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.
Meller, how do you feel about Paul Ryan?
Whatever happened to the time when men could–and often did–pride themselves on being the family’s breadwinner, and could pride themselves on his financially supporting wife and child(ren)? Even men who didn’t, or couldn’t, knew on some level, that they at least ought to!
Did it disappear about the same time that women (under feminist influence) ceased to pride THEMselves in being the source of their husband and child (ren)’s DOMESTIC support, uncritically accepting the notion that marriage and motherhood was a form of “slavery”?
Again, even women who were slovenly and disorganized, dirty and inept in the domestic arts knew, on some level, that their husband and child(ren) deserved better!
Thanx a million, Betty Friedan. You and your accursed book, the Feminine Mystique sure made a bloody mess for everybody, didn’t you? Here’s hoping for your just “reward” now that you are in your grave!
If it weren’t for Betty Friedan, women never would have felt the desire to stray from the kitchen and would have remained domestic servants whether they wanted to or not, just as God intended.
I think that social engineering and the growth of business and mass production took us from the “family business” model to “homemaker – breadwinner” model. I think the “natural” state of the heterosexual married couple (or whatever floats your boat!) is working, together, in their home, surrounded by extended family. And I think technology and freedom can get us there again, without sacrificing much. A man HAVING to march out and earn his pay at a wage labor job, or a woman, or both? Well, the unnaturalness of that stands out to me, and what’s more family values than family business?
I don”t feel anything about Paul Ryan. He is a typical RINO–Republican in Name Only–who campaigns like a libertarian (at least on some fiscal and tax issues, as long as the TV cameras are around), but, when elected, governs like a Democrat!
He–and his fellow members of the GOP–hasn’t even seriously tried to cut a measly 1,000,000,000,000 Dollars from the national debt (about 7% of the 16*10^12 estimeated total debt for 2011!
I STILL prefer Ron Paul!
Awesome, Brandon :). Don’t have kids, have all of your relationships be exchange relationships, never get married, never cohabitate. I would suggest you pay close attention to what the doctors say about when it will be safe to stop using bc post-vasectomy, and get tested to make sure it sticks.
The way you want to live your life is perfectly acceptable. I just don’t get how you can say “I’m never having kids, but everyone else ought to raise their children this way” and “I’m never getting married, but nobody should marry a slut.” And if those aren’t the sentiments you’re trying to communicate then you’re doing a terrible job of expressing yourself.
DKM, feminism isn’t about pressuring women into working if they want to stay home. I am a stay at home mom with my own children, and our family is happy. I do not consider marriage and motherhood to be slavery, but instead view it as a joy. Feminism is about giving women options. What works for one family doesn’t work for another. Betty Friedan talked to women who were miserable as stay at home moms. It wasn’t the right path for them. Brandon is here saying that all women must work full time outside the home, and now you’re here to say it’s right for them to stay home. This shows that no matter what a woman does, she will be criticized for it.
I know you prefer Paul. That was a given (and I am not one to try to convert you from your religious views. I will merely continue to state why they don’t work for me).
But Ryan cut lots of taxes, wants to cut more. He wants to (and has worked to make it happen) repeal vast amounts of regulation.
He’s even managed to do a lot of that (which is more than Paul has done), and he’s honest about his views on removing women’s autonomy; in the same ways you would.
So, apart from boilerplate about him being a RINO (and why would you care, you are a Libertarian, the Dem/Rep divide is as nothing to you, a plague on all their houses, right?) what is it that you don’t like about Ryan.
How does he, substantively; in terms of what they’ve done (as opposed to what they’ve said) do they differ?
@Pecunium:
I think promiscuous women are demonstrating poor judgement. If I were to get married, I would want a wife that exercises good judgement and not poor judgement.
I don’t really care if a woman goes around town sleeping with every guy that she meets. That is her life and she can live it anyway she wants. It is not my job (nor do I want it) to go around chastising women for sleeping around. But I can draw conclusions and make determinations about her in relationship to me. I don’t go around hanging out with active drug addicts? Why? Because they are exhibiting poor behavior, plus it is illegal. While different, the same can be said about slutty women.
However, I don’t really think her behavior is something that should be 1) emulated or 2) praised. It’s not the woman that is the issue, it is the behavior that is.
Lastly, I think marriage is a way for both parties to exploit each other. Men get a stay at home servant and the woman gets money and resources without working (in a typical breadwinner/stay at home scenario).
And that scenario is really the only one I can think of where marriage is actually needed. But nowadays, we mostly have men and women working and earning two incomes to support a home.
Besides a few perks (hospital visitation being the big one). I don’t see what benefits marriage can give a man that he can 1) not live without and 2) get by some other means.
Most of the perks of marriage are crap I could care less about. And as time goes on, I think more and more men will see it the way I do. So unless there is a big conservative push to “re-energize marriage”, I see the whole institution as useless, outdated and archaic. It’s only purpose was to properly serve men and women when women stayed home. This is no longer the case in the modern world.
Brandon’s getting a vasectomy!
Meller: Since you’re still tootin’ the horn for the nuclear family, maybe you’d like to take this opportunity to explain what went wrong in my family’s situation. I could even re-post the comment for you if you so desire 🙂
Zhinxi-
A very interesting idea, and one that has definite possibilities for the coming generation, as manufacturing and much highly centralized large scale commerce seems to have seen better days, and prospects for long term employment for the generation entering the workforce today are unpromising to say the least.
Worth keeping an eye on, but even here, maybe even especially in homebusinesses, it is quite likely that the “male” areas of the homebusiness will involve different responsiblities and types of work then the work specialties of the “female” areas. Gender will out, even there!
Brandon: Although they’re a very reliable method, vasectomies actually can still fail.
Well, you’re not doing a good job getting your point across. What I’ve seen so far is you belittling and devaluing the work of stay at home parents. That’s why you said,
@Bee: In the example I was talking about, I was talking about me subsidizing a woman to stay at home to raise my child.
and
It looks like you think stay at home parents are leeches, and do not contribute to the well being of their families when you make those statements. Why else would you say you’re “subsidizing” someone for raising your children, or say you want to charge that person room and board? You might as well put an ad out for a live in nanny and housekeeper, but specify that she will have to pay you for the privilege.
“The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists state there is a generally agreed upon rate of failure of about 1 in 2000 vasectomies”
http://www.rcog.org.uk/womens-health/clinical-guidance/sterilisation-women-and-men-what-you-need-know#how
“Worth keeping an eye on, but even here, maybe even especially in homebusinesses, it is quite likely that the “male” areas of the homebusiness will involve different responsiblities and types of work then the work specialties of the “female” areas. Gender will out, even there!”
If it outs naturally, it outs. Jury’s still out, like I said! We’ll see where the chips fall when we’re free. And if we’re free, we won’t make a big deal about it either way.
Seriously, read Carson’s the homebrew industrial revolution.
What you consider mutually exploitative, other people consider mutually beneficial. Not everyone has to live like Brandon to be happy.
I think promiscuous women are demonstrating poor judgement. If I were to get married, I would want a wife that exercises good judgement and not poor judgement.
In what way? Define Promiscuous.
However, I don’t really think her behavior is something that should be 1) emulated or 2) praised. It’s not the woman that is the issue, it is the behavior that is.
This is a repetition which says nothing more than the first. Elaborate.
I am also curious about the choice of descriptors. You say their behavior ought not be emulated. Ok… what would you do to reduce the number of people who engage in promiscuous (as you define it, and until you do we can’t really discuss the issue, because we don’t know that we are talking about the same thing).
Who, to close this, is praising them? What I see is people saying they ought not be condemned, but rather allowed to live their lives as they see fit.
Why is a promiscuous woman exercising poor judgment? What if the woman always uses protection? Why does casual sex automatically equate poor judgment?
Lastly, I think marriage is a way for both parties to exploit each other. Men get a stay at home servant and the woman gets money and resources without working (in a typical breadwinner/stay at home scenario).
So… servants ought not be paid, because being a stay at home servant isn’t working? Labor, for a spouse, is in some way not worthy of compensation? This ties into the whole, “She needs to pay me room and board, while I get the childcare for free” thing you have going with any putative parental partner you might have (in the theoretical sense, in light of your vasectomy).
@DKM: Men will just have to find something else to be prideful about. Back in the day, men displayed their “status and provider ability”, with a respectful and high paying career. Now that more women are graduating college and earning money, it isn’t a big deal anymore. Instead of complaining about it, let’s use it as an opportunity to make men’s lives better. There is a lot of positives to men not being forced into provider roles. In fact, I think men should actively shun that role and refuse to take it. Women and feminism tore up women’s social contract 40 years ago, I think men should do the same.
@Viscaria: I am expressing my thoughts on the matter. I am not telling people how to live, just that there are alternatives to the standard marriage bullshit that is praised in our society. You live whatever way you want, I don’t really care.
@thebionicmommy: Yes, you want to give women options at the expense of men. At least women have an option to either work or stay at home. Do you realize that doesn’t really fly that well when you switch the genders.
I wish I could find someone to financially support me, while I stay at home.
You are going to get criticized anyways, so do whatever you want. You don’t think men aren’t criticized for the choices we make? I can do one thing and make one person happy while simultaneously make 10 people angry. That is the world, you will never be free from criticism. Even famous dead people are still being criticized to this day (FDR, Mises, Guevara, Stalin, etc..)
“You live whatever way you want, I don’t really care.”
Yet you’ve spent all these posts trying to convince us that any other way of living is wrong…
Brandon: @Viscaria: I am expressing my thoughts on the matter.
No, you aren’t actually. You aren’t defining your terms. We don’t have a working definition of either, “Slut”, nor, “Promiscuous”. So you are speaking, but not communicating.
NWO, or Meller, for example, would agree with you. A slut isn’t a suitable person to marry. They would also say they weren’t good people; that they are morally deficient, and not to be respected (forget emulation and praise).
They would also be thinking of Ashley in the category delimited by “Slut” and “Promiscuous.”
As I have remarked ever since Reagan, “cutting” taxes is onlly half the problem, and the less important half at that! It is cutting government spending (and borrowing) that is the main challenge, then and–even more, with the horrific debt burden–now!
Another point is that the GOP tax cuts not only are too little too late, but, as you Democrats never cease reminding us, they go primarily to the uppermost five percent or so! This would be harmless enough if more of today’s rich were like e.g. Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Adam Gimbel, John D. Rockefeller Sr. George Westinghouse, David Sarnoff, and Alfred P. Sloan…Men who actually built industries, gave employment to millions, facilitated trade, and improved industry and technology for everybody!
Instead we have an economy(?) where most of today’s rich (with apologies to e.g. Bill Gates or the late Steve Jobs) are more like Jay Gould, Al Capone, Daniel Drew, William (Boss) Tweed, Barney Madoff, David Koch, Henry Paulson, George Soros, et al! The money is simply gambled away in sundry government backed paper schemes, through debt pyramided “investments”, and when they go bankrupt, are then bailed out to the tune of TRILLIONS of $$$$ inevitably paid for by– guess who?
Notice that I haven’t even mention the criminals who seem to be the GOP’s special pets, the military contractors and war profiteers, whose activities are just as dishonest and corrupt as those of the crooks mentioned above, but get innocent people killed and maimed. Ron Paul calls attention to this, and has opposed such corruption for a very long time, Paul Ryan, and the other Republicans, whether they cut(?) taxes or not, don’t!
Notice that you also haven’t actually answered the question, merely spouted more boilerplate talking points.
Which means, so far, Ryan and Paul are much of a muchness, and Ryan is, by the measures you’ve been offering, the better libertarian.
He’s also more honest.