Women oppress men by “playing” at having a career
Silly woman! You probably don't even know how to work that computer.
Well, here’s a new twist. We all know, from reading the endless tirades on the subject scattered all over the manosphere, that women are evil, selfish and ungrateful creatures whose primary goal in life is to leech off of men and make them miserable.
In a recent post titled Playing Career Woman, manosphere blogger Dalrock takes on some of the most evil and selfish ladies of the whole lot of them: upper middle class ladies who insist on going to college and getting jobs, then later leave the workforce to raise their children.
You might think that these ladies would deserve some props from traditional-minded manosphere dudes for supporting themselves instead of leeching off of men during their twenties, then settling into a more traditional housewifely role once they have children.
Oh, but you don’t realize just how evil and disruptive and oppressive their phony careers are to the men of the world. After all, these aren’t women who need to work to support themselves. No, according to Dalrock, these are “women who use their education and career as a way to check off the box to prove their feminist credentials before settling down into an entirely traditional role.”
According to Escoffier, a commenter on Dalrock’s site whom he quotes with approval, in the good old pre-feminist days:
Women who pursued careers (apart from traditional female roles such as teaching … ) were considered at best sort of harmlessly odd … but we know that family life is superior and more important.
Then came feminism:
Now it’s “You MUST do this for own sake, not to do it is to not realize your potential.” …
The way the [upper middle class] has “solved” this problem is to send girls to college, let them launch their careers–whether in soggy girly stuff like PR or crunchy stuff like business and law–and then they marry late (~30), have kids a few years later and drop out of working at least until the kids are grown.
This answers a couple of needs, not least the need for two incomes to accumulate assets so that the couple can eventually buy into a UMC school district.
Oh, but these women aren’t really earning money because they need it to, you know, pay bills and shit:
[T]he real importance of this solution is to her psyche. Getting the education and career are a way of telegraphing “I am a complete person, not some drone like June Cleaver. I am just as smart and capable as any man. In my altruistic concern for my children, I choose not to use my talent in the marketplace but to devote myself to them.” In other words, she needs that education and early career to mark her as better than a mere housewife, even though she will eventually choose to become a housewife.
According to Dalrock, such women are far more evil than the feminist women who get jobs and stick with them. (Emphasis added.)
Men and women who work hard to support themselves understand that they are in it for the duration. There is a determined realism to them. … These aren’t the women we are talking about. The women Escoffier described see having a career as a badge of status to be collected on their way to their ultimate goal of stay at home housewife. They aren’t really career women, they are playing career woman much the way that Marie Antoinette played peasant and Zoolander’s character played coal miner.
In the comments, someone calling himself Carnivore explains just how unfair this all is to the poor innocent working men of the world:
When men get a degree or go through a vocational program and then land a job, they’ve normally got 40+ years to contribute to increasing the wealth of society. Women “playing” career damage society:
1. They displace men for positions in college or vocational school.
2. Upon landing a job, they displace other men for the job position.
3. The increase in the labor pool drives down wages (supply & demand).
4. While in the labor pool, women are less effective and less productive than men.
5. Because they are in the labor pool and cannot compete with men, women support labor laws to enforce “equality” which burden businesses and can cause men to get fired due to some infringement or just to meet quotas.
6. When they leave the labor pool after becoming bored, there is now a hole than can be difficult to fill because the men who would normally fill it have been displaced for all the reasons above.
Carnivore places part of the blame on the feminism-infected parents who taught these women the wrong things:
Women do NOT know what they want. They have to be guided. Most parents have so bought into feminism that they don’t see any other way. It’s a riot – or sad – talking to parents when they go into all the detail about choosing a college, going on campus visits, making sure she gets into the best school, etc., etc. You would think these parents would spend their time and energy on prepping their daughters for the most important life decision – choosing a man for marriage, how to make a husband happy and how to raise healthy children.
The commenter called Ray takes it one step further:
i was in the workplaces during feminism 1.0, and it had nothing to do with fairness, equity, egalitarianism, or any other positive attribute
in fact, it was a slaughter, resulting in the vast disenfranchisement and destruction of millions of american men — there were dozens of ways men could be hassled, RIFd, and forced from employment, and they were (all to chants of Equality and Empowerment)
this resulted in the massive unemployment of the very men needed to create, invent, and revitalize the culture. and to be fathers to sons . …
no female should be employed, or educated, if it means a qualified male must be excluded
Women, stop leeching off men by paying your own way!
NOTE: This post contains SARCASM.
Posted on November 27, 2011, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, life before feminism, misogyny, oppressed men, patriarchy, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 1,774 Comments.
Do these guys just sit around and brainstorm ways that women are wrong no matter what they do?
Wow nothing gets by him.
I think any MRAs who come and troll this post need to explain what women should do. Bearing in mind:
1) Housing and food and such cost money even if you’re a woman!
2) A woman who wants to find a husband at a young age might not succeed!
3) Except when they have very young children, most husbands don’t want to–and many can’t–support a wife who doesn’t work!
4) A husband may want to divorce his wife!
5) A woman may outlive her husband!
(Bonus points) 6) Some people are not heterosexual!
Is there a Recommended Woman Career Path that accounts for those things.
My parents managed to put effort both into the eventual success of my romantic relationships AND my career. Both “you have to work hard to get to a good school” and “marry your best friend and someone who can argue like a grown-up.” This is far from impossible.
I don’t understand this ‘kicking men out of jobs’ bit. Can’t the men go and do whatever the women would otherwise be doing?
Also, wouldn’t even sexist men like their kids to be raised by someone with education and experience of the world?
A man being unemployed=disenfranchisement and destruction. A woman being unemployed=her place. Ah, double standards everywhere.
Really, dude, during the Suffrage Movement?
What about men who want their women to go to work full time AND do most of the cooking, housework, and child care? And if they have a day off, they come home from work at wine “What have YOOOU done all day while I was slaving a way?” I have encountered many of those.
Yes, please come here and explain this, MRA dudes. We can’t win–either we’re taking a job away from you, or failing to stay home and raise kids while you support us. I thought the latter was bad too in MRA world.
Wait, I forgot the Brandon Method–draw up some contracts and make sure that she works so that you never have to pay her a dime, or something.
Look, I think there are some very real financial considerations that women should take into account before leaving the workforce, because they’ll get the short end of the stick in the long run, but these guys are ALL SORTS of wrong.
This is why I think that the only woman they would find acceptable is a beautiful 15 year old heiress virgin who is executed the day after she has sex with one of them.
Depressing and disgusting in a great big ball of yuck.
We can’t win
And that’s your answer. It DOES NOT MATTER what women do (which is to say, what MRAs imagine women are doing) because they want things that aren’t compatible. Most grownups understand that we cannot eat our cake and have it, too; they don’t, and they’re furious about it.
So asking them ‘what do you want us to do?’ is pointless. They want to live in a fantasy world where women are perfectly happy to wait on them hand and foot and receive nothing, nothing at all, in return; where they are free, at a whim, to earn their own living or have a woman support them, and to change their mind whenever they feel like it; to have sex with any woman they want, whenever they want, but to prevent any other man from having sex with ‘their’ women without permission…..and on and on. Reality doesn’t work like that, not even in extremely patriarchal and oppressive societies.
I have a new slogan! Unpaid labour: it’s still labour, you just don’t get paid for it.
Clearly I should be in advertising.
Women need to be guided? fuck you buddy.
So if the family is so superior and more important, why don’t these bozos quit their jobs and become stay at home fathers?
I know why. Because why give up on your career goals, financial dependence and your role in the public sphere when you have little wifey at home taking care of your offspring and being your kitchen slave.
And if women are oh so terrible at their jobs unlike the menz, why force them to run a household and be responsible for a child or children’s well being? Contrary to their beliefs that actually does take skills. So women are magically good at those skills but they suck at every single other career out there? even careers that may incorporate “housewifey” skills? like a chef, or an elementary school teacher?
Fuck these guys. Fuck their paternalistic guidance and fuck their hypocrisy and calling for women to be financial slaves to to their husbands. This is nothing but a real life version of “TEY TOOK ER JERBSS!!!!” from South Park. Maybe these women are getting their jobs because they are actually qualified for them. Maybe even more qualified than these entitled asshats. I know in typical misogynistic thinking that is unheard of, but it is true.
Mythago – Bingo. What they really want is for women to be nothing more than a convenience for men, and to do whatever would make them most convenient, and they have no idea of the details, and no particular desire to work out the details.
I try to ask “gotcha” questions like “what if a woman’s husband wants to divorce her, wouldn’t it be better if she had her own income so she didn’t need alimony,” but I know damn well any answers will be made up on the spot, because they don’t actually care about things like that. They just want women to only exist when useful to men.
Did that episode not end in a large pile of man on man sex? Hrm….
Haha it did! maybe if MRAs got it on with each other, they’d start seeing the results they wanted.
This makes me so frustarated and depressed. I feel like crying. I didn’t choose to be a woman. Why do they hate me so?
@Holly: right. It’s the same mentality that leads responsible parents not to let little kids have pets – until a certain maturity level, children don’t really understand on a deep level that pets are living things, they’re not stuffed animals that you can just put away when you’re tired of them. If you get a puppy, sure it’s fun to play with, but you can’t magically wish away the puppy when it wants to be fed or needs a walk, and you can’t be angry at the puppy because it’s whining for attention when you’d rather be watching TV.
Grownups are supposed to have the intellectual and emotional maturity to be a little past that developmental stage, yeah?
Wait, this episode? Yes it did!
Holly: So, basically, what they want out of women is… sexbots? Huh.
Ozy – I don’t know. Can you imagine how these guys would react if their sexbots broke down, or needed maintenance, or cost money? I’m thinking rage.
Personally, I’m starting to get convinced it would be best to have a boyfriend and a sexbot. I mean, I currently have a boyfriend and sex toys, and that works out nicely both when we’re together and when we’re apart. I think we could work a sexbot into our sex life in a lot of interesting ways.
…Then turn it off and go be goddamn people together, just like we do when we’re done with the other sex toys.
Women working is misandry! Women not working is misandry! Housework not doing itself is misandry! CHILDREN NOT RAISING THEMSELVES FOR FREE IS MISANDRY!!
These guys must be exhausted, like, 24/7. It takes a lot of energy to live life in ALL CAPS.
@ozy: but sexbots don’t clean your house, your friends don’t envy you when they see you in public with your sexbot, a sexbot won’t raise your kids for you…
I was watching a documentary the other day called “Harvest of Shame,” about U.S. migrant farmworkers in the 1960s. Turns out some of these laborers were (gasp) women! And children! In fact, now that I think of it, many of my female ancestors had jobs. My mom’s mom’s mom worked as a cook after leaving an abusive relationship. My dad’s mom’s mom was a teacher her entire life (even after having children — her lawyer husband didn’t make much money during the Depression). Now, diner cook and migrant farmworker aren’t “careers,” maybe, but they’re better than nothing when you don’t have any other way of making money. Hey, MRAs — maybe allowing women education and training so they can have careers (since they seem to have to anyway) makes sense? Unless your primary goal is making sure that the women in your life are completely dependent on you for some reason…
@Bee: they don’t really want that, either, because if the woman is dependent on him then he’s responsible for her, which of course makes her a golddigging leech who should get a job blah blah blah.
You cannot reason someone out of a position they hold because WAAAAH MY PENIS.
Mythago@9.29:
Yes, that’s really the point. Nothing women do will be right by the standards these guys hold up. If women work, we’re stealing thur jerbs, if we stay home and run a family full-time, we’re parasites, if we do both, they’ll be expected to help out and that’s out of the question.
They’ll hate women no matter what we choose to do, or in what combination. The point is that men like this hate women, so they’ll squawk no matter what choices we make.
As far as I can see the only way to deal with it is for couples to formulate a plan for the kind of lifestyle they want and ignore these idiots who are trying to tell them that they’re wrong. If it works for you then obviously you’re doing it right.
They reason is so they can either abuse or belittle her knowing that she has no means of escaping because she’s fully dependent on them for everything.
“3. The increase in the labor pool drives down wages (supply & demand).”
No, no, no! What is it with conservatives on the internet and pulling bullshit about economics out of their asses? Yes, increasing the size of the labor force increases the supply of labor, but it also increases the demand for labor by (basically) the same amount, because those extra workers tend to spend all those extra wages. You might find this instructive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
Ever wonder why the unemployment rate is always 4-10%-ish? There are reasons for that! Just because you use the phrase supply & demand doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about! Take note!
Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.
Well yes, but I suppose my point was more like, even assuming that the set of MRAs who complain about golddiggers and the set of MRAs who complain about women having jobs are two completely unconnected groups, with absolutely no overlap, the fact remains that women have always had to have jobs. Pretending that women needing occupations is only some weird rarity that middle-class feminist parents dreamed up in the 1970s and ’80s is just bizarre.
I do agree that it all comes down to hatred of women at bottom, though. It’s as though they think their lives would be perfect if it weren’t for those meddling women.
See…this is the reason I can’t call myself an MRA. I would think that pushing more women out of the home and into corporate life would actually free men from archaic obligations.
MRA’s are in an interesting position to help end the whole notion of “stay at home mother” but they continue to hold onto ideals that will never come to be. We aren’t going back to 1950’s no matter how many of them want to relive that decade.
I think as long as people are insisting on reliving things about the past, we can come to a compromise here. For instance, we could relive those bras that make people’s breasts all conical! That would be cool.
Brandon: You’re right. Stay-at-home mom is outdated. Really, all genders should have the option to be stay-at-home parents.
Ah…the Lump of Labour Fallacy…
@Ozy: I actually mean killing off stay at home parenting all together (or at least make it even more difficult than it is now). No person should have to support another adult financially. You are an adult…take care of yourself. This is the 21st century not the 1800s.
Hmm… no I prefer the conical bra idea!
Brandon – I think people should be able to agree that one parent supports the other while they raise the kids, if that’s the arrangement they both want to make.
But I also think we need a lot more affordable childcare to enable people to get out of the house, when the family can’t afford for one parent to stay at home.
Except taking care of kids is pretty difficult and time-consuming, and someone’s got to do it. Yeah, nannies exist, but nannies can’t breast-feed.
@Holly: I actually think stay at home parenting will become even more impractical as time goes on. With higher rates of single mothers, lower marriage rates, etc… Most people today can’t afford to have one person stay at home. I give it another 10-20 years and it will be mostly non-existent.
One should have their finances in order prior to having children. If you can’t take care of them properly, you shouldn’t be having them. And there are enough birth control methods to prevent ANY unwarranted children from being born.
@Voip: There is a difference between maternity leave and being a stay at home mother. There are already laws on the books allow women to take time off for newborns.
Fun story about childcare in the US right now–I knew a woman who had a baby boy and did the math on what it would cost to have babysitters and daycare versus what she would gain by working. She ultimately decided to work because she didn’t want a gap in her career, but it worked out that the money was about equal either way. With him in childcare and her working, her net was very close to $0, and they lived entirely on her husband’s salary.
(Oh, and guess what she did for a living? She was a doctor. Granted she was only a resident when she was doing this math, but still.)
So you can have a situation where the woman works and still needs the man’s contribution to pay the bills. Kids are just that expensive.
(Then again, you could also do the math the other way, and say that the husband’s pay went entirely to support the kid while the wife paid the bills.)
No person should have to support another adult financially. You are an adult…take care of yourself.
Even beyond the idea that stay-at-home parents in a mutually agreed-upon arrangement aren’t “taking care of themselves,” apparently in the Brandonverse, people too elderly, sick, or disabled to work do not exist.
Well, of course, some families can afford to have one parent stay home and raise the kids/homemake, and more than that actually see value in having a parent care for the children. The whole idea behind stay at home parenting, in fact, is “You are an adult … take care of your children.” Holly’s idea of more affordable childcare as a way to help out working parents who aren’t making as much money is awesome, but it doesn’t make sense to close out taking care of one’s own children as an option for parents who make that a priority.
Just out of curiosity, though, how are you planning to make stay at home parenting more difficult? I know we go through this every single time you grace us with your presence, but tell us again, Brandon: Why do you think your ideas of what is right and good for you personally should be imposed on everyone?
@Polliwog: Let me rephrase than: “Any adult able to work…should be working”.
I don’t expect children, the elderly or severely disabled people, to be out working.
I think that staying home with a child is taking care of them properly.
Having enough money for full-time childcare isn’t just “finances in order,” it’s rich. That’s an unrealistic expectation for most of the population at any point in their lives.
And it’s unnecessary. If a couple is paying their bills with their own earnings and the child is cared for, it’s awful snooty of you to say they weren’t ready to have a kid just because one of the parents isn’t able to work while the kid’s small.
Maybe rather than the poor not breeding, the rich should stop exploiting the labor of the poor and putting them in dire economic straits.
Also, unemployment is a feature of capitalism, not a bug, but I will spare a longer Marxist lecture on that unless someone really wants it.
@Bee: Basically, the costs of living are getting to the point that one person is not able to earn enough money to support an entire family. Two incomes are needed.
People won’t even have the option of allowing one person to stay home because they will NEED the income as opposed to just deciding to earn less.
I just think concepts like stay at home parenting, marriage and a few others are working their way to being archaic and outdated.
Somehow I get the impression that Brandon’s belief that women should work is because it benefits him and relieves him of responsibilities, not because of his strong ethical views on women’s right to financial freedom and equality.
Feminism: good when if benefits men, evil when it doesn’t.
It’s like birth control and casual sex. Great because men have “sluts” they can sleep with, horrible because “sluts” aren’t marriage material.
Also when I say men, I only mean the type of men who are likely to be MRAs or any other garden variety sexist or misogynist.
Also, raising a child is working, and is very socially valuable work at that.
Brandon, usually the stay at home bit is to care for an infant child. I know you are all mr independent and all and everyone should look after themselves, but that’s a bit hard for an infant child to do….
@DSC: Ya, and you can take the opposite position of “poor people should increase their skills so they are less expendable than a burger flipper at MickyD’s”.
There will always be unemployment regardless of the economic system a society uses.
Brandon – Do you get that some families have one person (usually the mother, not just out of tradition but also because women earn less*) stay home with the kids not because they’re so rich they can afford it, but because they’re so poor they can’t afford childcare? Full-time childcare can cost considerably more than the mother’s wages, so having her stay home is actually the economical choice.
And don’t say “then they shouldn’t have had kids,” because they’re paying their bills. The fact that it’s a burden on the father is, well, part of him being a father. Parents are burdened by their children and that’s okay.
*Which is a vicious cycle, because women earn less in large part because they leave work to care for children (or employers are afraid they will).
@Quakers: Why do you have the belief that men should financially support women in the scenario you created?
Sluts aren’t marriage material. But that is besides the point.
Brandon, you’re unlike many MRAs in that you don’t want to reinforce 1950s gender roles, but you’re exactly like them in that you think your ideas for child-rearing should apply to everyone.
There’s a lot of different ways to divvy up the duties involved in raising children, but it unavoidably takes time. If you have the money for full-time help and that’s what works for you, great. If your family works better with one person staying at home, great. Or you could do what my parents did, which is both work, and both give up career opportunities that would rob them of time with their kids.
Or I guess you could do what Ashley Pariseau described above,
which almost perfectly defines my mom’s first marriage. But if you do, it’s not exactly two people putting equal effort into supporting themselves, is it?
Someone has to work at MickyD’s. Someone’s gotta clean toilets. Someone’s gotta mash potatoes and someone’s gotta wipe windows.
Our society needs these jobs done, so we ought to make life livable for the people who do them. If all the poor people self-improved their way out of McDonald’s (not possible anyway as there aren’t enough better-paying job openings in existence), we wouldn’t have any hamburgers.
Our current economic system of “we will always have hamburger cooks–we need hamburger cooks–but we won’t pay the hamburger cooks a living wage” simply isn’t sustainable.
Really? I’ll have to let my sister know this. She supports her family, while her husband stays home. How long do you think she has? Do you think your answer would change if you knew that their house is almost paid off and they have no other debt?
Or, you know, they’ll look at the costs of having someone else care for their children and realize that the extra income realized in a second job just isn’t available for them. Or they’ll be financially comfortable regardless of your pearl clutching. Or they’ll be single parents, unemployed, underemployed, undereducated, disabled, self-employed, or any number of circumstances that you haven’t considered.
Hmm, well, as long as you just think so, without any kind of evidence to back it up. You do know that some people prioritize spending time with their children and will make sacrifices to make sure that happens, and some have no choice but to stay home with their kids, right?
Let me rephrase than: “Any adult able to work…should be working”.
Because rearing children is not “work”. That’s why teachers and childcare workers get such shitty pay. They’re not really working at all!
More seriously, Brandon reveals his extremely limited understanding of economics. The issue isn’t simply ‘how many incomes are needed to pay the bills’ – there are opportunity costs, the intangible benefit of a stay-at-home parent to the working parent’s ability to earn income, and long- vs. short-term costs to be factored in.
He also conveniently forgets that only in the last few decades have women had the legal right and, more recently, de facto right to the same workplace opportunities as men.
But you know, that’s Brandon.
@DSC: I never said stay at home parents didn’t work.
@Jill: That is why we have maternity leave. There is a difference between taking a short period of time off from your current job and never returning back to your employer.
@Holly: And why should I subsidize her? I am only obligated to care for the child if I was the father.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to marry a sexually enthusiastic woman who is a lot more likely than other women to agree to an open marriage. But that is beside the point.
The real point is that since lots of men are happily married to sluts, we are marriage material whether you say so or not.
Not even then, apparently. You want your wife to pay for childcare and pay for herself. You want her to be, in essence, a single mother who lives in your house.
Brandon: I’m glad you amended that.
That said, you still seem to be confusing “what’s best for everyone” with “what I, personally, want.” It’s totally fine if you don’t want to be a stay-at-home parent or be in a relationship with one – but you seem to be extrapolating from “I would not be happy in this arrangement” to “this arrangement should not exist.” I know people who love being SAH parents or having their spouse/partner be a SAH parent. Why shouldn’t they do this if everyone involved is happy?
Example from real life: my friends J. and L. had their first child a few years back. At the time, J. had a job he hated, with mediocre pay. L. had recently been promoted to a job she loved with terrific pay. After some thought, they realized that L.’s job alone would easily cover all their bills, and so they mutually agreed that J. would quit his job and be a SAH dad for the first year or two of their son’s life. Everyone involved loved this. L. was happy, because she loved her job and loved knowing that her son was safe in the care of someone she obviously knew and trusted. J. was happy, because he was able to spend tons of quality time with his baby and work on projects more interesting to him in his spare time. Their baby was happy, because he got constant parental love and attention. What exactly would have been accomplished by “killing” stay-at-home parenting? The baby would have ended up in a daycare, and J. would have stayed in his shitty, going-nowhere job, which would have made no one happy – and which would, incidentally, very possibly have left them with less money, since child care costs in their area tend to be about the same as or more than J.’s yearly salary at the time. Why exactly would that be preferable to what actually happened?
Nice try but no I don’t. Its just cute that you think anyone here is buying that you actually care about equality when all it is you benefiting from having a wife or girlfriend that works. Its not about equality or women’s rights, as demonstrated by your second sentence. If a woman can work like a man, then she can fuck like a man too without it harming her reputation. If you truly believed in equality and were against double standards, you wouldn’t think sluts weren’t marriage material. Or you would apply that same standard to male “sluts”. If you do, at least you’re being fair despite the problematic issue with the word slut. Being the troll that you are though, I doubt you hold men to that same standard.
And why should I subsidize her?
Subsidize who? Your wife, who is incurring opportunity costs in order to invest labor in your child, thereby freeing you up to spend more time improving your career prospects and income rather than spending that time on childrearing?
If you don’t understand that labor and time have monetary value, then you really don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
So, Brandon, you would financially support Ashley if she had your baby and was on maternity leave?
Are you whining about the miniscule, absolutely fucking tiny portion of your taxes that goes toward things like WIC and Head Start, Brandon? Oh dear.
I want to take the opportunity to point out that early childhood intervention such as health services and educational opportunities for lower income kids benefits society at large. I’m hoping I don’t have to explain this concept to anyone.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to marry a sexually enthusiastic woman who is a lot more likely than other women to agree to an open marriage.
Because they want to bitch about how they’re not getting any sex.
Like my friend at work said, “Hell, my mother had eleven children. We don’t even consider a woman a mother until she’s on her third.”
It’s not a thread until Magdelyn says something that makes no sense!
“Hell, my donkey had eleven bananas. We don’t even consider a donkey a goldfish until it’s on its third.”
@Viscaria: I don’t think I have to force people to take my position on child-rearing. I think the reality of life is doing it. Most people need two incomes to support a household, so both the man and woman need to work.
@Holly: Nobody HAS to work at MickyD’s nor does McD’s even need to exist. Also jobs at Mcdonalds aren’t exactly meant to “sustain” you. They are meant for teenagers to get some job training and move on.
@Bee: That’s nice your sister can do that. My uncle also has his wife stay at home to look after their 4 kids. But that is because he is VP of an insurance company. Most people don’t have the “luxury” of being a stay at home parent.
Plus, didn’t a prominent feminist once refer to homemaker as being in a comfortable concentration camp? I would think it would be in feminists interests to snuff that concept out.
@Mythago: Well, I have male friends that basically refuse to let their wives/girlfriends quit working. Why? Because it is more beneficial for her to remain in the job market long term even though the short term is more expensive.
One should have their finances in order prior to having children. If you can’t take care of them properly, you shouldn’t be having them. And there are enough birth control methods to prevent ANY unwarranted children from being born.
You know, I’ve heard this refrain quite a bit on the internet, and it always comes from guys who are young, priviliged, and childless. So I’m going to clue you in on a little secret, Brandon: until you have kids of your own, you will not have the slightest idea have all consuming, difficult, and expensive it is, even for those who supposedly have their finances “in order.”
I realize of course, that this won’t stop you from speaking with authority on the subject, but know that doing so will make you sound like even more of an ignorant, shallow, privileged jerk-off than normal.