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.
I’m still not seeing why we’re having a hypothetical discussion about who is and is not marriage material with someone who doesn’t want to get married.
If the woman who had slept with two men had not used any protection (for whatever reason) and was infected with HIV by one of them, she is worse off then the woman who had sex with ten men but used condoms every time.
So Brandon’s theory is shot full of holes right away. In fact, many women are infected by their husbands. They are not slutting around and yet they still die in large numbers.
Brandon: Again, I am using “slut” in a neutral way. I do not see it as either positive or negative.
No, you aren’t. Saying that being a “slut” makes on unfit to marry is not a neutral statement.
Lastly, I do not share your dismissive attitude towards STD’s. HIV/AIDS, Herpes, Genital warts, etc… are all serious diseases that don’t just “go away with a pill”. I take proactive steps in minimizing my risks where ever possible. I don’t try to limit myself, but if my options were between sleeping with a woman that had 2 partners vs one that had 10, I would most likely choose the one with 2. Thus, statistically lowering my risk of getting infected.
I am not dismissive of it. I understand that, as with colds, and flus, car crashes and motorcycle wrecks, rock climbing and fencing, there are risks to sex.
I take precautions. I get tested. My partners get tested. When they add a new partner the both get tested again. The odds of my getting an STD from one of my partners (irrespective of how many partners she may have had; or has now) are statistically much better than someone who trusts that someone who has had only two partners isn’t all that risky.
To quote Reagan, “trust but verify.”
So far, with all my partners (and the thousands of partners by extenstion) I’ve managed to have sex for something close to 30 years and not gotten an STD.
Go figure, it’s almost like there were ways to prevent it, with a little bit of care and intelligence.
PKFAE: He ignores most of my detailed posts, so it seems to be at least some of “not wanting to deal with substance”.
That, and when I really do describe the apparent character he displays here… he just lets it slide.
Cassandra: I’m still not seeing why we’re having a hypothetical discussion about who is and is not marriage material with someone who doesn’t want to get married.
Because he made a blanket statement about women (much as he did with people who want to get married).
@Voip: Practicing safe sex doesn’t mean you wont get infected. It just reduces the risk.
Clearly, 10 women practicing safe sex are better protected than 2 women that don’t. Having sex with women that practice safe sex is always better than them not having safe sex (from a risk perspective). However, that information is often unknown to me, so I can’t really take it into account. If I can’t determine if a woman has an STD, then I basically “norm” that data and apply it to every woman I am sleeping with. Unless I know, I assume they all have an STD.
The more sexual activity you have the greater the risk of actually becoming an infected person increases. So no, STD’s don’t spontaneously appear but strictly from a statistics point of view, the less partners someone has the less likely they are infected since the person with more partners has been more likely “exposed” to the diseases.
Yes, I know how diseases are transmitted.
Yes, I have been tested and I am STD-free.
No, I will not share with you how many partners I have had.
Lastly, I never said that femininity = few partners. Pecunium inferred that, and you ran with the idea and attributed it to me. Basically Pecunium put “words in my mouth” and you believed I actually said them.
@Kyrie: I don’t go around pushing people to accept my thinking and I don’t often bring it up. I tend to discuss my marriage stance when 1) Someone asks me why I am not married or 2) Someone asks me when I plan on getting married.
I often tell them “I see no benefits of marriage” or “I just don’t want to be married”. The other person than often feels the need to ask me a barrage of questions (strangely it is mostly women that do this).
I see no reason why I should lie to them or “sugar coat” it. Most of my responses from women have been her storming off saying “you will just die alone” or “you are being selfish”. Most of my responses from men have been “I never saw it that way” or “That is actually is a good idea”.
All of my interactions with people about marriage has lead me to the belief that women value and need marriage much more than men do. Or at the very least appears that way.
@Cassandra: I am actually not opposed to marriage, just divorce.
Also, by proactively limiting my own risks I am at the same time limiting the woman’s risk as well. Since I am often the one that forces the “no condom, no sex” rule. But the fact that I always wear a condom is known to me. I don’t always know if she has made every person that has slept with her wear a condom.
@Pecunium: Just because I don’t want to marry an overly promiscuous woman doesn’t mean we should have a “No Marriage For Sluts Act”.
Also, you keep bringing up that I said married people are stupid…which I never said. But if you want to keep thinking that, go ahead. Denial is a bitch.
I wonder if we should start selling tickets to ride the goalposts that move around so much with Brandon. It could save the economy!
Why am I not surprised that you portray the female response as “storming off” in an irrational huff, whereas men’s responses are calm and rational?
Funnily enough, studies and surveys seem to say the opposite. But I guess your interactions with people are a scientific study in and of themselves?
E.g.:
http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/19/who-needs-marriage-men-apparently/
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/05/20/2010052000617.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/us/19marriage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
I don’t really want to generalise one way or another, but I do think the idea that women value marriage more than men is an outdated stereotype.
@Sorka: I don’t have to portray it as “storming off”. The point was that most women do not share my stance on marriage and are actually very hostile towards my opinion on the matter. I try to clearly state to them why I wouldn’t want to get married today, but most of the women I have talked too don’t like or accept my answer.
So they often do “storm off” or resort to personal attacks on me like saying “you can’t get laid”. Very few women see marriage the way I do and even fewer would agree with my stance. However, men tend to be more accepting of my opinions. Men also tend to agree with me more as well. I have had a few men say things like “You are going to be very lonely” but they are as rare as a woman agreeing with me on this subject.
I personally think that women “get all huffy” about it is because they tend to have more at stake in marriage then men do. When you want someone to see something your way, and they aren’t doing that…you tend to get more invested and emotional in defending it because you have something to lose.
In regards to you linking to opinion pieces to “prove” that men do value marriage, I can do the same by pointing to articles that say reasons why men don’t want to get married…like this one:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/09/why-men-are-not-eager-to-get-married-today/
Needless to say, that doesn’t really make either of us right.
I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there’s this thing out there called ” honest and open communication.” I hear it works if you use it, but you might get hung up on the honest part.
Seriously, if you can’t ask their STD status, you probably shouldn’t have sex.
@hellkell: So all those times when I was in my early 20’s getting laid by random girls in bars was the “incorrect” way to have sex? Who knew!
Brandon, you do realize that the articles that were linked to by Sorka contain references and citations from actual studies and surveys and that your link was just a list written by some dude, right?
Do you understand?
No, Nobinayamu, he does not.
From Brandon’s own editorial piece: (I don’t think he read it)
7. They face few social pressures to marry.
Men face few social pressures to marry compared to what the females have to face. So at the end of the day, they don’t think it’s a big deal after all. One reason young men balk at marriage is “they don’t yet get it”, the problem is they just don’t realize what is in it for them.
We have not done a good job of selling marriage to men. They don’t know all the good things that will change their lives. Married men are healthier than single men, wealthier, they live longer and happier lives, they have more sex, they have somebody who knows them, and tolerates them anyway.
Yeah, more the adventurous-sex-live of Brandon!
Me :
You:
Arg, another fail. I’ll just repost the end.
It’s nice of you to take the time to respond, however none what you said answered anything I asked. If you had not put my name at the beginning, I never would have make the link. So let me say it again:
1) Why do you think it is your duty or your moral right to convince people not to marry ’10 women’ (!= “Why don’t you marry”)
2) You said you had sex with sluts. You said that between a ’2 woman’ (non slut) and a ’10 woman’ (slut) you would always chose the ’2 woman’. How do you reconcile those two facts? Was it out of desperation?
And now I have a few more:
3) Would you call yourself a slut? Would you call a female with your number of partner a slut?
4) If you can’t trust a woman to tell you her STD status, how can you trust her for her number of partners?
5) Isn’t sex with a ’10 woman’ with a recent bill of health less risky than sex with a ’2 woman’ who feel safe about STDs (because of her small number of partners) and never got tested? Is there a difference between a 10 and a 2 if they both know they’re STDs free? If there a difference if you don’t know/trust any of them and use protections?
@Nobinayamu: You do realize that all three of those articles failed to mention the one thing that holds a lot of men back from marrying…sexual variety.
And just because it was written by “some dude” does that make it automatically wrong? Let’s see:
1) They can get sex without marriage more easily than in time past.
Sex is far less taboo now than it was in the 50’s.
2) They can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying.
This is why you see the co-habitation rates increasing whenever a population study is done.
3) They want to avoid divorced and its financial risks.
Single men pay no alimony nor do they have to forfeit 50%+ of their assets when a relationship fails.
4) They want to wait until they are older to have children.
Seems reasonable.
5) They fear that marriage will require too many changes and compromise.
A lot of women today are very demanding in what they want in a husband. A lot of men are choosing not to live up to those demands. (hence all those stupid man-child articles being written)
6) They are waiting for the perfect soul mate and she hasn’t yet appeared.
This is kind of stupid. But this is the whole “men having lots of demands on the woman to be the perfect wife” kind of crap. It’s stupid and impractical.
7) They face few social pressures to marry.
Not only do men face few social pressures, but we actually have social pressure NOT to marry.
8) They are reluctant to marry a woman who already has children.
I don’t want to raise another man’s child and I think a lot of men would agree with me.
9) They want to own a house before they get a wife.
You can’t really go wrong with financial security. Thinking and planning ahead usually always trumps emotional impulsiveness.
10) They want to enjoy single life as long as they can.
So, no pressure to marry, get to sleep with more than one woman, get to keep my own money and spend it on what I want, etc… Ya…who wouldn’t want that?
I don’t know if you’ve heard, but there’s this thing out there called ” honest and open communication.” I hear it works if you use it, but you might get hung up on the honest part.
honestly, if i was as selfish and entitled as brandon, i would probably assume everyone else is too as a defense mechanism
@Kave: So married men live longer and have more sex (assuming those are actually true)…yet somehow men are still reluctant to get married. I wonder why men would forgo such benefits? To me that means men are willing to forego health and sex benefits for something they value more than either of those things.
@Kyrie:
1) I don’t really see it as a moral duty to go around convincing men to not marry. However, I am asked my opinion on the subject quite a bit (especially now since I am 30 and not married…it happens more and more now). All I am doing is giving my opinion on the matter. If they agree with me, then great. If they don’t agree, then whatever.
2) Being single often means you don’t have a regular sex schedule. There have been times in my early 20’s where I went a few weeks without sex and my standards dropped because I wanted to satisfy that need. As I get older, I am less inclined to drop my standards because I have a greater ability to control my libido than I did in my late teens, early 20s.
3) I don’t really call myself anything. I try not to place labels on myself because I think it limits personal growth and cages you in ideologies. The only time I call a woman a slut is when she likes to be called that in bed. I might refer to “slutty women” but that isn’t directed at one particular woman.
4) I don’t have to trust a woman to have sex with her.
5) Can you clarify?
@Sharcules: And how am I entitled? Please do share.
Brandon, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I realize that you disapprove of this fact, but many women enjoy sexual variety as well. I believe that you refer to them as “sluts.” Not that it matters. The articles cited by Sorka were not about whether or not men don’t want to marry. They were about the fact that many men do value marriage and report satisfaction with the institution.
Now, you’re trying to assert, empirically, that marriage is less valuable to -and valued by- men than women. But you’ve failed to provide any evidence of this claim. Reasserting your agreement with an essay that is actually nothing more than an opinion piece and referencing the statistically insignificant population of “people who Brandon has spoken to about what Brandon believes” doesn’t qualify as “proof” either. In fact, I could agree with every point made by you and that essay (and I do agree with quite a few of them) while simultaneously recognizing that your central thesis is not supported.
As funny as I find “The Brandon Show” the repeats are tedious.
Brandon, no one cares whether or not you value marriage, want to get married, ever get married, or think that marriage is a wildly unfair trap for men. The issue is your assertion that your opinion of marriage is some sort of verifiable truth. It isn’t. Repeating your assertion doesn’t make it more true.
There are men and women who do not value marriage. There are men and women who do value marriage. There are men and women who would nod in agreement to every single point on your list. There are men and women who would object vehemently.
You don’t want to get married, Brandon. A lot of people don’t want to get married. A lot of people do.
Brandon, how do you know how many partners the women you sleep with have had? Do you ask them? That’s incredibly rude, you know. Do you also ask them how much they weigh? >.<
A woman can have 20 partners, but if she has a negative STD test after those twenty, you can be just as sure she's clean as the girl with 2 partners who was never tested.
This is one of the most weaselly things I’ve ever read.
You replied
That’s not the question. The question is why you would try to convince other men that sluts are unmarriagable.
In case you move the goalposts again, I’m going to quote where you sait that:
Oh, and also. Brandon, how do you define femininity?
And cleaner than the girl with one partner who was incredibly unlucky.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, shit. You owe me a new monitor.
What is femininity to you?
1) Why do you think it is your duty or your moral right to convince people not to marry ’10 women’ (!= “Why don’t you marry”)
1) I don’t really see it as a moral duty to go around convincing men to not marry. However, I am asked my opinion on the subject quite a bit (especially now since I am 30 and not married…it happens more and more now). All I am doing is giving my opinion on the matter. If they agree with me, then great. If they don’t agree, then whatever.
you:
3) Would you call yourself a slut? Would you call a female with your number of partner a slut?
3) I don’t really call myself anything. I try not to place labels on myself because I think it limits personal growth and cages you in ideologies. The only time I call a woman a slut is when she likes to be called that in bed. I might refer to “slutty women” but that isn’t directed at one particular woman.
When you say something like “I’d rather not have sex with slutty women”, it means that when you meet a petential lover/girlfriend/wathever you put her under the ‘slutty’ label, or not. You have a definition of the world ‘slutty’, all I’m asking is whether or not you believe you fit this definition, rigth now or at previous moment of you’re life if you’re definition implies it is a changable thing. It does not limit you more than me saying “I’m a shy person”
4) If you can’t trust a woman to tell you her STD status, how can you trust her for her number of partners?
4) I don’t have to trust a woman to have sex with her.
So? My question was: you said sex is more risky with a slutty woman. If you don’t trust her to tell you if she has STDs, what’s the point in accepting her word for her number of partners?
5) Isn’t sex with a ’10 woman’ with a recent bill of health less risky than sex with a ’2 woman’ who feel safe about STDs (because of her small number of partners) and never got tested? Is there a difference between a 10 and a 2 if they both know they’re STDs free? If there a difference if you don’t know/trust any of them and use protections?
5) Can you clarify?
Which question don’t you understand? All of them? Their finality?