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.
Wait, when did hellkell and I become the same person?
“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!”
OK, ignoring the part where hellkell and I just merged into Feminist Voltron…we have plenty of better alternatives, Meller. Most of us are living them right now. My sex life is peachy, thanks, and pretty much always has been. I’m quite happy with my ability to arrange my sex life in ways that suit me, which the modern world allows me to do.
So why on earth would I be interested in your proposal for how you’d like to organize my life for me? I mean, it’s not going to happen anyway, but in theory? You’re the only person who’s miserable with the current set of arrangements. The rest of us are perfectly happy.
In my discussion as what to do with women who liked cake, who had difficulties with eating the normal feminine diet of one chicken breast and a piece of lettuce, daily, or who craved cake, I suggested facilities where such women would be forcefed until they died.
Meller, a women who’s had sex with more than one person in her life does not automatically “prefer” becoming a prostitute.
The weird thing is, once you realize that all Brandon’s doing is arguing against anyone who doesn’t identify as an MRA on this site, his constantly changing stories and slippery refusals to be specific become completely consistent. His only real point is that he disagrees with everyone, no matter what they say or how accurately they quote him.
Meller: Go touch yourself in front of a collectible doll. No one here cares.
You’re both women; your identity doesn’t matter to him.
Wait wait wait: what if the denizens of the “trailer park”…are white?
So what if I just want to have more than one partner and don’t wanna work in your House of Entertainment, DKM? I don’t have any trouble buying my own condoms or doing my own laundry so I’m safe AND clean–and when I want my partners to go home I can tell them so, instead of having to serve them tea and make them laugh when all I wanna do is sleep!
Meller, again, as an ally who works for sex workers rights, many of the sex workers I know are feminists.Shock Horror. And not a few are LIBERTARIAN feminists!! Shock. Horror. Many sex workers do not prefer the brothel model, and can handle their OWN hygeine (shock! Horror!) (I am opposed to mandatory “health checks” by the government for sex workers – The horror stories add up quickly, for just one reason, but never mind) I’m not saying that society couldn’t have salons, and courtesan model sex work and etc, but your odd view of women in sex work trying to land a rich man, and happily preferring your HOUSES OF MALE ENTERTAINMENT is pretty bonkers. And why on earth can a sex worker not RAISE HER OWN CHILD? Or already HAVE a husband. SHOCK! HORROR!
These are major libertarian issues, btw, and you’ve never encountered a sex workers rights activist despite your claim of long libertarian involvement? Or you have, and just come up with your weird sci fi victorian brothel idea anyway?
Meller, I’ve been with the same man for seven years. He is the only partner I’ve ever had; in fact, we lost our virginity to each other. We’re not married. Do you expect me to go willingly to your Houses of Entertainment, or would the people who took me away have to use force?
Just like Brandon, he believes that “women like that” are incapable of “real” love.
Also, I don’t even know where to start unraveling the class stuff in DKM’s little screed there. I’d be forced to say something like, “But white, middle income people can be sluts TOO!”… and just typing that made me really uncomfortable.
How does sex even work in Mellerland? The white ladies at the top are virginal til marriage, and all the black people are too dumb to use contraception or choose decent partners and too animal to not be sluts?
Molly, are you absolutely SURE you don’t live in a crackhouse? Because I think those are your only two alternatives…
“Just like Brandon, he believes that ‘women like that’ are incapable of ‘real’ love.”
TBH, I’m not sure if Brandon has ever been in love with anyone. He keeps viewing relationships strictly in terms of monetary transactions…
@Voip: I actually live in an apartment and I don’t do drugs because they scare the shit out of me. I’m a disgustingly middle class straight edge slut.
Also, assuming based on previous statements that you want to end the drug war, why are there gangs and crack houses? In a laissez faire utopia, you claim intense structural poverty
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratching-by-how-government-creates-poverty-as-we-know-it/
and a criminal drug trade will still exist because of.. OH wait, let me guess, that’s what happens to non-white-males?
Meanwhile, I’m pretty devout in my religion and I’m also terrified of being touched by people I don’t know really well. The people who came to take me away would probably have to use force.
“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…”
These places won’t even have CONDOMS? No birth control at all? How frakking “safe” and “clean” can they be? o.O
Also, what is this blather about trailer parks etc? Do only working class people have extra-marital sex in the Meller fantasy universe? Because I went to a British boarding school (same one as some of the royal family, actually), and I have to tell you, there’s PLENTY of promiscuity among the upper classes.
Molly, we should put that in the book. The drug war needs to end, this will have the effect, in mellertopia’s “inner cities”, of, basically, not changing any of the negative effects of the drug war.
Also, Meller, there is no legal marriage. So why on earth are “unwed mothers” a problem? Even if the mother IS a sex worker. Why can’t competing “agencies” run for the support of single sex working moms not help her raise her child? Why can’t she join a farming community that welcomes single mothers and farm with them? Why can’t she apply for a grant and start a home business? Have you thought about why you really want this whole “libertarianism” thing? Seriously?
Sorry about the mixup, CassandraSays and hellkell. Sometimes feminists SOUND ALIKE on this blog. I’ll try to remember to tag my replies more carefully.
Why can’t a “sex worker” (as you somewhat degradingly call them) already have a husband? I don’t know, but wouldn’t a husband feel just a tad jealous about other man nibbling at HIS cupcake?
Why can’t a “sex worker’ raise her own child? I don’t want to go into too many questions here of inappropriate female role models, or maternal neglect (women committing to their “careers” over and above the time and interests of their child (ren)–sound familiar?
One child to another—“what does YOUR mommy do”? Other child replies “she’s the local sex worker”…
I–old fogie puritan that I am–think that there may be better answers to such questions that should be made available to the kid!
“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!”
Ugh, no women in Mellerland could ever become doctors. Or politicians. Or CEOs. There’s just NO OTHER WAY to make money than on your back!
I mean, I even *like* sex and this sounds horrible. There’s a reason why I was fired from my first job at a Starbucks: I hate just getting food and cleaning up after people I don’t like/don’t know, nevermind other forms of “service”.
Like being raised by strangers while her mother undergoes forced prostitution. What a Puritan.
DKM- A man who thinks his dollies have personalities has no business lecturing on how Society should deal with ‘over-sexed’ women. Although, sadly, you appear to have given an awful lot of thought to exactly how and with who those ‘over-sexed’ women should be having sex- and weirdly enough it doesn’t involve them simply arranging their personal lives as they see fit.
Hey, I’ve got an idea. How about you go talk to your dollies and stop telling us intricately detailed stories about how women who don’t meet your standard of fluffy loveliness should be glad to work in whorehouses? Your dollies won’t mind, because they are inanimate objects. And the rest of us won’t have to be creeped out wondering how long you’ve been daydreaming about this skeevy little plan of yours.
Women are human beings even when they are (gasp) having sex without your approval.
“One child to another—’what does YOUR mommy do’? Other child replies ‘she’s the local sex worker’…
“I–old fogie puritan that I am–think that there may be better answers to such questions that should be made available to the kid!”
So instead of letting the women work in other professions, you’ll just take their kids away whether they want to be “relieved” of them or not! BRILLIANT PLAN, MELLER!
Anyway, you didn’t answer me.
Meller, you do understand the distinction between “wants to sleep with more than one person ever” and “wants to make her living having sex”? My girlfriend is polyamorous but she wants to be a librarian. It’s possible!
Not to mention that there are a fuckload of serial monogamists out there your system just dicks over.