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.
“You NEED to buy Billy XYZ” is just as rude and impolite. It implies that I don’t have a choice, which means that according to the speaker, I don’t have any autonomy.
Imagine the tantrums his kid will throw, since his dad is modeling “refuse to do something to prove that people can’t force you to do things” as appropriate behavior.
So basically, the mother is rude to you in your opinion and perhaps yours alone, but you still do the thing she wanted, only an hour later and in private (and god knows kids NEVER tell secrets or a new notebook wouldn’t be visible) and so you’ve accomplished exactly what?
Being late on the school supplies but still actually doing it? YOU SURE SHOWED HER!
God, Brandon you are a hot mess. I’m very glad you are getting a snip job so there won’t be some kid out there trying to make sense of the schizophrenic hypocrisy you call logic.
@Katz: No, you are just defending a hypothetical woman that is being inconsiderate. Do you always defend bad, obnoxious behavior?
@Jules: If the kid wasn’t around, she would get a ‘fuck off and don’t contact me again’. response.
I would have to tolerate her bad behavior only because the kid was involved. However, if it became a recurring theme, I would probably just take her to court for custody. Since she is unable to provide for my child after receiving child support.
So, are you admitting you can’t prove that I hate men?
Because if you are, you owe me an apology, Mr. I’m-Polite-and-Respectful.
Brandon: Of course not. I’ve never defended you, have I?
And why wouldn’t your child refuse to do things if he didn’t feel like it?
@Lauralot: I am admitting that I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else and I am free to have any opinion I want of anyone.
What is obnoxious about a woman saying, Hey I need you to get milk at the store.
Wait, why are you assuming that you don’t have custody and are paying child support? Your child isn’t born with a restraining order, you know.
oh my goodness everyone, I managed to get Brandon to weaselly acknowledge that even if someone is rude, he is not supposed punish a third party!
IT IS A CHRISTMAS MIRACLE.
I just asked my roommate if I said “you NEED to buy my sister some towels” would he think that is rude? Said just like you claim is so rude that you need to throw a temper tantrum over it and he said no.
I even asked him if he would think it is rude if I added you asshole and he said probably not.
So apparently you are the only person who gets offended to the extent you do over something so innocuous as someone putting emphasis on the wrong word.
Also I was not the one talking about money in this situation, I was strictly keeping it to the mother of your child requesting something like pens, no money to be given to her. And it would not matter if you took a few hours to get them to her-in your original scenario you would never give them to the child because the mother was so (in your view) unpardonably rude that you had to, again, pull a Dr. Venkman.
At least now you have realised that being such a dick to your kid is not the right thing to do, even if you still are being a petulant baby about the scenario.
Brandon: I don’t need to provide references, cite examples, etc,,, of lauralot’s man-hating ways.
Yes, yes, you do. You asserted it, you have to defend it.
And yes, you are a dictionary. You said slut, you said promiscuous. I asked for your definition so that we’d be on the same page. You, the man who is now saying to use the “standard definition” earlier said you wouldn’t provide any definition (not even the useless, weaseling cop-out, of, “look it up”, because, “every man has a different one.”
Well, I asked (not demanded, asked, politely) for yours. I was respectful enough to say that whatever definition you provided would be accepted. You didn’t have the courtesy to read what I said, and got all pissy when I pointed out what you were doing.
That lack of simple ability to understand plain English, combined with your overdeveloped sense of entitlement, and your inability to consider the differential effects of treatment to a child as compared to an adult (ignoring completely your comprehension of the hierarchy of needs; even accepting that you probably aren’t aware of the specific names for Maslow’s basic three level list of crude needs), is why I said it.
Because it’s all about Brandon. Being a parent means (for several years) life being all about them, and the incorporation of more abstract things like respect, and the best way to phrases things, and separating wants from needs.
But you, in your 30s have yet to figure out that distinction, putting notions of politesse before things like the emotional needs of your children. That, you careless lout, is pathetic.
It puts the lie to your “exploding feminist brains” with the brilliance of your reason, and the stunning rhetoric. When presented with the chance to be magnanimous, in pursuit of putting the people you avow to be your enemies on the back foot, and set yourself up as a decent human being; knowing that all you had to do was say you’d put buying your five year old kid a birthday cake if his mother (with whom you weren’t supposed to be on the outs with, but jointly sharing the rearing of your beloved child, whom you were going to give “50 percent of your time” and look to the needs of) said she needed to to do it.
Nope, The Almighty Brandon comes first, even before a child who is too young to know why Daddy chose to disappoint.
You are a “wretch, concenter’d all in self” and that is why you are a menace to children.
Can you take someone to court for custody for being “rude?” I don’t think you can.
Lovely relationship model right here.
Just because you’re legal age and no one can prevent you from being an asshole doesn’t mean you need to exercise that right. After all, you don’t seem nearly as keen on women being demanding to you, even though you’re just as capable of saying “fuck off.”
@Brandon: Oh, I see.
Hey everyone! Brandon eats babies, pushes old people in wheelchairs over into wet cement, and kidnaps college girls and keeps them locked up in his basement! I don’t have to prove it; everyone would just bitch and moan over the evidence anyway. Besides, it’s my opinion and that’s my right.
Jules: I’m sure you can…
Well as Dr. Venkman AKA Brandon once said “you did not say the magic word.”
@Elizabeth: I would do my best not to punish the child since it isn’t their fault their mother is a rude, entitled pain in the ass.
However, I would be as passive-aggressive as I could be towards her if she was ordering me around. She would find out real quick that being a cunt to me isn’t going to get her what she wants.
I have always realized it…you just assumed the worst. Petulant baby? What if I told you to go to the store and get me a six pack. Would that come off as rude? Yes it would. However if I said “Elizabeth, could you please go to the store and get me a six pack?”
Do you see the difference? Oh sorry…see the difference!!!
Brandon needs his own book of larnin’, on etiquette. We can call it “How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.”
@Pecunium: I am not writing a thesis, I am stating an opinion. If this was Wikipedia you would be right…it isn’t. It’s the comment section on a parody website. Hardly academic.
Also, I defined it earlier. I clearly pointed out that some men see a woman sleeping with more than 1 man is a slut while other men don’t care. I also said that I was in the middle of that spectrum.
So I did answer your question, you just chose to ignore it.
@Jules: No, put not adequately providing for a child even after receiving child support is grounds for a custody hearing.
@Lauralot: Nice…go ahead and think that all you want. I could care less. Also it is wrong.
However, I would be as passive-aggressive as I could be towards her if she was ordering me around.
Everyone is passive-aggressive now and then. Some people seem to be pathologically passive-aggressive.
But that’s the first time I’ve ever heard someone proudly announce their intent to be passive-aggressive in a hypothetical situation that they aren’t even going to have to really face.
Oh, you’d like to claim it’s wrong, Brandon. But I took a leaf from your book and I have the whole thing on tape:
That’s totally you; don’t even try to deny it. I don’t have to prove it; I’m not writing a thesis and this isn’t Wikipedia.
Yea, but you’d be a dick.
That seems to be the pattern of the conversations with you at this site. People say something and you reply with “Yea, but what if I don’t care about being a giant asshole?”
No, put not adequately providing for a child even after receiving child support is grounds for a custody hearing.
If the child lacks something because the mother asked the father to get it and the father refused, I highly doubt the courts are going to see that as grounds to award more custody to the father. (Since you didn’t reply before, I’ll assume you lost custody in the first place because you slapped the mother around for not talking the way you like.)
Not really, because if you said “you need to go to the store and get me a six pack” I would probably go “why?”
If my roommate said the same thing I would still ask “why?” If he said “because I am unable to go myself for whatever reason (all the way up to I am lazy)” I would say “okay” and do so. If he said “cuz I am a MAN” I would just laugh and say no.
And if this turned into a constant thing? Then I would address it and point to an example of his doing this while requesting the behavior to please stop. If it continued, then I would start to say “no, I asked you to not do this.”
That is the difference between a childish person such as yourself and the rest of humanity.
*cues Brandon saying THAT IS TOTALLY WHAT I MEANT even though that is not at all what he meant*
@Shora: Constantly being demanding has a negative rate of return. Hence, you would get far more if you were only demanding on a few things instead of being demanding about everything.
I don’t really care about a lot of things. However, the things that I do care about (and how people treat me is at the top of that list), I will be demanding if someone over steps their bounds with me.