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.
@Pecunium:
I never said that culture has no meaning. Just that it is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses many things. My debate about culture a while back wasn’t about “there is no culture”, it was “Not every part of our culture is useful and good”.
So it is dishonest to say that “slut” is subjective and not objective? That “slut” is interpreted by everyone differently?
I can’t think of one time where I called a commenter here a slut. Not just used the word but said “X you are a slut”. I don’t view the word as derogatory nor do I see anything shameful about being a slut.
Also, being a slut isn’t about poor judgement. It is about having a set of behavioral traits that aren’t necessarily compatible with marriage. It’s like trying to put a square peg into a round hole…it doesn’t work but that doesn’t mean the square peg is bad or immoral.
So now I am “uneducated”. Apparently, you as well have no problem throwing out personal attacks as well. If someone isn’t answering your question the way YOU want it to be answered, then it is on YOU to clarify your question.
You asked for my definition. I gave it to you. That apparently wasn’t what you wanted…so why don’t you clarify what exactly you want me to answer. Otherwise, don’t sit there and claim I am uneducated because you ask a broad question when you want a specific answer.
And seriously…WTF is with the “above it all” nonsense. Yet another vague, meaningless term. What exactly am I above? (metaphorically…I don’t want you to think I mean literally above something)
I never said that it was true that lauralot was a man-hater. Just that I personally think she is. Hey, I could be wrong…but based on all the information so far, I think I my odds of being right are higher than being wrong.
Also, I asked hellkell to describe male to female attraction. I didn’t mention anything about makeup, culture, beauty standards, etc… So right from the start, hellkell isn’t even answering my question. Unless talking about makeup is a roundabout way of saying men are attracted to physical appearances. I also brought up the fact that “makeup” wasn’t the major variable in male-to-female attraction since men will still be attracted to women if they wear makeup or don’t. So basically makeup is a pretty flimsy answer.
Losing what debate? In my opinion the debate never even happened. It went: my question, hellkell misinterpreting that question, another question asking to clarify, personal attacks, personal attacks, personal attacks, etc… You get the point.
The way I see it is I didn’t biindly accept hellkell’s answer and that made her mad. She didn’t like being questioned so she went into personal attacks. When I pushed her for an answer, I got “you are in bad faith and being disrespectful”.
So from my POV, no debate actually happened.
I tend to drop subjects because I come to the point that neither side is understanding each other and we are just banging our heads against the wall trying to get our points across.
I don’t have to come here to impress people with my intelligence.
Lastly, I am not demanding respect from anyone. I am however not going to show you respect if you have been disrespectful to me. It isn’t “you will give me respect” it is “If you want me to respect you, then you respect me. Otherwise I will treat you the same way you treat me”.
I am not demanding anything…only reciprocating.
You know, for someone who states that he doesn’t care what people think, you’re spending an awful lot of time justifying yourself.
@hellkell: Well, out of all the commenters here, Pecunium is by far one of the better ones. So I felt the need to give him a proper response.
If you would like to continue our debate, sans personal attacks, I am more than willing to do that. Otherwise, we can just go on insulting each other for no point.
Brandon: So it is dishonest to say that “slut” is subjective and not objective? That “slut” is interpreted by everyone differently?
It’s dishonest to say you won’t give your definition; in the interests of having a conversation with a shared definition. I didn’t ask for, “the” definition, I asked for your definition. You said, “It means what I want it to mean, but everyone knows what it means.”
Also, being a slut isn’t about poor judgement.
That’s not what you said earlier. You said the reason a “slut” is bad marriage material is that she (and you did limit it to women) had proven she had poor judgement, because she had slept with too many people. You pathologised it as being because she had a need for outside validation.
So now I am “uneducated”. Apparently, you as well have no problem throwing out personal attacks as well. If someone isn’t answering your question the way YOU want it to be answered, then it is on YOU to clarify your question.
Um… uneducated isn’t an attack. I’ve known lots of people who aren’t educated. As I said, it doesn’t mean they aren’t smart; it means there are things they don’t know. And, if you were paying attention, what I am complaining about is your refusal to admit I am making 1: a very simple request, and 2: have clarified it, more than once, when you failed to understand it, 3: that lack isn’t why I say you are uneducated. I say that because when people explain your logical failures (see in this thread re studies) you airily dismiss them as “unimportant.”
I never said that it was true that lauralot was a man-hater. Just that I personally think she is. Hey, I could be wrong…but based on all the information so far, I think I my odds of being right are higher than being wrong.
No, you back-pedaled when challenged. And you’ve not shown one iota of support for your position, i.e. you have yet to provide any reason for your, “opinion”.
Lastly, I am not demanding respect from anyone. I am however not going to show you respect if you have been disrespectful to me. It isn’t “you will give me respect” it is “If you want me to respect you, then you respect me. Otherwise I will treat you the same way you treat me”.
Bullshit. You have not shown anything approaching respect to anyone here. The most you have done is be a bit less dishonest about it than Meller when you go on a tear. You have insulted people, in general and in specific, and then deny it. You change your story, your positions, and pretend you never said things which are in print. That’s insulting our intelligence, and showing no respect for our ability to read, comprehend and remember.
Then you get bent out of shape when people point it out, complaining that you are being unfairly treated. Again, bullshit. You’ve been treated far more kindly than you deserve. It’s been months of you pulling this crap, and it’s only now that you are in the same pool at NWO. It’s a pretty sad commentary that DKM is a more reasonable participant than you are; not because he is reasonable, per se, but in at least some conversations he is consistent.
You may salve your ego by telling yourself that the tens of thousands of words you have spent time composing on subjects from marriage, to contracts, to legal defense, to how to run feminism, to how to hang out with lesbians to scope the ladies, and hang with your pals to make feminist heads explode with your brilliant destruction of 3rd wave feminism, and how to prevent false rape accusations and what makes a good slut, or what makes a bad slut, or how to be a parent etc. haven’t been debates.
But you are wrong. You have been trying to convince people of the rightness of your position. That’s debate. You’ve certainly failed to convince anyone here of the rightness of your positions (though it’s evident you have created a consensus about your attitudes and nature). It’s unknown what anyone lurking thinks about who is more correct, but anyone with any wit will see there was a debate, and you were an active (often an initiating) participant.
@Pecunium: Again, I have given my definition. You just don’t accept it. That is not my problem.
Well, then let me clarify. I have no hostility towards promiscuous, slutty people. They have the right to do whatever they want as long as it involves two consenting adults. However, promiscuous people have certain behavioral traits that I *personally* don’t think mesh well with being married. Traits such as: loyalty, the ability to delay gratification and the ability to think long term as opposed to just satisfying your immediate needs in an impulsive way.
While I wouldn’t say it is impossible for slutty people to do any of those things, I do think it would be more difficult for them (like waving a needle in front of a heroin addict) to easily handle them.
Calling lauralot a man-hater is mainly because it aggravates her so much. She tries to post things that will get me riled up and I found something that annoyed her. So I milked it for a while. I only care enough about it because it annoys her. But now that I have blown my cover, I guess that joke is dead in the water.
I have insulted people? How? I am insulting you personally because what? I disagree with the majority of third wave feminism? That you have inferred that I called married people stupid even though I never did? That I use words that you don’t like? That the few *benefits* that I think marriage has can be handled with contracts instead?
I mean, I find it very hard to take feminists seriously when some of their most popular bloggers and figureheads are taking some of the most petty issues and blow them out of proportion. Jill at Feministe tends to do this a lot with posts like “The politics of hello” and her most recent “Siri: Total Misogynist”.
Brandon, re: culture, you claimed that because you don’t watch TV or pay attention to fashion that you are uninfluenced by culture. Which is patently absurd (see the actual definitions of ‘culture’ earlier in this thread).
“However, promiscuous people have certain behavioral traits that I *personally* don’t think mesh well with being married. Traits such as: loyalty, the ability to delay gratification and the ability to think long term as opposed to just satisfying your immediate needs in an impulsive way.
“While I wouldn’t say it is impossible for slutty people to do any of those things, I do think it would be more difficult for them (like waving a needle in front of a heroin addict) to easily handle them.”
Brandon’s not influenced by culture AT ALL here…
Brandon, I suggest you read your 4th paragraph and 5th paragraph over and over. You might learn something.
Brandon: @Pecunium: Again, I have given my definition. You just don’t accept it. That is not my problem.
You have not given a definition.
Well, then let me clarify. I have no hostility towards promiscuous, slutty people. They have the right to do whatever they want as long as it involves two consenting adults. However, promiscuous people have certain behavioral traits that I *personally* don’t think mesh well with being married. Traits such as: loyalty, the ability to delay gratification and the ability to think long term as opposed to just satisfying your immediate needs in an impulsive way.
While I wouldn’t say it is impossible for slutty people to do any of those things, I do think it would be more difficult for them (like waving a needle in front of a heroin addict) to easily handle them.
That’s not a definition. That’s an explanation of how you claim you feel about them, but there is no way for me to use that description to predict your reactions.
There is also no support for the conclusions you draw. What is it that makes a “promiscuous” person disloyal, unable to delay gratification, look to the long term etc.?
I would, if there was some defintion; apart from, “Brandon says this person is a slut”, but there isn’t.
Calling lauralot a man-hater is mainly because it aggravates her so much.
Nonsense. You made specific allegations, and then said, “anyone can see it, so I don’t need to point to it, and you can’t make me.”
The last is true, but it’s not relevant. You made a claim of fact. Claims of fact require evidence.
How have you insulted me. I happen to think marriage is a useful institution. You said people who think that are stupid.
You shucked and jived your way through shifting explanations of why women aren’t fit to be combat soldiers. While you may have served, you’ve got zero experience about what makes someone fit for combat, and used bullshit to defend your position. I happen to know a number of female combat vets (as in spent a couple of days under seiege in Iraq, or were in firefights; not just the usual strain and drain of being at risk for all the time one is moving down roads). You said anyone who didn’t agree with your manly-opinion (as a 19D) was a fool.
That whole thing we keep telling you, that words have meanings, and you keep saying things without paying attention to the content, and subtext of your actual ideas… you’ve done it a lot. In ways that insult pretty much everyone who isn’t Brandon.
The thing is, you can’t claim to be debating honestly and then decide to say things that you don’t really think are true just to needle people, unless you make it obvious that you’re using sarcasm. This is part of what Pecunium means when he points out that you a. lack debating skills and b. aren’t arguing in good faith.
It occurs to me that Brandon may actually not realize that he keeps moving goalposts, changing his argument slightly, etc. Some people actually are that intellectually muddled. Not everyone is capable of thinking clearly and consistently.
Can you describe what a “slut” does? Where’s the cutoff? Can you give us something more than “They give me the VAPORS”?
I am trying to figure out where I said that Brandon was a necrophiliac and I am not seeing it. I did say that Ashley is not real and/or a plastic doll so at most making a claim that he is an agalmatophiliac but not someone who fucks dead things.
*shrugs* well if it turns out I did, I was wrong and he is an agalmatophiliac.
See what I did there Brandon? I admitted I do not remember making a claim, admitted I can most definitely be wrong and did not act like a four year old. It would behoove you to learn from it.
VoiP: They only give him the vapors if they aren’t fun sluts, or want to get married; and are women.
Male sluts are different,and so long as they aren’t looking to have more than a short fling sluts are DaBOMB!, but if they expect to be treated like people…. that’s an altogether different kettle of fish.
Then he is as prudish as anyone; but it’s not that he cares what other people think, it’s been carefully thought out. If we knew how he came to that decision we might understand.
It all depends on what the actual working definition is.
But we don’t have one. I can’t look at a woman and predict if Brandon will call her a good slut, or a bad one (assuming she isn’t a feminist, in which case, ipso facto she’s a man-hater, which is different from being a slut; though I am sure he sees some overlap in the bad sluts and the man-haters).
I have a problem like that-I do not have the same logic everyone else does so I tend to have to stop, refit what I think into normal logic. And I fail a lot at it because I tend to just blurt things out. :/
Pecunium said this:
In support, in this thread alone we have the following Statements From Brandon:
27 Nov, 11:22 pm
27 Nov, 11:54pm:
This one’s adorable; in the same breath that he says sluts can’t commit he expresses his refusal to commit to the hypothetical mother of his child.
28 Nov, 12:02 am
28 Nov, 12:21 am
“Those women”? How do you know they’re “those women”? What marked them out to you?
Why do you believe sluts are incapable of love? You’ve slept around on past girlfriends before (let me remind the thread that one of his “dealbreakers” is that she cares), but when I said that you were cheating on Ashley, you blew up. You believe, therefore, that you are capable of loyalty even though you’ve slept with lots of women. Why are you loyal?
And again today:
I love your word choice here; slutty people need to be “handled.” That’s fantastic.
You’ve slept around. A lot. Would you describe your desire to cheat on Ashley as comparable to the desire of an addict for heroin? Stronger? Less strong?
Brandon’s view of promiscuity is so VICTORIAN. “I can’t see any respectable man marrying them “??? I thought he was all about enlightened attitudes toward sex!
And when I press him in debate, he backs down and waffles. Then he ignores me: I’m still waiting on what he thinks about my dad, and about what a terrible person I was to “put my trust” in him, as required by the courts and the State of New Mexico.
This is more true than you will ever grasp.
What makes a man “respectable,” Brandon?
Brandon: “Geez, you guys, I just think sluts are like heroin addicts that should be pumped and dumped for fun sexytimes! I dunno why you’re so annoyed with me, that’s just my OPINION!”
Sorry, my eyes skipped: “slutty people are handling their urges,” not “other people are handling them.” Now I see what you meant.
I find the implication that I cannot be loyal because I take multiple partners when I am free to do so insulting in the extreme. Especially since I have never once cheated on any partner, ever, and I was cheated on twice by a man who described himself as a “hopeless romantic” and a serial monogamist. He’s also the one who called me a slut (very much in the pejorative sense) when I had had three partners. He’d had seven.
Hate to think what his reaction to my number of partners would be now.
Also, what about having multiple partners makes it so that I’m not thinking long term?
What I don’t get, Brandon, is why you spend so much time thinking about whether or not sluts would be good wives while you are against marriage as a whole.
I mean, I am against human sacrifice, so until now I had never spent a second wondering whether virgins, sluts or something in between will work better!
About respect. You can’t just not insult individuals and not throw slurs, that’s far from enough to earn respect. You also have to respect logic, and be consistent.
For example, you can’t argue in bad faith with someone then expect every other person to pretend they don’t know anything about you.
You can’t throw insulting allegations (many times) at someone, refuse to justify this opinion (repeating “it’s just my opinion” does not count) then expect respect from any of us. And saying “I insulted her because I was hoping to hurt her” is definitely not a good explanation. That’s just an admission of dishonesty.
“What I don’t get, Brandon, is why you spend so much time thinking about whether or not sluts would be good wives while you are against marriage as a whole.”
I wondered that too, Kyrie. For a little bit I thought Brandon was *for* marriage until I was reminded about the whole debate about whether or not marriage could just be replaced with a few contracts.
Hellkell, I NEVER said, and would never want, women-at-large to work in brothels. A lot of you are so sexually neuter that, since you insist upon bringing up the subject, you modern women couldn’t excite a paying customer sexually more than a dead fish! In my discussion as what to do with women who loved sex with multiple partners, who had difficulties with normal feminine monogamy, or who craved sex outside of marraige, I suggested faciiities where such women could work (and play) in a safe, clean, and sometimes even an enjoyable environment. These houses could, and would, also entertain men in ways that didn’t necessarily include sex. and there is no reason why they could not also have theatres, taverns, and even establishments like the Japanese houses of geishas or XVII and XVIII century French salons, where men could enjoy wit and conversation with the charms of ladies’ companionship, even without sex!
Two things are clear:
One, the more versatile a woman, regardless of age or physical appearance, is in fulfilling a client’s desires and wishes, the more money she would make for both herself and the House, and secondly, her chances for marrying a man of substance, who could support her and her children well, would be considerably increased by such Houses of Entertainment, far beyond what she, or other women from families of limited means, could hope for elsewhere! Her winning a matrimonial “prize” could not be guaranteed, of course, but it would be far better than the kind of men she would almost certainly be associating with in a typical “trailer park” or “urban ghetto”! The Houses of Entertainment may also be working with what we know as adoption centers or child-placement facilies who specialize in the placement of children of such unwed mothers in safe and loving homes–NOT crackhouses, street gang hangouts, or government mandated foster-“care”, where all that happens is the child is shunted away from an abusive environment provided by a mother (so-called) who cannot care for herself–into a worse one under the auspices of Childrens “Protective Services”. In short, my idea of taming oversexed women, while it may not be perfect, offers women (and any children, to say nothing of the public at large) far more even in its raw state, than anything you feminists have offered in the past century or two!
FORCED to “work in a brothel”? Not at all! Prefer to work in a House of Men’s Entertainment, because of superior safety, opportunity, and hygiene? Absolutely!!
hellkell, there may be areas where the two of us can agree to disagree, but this is one I would be very careful about if I were you! You–and other modern women a.k.a. feminists– haven’t got anything better!