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.
Amused: No, it’s not that he’s a guy… it’s that he’s Brandon and everything else in the world should take a back-seat to his wants and desires.
The thing with Zaphod BeebleBrox was that he wasn’t appalled by the size of the universe, because he really thought he was the center of the universe.
Amused and Lauralot-
Yep, That seems to sum Brandon up. He gets what he wants, but doesn’t have to give her anything she wants.
He can have expectations and lines in the sand, she can’t. But he volunteers! In other words, he’s a selfish narcissist.
DKM, that was Brandon.
Look, they’re physically incapable of arguing with each other. They will attribute posts to other people rather than actually confront each other.
@Katz: If I had children, I would definitely give them much more than 50% of my time, money and love. What I don’t like is when someone else demands that you do it.
Umm…are you trying to blame me for any problems Ashley might have?
@hellkell: And when did I say women did not have those traits. I just didn’t speak for women. Why? Because I don’t have a vagina.
@KathleenB: I don’t really care how you live or what you do. Just because I have an issue with marriage doesn’t mean I am somehow hating on married people. They made a choice I wouldn’t have made because it isn’t right for me. That doesn’t make them bad people.
However, I am in favor of removing marriage from society. That doesn’t prevent you from having children or living with your SO.
Didn’t Brandon call NWO an idiot once, though? Or am I thinking of MRAL?
(1) You will be generous, giving and loving on YOUR own terms, and women should be generous, giving and loving on YOUR terms. (Because you are a guy, and so you get to make the rules?)
(2) You have expectations of Ashley, but she’s not allowed to have any expectations of you. (Because you are guy, and so you get to make the rules?)
I don’t think it’s so much “because you’re a guy” as “because you’re Brandon.” Remember, men aren’t allowed to be happy as stay-at-home husbands, or with stay-at-home wives, or with wives at all, for that matter.
“However, I am in favor of removing marriage from society. That doesn’t prevent you from having children or living with your SO.”
Just from reaping the legal benefits of marriage. Oh, but wait, CONTRACTS CONTRACTS CONTRACTS.
“I just didn’t speak for women. Why? Because I don’t have a vagina.”
Is that why you got so pissy when we wouldn’t let you be king of feminism?
“However, I am in favor of removing marriage from society. That doesn’t prevent you from having children or living with your SO.”
But it does prevent them from MARRYING their partner if they wish to. Which is the opposite of giving people a choice. Congratulations.
@Brandon. You don’t see a difference between drug addiction and having a lot of sex with multiple partners. Which is why I wrote a comment about sex addiction, a much better analogue to drug addiction, and how it is different than having a lot of sex with multiple partners. Then you replied to that comment, saying you wouldn’t marry a drug addict, as if that was somehow a counterargument to what I had asserted. When I pointed out that I was drawing a distinction between sluttiness and sex addiction, you said “I don’t see a difference. It is the same thinking and behavior…just with different objects.” Which makes me think you’re comparing drug addiction and sluttiness again, and are totally ignoring everything I have to say about sex addiction. So… why did you respond to my comment about sex addiction/sluttiness in the first place? I don’t even.
I’m just going to go back to my usual mode of ignoring you.
“What I don’t like is when someone else demands that you do it.”
So if, hypothetically, you had a child with Ashley, and she was paying her 50 percent of everything, but the kid got very ill and she needed more from you than your original agreement. And she was like, Brandon! Our child will die! You have to help me!”
Would you just balk out of principal?
Or is she supposed to prostrate herself and plead for the wellbeing of the child?
And if you said no, and she went to court, would you rather go to jail than actually do the right thing for your child because people were demanding you do it?
@Amused: Any expectations she has on me are the same ones I place on her. (i.e no sleeping with other people). I do not put expectations on her that I wouldn’t follow either.
So no…the expectations we have are very minimal but we both follow them.
If I had children, I would definitely give them much more than 50% of my time, money and love. What I don’t like is when someone else demands that you do it.
So you will take care of them, they’re just not allowed to expect you to take care of them? Everyone has to constantly be in suspense about whether you’ve decided you’ll continue to take care of them for another day?
What if someone (the mother, or anyone) does demand you do it? Will you stop?
So Ashley’s expectations are what Brandon decides. Of course.
Generally because you are only going for young (read immature), shallow minded women. Ashley the Plastic Doll (TM) is probably not going to be with you much past a certain age when she realises she deserves more from the relationship then having to conform to your wants and needs while hers are ignored or belittled.
And then she will be replaced with a new woman (well if you can manage to not scare them away being so much older then them) because she dumps you for a decent guy.
We MRAs are sort of under siege here! On Spearhead, we argue with each other all of the time! On manboobz, it has to be “bros before ‘hos”!
Listen-any beseiged group will evolve some sort of solidarity arrangements to protect itself and its members. I don’t find you feminists too eager to criticize each other’s posts here either!
Funny you complained about “shitty parents”, because you sound like you’d make a pretty shitty parent yourself.
As a parent, you have to give your children as much time, money and attention as is necessary to maximize their potential and to give them the best education and tools you possibly can, you selfish prick. Children don’t ask to be born. They don’t ask for infections and toothache. They don’t ask for the million years of school; they don’t ask to brought into this world so that people who did it can one day lecture them about taking care of oneself. If you have children, you OWE them. It doesn’t matter how much the mother contributes — YOU have to contribute the maximum you possibly can, because they are your kids, forgodssake. That’s your minimal obligation as a parent.
I do not put expectations on her that I wouldn’t follow either.
This is the forte of sounds-reasonable-but-isn’t. Expecting everyone to follow the rules you follow isn’t actually fair if you’re still the one setting the rules. For example, it wouldn’t be fair for a vegetarian to force everyone else to never eat meat.
@Caraz: Marriage is nothing more than a legal concept. It is intangible. If marriage was removed from society and every right of married people were given to society at large…what would you be losing out on? You would still be able to live with someone, have children, etc…
@Lauralot: I don’t want to be king of feminism. I would rather be king of the playboy bunnies…much better subjects.
We MRAs are sort of under siege here! On Spearhead, we argue with each other all of the time! On manboobz, it has to be “bros before ‘hos”!
Dude.
First of all, you just did argue with Brandon. You just thought it was Lauralot. Because you are a numbskull.
Second, Brandon believes in abolishing everything you hold dear. And you believe in forcing him into a lifestyle he would hate. Why are you bros? You are both actively fighting for a world where the other one would be miserable.
Does anybody else love how DKM says truly horrifying things all the time, and yet he’s incredibly careful to avoid any sort of bad words? I would have real issues with everything you say and believe, DKM, but you put “hos” in quotes so I guess you’re a pretty swell guy.
Thanks, everyone who told me about hamsters and guinea pigs! I’m not the type for rodents anyway, but it’s interesting to know.
@Katz: All of the expectations we have were talked about and agreed upon together. So, despite what you think, she does have a say in the matter. I don’t just tell her what rules she has to follow.
That’s never stopped you before, and you have zero problem speaking for all the men here and trying generally tell everyone what they should do. If they were smart and you and all.
Aim high, motherfucker, aim high.
Meller: Every single fucking time I think you’ve hit rock bottom, than you can’t sink any lower in the Bog of fucking Eternal Stench you live in, you start typing again.
@Brandon
And yet right now at this very second there are people in the LGBT community fighting for their right to marry.
I am not married, maybe I never will be, but it is completely obvious to me that having the right to marry the person you wish to is extremely important to people. You can call it a legal concept if you want but that doesn’t seem to diminish the value that others place on it. And if people value the right to be married they should have that choice. You seek to remove it because you don’t seem to comprehend that others might think differently to you.
Problem is, Brandon, you began by saying you would only be selfless, giving and loving as long as it was on your terms — not agreed-upon terms — and as long as no one actually expected these things from you. You stated that minutes after conveying your dismay that women aren’t selfless, accepting and loving, which indicates that you allow YOURSELF to have expectations of women (without them agreeing to those expectations) while rejecting the legitimacy of anyone having expectations of you. Hence, the double standard, backpedal though you might.