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.
Re: reassuring someone that they are attractive to you.
When mum had her mastectomy, dad said to her “Don’t worry, I won’t leave you even though you have only one breast.” Until he said that, it had never occurred to her that he might leave due to her having surgery for cancer. Yeah, very reassuring!
HAHAHAHA OH BOY YOU SURE SHOWED ME.
Yeah, well, the lurkers agree with me.
Cute coming from someone who thinks “because I said so” is good arguing.
@Magpie: Well, enlighten all the men that lurk here. If you have a girlfriend that doesn’t think highly of herself…what is a boyfriend to do?
Fixed that for you.
The word is irrelevant. What is important is the provoked emotions the person is communicating when using the word.
This from, “words mean what I say they mean, unless they don’t”.
@hellkell: Actually, I am more curious in knowing how YOU think it works
This from the guy who (like NWO) refuses to share how he thinks; won’t even say what he means when he uses a word: though he admits he uses them more to provoke then to communicate.
Brandon: Still no defintion of slut?
Mind you, “@KathleenB: I am not, I am just asking for hellkell to answer a question. But hellkell can’t seem to do that, so I get personal attacks instead.
Is pretty much what you did to me, so your mewling about how she’s not treating you the way you want to be treated… you’ve shown people how you treat people, and really… why should they reward your bad behavior.
Show a little respect if you want to get any.
Brandon: For a discussion about beauty standards, we don’t NEED to get super specific. So far we don’t even seem to agree that there are “vague generalities” in *American* culture about beauty… and yet there are quite a few movie starlets that share the same physical qualities. >.>
As do Faux News anchors.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-11-2011/lactate-intolerance?xrs=share_twitter
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-11-2011/lactate-intolerance?xrs=share_twitter
@Pecunium: I was under the assumption that I was using the words that everyone else was using.
Ok…I have given you my position on sluts multiple times. I am sorry that it isn’t up to your standards, but I don’t live to satisfy your standards. Most people can read what I have written and come to the conclusion that I take more than just how many partners a woman has to determine if I *personally* think she is a slut. Each woman is judged differently.
In response to the issue with hellkell. I can either discuss a topic in a fairly civilized way or we can hurl personal attacks at one another. I am perfectly capable of doing both. If you want to have a debate, then the personal attacks should be as close to non-existent as possible. But since I asked hellkell for further clarification (by asking a more specific question), she went into “you are debating in bad faith” mode. So if asking questions is “in bad faith” then what is “in good faith”? Do I just have to blindly accept hellkell’s answer as fact?
Once the personal attacks start, the debate is pretty much over. So I figured I might as well hurl them right back at hellkell. As the old saying goes “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”. The commenters here seem to have no problem throwing insults at me and other “non-agreers”, but as soon as one of us strikes a nerve it’s “You are being disrespectful”. One should learn to take their own advice. Respect begets respect. Hostility begets hostility.
While I might talk about sluts, whores, prostitutes, etc.. Those are topics of discussion and ideas. I very rarely (if ever) have blatantly called one of the commenters here a slut or a whore. However, I have repeatedly been called a moron, idiot, loser and even Elizabeth went as far as calling my a necrophiliac just a little while ago.
And for a group of people to demand respect from me that have insulted my girlfriend is just ludicrous.
So on one hand, the commenters here have either 1) guessed correctly that I don’t have a girlfriend or 2) have spent countless posts denigrating an actual woman. And for a group that is supposed to value woman, one would think they would rather not insult a woman than to maybe be right in her non-existence.
So I could say to you if you want me to respect you, you should respect me also. I think for the most part, our discussions have been reasonably civil. However, most of the other commenters here think it is somehow mature to hurl insults at people for no other reason than they disagree with them.
@Molly: And why exactly can we not talk about specifics?
I can either discuss a topic in a fairly civilized way or we can hurl personal attacks at one another.
on the season finale of ‘brandon doesnt understand things’: a stopped clock is right twice a day, thinks it is clever.
@Sharcules: And thank you for proving my point.
nobody believes you had a point
That’s a lot of words to say “It is so because I say it is.”
Not that we couldn’t sense it.
Do you seriously not understand what sarcasm is?
Anyway, considering that you haven’t brought it up again, I’m just going to go ahead and conclude that you admit that you were wrong when you said that, if my father didn’t pay his share of my tuition, I was the one at fault. Thanks for doing that! It was an awfully stupid position, as well as cruel. Catch you on the flip side.
You didn’t begin with respect for us, we returned the favor.
VoiP, as we know well, Brandon DEMANDS respect — the idea that respect might need to be earned simply does not apply to him!
The answer is almost certainly “no”, but claims that he’s a necrophile (or, in my version, a “child-torturing necrophile“) aren’t technically sarcasm – it’s more a case of lying about him directly.
And the reason is that we’re deliberately and indeed gleefully exploiting the fact that Brandon has given us unambiguous permission to make up what the hell we like about him, and present it as fact.
If you remember, back in the early days of this thread, when dinosaurs still roamed the land and the Roman Empire was a viable political entity, Brandon accused Lauralot of being “a man hating feminist“.
A number of people quite strongly objected to this, as it’s a serious accusation of unthinking bigotry towards half the population, and one that was apparently entirely unsupported by evidence – so Brandon was asked to produce some, or withdraw the slur.
He did neither.
Instead, gloriously, he replied:
If that isn’t an explicit green light for us to make things up about him, I don’t know what is.
And the great thing about him giving us this green light is that we can carry on making things up about him and presenting them as fact until he finally calls a halt by either providing the requested evidence that Lauralot is a man-hater, or finally admitting what has been obvious for days: that he made it up and that he’s full of shit.
why would you want to make up things about brandon, though, when the actual facts of his existence, based on what he’s posted here, already make him seem like a total tool.
i can’t see any worse insult than being the person brandon describes through his posts, the thoughtless, selfish, intellectually lazy dude who assumes any attempt to question the status quo is some sort of subterfuge.
Small words, please, Sharculese. It’s best not to use words like “subterfuge” around Brandon, in case he gets confused and goes off on another mystifying tangent about his father/Ashley/how the best way to protect yourself from false criminal allegations is to commit a different crime.
Okay, okay, I know we’re always giving Brandon crap about how we don’t believe Ashley is real, but now I’ve found photographic proof she exists!
Brandon and Ashley meeting for the first time: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lbiqpII-ifg/TiA_Rg9eaxI/AAAAAAAAAAA/8quZm4b0iEY/s1600/Pillow%2BPets%2B005-724967.jpg
falling in love: http://www.frogcitycheese.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Pillow-Pets.jpg
and curled up watching a movie together: http://whatmommiesneed.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/wyatt-pillow-pet-300×225.jpg
Brandon: <i.@Pecunium: I was under the assumption that I was using the words that everyone else was using.
These would be the same words (like culture) you say have no specific meaning? Or is that like Slut, which you say everyone has a different meaning for (but which you use as if it has a specific meaning… which you won’t share).
Here is the conclusion I’ve come to about your position on slut. It means nothing. You use it, actually, just as you said you do; to get a reaction. You use it because you think it will be offensive. If you need it to shame those with whom you disagree, you whip it out.
A woman who is fun in bed (by your standards) is a good slut, and the word has (as you once said) no perjorative connotation. Anyone who disagrees with you on that is a prude, and a man-hating stick in the mud.
But, when you want to say a woman has poor judgement, is “promiscuous”, then she is a bad slut. Worth fucking (if she’ll have you), but otherwise to be looked down on, and she deserves to be thought ill of, because she has offended your sensibilities.
As to my “standards”, you are right, you don’t meet them. Which is because my standard is for honesty, and you aren’t. That, or you are in fact not educated enough to understand what I am asking for.
You admit that the definition of some words can be contextually different. I asked you (since you were the one who introduced the term) to give us (that is to say you and me) a common definition, which I would agree to use for this conversation. By doing that we could be talking about the same thing.
You, for whatever reason (I have, from your past behavior some ideas as to why that is), refuse to give us, not your personal definition; but any definition.
Which is part of the reason you are so poor at debate. You can’t treat it as a purel intellectual exercise. It’s all personal to you.
Now, to the issue of “personal attacks”. You like to make them, you can’t take them. You pretend you are being “above it all”, but you aren’t.
While I might talk about sluts, whores, prostitutes, etc.. Those are topics of discussion and ideas. I very rarely (if ever) have blatantly called one of the commenters here a slut or a whore.
Nope, not blatantly. You just imply it. You also make blanket statements about feminists; as if saying evil things about a group identity; shared by many (actually most) of the people to whom you are speaking isn’t an insult.
You made a big deal about respect, and not rewarding bad behavior, in the course of that you insulted anyone who didn’t agree with you that phrasing things in the ways you wanted them to be phrased (never, in the life of Brandon shall the needs of a child be phrased in way which implies he has any obligation to that child; even if the child is Brandons), and that anyone who was in such disagreement with you was a controlling asshole.
You called Lauralot a man-hater. You can’t back that up, but you insist it’s true; because Brandon says so.
You (as above) insult groups, as a whole, and make a pretense of having some sort of immunity from reaction because you didn’t name anyone in specific.
You are also pretty selective in what/whom you choose to “dish out the heat” to. I made a pretty intense assessment of your character. You ignored it. But hellkell makes a passing comment and you are suddenly Mr. Tough Guy. When people point out you aren’t actually on the moral high ground you think you are (about beauty standards) you change the topic; pretending this is about interpersonal interaction.
In a way it is. You are tone deaf to argument, and lack the sense to see when it’s tactically superior to let needling attacks slide past you. You dance to others tunes, and think you are calling the steps.
And (in the same way anyone can see how you use slut) it’s pretty obvious it stings. If you were the sort of person who really doesn’t care what others think, then someone making patently false claims about you would be as nothing as when one of your guy friends (the one’s you hang out with to make fun of “feminists”, and women who think “slut” is a word you use to insult women, as you go about your subtle means of making sure the women you chat up aren’t feminists; so you won’t have to deal with them calling you on your shit face to face) calls you a “fag”. or a dumbshit. You would shrug that off, because in that case you don’t care.
But here; when you are (as usual) losing a debate here, then it hurts, because you can’t really shrug it off. You are being moronic and idiotic; if for no other reason than you can’t admit you are getting your ass handed to you. That’s why you tend to drop subjects, and move onto other threads (but sometimes, you come back, a week or so later, and try to slip in the last word).
You want to impress people with your intelligence: while you might have smarts, and be tolerably clever in banter, you aren’t much of a thinker, and you are woefully inconsistent. There is no shame in the former, but the latter is a problem. That’s the thing which really hurts you here. If you were honest in debate you would get much less hostility. Hypocrisy is a moral failing.
I may be wrong on any number of things, but it’s really hard for someone to say I’m not engaging in good faith, because my arguments, from one topic to another, are the same. You, among others, have complained that I am too specific, and prone to pedantry in my use of words and definition. I’ve been called a “pseudo-intellectual” because I link to definitions. All of which is because I actually have meanings to the words I use, and making sure that the person I’m talking to knows what I mean by them (as opposed to your use of words to mean what you want them to mean, for the argument at hand), so that we can speak about things which exist.
You aren’t willing to do that. You say something, and when the context, connotation and implication of your words (there on the page for all to see) are pointed out, you say anyone with sense (see your argument supra re slut) will understand that you didn’t mean to say anyone who gets married is stupid, and every one who can’t see that is a moron.
Which is insulting even more people (i.e. those whom you called stupid in the first place, and those who saw that you called people stupid, and those who may not have seen it at first but agreed when you pointed it out).
But go on, keep fucking that chicken, and pretend you haven’t earned exactly the level of respect you get.
Could be, Bagelsan, but are you sure that’s not DKM? Because those look mighty fluffy and docile, and I don’t think Brandon specified fluffy.
Good point, amandajane5. Or, perhaps those photos are in fact of Brandon cuddling up with DKM, and Ashley and the dolls are just their respective beards? 😀
DKM [email protected]:
“I believe that I asked a question somewhat like this before, but doesn’t it bother you, and other modern women that you are all SO unfeminine and unattractive that otherwise healthy human males would prefer fluffytoys or little lady lovelies collector dolls, seeing THEM as more attractive, sexy, and alluring, indeed as more altogether feminine than you and other FEMINISTS! I mean, you and the rest of the sisterhood from hell can hate on me, and men sort of in my situation, as much as youall like, but the fact remains that you “women” are second fiddle to fluffytoys and antique-style collector dolls! One way or another, I have my “sweet old-fashioned girls”.
Pitiful, isn’t it?”
Twenty seven years married, DKM, proves that you’re talking your usual bullshit. We aren’t the one talking to dolls and playing with plushies, indeed most of us are curled up right now with our various spouses and significant others while you are stuck with pieces of cloth and porcelain.
Pitiful, isn’t it?
@SaruGoku
see this is why I still have my doubts that Meller is serious sometimes…I mean, that above quote from him is so ludicrous and pathetic I can’t believe it’s for real.
I’VE GOT MY DOLLS AND STUFFED TOYS. TAKE THAT FEMINISTS!!!!!11
I just can’t believe there are adults that behave like this. Pitiful indeed -_-
By the way, being a bit of a geek I collect action figures and stuffed toys too, but the thought of saying to modern men “well I got my toys so hahaha” is just stupid.
I am honestly just pleased that other people ran with the pillow pet meme.