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.
Anyone notice this little gem?
@Nobinayamu: The issue isn’t that women do or don’t like sexual variety. It is that marriage forces men to accept one sexual partner forever (presumably). I also highly doubt that the majority of wives would be comfortable with letting their husbands sleep with other women.
My evidence was my interactions with people and how they responded to my thoughts of marriage. I clearly said that in the above post. I also never said my evidence was academic in any way. They are just my own personal observations.
I never said my opinion about marriage was the verifiable truth. I do however like to point out the things about marriage that some people choose to ignore because “they are in love”. But I tend to only discuss those matters IRL when someone asks me a direct question about it or when everyone in the group is talking about it.
My main point is that marriage is nothing more than a social construct. It has no meaning outside of the meaning we as a society give it. If we took all the rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage and made them everyone’s, then marriage is nothing more than an empty label. You are just making a few cosmetic changes (e.g calling your boyfriend husband.)
@Shora: The girls in my social circle, I know about. I don’t ask for the number of sexual partners a woman has. And even if she told me, I doubt I would believe her. So I base my dealings with women mainly on their actions and not what they say. As an example: If they say they want to hang out with me, but never call or make plans…then they don’t really want to hang out badly enough to make the effort.
@Hellkell: If it is so funny…then why don’t you answer it?
@Kyrie: Yes I did say:
At best, I can try and persuade them to see my POV.
That doesn’t mean that I go around forcing my opinion on everyone nor does it mean that I am actually doing it.
Maybe a better line would have been:
At best I can try to persuade them if I so choose or to see my point of view when marriage is the topic being discussed.
My evidence was my interactions with people and how they responded to my thoughts of marriage. I clearly said that in the above post. I also never said my evidence was academic in any way. They are just my own personal observations.
i’m going to remember this next time brandon starts huffing and puffing about studies on dv not being ojective enough
My main point is that marriage is nothing more than a social construct. It has no meaning outside of the meaning we as a society give it. If we took all the rights, responsibilities and obligations of marriage and made them everyone’s, then marriage is nothing more than an empty label. You are just making a few cosmetic changes (e.g calling your boyfriend husband.)
this isn’t a ‘point’. its an obvious thing that everyone understands. nobody else brings it up because what the fuck does it have to do with anything?
No, it does not.
Depends, did the husband talk to his wife about it before he went off and did it? Or did he just do what he wanted.
This from a guy who believes gold has value beyond what society gives it.
Because Hellkell is not responsible for your answers so you answer it. And the one about femininity. We are all agog to hear it. (not really.)
I already have. Your sense of entitlement has little cartoon stink-lines coming up off it.
So it’s not OK for men to be deprived of sexual variety in a marriage, but it’s OK for women?
The price of tea in China! No? Drat.
Why are you so sure that sluts are unmarriageable that you want to try to persuade other men (not women, of course) not to marry them?
The issue isn’t that women do or don’t like sexual variety. It is that marriage forces men to accept one sexual partner forever (presumably).
But you’d never call a man an unmarriagable slut…. I see.
What is your definition of femininity?
No, Brandon, this is not the issue. The issue is your claim that:
As well as:
You’re making claims of fact and truth here, Brandon. Claims that are in direct contrast to actual research backed by actual data, and claims that are based on nothing more than the -as previously noted- statistically insignificant population of people you know.
The rest of your statement is, like much of what you write here, almost impossibly stupid. Brandon, the data we’re able to collect on infidelity -as perpetrated by both genders- suggests quite clearly that marriage cannot “force” anyone to accept one sexual partner forever. Your silly parenthetical (presumably) is utterly pointless. You know what else is silly? The fact that the ostensible demands of monogamy within a lot of traditional marriages is “forced” upon men but not women.
No, a great many wives would not be “…comfortable letting their husbands sleep with other women.” Are you suggesting that a the majority of husbands would be comfortable letting their wives sleep with other men? Because if not, what’s your fucking point? A marriage where both partners agree to monogamy as a condition means that both are agreeing to remain with one partner. Where does “force” enter in to it?
How does that differ from your -you say- monogamous relationship with your girlfriend?
Bottom line: you still fail to provide evidence to support your claim that because you do not value marriage, marriage is not valued by men.
@Kyrie: I would rather have sex with modest women as opposed to slutty ones. That doesn’t mean that I wont sleep with slutty woman, just that I prefer modest ones more.
There isn’t a point to accepting her word about her STD’s (if any) or how many people she has slept with. Women know that a lot of men don’t view slutty women well, so they tend to downplay their answers. So even if she answered me, I would think she is full of shit. This is especially true with women I just met. I would only accept a woman’s answer to that question if we both knew we weren’t seeking a sexual relationship.
How do you define “modesty”. Why do you value it so highly.
Breaking News; Brandon thinks women are all lying bitches!
How do you define femininity, Brandon?
So far we’ve got modesty and low-self esteem.
Let me see if I’m following you–women would lie about about STDs and number of partners, and you would only believe her if you didn’t want sex. Apparently true of all women, but especially those you just met.
Since you think all women lie, do you think Ashley’s lying to you?
That’s one of the bleakest, most despairing outlooks on life that I’ve read in ages. No wonder you hang around here so much – it can’t be fun being constantly mocked, but at least you get told the truth. Over and over again.
is it really breaking news?
@Nobinayamu: What part of “All of my interactions with people about marriage has lead me to the belief” and “I personally think” don’t you get? I am clearly talking about my own personal observations and interactions with people. I am not quoting some academic study.
Actually, I do value marriage. I just don’t value the fallout of it when a marriage goes to shit (which a lot of them do). My main reason for being anti-marriage has nothing to do with women, but everything to do with how the state handles divorce and family law.
Just in the same way you can avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex. So can you avoid the financial risks of divorce by “abstaining” from marriage. The difference between the two is that while you have to forego sex when you abstain from it, you don’t have to abstain from loving and sharing your life with someone if you choose to not marry. All you have to do is not walk to city hall and get a marriage license.
It’s old news. Very old news.
“The issue isn’t that women do or don’t like sexual variety. It is that marriage forces men to accept one sexual partner forever (presumably).”
Here’s a theoretical:
One man has sex with 12 model-standard women. He tends to use the same few sexual positions.
One man has sex with one woman over several years. He and she trust each other enough to talk about their fantasies with each other, and thus do things with each other that they haven’t with their previous partners. They are both creative and horny people who are interested in learning more about different kinds of positions, toys, and related hobbies such as shibari, and are always looking for new things to incorporate into their play.
There isn’t anything wrong with the first scenario, but these men who Brandon knows that are deeply concerned about “variety” might want to think about the possibility that there’s more than one way to have sex with one person.
@Wetherby: Really? Or do you not believe that people like to hide or minimize shameful parts of their lives.
@Shora: When it comes to shame, yes I think women will lie to cover it up. Men also do it too. No one likes to be reminded of bad shit that happens in their life.
I’m almost overwhelmed by the amount of FAIL here, so I’m going to pick out remarks from here almost at random.
Yes, I have been tested and I am STD-free.
No, I will not share with you how many partners I have had.
Do you believe that a woman with your number of partners is a “slut”?
Do you believe that a woman with your number of sexual partners is more or less likely to be infected than you are?
And what we are saying is that that is wrong.
But you haven’t compared shy people to drunk drivers at the helm of 18-wheelers or heroin addicts. You have compared slutty women to those things.
If you don’t believe what a woman tells you about her sex life, how do you determine whether she’s a slut or not? How do you “put her under the ‘slutty’ label”?
If a woman who sleeps with more than one man is a slut, and incapable of commitment, what does that make a man who wants “sexual variety”?
How much do you want to cheat on Ashley? Are you capable of remaining faithful?
Do you know what “implication” and “inferral” mean?
Quote fail.
Do you believe that a woman with your number of partners is a “slut”?
Do you believe that a woman with your number of sexual partners is more or less likely to be infected than you are?
Brandon, maybe the women wouldn’t be ashamed and feel the need to cover things up if guys like you didn’t exist.
Why do you think a “modest” woman would have sex with you? Once she has sex, is she still “modest”?
A modest woman won’t make him walk on the wild side and turn the lights on during sex.
Who do you think was correct when my father refused to pay for my sister’s orthodonture, after he moved out and my mother wasn’t able to afford food (or, one time, heating) for a while?
Translation: the kids are the woman’s problem.