agree with you. I disagree with Heartiste at times and I know one of our better posters here tends to be a critic. I noticed if you disagree with anything he says, heartiste jumps to the conclusion that you must be a left wing feminist or 'chump'.

 

[Mike32ct]

I avoid the Manosphere because most of those guys deny the importance of looks. They think "game" makes you better looking lol.

 

[TarantulaHawk]

I avoid the Manosphere because most of those guys deny the importance of looks. They think "game" makes you better looking lol.

I've heard it called the Manuresphere. lol

A bunch of KJ's who mentally masturbate and swear to themselves they get any woman they want or else she's a "feminist". You can't make that sh1t up. If some dude ever mentioned the manosphere to me in real life I'd laugh in his face and think he's a deluded nutcase.

 

[Desdinova]

I've heard it called the Manuresphere

I've never heard of it, but that just goes to show how ignorant I am of the whole Manosphere culture.

I'm actually glad he challenged me on this particular belief I've had (and I've had it for a number of years now). I got to re-evaluate my thoughts on the subject and if anything, it makes even more sense to me now. I could write a whole post on how it all works, and it would make perfect sense.

I've always firmly believed that to truly become wiser, you need to be open to new and different ideas. I've had guys on here correct me on things that I've believed, and I'm always thankful for it.

I was pretty surprised that CH threw the "butthurt feminist" label so easily. However, it really made me lose a lot of respect for him that he can't rationally debate a topic without petty name-calling. A true alpha male shouldn't need to resort to name calling when he's being challenged.

All I'm seeing now is an insecure wanna-be spokesman for the MRR.

 

[zekko]

I've never thought much of Heartiste. He has written some good articles, but when there's a chance to default to the worst common denominator of the manosphere, he will. I don't see him as an uplifting dude, more like he scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Anyway, he was clearly out of line calling you a butthurt feminist, Des. I understand his thinking there, but he's just way off base on what you were trying to say, and your motivations for saying it.

Regarding your theory, I think you're half right. It's like when women dress up to impress other women. But it's still partly to attract men's attention - which makes them look good to the other women, so it's like a big cycle.

 

[ArcBound]

Desdinova, whenever you post on someone else's blog, you automatically enter their frame.

If you contradict them, they will bring all the power of their frame on you, and you will lose whether right or wrong.

A synonym for frame? Home field advantage.

Many like Vox and Heartiste ban dissenting views, or if they don't, you have to argue with not only them, but their entire comment base.

If Heartiste were correct then we would not see the extreme rates of competition in all girl environments. For example all girl boarding schools, camps, for some reason most of the stories here are the worst, and competition to be the lady in charge is the highest despite having no/minimal males.

Also the entire fashion industry. Straight men don't care whatever inane bull**** is worn on the walkway. Women know this, yet this still copy these fashions and change their wardrobes all the time to reflect the newest trend. Yet come party/club weekend every girl has the same low cut dress/skirt and coat on. Cause it is pretty easy to appease guys in terms of clothing and makeup (if the body is hot enough). The entire fashion thing is to compete in their own sex and they know it. Then they throw all the variety out the window when they wear the same thing when they go out clubbing/partying. Look at any university campus or fraternity row.

Either ways Desdinova don't let it bug you too much. The blog is his court, his temple, you let him preach whatever he wants there. It is his frame and you won't win even with the weight of logic. No doubt if he believed you were wrong he could have simply edited in a rebuttal like he usually does. He dedicates a post to dissecting your comment (wrongly may I add) so that his entire commenter base will also go on you.

 

[Skyline]

I think I'm gonna go into the corner and cry

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/what-a-butthurt-feminist-sounds-like/

:crackup:

I remember taking his dating market value test a while back, probably the most irrelevant questions I've ever seen asked.

The way he words his posts makes him seem really unnatural in my opinion. It's like he's made studying women his life and emites this weird vibe from him. I've noticed this a lot with most PUA guys, they all have the same vibe and it doesn't really seem "natural." They sound like robots... I mean there is a difference between and knowing and making it your life... Those guys make it their life.

For the record, I agree with what you say about women wearing fashionable stuff in order to compete with other women for men. It's the whole attention and jealously discussion all over again.

 

[user43770]

If anything, CH is a realist.

I don't see how anyone that believes in evolution could argue with his response. Obviously, women wear make-up to better attract men. Impressing their friends is a by-product, which is entirely based on how attractive they are to males.

 

[Desdinova]

If anything, CH is a realist.

I'm very much a realist as well, but I certainly see this subject much differently.

Most "blue pill" men believe that women are primarily attracted to looks (including the genitalia) much like men are attracted this way to women. While looks can play a significant role in some areas, most of us know it's the personality that women primarily go for. But women think the same way; men are primarily attracted to a woman's personality.

Of course we know this is not the case.

But why can't the same be said for the reason women get dressed up when they go out? Men go out, looking nice, acting cool, using lame pickup lines, and buying drinks for women to attract them. Are we sure that women are doing the same to attract men?

I personally don't see it happening in the bars.

I believe there's a bit more to Mystery's "peacock" theory than just dressing up in outlandish clothing. I believe that it's the male who is (or supposed to be) the one who goes out to put himself on display.

Women have two underlying things at work when they get ready for a night out:

1) They're looking for a "fun" night. The word "fun" to a woman means a night filled with emotional fluctuation.

2) They want to accelerate their "fun" with competition. Men and women are both competitive, but this is where women put their money; they put it into their clothing and makeup. They don't want to be out-done by the other bytches there. But it's not for the sole competition for a man, it's the sole competition of being better than the others. They want to look better, dress better, and be more stylish than their female counterparts. Not only that, when they dress up, they feel like they're better than all the other bytches.

I see women in competition with each other quite often. I've seen them claw at each other going through bins of sale clothing. They scrap with each other on religious issues. They're always comparing themselves (usually in an elevated sense) to other women. They'll brag about how much nicer their home is, how much more well-behaved their children are, and how much better their husband is in comparison to that other bytch. They'll USE the men they find to elevate their competition, especially if he has money.

When it comes to real-life competition, I believe that women are much more fierce competitors than men. If a man's neighbour gets a boat, the man will want a boat of his own. He doesn't give a fvck how new it is or how much it costs, just as long as he can have fun in it just like his neighbour.

A man seeks pleasure in the positive emotion, whereas the woman seeks pleasure in emotional fluctuation.

....and that's my full explanation. There's other things that easily tie into this, but this is the general basis for my belief.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Most "blue pill" men believe that women are primarily attracted to looks (including the genitalia) much like men are attracted this way to women. While looks can play a significant role in some areas, most of us know it's the personality that women primarily go for. But women think the same way; men are primarily attracted to a woman's personality.

Of course we know this is not the case.

I disagree here and think it's just the opposite, but I won't call you a butthurt lesbian . I think most "bluepill" and "redpill" men both believe women are primarily attracted to personality. The only debate among them is what kind of "personaility" really attracts women, eg, nice guy vs. jerk. Heartiste believes "alpha" personality not looks is what attracts women and the mainstream media say personality is what attracts women, women say that too. I consider to believe that women are primarily attracted to a man's looks and appearance is realism that neither group, redpill or bluepill, wants to accept. Women think that men are mostly attracted to a woman for her looks and that's "shallow" (women are hypocrites).

In other words, I believe women and men are both primarily attract to each others' looks/appearance. Women are more "redpill" than men by maximizing their looks such as by wearing make up. But I agree, women wear make up primarily to compete with other women in a higher social league.

 

[user43770]

I'm very much a realist as well, but I certainly see this subject much differently.

Most "blue pill" men believe that women are primarily attracted to looks (including the genitalia) much like men are attracted this way to women. While looks can play a significant role in some areas, most of us know it's the personality that women primarily go for. But women think the same way; men are primarily attracted to a woman's personality.

Of course we know this is not the case.

But why can't the same be said for the reason women get dressed up when they go out? Men go out, looking nice, acting cool, using lame pickup lines, and buying drinks for women to attract them. Are we sure that women are doing the same to attract men?

I personally don't see it happening in the bars.

I believe there's a bit more to Mystery's "peacock" theory than just dressing up in outlandish clothing. I believe that it's the male who is (or supposed to be) the one who goes out to put himself on display.

Women have two underlying things at work when they get ready for a night out:

1) They're looking for a "fun" night. The word "fun" to a woman means a night filled with emotional fluctuation.

2) They want to accelerate their "fun" with competition. Men and women are both competitive, but this is where women put their money; they put it into their clothing and makeup. They don't want to be out-done by the other bytches there. But it's not for the sole competition for a man, it's the sole competition of being better than the others. They want to look better, dress better, and be more stylish than their female counterparts. Not only that, when they dress up, they feel like they're better than all the other bytches.

I see women in competition with each other quite often. I've seen them claw at each other going through bins of sale clothing. They scrap with each other on religious issues. They're always comparing themselves (usually in an elevated sense) to other women. They'll brag about how much nicer their home is, how much more well-behaved their children are, and how much better their husband is in comparison to that other bytch. They'll USE the men they find to elevate their competition, especially if he has money.

When it comes to real-life competition, I believe that women are much more fierce competitors than men. If a man's neighbour gets a boat, the man will want a boat of his own. He doesn't give a fvck how new it is or how much it costs, just as long as he can have fun in it just like his neighbour.

A man seeks pleasure in the positive emotion, whereas the woman seeks pleasure in emotional fluctuation.

....and that's my full explanation. There's other things that easily tie into this, but this is the general basis for my belief.

Great post.

I'm not trying to debate any of your observations. First of all, they're subjective. Second, I've seen the same thing in my own life.

My point (which was initially roissy's) goes much deeper. It's based in evolutionary psychology. I'm a very intelligent red-pill individual; I'm well versed in all of the downfalls of knocking a woman up in modern times. Why then, do I still have the urge to plant my seed in any and every attractive b1tch that walks by? If there was ever any proof of evolution, that's it. It goes much deeper than observations and intellect.

We all have an urge to propagate, and like it or not, that instigates most of our actions. Those actions may be striving for more money and power, or they may be peacocking, or they might be dressing up to feel like they're better than all of the other b1tches. Either way, their origin is the same.

 

[user43770]

To expand on my last post, that's what makes life worth living. The things that you can't explain. The natural urges you feel. The peace you randomly find when you spend time alone in nature. The times you find yourself looking up at that stars in awe. These are the things that we should all be trying to experience.

 

[zekko]

I don't see how anyone that believes in evolution could argue with his response. Obviously, women wear make-up to better attract men. Impressing their friends is a by-product, which is entirely based on how attractive they are to males.

I think the real issue is Heartiste calling Desdinova a butthurt feminist. He's saying that Des is coming from a "You go girl, we don't need men" type of angle, when we all know that is CLEARLY not his motivation. But as usual, Roissy (or whatever his name is) immediately jumps to think the worst of people.

Anyway, as I said before, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, women want to attract men, but there's no question they're also looking to impress other women as well. Look at wedding dresses. Who are they wearing those for? The groom? No, they're wanting the other women to ooh and ah and say how beautiful she looks. Guys don't really care about clothes other than to see them taken off and lying on the floor in the corner.

Even when you look at hypergamy, women want the top guy because having a top male raises their own social status. They want to know where they rank among their fellow women, and they want to rank highly. Yes, women want the guy too, but other women are still a factor.

 

[user43770]

I'm not gonna argue the actions of women in everyday life. You're both correct in your observations. I'm just saying that all of those actions stem from the same place, and that's the base urge to spread your genes to a new generation.

 

[speed dawg]

I tend to agree with CH here mostly, but the truth is in the middle. The very root, the rock, of the makeup issue is the competition to attract the best male available. Even if the group is full of married women, the competition is between who is the 'best', which in the end is a sexual metric.

There is a biological element at work here.....but as humans we were also born with logic and a 'soul' in essence. We actually have the ability to restrain ourselves against nature, unlike animals. We cannot CHANGE it, but we can pull back, if that makes sense.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I tend to agree with CH here mostly, but the truth is in the middle. The very root, the rock, of the makeup issue is the competition to attract the best male available. Even if the group is full of married women, the competition is between who is the 'best', which in the end is a sexual metric.

There is a biological element at work here.....but as humans we were also born with logic and a 'soul' in essence. We actually have the ability to restrain ourselves against nature, unlike animals. We cannot CHANGE it, but we can pull back, if that makes sense.

The evolutionary programmed drives that we have are ON all the time.

Women are not really consciously thinking that they need to "attract a man" better than their friends, they're just subconsciously driven to "be a better looking woman" than all their friends.

You could say they are not CONSCIOUSLY trying to compete for a mans attention, but the reason they want to outdo all the other women their group is because that unconscious behavior led to the most genetic propagation of that behavior.

As far as being able to restrain ourselves against nature, don't give us humans too much credit.

If we COULD restrain ourselves against nature, as a general principle, there wouldn't be any fat people.

The truth is that very few people can restrain themselves against nature, for any amount of time, without the presence of negative incentives.

We are much more driven by biological instincts that we'd care to admit.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I tend to agree with CH here mostly, but the truth is in the middle. The very root, the rock, of the makeup issue is the competition to attract the best male available. Even if the group is full of married women, the competition is between who is the 'best', which in the end is a sexual metric.

There is a biological element at work here.....but as humans we were also born with logic and a 'soul' in essence. We actually have the ability to restrain ourselves against nature, unlike animals. We cannot CHANGE it, but we can pull back, if that makes sense.

The evolutionary programmed drives that we have are ON all the time.

Women are not really consciously thinking that they need to "attract a man" better than their friends, they're just subconsciously driven to "be a better looking woman" than all their friends.

You could say they are not CONSCIOUSLY trying to compete for a mans attention, but the reason they want to outdo all the other women their group is because that unconscious behavior led to the most genetic propagation of that behavior.

As far as being able to restrain ourselves against nature, don't give us humans too much credit.

If we COULD restrain ourselves against nature, as a general principle, there wouldn't be any fat people.

The truth is that very few people can restrain themselves against nature, for any amount of time, without the presence of negative incentives.

We are much more driven by biological instincts that we'd care to admit.

 

[Desdinova]

You could say they are not CONSCIOUSLY trying to compete for a mans attention, but the reason they want to outdo all the other women their group is because that unconscious behavior led to the most genetic propagation of that behavior.

See, that's basically what I'm pointing at. Unless the man is already on the hook, I don't think women get all prettied up with the mindset of attracting one. They just don't think that deeply about it. Attracting men is the side-effect of going out all dolled up. But even if she doesn't get all prettied up and has inherited good looks, she's going to attract men regardless.

Men are the engines of sexual reproduction. Women are just the incubators.

But that's not to say that women don't desire a man. Of course they do, especially when their emotional scale is tipping to the lonely side.