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.
I feel like there should be bears at some point in that scenario.
kristinmh, when you talked about your parents, I imagined you growing up in a house straddling the US/Canadian border, with your dad on one side and your mom on the other.
5) Get eaten by bears. Because apparently there is a god after all. 😀
David: Like that story about the island on the International Date Line!
Curse our timezone differences – I missed all last night’s fun with Brandon!
Honestly, a psychologist would have an absolute field day with him. What can he possibly get out of coming here? Especially since he keeps telling us that he doesn’t care?
Every single Manboobz regular, without exception, seems to think that he’s not merely a contemptibly selfish asshole but a boring dullard to boot – and unlike his claim about Man-Hating Lauralot, the weight of supporting evidence would sink an aircraft carrier.
He’s welcome to link to an example, but I can’t think of a single instance of him producing a genuinely snappy comeback, or even a particularly cutting insult, whereas the ones that he gets aimed in his direction amount to double figures every single day.
And dear God, how humorless do you have to be to miss the sarcasm that’s not so much dripping as tsunami-ing around him whenever he pops up here? I almost feel guilty for pointing and laughing, as the poor sap is so painfully oblivious – but since reason and evidence clearly cut no ice with him (as the child-torturing necrophile has made very clear in this very thread), pointing and laughing will have to suffice as a poor but nonetheless entertaining substitute.
So he thinks we’re his puppets, does he? Is there a name for this level of delusion?
Maybe this is the most attention he gets anywhere? I have no idea. I can’t imagine wanting to troll, say, The Spearhead just for shit and giggles, and at least I’d probably provoke genuine anger there rather than the bored eye-rolling that Brandon mostly provokes here.
You have to admit, though, it is kind of funny when he tries to impress us with how wild and exciting his sex life is. Up against the wall! Oral sex! He’s hardcore, our Brandon.
Does this remind you of anyone?
He’s our very own Alan Partridge!
In fact, maybe Brandon really is a new Steve Coogan comedy creation that’s being tried out here before going wider? That would certainly make more sense than most other theories.
Nah, Alan Partridge is funny.
Speaking of Coogan, did you see The Trip? Given that we share a similar profession I wondered what you thought of his character there. I thought it was spot-on in terms of capturing the loneliness and insecurity of the ageing male celebrity. I find Coogan immensely irritating a lot of the time, but he is a good actor.
I need to catch up with ‘The Trip’ – I thought the first episode was very funny, for precisely the reasons you gave, but for various reasons I never got to see the rest.
It actually got better as it went along. The other guy was kind of grating after a while, though, in terms of the impersonations.
“If I say “If you don’t pay the money you are obligated to, I don’t get to go to school/fix my teeth/eat” Is not having faith in someone, it’s being dependent on an unreliable person to do what they are supposed to.”
But see, Brandon is pathologically opposed to anyone being dependent on anyone for anything at anytime. He also takes great pleasure in being passive aggressive, hypocritical and paranoid about date rape.
It’s a good thing he’s not ever having kids. For the kid’s sake. Being a parent MIGHT actually teach Brandon a thing or two, but he’d likely resent the lessons in selflessness and swallowing his pride.
Brandon: 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.
That’s not an answer, because what you said has no real meaning, “If she has only one other partner, she’s not a slut. If she’s had more than one, I might”, isn’t useful. And that is the actual meaning of what you said. So we can go with the working definition that, “more than one is a slut.”
That, or, “Brandon make up the definition as he see’s fit because he doesn’t like the woman in question” which seems a more reasonable interpretation, based on all the available data.
PFKAE: Not really, because if you said “you need to go to the store and get me a six pack” I would probably go “why?”
Brandon also, conveniently, forgot the difference between a child, and an adult. A six-pak for an adult is less emotionally needful than a birthday cake for a child.
Brandon: @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.
Which is why Brandon is flexible in things like how someone asks him for things.
Actually, I’ll bet he is. If a male buddy said, “Dude, we need you to get a six-pack for Friday night,” I’ll bet he doesn’t throw a tantrum, because he thinks it directly benefits Brandon.
Brandon: @Voip: It’s nice that you see your father as a walking wallet…only there to buy you and your sister shit.
Right, because orhthodondure isn’t a health issue at all; which used to be one of those things you wouldn’t care about providing; and might even tolerate a less than completely repspectful tone of voice in the request.
Quick point of order, whether or not you successfully control someone, you can be controlling towards them.
I’m off to work. If there’s any candy left in the piñata, save some for me.
I can’t believe that someone mentioned a bear eating Brandon.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00394F3PG/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Someone has already written the book on that one.
And this also applies to jeering references to making people “dance like puppets”, however hilariously at odds with the facts this might be.
David – lol! No, though there are a few border-straddling towns, mostly in the prairies (in Ontario and Quebec the Great Lakes get in the way).
I read this whole discussion and was thoroughly amused.
If a bit offended at Brandon’s “you should have learned your father wasn’t reliable and just not put faith in him.” Like what, kids just collect child support money to prove a point? As a symbolic gesture of trust? Cripes.
Also I like how Brandon Rules of Etiquette specify that saying “need” is excessive mouthiness, then he comes in here dropping c-bombs and “bitch” every which way.
But the only real Brandon Rule of Etiquette is, as always, “I’ll do whatever I can get away with and if no one stops me then I was right.”
He is a man who will be forever shitting in urinals.
“…and if people try to stop me – by asking for evidence to support an accusation, for instance – then I’ll airily wave their protests aside, because it doesn’t matter and I don’t care. Did I tell you that I don’t care? I don’t care so much that I tell people that I don’t care at least a dozen times a day. And do they care? No, which is why I have to keep telling them that I don’t care.”
Incidentally, I’ve heard rumors that Ashley is in fact a small tapir. But a very cute one.
“@bekabot: Strange, cause I am seeing more and more shitty parents. Are the good ones hiding?”
Sorry to be so late back to this thread. Brandon, you changed the subject. I was to your contention that women who ran businesses or worked in shops (or did accounts or whatever) must always have been very rare individuals. I was trying to show that no, they weren’t rare until women started to be secluded during the Industrial Revolution, and that even after that there were a heck of a lot more working women out there than people like me (I grew up in the 60’s/70’s reading schoolbook stories full of Daddy Ducks who went to the office every day while the Mommy Ducks stayed at home on the nest with the chicks — an account of things which is a lot like your account, except that in your account of things the Mommy Ducks eat duck-bons) were raised to believe.
To get to the issue you bring up: what you’re saying (I believe) is that women alone bring boys up badly. (I believe that’s what you’re saying because you don’t come out and state your case directly.) You might be surprised to find that I tend to agree with you, except that I emphasize the words differently: women alone</em. bring boys up badly. But a woman in the situation I pointed to would not have been alone, she would have been an adjunct of one extended family and would have married into another (that's if she and her husband weren't already members of the same extended family) and as is usually the case, about half the members of these families would have been male. Consequently her sons would have had someone to model themselves on other than one lone dude who was gone most of the day and who was exhausted on the weekends. Those of her sons who were destined for a religious life or who were just personally devout would have had all the men in the Church to model themselves on too.
Life in the Middle Ages was no picnic but people were less atomized than they are now. It was harder to turn people of one tribe or gens against one another — although, as is again usually the case, they were perfectly willing to turn against strangers. Money was less in use than it is now and people weren’t as dependent on it. The conditions of life were hard enough that most people had no choice other than to depend on one another, which is what they did. The myth of the Lone Male Who Overcomes All Obstacles Unaided didn’t begin to arise until the Industrial Revolution was well under way.
Sorry to be so late back to this thread. Brandon, you changed the subject. I was to your contention that women who ran businesses or worked in shops (or did accounts or whatever) must always have been very rare individuals. I was trying to show that no, they weren’t rare until women started to be secluded during the Industrial Revolution, and that even after that there were a heck of a lot more working women out there than people like me (I grew up in the 60′s/70′s reading schoolbook stories full of Daddy Ducks who went to the office every day while the Mommy Ducks stayed at home on the nest with the chicks — an account of things which is a lot like your account, except that in your account of things the Mommy Ducks eat duck-bons) were raised to believe.
To get to the issue you bring up: what you’re saying (I believe) is that women alone bring boys up badly. (I believe that’s what you’re saying because you don’t come out and state your case directly.) You might be surprised to find that I tend to agree with you, except that I emphasize the words differently: women alone bring boys up badly. But a woman in the situation I pointed to would not have been alone, she would have been an adjunct of one extended family and would have married into another (that’s if she and her husband weren’t already members of the same extended family) and as is usually the case, about half the members of these families would have been male. Consequently her sons would have had someone to model themselves on other than one lone dude who was gone most of the day and who was exhausted on the weekends. Those of her sons who were destined for a religious life or who were just personally devout would have had all the men in the Church to model themselves on too.
Life in the Middle Ages was no picnic but people were less atomized than they are now. It was harder to turn people of one tribe or gens against one another — although, as is again usually the case, they were perfectly willing to turn against strangers. Money was less in use than it is now and people weren’t as dependent on it. The conditions of life were hard enough that most people had no choice other than to depend on one another, which is what they did. The myth of the Lone Male Who Overcomes All Obstacles Unaided didn’t begin to arise until the Industrial Revolution was well under way.
God I hate typos.