Women oppress men by “playing” at having a career

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.