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.
Brandon, now you’re just whining. The first example I linked you to was with someone who’s married to someone who isn’t in the biz. Kurt Wild’s wife’s name isn’t mentioned, so I’m assuming she’s not in porn as well.
Wait, you wanted every man everywhere do be doing this before it was legit?
You know that not every woman everywhere is sleeping with another man for money right now, right? The majority of sex workers might be women, but the majority of women aren’t porn stars either.
It just seems so sad to me that everything I share with my boyfriend–our common experiences, shared interests, little in-jokes, times we’ve been there for each other, plans we have together–is less important in some people’s minds than the fact that I don’t save my dinglehopper for his wammerjammer.
Talk about shallow.
Isn’t this Mr. “If I want to have an open relationship and she’s not down with it, she can hit the road”, who’s suddenly Mr. “A relationship has to be exclusive or it’s worthless.”?
I’d say marriage, but he’s against marriage; which makes me wonder why he’s suddenly being all defensive of the traditional one.
Also, if Brandon thinks there aren’t any male strippers, he might want to Google “gay bar”… Same for “male escorts”.
Molly: But those aren’t real men; they don’t fuck women (or they don’t fuck only women). So they don’t count.
Brandon, what the fuck do you even care about this? I thought you said that marriage was outdated and worthless. But if people want to change the traditional model to better suit their needs, you respond with scornful laughter?
I would think you’d be applauding these sorts of people for not letting traditional cultural expectations dictate the terms of their relationships. That’s your whole thing, isn’t it?
Maybe Brandon’s just jealous he can’t have sex for money? I can’t either, dude, it’s okay!
@Pecunium: The “role playing” bit was about the wife being a Dom.
What does the legality have anything to do with a wife being comfortable with her husband going out sleeping with women for money? I doubt most women would approve of it.
Of course, I judge women by different standards when it comes to dating and relationships. If I value femininity in a woman, that doesn’t mean that I also have to be feminine as well.
It is your business what you do with your body. But that doesn’t mean other people have to accept it or desire to be around it. If you were sleeping with someone other than your wife and she didn’t like it, that doesn’t give her the right to tell you what to do. However, she is very well in her rights to walk away from the relationship with you.
I am not holding men to the standard of “slut” because 1) I don’t care if men are or aren’t sluts and 2) I am not trying to date men, so their promiscuity is irreverent since I am not trying to enter into a sexual relationship with them.
@Holly: Yes, you keep thinking that. It takes a strong narcissist to think that they are special. Your not, you are just like everyone else…another worker ant in the cog of society.
If that is what marriage is, then why bother entering into marriage since you can do it all right now? Nothing is stopping you from living with , having sex with, sharing your life with, loving , etc… another human being(s).
@Molly: Actually, I am morally opposed to prostitution. I don’t think you should pay for something that should be free.
Also, I am ok with not being able to be a male giggalo.
Brandon: What does the legality have anything to do with a wife being comfortable with her husband going out sleeping with women for money? I doubt most women would approve of it.
I don’t know, you brought it up. I wonder how many women would go for the “I just sleep with them cause they pay me” bit.
That’s prostitution. If one is sleeping with people for money it ought to be legal.
Of course, I judge women by different standards when it comes to dating and relationships. If I value femininity in a woman, that doesn’t mean that I also have to be feminine as well.
Wait, so being limited in partners is “feminine”? Some egalitarianism you’ve got going, I am not holding men to the standard of “slut” because 1) I don’t care if men are or aren’t sluts and 2) I am not trying to date men, so their promiscuity is irreverent
So all that talk of believing in people being treated equally was lies. So noted, and one more entry in the list of reasons not to trust you. If you will lie in the little things (and really, how one treats other people isn’t all that little a thing) one will lie in the big things.
@Holly: Yes, you keep thinking that. It takes a strong narcissist to think that they are special.
This from the guy who keeps telling us just how special he is. How much he knows about law, contracts, female psychology, economics, feminist theory, getting information from people, computer security.
Why not?
I think you mean “irrelevant”
Why do you hold women to the standard of slut? What is useful about that?
How do you define “femininity”?
What about those who cannot get sex for free? What about people who want something very specific and can’t find a partner to fulfill that for them? What about people who don’t want to spend the time pursuing and dating and doing standard relationship upkeep? Do you just not care about other people needs over your desire to impose your morality onto the world?
@Pecunium: While I personally don’t want to visit a prostitute, I don’t think it should be illegal. Banning things never solves the problem. See: Drug war, Prohibition.
But the argument isn’t about THAT the husband is going out hooking himself. It is IF the wife would be comfortable that her husband is doing that. I don’t see a lot of wives saying “Ya honey, you can sleep with other people besides me for money”.
When it comes to the legal system, same pay for same work and a few other general legal/economic issues…I am an egalitarian. When it comes to dating/relationships/mating I am anything but. Men and women have different priorities, roles, wants and needs when it comes to dating and relationships. You can’t reform love and biology.
I never said I was special. In fact, I am just the opposite. I am just one random dude living in society trying to make a name for himself in my profession. While their might not be an EXACT duplicate of me, there are certainly plenty of people that share my behaviors, idiosyncrasies and other traits.
Do you think all men want similar things and all women want similar things?
Do you think gendered roles are biological?
What about the many, many people who simply do not fit into these roles?
Brandon wrote, “When it comes to dating/relationships/mating I am anything but. Men and women have different priorities, roles, wants and needs when it comes to dating and relationships.”
“But the argument isn’t about THAT the husband is going out hooking himself. It is IF the wife would be comfortable that her husband is doing that. I don’t see a lot of wives saying ‘Ya honey, you can sleep with other people besides me for money’.”
“But you keep thinking that most men wouldn’t care if their wives were out sleeping with other men. grinding on other men or role playing with other men.”
Sounds pretty egalitarian to me, Brandon. Why do you have double standards of how many people a man vs. a woman sleeps with again?
@Shora: What does a marriage contract have anything to do with how you define your relationship? I did it all the time with ex-girlfriends. She wanted monogamous, I wanted monogamous…hence monogamous relationship….defined!
Hey, there is also a man out their that would marry a 700 pound woman. Whatever makes him happy. However, I find the idea revolting.
Why not? Really? That is your response to ‘you can pretty much do everything married people can do outside of the institution’. How about opening yourself up to more obligations and liabilities when it comes to the court system (you are obligated to do things unmarried couples aren’t).
Again, I am not opposed to prostitution or people that patronize them. I just don’t want to do it. Just because I don’t want to be a businesses customer, that doesn’t mean I don’t want them to not have a business.
Brandon wrote, “What does a marriage contract have anything to do with how you define your relationship? I did it all the time with ex-girlfriends. She wanted monogamous, I wanted monogamous…hence monogamous relationship….defined!”
Earlier:
“If marriage can be anything, then it is nothing. Like the old saying goes ‘If everyone is special…then no one is special’.”
We’ve gone to defining a relationship on your own terms to Brandon giving an example of how he defined his own relationship. Brandon, how does your brain even WORK?
*We’ve gone to defining a relationship on your own terms being absurd to Brandon giving an example of how he defined his own relationship. Brandon, how does your brain even WORK?
HTML, how does it work? 😛
I want to get married someday. Everything you say about marriage is true (although there are also legal benefits to marriage), but I still want to get married. It’s an emotional and cultural thing. Lots of people feel the same, so they should get married! Because they want to. Because why not, it’s their choice and it has no effect on anyone else.
If this is so, you should probably not say things like “Actually, I am morally opposed to prostitution. I don’t think you should pay for something that should be free.” The wording implies in application of morality in broad terms, not a personal preference
I would still love to hear your definition of femininity, brandon.
@Shora:
Men and women often look for different things in a potential mate. One of the reasons my last girlfriend was with me was because I made her feel safe. However, I have little need in looking for a woman to make me feel safe. I am capable of that on my own. Thus, we aren’t holding each other to the same standard. She want’s safety in the relationship, I am neutral on it.
That is an example of two individuals, not an illustration of what men and woman look for as a whole, and certainly not proof that all men are looking for things that are very different from what all women are looking for.
That anecdote is also certainly not a reason to not treat women as equals and to judge them with double standards.
@Molly: We are talking about marriage being anything and everything to everyone. Not how I defined my previous relationships.
The point was that marriage was needed because it allowed you to define a relationship. That idea is clearly absurd. You can define a relationship anyway you feel like it: verbally, in writing, marriage license, etc…
Marriage isn’t the arbiter of deciding if you can or can’t define a relationship. It’s just a contract between you, your spouse and the state.
@Shora: The idea that men and women are actually cohesive groups is kind of odd. By your logic, we could change that to:
That is an example of two individuals, not an illustration of what whites and blacks look for as a whole, and certainly not proof that all whites are looking for things that are very different from what all blacks are looking for.
No group (race, gender, etc,,) is going to cohesively hold a view as a whole. And expecting that they 1) can or 2) will is absurd.
Brandon: But the argument isn’t about THAT the husband is going out hooking himself. It is IF the wife would be comfortable that her husband is doing that. I don’t see a lot of wives saying “Ya honey, you can sleep with other people besides me for money”.
No, the argument is what’s wrong with a woman wanting to sleep with as many men as she pleases.
You have introduced all sorts of shifting arguments to try and justify your position that it’s wrong for women to do this, and just dandy for men.
So go ahead, justify it, on those terms.
Also explain why it’s ok for you to live your life, by your rules, and fuck society if it doesn’t like the way you do things (which you keep saying is how you live your life), but women should expect to be judged, and punished, if they don’t adhere to the rules Brandon sets up for them.
So go ahead. Explain to me what it is that makes it ok for you to do what you want, but not ok for a woman to do what she wants.
Also, how are you defining feminine? Because the things you contrast, aren’t masculine/feminine to me (i.e. how many partners one chooses to have, in toto; not just active)
Brandon: Dec 5, 12:19 am Again, I am not opposed to prostitution or people that patronize them.
Compare and contrast: Dec. 5 12:44 Actually, I am morally opposed to prostitution. I don’t think you should pay for something that should be free.
@Pecunium:
There is nothing wrong with it. She is free to live her life as she sees fit.