Feed on

Gossip and salt and blame-shifting fault, that’s what older girls are made of.

Via reader Pepe, ¡SCIENCE! once again shits in the faces of feminists and pabulum spewing equalists.

This is not the place for this comment, but then again SCIENCE: Women are way less cooperative than men.

This goes against the leftist myth that the world would be a better place if women ruled.

“We confirmed a puzzling gender difference: men cooperate much more than women” [in a repeated Prisoner Game]. Also, cooperation doesn’t fade over time, as previously thought.

The numbers:

And from other study:

No doubt that men are the civilization builders, and no wonder why feminazis and manginas hate evo psych so much.

The Fuggernaut hates anything that disproves their belief that one day, soon, the Armies of the Disfigured will rise up to claim their equally distributed share of Facecock Likes.

The labcoat unearthing of the ancient wisdom that women are far less cooperative than are men is another step forward in the recent progression of scientific studies rediscovering the truths at the center of every stereotype. As usual, I was on top of this before the four eyes crowd…women aren’t cooperative, they’re (superficially) non-hierarchical, which is a different thing entirely (but shitlibs and femcunts are happy to confuse the two).

Besides the primary finding, there are two other results of interest to Chateau readers:

One, cooperation didn’t fade over repeated iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. I’d bet most of the test subjects were WEIRDO Whites, because there’s a racial confound to measurement of cooperativeness. If cooperativeness is partly heritable, then the disposition to cooperate will show durability even under the stress of PD games.

Two, men fight for dominant status, women are eliminationist. As I alluded to in a previous post about credentialism being inherently feminine and hierarchy inherently masculine, research shows men follow a “compete then cooperate” model and women follow a “compete and cast out” model. The two strategies exist because men and women have differing reproductive goals and sex roles. Men must gain status and then use that status to acquire fertile women and resources and to protect those resources from rape and pillage by competing tribes (which requires intratribal cooperation with other men).

Women don’t have the role of protecting the tribe from invading tribes or of accumulating resources to win the love of high value men, so their intrasexual strategy doesn’t require cooperativeness, but since men are attracted to young nubile women and are thus a persistent abandonment threat to women, the female intrasexual strategy does require competing against other women to retain a male provider. Ominously, because other younger women are a continual poaching threat, women will seek to eliminate them from competition rather than dominate them. Intrasexual female domination is useless from a Darwinian perspective because men aren’t attracted to dominant women (they’re attracted to sexy fertile women).

From a Game perspective, these studies basically reiterate CH’s Dread Game — the exploitation of a woman’s fear of abandonment for another hotter, younger, tighter woman via intimations of infidelity and wandering romantic interest.


The compulsion in women to gossip and tear down other women when they’re out of earshot can be exploited by the smart Gamesman. The idea is to raise, in absentia, the SMV of the other woman your girl is bitching about. By raising her competition’s SMV, by the zero sum property of female ego credits, you implicitly lower the SMV of the girl you’re talking to, and thus raise your own SMV. The relative SMV comparisons, now structured to favor you getting the bang, are a key element of pickup.


Comments are closed.