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.
Really? I’m not sure thoughts cross his mind so much as they kind of amble around waiting for a synapse to fire.
I honestly don’t think I’ve ever encountered an adult with as little capacity for reflection and reevaluating his opinions based on new evidence as Brandon. It’s like talking to a toddler with an unusually large vocabulary.
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.
they couldnt have, because my parents also produced four sons. but yeah, i’ve mentioned before that one of my sisters suffers from really serious borderline personality disorder (to the point where her caseworker when she was first insitutionalized was like ‘i’m the one they give all the hard cases to and your daughter still has me at the end of my wits). you dont help someone through that unless you have a lot of love for them.
brandon – “So I am done arguing it with you.”
What do we have to do to get you done arguing with all of us?
I honestly don’t think I’ve ever encountered an adult with as little capacity for reflection and reevaluating his opinions based on new evidence as Brandon.
hes 30. i still cant wrap my head around that. i thought a lot like him when i was fifteen, but i was fucking fifteen.
It’s like talking to a toddler with an unusually large vocabulary.
he has a vocabulary only in the loosest sense of the term. see e.g. the discussion above on the definition of hyperbole.
So basically toddler Mad Libs, but with extra judginess.
Brandon: @Wetherby: Trust just like respect is earned not given.
Unless of course you are just demanding it from your child’s other parent; and punishing the child to make sure you get the respect you think is your due.
Which you have already told us will be negative if the number is too high, something between 2-10.
There are so many questions, some are bound not to get answered.
The state of being feminine.
Tautology.
I see newcomers in my social circle as neutral. They are neither good nor bad. While I might not trust/respect them, I am also not being hostile towards them or being disrespectful. I am just observing and waiting to see what kind of person they are.
And if they are female you assume they lie about any sexual past they discuss, because they are afraid you will think ill of them if it’s too broad; and they would be right to so think.
@Hellkell: And the entire idea of “sluttiness” is entirely opinion based. There are no objective, scientific studies done that says “You fucked X people, you aren’t a slut but you fucked X+1 then you are”.
Which is fine, but you aren’t being respectful to others. You keep saying slut is opinion based, but you won’t share your opinion. You can’t even bring yourself to use your own words when you do get around to making mealy-mouthed confession of your ideas; but need to borrow them from a PUA who thinks that slagging a woman is the way to get her into bed.
Can we all just pause to laugh at the idea that 10 partners is clearly too many? Brandon is 30-ish, right? If a person started having sex at about 18, and they are 30, and most people practise serial monogamy (which they do), that would be less than 1 new sexual partner per year. In what universe is that promiscuous?
Brandon: @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.
You didn’t attack the system. Attacking the system would have been to say, “Legal marriage fails at…”, what you did was make the blanket statement, “getting married is stupid because…”, and then protest that people who disagreed with you were defending marriage because they were invested in it, not because you were, yanno, wrong.
There is an important, and not so subtle, distinction. When I used the same words about soldiers you said that saying such things was patently offensive, but to say it about people who got married was just fine.
Which is, honestly, when I decided you weren’t completely honest in the way you deal with people.
Sharculese: hes 30. i still cant wrap my head around that. i thought a lot like him when i was fifteen, but i was fucking fifteen.
If it makes you feel any better The Bard thinks men of 30 can be as stupid as any fratboy, look at Hamlet.
Brandon: These are the reasons I can’t be an MRA. I value humor much more than gender politics. I will laugh at pretty much anything I think is funny.
Tautology, unless you are trying to set yourself up as the arbiter of funny.
I laugh at at anything I think is funny too. But, funny thing, I’ll bet we think different things are funny.
@Hellkell: I also attack public schools because of the policies some of them have. That doesn’t mean I am against teachers.
I see a lot of redundant departments in the government and I would like to see them closed or at least folded into other depts. That doesn’t mean that I am attacking the workers in that department.
One can be against policy, procedures, law and regulations without being against the people that work for the depts that enforce them.
Fine, what I said about marriage was poorly written. Let me clarify it for you:
“Marriage as an institution is statistically risky. In the sense that one is most likely taking on far more risk than reward when entering into that agreement. One should think prior to entering into that arrangement to see if there is more rewards for them than risks.”
“I personally see no rewards to marriage and only risks. Practically everything that can be done in marriage can be accomplished without actually getting married. The very few things that marriage can do are relatively insignificant to me and aren’t actually benefits since I see no value in them”.
I see a lot of redundant departments in the government and I would like to see them closed or at least folded into other depts. That doesn’t mean that I am attacking the workers in that department.
how do you see this? it’s pretty clear that you don’t actually know anything about the operation of government. what makes you qualified to judge certain departments as redundant?
Ninja-ed by Pecunium. But I appreciate it since I only just got through reading the rest of this thread. Brandon, I know you think your opinions carry a lot of weight but when I said that you were making claims of truth, I wasn’t referring to your opinions about why men don’t value marriage. I was referring to your repeated assertion, in this and other threads, that men don’t value marriage. Not only have you never proved this you attempted to argue that your opinion was just as valid as the actual research that contradicts it. Why? Because you’re thick as brick.
Why don’t you just try this, Brandon:
I don’t value marriage and do not intend to marry.
You don’t have to make any broad, erroneous generalizations about men or women or the institution of marriage itself and its numerous permutations.
You don’t value marriage and don’t view it as potentially beneficial to your life.
And we can call it a wrap on this episode of “The Brandon Show”.
Because it is BRANDON and he knows everything about everything. Including whether or not a government agency is redundant or not.
fixed that for you…otherwise you are making sweeping and stupid generalizations.
Or you could have done the tl;dr that Nobinyama so graciously did for you.
And that is a wrap, good work people, the food is back at the hotel! Here is the remote!
@Nobinayamu: Actually I think PEOPLE don’t value marriage like they did in the past.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2010/usmarriagedecline.aspx
So we went from 80-90% married to 40-50% married today. I wonder what it will be like in another 20 years…20% perhaps?
The point is my generation sees marriage as archaic and unnecessary. We can see that by the fact that they are not marrying at the same rates as previous generations. And I doubt the 18-25 age range values marriage more than my generation.
Practically every other population statistic helps validate that marriage is dying: Single mother’s are increasing, absentee fathers are increasing, co-habitation is on the rise, etc…
You say I am making sweeping generalizations…well what are they? Is marriage somehow not risky? Should people just impulsively marry instead of weighing out the pro’s and con’s?
That is all I said in the first paragraph. That marriage is risky by placing more obligations and liabilities on someone then a single person. And that single person prior to signing the marriage license should think about all the reasons why and why not they should get married. I think it is hardly stupid to promote people making rational, thought out decisions.
I SAID IT WAS A WRAP PEOPLE.
Brandon, you get no beer.
As far as marriage is concerned I believe it is irrelevant unless it means something for you and your family.
Our oldest daughter has been with her partner for eight years, he is our son-in-law and I could care less if they decide to have a ceremony. In my eyes they are life partners and he is one of our kids.
Yes, Brandon. I’m sure that’s why you’ve spent thousands of words arguing that men don’t value marriage because it stifles their sexual variety and they’re more negatively affected by divorce and women want marriage because they have more to gain. While I appreciate your referencing an actual study (seriously, way to offer evidence beyond your opinion) your citation hasn’t supported your original thesis, and it hasn’t contradicted anything I’ve said.
Some people value marriage, some people don’t. Some people want to get married, some people don’t. And as you and I are a part of the same generation, and I attend weddings every year and have a number of friends who are married, this sweeping generalization:
is, once again, based on your opinion and not supported by the evidence you provided.
Fewer people -not just men, but women as well- are getting married. More people are co-habitating. That is supported by the evidence. What’s also true is that people are marrying later than in previous generations so a snap-shot of marriage rates for people in their twenties and thirties is not necessarily evidence that those people will never marry.
I don’t view a decrease in marriage and an increase in co-habitation as negative, so I don’t really have a horse in this race. I want people to have relationships (or not have, for that matter) that bring them happiness and create stable and healthy families in what ever manner works best for them. As I’ve never made any comments about risks and marrying impulsively, your attempt to assign these opinions to me is as silly as much of what you write.
At any rate, none of this changes the fact that you’ve spent days arguing that marriage is viewed negatively by men, specifically (in direct contradiction to the available research) and that women value marriage more.
@Nobinayamu: So your argument is “some people do and some people don’t”? That seems pretty flimsy.
Also, I have friends that are married and I attend weddings relatively frequently. That doesn’t prove anything about general trends in marriage rates. I also have a lot of friends that refuse to get married because they don’t want to be ordered by the court to do something they don’t want to do if the relationship does sour. And their fears aren’t unwarranted since we also have a few friends that are miserable, poor and all they do is work since they have been divorced. So while everyone sees all the “pretty butterflies” when they enter marriage, we also see the aftermath when those relationships end and the court system gets involved. Needless to say, divorce serves as an amazing disincentive to not get married. And since marriages fail roughly half the time, I think that only increases peoples fear of it.
You said I was making erroneous generalizations. I asked you what those were. I didn’t assign any opinion to you. If you look at what I wrote, you will see question marks after those sentences. Hence I am asking you a question not making a statement about you or your opinions.
Lastly, I do think more men are seeing marriage in a negative light. I also think that as time goes on, those numbers will increase. The reason why I think that is because I see statistics validating my own personal experiences. And those experiences is that men are much more hesitant to marry than in previous years.
The reason I don’t bring up women and why they may see it in a negative light is because they are often the ones defending marriage and telling me all the reasons why I should get married. I run into very few women that oppose marriage.
So we have a group of men hesitant to marry and a group of women defending it tooth and nail. Most people defend something because they have a stake in it. So the fact that I have seen more women defend marriage leads me to believe they have a higher stake in marriage and getting men to marry them.
This is why you see female writers writing “man-up” articles all over the place. They are trying to persuade men to “man-up”, get married, have children, buy an overpriced house and be a good worker drone for the rest of their lives.
While I don’t always agree with MRA’s or the “manosphere”, I do think they are helping more men see that they don’t have to be subjugated to roles society places on them. The other thing I also like is that they are defining masculinity for themselves and not allowing society, women, feminism, etc,,, define it for them.
A lot of these female writers that write these “man up” articles do so because they aren’t looking out for the best interests of men. They are doing it because they are looking out for the best interest of themselves and other women. They write the articles in such a way that it isn’t about what will make men happy, but how men can make women happy thus magically making men happy in the process. These women only see men as “pack mules” so they can have a happier life.
These women ask so much of men: to work, die, sacrifice for them. While they offer such little in return. So any man that decided to get married should ask himself: “What does she have to offer in this relationship?” If all it is is sex and a pretty face…then I would advise him to look for a wife elsewhere.
“The point is my generation sees marriage as archaic and unnecessary. ”
“You say I am making sweeping generalizations…well what are they?”
Sigh. Brandon, you can’t defend yourself from doing sweeping generalizations and do some in the same comment. You can’t talk for your generation and this stat can’t do that either.
Marriage is diminishing, that’s all it says. Your explanation is just opinion. I’ve got other opinions, other possible explanations.
Maybe people used to marry so much because of the social pressure. Wanting to fit in is not the same as valuing marriage.
Maybe because there are less unplanned babies, young people rush less into marriage when they’re not ready.
Maybe they value marriage more, so they’re not gonna jump in just with anybody, they want it to be meaningful.
Maybe because women earn more than they used to, they’re less dependent of their husbands.
Maybe they just marry older. Here, let me quote your link: “Although marriage rates have dropped among young adults, it is important to note that most young adults will go on to marry later in life.”
Maybe you should read your own data.
I’m not expecting a response. Even if you do, the odds are it will have nothing to do with my point, and it’s frigging boring to try to connect the dots of “how did Brandon understood A when I clearly said B and how to make it clearer, is he playing dumb or does he really don’t get it” over and over.
Kinda depends on what one’s situation is, though, doesn’t it? What risks one is concerned about. What risks one’s partner is concerned about. What obligations and liabilities one has versus what obligations and liabilities might be shifted onto one’s partner so that the burden can be equally carried.
To give a couple of very concrete examples (since I think that’s what you have the best chance of understanding), if one were concerned about the risk that one’s partner would be called to testify against xir, marriage would in fact obliterate that risk by offering spousal privilege. If one were concerned that one’s partner’s job carried unreasonable risks to xir life and health, marriage would make it possible for one to file a wrongful death law suit against the party that caused xir death. Both of those are benefits that can’t be contracted for, and both of those are issues that have affected people I know, who wished (too late) that they had gotten married to their partner.
I know you’re thinking, those situations aren’t very likely to happen to BRANDON, though. (For what it’s worth, my acquaintances didn’t think they were likely to happen to them, either. But that’s a separate issue perhaps.) But of course there are other, more common ways that marriage shifts obligations in a way that makes life easier or more livable for both spouses. This “riskiness” you’re talking about seems to be related to the common MRA fear that that bitch is gonna use the court system steal your money, right? Well, you like contracts. Contract around that — sign a pre-nup. That’s one contract to make and enforce, rather than the hundred or more individual agreements that you’d have to sign (and pay for, and terminate, if the relationship doesn’t work out) with the not-marriage agreement you’re advocating for.
For what it’s worth, Brandon, I don’t want to get married either, really. I’m OK with living with my boyfriend unless or until something comes up where I think marriage would offer us something that we need or want. But that’s me. I’m not advocating that this is the right choice for everyone. It strikes me as odd that you’re saying that your view on marriage (as an unmarried dude who doesn’t appear to know very much about it) is not only the right one, it’s the only one.
This is what the article you clearly didn’t read said:
I see nothing about young people thinking marriage is archaic and unnecessary.
brandon id still like to see you attempt to defend your statements about government.
to refresh:
These women ask so much of men: to work, die, sacrifice for them. While they offer such little in return.
Last I heard, marriage vows did not specify only the man would DIE for the marriage/woman (and it’s only because of improved health care that women stopping dying in childbirth–look at all the old graveyards with one man and his multiple dead wives).
Just who the fuck is asking husbands to die for them, because I sure ain’t seeing it.