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.
But Holly, hiking and allowing another person to sleep with you are totally different!.
Amanda: This isn’t the manosphere, is the Brandonverse. Smaller, but just as dense.
If only we would accept his expertise on things like the law, psychology, gender relations and sexual mores, we’d be happy and fulfilled.
But he’s above it all, he comes here just to entertain himself, and cares not what we think.
@Brandon,
1) If being a stay at home father was more important than you looking good in front of your male buddies, then you would do it regardless of what they thought.
2) However, most men do not aspire to be stay at home fathers.
When did I say anything about my buddies? I went back to work because we needed money.
As for proving your point, I don’t think anyone disagrees with you about whether it’s increasingly difficult to get by with kids and only one income. What we disagree about is whether this is a good thing.
Personally, I believe the ideal situation would be where both parents work part-time and flex their schedules so someone could be with the kids at all time.
@thebionicmommy: No, I just don’t buy into the notion that being a stay at home parent is 1) insanely difficult and 2) it is “the most important job on the planet”
Stay at home parents work but there are lots of other jobs that are 1) need more intelligence 2) more physically demanding.
See, this is why I think you are full of shit. You don’t have the slightest idea what being a stay-at-home parent actually involves. I do, and I have to say that being at work, in my experience, is often easier: the tasks are usually clearly defined, there are other adults to talk to, and you typically get regular breaks. Kids are endlessly demanding in ways you can’t begin to comprehend unless you’ve actually had to care for them 24/7. And, no, babysitting nieces or nephews doesn’t count.
Pro-tip: STFU about parenting unless you’ve actually done it; otherwise, you just sound like a jackass.
Brandon
…says the man with no actual experience of being married.
And considering that you’ve never been married, you have a remarkably bitter and cynical view of a situation that should by rights be a case of both parties supporting each other – which is how successful marriages do indeed work.
If my wife was genuinely at home doing nothing, I’d have every right to query why I was supporting her. But in fact she worked damn hard to maintain her career, gain extra professional qualifications (which she’s now converting into hard cash) and put in the back-breaking effort that child-rearing involves, and as far as I’m concerned she was worth every penny.
Wishing won’t get you anywhere – you have to work at it.
And when we swapped roles, my wife was only too happy to pass the childcare onto me, and her extra professional qualifications ensured that when she returned to full-time work her salary shot up significantly – and now that her career’s back on track she’s only too happy to subsidize me, knowing that our kids are getting first-rate childcare and that I’m earning enough to pay my share (we’ve agreed that she covers mortgage and food while I cover bills).
But arrangements like this can only work if you have a mutually supportive relationship – as opposed to an exploitative one.
Meller: You asked the question, if I read your post correctly, what do I think of Paul Ryan, and his tax cuts.
You didn’t read me correctly, either time. Go back and read the questions, as written.
The first was very simple, “What do you think of Paul Ryan.”
I didn’t think much of them, or of him, and I proceeded to give you some reasons as to why.
No, you didn’t. You spouted slogans. You didn’t (any more than you have for Paul) address policy, or position.
I hoped that my comparison between him (and the GOP people who support him() and RP (and the GOP people who HATE him) would have laid the basis for a more favorable view of Ron Paul, given the financial emergency the USA—to say nothing that the rest of the world–is facing now, but it is obvious that RP is simply someone whom we must “agree to disagree” about.
You didn’t compare them. You have never, actually, detailed the, “financial emergency” you think the world faces, nor how you think it might be redressed. We have talked about the pie in the sky folly that is, “GOLD WILL FIX EVERYTHING, and twice (in Johhny Appleseed, and 100%) you have said a bunch of stuff and not responded to my answers, only to repeat your initial points elsewhere, as if not heard before.
That’s where you’ve been wasting my time, and I don’t think, no matter how apologetic you may be, that you are sorry at all.
CB:See, this is why I think you are full of shit. You don’t have the slightest idea what being a stay-at-home parent actually involves. I do, and I have to say that being at work, in my experience, is often easier: the tasks are usually clearly defined, there are other adults to talk to, and you typically get regular breaks. Kids are endlessly demanding in ways you can’t begin to comprehend unless you’ve actually had to care for them 24/7. And, no, babysitting nieces or nephews doesn’t count.
Yep.
Speaking as someone who has been one of the primary caretakers for two babes in arms, and had lovers who had toddlers, being in an outside job is easier, and less mentally demanding. It’s also less stressful.
And even with that level of experience, I am less than sanguine about the kids we are planning to have. It’s hard work, and demanding, and there is no vacation (not until they are old enough to spend time away from home for a couple of days).
This, of course, is what Brandon (and MRAs in general) deride as, “sponging” off of someone.
KathleenB
It is possible, isn’t it, that a lot of the women whom you cite in the middle ages who worked outside the home were extremely unusual specimens of womanhood for their time, and that their eccentricity, if not abnormality, was why they, and their activities, were recorded.
Their work would be considered especially remarkable if it was done as well as it would be expected to be done by a man, wouldn’t it?
Were the communities where these women, and others like them, doing the work most often accomplshed by men any better off then more traditional places, or were they simply showoffs of the ‘modern woman’ anything you can do, I can do better type that has become so unpleasantly visible in the past half century or so?
Were these women real women or imitation men? A question worth asking, isn’t it? And WHERE WERE their fathers, husbands, or other men who were supposed to be taking care of them?
Well, I see that Brandon clearly thinks that anything thought of as “women’s work” is to be unpaid and really not thought of as work. OK.
See, this is one of those situations that falls under “patriarchy hurts everyone,” because if the system itself were different, women working or not wouldn’t be an issue. As it is, “having it all” is a false choice, because if you do leave work, you’re penalized in the long run financially (no 401K or social security contributions). It’s damn hard to get back in the game unless you’ve made one hell of an effort to keep your skills up-to-date. Hard to do with small children, and as a bonus barrier to re-entry, the economy sucks right now.
I’m sure there are fathers who would love to stay home (contrary to Brandon and others delusions), but most companies aren’t that family-friendly in the first place. If we had better leave systems and flexibility, things would be better. If we I dunno, stopped working like fucking dogs in this country for very little return, that’d be a good start.
Brandon, most people–not you, you’re too special–get married when they have kids, so it’s not like the woman is expected to pay room and board, it’s a basic perk in most marriages. Hey, in your scenario, since it’s all financial, can she charge you for sex, or do you deduct that from the rent? Anyway, your world is sad.
Meller: Do you know that there is no list of the washerwomen who served the Crusades? This despite the fact that their services were so fucking important that they were often the first ransomed from both sides? Their services saved a great many lives – do you know what kind of shit bugs in your clothing can carry? They did an essential, amazing service for their countries/church/liege lords and no one fucking bothered to record their names.
I know this will blow your tiny mind, Mellertoad, but sometimes, fathers and husbands fuck right off to who knows where. Why don’t you rail on them for a while?
Amen, Captain Bathrobe. I used to know everything about how to raise children until I actually had kids of my own. That’s when I realized how little I really knew.
Meller: A lot of the time, they were working beside their husbands – there were no fucking bon bons when the harvest had to come in. You worked your ass off or you didn’t eat, and that meant EVERYONE. Would the men lower themselves to spin, weave, knit or do naalbinding? Doubtful, that was woman’s work. High born women ran their households, ensured that necessary work got done, kept household accounts, often made simple salves and medications, along with the spinning, weaving, making clothes and embroidery. Women worked their asses off, Meller, because they had to in order to survive, and in order to make sure the people they were responsible for survived.
Well, Meller, as a Medieval Studies Degree Getter, I focus on heresies, the Lex Mercantia and the works of the Scholastics, but let me tell you… Most of those women weren’t working “outside the home” they were working FROM “home”. Women brewers especially or women butchers were often married, and the husband had another job under the same roof, or helped out with hers… Yeah, you could be your wife’s butcher assistant in the dark ages. Funny stuff. Again, for most of history, that’s been work for you. Home homity home home home and family and work as one. As for the rest of it, “were they imitation men” isn’t really a question that has much meaning, as “imitation men” is in the eye of the gender role enforcing beholder. Well, wait I think the cross dressing soldiers kinda were imitation men in a WAY… 😉
Katherine of Aragon served as Henry VII’s Regent when he went to war on the Continent. She managed his armies well enough to repel a Scottish invasion. While managing the affairs of their kingdom and making his clothes.
Meller: A lot of the time, they were working beside their husbands – there were no fucking bon bons when the harvest had to come in. You worked your ass off or you didn’t eat, and that meant EVERYONE. Would the men lower themselves to spin, weave, knit or do naalbinding? Doubtful, that was woman’s work. High born women ran their households, ensured that necessary work got done, kept household accounts, often made simple salves and medications, along with the spinning, weaving, making clothes and embroidery. Women worked their asses off, Meller, because they had to in order to survive, and in order to make sure the people they were responsible for survived.
Indeed –
Highborn women also had instruction in commanding the knights and getting the peasants in the castle when it came siege time. Spinning, weaving, obeying your Lord Husband, devotions, manners, and How To Run The Siege When Your Husband Isn’t There, those were the lessons of a high born lady.
Or I could STFU and let zhinxy answer much better. ninja’d!
NO need, again, I focus on medieval LAW… It’s so not the good stuff XD (But zhinxy finds is awesomely interesting! )
zhinxy: Have you ever tried naalbinding? It’s a pain in the ass of epic proportions. No wonder Norsewomen gave it up when they figured out knitting!
I have NOT! I’ve made my own felt though!
Felt. Yech. That’s one process I’m glad to pay others to do.
Sex addiction is a real thing, and while sex addicts typically have a lot of sex (if they don’t, they usually masturbate constantly) not everyone who has a lot of sex is a sex addict.
I probably wouldn’t want to marry someone who couldn’t hold a job, maintain non-sexual relationships, or relate to me non-sexually because of a sex addiction. Addictions don’t make you a bad person, but they make it a lot harder for others to be with you. I wouldn’t be with a drug addict, either.
But someone who really enjoys sex, and has had lots of partners? As long as they’re cool with monogamy, sign me up!
@Bathrobe: I also don’t have to be a chainhand on an oil rig to see that is physically demanding.
Also, it really depends on what stage a child is in. Newborns clearly need more attention than pre-teens. Plus once they hit school, you have between 8am-2:30pm to do all your other errands without the demands of a small child.
I don’t have to actually do an activity to know that I don’t want to do it. I can learn from others mistakes. This is how people know not to jump off bridges or walk around dangerous neighborhoods.
Also, the spectrum of parenting is extremely broad. You can be a shitty parent that doesn’t give a rats ass about your child or you can be a good parent that wants to see them achieve and do well in life. Clearly the latter is “easy work” while the former is “hard work”.
And by observing the world, one thing I do see A LOT of is a bunch of careless shitty parents.
@Wetherby: I have a massive family. Hell, I have 26 cousins just on one side of my family…never mind the other side. I have seen weddings and marriages come and go. I have seen what marriage does to people. Out of all the marriages members of my family has been in. I think maybe 2 are happy. And this is out of aunts and uncles getting remarried. So out of roughly 15 marriages…1 to 2 are happy. Those aren’t good odds.
The other side of my family is much more “we can’t divorce because that is bad, but I would rather stay in this miserable relationship instead” kind of people. You can just tell the men are beaten down and the women are overly-righteous to the point of insanity. And what is even worse is that they think they are happy when everything else says otherwise. I guess they have to deny it and be delusional to keep their sanity.
Needless to say, the “marriage role models” are not really “selling” marriage very well. In fact, I think it is getting to the point where you get married if you want to be miserable.
So I don’t think I need to actually be married to see the damage it does to people. And people take on this risk on the slim chance that they will “find their soul mate”.
What’s that saying in that movie “The Girl Next Door”? “The juice isn’t worth the squeeze”.
How wonderful it is to see the masters of cognitive dissonance – feminists and women – claiming that MRAs hold contradictory ideas. Of course, it couldn’t be that maybe the manosphere isn’t one big monolithic entity, but in fact a dynamic community consisting of different people who have different and sometimes conflicting beliefs, could it? No of course not, because feminists can’t engage with anything that isn’t an imaginary caricature.
Just because one person might point out that women are parasitic luxury objects who would rather buy into a man’s success than create her own, while another might believe that women who try to resist the prostitute factory settings of the XX chromosome will never be more than stunted inefficient half-men, it doesn’t mean that they represent the same group. That should be obvious.
All I see here is classic female narcissism, the inability for a woman to imagine the world beyond her own experience. Women assume that because they have a hamster spinning away that lets them rationalize their contradictory and hypocritical actions and beliefs, that men must too. But that’s not how life works for the get-shit-done gender.
@Hellkell: 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.
@Viscaria: And I wouldn’t marry a drug addict either.
@KathleenB
Just tried naalbinding from a youtube video. Oh holy HELL NO.
I’ll stick to my knitting.