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.
The cycle really works better when it’s drawn out into more than two pages, because then people really can’t be arsed to go all the way back and quote him in the sweeping generalization and defense stages.
@Holly:
I have to wonder if making a complete ass of himself in this manner is what he defines as “Fucking with feminists.”
Just because your last girlfriend was stupid, doesn’t mean she is indicative of how other women are. She wanted to be “safe”. I’m a woman, and I honestly don’t know what the fuck being “safe” means in this context. Did you act as her body guard? Did you quit your job and follow her around at school and/or work, making sure nobody messes with her? Did you stand guard at the house all hours of the night, ready to defend her against intruders? I bet not.
Truth is, men AREN’T there to make women “safe”, even in traditional relationships. You having a power lunch isn’t any protection for a Stepford wife who’s getting murdered in her suburb 40 miles away. Male or female, we ALL have to ensure our own safety almost always. So no, I don’t look to a man to make me feel “safe” (unless I’m in danger and he’s a cop), and no one else who thinks soberly does.
Now, when lovers exchange sweet nothings, a woman will sometimes say to a man “You make me feel so safe”, because traditional wisdom is, saying crap like that to a man will stroke his ego and pander to the wannabe Hector in him, even if the statement is totally meaningless. So — even if your ex-girlfriend said it, it doesn’t mean this is how she really felt.
You have never met any state legislators have you? Unless it is something they actually care about, they are too lazy to do squat about something that costs money or it is something their constituents nag them about.
Amused – I think telling your partner “you make me feel safe” usually means either:
-“You make me feel like you won’t hurt me.” Which is nice and all and sadly can’t be taken for granted, but not exactly a Manly Protector Role. And it’s something men need from their partners as well.
-“You make me feel like the scary monsters under the bed can’t get me.” Which is again nice, but purely in the realm of fuzzywuzzies, not gender role prescriptions.
I still want to know how he defines femininity.
Just because your last girlfriend was stupid, doesn’t mean she is indicative of how other women are. She wanted to be “safe”. I’m a woman, and I honestly don’t know what the fuck being “safe” means in this context. Did you act as her body guard? Did you quit your job and follow her around at school and/or work, making sure nobody messes with her? Did you stand guard at the house all hours of the night, ready to defend her against intruders? I bet not.
Truth is, men AREN’T there to make women “safe”, even in traditional relationships. You having a power lunch isn’t any protection for a Stepford wife who’s getting murdered in her suburb 40 miles away. Male or female, we ALL have to ensure our own safety almost always. So no, I don’t look to a man to make me feel “safe” (unless I’m in danger and he’s a cop), and no one else who thinks soberly does.
Um. Speaking as someone whose previous partner abused and assaulted her, the fact that my current partner makes me feel safe is actually a big deal! I wasn’t aware that was “stupid” of me. Thanks for letting me know! I will, um, do my best to get over my PTSD by waving my magic wand which I apparently now have, so as not to be so “stupid” as to care very much about feeling safe with my partner anymore.
I mean, geez, Brandon is…well…Brandon, and I wouldn’t be surprised if any woman who dated him was kind of stupid, but I don’t think wanting to feel safe is the reason why.
hellkell: I still want to know how he defines femininity.
From the only response he gave which seemed to address it… “has very few sexual partners”.
Implications are that feminine women are loyal. Other statements (from past posts) also seem to imply that they are still sexual animals when they decide to have sex.
Other than that… it’s like slut: He uses it to mean what he wants to mean, like any other nonce word.
Oh yeah, and why men’s promiscuity has no bearing on the success or failure of their relationships.
right.. because men are inherently loyal and faithful, or something.
At least Meller is more honest about it. He says outright that men are allowed to fuck around and women have to stay in purdah.
Didn’t feel to offend you, Pollywog. My comment was addressed specifically to Brandon’s claim that women look to relationships as a source of safety, as opposed to men who supposedly do not. Perhaps what Brandon meant that women specifically look for non-abusiveness in men (I would have though that’s presumed in any minimally suitable partner, but what do I know), whereas men don’t care. However, I don’t think that’s what he meant. After all, the best way to avoid an abusive relationship is to avoid all relationships, period — meaning that while a woman may enter into a relationship for a variety of very good reasons, looking for safety from abuse wouldn’t be one of them.
Seriously, though Pollywog: if the comment is not about you, it’s not about you. Give me a break: it’s hard to make any kind of comment without offending someone in some shape or form, and I think it’s clear from mine, no offense to PTSD sufferers was intended.
Brandon, you can’t assume that the number of previous sex partners a woman has had will make her more likely to cheat. Sometimes women wait to have sex until they’re married, and then after a few years they start to wonder if they’ve missed out on something. Plenty of women want to sow their own wild oats before they settle down into a monogamous relationship with someone else. I’ve mentioned her in another thread, but Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey* divorced because she regretted not having any other sexual partners, and decided to divorce so she could be free to get her ya ya’s out. Your foolproof plan to not get cheated on isn’t that foolproof.
*I again apologize for dragging celebrity gossip into this, but it serves as a good illustration of my point in this case.
Amused:
I’m sure it wasn’t intended, but you did seem to say that anyone (at very least any woman with a man for a partner) who looked for a partner who made them feel safe was stupid. If I were in your place, I would apologize for the unintended insult to everyone looking to feel safe, because intentions aren’t magic and you can make mistakes. It doesn’t mean anyone thinks you meant it deliberately.
When I say my boyfriend makes me feel safe, I mean that he makes me feel like I can be myself without fear of judgment, and that he will support me when I have struggles. I hope I have created a similar safe environment for him.
You’ve had sex with lots of women.
1) How would you describe your urges to cheat on Ashley: not strong, strong, or very strong?
2) How many STDs do you have?
Well, you see, Brandon has some funny ideas about women and sex. I still remember when he told me that I’m a domme because I’m a feminist, so of course I like submissive men, as if political views = sexual orientation. Fun times, and very revealing as to his odd worldview.
There is an odd dichotomy in his view of feminine. He said he prefers a woman who has had few sexual partners, because If I value femininity in a woman, that doesn’t mean that I also have to be feminine as well.
So the only aspect he has described as, “feminine” is a small number of partners. He doesn’t have to be feminine as well.
Sounds as if he thinks a guy who has only had a few partners, ought to be stepping out, lest he be feminine.
And if you’re a sub, DKM will kindly explain you that’s because you’re a woman. ^_^’
I apologize unreservedly to anyone who is offended by my use of the word “stupid”.
That said, I also find it offensive when what I am writing is taken out of context and instead scanned for key words. Brandon said that what women look for in men is different from what men look for in women; that women look for “safety”, whereas men do not. Since it goes without saying that men, even misogynist men, want partners who will make them feel “safe” from judgment or ill-treatment within the relationship, I thought it was clear that this was not the kind of “safety” that Brandon was referring to. Instead, he was clearly referring to the “safety” and “protection” that MRA’s always say men used to provide to women in the good old days, in exchange for women giving up their autonomy and civil rights. It was not just my intent to use the word “safety” that way; it’s also how Brandon has used it and how his ilk have used it over the past months. That said, I realize now that when certain triggering words are used, meaning and context evaporate for some readers, and that form often does matter more than substance. It was stupid of me to assume that it does not.
Well in any case I didn’t mean to jump down your throat, Amused 🙂 I think we agree that most of what Brandon has to say is brain-meltingly stupid, including what you responded to.
@ Kyrie – Given that he thinks that I’m a domme because I’m a feminist, I wonder how he explains the women here who’re both feminist and sub? I’d kind of like to hear the pretzel logic he’d come up with.
You guys! I’m looking at an online deals site (HauteLook, if anyone is interested), and today they are selling Madame Alexander dolls. Think I should be kind and send Meller an invitation? I mean, dolls can be expensive. Maybe if he got some new ones at a bargain price he’d calm down for a while.
Ooh I think I know this one! How’s this: she’s a feminist because she’s selfish and wants all the power, but at the same time there’s still a proper non-feminist woman hiding inside her, trying to get out, and she can only be released in sexual submissiveness! Also Ashley loves being submissive in their naughty and varied sex life.
But just look at them, CassandraSays. They’re all strumpets!
Bare arms and a short skirt? STRUMPET!
Covered in sparkles? STRUMPET!
Oh, I see … one of those modern gals. STRUMPET! Where’s her goofy girlfriend? Nevermind, there she is.
A FEMINIST? No thank you sir.
Bare arms and a pouty little puss? SAUCEBOX!
Only these little numbers appear to be properly covered and not too flashy. Each is perfectly attired for a grueling day in the kitchen or an evening playing whist and reciting poetry while her husband-master jacks off on her apron.
Molly Ren:
There’s no contradiction when you remember that Brandon is the center of the universe.
Brandon:
What, then, do you find risible about the idea of married sex workers? Not married to you, but married to someone.
Brandon:
That seems like a strange use of your time and energy. How does it benefit you if they see your point of view? How does it harm you if you don’t?
Of course, if you wish to waste your time and energy, I have no reason or desire to stop you.
CassandraSaid: ^^
I’m gonna guess your “he” refers to Brandon. I was mentioning the idea of DKM, and it seems it got mixed up. It’s a bit like when you have two misogynists saying “cover your ass and dress like a lady, slut!” and “don’t try to imitate men, dress like a lady and be sexy”.
So, from what I understand, we have:
Mellertopia: You’re a woman, so you’re submissive. Whether or not you’re a feminist. You happen to be a feminist, because of brainwashing from other feminists and jealousy of men, so you repress your fluffy sub dependent femininity. If you’re a domme, that’s just because you try to act like a man because your fluffy silly adolescent feminine mind makes you believe being like a man will make you stronger, but you should really understand that you were hard wired to be a sub.
Brandon-is-great-World: You like to dominate men. Being a domme is about dominating men. Feminism is about dominating men. So your inner nature pushed you in both these things, which reinforce each other. I guess you could be a sub then become a feminist, because of the good stuff feminists did a long time ago (vote, pill, right of property,…) without really how useless you are now.