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.
@Shora: I just didn’t feel like expending energy to think of something witty. That would mean I actually cared about our little interaction. I didn’t, so I just used whatever I thought of first. Plus I was watching a movie, which was more important at the time.
@Elizabeth and Voip: Then I am sure you would think “You NEED to suck my dick” is just me politely asking for you to get on your knees and start sucking. It wouldn’t be rude at all *end sarcasm*
@Pecunium: Apparently you are having a hard time with this.
Slut = a promiscuous person
Promiscuous is a highly subjective term that is different for each person. Some men see a woman with two partners is promiscuous while others wouldn’t label anyone promiscuous.
Are you expecting that I give you a set number? Like a woman that has sex with 10 people crosses the imaginary “slut line”. Well, I don’t have a set number. I use far more data than just a woman’s partner count to determine if she is a slut or not.
Lastly, if I had a father that didn’t care about me and didn’t take care of my basic needs, then why would I be mad that he didn’t spend money on orhthodondure? His past actions clearly state that he is unreliable and untrustworthy. So why would I put an expectation on him that he would pay for that procedure? Doing so is only setting yourself up to have that expectation broken.
Hey Brandon: Ready to prove that I hate men yet?
Oh my god, yes Brandyn we know how much you don’t care. Now, can you do it without sounding like a petulant child?
Your privilege is showing. Telling people who have had an absent or irresponsible parent how they should have acted/felt when you have no experience with such a thing is really fucking obnoxious. Stop it.
Also! Brandon!
How do you define slut? Why is being promiscuous a bad thing?
@Bekabot: Boys in fatherless homes tend to have other issues like drug abuse and increased rates of suicide.
It is my own personal belief that a single mother raising a boy will be harming the boy later on in life. Boys need their fathers for guidance and discipline. Basically a woman can’t turn a boy into a man. A woman has no idea what it means to be a man, nor does she know the problems and obstacles men face. The only time a fatherless home is preferable is when the man is being abusive or violent.
I also think that I have some experience with it since I grew up in a house with only my mother. I got to see my father one day a week and every other weekend. Needless to say, I would have done far worse in life if I didn’t get that time with him.
@Laura: Are you still on that old bit? Why do you care so much about it?
@Shora: Privilege? More like common sense. If someone…anyone…keeps disappointing you, you stop relying on them. Unless you like to cause your own emotional suffering. Are you an emotional masochist?
When is being promiscuous bad? When someone is using sex like it is a drug.
So you give up then? Awesome. Well then, Mr. Polite and Respectful, ready to admit your mistake?
My father was barely around when I was growing up and didn’t contribute financially to my upbringing in the least. I turned out fine, and you would have too, so you should stop complaining about how little you got to see your father. As a kid, you should have just accepted you weren’t going to see him much since that was how things always were, and if you were upset about it you were making yourself unhappy by not being completely unaffected.
Oh wait, I just remembered. My experiences have nothing to do with your experiences and I shouldn’t act as if they do! And I also know nothing about your life and what kind of feelings you have for your family so making assumptions about what you should or should not have done about feelings and situations you may or may not have had makes me a giant asshole.
Oops.
I would think you were attempting to be funny. So you would get a pat on the head and some of the birthday cake.
I’m curious: What ever happened to Brandon’s definition of slut as a totally non-judgmental, and positive manner of describing a woman -specifically to other men- as up for sex and a good time? Remember the good old days when “slut” was a word used to incite passion and inflame a lustful response in Ashley, and had absolutely nothing to do with “numbers” or “promiscuity” or ostensibly judgmental declarations about marriageability and standards?
Remember when Brandon was arguing that “slut” wasn’t negative at all? Even though he wouldn’t call Ashley that in public. Of course.
And, Lauralot, if you’re waiting for Brandon to provide concrete examples of you being a “man-hater” you’re going to be waiting for a long time. Brandon has long been throwing around terms like “man-hater,” and claiming that modern third-wave feminism (not that good 1st and 2nd wave feminism that’s responsible for things like hormonal birth control, and young, single women working outside the home at jobs that pay well enough for them to set up their own house-holds) is anti-male without providing evidence for his claims. You’d think in this hot-bed of feminist man-haters he could cite one quote but… so far, nada.
As far as I can tell the definition of “man-hating feminist” basically means, woman who disagrees with Brandon about something or points out the flaws in his shallow thinking and overly-simplistic solutions to the complications of human relationships and interactions.
What does this even mean? If I seek out sex when I’m horny and have sex when I like with whomever I like (barring any agreements to the contrary) am I “using sex as a drug”?
And sometimes that is not possible. Ignoring that, and being a self righteous prick while doing so, is displaying privilege.
@Lauralot: It’s cute that you keep going to youtube to get videos. Also, I love Scrubs. Great show.
Also, what mistake?
@Shora: Actually, I think my father should have had full custody from the start. It would have been better for me in the long run since he was the better parent.
Brandon, explained that, see above.
What you seem to be doing is defending the system which caused your own suffering. Why would you do that? What’s your investment? Are you an emotional masochist?
Brandon: I’m going to explain this in very small words to make sure you’ll understand.
You said I hate men. This is a lie. You don’t get to lie about people here and then carry on as if you hadn’t.
Need me to repeat that?
@Shora: Do you want to have sex or do you NEED to have sex. The latter is using sex like a drug.
Again, not privilege. All I am saying is you shouldn’t rely on unreliable people. And relying on unreliable people will only end in disappointment. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
-facepalm-
I can feel the breeze from my point whiffing over your head all the way over here
@Laura: Denial is the first step towards acceptance.
Hey idiot:
As previously explained to you, VoIP wasn’t “relying” on her father by choice. The courts ordered that he had to pay for these things, so things like college financial aid would have taken into account the combined income of either parent. She HAD to depend on her father for that money, whether she wanted to or not.
And sometimes that is not possible. Ignoring that, and being a self righteous prick while doing so, is displaying privilege.
Ahem, a young tweenager should totally just pull hirself up by hir bootstraps and pay for medical procedures hirself!
[/sarcasm]
Actually, the first step is admitting you have a problem. Ready to do that, Brandon? We’ll all support you.
@Shora: Despite what you think I got your last paragraph. That my experiences aren’t going to be your experiences and vice versa.
Brandon, you’re saying that children shouldn’t rely on reliable parents. But children don’t have a choice. They can’t get jobs, they can’t provide for things like food, shelter, clothing, and health-care on their own. And while some people are able, as children, to harden themselves off to the manipulation and/or disappointment experienced from dealing with financially or emotionally unreliable parents, others just aren’t. We’re not talking about “people” distancing themselves from other unreliable “people”.
We’re talking about parent/child relationships and the complexities of needs within them.
Brandon, if you were so enlightened you didn’t rely on your dad to pay for your dental work and so smart you didn’t have faith in him…
…Your dental work would still cost money.
That’s what we mean by privilege. You don’t seem to get that child support isn’t something the kid wants, it’s something they need and are owed.
If a girl has had lots and lots of sex with many partners, you wouldn’t look down on her for being a slut because she liked having the sex?
It’s not hard to understand, assuming that the person in question has the freedom to choose who they rely on. A child in a single parent household of low income dependent on child support does NOT have the freedom to choose whom he or she relies on for food, medical care, or education. As such, callously telling that person that they are making THEMSELVES miserable by not getting the help they have a right to expect is a) a dick thing to do and b) exhibits privilege, because I doubt that if you had been in such a situation you would be so blase about not getting the help you needed.
And if you WERE in such a situation and yet were still saying the things you have been saying? That makes you an asshole.