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.
And here comes the point I was making “do it my way or else.” Brandon, you simply had to stop at the “I will not be with a woman who wants to be a stay at home mom.” We would get the point that you would presumably discuss this with the woman in your life that you will have children with.
There was no need to add the controlling language but you feel you need to show that you control your woman.
You also happen to be ignoring the chance that baby might have special needs that require more then just dumping the kid off at daycare all day…so if Ashley has the gall to want to stay home with her special needs child, out the door she goes unless she can pay for room and board.
You conceive it, you pay for it, buster. If the mother can’t afford childcare, then what? Are you just going to let the kid sit in the house alone? There’s laws about that sort of thing. And if the mother goes into debt on the childcare, you’re going to be responsible. Legally and ethically, you can’t just run away from your own child because “I decided I didn’t want to pay for it!”
@Brandon
I don’t know if this makes you feel any better (I know it can be frustrating to be in the lion’s den of a hostile comments section), but I’m a feminist who’s on your side on the housewife thing. I grew up in a community of wealthy stay-at-home moms, and I saw first-hand how it ruined a lot of people’s lives.
Leaving aside the issue of affordable child care, there are a lot of women out there who raise children as their full time job (often with the help of nannies) as a lifestyle choice.
@Holly: Actually, I don’t want any woman living with me. This is why Ashley has her own place. Also, I would never date a single mother.
Attractive men does not equal high standards.
Finding women I am compatible with isn’t really a needle in a haystack for me. But I talk to lots of people so I don’t really see it as work.
@theindigolemon: I don’t really need a “rap sheet” on these women. I just spend time around them and watch their behavior.
But I do think that women that go around fucking everything that moves are making bad decisions.
Brandon’s vision of fatherhood is like that ridiculous MRA “paper abortion” thing, except with the added wrinkle that he would still live with the kid.
I hope he doesn’t have, like, a hamster. I can forsee “I decided not to feed you, hamster! It’s my money! I don’t owe you anything!”
I think part of the disconnect here is that the scenario Brandon seems to embrace with the SAHM thing is a kind of business arrangement, not a love match or equal partnership with both parties having input. The child exists as a debt to the man; the woman can either follow suit or enter the workforce. There’s no realization that any man and woman could ever decide together that they love each other, and their child, and want to make decisions together that make sense for them all.
I do, however, like the idea that if a couple that decides that both parents working is a good idea, the economy has “done Brandon’s work for him.” The invisible hand of Brandon strikes again!
@Holly: Again, I am responsible to take care of the child…not the mother.
@Brandon
I think there’s a double standard there, but whatever, it’s not really arguable at this point.
So when he knocks Ashley the Plastic Doll up, at least we can rest assured, she will be the one taking primary care of the child so the child will be okay.
I think we should make sure she has access to really good lawyers because I cannot see this one ending without a court order.
Brandon can use his disinterested father (who of course will overcharge him for making his father waste time on his son’s problems.)
You’d make the mother of your child into a single mother, though. Functionally.
If you tell her that she has to support herself financially and has to support the child, what exactly are you there for? Moral support? If you’re not contributing money and you’re not contributing serious childcare labor (and you could but just choose not to because it’s my money and you can’t make me), then you’re not a father. You’re just a dude dating a mother.
@theindigolemon: It wasn’t really arguable to begin with. Also double standards exist and they always will. Especially when it comes to mating and reproduction. You can’t reform biology.
@Holly: No…that means we support the child together and I support myself while she supports herself.
Also, society has pretty much denigrated fatherhood in this country to the point that lots of men don’t even want the label.
Hmm, I’ve got an idea that will totally fix the stay-at-home parent problem: The aspiring stay-at-home parent gets a job as a nanny, taking care of the children of a family where all the adults are working. Then, since the original family is now in need of child care, they could themselves hire a nanny to take care of their child — perhaps, say, one of the working adults in the family that they work for. The income from the parent working as a child care provider should, after overhead, almost pay for the child care that they now need.
So there we go. All the tasks that were being done before are covered, and everyone is receiving the blessed Paycheck Sacrament. And it makes perfect logical sense!
This is arguable:
“But I just can’t see a woman with low standards being a good wife or mother.”
I don’t think this is true at all, for example, depending on what you mean by low standards.
This is not arguable:
“I don’t really need a “rap sheet” on these women. I just spend time around them and watch their behavior.
Arguable, but no one disagrees:
“But I do think that women that go around fucking everything that moves are making bad decisions.”
Yes, they just want the sex without the responsibility. Which is why you tend to see those women with several children who have not been able to have the men in their lives stick around for the children the men so carelessly created.
And then you blame the women for it by saying they are sluts.
@Brandon
“Also double standards exist and they always will. Especially when it comes to mating and reproduction. You can’t reform biology.”
You can’t extract a moral system from biological facts. Differences in mating and reproduction caused by biological differences do not justify differential treatment of men and women who engage in in the same practices. Come on.
I’m not opposed to that (although again I stress it’s not for everyone), but:
a) I question whether you’re really up for 50% of the midnight diaper changes, the 2 AM feedings, the supermarket temper tantrums and the frantic pediatrician visits. In my experience that kind of thing defaults to the mother even when she’s working just as hard, and it’s not even-stevens when that happens.
b) You have to do this as an agreement with the mother. You can’t just tell her it’s going to be that way and you won’t let her do anything else. Stuff as important as parenting arrangements can’t be done as an order from the Manly Man In Charge Of His Life, or it’s going to backfire horribly.
Okay, but then you better not get anyone pregnant. The “label” is sort of non-optional after that.
We don’t even consider a woman a mother until she’s on her third.
Fun fact: Roman slave women were no longer required to work after they had their third child. I guess this must be what Mag is talking about, because otherwise, I’ve got nothing.
Of course he will arrogantly insist that he never could have an unplanned pregnancy happen. After all, he is Brandon.
Of course not! He secretly films every pregnancy so that he can prove it was, in fact, planned!
*smacks forehead* How could I forget! This is BRANDON the “I am going to break a dozen laws just to prove I am right no matter how insanely stupid” Brandon we are talking about..
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
“*smacks forehead* How could I forget! This is BRANDON the “I am going to break a dozen laws just to prove I am right no matter how insanely stupid” Brandon we are talking about..”
Shit, I might be falling in love with this guy. Guys, save me!
Also, the MRA two-dot punctuation mark! It’s spreading!
Like a zombie plague on AMC.
By the way Theindigolemon, he is in his thirties and probably dating (if real) 22 year old and still has these silly ideas. Does that help?
Okay, there’s a c) to my stipulations up there:
c) When things don’t go exactly to plan–and they won’t–you have to be able to deal with that like a human being. The kid may have some huge medical expenses, or the mother might, or she could lose her job, or she could be laid up sick for a long time. If you stick to your “my half is inviolate because that’s my beer money dammit, 50% is all ya get, kid” attitude in the face of crises, you’re just a complete asshole.
Actually, I see child support as a stop gap measure until socialist social support systems are implemented. But, it is worth noting that room and board are generally part of the pay of a live in nanny.
You are once again treating childcare work as valueless, that is, not as labor at all and certainly not as essential labor for society.
Oh, yes! The stubborn need to be right was very alluring, but the age is not. Guys in their thirties can just take their wrinkled, old, used-up, whore penises elsewhere. I need a man to be my age or younger to consider him relationship material.
Brandon, there are a lot of poor-people jobs we need. Dishwashers, cashiers, ushers, that one dude at Disney World who takes your tickets, sure, we could probably run most of that with full employment of teenagers and college students. But farmworkers? Home care aides? Even nursery workers (very important if you intend to make all parents work!)? Not so much!
Also, I’m not sure what your definition of slut is. What if one is scrupulously honest and discriminating in one’s sex partners, but also has casual sex with many people? Does that make one a slut and thus unmarriageable? (I personally make a practice of not marrying slut-shaming assholes…)