Why do women work when they could just be living off some dude, confused MGTOW wonders

Well that’s no way to find a husband!

Over in the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, one recent convert to the MGTOW philosophy admits that there is one thing about the females that’s really baffling.

Namely, why do any of them work, when they could just use their magic hoo-has to snag some poor dude and live off of him, lying on the couch watching Jerry Springer amidst a pile of bon-bon wrappers?

[H]ow does MGTOW explain working women? Why do women work low or pseudo status positions for employers that are primarily public facing? I feel like the women who work at Waffle House / Starbucks / whatever probably have a more consistently stressful time of things than I do working a STEM job, they’re paid less, and they’re burning SMV time working a plebian job.

Why do women work low and pseudo status positions like these? How does MGTOW explain women who opt in to these arrangements when they could likely bf/marry/B.D.Govt their way to a less stressful life? 

In case you’re not intimately familiar with misogyny-speak, SMV stands for “Sexual Market Value,” which, these dudes believe, starts declining for women after they hit the ripe old age of 25 or so and start getting all old and ugly. And “B.D.Govt” means “Big Daddy Government,” always ready to help a girl out with some of that sweet, sweet welfare cash.

Happily, the subreddit’s regulars are more than willing to mansplain the puzzling fact of women having jobs.

A fellow called NormanDaNubcaek has a whole long list of reasons.

-They may have squandered their childhood/teen years, already putting them at a disadvantage to serious students

-They don’t want to put in the initial effort getting the proper training (Think instant vs delayed gratification)

-STEM actually requires critical thinking skills

-The job, while perhaps stressful, is regular and simple (more repetitive work vs less work that is more complex)

-Their jobs already have a lot of women, so they just join the pack, or other women recommend them to join

-They already have massive debt from a garbage degree and can’t afford to go back to school

-They used to be supported by a man, but now have to earn their own living until the next guy comes around.

Lostapwbm has a somewhat more detailed explanation, and one that is slightly more rooted in consensus reality, if not always in the rules of grammar.

“Poor women have always had to work,” he writes.

Housewife is typically a role that only the wife of a successful or frugal man, and feminism is a vanity project of rich white women.

So why can’t these Starbucks ladies “bf/marry their way out” of the working world? First, he explains, there’s the problem of man-access.

[T]hey don’t have access to a man of sufficiently higher economic status that she can go from working woman to housewife/lady of the house.

And then of course there is the problem of these women being such stuck up snooty you-know-whats that they can’t appreciate the perfectly decent men right there under their nose ISN’T THAT RIGHT KIMBERLY SOME DAY YOU’LL REALIZE I WAS THERE ALL ALONG WE WERE MEANT TO BE oh whoops.

A lot of women aren’t attracted to the type of man who would lift her out of her lower economic status. He’s boring/lame/has no game. He just wants to move up his job, pay his bills, and basically live a drama-free life.

Well, ok, but what about living off of Big Daddy G?

Women dependent on the government (B.D. Govt as you put it) are in that category of drama-lovers. Three kids by two guys, ex-boyfriends are drug addicts/dealers, whatever you prefer, but the takeaway is these women don’t want a less stressful life because they emotionally feed on that drama.

Wordjedi agrees that these Starbucks baristas are a bunch of stuck up rom-com lovers holding out for some imaginary perfect dude but ha ha the joke’s on them — if they sleep with too many Mr. Right-Nows while waiting for Mr. Right, they’ll get so burned out on dick that something something cats box of wine.

Yeah, I’m having a little trouble summarizing this one. You try:

Remember that women still flock to romcom movies in droves. They still really think mating is equal, that two people who were meant to be together tritely run together through a meadow and embrace.

Until she finds her perfect six figure hunk, a girl’s gotta have some random stiff dick in her now and then, right? Especially when she’s had a few drinks so has an excuse not to give a fuck? ====> hookup culture.

Unfortunately, people give less and less of an (emotional) fuck for each random hookup. Bye bye, perfect romance. She’s bored with dick by the time she meets him, if she ever does. ====> box wine + cats + Starbucks barista 4-evah

The explanaiton proffered by good_man_gone is if anything even less cogent. He starts out by suggesting that any women you see working just weren’t pretty enough to score themselves the high-quality beta bux.

“I never in my life have seen a perfect ten flipping burgers for 7$ /hour,” he declares, with an almost audible wink.

But then he goes on to suggest that almost any gal — even those who are perhaps not that pretty — can find a man dumb enough to marry her up or at least buy her a couple of drinks at closing time amirite fellas?

And still there is plenty of guys out there who will happily marry the 3s or 4s and give them money. Smv is key here. Better looks = more free stuff and money. But fugly chicks get free drinks too you know.

I have to admit I was guilty of that in the past. You know when the pub is about to close and u are hammered and suddenly your brain tells you “go ahead buy her a drink, yeah the fat small chick over there do it”

I guess the real lesson here is to never ask MGTOWs for an explanation of anything.