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.
“when one considers the habit of gay-male “cruising” and the enormous risks associated with this (Can you spell AIDS)”
And he once again has no idea that there are such thing as CONDOMS.
DKM, how come “Promiscuous men don’t disrupt society the way promiscous women can and do!” Ever heard of Julien Assange(sp)? Herman Cain? Bill Clinton?
Zhinxy, I hope you don’t think I’m being mean, but it’s kind of confusing when you quote other peoples’ comments without marking them off with blockquotes, italics, or quotation marks.
Wait, but I thought
Promiscuous men don’t disrupt society the way promiscous women can and do!
OH NO I HAVE BECOME WHAT I MOST DESPISE
@zhinxy, re the song – See, THAT is a good man. Shame we can’t have more like him and less like Meller around.
“Shame we can’t have more like him and less like Meller around.”
I think Meller is pretty… unique, and showing himself to be moreso with every convo he has on here with us! o.o
I wonder if Meller really doesn’t know that straight people can contract and transmit HIV as well.
Zhinxi—December 3, 2011 @ 4:52 pm–
They keep raising the issue of “where would the poor be in a libertarian society?” I didn’t! I happened to mention one way that women from modest means could safely and humanely advance for themselves and their children, and some non libertarian people get all pissy on us! I am the first to agree with you that poverty will be much rarer, and much less permanent in a laissez-faire society.
Ask THEM where they get their economic ideas, especially regarding upward mobility in laissez faire from? I have NO idea!!
“I happened to mention one way that women from modest means could safely and humanely advance for themselves and their children, and some non libertarian people get all pissy on us!”
You didn’t say “Every woman under a certain income bracket will be able to work in a House of Entertainment”. You said every woman who has MORE THAN ONE SEX PARTNER would have to!
Nothing says ‘libertarian” like an agency whose only purpose is to round people up and send them to places…I dunno, let’s call them camps…where they can be confined in large groups; concentrations, if you will.
Silly VoiP, gay men aren’t “men”! They’re aliens or perverts or fake women something!
They keep raising the issue of “where would the poor be in a libertarian society?” I didn’t!
”
Uh-huh, so instead of saying that there would be less income disparity in true-laissez faire, you just accept the view of your supposed adversaries that there WILL be poor people, and offer as a solution brothels. Very, very detailed brothels. Okay then. So, if this is the case, may I offer the option of just explaining that you think there will be less income disparity and a variety of economic options in a libertarian society, not going right to accepting there will be poor people and brothels, brothels, brothels? I mean, if that’s really the problem here.
@zhinxy, re the song – See, THAT is a good man. Shame we can’t have more like him and less like Meller around.
A-frickin-Men.
Molly Ren–Dec 3, 2011 @ 4:54 pm
Molly Ren–You seem to be a nice girl! You don’t want me to be sick all over my typewriter, do you? Men paid to entertain women sexually is a bit too disgusting for my taste!
I suppose that such Houses of Women’s entertainment could(??) exist, but not with my help!
One is trying to support and enhance female purity and virginity where possible, and diminish the bad effects of loose women where it is not! Paying random men to copulate with hypersexualized females may work for Hustler magazine (NOT that Larry Flynt hasn’t had his good moments elsewhere, but it is just a tad too “advanced” (or barbarous) for me! Sorry!
So “compulsively hypersexual” means “had sex with someone who I didn’t want her to”, right? And men are incapable of this because Meller doesn’t care who they have sex with, and doesn’t get a sexual kick out of controlling them.
For the billionth time, Meller – this compulsion you have to control women in sexual ways, it is a fetish. It’s OK to have fetishes, but it is not OK to try to impose them on other people without their consent.
Meller, I know you would rather people like me don’t exist, but you seem rather childish when you ignore me.
Why? You do know that women want sex, right?
One is trying to support and enhance female purity and virginity where possible, and diminish the bad effects of loose women where it is not! Paying random men to copulate with hypersexualized females may work for Hustler magazine (NOT that Larry Flynt hasn’t had his good moments elsewhere, but it is just a tad too “advanced” (or barbarous) for me! Sorry!”
Okay, except this is supposedly a free market. So you don’t have to do any of the paying, and other people can set up paid anything as long as it isn’t rights-violating. Or do you envision the literal “INVISIBLE (giant?) HAND” of YOU arranging society? Is this another doll thing?
What “bad effects”? You keep talking about them, but you never define or identify them.
“Molly Ren–You seem to be a nice girl! You don’t want me to be sick all over my typewriter, do you? Men paid to entertain women sexually is a bit too disgusting for my taste! ”
Hey, now you know how women feel when they read your comments. Most men, too.
Perhaps she’s just returning the favor, Mellertoad.
I find it funny that you’re going to clutch your pearls over this bit after laying out your whole disgusting scenario.
But she’s had more than one partner and doesn’t want to be forced into prostitution! She has more than one sex partner right now. I thought people like her were destroying civilization?
Voip December 3 2011 @5:07 pm
NO!! You–and your monogamous partner–wouldn’t be hired, interred, confined, or even invited (happy now?) into such Houses of Entertainment! NO COERCION WHATEVER! You could even boycott such establishments if you wanted to–although somebody would ask you what you had that was any better!
Sorry for all the caps, but this is the third or forth time I was asked, and answered, that same objection!
Except that you’ve earlier said you envisioned women’s families selling them to such houses.
Meller is an interesting sort of MRA who actually doesn’t deny that women aren’t equal in our society and actually wants to make them LESS equal and treat them LESS like they are thinking feeling human beings with their own wants, needs, and desires. He does so with a smile on his face and frowns a little and blinks in confusion when women are disgusted by him.
Huh. Hey, DKM, who are these promiscuous men being promiscuous with, exactly? And why is it not disruptive for straight men to cat around?
Seriously? Do I have this right? Straight women having sex DKM doesn’t approve of = disruptive. Gay men having sex = disruptive. Straight men having affairs and consorting with prostitutes = A-okay in Mellerland.
I hesitate to mention this but most of those sweet old-fashioned girls you wist about probably think monogamy applies to BOTH partners and would be very put out if their spouse was nipping around to the local for a bit of ‘entertainment’.
Women are human beings with actual feelings.
“NO COERCION WHATEVER!”
You still haven’t explained what would happen to non-monogamous women who don’t want to be “placed” in your Houses. Is it OK to coerce them? Because you’re going to have to, they’re not going to go willingly.
I didn’t ask you about my situation after you answered me. I’m asking about Molly and Shora. Both nice people, so far as I know, both subject to awful coercion under your ideal scenario.
! NO COERCION WHATEVER! You could even boycott such establishments if you wanted to–although somebody would ask you what you had that was any better! –
And if that turned out to be the “thousand flowers blooming” that libertarianism would provide, that’s what you’re envisioning, right? A vibrant, prosperous, free society where people can experiment socially with a million experimental forms? Where economic coercion is virtually nil because of abounding opportunity? And where “what do you have that is any better” is a nearly inexhaustible list, including being a SELF-EMPLOYED sex worker? That’s what you mean, right?
Do tell, Meller, how women are “encouraged,” not COERCED to go into brothels in your set-up.
I mean, I may be WRONG about my view that libertarianism will provide us liberation and unlimited opportunity, but I at least argue that, honestly. You don’t seem to think that libertarianism gives us much of anything besides the ability to establish some sort of odd paterfamilias system that isn’t even individual rights based.
Do tell, Meller, how women are “encouraged,” not COERCED to go into brothels in your set-up.
Exactly.
Zhinxy, “That’s a friend of a friend. A wonderful person :)”
Wow, small world! The documentary is called “Scarlet Road: A Sex Worker’s Journey”, but probably only available for viewing in Australia on the SBS website.
One of my very very bestest friends is an Australian Sex Worker’s Rights superheroine. :) I end up in the know about a lot of what goes on down under ;)
So, society “encourages” a woman who is “hypersexual” to go into the brothel, and she says no. What happens then?
Also, since Meller is clutching his pearls about the idea of brothels where men serve women, should we introduce him to the existence of host clubs? I’m guessing that it’s the “serving women” rather than the sex part that upsets him, so I’d assume he’d find host clubs horrifying too.
PS – Miss Amelia the Madame Alexander doll would like those pearls back when you’re finished with them, Meller.
Insert “but he already gave her a pearl necklace” joke here.
Where’s Holly? I think we need someone to provide an illustration.
VOIP – “Zhinxy, I hope you don’t think I’m being mean, but it’s kind of confusing when you quote other peoples’ comments without marking them off with blockquotes, italics, or quotation marks”
– No, you’re right. I seriously need to remember to do this. I just forget and then the comment posts and I’nm like, grarr! I EVEN ALMSOT FORGOT TO DO IT WHEN I QUOTED YOU!
*headdesk*
I think it’s cause I’m used to posting on message boards, and highlighting and then pressing a “quote” button to take care of the tags.
Improvement in Mellerland! now I can work in a theater! (why is that only for men, one can only wonder)
But the rule are still very different for men and women, so you know, that still sucks.
But what if I still want to be an engineer? That’s not rhetorical, that’s what I am studying for.
What if I have a boyfriend that I don’t want to marry? Am I disrupting society?
What about the most mainstream way of life nowadays; serial monogamy??? (I know, it has been asked before, but it really need to be repeated) People who only have one relationship/sexual partner/lover/… at a time but several of them over the course of their life are NOT hypersexualized people, not matter how wide you define that word.
Also in need to be repeated:
What happen to the women that refuse the rule of Mellertopia? You really need to think hard about that, because they will be legions.
I’m heading to a party and will have no ability to upload pix tonight. :(
I’ll try to remember to draw a David K. Meller Totally Consensual House of Sexual Slavery For Irredeemable Sluts tomorrow.
In my perfect world, all lonely men who fetishize dollies and fluffytoys, display tragically bad reading comprehension, misuse libertarian politics as a cover for their misogynistic views, look for creative ways to excuse abusive men’s behavior, and haunt MRA-mocking blog comment threads hoping to get a rise out of feminists would be ground into bird feed and fed to shrikes. It would be for the best, really, when you think about it, since these men are so pathetic, angry, and of no use to anyone in their current state. The shrikes would be nourished (if they didn’t get upset stomachs), the feminists would be freed of having to listen to such annoying drivel, and the families of these men (if they weren’t too embarrassed to come forward and admit their relation) could get some small consideration for selling their lonely, unhappy bone-bag uncles and brothers-in-law to the shrike-food factory. Really, it’s a win-win-win-win. I can’t think of any human who would be harmed or disapprove of my wonderful plan. Happy people in love (or lust — whatever) could even feed shrikes together, on dates at the park, and porcelain doll collections would go where they properly belong, to the care of young happy children (after being thoroughly disinfected; the fluffytoys, sadly, would have to be burned).
CassandraSays – “Also, since Meller is clutching his pearls about the idea of brothels where men serve women, should we introduce him to the existence of host clubs? I’m guessing that it’s the “serving women” rather than the sex part that upsets him, so I’d assume he’d find host clubs horrifying too.”
Filming Meller watching “Tales of an Osaka Love Thief” would be a fascinating documentary all it’s own, methinks!
Let me repeat that:
What about serial monogamous people?
What happen to the hyper-sexualized women that refuse the rules?
And that’s why we love you!
Don’t forget the kitty ears.
Also, doesn’t elaborate worldbuilding, in general, go against this whole “libertarian” thing? (Never even mind that this particular worldbuilding involves sex slaves.) The whole idea of letting the people decide how they want to live is that… they’re gonna up and decide. You don’t get to tell them.
It’s like saying “I want a libertarian society where everyone wears green all the time.” That’s just not how liberty works.
Holly – YEY!
Meller: Hellkell, I NEVER said, and would never want, women-at-large to work in brothels
Yes, you did. You said that in Mellibertopia, women who didn’t wait until they got married would be, “placed” in brothels to service the men (single and married) who needed a bit of fluff.
Meller: Why can’t a “sex worker” (as you somewhat degradingly call them) already have a husband? I don’t know, but wouldn’t a husband feel just a tad jealous about other man nibbling at HIS cupcake?
Depends on the man, the woman, and the rules they share. You don’t seem to care if he’s out tomcatting it up in the saloons and whorehouses, so women in Mellibertopia are (again) not possessed of real rights.
But me, I don’t figure my partner is my property. If she has other people she wants to spend time with (sexual, or other) that’s her affair; insomuch as it doesn’t harm me (funny… I seem to know of a political philosophy somethng like that… something about libertarianism… nah… I must be mistaken; because you tell me you are an examplar of that breed, and you are plainly for slavery).
And if we agree to have that set of rules, we agreed to it, and it’s none of your business.
Why can’t a “sex worker’ raise her own child? I don’t want to go into too many questions here of inappropriate female role models, or maternal neglect (women committing to their “careers” over and above the time and interests of their child (ren)–sound familiar?
Nope. How about the effects on the child(ren) of seeing women treated like chattel, and Daddy having no respect for half the human race?
One child to another—”what does YOUR Daddy do”? Other child replies “He spends his nights’ fucking sluts at the ‘Entertainment Center”…
FTFY
Do you think he’d literally clutch his…well, maybe not pearls. Jaunty little scarf? Or maybe he’d hug his dolls for comfort.
(Please note – I am aware of the various ethical and practical concerns associated with host/hostess clubs, and would not visit one myself. Still don’t want to see them banned. Better enforcement of the minimum age for working in one would be nice, though. I know of one musician who used to work in one starting when he was still in high school. That’s not cool.)
“Also, doesn’t elaborate worldbuilding, in general, go against this whole “libertarian” thing? (Never even mind that this particular worldbuilding involves sex slaves.) The whole idea of letting the people decide how they want to live is that… they’re gonna up and decide. You don’t get to tell them.
It’s like saying “I want a libertarian society where everyone wears green all the time.” That’s just not how liberty works.”
Yeah, this is actually often a problem for us in discussion – So, genius, tell me what a free market society would look like, if it’s not mad max crossed with the robber baron era? Um, well, people will do what they want, and that’ll be pretty awesome, but I can’t go into THAT MUCH detail, cause the whole point is people will do what they want? I have some theories though…l – Meller, on the other hand, both claims he can’t know, and yet is shockingly detailed… Uh. Huh.
Meller: Molly Ren–You seem to be a nice girl! You don’t want me to be sick all over my typewriter, do you? Men paid to entertain women sexually is a bit too disgusting for my taste!
I’m not a nice man. I don’t care if you puke on your keyboard, your dolls, your Irish Lace tablecloth. I am sure there are men who would like that job; just as I know there are women who would be willing to hire them.
Which would be good, no? Those women would have a safe outlet for their urges, and the men would have a place to earn a living, without their constant desires for sex distracting them from their day jobs.
I remain baffled as to how Meller thinks he’d be happy under libertarianism, given his emotional need to boss people around and interfere in their lives. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that under that system if he tried to give other people “guidance” their most likely response would be “who asked you? fuck off”.
True, but the essential feature of Mellerworld is that liberty’s only for the Mellers.
CassandraSays – “I remain baffled as to how Meller thinks he’d be happy under libertarianism, given his emotional need to boss people around and interfere in their lives. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that under that system if he tried to give other people “guidance” their most likely response would be “who asked you? fuck off”.”
Meller, I’ve asked you this too. Why do you WANT to be a libertarian?
I’m just going to start calling this philosophy Mellerism. I would say Gor-ism, but he gets huffy about that.
Considering that he thinks people like me are the scourge of society who should be locked away in brothels in order to minimize their effect on society… I’d say this is more of a reason TO use Gor-ism than to NOT.
Waaaaait a minute.
Let me parse the last thing DKM said to me.
“although somebody would ask you what you had that was any better!”
“although somebody would ask you what you had that was any better!”
Excuse me?
I thought I was acting out your ideal for womanhood. Now you are implying that forcing “sluts” into Houses of Entertainment, or having their families sell them there, isn’t just the only way to control their urges, it’s the best way for people to live.
Your entire schtick, your entire “sweet stay at home daughters in ruffles and lace marry the first man Daddy picks out for them” thing isn’t what you actually believe, it’s the cover.
Sexual slavery, in other words, is your plan A.
I think he meant, if you had anything better as a means of “placing” those evil slutty women who’ve had multiple sexual partners in a suitable situation, since of course we can’t let them decide what they want for themselves.
Sexual Slavery is his only plan.
Women, per Meller: are happiest when they are slaves to men.
Good women are happy fluffy slaves: They get praised and rewarded.
Poor women are unhappy slaves: They may be beaten, until they learn their place (or when needed to improve morale)
Bad women won’t put up with being slaves: letting them be free disrupts society. They need to be confined, and putting them in brothels forces them to admit their place.
Evil women won’t even put up with that, and insist women are people. Those are feminists and nothing is too good for them, so nothing is what he will give them, and they will die and happiness will return.
“Poor women are unhappy slaves: They may be beaten, until they learn their place (or when needed to improve morale)”
The beatings will continue until morale improves?
Waits for Meller to respond with “We won’t have to beat them! As long as they’re being sweet and fluffy…”
Cassandra: or, “We won’t beat them until they push our buttons, and then who knows what will happen!”
“I mean, of course I wouldn’t do it, but I wouldn’t blame your owner, I mean husband, if he did!!!”
Meller: Typewriter? Typewriter? Seriously? You really are trying to live in the past, aren’t you?
That really was not a big tabloid thing in the United Kingdom, the press was much more respectful in those days.
If it had not been for her, David might very well remained King and he was a Nazi sympathizer if not outright supporter. He also was just plain bad at being King.
Bertie, for all of his flaws as a man, was a better King. He also was not a Nazi sympathizer and stood firm against the German onslaught.
So if not for one of those “promiscuous” women, the second world war would have turned out very different.
He probably has a Victrola as well. It’s right over by the abacus.
Meller is what happens when steampunk goes horribly wrong.
He also doesn’t think condoms are common and think that gay men “cruise.”