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.
Perhaps she’s just returning the favor, Mellertoad.
I find it funny that you’re going to clutch your pearls over this bit after laying out your whole disgusting scenario.
But she’s had more than one partner and doesn’t want to be forced into prostitution! She has more than one sex partner right now. I thought people like her were destroying civilization?
Voip December 3 2011 @5:07 pm
NO!! You–and your monogamous partner–wouldn’t be hired, interred, confined, or even invited (happy now?) into such Houses of Entertainment! NO COERCION WHATEVER! You could even boycott such establishments if you wanted to–although somebody would ask you what you had that was any better!
Sorry for all the caps, but this is the third or forth time I was asked, and answered, that same objection!
Except that you’ve earlier said you envisioned women’s families selling them to such houses.
Meller is an interesting sort of MRA who actually doesn’t deny that women aren’t equal in our society and actually wants to make them LESS equal and treat them LESS like they are thinking feeling human beings with their own wants, needs, and desires. He does so with a smile on his face and frowns a little and blinks in confusion when women are disgusted by him.
Huh. Hey, DKM, who are these promiscuous men being promiscuous with, exactly? And why is it not disruptive for straight men to cat around?
Seriously? Do I have this right? Straight women having sex DKM doesn’t approve of = disruptive. Gay men having sex = disruptive. Straight men having affairs and consorting with prostitutes = A-okay in Mellerland.
I hesitate to mention this but most of those sweet old-fashioned girls you wist about probably think monogamy applies to BOTH partners and would be very put out if their spouse was nipping around to the local for a bit of ‘entertainment’.
Women are human beings with actual feelings.
“NO COERCION WHATEVER!”
You still haven’t explained what would happen to non-monogamous women who don’t want to be “placed” in your Houses. Is it OK to coerce them? Because you’re going to have to, they’re not going to go willingly.
I didn’t ask you about my situation after you answered me. I’m asking about Molly and Shora. Both nice people, so far as I know, both subject to awful coercion under your ideal scenario.
! NO COERCION WHATEVER! You could even boycott such establishments if you wanted to–although somebody would ask you what you had that was any better! –
And if that turned out to be the “thousand flowers blooming” that libertarianism would provide, that’s what you’re envisioning, right? A vibrant, prosperous, free society where people can experiment socially with a million experimental forms? Where economic coercion is virtually nil because of abounding opportunity? And where “what do you have that is any better” is a nearly inexhaustible list, including being a SELF-EMPLOYED sex worker? That’s what you mean, right?
Do tell, Meller, how women are “encouraged,” not COERCED to go into brothels in your set-up.
I mean, I may be WRONG about my view that libertarianism will provide us liberation and unlimited opportunity, but I at least argue that, honestly. You don’t seem to think that libertarianism gives us much of anything besides the ability to establish some sort of odd paterfamilias system that isn’t even individual rights based.
Do tell, Meller, how women are “encouraged,” not COERCED to go into brothels in your set-up.
Exactly.
Zhinxy, “That’s a friend of a friend. A wonderful person :)”
Wow, small world! The documentary is called “Scarlet Road: A Sex Worker’s Journey”, but probably only available for viewing in Australia on the SBS website.
One of my very very bestest friends is an Australian Sex Worker’s Rights superheroine. 🙂 I end up in the know about a lot of what goes on down under 😉
So, society “encourages” a woman who is “hypersexual” to go into the brothel, and she says no. What happens then?
Also, since Meller is clutching his pearls about the idea of brothels where men serve women, should we introduce him to the existence of host clubs? I’m guessing that it’s the “serving women” rather than the sex part that upsets him, so I’d assume he’d find host clubs horrifying too.
PS – Miss Amelia the Madame Alexander doll would like those pearls back when you’re finished with them, Meller.
Insert “but he already gave her a pearl necklace” joke here.
Where’s Holly? I think we need someone to provide an illustration.
VOIP – “Zhinxy, I hope you don’t think I’m being mean, but it’s kind of confusing when you quote other peoples’ comments without marking them off with blockquotes, italics, or quotation marks”
– No, you’re right. I seriously need to remember to do this. I just forget and then the comment posts and I’nm like, grarr! I EVEN ALMSOT FORGOT TO DO IT WHEN I QUOTED YOU!
*headdesk*
I think it’s cause I’m used to posting on message boards, and highlighting and then pressing a “quote” button to take care of the tags.
Improvement in Mellerland! now I can work in a theater! (why is that only for men, one can only wonder)
But the rule are still very different for men and women, so you know, that still sucks.
But what if I still want to be an engineer? That’s not rhetorical, that’s what I am studying for.
What if I have a boyfriend that I don’t want to marry? Am I disrupting society?
What about the most mainstream way of life nowadays; serial monogamy??? (I know, it has been asked before, but it really need to be repeated) People who only have one relationship/sexual partner/lover/… at a time but several of them over the course of their life are NOT hypersexualized people, not matter how wide you define that word.
Also in need to be repeated:
What happen to the women that refuse the rule of Mellertopia? You really need to think hard about that, because they will be legions.
I’m heading to a party and will have no ability to upload pix tonight. 🙁
I’ll try to remember to draw a David K. Meller Totally Consensual House of Sexual Slavery For Irredeemable Sluts tomorrow.
In my perfect world, all lonely men who fetishize dollies and fluffytoys, display tragically bad reading comprehension, misuse libertarian politics as a cover for their misogynistic views, look for creative ways to excuse abusive men’s behavior, and haunt MRA-mocking blog comment threads hoping to get a rise out of feminists would be ground into bird feed and fed to shrikes. It would be for the best, really, when you think about it, since these men are so pathetic, angry, and of no use to anyone in their current state. The shrikes would be nourished (if they didn’t get upset stomachs), the feminists would be freed of having to listen to such annoying drivel, and the families of these men (if they weren’t too embarrassed to come forward and admit their relation) could get some small consideration for selling their lonely, unhappy bone-bag uncles and brothers-in-law to the shrike-food factory. Really, it’s a win-win-win-win. I can’t think of any human who would be harmed or disapprove of my wonderful plan. Happy people in love (or lust — whatever) could even feed shrikes together, on dates at the park, and porcelain doll collections would go where they properly belong, to the care of young happy children (after being thoroughly disinfected; the fluffytoys, sadly, would have to be burned).
CassandraSays – “Also, since Meller is clutching his pearls about the idea of brothels where men serve women, should we introduce him to the existence of host clubs? I’m guessing that it’s the “serving women” rather than the sex part that upsets him, so I’d assume he’d find host clubs horrifying too.”
Filming Meller watching “Tales of an Osaka Love Thief” would be a fascinating documentary all it’s own, methinks!
Let me repeat that:
What about serial monogamous people?
What happen to the hyper-sexualized women that refuse the rules?