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: 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.
But that is precisely what you said, Men and women have different priorities, roles, wants and needs when it comes to dating and relationships.
Blanket statement, no qualifiers.
Brandon: There is nothing wrong with it. She is free to live her life as she sees fit.
Then why is she not marriagable? What is it about that which makes her, “a slut” and you just a normal guy?
@Pecunium: Let’s rephase shall we:
I personally am opposed to patronizing a brothel or a prostitute. I don’t think I should have to pay money for something that should be free.
I want prostitution to be legal because 1) prohibition doesn’t work and 2) It is not my place to tell others what to do.
Pecunium, if you’re going to begin pointing out where Brandon contradicts himself you’re going to be here for a long time. Brandon directly contradicts himself on a near constant basis and in a manner that indicates a basic inability to engage honestly.
@Pecunium: Yay more clarifications:
1) I personally wouldn’t marry a prostitute and most likely wouldn’t marry a sex worker.
2) That doesn’t mean that someone out in the world wont marry them. I just don’t want to.
Brandon: So you are opposed to it, on a moral level. Sort of the way I’m morally opposed to sexist double standards, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere.
Brandon: But what about, “sluts”, people who are living their lives the way they want to. You’ve said that they aren’t fit to marry. Not just for you, but categorically.
Why?
You offered that anecdote in reply (I’m assuming) to my previous comment;
In that context your reply
Seemed to be an affirmation of your statment that men and women have different wants, needs, ect ect. So in reply I stated why I thought your rebuttal was weak.
I agree, it is absurd. Which is why i started this line of debate.
I would still love to hear your definition of femininity.
@Pecunium: Most of what I believe is simply that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don’t harm others physically. So drug laws need to go, prostitution made legal, etc…
That doesn’t mean that I 1) support or 2) accept drug use. It just means that I am a realist in that banning people from doing something only makes criminals rich and increases violence.
I don’t see it as cognitive dissonance to hold two ideas like 1) Drugs should be legal yet 2) I wouldn’t want my son/daughter/father/mother/etc.. using and abusing them.
@Pecunium: sluts aren’t marriageable to ME. I have no business forcing other people to take that position. At best, I can try and persuade them to see my POV.
Why not?
Why would you do that? Especially if women are so free to do what they want (but not as free as men, who can do what they want and not suffer undue judgement).
*throws her copy of Marriage, A History at Brandon*
Marriage, or two (or more) people affirming their romantic overtones relationship to one another in ritualized manner, has been around since prior to the start of recorded history.
There have been thousands of meanings to the word-from it being a way of allying one’s family to another to it being an easy way to get gifts.
It was, nor has it ever been, merely a way to “allow you to define a relationship.”
@Elizabeth: So invite a few friends over and have a cake. No need to get the state involved in my love life.
*throws the copy of the book at Brandon again*
If you are going to ignore history and why the state keeps getting dragged into regulating marriages, you might want to shut up about how bad it is that the state is dragged into regulating marriages.
@Shora: I thought we already went over this.
1) I think promiscuous women have a propensity to be unfaithful. Which leads to divorce.
2) The more sex partners she has, the higher chance she might have an STD.
Or stop pretending that anyone is suggesting that Brandon, specifically, get married. The state is not interested in your love life.
@Elizabeth: The state isn’t dragged into it…it wants to do it.
Brandon, dude, you don’t even want to get married. Why do you care so much about who other people marry, and why? That’s ridiculous. It’s like me going “HAHAHA!!!!!! Some people go skiing using gear from a company other than Columbia? That’s ridiculous! No one would want to do that!” when I don’t ski, or have any interest in skiing, and in fact consider the idea that people go hurtling down mountains in the snow for fun rather baffling.
“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.”
This is my favorite typo of the week. Their promiscuity is irreverent. It is flippant, and it lacks proper respect and seriousness for…monogamy? I think the reason I love this typo so much is that in theory the sentence does mean something, even something that sort of makes sense in context, it’s just not what Brandon intended it to mean.
Brandon: @Pecunium: sluts aren’t marriageable to ME. I have no business forcing other people to take that position. At best, I can try and persuade them to see my POV.
Why? You keep making these sweeping statements, and then saying, “but they only apply to you (this ignores the places you say different things about what you personally believe, e.g. that you don’t use slut to be derogatory, unless you do).
If they only apply to you, then apply them only to yourself. If other people are free to do what they like, don’t try to persuade them your way is the right way.
I still don’t see how having as many partners as she likes is, “unfeminine”.
Ah… there is some more elaboration.
1) I think promiscuous women have a propensity to be unfaithful. Which leads to divorce.
What do you mean by unfaithful?
why is this limted to women? I.e. you have asserted your propensity to faithfulness (which I’ll accept, arguendo), but you have also said you’ve had a number of partners. What is it about being female which makes having lots of partners indicative of an unfaithful nature, which doesn’t apply to men?
2) The more sex partners she has, the higher chance she might have an STD.
Which is why before I add a new partner, we both get tested for STDs. It’s really pretty simple. After all, you’ve been screwing around, she’s got no reason to be certain you aren’t infected.
An STD isn’t a terrible thing. It’s one of the risks of having sex. You find out about it, you get treated. You get in touch with your partners and tell them you were infected. You refrain from sex during the period of treatment. It’s not that big a deal, for grownups.
Honestly… if this “promiscuity is a flag for infidelity”, is the best you’ve got, you’ve got nothing.
I’ve had a lot of partners. I’ve been in several sorts of relationship (closed, open, open with veto, open with limited behaviors, and limited partner sets). I’ve never broken the terms of my relationships.
Why? Because those were the terms. If I needed/wanted to change them we sat down and talked it out. Made such accommodations as seemed reasonable, or we went our separate ways.
I’ve had partners with lots of previous lovers, and partners with only one. To the best of my knowledge none of them broke the terms of our relationship either. If, however, you were to ask me which was more likely to “stray”, it would be the one’s with less experience, because they have less idea of what they want/need, and so are more likely to give in to temptation before they’ve thought it through.
I completely agree with this. The two partners of mine that I trusted the most – and I ended up marrying one – were the ones with the most sexual experience. Or, to use Brandon’s terminology, the most sluttish (since Brandon seems to think that quantity of partners should be the sole deciding factor).
There wasn’t a directly causal link, of course, but a side-effect of them being very experienced was that they were extremely articulate about what they expected from me, and since I was clearly able to deliver (my wife would never have accepted my marriage proposal if I hadn’t been, as a good sex life is very important to her), there was no reason for them to go elsewhere.
Not least because sex with a long-term partner is qualitatively different from a quickie with a stranger – in fact, aside from the physical mechanics, the experience is almost unrecognizably different. As Paul Newman memorably but accurately put it, why go out for a hamburger when you have steak at home?
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.
What do me and my girlfriend offer each other? We’re both female! If All Men and All Women are biologically programmed to be radically different, how does that even work?! Who provides safety? Oh my god, if the sexes / genders are so different, always and forever because BIOLOGY, how is it possible to have a productively complementary homosexual partnership?
If I told you that actually we both sometimes make the other feel safe, and at other times each will need reassurance from the other, would that totally BLOW YOUR MIND, Brandon?
Aww, I went to sleep and missed a particularly rapid Brandon Cycle.
1. Brandon makes an assertion that people who X are disgusting and stupid and shouldn’t ever X under any circumstances.
2. People (some of whom X themselves, some of whom just see nothing wrong with X) call him out on it.
3. Brandon defends. X is terrible!
4. People provide logical arguments for being open-minded about X.
5. Brandon declares that he only meant X wasn’t right for him, and he doesn’t want any X in his life, and it’s his right to make that decision.
6. Brandon doesn’t know why you’re arguing like this because all he said in the first place was “X isn’t right for me,” you must be very excitable or bad at reading.
This backpedal/gaslight thing is hardly new for him, but it’s fascinating to see it play out in only two pages.