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.
Cassandra, I nutshelled Meller’s utopia for Brandon earlier. I like the Feminist Voltron idea, though!
Meller, stop trying to backpedal. You want any woman who doesn’t confine to your narrow view of womanhood enslaved or dead. The how doesn’t really matter.
As for the other one, it’s cute that he’s having a tantrum now and thinking he can define the terms of engagement after months of weaselosity.
No. Husbands wouldn’t necessarily feel jealous about other men having sex with their spouses. Next question.
“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? ”
Yes, that does sound like something you would say, and things you’ve said in the past. Maybe you should try to be less predictable?
“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?”
Hey, Meller, why aren’t there any male-only Houses of Entertainment in Mellerland? Are all the men monogamous? Or do women never get jealous about other women nibbling at their husband’s sausage?
Molly Ren–December 3, 2011 @4:24 pm
Of course they would have condoms, morning after pills, and perhaps even first trimester pregnancy termination services, in addition to adoption service networks. Just because I try to learn from the past regarding legalizing prostitution (and drugs) doesn’t mean that I am blind to what present (and future) free market technology offers everyone, especially women!
I know that upper-class couples engage in loose sex, but they have the resources to handle it discreetly, unless tabloids and “yellow journalism” deliberately make a scandal out of it to serve politial or financial ends and/or to boost circulation and ad revenue… e.g. Wallis Warfield Simpson and the British Crown Prince in 1936, or the Profumo affair in 1963.
My Entertainment Houses for Men would give the same discretion to poor women (and their families) as is normally enjoyed by the well-to-do. Once again, build a better mousetrap…
I’m going to ask you again:
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?
Molly Ren– I already said that homosexuality is one area I would rather not get involved Where men entertain men is certainly possible, and there would be some avenue for it, I suppose, that would be better than what has been available here, but I just don’t know the details, and wouldn’t care to speculate! As far as women go, I would rather women be as monogamous as possible, at least elsewhere beside the Houses of Entertainment!
Again, Meller, most of the poor women who want multiple sex partners will not want to be placed in your Houses. How are you going to make them comply?
(This is of course hypothetical because, again, your dreams are never going to come true. Sucks to be you.)
“My Entertainment Houses for Men would give the same discretion to poor women (and their families) as is normally enjoyed by the well-to-do. Once again, build a better mousetrap…”
I think you thought I was asking if the wives of the men using the Houses of Entertainment would be okay with it. Let’s see if I can make that clearer…
If a MAN has more than one sex partner or cheats on his wife, will he be sent to a House of Entertainment as well for other women to use as she sees fit? Will he serve tea and be able to make more money than he ever would working in construction or as a lowly office drone?
oesn’t mean that I am blind to what present (and future) free market technology offers everyone, especially women!
Okay. That would also offer women sex worker’s rights agencies, sex worker friendly communities, and myriad employment opportunities, by it’s very nature. When markets are free, women have ALWAYS benifited greatly. I’m not a feminist libertarian because I like being called an oxymoron, I’m a feminist libertarian because I believe freed markets/voluntary socialism LIBERATES WOMEN. I’ve given you any number of libertarian texts arguing just that. You even admitted you needed to think about them. So I ask you, how, in a libertarian society, do you think these things will come about.
Also, seriously, you really claim ignorance of the term “sex worker” and call it degrading? Where have you been in libertarian politics for the last 20 years?
Meller, you’re not answering me. Are you ashamed?
I’ve been with the same man for seven years. He is the only partner I’ve ever had. We lost our virginity to each other. I’m scared of being touched by people I don’t know well. I believe that my religion prohibits my having more than one partner at once. My boyfriend and I are not married.
Do you expect me to go willingly to your Houses of Entertainment?
Also, if you personally would prefer that women be monogamous, that’s fine. Everyone is allowed to have preferences. It’s the part where you want to impose them on everyone else that’s not acceptable.
I prefer monogamy too! And yet there are multiple people who are poly on this page, and I feel no need to lecture them or force them to bend to my monogamy-preferring will.
Also, sometimes you gotta quote an O.C. Smith song in full.
Oh the path was deep and wide from footsteps leading to our cabin
Above the door there burned a scarlet lamp
And late at night a hand would knock and there would stand a stranger
Yes I’m the son of Hickory Holler’s tramp
Well the corn was dry the weeds were high when daddy took to drinking
Then him and Lucy Walker they took up and they ran away
Mama cried a tear and then she promised fourteen children
I swear you’ll never see a hungry day
When mama sacrificed her pride the neighbors started talkin’
But I was much too young to understand the things they said
Well the things that mattered most of all was mama’s chicken dumplings
And the goodnight kiss before we went to bed
Oh the path was deep and wide…
[ guitar ]
When daddy left then destitution came upon our family
Not one neighbor volunteered to lend us a helping hand
So just let them gossip all they want she loved us and she raised us
The proof is standing here in this full grown man
Last summer mama passed away and left the ones who loved her
Each and every one is more than grateful for their birth
Each Sunday she receives a big bouquet of fourteen roses
And the card that reads the greatest mom on earth
Well I said that the path was deep and wide…
Yes I’m the son of Hickory Holler’s tramp
VoiP-December 3, 2011 @4:40pm
You aren’t promiscouous, your sex isn’t available to everyone for the asking, and you are apparantly committed to your partner even outside of wedlock! I don’t see any place for you in the House of Entertainment (except as a customer). You certainly wouldn’t be taken by force! The entertainers are, as I indicated before, women who are compulsively and recklessly hypersexual, and unsuited for the kind of relationships that you describe!
Meller, I’m going to introduce you to a radical new concept you’ve probably never considered before.
Sometimes women (including straight women) have their own sexuality that revolves around entertaining and pleasuring THEMSELVES primarily and their partners (men) SECONDARILY.
And what’s wrong with the current system where women conduct their sex lives how they wish and where women choosing the jobs/careers they has absolutely no correlation to their sexualities?
If this is a laissez – faire society, why are there so many “poor people?” The whole HUGE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES WILL BE HORRIBLE IF YOU LUNATICS GET YOUR WAY! Thing is supposed to be what our detractors THROW at us. “In libertarian land, poor women can be economically pressured into brothels” sure as hell doesn’t seem like a PRO-libertarian argument. Again, Meller, wtf?
My gf was watching a documentary about sex workers on Friday night: one of them in Sydney has organised an outreach program to educate sex workers on helping clients who are disabled, and the doco interviewed her, two of her Johns (one with cerebral palsy, one with MS) and the sex worker’s longtime partner. As sex workers tend to be good at sex, he had no issue with her line of work and was not jealous of her clients. The view that a husband or partner must be jealous of the sex worker’s work really is emblematic of the outdated concept of women as subservient chattel, which sounds like the exact financial arrangements you have with your porcelain dolls, Meller.
So, Meller, women would be taken by force? Who’s force? The government?
“I already said that homosexuality is one area I would rather not get involved Where men entertain men is certainly possible, and there would be some avenue for it, I suppose, that would be better than what has been available here, but I just don’t know the details, and wouldn’t care to speculate!”
I’m not talking about MEN entertaining MEN, DKM! I’m talking about MEN entertaining WOMEN.
Obviously, if a man cheats on his wife he must be unable to control his urges for the female form and should be shuttled off to a House of Entertainment where he can do nothing but learn how to please dozens of them a day! Right?
Earlier you said that if a woman didn’t live with her family until marriage, the only place for her was in a house of prostitution. I’m glad to see that you’re modifying your position, even a tiny bit, in favor of not making complete nonsense. Unless you’re moving the goalposts…
Oh huh, Brandon 2.0. How many partners does it take before a woman is “compulsively and recklessly hypersexual”? What constitutes the compulsion? If they are, for instance, going on a few one-night stands, how is this reckless?
But you just said that if a woman does really well, financially, out of prostitution, she could “marry up:”
Why would she do this, if she is unsuited to a longterm relationship?
Meller, you don’t personally know any sex workers, do you? That’s actually pretty rare for an involved libertarian, even a conservative one. More evidence that your libertarianism doesn’t consist of actually doing libertarian anything. They are not “hypersexual women” they are women who have a job. Normal women. Human women. Often feminist women. Often wonderful mothers – and a child doesn’t need to know his mom’s a sex worker, or even have to know more about sex than any other kid. A husband or partner’s jealousy is their own business, and their own matter.
Unless you’re a TOTAL ASSHOLE.
Molly Ren–December 3, 2011 @ I don’t see any need for “houses of Entertainment” for men, if that answers your question. Promiscuous men don’t disrupt society the way promiscous women can and do!
There MAY be Houses of GAY entertainment, when one considers the habit of gay-male “cruising” and the enormous risks associated with this (Can you spell AIDS) but that is a different story, for different people, and different circumstances.
Also there are questions of e.g. gay “marriage” involved, although I have no idea about the ramifications here.
I’m compulsively and recklessly hypersexual (unless by recklessly you mean unsafe. I’m very careful about using birth control and barriers to prevent pregnancy and disease) and also quite suited to loving, committed monogamous relationships. Would you force me into your House of Male Entertainment against my will?
VoiP, I thought in Mellerland the sex workers couldn’t have children. Meller, I know you’re typing this out one-handed, but do try to be consistent.