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.
Brandon hates kids. He apparently never was one.
Brandon thinks there should be jobs that you can do full time and still starve, never mind feed your kids.
Brandon will never get sick or old or injured and have to rely on other people.
Brandon can go and step on a lego.
@Quackers
Oh, sorry.
Soggy careers – those that involve being outside when it’s raining. Gardeners, for example, or people who work on farms. Postal/UPS/FedEx workers who actually make deliveries.
Crunchy careers – Dentist? Or, to be less literal, anything hippie-ish, like working for the Sierra Club.
@theindigolemon
No prob :)
Deep sea diving? Surveying wetlands? Pool cleaning? Seal training? QC in a squirt gun factory?
The only crunchy career I can think of is operating a car crusher.
Crunchy – Working for a candy company that uses a lot of nuts in its products.
Soggy – swim coach.
Hey, classics is totally a crunchy career. It’s male-dominated, isn’t it?
Need more descriptions for careers – chewy, perhaps, or sticky :)
Ozy, poly families actually sound really practical and awesome to me. I would totally be part of a triad. If it were the right two people.
I know (though not well) a het married couple who spent a great deal of time trying to conceive, and when that proved impossible, a great deal of time trying to adopt. But of course, life goes on when you’re waiting for a baby, and the woman in the pair got a great job. Not too long later, maybe a couple of weeks, they get a phone call – an expectant biological mother chose their file. Less than a week after that, they took their gorgeous little boy home.
I suppose in Brandon world they should have just said “naaaaw, we don’t need your baby right now” because she wouldn’t have been working long enough to get maternal leave. I don’t think he was eligible for any sort of paternal leave (contract work I think – like I said, I don’t know them well) but in any case they had already decided that she was going to stay home with their baby, because that’s what worked for their family.
Sometimes the smushy stuff like affection and teamwork and the desire to hold your little baby are more important than the bare-bones financials of it all.
Anyway he’s just a beautiful little guy, and they’re very happy.
I think classics is more of a flaky career.
Can you imagine though? It would be like having a 4-day gestation period. “You’re going to be parents! Good luck gathering all the essentials! Oh, you just got a great job? Trololololol, life has other plans.”
What’s great about the soggy/crunchy lists people are trying to make is that they highlight a perfect example of how dumb the gender-role binary is insofar as it is completely incapable of coping with any “bit of column A, bit of column B” situation. What column does, say, a math teacher fit in? They’re doing math, which is CRUNCHY, but they’re teaching, which is SOGGY! What about someone who runs a museum (business/art!) or a neurolinguistics researcher (STEM/languages!) or the folks behind Pandora (programming/music!)? It’s almost like life is way too complicated (and interesting) to be divided up neatly into “things for guys” and “things for girls.”
And, obviously, that’s not getting into the total stupidity of assuming that certain fields are inherently more manly/girly in the first place, but even if we accepted the dumb, dumb premise that law is “crunchy” and PR is “soggy,” what does that make someone who does PR for a law firm? Croggy? Sunchy?
So, my revised list for the real world, instead of the silly one inside MRAs’ heads:
CROGGY:
Basically everything.
:)
And while, you know, to each their own, I have to say that in my opinion staying home with your child, working while your partner stays home with the child, and both partners working while the child is being watched by a caretaker (as well as just not having a child, of course) all can be fine choices. Choosing either the second or third (or having that be the outcome, regardless of actual unfettered choice) shouldn’t be dismissed as being substantially the same as being an aunt.
Acquaintances of mine have an arrangement where he works Mon-Wed, she works Wed-Fri, and on Wednesdays the littlies go to playgroup. They can manage this way because they run a business, which also means the kids can come to work with them, if necessary.
This is an excellent point, which I see that Brandon totally ignored.
But yes, you cannot possibly plan in advance for something like that, and in many ways it’s even harder to deal with if your seemingly physically perfect child turns out to have a mental impairment such as autism, because this often doesn’t reveal itself for some time – possibly not for years. And when that happens, your child may need specialist care (which is expensive), or they may inescapably need far greater attention from at least one of the parents – and there won’t be a damn thing you can do about it.
Which is why those of us who live in the real world, who’ve either had direct experience of these issues or know people who have, realize that Brandon’s prescriptive “one size should fit all” model is not just unworkable but fundamentally ridiculous.
Incidentally, I don’t feel the least bit oppressed by my wife having a proper career – especially not now that it’s paying real dividends.
I’ve wanted to be a full-time writer for as long as I can remember, but this isn’t exactly easy to arrange, especially not when you have to earn enough each month to cover the mortgage, food, bills and other associated costs (not least child-rearing expenses).
So my wife and I planned a long-term strategy: the early childcare would be split between her and a childminder (her income pretty much exactly covered the costs of the childminder, but meant that she didn’t need to abandon her career), and then when I had enough of a reputation to risk going freelance, she resumed her full-time career and became the majority earner, whereas I now combine writing with childcare. Which, because the kids are now at school, gives me nearly six hours a day in a completely empty house – while still enjoying all the pleasures of family life, long-term relationships, etc.
You’re welcome to tell me that we’re doing it all wrong and that we’d have been much happier if she’d simply become a full-time SAHM for the last decade, but some people are a bit sensitive to the sound of derisive laughter, so I thought I should probably warn you in advance.
So, around 30% of married women with children under the age of 18 are not in the workforce, according to the US Census Bureau. That means that 70% of those women are working.
Also,
What bizarro world is this idiot from? Men lost the right to vote due to feminism? Millions of them were slaughtered?
“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.”
Huh. My parents were always like, “Do what makes you happy.” They didn’t push me into any career or any man’s arms. So everything in life so far was really my decision. And I was never thinking “Look at me! I’m in college! Take that men!”. Honestly, I never thought about gender in that way until I came across this blog lol. But then again, I’ve never in real life come across men so upset about women before. Or vice versa. I must live in an alternate dimension where men and women get along just fine.
So, the real world then?
“So, the real world then?”
The internet must a wormhole to a dimension where men have few human rights =o
Ozy, you know this already but… http://www.vintaga.co.uk/Bullet-Bras/c103/index.html
There are sites that offer similar bras cheaper Stateside (being trendy in the UK is way too rich for my blood), but im on my phone so I couldn’t find th site I liked the most. You know, just in case we want to derail the Brandon show. We can talk about retro fashion while a lonely and bitter old age creeps up on Brandon. Hopefully Ashley’s first kid’s stepdad will be less of a prick.
2 quicky observations:
One: DKM and Brandon although apparently different in their rhetoric share one important similarity: both engage in complete magical thinking in believing that their view of what “should” be will occur due to the INVISIBLE forces of whatever (nature, economics, dolls, etc.). They predict futures which are in apparent contradiction (Sweet Old Fashioned Girls vs. Corporate Clone Contractural Partnerships) but which share the feature of imposing their preferred lifestyle on EVERYBODY without them actually having to do anything to achieve it.
It’s really…amazing when you consider it.
Two: After I was lucky enough to be hired in 1993, I learned that there were 180 viable candidates for the tenure track position–that meant more applied but didn’t meet the minimum qualifications (probably had degrees in other sub-fields of English, or were ABD). One hundred eighty. Given that about 50% of graduates in English then were women, that means that a good percentage of those 180 were women.
So a woman taking a job is not only displacing MEN but WOMEN–but do those trollz ever think of that? No, apparently not. And while I only know academic hiring trends (i.e. white men majority, especially in some displines, higher levels, and admin; white women next; men of color next, and at the very lowest percentage, women of color), I’d say that in a whole lotta jobs these days if a woman is hired, there are other women in the pipeline who are not hired.
But somehow I doubt that will make the trollz any happier.
Would not have been able to procreate for at least another 5 years if our esteemed leader, Stephen Harper, hadn’t changed the EI program to allow self-employed people to buy in.
I bought in and am now eligible for maternity leave benefits. Granted, it’s only 55% of your income, but it’s a hell of a lot better than nothing at all. If I’d waited to save up an equivalent sum of money I’d have had to wait to get pregnant until I was about 38.
And before Brandon calls me a moocher, I will be paying into EI for the rest of my life now, so unless I decide to have more than 5 children I will pay those benefits back many times over before I retire.
Bee: The Late Great Edward R. Murrow. That was aired on Thanksgiving Day. A great piece of work.
One: DKM and Brandon although apparently different in their rhetoric share one important similarity: both engage in complete magical thinking in believing that their view of what “should” be will occur due to the INVISIBLE forces of whatever (nature, economics, dolls, etc.). They predict futures which are in apparent contradiction (Sweet Old Fashioned Girls vs. Corporate Clone Contractural Partnerships) but which share the feature of imposing their preferred lifestyle on EVERYBODY without them actually having to do anything to achieve it.
It’s really…amazing when you consider it.
NWO shares that thing too… he seems to think that WITHOUT a government (which he’d need to ban abortion, gay marriage, anal sex, etc etc etc). he’d still get his utopia because PEOPLE WOULD JUST STOP DOING IT (which is odd because he also believes in the evil slutty greedy nature of women, so why would we stop being evil with NO restrictions on us? o_O )
That’s why all of them can say this stuff so adorably naively without blinking an eye xD They believe that somehow, people will just WANT to live the way THEY WANT US TO without any force needing to be applied. Kinda like how MRAL believes that if you evacuated and nuked Mecca, and then just banned Islam, it’d be a peaceful way to solve his problem with Islam, because everybody would just STOP believing in it. MRAL reacted with total honest shock when ppl accused him of advocating genocide, thought police, etc b/c in his world, banning and eliminating Islam would require NO FORCE at all, ppl would just stop once told (and once their holy places are removed).
I find their thinking so adorable in it’s wide-eyed child naivetee xD
Wetherby: You’re welcome to tell me that we’re doing it all wrong and that we’d have been much happier if she’d simply become a full-time SAHM for the last decade, but some people are a bit sensitive to the sound of derisive laughter, so I thought I should probably warn you in advance.
No… you are doing it all wrong because you are not both working 40 hours a week. One of you being stay-at-home is undermining the entire Brandon System of childrearing.
Kristin: Wait until Meller sees that. A gov’t program that helps people,and is solvent, and is seen as a tax worth paying…. IMPOSSIBLE!!!!
You can’t oppose government unless it’s never ever done anything right!
For instance – You didn’t buy in in gold did you, Kristin? See. See! And they make people without children pay for it by the use of evil bees, don’t they? See!
I hate to break it to him, but I put in a bare minimum of 40 hours a week, especially when I’ve got a lot of deadlines. But I agree that this is fundamentally wrong in Brandon’s eyes, and I’m very sorry and won’t do it again.
For invoking Cantor, you win one internet!
Oh wait, I thought you were invoking Cantor. I will:
The aspiring stay-at-home parent gets a job as a nanny. Since his/her family now needs child care, they hire a nanny from another family with an aspiring stay-at-home parent. Since that parent now needs child care, his/her family hires a nanny from yet another family with an aspiring stay-at-home parent, and so on.
It’s turtles all the way down.
There is a part of me that thinks if you don’t have a pot to piss in then you shouldn’t reproduce. That part has contempt for the nine children families where there is no finical opportunity for higher education.
I say this because I know a home schooled family with nine daughters who have no idea what their children could do with their lives except that someone will marry them. It’s getting harsh for Father, the oldest is now 25 and none of them have been married off. These girls can cook, they can sew, they are the really the perfect stepford wives yet not one mra has come to claim them.
Nine daughters that go to church pretty much everyday, dress in a very modest manner and yet no one is knocking on their fathers door to ask for a date.
Having said that I’ve also had the pleasure to know children from low income and sometimes “even” single families who have excelled in life.
Brandon. Personally I paid my babies Daddy to say home. Not only did I save money they were actually raised by someone that loved them.
I’m laughing about Brandon wanting men to charge their wives and girlfriends for room and board when they stay home to raise their children. It’s so absurd. I guess my husband can come up with a list of bills and expenses for me, an evil stay at home mom, and then I’ll hand him a bill for changing all the diapers, cooking all of our meals, doing all of the laundry, and getting up in the middle of the night to help the children when they’re sick. We’ll trade these bills to each other and things would come out even.
The situation we have works for us, and it’s nobody else’s business what we do. We have life insurance and wills written up, so we’re at least a little prepared for the unexpected. If I were to be offered a higher paying job than what my husband has, we’d trade places. Since we’re both feminists, we don’t care which parent is the breadwinner and which is the caregiver, as long as everyone is happy.
It’s also important to remember that it is very difficult to be a parent of a baby or small child, and do a full time job. What happens when the baby is sick? You can’t take a sick child to a daycare, because they won’t take zir. The parent that takes off work a lot for the child does take a hit in pay and opportunity for advancement. I doubt the men that “won’t allow” their wives to stay home would be the ones to take the career hits for the children.
Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel: Is that perchance an obscure reference to a joke told in an episode of QI?
Also guys, I’m pretty surprised that nobody even objected to Brandon’s assertion that with today’s methods of birth control it is NOT POSSIBLE for an unintended pregnancy to happen and thus anyone who gets pregnant when they’re not able to comfortably support a child = should have known better. Even if he is not against abortion (I thought he was? Might be getting him confused with one of the other trolls, though) a pregnancy has to have taken place for an abortion to be necessary — other methods do fail, not even only due to human error.
And from that, his whole “I will never ever ever be in the situation of dealing with an unintended pregnancy!” is just ridiculous. Dear Brandon, unless you never ever have sex with someone who can pregnant, you cannot know this at all.
ps. getting an abortion in the states costs money, amirite? So even if Ashley or whomever gets pregnant and does have an abortion, so you won’t have to contribute to paying for the child, there’s still expense involved. Would you contribute to the expense of the abortion?
Herp Derp, Brandon would pay his half, no more, no less.
What’s QI? I’m just a math nerd (in addition to being a brightly-colored, calliope-equipped merry-go-round for eeeeeevil slutbitches, natch).
QI is/was a comedy trivia show. Hosted by Stephen Fry, with a rotating panel of regulars. Hilarious.
Not only does it cost money, they are rather difficult to access even with money for many people.
Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel: it’s a show, as pecunium said. In one episode stephen fry tells a story about some lady who is convinced the world is held up by a turtle, which is held up by another turtle, etc — “it’s turtles all the way down!”. But I guess she’s not the only one who believed in that?
hellkell: But you see, since obviously she did something wrong for the unintended pregnancy to occur, brandon might think she should be able to fend for herself and have her “finances in order” ready to deal with an unintended pregnancy by herself.
dsc: yeah, so I’ve heard. That is one of the reasons I’m glad I live in canada — we do have the crazy pro-life groups at every turn trying to eliminate our reproductive rights, but we still have those rights and I’m pretty sure they won’t be getting cut anytime soon, even with a conservative government. But yeah, that was more a rhetorical question aimed to point out a situation brandon was ignoring.
Is. It recently celebrated its 10th anniversary, and is still going strong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Speaking of QI XD
I just got my house hooked on them, and Time Team (well, to be fair, my fiancée had seen QI before.
I’ll have to torrent more QI.
This one was one of my personal favourite moments :P
It started on BBC2, and was then “promoted” to the more populist BBC1, which turned out to be a poisoned chalice as it meant that they had to tone down the material – but now it’s back on BBC2 and everyone’s happy.
How many seasons have there been now? I’m way behind since I don’t watch online, I watch with my family when we buy the seasons on DVD — which is only every few years when we go back to england to visit. And we have yet to see any of the later seasons on DVD. We only have the first three at the moment. I see their budget has increased or something, with that little train going around the table delivering sweets, and the special effects (albeit pretty bad ones :P).
Wetherby: when did the switch to BBC1 happen? I haven’t really noticed a change so far, but as I said, I’m only on season C, so perhaps the switch happened later.
(also sorry for the total derail, guys :P)
QI has reached up to the I series. I’m not sure how many that would be though since I have a feeling one of the letters was simply used in a one off special rather than a series of it’s own.
Wikipedia is your friend.
The simple answer is 2008-11, but it seemed they only tried it out in a pre-watershed (i.e. more family-friendly) slot in 2010-11.
I recall when Judy(?), dressed as Queen Victoria (in 2004) said, that the thing which was forbidden at the pornography museum was, “Fisting, which I know, because we have a lot in common, Queen Victoria would have been down for.”
Zhinxy – you’re right, I did NOT buy gold! If I had taken that EI premium and bought gold with it, I would be able to fund my own maternity leave by now! Somehow!
Pecunium – yeah, but I live in Canada, where we’re all brainwashed by our universal health care and solvent banking sector. The horror.
Pecunium:
The full exchange, courtesy of a rather obsessive site devoted to QI transcripts:
Stephen Fry: What kind of behaviour was forbidden in the Secret Museum of pornography?
Jo Brand: Was it–
Sean Lock: Flash photography.
Stephen Fry: Flash photography! Very good.
Jo Brand: Was it fisting?
Stephen Fry: [sucks in his breath] Three innocent little words that somehow . . .
Alan Davies: [with bowed head, to Jo] I’m sorry, your majesty.
Stephen Fry: “Was it fisting?” Queen Victoria just said “Was it fisting?”
Alan Davies: [with bowed head, to Stephen] The Queen would like to know, was it fisting?
Jo Brand: From what I know of myself, Queen Victoria was well up for it, wasn’t she? She was! She was!
Alan Davies: She had about 28 children.
Stephen Fry: She had a lot of children, and when she was a young girl, she was full of laughter and fun and loved dancing and music and was quite sportive, and, erm, yeah. She wrote saucy letters sometimes. I mean, not saucy, but, I mean, you know. She showed she had a twinkle in her eye occasionally, I suppose.
It was glorious. We just watched that episode on Saturday.
” A government program that helps people, is solvent, and pays taxes at the same time, wait till Meller sees that”
Very interesting! Let see how well it does all of the above in five or ten years, shall we?
Listen, there are fish that fly, there are corporations–even in the XIX century who earned their profits without poisoning anybody, and there are still government programs by the millions that HURT PEOPLE, that are INSOLVENT (and getting more so by the month), and are net drains on the tax base, not assets!
Sorry, Pecunium, you’ll (along with your fellow manboobzers) will have to do a little better than that to make me any sort of believer in the monopoly of force and fraud called government.
@Holly: Again, I am under no obligation to take care of the child’s mother. I am however responsible for taking care of the child.
@Quakers: Let’s see:
1) I am not shaming women that are sluts because I don’t really care what they do
2) Yes STD’s don’t discriminate
3) When it comes to reproduction, men and women clearly have different roles which means they also have different priorities regarding it. What might be important to a pregnant woman might not be important to the man that impregnated her.
@thebionicmommy: Yes it is absurd. It is also absurd to demand men pay women to raise their own children. That was the point I was getting across.
@Herp Derp: Next month I am getting a vasectomy. so while premature, I think I can say for certain that “yes, I will never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy”.
I don’t deny there’s more bad than good in government programs, Meller, I’m an anarchist, but I tend to say the “safety net” is the last to go. The people who “pass out crutches” are way better than the people breaking the damn legs. It’s like how I think single-payer will save us money and cover us while we work on figuring out the glorious libertarian free market model. Another thing about fiscal conservativism, is that I’m not sure, as libertarians, we’ll have a better time getting rid of a “lean and mean” small government (which could be quite oppressive if it wanted to) than a big, bloated, bankrupting dinosaur that has a hard time keeping up.
1) I am not shaming women that are sluts because I don’t really care what they do
But if they are “sluts” they are, prima facie, not worthy of being married. That’s what he said, not, “I won’t marry a slut,” nor even the more reasonable, “I won’t marry a woman I think has demonstrated poor judgement,”, but “Sluts aren’t worth marrying”.
Nope, nothing shaming in that, public, declaration.
This, of course, from the man who says marriage is all a scam anyway; just a way for women to exploit men.
Meller, how do you feel about Paul Ryan?
Whatever happened to the time when men could–and often did–pride themselves on being the family’s breadwinner, and could pride themselves on his financially supporting wife and child(ren)? Even men who didn’t, or couldn’t, knew on some level, that they at least ought to!
Did it disappear about the same time that women (under feminist influence) ceased to pride THEMselves in being the source of their husband and child (ren)’s DOMESTIC support, uncritically accepting the notion that marriage and motherhood was a form of “slavery”?
Again, even women who were slovenly and disorganized, dirty and inept in the domestic arts knew, on some level, that their husband and child(ren) deserved better!
Thanx a million, Betty Friedan. You and your accursed book, the Feminine Mystique sure made a bloody mess for everybody, didn’t you? Here’s hoping for your just “reward” now that you are in your grave!
If it weren’t for Betty Friedan, women never would have felt the desire to stray from the kitchen and would have remained domestic servants whether they wanted to or not, just as God intended.
I think that social engineering and the growth of business and mass production took us from the “family business” model to “homemaker – breadwinner” model. I think the “natural” state of the heterosexual married couple (or whatever floats your boat!) is working, together, in their home, surrounded by extended family. And I think technology and freedom can get us there again, without sacrificing much. A man HAVING to march out and earn his pay at a wage labor job, or a woman, or both? Well, the unnaturalness of that stands out to me, and what’s more family values than family business?
I don”t feel anything about Paul Ryan. He is a typical RINO–Republican in Name Only–who campaigns like a libertarian (at least on some fiscal and tax issues, as long as the TV cameras are around), but, when elected, governs like a Democrat!
He–and his fellow members of the GOP–hasn’t even seriously tried to cut a measly 1,000,000,000,000 Dollars from the national debt (about 7% of the 16*10^12 estimeated total debt for 2011!
I STILL prefer Ron Paul!
Awesome, Brandon :). Don’t have kids, have all of your relationships be exchange relationships, never get married, never cohabitate. I would suggest you pay close attention to what the doctors say about when it will be safe to stop using bc post-vasectomy, and get tested to make sure it sticks.
The way you want to live your life is perfectly acceptable. I just don’t get how you can say “I’m never having kids, but everyone else ought to raise their children this way” and “I’m never getting married, but nobody should marry a slut.” And if those aren’t the sentiments you’re trying to communicate then you’re doing a terrible job of expressing yourself.
DKM, feminism isn’t about pressuring women into working if they want to stay home. I am a stay at home mom with my own children, and our family is happy. I do not consider marriage and motherhood to be slavery, but instead view it as a joy. Feminism is about giving women options. What works for one family doesn’t work for another. Betty Friedan talked to women who were miserable as stay at home moms. It wasn’t the right path for them. Brandon is here saying that all women must work full time outside the home, and now you’re here to say it’s right for them to stay home. This shows that no matter what a woman does, she will be criticized for it.
I know you prefer Paul. That was a given (and I am not one to try to convert you from your religious views. I will merely continue to state why they don’t work for me).
But Ryan cut lots of taxes, wants to cut more. He wants to (and has worked to make it happen) repeal vast amounts of regulation.
He’s even managed to do a lot of that (which is more than Paul has done), and he’s honest about his views on removing women’s autonomy; in the same ways you would.
So, apart from boilerplate about him being a RINO (and why would you care, you are a Libertarian, the Dem/Rep divide is as nothing to you, a plague on all their houses, right?) what is it that you don’t like about Ryan.
How does he, substantively; in terms of what they’ve done (as opposed to what they’ve said) do they differ?
@Pecunium:
I think promiscuous women are demonstrating poor judgement. If I were to get married, I would want a wife that exercises good judgement and not poor judgement.
I don’t really care if a woman goes around town sleeping with every guy that she meets. That is her life and she can live it anyway she wants. It is not my job (nor do I want it) to go around chastising women for sleeping around. But I can draw conclusions and make determinations about her in relationship to me. I don’t go around hanging out with active drug addicts? Why? Because they are exhibiting poor behavior, plus it is illegal. While different, the same can be said about slutty women.
However, I don’t really think her behavior is something that should be 1) emulated or 2) praised. It’s not the woman that is the issue, it is the behavior that is.
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).
And that scenario is really the only one I can think of where marriage is actually needed. But nowadays, we mostly have men and women working and earning two incomes to support a home.
Besides a few perks (hospital visitation being the big one). I don’t see what benefits marriage can give a man that he can 1) not live without and 2) get by some other means.
Most of the perks of marriage are crap I could care less about. And as time goes on, I think more and more men will see it the way I do. So unless there is a big conservative push to “re-energize marriage”, I see the whole institution as useless, outdated and archaic. It’s only purpose was to properly serve men and women when women stayed home. This is no longer the case in the modern world.
Brandon’s getting a vasectomy!