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.
So in your world, it’s impossible that the kid might need supplies for a project the next day and his mom may not have the money at the moment. I see.
Well, I know – the answer is a pretty emphatic “none”. Even if there’ve been one or two (and I honestly can’t recall seeing any), they’re statistically insignificant.
As a man, I have not been given even the tiniest hint that the commenters here regard me as worthy of hatred just because I’m a man. And believe me, I’d pick up on that kind of vibe.
Please link to a conversation involving your good self that unambiguously follows this structure. I’m particularly keen to see an example of the “stupid bullshit that he/she has no business putting their nose into”.
@Lauralot: And you have no concept that maybe if someone is asking another person for a favor…they might actually be grateful and not rude about it.
By doing what she wanted, I am enabling her bad behavior that is directed at me. I refuse to be her enabler.
What you don’t seem to get, Brandon, is that regardless of what HER behavior is, you’re still denying your child something s/he needs out of spite.
Thank god you don’t want to be a parent. Your kids would spend their lives in therapy.
@Wetherby: Ya and if I went to a clan rally they wouldn’t say they “hate blacks”…they just want to “reform” them.
Someone is ignoring the fact that Billy may have forgotten to tell you he or she needs XYZ when you are taking care of him or her so Mom tells you “You NEED to buy Billy XYZ.”
But since she was not oh so polite about it, you will refuse to get Billy’s XYZ out of spite. What are you, three?
Is this utterly meaningless non sequitur your entire answer to my post?
It’s perfectly clear to me that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of the women here – yes, feminist women – have plenty of close male friends. The people they dislike, they dislike because they’ve been saying obnoxious things, not because they’re male.
And even people like MRAL get a lot of sympathy and understanding round these parts. You get considerably less, admittedly, but you have to admit that’s hardly surprising given your attitude. I mean, if you seriously think that most people here are “man-haters”, it’s hardly surprising that you’re having difficulty fitting in.
Also, based on your comments, if you have a child you accept full responsibility. If that is the case, even if Mom was rude in her telling you that you NEED to get Billy XYZ, you still have to get the child XYZ because that is what being a parent means.
Again, what are you? Three?
A conversation between Brandon and his Baby Mama:
Her: Hey, I’m really swamped getting things set up for Billy’s birthday party, so I need you to run by the store and pick up the cake. I’ve already paid for it, just-
Brandon: NEED me to pick up? Well, too bad, you selfish bitch. Guess Billy’s just not going to have a cake this year, because you’re so ungrateful and spoiled.
And then the kid cries and wonders why his daddy doesn’t love him.
@Laura: If I had kids, I would want to deny them lots of stuff. Most of American society is devoid of anything positive and insightful. I would have to work very hard to keep him from becoming a shallow dimwit.
Also, if denying my child this one relatively minor thing i rewarded by having the child’s mother not treat me like shit…then I win.
And what is wrong with this hypothetical mother in this scenario? If she really cared about the child, she wouldn’t be throwing around her bitter hatred of the child’s father around to get him a few school supplies.
By your logic, I can act like a complete and utter asshole to people and get offended when they don’t give me what I want. Like I can walk into my bosses office and say “Hey dickhead…give me a raise!”
The notion that how you say something is just as (if not more) important as what you are saying seems to be beyond your grasp.
If Brandon tells his partner to “fuck off” because he doesn’t like the wording of a particular request – wording that may well be a by-product of panic, fear, exhaustion or any of a number of entirely normal emotions that arise when dealing with kids and their problems (not that he’d understand any of that, because women who stay at home apparently “don’t work”) – how the hell is he going to respond when his kids ask him for something without saying “please”?
Dear Brandon:
Parenting is not a contest. No one “wins” by being a bitch to the other parent. Your child, though, loses every time.
I can see the conversation between Brandon and his five year old son or daughter:
Billy: “I wanted cake.”
Brandon: “Your mother did not ask me in the right way. Since she was rude, you are the one to pay for it. It will make sense when you are older and just as asinine as I am.”
Billy, lower lip trembling: “But I wanted cake. I hate you!”
Saying “I need you to buy this” is not “throwing around bitter hatred.”.
Brandon, when you first started commenting here, you mentioned that you slept with many different women, and that if Ashley (“Ashley”) didn’t like it, she was welcome to leave. You can’t even follow the “rules” you set for your girlfriend (“girlfriend”), and here you are blathering on about your priggish distinction between “sluts” and respectable women?
(Speaking of priggish, I find it hilarious that out-and-proud atheist — excuse me, agnostic — Brandon, videotape-all-sexual-encounters Brandon, “I want to go to Thailand ‘for the beaches'” Brandon, is, when it comes to the actions of others, as puritanical as an old maid at a Baptist luncheon social. Fuuuuck, man, I belong to a religion that makes women cover their heads at church and I don’t have the stick up my ass that you do about whether or not women screw.)
Brandon, you are a slut. You do the same thing you hate in a woman.
You desire the source of your validation outside yourself, too — not only do you (shock! horror!) enjoy sex, which is supposed to be one of the criteria for slutdom, but you have expressed a desire to travel and to make money. These are desiderata that come from outside your ego. You are exactly what you claim to disapprove of, it’s just different when it’s you. Why?
@lauralot: I reworked it for you to actually show what I would actually say:
A conversation between Brandon and his Baby Mama:
Her: Hey, I’m really swamped getting things set up for Billy’s birthday party, so I need you to run by the store and pick up the cake. I’ve already paid for it, just-
Brandon: Ok, but next time I would appreciate it if you asked me and not ordered me. Ok?
Her admittedly poor choice of father for her child. One who is so petty and spiteful that he would deny his own child’s needs just to “teach” the mother a so called lesson.
Could you pull that stunt with a child who is say, 16? I suppose so but a five year old has no idea why Daddy is telling him or her that because Mom was supposedly rude, she or he now has to suffer.
More Brandon LULZ: I would have to work very hard to keep him from becoming a shallow dimwit.
Wow.
Just.
Wow.
And yet you just said you wouldn’t get things for your child if the mother ordered you.
Hear that? Those goalposts are movin’ again.
Or, alternatively, sit them on your knee and solemnly warn them not to do what you did.
Because you are a shallow dimwit, Brandon. I know you may not think you are, but trust me: it’s a minority opinion.
You win what?
I’m genuinely curious: how long did the longest relationship you’ve had actually last? Because if I’d pulled stunts like that in any of my longer-term ones, they’d have told me to fuck off. And in a rather more permanent, relationship-cancelling way.
Sorry, where has this “bitter hatred” come from? We’re talking about a hypothetical scenario involving you, remember – is that really how you see yourself?
Are you married to your boss? Is he or she your best friend?
My wife is more than welcome to insult me, and I give as good as I get. Most of the time it’s just friendly banter, and on the rare occasions when it isn’t, we invariably kiss and make up very soon afterwards.
But if I’d treated my last boss the same way, he’d not only have fired me but probably sued me for sexual harassment into the bargain.
The notion that you can talk about things being beyond people’s grasp with a straight face is the funniest thing I’ve read all evening.
Even in the hypothetical scenarios you manipulate in your favor you are still a touchy jerk, Brandon.
Nobody wins here versus children.
You’re right, if genetics has anything to do with it.
And sadly, I have to leave, because it’s after midnight where I live, and I have to get up for a double school run tomorrow.
Brandon that’s not ordering. That’s nitpicking on your behalf. If she said, “Brandon, your duties today are x, and y, and z and don’t be late.” That’s ordering. Or, “Get the cake and that’s an order.” That’s an order.
I mean maybe she does need you to do something. “I have a broken foot and your daughter needs her cake for the party. I’m swamped and I’ paid for it.”
The key here is need. I want you to do something for me. Will you? I need you to do something for me, can you get the cake?
She isn’t saying, Brandon you bastard you never do anything for the family, if only you’d just get the fucking cake.
But it sounds like what you want is very precise subordinate language all the time.
Please Brandon, will you please get the cake I already paid for with my 50% of the money?
Brandon makes a stupid claim about an action. We call him on it and then he claims that is not what I meant-this is what I meant *cue reasonable claim.*
He cannot communicate well.