Careerism and Fidelity

by W.F. Price on July 4, 2011

Roissy recently wrote a post comparing careerism to infidelity, and while some of his critics panned him for it, I think it was an uncommonly astute observation, especially considering he’s never even been married. While he approaches the issue from personal experience with individual women and the sexual angle, I see it as more of general trend with broad implications for which plenty of exceptions exist. However, I think we can get to the root of this, and offer some convincing proof that he was correct from a look at the realities of the modern marriage and workplace.

The seminal issue is authority (and the concomitant sense of security it engenders), which has been seen as essential to marriage across cultures throughout the ages until very, very recent times. I’ve previously argued that authority is not something men always aspire to, and is often a burden only grudgingly accepted, but it’s undeniable that in general terms it makes a big difference in the success of marriage. A man without authority over his wife cannot be said to be a full husband, but rather something between that and a child (is it any wonder that American women are so fond of referring to husbands as “childlike?”). Today, a husband has negative legal authority over a wife, so he starts out at a disadvantage as soon as he signs the marriage certificate.

On the other hand, a boss has a great deal of authority over employees, whether they be male or female. A woman who displeases a supervisor cannot threaten to “divorce” him; the best she can do is threaten a lawsuit. These days that trick has run out of steam as HR departments run interference for the company, preventing such offensive measures in the overwhelming majority of cases. She cannot spend the company money without being subject to prosecution. She cannot quit and claim ownership, nor can she expect to continue to receive monthly funds. When a woman’s relationship with her place of employment is terminated, her support is severed and she is on her own.

This guarantees that women who want to continue to receive support will behave themselves and follow instructions. They may often be grumpy about it, and sometimes they complain, but for the most part that’s all it amounts to, and in fact they tend to derive a great deal of satisfaction when praised for doing a good job. They also enjoy the security afforded by employment, and look up to their superiors. The fact that there is an authority figure at work comforts most women. It comforts them a great deal more than it does men, who are far more likely to strike out on their own and start their own businesses or go freelance. From this, we can conjecture that women tend not to make it to the top ranks of management not because they are being held back, but rather because most of them prefer being under authority more than most men.

Now, let’s take a look at the contemporary marriage. A husband has no legal authority over his wife. If anything, the opposite is true. A man who attempts to exert authority over an unwilling or insubordinate wife is subject to dispossession and possibly arrest. If the marriage is dissolved, the ex-wife is given civil and sometimes criminal authority over the husband; judges will order him to provide for her whether he wants to or not. A husband, therefore, has a position in marriage that is even lower than a common employee, and is more accurately compared to a bondsman.

Under such a setup, a man cannot have any meaningful authority over a woman, and in many – if not most – cases a wife will come to feel a great deal of contempt and resentment. How can such a humble, lowly man possibly provide her the comfort and security she craves? He is barely better than a child, and doesn’t even begin to compare to a superior at work.

Therefore, many working women will instinctively feel more attraction for their superiors at work, and it is not uncommon for affairs to ensue. In the United States, it is only strict sexual harassment laws and corporate (and military) non-fraternization policies that prevent this from becoming an outright epidemic.

For most men there is little that can be done about this, and the ordinary man can only hope that his wife has enough common sense and decency to overlook his degraded position as husband — a feeble consolation at best. However, for some it is possible to restore some authority, but only by merging the office of husband with that of employer; in short, one must hire one’s wife in order to establish something approaching the natural definition of marriage. Although this may seem like an odd solution to contemporary ears, some of the best marriages I have ever known of employ exactly this method, and it is far closer to the old definition of marriage than what is currently seen as a “normal” marriage.

Unfortunately, in the current norm of wage slavery, cubicle farms and massive corporations, it is not an option open to most people, but perhaps a bit of reflection on the natural relationships between men and women as analyzed from the universally understood paradigm of the workplace can help us move toward a more realistic appraisal of marriage. Maybe it can even help us edge a little closer to sorely-needed reform of the institution of marriage itself.

{ 62 comments… read them below or add one }

AfOR July 4, 2011 at 08:57

Certainly in 2011AD *any* man who thinks he has met or knows or is married to or involved with a woman who is faithful to him and him alone is a fucking idiot.

t’were not always so, but then there used to be penalties for infidelity.

ask any economist, that which is rewarded is encourages… click my name for more on this.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 9
Charles Martel July 4, 2011 at 09:26

Roissy recently wrote a post comparing careerism to infidelity, and while some of his critics panned him for it, I think it was an uncommonly astute observation, especially considering he’s never even been married.

Roissy’s 100% correct. A careerist wife has divided loyalties. When the husband comes second to the boss, that is absolutely a form of infidelity.

Roissy has been married, btw.

I met a large number of careerist women at business school. The most notable aspect of my 10 year B-School reunion was how many of them were still single and desperately trolling for an unmarried man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 0
Opus July 4, 2011 at 09:27

We need a like button for articles, as the above certainly deserves my approval, but as there is no button, may I, in support, make two comments:

1. In my observation women do not like working for women. That is not to say that I have not come across uber-bitches who have decided that their entire purpose at work is to sabotage me on all possible occasions – but that is rare and I have usually been blessed with the greatest support, but when that happens, sexual attraction is never far away. The problem is that being in close confine to men causes some women to be very conflicted as between their sexual desires and the professional duties, and it is there that the absurd sexual harrassement allegations always arise. It is also my observation that the greatest objection to women bosses comes, not from the men, but from other women – the so-called glass ceiling is imposed (or rather invented) by women not by men.

2. I (by temperement perhaps) have done a lot of temporary work, and thus I have worked in a vast number of organisations, and something which I have occasionally come across, is this: The boss goes on holiday; I step into the breach; the typist then spends the next few weeks ‘sulking’ like a dog in kennels that pines for its master to return.

As I was saying the other day, whenever I go somewhere new I always want to know who is sleeping with the boss, for it is that person who (in reality) wealds the real power in the office. If she does not like you, you will be out (always on some trumped-up nonsense – no one was ever fired for incompetence and that includes these powerful women, who are often the most useless – and taking the boss for a ride).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 0
john thames July 4, 2011 at 09:29

A woman will only look up to a man who is unquestionably her master.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel July 4, 2011 at 09:38

I met a large number of careerist women at business school. The most notable aspect of my 10 year B-School reunion was how many of them were still single and desperately trolling for an unmarried man.

Apologies for the self-reference but I have just remembered that one of these women had married a framer – a carpenter – who was clearly the “wife” in that relationship. I have never met a more obviously uncomfortable person in a social situation. His spouse, the B-School grad, had very obviously made a conscious decision to create a family with total role reversal. I have occasionally wondered how that little social experiment turned out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 0
Traveller July 4, 2011 at 10:05

“These days that trick has run out of steam as HR departments run interference for the company, preventing such offensive measures in the overwhelming majority of cases. She cannot spend the company money without being subject to prosecution. She cannot quit and claim ownership, nor can she expect to continue to receive monthly funds. When a woman’s relationship with her place of employment is terminated, her support is severed and she is on her own.

This guarantees that women who want to continue to receive support will behave themselves and follow instructions. ”

**************

You are always calm and moderate.

I agree with this cited part only partially.
I believe women can make any lawsuit they want, and exactly as the marriage, the business relationship is often favourable to the women, judges and juries happy to condemn the evil corporations.
Furthermore, HR depts are exactly where useless women can continue to get undeserved paychecks, produce nothing and use some power outside the hierarchy.

Women rarely “behave themselves and follow instructions”, they simply are still planning how to stab your back.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Fed Up July 4, 2011 at 10:06

The biggest enemy to women are themselves. I can’t believe women are so naive and arrogant that they think they can give the middle finger to Mother Nature and not expect any consequences. Men are hard-wired to lead and women are hard-wired to follow. While men have contempt for women who take charge over them, it is women who have contempt for men who don’t have authority over them. It is too bad that this messed up society has created large amounts of blue-pill and women who are rotten to the core. Maybe one day we will live in a world where men and women have a mutual respect for one another, but those days went up in smoke along with all the bras women burned in the 60s and 70s.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0
ElectricAngel July 4, 2011 at 10:21

Women must always put themselves in the service of a man to secure the economic means necessary to support their offspring. It used to be that this was one man, oath bound to love, honor, and protect her. Now there is no oath, but another man supports her (or all men, in the case of welfare.) The career really does take the place of the husband of old.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
Commander Shepard July 4, 2011 at 10:30

“Certainly in 2011AD *any* man who thinks he has met or knows or is married to or involved with a woman who is faithful to him and him alone is a fucking idiot.” – AfOR

Recently an acquittance and I were sharing stories of sexual conquests and he told me of his trip to Vegas with family friends. There he fucked the wife of one of his dad’s friends. This is a woman he knew since he was a little kid so it takes on that dimension as well. He said that he fucked her hard, fingered her ass, and she swallowed his cum. Do you think she swallows for her husband? Most likely not. The husband wasn’t even on the trip but he naively assumed a trip with family friends would be innocent, oh boy was he wrong. We had a good laugh at the husband’s expense but I couldn’t help but feel bad. This man was probably taught to put women on a pedestal. What good it did him. Women care little for useful idiots including their husbands.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 15
Commander Shepard July 4, 2011 at 10:32

*acquaintance”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader July 4, 2011 at 10:49

Welmer, you may have something here. In addition to all the above good, sound comments, any supervisor or boss in a workplace commands far more resources than the average husband. So even a women with good intentions cannot help but compare the men at the top of the organization with her husband, in another variant on the apex fallacy (“Those men are powerful and accomplished, they are men, therefore all men should be powerful and accomplished, what the hell is wrong with the drip in my bed?”)

Since feminists and tradcon White Knights have made it impossible for a man to actually be a husband any more, forming a Limited Liability Company with the man as sole proprietor and his wife as sole employee might offer an end run around the current mess. Her contract with the LLC would spell out in detail her duties, with clauses describing the cost of contract violation. It could be a term contract with renewal option, as well as contract for life of both parties, or some other agreement.

The only problem would be keeping the state from declaring them “married”. Avoiding states with common law marriage would be required. She would have to retain a different last name, and they would have to publicly hold themselves out as a corporation, not a couple. It might not work. But it is worth contemplating.

The feminists would be in a quandary because she’s contracting out of her own free will, so the usual unified “men bad” front would be fractured to some degree. The trad-cons would surely have a fit, because such a contractual agreement is so tawdry and has no romance, plus it denies the notion of the female human as superior moral actor. So there’s two more points in favor of it: a way for a man to live with a woman safely that will piss off the misandry bloc of feminists/tradcons merely by its existence.

Very thoughtful posting, Welmer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 1
Fed Up July 4, 2011 at 10:49

Commander Shepard,

The wife in your story is a typical representation of modern women. I will never get into a relationship with a woman again because I have no desire to babysit her 24/7. Even though I don’t agree with what your acquaintance did, I would probably have done the same thing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
AfOR July 4, 2011 at 10:54

I treat all women, without exception, as complete sluts.

I laugh when they deny that their cunts are dripping wet for me.

They all fuck, and I mean FUCK, no holes or holds barred, on first dates.

You would never, ever, ever assume this of them, ***if you described them by what they are or do***, Dr, Company director, Carer, Nurse, Mum, Wife, Aunt, etc.

the only ones I won’t fuck are pigs and social services types, the donkeys are that way bitches.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 17
Anonymous Reader July 4, 2011 at 11:04

Charles Martel
Roissy’s 100% correct. A careerist wife has divided loyalties. When the husband comes second to the boss, that is absolutely a form of infidelity.

A woman in a workplace has to honor and obey those who supervise her. If she has one or more children, she’s bound to love and honor her children. Doesn’t leave much in the way of “love, honor and obey” her male roommate, does it?

There doesn’t even have to be any sexual overtone, either. Recall the false idea that women are naturally monogamous, when in reality they tend to be loyal to one man for a time, which leads to our current regime of institutionalized serial polyandry. If women are at best able to share their loyalty with two groups of people (at most), then a married woman with children and a job is bound to come to view her husband with some degree of contempt, as her loyalty in the daytime is to those in her workplace, and after hours her loyalty is to her children.

100 years ago women worked, for money, generally in a smaller range of jobs than today. But women did work as nurses, as teachers, in business as typists/stenographers/etc. However, it was the custom that upon marriage, a woman would cease to work for money. I always thought when I was younger that this was due to the issue of jobs; a woman should be able to live with her husband on what he earns, and the job she had could go to someone else. But prior to the invention of the diaphragm, birth control was pretty unreliable (condoms, or pullout/calendar) and so a married woman was probably going to get pregnant in a year or two.

Maybe, once again, those people in the past knew something; divided loyalties create friction and trouble that isn’t good, needed, or inevitable.
Heck, when I was in K-12 school, one of my English teachers quit working when she got pregnant.

So maybe here’s something that the tradcons could actually agree with, for once: married women with children should avoid working for money. They should work in the home, and make sure they are loyal to the marriage first, and to their children second, because by and large they can’t split their loyalty beyond two entities.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 4, 2011 at 11:23

Funny thing is, the “validation” that women claim to seek through their career comes from their perceived boss, a man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 4, 2011 at 11:26

Workplace females are your enemy. They cannot help you but most certainly can hurt you.

You are expected to help, coddle, and enable them towards career actualization and comfortable retirement. None of them will ever help you, especially when you are branded a loser or miscreant. In an odd twist, many of them will cohabitate with criminals and thugs who are the antithesis of the rule-following comfort that they have been groomed for since early childhood

If you are a star they will groupie you. When they have bored with that or extracted the last full measure of ego-gratification from it, or you have turned your attention to something younger and sweeter, they may likely sue you for harassing and exploiting their naivete and innocence.

They recognize your weakness and will use their alleged feminine attributes to manipulate and control you. When they are bored, they will invent no small amount of intrigue and mischief to amuse themselves at your expense or to make battle with some other office hag, or even a henhouse of hags.

If you have any amount of handsomeness they will flirt with you. If you are unnattractive, they will disdain you, haughtily throwing their hair-knot in front of their cleavage as if you were overtly annoying them, when you were just trying to do your damn job. Trust me brother, if the push-up bra were removed those saggy tits would be less compelling than some feral teat-hanging dog.

They have an inflated opinion of their attractiveness. They spend a huge amount of time and energy “putting on their face” and the clothing that accentuates their feeble positives.

They bristle with rage at the presence of the young and nubile. They are apopleptic over Asian brides.

Avoid them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 0
Classic Joe July 4, 2011 at 11:51

On a somewhat related note, excessive female respect for authority messes up the workplace. Women will respect a male boss who is an obvious bullshitting parasite if he has an impressive title. Men generally will not. Worthless bosses generally surround themselves with women who will naturally respect them more and even if they don’t will try harder to hide their true feelings. Women are the new “yes” men and there are far too many of them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 0
keyster July 4, 2011 at 12:07

Today’s man has been so emasculated, his masculinine tendencies so derided, I don’t think the majority of them are prepared to be authority figures or dominant in a marriage. It’s a commitment and a responsibility, only exacerbated by his wife’s resistence to assuming this role.

There had been a certian decorum where the wives deferred to their husbands on certian things. There were defined roles, regardless of whether one was superior to the other. Now it’s a “partnership”, a team without a coach where “feelings” must be considered, compromises made for fear of upsetting her. What she says goes, what he says is negotiable. Male authority is oppression, female authority is righteous and cute.

So full of conceit is the modern woman, drunk with power, impossibly head strong, unwilling to concede an inch on anything and wholly disrespectful; she’s unmarry-able. They’ve turned men away so far that bachelorhood is no longer an option, it’s a neccessary means of survival.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 0
keyster July 4, 2011 at 12:15

Welmer – Not sure if you’re aware of what’s really behind the LA Dodgers “bankruptcy”…owner Frank McCourt’s divorce and California’s no-fault 50/50 law, etc. Yep, a woman is destroying one of the greatest sports franchises in history with those 4 words, “I want a divorce.” He filed chapter 11 because he couldn’t pay her half of the team off. Amazing!

When will these men (besides George Clooney) learn?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 0
Slicer July 4, 2011 at 12:51

Businesswoman with nine children claims no woman can succeed without a house-husband:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010836/Rise-stay-home-dad-Or-great-woman-stands–house-husband.html#

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Wendel July 4, 2011 at 13:17

God, do I miss Donna Reed!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
MWPeak July 4, 2011 at 13:44

Wow, it amazes me how an empowered woman will fight tooth and nail to overthrow the authority of man, defying any respect he might dare to receive, and then once he’s thrown down, she has nothing but the utmost contempt for him.

For men, it’s damn if you do, damned if you don’t.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
Anonymous July 4, 2011 at 13:53

But this prurient society of excessive pre occupation with sex and gender is doing everything to bring even the workplace down to the level of a womans home.

For example by law, women are increasingly to be allowed to get 100 % uninterrupted pay for multiple cycles of maternity leave lasting years. And afterwhich by law, they are incresingly to be allowed to return to a more senior position than that at which they left, if they so choose to return.

For example by law, women are increasingly to be allowed to breastfeed, take sick leave, express breast milk or leave the workplace abruptly for a day or year on account of their children. Things for which every employer is increasingly to be obligated to resource.

For example by law, women are increasingly to be permitted to gain preferential employment positions or not loose an employment position to which accomodation is attatched in the following circumstances. If they claim to an employer of their being a victim of domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, stalking, harrassment etc, etc.

There is also by law the other multiple issues of womens quotas, set assides, restitutionary compensations, equality of pay, preferential promotion, hostile environment and what not measures operating against womens employers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Peter July 4, 2011 at 14:26

Businesswoman with nine children claims no woman can succeed without a house-husband:

I’ve actually made this same point myself, as have many others. Here’s a Globe And Mail article on this very topic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/family/stay-at-home-dads-help-women-move-up-in-the-corporate-world/article826393/

I consider this a good meme for two reasons. One is that the more it spreads, the more resistance there will be to tokenism and artificial quotas for women (such as legal requirements that boardrooms be 40% female, which would create even more antimale discrimination).

Second, if the law were changed such that house-husbands were as protected by law as divorcing wives currently are, then such a trend would work as well. As of right now, most laws state that custody is awarded in the “best interests of the child”, i.e. mom gets first dibs unless she’s an abusive psycho. Career mom or stay at home, it doesn’t matter, mom gets the kids if she wants them.

But if men in part-time careers and stay-at-home situations got legal guarantees of primary custody on divorce, then they’d have their wives by the balls. Think about it: your wife stresses herself at work while you take care of the kids, play video games, perfect your cooking, keep yourself fit and go out for a round of golf on a nice day. The fact that she would pay money to you for her to divorce you, lived in squalor while you received child support and the primary residence would make YOU the dominant partner, not her.

If the laws were changed just a little, being a stay-at-home husband would make marriage viable again.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 5
epoche* July 4, 2011 at 14:41

keyster July 4, 2011 at 12:07

Today’s man has been so emasculated, his masculinine tendencies so derided, I don’t think the majority of them are prepared to be authority figures or dominant in a marriage. It’s a commitment and a responsibility, only exacerbated by his wife’s resistence to assuming this role.
——————————————————–
Try being masculine and taking charge of a situation. Sometimes women love this, sometimes it will get you into legal or social trouble.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Observer July 4, 2011 at 15:31

Incorporate marriage. Brilliant idea, perfect remedy for the current trends. I can just picture it know with Mr. and Mrs. Brown LLU (Limited Liability Union). Keep it going guys, awesome piece!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 4, 2011 at 15:35

Interesting comment Welmer. I wrote on another blog today of the only time I ‘put my foot down’ with my fav#1. I was still ‘beta’ and had not graduated to ‘alpha’ by then but I was getting there. I made a comment that she mis-understood and she snapped at me. She was tired and out of sorts. So I told her in the strongest possible terms that her comment and tone of voice was not acceptable to me. Indeed I spoke as harshly to her as I ever had done. This incident is in the book. It went like this.

Peter: “I have told you once before. Speaking angrily to me like that is totally unacceptable. I won’t tolerate it. You have to apologise right now and never do that again.”

Sue1 (laughing hysterically by the way): “Peter. Do you think THAT is going to make me behave? No. It won’t. A man has to put his woman in her place. When she is angry to him like that? He needs to stomp on her and put her down so that she will not try doing that again for a long, long time. If he does not do that? She will fight him all day every day. She will make his life miserable until he learns to put her in her place. Do you not know this?”

Peter: “Sue1. I have told you. I grew up in a house with three boys. The only woman in the house was my mum. Tell me, how do you think I would have gone if I tried to ‘stomp on my mother’ and ‘put her in her place’?”

Sue1 (She looked at me with a deepening frown and concern, a very worried look) : “Hmmm….I can see that you and I are going to fight a lot when we are married.”

To add to this? I told her that I, personally was quite prepared to put her across my knee and spank her very beautiful arse like a small girl but we live in a society (germany) for which she could have me jailed for doing so.

I noted to her that she lacked self control and that what she really needed was a man to provide her with the discipline and self control she lacked. She has craved a ‘good husband’ all her adult life…well since 16….I pointed out to her that it was now ‘legally impossible’ to be a good husband.

As I explained all this to her it was as if she was struck by lightning. I ended with something like

“Yes. You women need us men to keep you under control. And we can not longer do that. This is why you are seeing the disaster you are seeing.” I went on to explain how it was all quite deliberate and that what she was going to see was the west decline to the levels of the Ukraine. She was NOT a happy camper about all this.

It’s really simple. Women have zip self control. If they do not have a man telling them what to do and how to do it? They go right off the rails. Just like children? They need someone to rebel against. Since this can destroy a man via the state? Let them rebel against their lesbian friends. I will date EEW who know how to behave.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 4, 2011 at 15:38

Anonymous July 4, 2011 at 13:53

None of the things you cite are laws.

But then again. I guess you like your ignorance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 4, 2011 at 15:41

OT…

But don’t call me a sex object or you are a woman hater…..duh…

not really very safe for work….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2011132/TOWIEs-Chloe-Sims-goes-34D-34EE.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 4, 2011 at 15:49

Just on topic…talk about how far someone will bend the truth in the name of PC….try this one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2011142/Nearly-half-new-police-recruits-overweight-fitness-tests-dont-weed-obese.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 4, 2011 at 15:53

And just in case the lads need one more reason to not get married….she was pretty hot when she was in her 20s.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2010532/Sinead-OConnor-barely-recognisable-long-hair-mumsy-trouser-suit.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 4, 2011 at 15:58

OT…
Sad day for Warney when he does this for a skirt.

At least this woman is waking up to the fact that women doing this are stupid and men are stupider.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2010891/Liz-Hurley-change-Shane-Warnes-style-long.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 4, 2011 at 16:02
W.F. Price July 4, 2011 at 16:02

Peter, concatenate, please.

Charles Martel July 4, 2011 at 16:47

@Commander Shepard

Recently an acquittance and I were sharing stories of sexual conquests and he told me of his trip to Vegas with family friends. There he fucked the wife of one of his dad’s friends. This is a woman he knew since he was a little kid so it takes on that dimension as well.

I understand you’re making a point about the woman’s gutter morality, but how desperate do you have to be to do that? My reaction is that the woman and your acquaintance are both despicable people. And putting aside the morality issue, imagine the carnage if this became known to all involved.

I’m pretty sure none of the people who are close to me would do anything remotely like this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
SingleDad July 4, 2011 at 17:25

I don’t really care if they work or not, as long as they don’t come after my money…again.

It seems as though it’s inevitable that those of us working will have our retirement siezed to pay for Ms. Baby Boomer to again sit on her ever widening arse and watch re-runs of Oprah and Sex in the City.

I’m pretty sure workplace sexual harrasment laws were invented to keep attractive women from jumping their boss’s bones and keep percieved beta’s from oogling the semi-atractive girls who aren’t pretty enough to snag a guy that is willing to pay for it to stay at home.

I think 80% of working women said they would f@ck the boss if that meant a pay raise.

Who’s idea was it to send them to work? Hint, not their husbands.

Remember: Thomas Ball’s immolation, he gave his life for your children.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Nemo July 4, 2011 at 17:53

Y’know, marriage once *was* a legally binding contract that was enforceable upon both parties.

With the advent of “no fault” divorce, it’s now a time-delayed form of *lifetime* indentured servitude for men and a gift of a semi-slave to a woman. No wonder that volunteers are geeting scarce.

The proposals to make marriage similar to an employment contract are really just an attempted reversion to the pre-1960s form of marriage – the same ol’ marriage 1.0 that worked out OK for a few centuries in the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Hedgewolf July 4, 2011 at 18:43

So now there’s a “domestic glass ceiling”.

Will this madness ever end.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Dali July 4, 2011 at 19:11

I can only imagine that much of Roissy’s wisdom about the failings of married Western females had been acquired the hard way, by banging them and realising that being a cheated-on provider for said females is not worth it. Whether you agree with game or not, Roissy is a strikingly intelligent writer with a pro-male perspective.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
mgtow July 4, 2011 at 20:33

It has been five years, but this article is still as relevant as ever.

Don’t Marry Career Women
Michael Noer, Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html

P.S: Ignore that bitch’s insubstantial column on the right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Oilsands July 4, 2011 at 20:46

The ability to even get on the Careerism bandwagon will soon become little more than a rumour for the majority of the female workforce. Economic forces continue to work against this objective , and are in fact beginning to push it all into reverse.

The college debt required to gain foothold on the path, and long time to obtain the decreasingly available entry positions, are de facto iron weights that are now factors preventing Careerism , rather than assisting .

This self explanatory clip illustrates why a faltering wave is encountering an unstoppable force. The result is inevitable.
No minor fiddling is going to fix this , no matter from where it comes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdvYzHXFpyA

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
E July 4, 2011 at 22:17

Posted by: Hedgewolf
“So now there’s a “domestic glass ceiling”.

Will this madness ever end. ”

It’s called a glass ceiling for a reason. It’s because it cannot be seen or touched. It cannot be monitored by any electromagnetic sensing device.

In a nutshell it is technically impossible to prove that the glass ceiling does not exist. What’s the technical term? Falsifiability

You know you are dealing with a blind ideologist when they assign you an impossible task. Once you “fail” to achieve this impossible task they point out this now “proves” that their ideology is correct.

Cleverly manipulative huh? That’s how women are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
keyster July 5, 2011 at 08:01

In the corporate employment arena a glass ceiling exists for anyone who doesn’t look good, dress good, sound good, acts confident and self-assured and avoids controversy of any kind.

You’ll need to be appealing visually to the “upper crust” in management, carry yourself well and not do or say anything stupid in meetings. You’ll be popular with your peers and they’ll gravitate towards you. You’ll have a certian sex appeal and know how to use it when needed. Bonus points for being slim and having good hair. Double bonus points if the male has a cute wife and 2.4 kids, or if the female is a childless lesbian.

It has NOTHING to do with how hard you work (as long as your perveived as a hard worker) or even whether you’re competent. It has EVERYTHING to do with your IMAGE and how you maintain and manage it.

Being a man or woman has nothing to do with it. However if a woman is needed to meet quota for “women in management” exceptions WILL be made. All else being equal, the woman has the advantage when “breaking the glass ceiling.” So desperate to keep up appearances, corporations trip over themselves trying to force women into management roles for which they’re unsuited. It happens everyday, and it only get’s worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Troll King July 5, 2011 at 08:34

Kinda ontopic

Thought you guys would like to look at this article and all the comments.

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/iggjo/theyre_often_called_lost_boys_the_many_young_men/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Antiphon July 5, 2011 at 08:53

Anonymous Reader:

“So maybe here’s something that the tradcons could actually agree with, for once: married women with children should avoid working for money. They should work in the home, and make sure they are loyal to the marriage first, and to their children second, because by and large they can’t split their loyalty beyond two entities.”

“Actually agree with…”? This is precisely what I have been saying ever since the Spearhead started and I have taken plenty of flak for it. Nice to see that non-”tradcon” (still no clue what that means) MRAs are finally catching on. I guess if Roissy says it, then it must be true–when Antiphon says it, not so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2011 at 09:46

Antiphon
“Actually agree with…”? This is precisely what I have been saying ever since the Spearhead started and I have taken plenty of flak for it.

Are you sure you didn’t catch flak for some other things, maybe? You know, like that whole “Catholic Monarch” notion?

Nice to see that non-”tradcon” (still no clue what that means) MRAs are finally catching on. I guess if Roissy says it, then it must be true–when Antiphon says it, not so.

I don’t speak for anyone else, but reason, and logic, and science tend to impress me more than someone who wants to revive the Inquisition. Roissy tends to have something backing up his opinion, more so than your “Because the Pope says so” approach.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Antiphon July 5, 2011 at 11:21

AR:

“Are you sure you didn’t catch flak for some other things, maybe? You know, like that whole “Catholic Monarch” notion?”

Well, I catch flak for that one, too. But, no, I have long been a strong proponent on this site of women staying at home–not many have supported that notion (until Roissy said it–which I am glad that he did!).

“Roissy tends to have something backing up his opinion, more so than your “Because the Pope says so” approach.”

As an adult convert who read himself into the Church through the Bible, Church Fathers, philosophy, and theology, the “Because the Pope says so” approach is not one I use outside Catholic circles because it is meaningless.

There are perhaps exceptions in some of the controversies in which I have participated here, but generally I try to restrict my arguments to reason, history, and observation (not so much science because I find it so tedious).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bill July 5, 2011 at 12:13

I’ve thought a lot about the expression “she’s married to her career.” As originally used, it was intended as an insult (and was used by both men and women to refer to a “career woman.”

Lately, I’ve been wondering if women can actually do what it says – “marry” their careers and by extension their boss and corporation. After all, what is a husband to a woman in the modern era? Just that which provides the money for a comfortable life.

And when I say “marry their career”, I mean with full transference of emotion. When big American corporations start to shed their female white collar workforce, watch out!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2011 at 12:32

“Are you sure you didn’t catch flak for some other things, maybe? You know, like that whole “Catholic Monarch” notion?”

Antiphon
Well, I catch flak for that one, too. But, no, I have long been a strong proponent on this site of women staying at home–not many have supported that notion (until Roissy said it–which I am glad that he did!).

I don’t think you realize what the idea of “Catholic monarch” means to at least some people. Suggest you go look at my reply on the Hymowitz man-child thread on that.

Now, on the issue of women with children staying home – not working for money unless it can’t be helped. I admit that I’ve not given it a lot of thought, prior to this, because it seemed to me to be less important than other issues (FRA’s, false DV’s, AA, etc.) that are more pressing. However, one of the things that brought me here was researching female psychology, such things as Athol’s site were involved.

So if having Game enables a man to reduce the danger of divorce 2.0 to him by applied psychology, then married men must have Game. I’m increasingly satisfied that Game works (although my evidence/demonstration is not nearly enough for some who prefer peer-reviewed research). It is not a cure all, but it reduces the danger. Making DV accusations meet the standard for a criminal complaint, i.e. at least hit the same evidence standards as shoplifthing has, would not be a cure all either, but would reduce the danger. I’m interested in what works, frankly, in the real world.

(As an aside, if you look around the web, you see that there are people who call themselves “traditional” who don’t really have a problem with women working for money outside of the home. Mark Richardson doesn’t, for example. So it isn’t as if you are part of some unified bloc on this issue.)

So if it can be shown that women as a rule are only capable of loyalty to two people, or two groups of people, two entities, etc. then getting women with children out of the work place reduces the danger, just as Game does, of divorce 2.0. I’m not sure how to test this rigorously. But anecdotally, I’m aware of some cases where family friction was reduced when the wife quit her job & stayed home with children instead. In a couple of cases the economics were a wash: the family no longer had the income from the wife’s job as a receptionist / clerk /etc. but also no longer had the day-care expenses required to take care of the children when she was at work.

Probably a case controlled study could be done, or maybe one across a time series. A statistically significant sample of married couples could be obtained and partitioned into the groups “wife worked for money outside the home after children were born” and “wife stayed home after children were born”, and then each groups divorce rate obtained. That might show some difference. It would be a fuzzy study, because “worked outside the home for money” is fuzzy: did she do it when the children were infants, or did she take a part time job when the youngest was in school, or did she work full time until the oldest was 13,…many variations could show different confounding effects.

Anyway, it takes more than “because I say so” to convince me.

“Roissy tends to have something backing up his opinion, more so than your “Because the Pope says so” approach.”

As an adult convert who read himself into the Church through the Bible, Church Fathers, philosophy, and theology, the “Because the Pope says so” approach is not one I use outside Catholic circles because it is meaningless.

Looks to me like it underlies your positions, though. Seems to peek through from time to time.

There are perhaps exceptions in some of the controversies in which I have participated here, but generally I try to restrict my arguments to reason, history, and observation (not so much science because I find it so tedious).

The first step in science is observation, though it must be careful observation using logical method. Science may be tedious, but it demonstrates or proves things in a way that can be repeated by anyone using the right tools and techniques. That’s why it is valuable, because if nothing else, we can show that things are false using science that some shaman may insist are true (such as, oh, “the Sun orbits the Earth”). So you can scorn science if you wish, but it’s hazardous to do so. The feminists scorn science generally, and likely will get even more peeved at it as the results of ever more careful biological studies come in. It won’t do them any good. The entire structure of feminism is standing on the idea that men and women are the same, except women can have babies. When enough brain research piles up, showing over and over again how female and male brains differ due to hormonal & other effects, some of the elites will have to take notice. Feminism will take a devastating hit in the next 20 years, although I do not care to just sit on my hands and wait for “historical inevitable” results, thanks anyway.

Ignoring science, or attempting to suppress it, works for a while. In the end it seems to fail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anon July 5, 2011 at 12:34

If she has one or more children, she’s bound to love and honor her children. Doesn’t leave much in the way of “love, honor and obey” her male roommate, does it?

Wow…Ever hear of the notion that love divided is really love multiplied? That the more one loves the more love one has to give? It’s no wonder so many of you guys are alone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12
Mister Grumpus July 5, 2011 at 12:40

@ Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c):

“This incident is in the book.”

Which book is that? Did you publish something? I’d be interested.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2011 at 13:05

Antiphon, another issue that many men have with women staying at home is practical; there isn’t enough for them to do, and Facebook, Ashley Madison, etc. are just a mouse click away. It is standard in the divorce industry now to do a Facebook search, along with other social media, as part of the preliminary investigation. It’s astounding how many men and women who cheat on their wives/husbands put evidence of affairs up on Facebook, or some similar site. To a slightly bored 30 year old woman whose husband has become a little too Beta, that old high school boyfriend looks a bit better, thanks to rationalization. If he’s easy to find, he’s easy to chat with.

Athol, who is an atheist, is of the opinion that women should work for money not only to benefit the household but to keep them busy. So perhaps the issue is “keeping her busy”, but not every man is going to have more than one or two children, so there will have to be something else to fill her time that doesn’t provide opportunities for affairs.

Given the realities of the modern legal structure, the moment a woman decides to cheat, her husband is on the verge of indentured servitude for years. So perhaps the whole thing boils down to women not being able or willing to control themselves, and requiring more structure in their lives to keep them from betraying their husbands. That structure could be volunteer work, working for money, raising children, or a lot of other things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2011 at 13:11

If she has one or more children, she’s bound to love and honor her children. Doesn’t leave much in the way of “love, honor and obey” her male roommate, does it?

anon
.Wow…Ever hear of the notion that love divided is really love multiplied? That the more one loves the more love one has to give?

Wow, that’s really original. Like, how’s the Dead concert in your world?

Last time I heard that line was from a woman who was cheating on two different men. It was her excuse for cheating on her live-in boyfriend, and cheating on her out of town boyfriend, by spending a weekend screwing a third guy she met at a rock concert. So I’m not real impressed by this line, because it doesn’t seem to be true in real life.

If nothing else, nobody’s brain can generate endorphins continuously.

It’s no wonder so many of you guys are alone.

Not only that, we all have a small penis, and we’re secretly gay, too. Why don’t you run along to feministing, or manbooby, and have a good time with your brainless misandry some place where others agree with you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Mister Grumpus July 5, 2011 at 14:25

@ WF:

“in short, one must hire one’s wife in order to establish something approaching the natural definition of marriage. Although this may seem like an odd solution to contemporary ears, some of the best marriages I have ever known of employ exactly this method, and it is far closer to the old definition of marriage than what is currently seen as a “normal” marriage.”

OK, this is super-duper interesting. I would really appreciate it if you could give some examples, just to make sure we understand what you’re talking about. Or a new top-level post. Either way.

So they were never legally married, but the man maintained authority over her by being the consumer of her consulting services, like she was a maid or nanny? ‘And then proceeded to simply have a life-long workplace love affair with this woman?

And were there children?

And they had separate residences, like apartments across the hall from each other?

This is far out, and I’m sure others would be VERY interested in learning more about this. I, for one, am ALL the heck over this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Renee July 5, 2011 at 14:45

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16
Nico July 6, 2011 at 17:46

I’m late reading this article but I found it very interesting

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno July 6, 2011 at 18:12

There’s nothing wrong with women going to work.
it’s time they start doing something useful.
The problem is that within the family, by law, the women always have superior rights over men.
In every confrontation between men and women, (marriage, divorce, alimony, domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape accusations,..) women have superior rights, just because they are women.
So stop all this nonsense about alpha men.
There are no alpha men.
For the law, all men are beta, all women are alpha.
All a man can do is avoid to be subjected to the women’s legal superiority.
This means: don’t marry, don’t have children, don’t cohabitate.
And hire your wife or girlfriend is certainly a very very bad idea.
By all means, always avoid them getting legal powers over you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Ooyye July 8, 2011 at 15:29

Interesting that you find ownership the “natural” model for marriage. I wonder is it also natural for a woman’s paycheck to be made out to her husband?

Perhaps since men have done such and abysmal job running the world. We should try reversing the order and having woman be he “natural” owners of men, who will now require their mothers legal permission of when and who they marry, if and where they work, receive their own paychecks or have custody of their children. After all these centuries of war and starvation women couldn’t do much worse than men have done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11
Ooyye July 8, 2011 at 16:01

RE Anonymous Reader

Any study that is going to be scientifically creditable will need a thousands of participants and have to last a few years at least. Doing good quality scientific studies is expensive, especially if they have a long time span.

Part of the problem with comparing stay at home wives to working wives is the context keeps changing. As a respectable middle class married woman with children my great grandmother (born 1900) couldn’t work out side the home. My grandmother (born 1926) wanted to stay home after her first baby, but my grandfather wanted her to work. Financially the family was fine on my grandfathers salary. If my mother (born 1953) hadn’t worked my parents wouldn’t have made it economically. Now me (born 1982) will stay home with my kids when they are little and work reduced hours (~ 30 per week) until they are in their late teens. If I don’t my husband will. On the other had we will pay dearly for it. I have access through family members to dirt cheap housing in a nice quiet neighborhood. IF I was paying full priced rent or a mortgage in California, both me and my husband would be working more than full time just to be somewhere the kids didn’t get shot on the way to school.

So the financial situation and incentives for each generation are different. I’m definitely not conservative, but the couples (most aren’t married) I know where the woman stays home tend to be yuppies with the husband making 80,000 a year or more, or they tend to be working poor couples where the quality of childcare they could afford would be lousy and the woman has no special job skills.

Sometimes if the woman has a marketable job skill that brings in a good salary (nursing is a big one) and the man does semi-skilled labor, he will end up staying home because she can get employment and he can’t. (My home town topped the list in housing closures for a while, construction has been in the shits out here for a couple years.) Good quality reliable childcare is worth it’s weight in gold. So having a stay at home baby watcher does give a working spouse of either gender HUGE incentive to behave in the interest of their childrens’ well being. From a misogynistic point of view you might say a working wife with a stay at home husband has an interest to maintain the marriage out of loyalty to her children even if she doesn’t respect her husband.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8
Hermitcrab July 19, 2011 at 12:12

While reading through the articles, my music selection chanced to bring up some of the late Ronnie Dio:

“Don’t dream of women/they’ll only bring you down”

I’ve no idea about said fellow’s politics or character, but isn’t there a consistent thread (here on the Spearhead) that a great many men have been wide awake to the problem for decades, no matter how much pap the rest of us have been obediently swallowing?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 31, 2011 at 14:52

Any study that is going to be scientifically creditable will need a thousands of participants and have to last a few years at least. Doing good quality scientific studies is expensive, especially if they have a long time span.

Yes, I know. And the results would not be conclusive anyway, due to confounding variables. None of that would mean dog spit to the average middle aged chump whose sex life has been reduced to masturbation, whose wife has turned into a argument machine that is perpetually unhappy and perpetually blaming the unhappiness on him, and who cannot afford the financial, emotional and physical cost of a divorce. For that man, Game is the only logical lifeline, and peer review be damned.

Athol and Roissy are the go-to places for that man to start. And no, there’s not any guarantee that he’ll succeed, but if he fails then likely his “wife” will leave, and he’ll be much better mentally and physically equipped to replace her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 31, 2011 at 15:03

Part of the problem with comparing stay at home wives to working wives is the context keeps changing. As a respectable middle class married woman with children my great grandmother (born 1900) couldn’t work out side the home. My grandmother (born 1926) wanted to stay home after her first baby, but my grandfather wanted her to work. Financially the family was fine on my grandfathers salary. If my mother (born 1953) hadn’t worked my parents wouldn’t have made it economically. Now me (born 1982) will stay home with my kids when they are little and work reduced hours (~ 30 per week) until they are in their late teens. If I don’t my husband will.

Moving the goal posts doesn’t help. You are equating “working outside the home for money” in any way at all with careerism, and those are two very different things. Contrast a woman working as a part time receptionist at a private school, with a woman working as a partner in a legal or accounting firm. One woman puts in 20 to 30 hours per week and get her children at the end of school to take them home, the other woman is putting in a 50 hour per week minimum and 60 to 70 hour weeks when required. If nothing else, the stress levels are vastly different. And as I pointed out earlier, the loyalty issues are different as well.

On the other had we will pay dearly for it. I have access through family members to dirt cheap housing in a nice quiet neighborhood. IF I was paying full priced rent or a mortgage in California, both me and my husband would be working more than full time just to be somewhere the kids didn’t get shot on the way to school.

I predict that if your husband stays home, you will in time find yourself developing contempt for him. It won’t be conscious, it won’t be deliberate, but it will be real. And you will find yourself acting it out in various ways, maybe in the form of more and nastier shit-tests, maybe in the form of ignoring him as a human, maybe in the form of bonding to your workmates more than to him. I have seen this happen in friends and family.

So the financial situation and incentives for each generation are different. I’m definitely not conservative, but the couples (most aren’t married) I know where the woman stays home tend to be yuppies with the husband making 80,000 a year or more, or they tend to be working poor couples where the quality of childcare they could afford would be lousy and the woman has no special job skills.

You have a skewed sample, clearly. You don’t mention the religiously devout, many of whom homeschool, you don’t mention the upper middle class and upper class, who actually are marrying more and divorcing less than 25 years ago. Just for a start.

Sometimes if the woman has a marketable job skill that brings in a good salary (nursing is a big one) and the man does semi-skilled labor, he will end up staying home because she can get employment and he can’t. (My home town topped the list in housing closures for a while, construction has been in the shits out here for a couple years.) Good quality reliable childcare is worth it’s weight in gold. So having a stay at home baby watcher does give a working spouse of either gender HUGE incentive to behave in the interest of their childrens’ well being.

You’re saying that unless men have no independent means, they won’t care about their children, right? Nice example of misandry. Every married man I know puts up with a whole lot of shit from his wife that he’d never have taken from a girlfriend, because of his children. Your sneering may feel good, but it isn’t based in fact.

From a misogynistic point of view you might say a working wife with a stay at home husband has an interest to maintain the marriage out of loyalty to her children even if she doesn’t respect her husband.

This is ignorant. A working wife with a man at home can still divorce him, and still collect child support from him as well, no matter how much she earns and how little he earns. The anti family court system will see to that.

Finally, you are working from the unspoken premise that men and women are the same except women can have babies. That’s not true, and those who “wear the glasses” can see it every day. Women’s loyalties are different from men’s. Look at children on the playground; the average girl wants to play with another girl in a one-on-one situation. These are intense relationships in which girls are always “best friends forever”. A third girl is often suspected of wanting to break up the duo. Contrast that with boys, who form wide, shallow groups that range out playing a game, and so long as he can play by the rules a newcomer is most likely to be welcomed. If some boy is a jerk, then he doesn’t get invited back in the game, or he’s moved to a peripheral part, but it’s generally not personal.

These two styles of play are reflected in men and women, and it can be seen in the workplace. Your feminist viewpoint isn’t reflected in reality. I suggest you examine your premises…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: