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.
…child support isn’t something the kid wants, it’s something they need and are owed.
And to just say “any parent who refuses to pay child support shouldn’t be held responsible because kids shouldn’t rely on their parents for support anyway” is deeply unfeeling, for starters.
Brandon sounds a lot like an ex of mine who would tell me not to do anti-rape activism because it would make me sad to learn about terrible stories of assault. Um, yes, your point about how I can in this moment make myself less miserable (don’t read about rape, or in the case we’re discussing, don’t emotionally rely on an unreliable parent) is logically valid, but it’s actually not the most effective or appropriate way to deal with the situation as a whole.
If I stop reading about rape and talking about consent, the problems don’t go away. And if a child stops relying on hir parents for financial support, the child’s financial difficulties don’t go away.
Did you get part where I said that telling someone how they should or should not feel is an asshole thing to do, especially when you have no idea of they’re circumstances? Because that part was really, really important.
@Shora: At the end of this you have two things: An unreliable parent and your own thoughts and feelings about that parent. Regardless of if you put faith in that parent or don’t that doesn’t change the fact that the parent is unreliable.
Putting trust and faith into a parent doesn’t automatically make them trustworthy and responsible. My point was about not causing your own emotional trauma.
Yes, children need to be supported. But putting faith in a shitty parent doesn’t make them a good parent. It is realistic to not depend on people that are not dependable.
Lastly, I am not telling you to do anything. I am just pointing out that I personally think it is foolish to depend on undependable people.
@Holly: Need…yes. Owed….that’s stretching it.
An inspirational message to the children of the world: if your parent(s) cannot be relied upon, your need for support -be it financial or emotional- will not diminish in any tangible way. Sucks to be you. It is, therefore, in your best interest, to internalize a position of non-reliance. That way, you’ll be realistic. Possibly hungry and/or without other essential needs being met (you’re a kid, you’re owed nothing) but you won’t be unrealistic. And that’s, after all, what’s really important.
At least we know that Brandon would totally have bootstrapped it and supported himself as a 10 year old if his parents had been unreliable! What a fine example he provides for those foolish children who have no choice but to turn to adults for financial support. They’re doing it wrong!
If Newt Gingrich gets his way, maybe Brandon’s child can work in a factory from age 6 on and then zie can go buy hir OWN birthday cake. Problem solved! Brandon’s off the hook because the little tyke will buy hir own school supplies too.
Looking at someone who had an irresponsible parent that negatively impacted their childhood experiences and going “Well, what did you expect? You’re foolish for making yourself miserable.” Displays and absolutely stunning and mind blowing lack of empathy.
Shora – it would be an absolutely stunning and mindblowing lack of empathy in almost anyone but Brandon.
But since it’s Brandon, it’s more a typical and predictable lack of empathy.
While celebrating it in himself (let’s all remember that one of his “dealbreakers” is a woman who cares whether or not he sleeps around), BECAAAAUUUUSE:
Brandon, maybe you have a problem with reading comprehension. It wasn’t up to me. Look at what Lauralot said:
This is like the third time we told you this, is it possible that you are not very bright?
Not according to the State of New Mexico (who set the child support) and the US Government (who administered my Pell Grant). ^_^
Yes, that would be great if children had the ability to think along those lines. You’re trying to ascribe adult motivations/thoughts to children and you wonder why we think you’re full of shit.
Or just not that bright.
Brandon, if my kids decided that they could no longer depend on me, what do you suggest they do? You know, what with them being eight and six and having barely any knowledge of the world outside their front door, their school and a small selection of friends and relatives?
I know you have a congenital inability to empathize, but try.
That is largely a myth based on misrepresented statistics. Suffice it to say, boys raised by a father and a stepmother are more likely to engage in substance abuse than boys raised by a mother and a stepfather, and boys raised by single fathers have the highest likelihood of using drugs. (Source)
And by the way — this is not to make any claim that would be the mirror image of your ridiculous bullshit. These situations are complicated, and the rates of drug abuse and suicide have more to do with the circumstances which explain a parent’s absence than with the absence itself.
So: fathers are there for guidance and discipline. What are mothers for? Laundry, cooking and menial errands? How predictable.
According to Brandon, they don’t work at all.
I know everyone except Brandon gets this, but I’m going to lay it out in simplified math.
Let’s say Brandon makes $2000/month and Ashley makes $1000/month. They have a kid. The kid’s diapers and food and such cost $400/month.
This does not mean that Brandon’s responsibility is $200/month!
That’s completely forgetting the cost of care. You’d have to spend (simple math here, not real estimates) $900/month on daycare and $200/month on a babysitter because the daycare doesn’t have the same hours as your work. At which point that’s more than Ashley’s salary so she stays home.
That–both the loss of salary and the work she’s putting in–means that Ashley is not paying $250/month to take care of the kid. She’s paying $1250!
So unless you’re spending $1000 on Ashley every month, I suggest you get those pens with a smile on your face.
Fuck, I changed the math and didn’t carry it through.
Read: “Ashley is not paying $200/month to take care of the kid. She’s paying $1200!”
But remember, Ashley would not be “allowed” to quit working, and Brandon wouldn’t choose to be a stay-at-home-dad, so let’s hope that Brandon puts in equal time caring for the kid, carting him to appointments, daycare, school, helping with homework, etc.!
I fear this might be one of his many dealbreakers.
Well, if Ashley doesn’t quit working, Brandon:
-Still needs to be paying an amount proportionate to their incomes, not 50%.
-Needs to not be a jerk about being flexible and compromising on occasion when things just do not work out to the exact prescribed percentage.
-Needs to not say “You left work early to take the kid to the pediatrician, then bought dinner, cooked it, changed the kid, cleaned the kid’s room, and put the kid to bed. I provided warm fatherly guidance. I contributed 50%!” Because I can see that coming a mile off.
Although, really, given how often Brandon claims to say “well if you don’t like it you can just break up with me,” he’s going to eventually get everyone to say “well fine then.”
Except for really, really meek people, preferably ones with a history of emotional abuse, whom he can walk all over and then say “it’s not my fault because if she didn’t like it she should have broken up with me.”
Ding ding ding ding ding! Like my mom! Brandon is like a baby version of my dad, without the education, intelligence, or (as far as I can tell) out of control bipolar disorder.
It took a near-death experience to get my dad to shape the fuck up. Now, I’m not saying anything about Brandon, but if there are any bears in the area who are looking for employment…
@Amused: Really? You are pointing to NOW as a source of unbiased statistics? Let me just go to the KKK website and pull a “study” proving the KKK don’t actually hate blacks, asians and hispanics.
Also, I said nothing of laundry, cooking or menial tasks. Don’t put words in my mouth.
@Comrade: Women don’t have a right to be a stay at home mother. If I don’t want to support her at home, then she stays working or she goes and finds a man that will. Pretty damn simple if you ask me.
@Holly: Are you implying that Ashley is meek? Because if you knew her, you would know how funny that statement is.
“Women don’t have a right to be a stay at home mother.”
Not controlling at all!
@Amused: Really? You are pointing to NOW as a source of unbiased statistics? Let me just go to the KKK website and pull a “study” proving the KKK don’t actually hate blacks, asians and hispanics.
And let’s just conflate NOW and the KKK and then claim to be a voice of reason…
Brandon – Given how many times you’ve said “well, if she doesn’t like it she should just break up with me” about how many things, Ashley is either meek or perfect. I don’t put my money on perfect.
@Laura: So you are saying women in general have a right to force a man to support them so they can stay at home?
@Holly: Ashley is perfect for me. I consider myself very lucky that I met a woman like her. She truly is one in a million.
@Holly: Ashley is perfect for me. I consider myself very lucky that I met a woman like her. She truly is one in a million.
I WAS ashnostic, but now I think I’m an unbeliever…
@Zhinxy: Actually in that instance, I compared not conflated.
Not women in general. Women who are contributing thousands of dollars worth of work (and that’s not theoretical work, that’s what you would actually pay if she didn’t) to the care of your child.
Awww. I guess there is possibility 3, which is that you’re actually much more flexible with her but are doing some “I don’t let no woman give me no guff!” posturing to impress us with what a shit-not-taking hardass you totally are.
@Zhinxy: Actually in that instance, I compared not conflated.
You did, and that is the perfect brandon response to me getting the word not quite right.
Yes, and we also have the right to lay our eggsacs directly into his fleshy belly. Women are the worst!
@Holly: Ashley is perfect for me. I consider myself very lucky that I met a woman like her. She truly is one in a million.
@Holly: My feelings about Ashley don’t get communicated here often because they are often irrelevant to the topic being discussed. But just because I don’t ramble on and on about how much I care about Ashley, that doesn’t mean I don’t care about her.
Maybe when she gets home from work everyday she asks him if he’s been good, and then he says that no, he’s been very naughty, and then she asks how he’s been naughty and he responds like he acted like a dumb misogynist, and then she makes him show her all the stupid things he says online and apologize while she spanks him. It’s the most likely theory, really.
@Bagelsan: She knows I post here.
What he’s saying is that there are like 7,000 Ashleys in the world. ;D
@Brandon: yes, her knowledge was part of my described scenario, in fact. :D
That’s nice, but are you getting the part where childcare (including the care that takes place after the kid is home from daycare) is an item with a value in the thousands of dollars per month?
If a mother chooses to work, she has to purchase (a share of) this item. It may be out of her price range. Thus someone can be not too poor to stay home, but too poor to not stay home.
If a mother gifts you this item for your child, she has given you something of cold hard cash value.
@Bagelsan: That just means there are about 100 million of you in the world.
Brandon:
Indeed you didn’t. What you actually said was:
1. that stay-at-home moms don’t work at all;
2. that parenting is easy.
I know you don’t believe in providing supporting evidence, but others are welcome to check my links.
Don’t worry, Brandon, I understand you. You are a man of strong conviction, you know exactly what you want and by golly you’re gonna get it. If women don’t like it, they can giiit out. Brandon plays by his own rules, where Brandon always comes out on top! I think I have a little anthem tucked away that suits you perfectly. :)
@Holly: So what part of that gives her the right to force another human being to do something they don’t want to do.
But talking about how much Ashley likes being called a slut in bed is completely relevant to a discussion about the term “slut” being used as shaming language in the public sphere.
Tomato, tomahto.
Also, couples never make the decision for one person to work at home as primary caretaker to children after thoughtful consideration and discussion. Men are “forced” to work outside home by free-loading women.
Men who are stay-at-home dads do not factor into this because there aren’t any of them. I mean, there might be a few but their friends all laugh at them. I mean, Brandon doesn’t want to be a stay-at-home father so it doesn’t count.
@Brandon: the part where she lays the eggsac in you! Weren’t you listening?
@Bagelsan: That just means there are about 100 million of you in the world.
OOOH! And all of them making comments???? If fucking ONLY!
@Brandon:
“@Holly: My feelings about Ashley don’t get communicated here often because they are often irrelevant to the topic being discussed.”
What I don’t understand is why you bring her up at all.
Brandon – So what part of that gives her the right to force another human being to do something they don’t want to do.
The part where it’s your kid, and if the mother doesn’t want to care for it, you’re on the hook for (at least) half of the cost of childcare. And good luck telling a nanny or daycare center “you can’t force me to pay you! I’m a human being!” They want large and specific amounts of cash up front for their childcare work.
Or you could always stay home with the kid. But then your balls might drop off.
You will notice, that paper provides citations to actual studies — none of them carried out by NOW.
What is YOUR source of “unbiased statistics”? ‘Cause you know, “Brandon says so” doesn’t qualify.
You didn’t say it, but it’s implied. If fathers are necessary for guidance and discipline, what are mothers for?
I believe she likes it up against the wall too.
Once a woman lays her eggsac in the guts of a man, he is then forced to work mindlessly to support her parasitic ways until her young burst out of his chest cavity. This is like basic knowledge, here.
And after, he’s supposed to sew up the wound, get working, and pay her a bank.
@Wetherby:
1) Can you point to a line in that post you linked to that says “Housework isn’t work”
2) That doesn’t say that parenting is easy. It says that parenting is relative to other jobs. Parenting is certainly more difficult than being a cashier at 7-11 but less difficult than being a brain surgeon. Just because I think being a stay at home parent isn’t “the most difficult job in the world” that doesn’t mean believe the complete opposite and that it isn’t work at all. You might want to try and see the grey areas of life and not think in such black and white terms.
Well, obviously some of me are busy falsely accusing Brandon of rape, and putting flouride in NWO’s water. I’m a multitasker.
Eventually, Brandon’s posts will be responded to only with videos.
“I believe she likes it up against the wall too.”
And not only that, but DIFFERENT SPEEDS!
P.S. this is my favorite song dealing with a blow-up doll.
I don’t think anyone here particularly cares how you feel about Ashley, except that you invariably contradict yourself when you talk about her. Or, it would be more accurate to say, whatever you may claim, you come across as a person who can never have any feelings for another human being (other than resentment, competitiveness and mistrust). The only person you have positive feelings for is Brandon.
Videos with beats.
Bears. Not beats. Bears.
@Amused: my mother provided a warm and loving home to grow up in. Unfortunately she didn’t understand how to raise a boy into a man. I needed my father for that.
What happens if a boy isn’t raised into a man?
Do they grow up without a gender? Or do they turn into, like, a bear?
Also, does raising a boy into a man consist entirely of things like playing catch, taking him fishing, having maybe once a month heart-to-hearts about girls, and then letting the mom cook dinner and wash dishes every night?
@Holly: Your ignorance is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.
“warm and loving home” = laundry and butler service. So my characterization was correct.
Incidentally, which one of your parents raised you to be a paranoid, selfish, loveless, videotaping-women-without-consent asshole? You call that being a man? Heh.
Also, what are your views on the upbringing of girls? If mothers aren’t necessary for raising boys (except for that whole laundry and cleaning stuff), is it fair to say that fathers aren’t necessary for the raising of girls (since they don’t know what women face or what it’s like to be women)?
Brandon, do you actually understand sarcasm? I mean, seriously?
No, they turn into “manginas” who don’t videotape women having sex with them without those women’s consent. Losers.
Bingo. Mom is just a servant, dad is the “fun” parent, who teaches you facts of life — like that girls are only good for recreational fucking, videotaping them without consent, and having them wait on you.
@Amused: Actually I have been doing my own laundry since I was 12.
I think fathers can raise daughters but other women need to be used to help guide the daughter when it comes to “female-specific” topics. A father can’t provide everything to his daughter, but he can try and realize where he needs help.
Women don’t have a right to be a stay at home mother. If I don’t want to support her at home, then she stays working or she goes and finds a man that will. Pretty damn simple if you ask me.
Um, I said that if you were going to have an equitable household either one of you COULD stay home OR you could share child-rearing equally. So YOU could be a stay at home dad if you wanted OR you could split the time of childcare equally and pool financial resources to support the kid (in this hypothetical case).
I never would suggest that anyone has to support their partner as a stay-at-home-parent. I do think that partners need to decide TOGETHER how they will accommodate the demands of a child. And you’re pretty clearly the kind of person who would leave most childcare to your partner while also, apparently, expecting her to hold down a full-time job and pay her own way. As people have said, you would want your partner to basically be a single mom who lives in your house.
@Amused: Girls can’t be used for fucking? When did this happen?
Also, my mother a servant?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If you only knew her. She is the epitome of a “feminist”. Of all the things to label my mother…servant isn’t one of them.
Brandon:
With pleasure.
“Lastly, I think marriage is a way for both parties to exploit each other. Men get a stay at home servant and the woman gets money and resources without working (in a typical breadwinner/stay at home scenario).”
The words “without working”, and the inference that this situation is “typical” is everything I need to support the claim that you don’t believe that housework constitutes work.
Your exact words were “I don’t see “woman’s work” and “man’s work”. I see “easy work” and “hard work”. A female attorney is doing a hard job that requires years of expertise. Any idiot can become a parent.”
I think “parenting is easy” is an entirely reasonable condensation of that.
But do you see what I did? By providing supporting evidence, I offered you the opportunity to see what you’d written earlier and gave you the option of revising or clarifying your position. But by refusing to provide evidence to back up your claim that Lauralot is a man-hater, she is unable to do this because it’s near-impossible to prove a negative.
So can you prove it? Or are you going to finally apologize to her for telling such a blatant lie?