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.
@Shora: Not all…but I would say a sizable chunk do.
I thought my point was perfectly clear – I was questioning your use of the word ‘reproduction’, on the fairly obvious grounds that the vast majority of sexual activity does not result in, and is not intended to result in, reproduction.
And since this is undoubtedly the case, I was questioning why you think male and female priorities are so different.
A sizable chunk is cool with hypocrisy and double standards?
And what about the ones who aren’t? You can just try to shove them into those boxes, huh?
@Wetherby: Just because sex might not or isn’t intended for reproduction doesn’t mean it wont or can’t happen. A woman has different concerns towards sex than men do. As an example, a woman might worry about getting pregnant. A man however does not have to worry about it to the same extent. Thus getting pregnant is going to weigh far more heavily on women than on men. Thus shifting priorities and expectations.
Brandon:
And just like that, Hershele winks out of existance. I’m pretty sure I have a couple of Manboobzers keeping me company here in the Negative Zone, at least.
Brandon:
Thus convincing exactly no one of your good faith or the reasonableness of your opinions. Congratulations?
And what makes a study unbiased. If you answer “lack of bias” I will continue assuming either you don’t know or you think it means “agrees with Brandon.”
Brandon:
Then what, pray, are you doing here?
@Hershele: Shooting the shit.
Not much evidence of shooting shit. Tons of talking it, though.
Then what, pray, are you doing here?
he needs the attention
I am still curious why Brandon can ask his sex partners for the number of previous partners they’ve had but is TOTALLY incapable of asking them if they’ve been tested and are clean.
I think Brandon has NWO disease. If you define your terms, the feminists win!
Hershele:
I’m not raising any non-biological children, but my stepdad is the person who I think of as a father. Sometimes people will ask me, “didn’t he want children of his own?” and I say: “Yes. He has two of them. Me and my brother.”
I’m pretty sure Brandon doesn’t want to raise any children at all, but he would consider it an obligation to at least financially support his biological offspring. And since Brandon’s priorities = every man everywhere’s priorities, every other person will agree.
No it does not.
I’m not raising any non-biological children, but my stepdad is the person who I think of as a father. Sometimes people will ask me, “didn’t he want children of his own?” and I say: “Yes. He has two of them. Me and my brother.”
well said. i have two adoptive sisters and the idea that theyre any less my sisters because we dont share the same ancestors is just bizarre to me.
I’m pretty sure Brandon doesn’t want to raise any children at all, but he would consider it an obligation to at least financially support his biological offspring.
im not sure this is true. have you seen brandons thoughts on alimony?
That’s a fair point about alimony, Sharculese, but I still think he feels at least some very limited amount of financial responsibility, and that’s why he places such an emphasis on the difference between his biological and non-biological children. A biological child is a mistake he can’t get out of. A non-biological child is a burden he would have to choose.
Which is all well and good of course, anyone who feels that way about children shouldn’t be a parent. But then he does his Brandon thing and projects his own feelings onto every man on the planet.
I hope nobody ever asked your sisters stupid questions like that growing up. I have no idea why a few select people think it’s okay to tell you that your parents aren’t properly your parents, by some silly criteria.
Brandon: The only time I call a woman a slut, to her face,is when she likes to be called that in bed.
FTFY, because I don’t believe, from your descriptions of your interactions with your friends that you don’t single women out to call them sluts.
I try not to place labels on myself
Just other people, which you then use to judge them. Self-reflection, not so much. Assumptions on things which don’t really make any difference, all the time.
@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).
It does the same things for women, so you are either asserting them women don’t like variety, or arguing that something outwieghs it, or just talking out your ass.
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.
Which you presented as counter-argument to studies, as if they were of equal merit and standing.
@Voip: Why do you keep putting modest in quotes? It clearly has a definition. Or do you think I think it means something else?
I think VoiP does it because you use it the way you use slut… without any real meaning. It, like slut, has very different meanings to different people. I had a client today who was “modest”. She was wearing a clingy skirt, had bare arms and a wig. She’s modern orthodox. I have another friend, also modern orthodox who would never wear such a thing; her skirts are loose, and she always covers her arms. She won’t touch any man to whom she is not related (her husband, of course, counts). A third (again, modern orthodox) woman will wear a corset in public, but never goes out with her hair uncovered.
All of them would say they are preserving their modesty.
So, care to define Slut?
How about Feminine?
Modest?
Because you are implying all sorts of things, and we are (quite reasonably) making inference. You can either give us your definition, and we can use it, or you will have to live with the interpretations made from your words.
MRAL: 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.
No I didn’t. I very plainly said the only thing I had to go on was the direct comparison you made between having fewer partners being in some way feminine, and the total lack of any other specific attribute from you.
In absence of more elaboration I refused to put words in your mouth by adding anything to that list.
@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.
Really? Because that’s not what happened here. You showed up to tell us how we all misunderstood how marriage works, and shared with us the Brandon’s Patented Method of Marriage Benefits Without Obligations.
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”.
Really? Because neither of those happened here. Yes, people have said you are likely to be a bit lonely in your elder years, when your looks wear off and the selfishness can’t be chalked up to callow youth, but not because of your stance on marriage.
Brandon: You said getting married is stupid. You told people who think getting married is a good idea that to do so was to enter into a pointless, and risky, contract with no benefits and only obligations. That is, actually, telling them that they are stupid if they get married.
It’s just like Meller saying he isn’t saying nasty things just because he doesn’t use mean words. The sum total of your message is that people who get married are stupid.
As you said, denial is a bitch.
@Pecunium: If you want to think that I think married people are stupid…go right ahead. I am tired of trying to my point across. Apparently, if I attack a system, government or institution that means I am also attacking the people that are part of it. That is not my opinion but you continue to say that it is. So I am done arguing it with you.
awesome. does that mean youre leaving and not coming back for your daily what-about-brandon whinefest? or just that youre ignoring the dude who puts the most thought into pointing out how little thought you put into your tirades?
Oh, no, Pecunium, BRANDON HAS DECLARED “END OF DISCUSSION.”
Sharculese, I’d hope for the former, but we all know the latter will win out.
I honestly think that Brandon does not realise that his words mean things.
Like “marriage is stupid” cannot possibly mean that you think people are stupid if they do that because…um well..um, you never actually said people were stupid!
No.
One could say “marriage for myself would be stupid.” And one would not be saying people are stupid.
One could say “marriage is stupid” but unfortunately that does mean one is saying those who do such a stupid thing are well, stupid.
Just as one saying “bungee jumping is stupid for me” is not saying others who do so are stupid. It is clearly saying that it applies to only one person.
And so saying “bungee jumping is stupid” is not clearly saying it only applies to one person because it does not. It is not even in the same neighborhood.
Perhaps in Brandon’s mind since he is so self oriented, he is saying things that mean the former but to the rest of us, without access to his mind, it means the latter.
Brandon, it might be a good idea to reread your comments to make sure it is only referring to you and not anyone else when making sweeping generalizations. I know it is asking an extraordinary thing of you to actually think for once but it could reduce the amount of ‘splaining you have to do.
And what, pray tell, do you think these things consist of? Are the people in them completely independent of them?
They consist of little red and green robots named Pinky.
HA! I know, it’s my thinking that’s fucked–not everyone in a system can be as above it all and too cool for school as Brandon.
I honestly think that Brandon does not realise that his words mean things.
a thought crosses brandon’s mind and he sort of looks at it and says ‘yes, this is correct’. he doesnt examine it further, because its a thought he had, therefore it must be Correct. that’s the essential problem with brandonlogic.