Came upon this yesterday. Cannot vouch for veracity but it rings true to me. http://www.staresattheworld.com/2018/06/congratulations-metoo-youve-made-women-employees-radioactive/
Congratulations #Metoo…You’ve Made Women Employees Radioactive BY DAVIS M.J. AURINI · JUNE 25, 2018
The following was posted anonymously on LinkedIn, on June 10th, and it’s been growing in popularity since then. Earlier this afternoon it was taken down, and not even the Wayback Machine has a record of it. Welcome to modern Internet censorship. The article reads as true – the #MeToo movement might just be undoing all of the damage that Affirmative Action and HR Harassment Firings have done to men’s ability to work, and perhaps we’ll be returning to a proper, Godly ordering of things where men can bring home the bacon, and trust their wives to stay home to support the household. One can hope. It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “Ban Bossy”, heh.
Congratulations #Metoo…You’ve Made Women Employees Radioactive Published on June 10, 2018
As a corporate CEO I now have a fiducial duty to avoid hiring women
I was having lunch the other day with my group of fellow CEOs…some current and some former. I asked the question: “Well, who has gotten that visit from the corporate lawyer, advising you to avoid hiring women executives”. Every one in the group groaned and looked away. The message was clear. They had ALL gotten that visit.
As a corporate CEO, I have an fiduciary and moral obligation to my employees, NOT to do something stupid that will destroy the company and throw them out into a very hard and dangerous world. The streets of Silicon Valley are full of RVs and campers with homeless former engineers and former managers, many with no health insurance. I am obligated by law and by custom not to add my people to that list.
That’s why I can’t hire women.
Even before #Metoo, hiring women came with a significant risk. I’ve seen several small companies wiped out by some angry ex-employee claiming some sort of sexual harassment. In each and every case, the company leaders honestly tried to prevent the problem, but were wiped out anyway. “$150K just to walk in the front door” says any law firm. That’s enough to destroy most startups.
As a CEO I have a legal obligation to avoid risk. Because of #Mettoo, women walk in the door with the metaphorical equivalent of a suicide bomb strapped to their back. The slightest wrong move, the slightest insult, and BANG. Everybody is dead.
In the past it was just a few women who had this tendency to use lawsuits to destroy. Now in the era of #Metoo, it has become fashionable. Even the not-so-bright receptionist I hire as a temp is on the lookout for her moment of perceived fame.
As a CEO there is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent a clash, when women are so eager to take offense. Human sexuality is wired into every man and women. Even if I install webcams and watch every single second of every interaction, having training classes, and instill fear in my male employees, there will inevitably be some action that some man will take, maybe on purpose, maybe accidentally, that will cause some woman to take offense and sue. I am unable to prevent it, just as I can’t prevent someone from passing gas after lunch.
Litigation is the business equivalent of nuclear war. It only destroys. Now every woman walking into my HR department is carrying a nuclear launch button on her sleeve, and is being goaded by their friends to USE IT! Every other employee in that company — male and female — has a mortgage and family expenses, and is looking with fear at that new female hire.
This is what generals call an “asymmetric threat”. I have zero control, almost no preventative measures, and huge, deadly risk.
That leaves me and other smart CEOs with only one solution: stop hiring women. And that is what’s happening, quickly or slowly, at every small startup all over the country. Will we be sued for not hiring women? Nope. Hard to prove. Penalties actually quite unlikely.
To my granddaughters who are just entering the workforce, and to the many wonderful women who long ago learned to ignore male clumsiness and just get the job done — I can only say how sorry and sad I am to see this. Unfortunately, you women have been betrayed by a group of radical women who are, to put it bluntly, fools. They are dragging you into a conflict which will leave you burned and the men in your lives burned. Everyone will get burned except the lawyers and the activists who will, as always, sit back and profit from the war they created.
Maybe there will be comments from women telling me “I don’t get it” or “You’ll get sued.” Um, no. I get it just fine. I’m just speaking a harsh truth, that people don’t like. Listen.
Very similar to threatpoint in marriage, marriage is handing a loaded gun to a woman, pointing it at her husbands face, and telling her not to pull it. Eventually having that leverage will get the best of anybody.
As long as there is competition, most CEOs will stay males, no matter what. And with competition I also mean competition of countries. A country that impedes its economy will simply lose against a country which doesn't do that, if the other terms are equal.
Canada is a great example with our cuck pm.
The funny thing is he just got accused himself about an incident about 20 years ago and it got swept under the rug. Too bad that didn’t happen to Kevin Spacey.
Reminds me of Clinton. Bill. With his history and the current #metoo climate, you'd think he'd be the crown achievement of feminism to take him down. But no, he's untouchable.
Just as his wife who not only openly made ridiculed women claiming he abused them, but also made quite open threats.
I think her being a misandrist got her some brownie points.
Feminist movement saddled up with the Clinton's and Democratic party in the 90s despite the allegations from women like Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey.
The Democratic party is keeping Bill away from campaigning for mid-term candidates because of #metoo despite a desperate need for star power given Obama's low profile post presidency.
Because he's charismatic and (used to be) handsome. Harvey Weinstein was a fat pig
He got meetoo'd several times. I remember the hearing
Justin and french clown both are cuck.
I always admired him but started disliking when he brought in reservations for women who have no merit and capacity.
Yep. It is for this reason that long term Western countries will lose.
Sad but eh, no society is forever
You severely underestimate how many powerful, wise, intelligent executives there are running Western companies. Sure, on the whole we aren't optimally out-producing and strangle-holding markets like we used to, but to say that our competitive subculture will be eradicated is just silly. We just need some time and patience for the pendulum to start swinging back into balance.
Most non western countries the rich are corrupt and their kids dont compete against the poor. The poor dint even habe an education. The west is highly educated and highly competitive, have diverse sets of knowledge within thier workforce.
This is false. The west can not even compete with the work ethic of the east. The norm in the east is 15hr work days. They are way better in mathematics, computer science and technology too. West is fucked for the future, it’s almost laughable.
Meh, dragging out a task that should only take 6 hours into 12 hours in order to appear hard working by staying late is not work ethic. It is prioritizing face ahead of results.
Too much working causes inefficiencies because of a lack of rest and "leisure time". The reason why rest is important is because for one thing your mind works terribly on even as little as 1 hour rest (and a lack of rest also hampers your ability to recognize how poorly you are actually functioning), and leisure time is important because it allows for more "change" to occur eg. you learn new skills, different mindsets, and other people outside of your bubble confront you on stupid things you (and your company/industry) are doing that you don't realize you are doing that you otherwise would never have heard about because you only ever either work or sleep.
Their societies and culture lack creativity. They don't invent most things. They are good at refining though.
Not eradicated
Just defanged. Or cucked, or whatever terminology you will to use
And of course, this country being so huge, I'm sure you'll find exceptions. But they're just a minority.....
our borders are being over run by migrants with 75 IQs....we're fucked
Shh. Stop with the cherry picked drivel. As the great Dr Ian Malcolm once said, "Life, uh, finds a way."
I treat women completely different that I work with...its just not worth the risk. I like my job, I don't want to get fired because of an inappropriate joke.
I won’t even meet with a female employee without a witness or in a public area. It’s terrifying. Misspeak to a male colleague by accident and you maybe need to apologize before the problem goes away....do it with a woman? Goodbye career
Its a bit exaggerated but yeah you should watch what you say to a woman.
I don't think you understand the risk. You don't need to speak with a woman to be at risk. You only need a women to hear something that she don't like in a private conversation between you and other coworker. Or sometimes not even hear. If she don't like the things you say, you will get fired.
If your boss doesnt like what you say you gonna get fired and bosses tend to be men.
Same here. I DO NOT; comment on their appearance, make any remotely off color jokes. ask them what they did over the weekend, or inquire about their marital status/dating status. I just pretend that they are guys....guys who will rat me out to the boss if I do anything wrong.
Pretty much the same here. Its kind of a shame too, because there are several that I work with that I think are pretty cool and would be fine to hang out with and joke with...but its just not worth the risk.
Oh, sure I work with some really cool women, but ...but #metoo means they are ALL capable of ruining your careeer with just one single complaint to HR. The thing that scares me is getting into an actual disagreement or turf batle with a gal who uses it to try to destroy me.
Sad, is it not? Life is so colorless that way... but yeah, career first. Always.
I'm a part time business consultant and yes, many companies are now weary of hiring women.
weary, wary ... both words work in that scenario.
Good. Society needs to turn this muthafucka around.
They should have been weary of hiring them when they realized they only work 5 hours a week.
Have EY started hiring part timers?
lol..
I never looked at the risk of hiring women over men. I bet you can actually calculate the annualized loss expectancy for a female asset to a company based on the frequency of sexual harassment lawsuits and the average cost of such a lawsuit.
There is an estimated 13000 claims of sexual harassment according to the EEOC in 2015. Men account for 20% of those, so 10400 are female-based. It is estimated that ~90% of harassment doesn't get reported. So we can guess that there should be about 104000 cases per year, (the actual threat). Each case averaged a cost of ~$200000 in damages/fees/etc. There are approximately 72 million women in the workforce, representing an annualized rate of occurence of 0.14% (the rate for men is ~0.036%).
The annualized loss expectancy is $280 per female hired. The annualized loss expectancy is $70 per male hired.
Every year, a female employee costs a company $210 more in sexual harassment costs.
That's about $0.10 per employee work hour.
This is an interesting perspective.
Your $200000 total; could you break that down. Is that Settlement? Or legal fees, time, opportunity cost, etc
If you’re IBM, who cares about $200k when your legal staff each cost more than that. If you’re a young company, that’s crippling
Thanks
Settlement average was ~150k, I figured legal fees for both parties and productivity loss made for a reasonable 200k.
Thanks so much.
I’ve been involved in a fair few settlements with young companies (not my doing!!) and I’d say that the legal fees would be approx 20-25% of a claim. That’s broad and vague
BUT, the cost of “distraction” for the CEO and Senior MGMT of a small company is massive. I’d conservatively say 10% of salary plus opportunity cost of not doing their actual job.
If 4 people are involved in discussion (board of a small biz) and it last 6 months, that’s coming close to the cost of the settlement in “intangible” costs, lost earnings and stress.
With that in mind, I’d revise up by a big factor for a small co. Revise down for IBM, etc.
Any business with fewer than 50 people that goes through this is going to remember it, if they survive or not. That’s from experience!
And we’re just talking dollars- the effect of sexual harassment cases in the workplace extends to company culture, use of company time, etc.
Strong fucking work.
how do you factor into loss of reputation to the company? Or the fact that are then forced to fire employee/s?
I can't get strong average numbers for such things to include them. The article focused only on the settlement risk for the most part, so I stayed in that realm. It's hard to monetize an asset like "reputation".
What you're describing, if the calculation is right, is a low probability, high damage situation. "X happens rarely, but if X happens, it wipes out the farm." This is akin to fire, tornados etc., except against this risk, there's no insurance.
Imagine one in ten thousand m&m's were poisoned by a terrorist. Or one in a million, it doesn't matter. How many of them would you leisurely snack?
You're assessment of the high risk/low probability situation is spot on. However, it is possible to purchase sexual harassment insurance.
(interesting note though, these policies do not cover the owners or executives)
To continue the thought experiment. Measuring depth by the loss of potential years to live, say 60 years, the one-in-a-million deadly m&m's, the loss expectancy per m&m's eaten is 60/1,000,000 or roughly comes down to 30 mins per m&m's.
Does this mean that every m&m's reduce your life expectancy by 30 mins. Of course not. Although it's really easy to wrongly interpret this way such silly statistical measure made only for the purpose of insurance.
It is, though ALE/SLE is used to make managerial decisions on all sorts of things. It's used in managerial accounting, business impact analysis, security, insurance, etc. For a large publicly traded company, these numbers start to add up as they trend. If you have 50 female employees, the ALE implies you have about a 50/50 shot of seeing a lawsuit in 8-9 years. If you have 5000 female employees, you should basically see about 1 lawsuit a month on average.
For smaller companies that can't afford to absorb those losses, it may not be feasible to accept that risk, or transfer the risk to an insurance company.
That's average. But on a per industry basis, I'd guess the risk can be much more concentrated.
Plus, like OP said, it's an existential risk for a company. Looking at it like that, there's no reason not to try and limit it - just like backups and fire extinguishers.
Agreed. Workplace harassment training, open door policies, and that sort of thing should mitigate some of the risk, but it can't eliminate it completely. There's also costs of training everyone on these matters routinely, and that adds up pretty extensively as well. If you have 100 employees earning $15 an hour working full time, and they are required to spend 2 hours a year in training, it costs $3000 a year for some risk mitigation. Keep in mind that most companies right get now have this mitigation in place and still experience lawsuits, which translates into the EEOC numbers already.
If these risks AREN'T pre-mitigated, you could expect the rate to climb significantly.
Estimated by who? And what definition of "harassment" ?
This is enough to destroy most startups. You don't average out risks like this that you can't afford - you stop them happening in the first place. That's a 0.14% of company destruction PER FEMALE HIRE. Hire 6 and you've got a 1% chance of bankruptcy that's easily avoided.
I don't have the figures, but I'm pretty sure men are less successful and receive smaller payouts.
Estimated by the EEOC and defined by the EEOC.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Not like that wasn't mentioned in the OP at all.
Single-Loss Expectancy (SLE) and Annualized Loss Expectancy (ALE) are both risk metrics used to determine the financial impact of a risk and whether the costs of mitigating, transferring, accepting, or avoiding the risk are warranted. My comment has nothing to do with what choice is best or not. It is a demonstration of the annualized costs of sexual harassment to a business. Nothing more.
It's actually six 0.14% chances. The probability of potential bankruptcy is about 1 in 12000, or about 0.84% per year with 6 female employees. Keep in mind that this number is the potential maximum threat, as reported cases are about 1 in 10, so it's really closer to 1 in 120000, or 0.084% per year.
Now that we are in teaching time.
Single-Loss Expectancy tells you how much you can expect to lose if a threat is realized. The actual impact of this loss is evaluated in a Business Impact Analysis just like any other risk. Since the impact can vary across businesses, it's important to not generalize whether a risk is acceptable or not. And, if you will note, my comment contains zero advice on the acceptability or unacceptability of the risk. Nor does it discuss the impact of a Single-Loss.
The impact of that loss is used to determine how a risk should be handled. A much larger company may choose to avoid the risk (ie: do nothing) as a cost of doing business, and a smaller company may try to mitigate and/or transfer as much of that risk as possible, because a single loss can annihilate them. (Not hiring women is mitigation, not avoidance, just so we're clear.)
Annualized Loss Expectancy is used to determine, on an annual basis, whether the costs of mitigating or transferring that risk are worth it or not. The annualized cost of sexual harrasment lawsuits is ~$175 per hire if men and women are hired in equal numbers. This means that any mitigation costs should not exceed this value. If you have 46 hires, your maximum mitigation cost for this risk is $8000 a year (at 100% mitigation).
The effectiveness of a mitigation is determined much in the same way as a risk. Say you spend $2000 a year in Workplace Harassment Training, and it (arbitrarily) cuts the risk in half. This is 25% of your overall ALE, for a 50% reduction in ALE. If we were to hire more men, say 31 men and 15 women, this costs us basically nothing, and reduces the cost from ~$175 per hire to about ~$139 per hire. This is a 21% reduction. Now, hiring all men would be ideal as it costs basically the same, unless you have positions unfilled for extended periods or risk lawsuits for discriminatory hiring practices which goes beyond the scope of this discussion. If you do both, you spend $2000 a year, hire 2/3 men, and you cut your ALE to about an all-male workforce with no $2000 cost.
Any risk left over is residual and can either be transferred (via insurance), or accepted (other mitigation or transferrence is not cost effective). Either way, there is significant risk to a startup just by hiring employees in the first place.
Granted this is all hypothetical, but please don't lecture me on bullshit. :*
Uh huh. Glad it's unbiased then.
Actually it does. The annualised/average risk that you went to some length to calculate is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's $1 or $10000 per female employee, it's the existential risk to the company that matters.
So 0.84% then. You are quibbling the difference between 1% and 0.84% for the purpose of this disussion? Seriously?
The potential maximum threat is quite likely to happen. Cases have been on a rapid upward curve over the last decade... and there's no reason to expect the number to stop when there is one case per incident. When Slutty Suzie sees her friends cashing out with $200k settlements, you think she's going to keep quite about that sexual predator who looked at her for more than 5 seconds that time in 1993 ?
The upward trend will continue way past the true number, the barrier to entry for these claims drops every year. Gotta believe victims. Always.
The annualized cost is utterly irrelevant for small companies.
Workplace training is likely to increase female awareness that she can cash in. Men don't need training to not abuse women - women need training to not make false claims against the company.
Theoretically you could reduce the risk to 0 by not sexually harassing your employees. Funny how noone thinks that's credible or a realistic option, because we know how many of these claims are either completely false or utterly exaggerated. Follow the money.
Your kiss is inappropriate and will be reported to HR immediately.
Which is a form of mitigation. However, you can only reduce the risk to zero by not having employees.
Because it's neither credible nor realistic.
Totally worth it.
The rest of it just bespeaks of your ignorance in business continuity and impact assessment.
That's really interesting to see broken down.
If you're big enough to self insure the risk seems marginal. If not, you're playing a high stakes lottery.
Averages are OK for economists, but they fall short in the real world. Tail risk is what matters. This is why you buy insurance - you’re worse off on average, but you avoid catastrophic risks.
The risks only get bigger the higher up the hierarchy you are (more to lose, more potential media attention), and that’s also the people that have the most decisive power.
The thing that feminists forgot: most successful CEOs are male, and there will be backlash.
Feminists really don't understand the concept of backlash, because women really don't understand the concept of backlash.
Hell, the other day in RPW, I actually saw some clam ask, in all seriousness, if she could deal with the dating challenges of being a single mother by hiding the existence of her child from men she dates until later "when they are more committed".
It's not so much as if they think men are stupid. It's more that it doesn't occur to them that other people, male or female, have a thought process at all. That they are the only being in the universe that thinks, plans, or reasons, and everyone else is just a variety of wet clay.
Narcissistic personality disorder is almost impossible to diagnose in women, because it's indistinguishable from normal female behaviour.
When she's scheming this thing she's picturing a year later her ken doll sitting on the front couch wearing a smile. She tells him she has kids and didn't know how to tell him. Ken doesn't move, "Why didn't you tell me sooner? Of course that doesn't change anything." Ken continues to be still and smile. He is not watching TV.
edit: I could make a TV show that could get me killed.
"Seinfeld" did this with Elaine's boyfriend, who was a cardboard cutout of a he-man. I recall a scene where he was doing exactly this, sitting motionless by himself until Elaine came into the room.
Dee's soldier boyfriend did that on Always Sunny. Ending up DENNISing the hell out of her without even trying.
Sad but true, but sometimes you don't realize it until they turn into bridezillas leading up to the big day - the fact that a wedding day is the most important day of a woman's life is a red flag all by itself.
That why you look who she have as friends, and what kind of family she have.
You're stating it as though she's crazy for believing it, but let's be real, there's tons of BP men who would put up with that shit.
Hell even ones that are aware of what is going on will put up with it due to thirst + lack of better options. Having the knowledge is not the same as having the will to act on it.
"...the other day in RPW, I actually saw some clam ask, in all seriousness, if she could deal with the dating challenges of being a single mother by hiding the existence of her child..."
I saw that particular Summary Posting as well. A few women commenters chided her for deception, but my immediate thought was how does a woman's thought process allow her to see this as a possible avenue or approach in the first place...hiding a kid and then springing the news on a man when the relationship gets serious?
How does that play out any other way than with immediate termination of the relationship?
Because many men are cucks and if they like the pussy, they will stay.
You don't have to hide your child when dating cucks, they're cucks they are desparate.
she wants alpha commitment..
It's not like shit like that doesn't work everyday. Many people are risk averse. Heck I had to seriously talk a friend out of staying in a marriage with a single mother that she had slowly lied him into getting into. (he got the marriage annuled though, good for him. Ended up costing him "only" $4000.
Do explain this sounds like a decent story
I'm going to give you the short version right now (I'll give you the long one tomorrow if you're still interested), because I'm about to go out dancing.
So this guy was always really insecure and blue-pill. His parents probably even more so. He's a 3/10 for looks, but he's always been professional level athlete (though he looks like a scrawny, balding, weak-chinned dude, even if he is a killer).
So whenever he had a girlfriend he would give her EVERYTHING. All his time, all his attention. I'd ask if he'd join an impromptu training on saturday and he'd say: "hmm let me think about it, I'll let you know tonight" and it really meant: "I'll ask my 2 month girlfriend if she'll allow it".
So at some point our martial arts group had some serious politicking bullshit and we kinda lost touch for a while. Next time I talk to him on social media he's in motherfuckin Texas and about to get married (I'm in the Netherlands).
So get this; over the months I learn about his situation. He's living with her, with her sister and her mother. She's got an adopted daughter of 6. His parents lend them about $2000 for a car and other things and he said they probably wouldn't be paid back.
When he also starts to speak really nostalgically about training together I figured he must not be happy. Since we did have a good history prior to the politics blowup, I decided to invest some time to get to the bottom of things. I had just gotten out of my own problems with low-self worth and I recognized that he was doing the same thing; really not valuing his own desires, his own needs his own self-interest. I make it a project and spend about 60 minutes a week to get to the bottom of the thing.
At one point he would come back to the Netherlands, he's been in texas for about 2 years and he's thinking about skipping the trip to the Netherlands. You see, you have to go back to renew your passport once in a while or you lose it altogether. She's trying to convince him not to go back to the Netherlands.
This while their original plan was to get married and go to the Netherlands immediately.
Apparently she's also staying illegally in the United States, as a mexican-jew. She doesn't trust him to go. He doesn't dare mistrust her. And I just slowly hammer at this. I didn't have enough proof to know she was lying about anything, but there was really no reason not to renew his Dutch passport. What's more, I could tell that subconsciously he thought she was lying. About a lot of things.
I do have difficulty convincing him. At some point I find a Stefan Molyneux with a somewhat similar problem and share it with him. He got hooked and started watching a lot of Stefan Molyneux videos and kinda deprogrammed himself about believing lies.
I also manage convince him that there is no reason not to renew his passport (I talked to his parents too, whom I knew before and they were really useless about the whole thing; worried, but also hallucinatingly hopeful).
I really have to talk him step by step how to move forward.
So I manage to wake him up slightly further when I see him in the Netherlands but he still has a lot of difficulty accepting that she may be lying about anything. (She was also supposedly in the army before, an artist for blizzard... all lies).
Also, she got pregnant the day after he arrived in the Netherlands by him. And when he was back she had a miscarriage/end of pregnancy. That's when I had 0% doubt that she was a liar, but it still took some time for him to fully accept it.
I told him he should play as if everything is alright and see if he can discover evidence for any of the lies.
So he tries various things. At some point he goes to her facebook history. And of course. It's her kid. After this he hired a detective. She was having imaginary conversations on her phone with people that didn't exist. She actually did text messages to a kind of service that would respond back with: "Message not recognized". But of course her phone would vibrate. He took a photo of that. He recorded her saying that she was communicating with a person. He recorded her saying her daughter is adopted. He got proof for everything.
Then he went to a lawyer and built the case. He was still of mind to do it kindly or halfheartedly, but I convinced him that this woman had stolen 2 years of his life with lies as well as love and money. Go full Trump: Make the distance between her cooperating and her not cooperating as big as possible. He did. Kinda makes a guy proud.
While she had an inkling that something was going on, she wasn't sure what. At some point he suggested a date night, they went to a restaurant and he showed about half the proof and he said: "If we're going to continue our relationship we have to start fresh. Let's sign the annulment, take a 2 weeks break and then resume our relationship. If you do not sign the annulment, I will report you and your family as illegal and fight for every inch I can in court. I also know you don't know a lawyer like you have been claiming, you're faking it with your phone."
She signed the annulment, he let her keep the stuff that was too big to send or sell (car/ laptop). He left Texas and hasn't returned.
Marriages can be a pretty scary thing, especially if you've been taking care of a kid for a while. He got a good lawyer though and tons of proof AND was able to coerce her cooperation by dangling a continuation in front of her.
Okay I told the whole story. Time to go dancing.
A buddy of mine got played off roughly the same way: Woman had 4 kids, he was too horny and believed the kids will eventually live with their father and she's chasing her ex for that.
Guess what happened: She attacked his kid with a knife, among other things, while raging that he should sent the kid to live with its grandparents, all the while she expected to provide for the other kids that aren't his own.
Lucky me I could hold my "I fucking told you" inside.
dafuq
So what ended up happening? Did the guy cuck himself and cave in to her insane demands?
Here's a clue-- If she thinks it's ok to park in the fire lane in front of the store while she runs in "real quick" because she's in a hurry, she might be incapable of thinking about other people--like the kids sitting uncomfortably in the car while she does so.
Her needs in the moment trump all other needs. It's perfectly fine to endanger a building full of people because she's had a stressful day. This is NPD.
This seems a common thing with mothers or single mothers.
Just today I went to cross a zebra crossing (white striped bit of road in the UK - all vehicles are to stop for people walking across) and had to jump back because an mpv came flying down the road and just drove straight at me, and the other people on the crossing. Young female driving the car, with one of those "child on board" tags on the back. In the middle of an Asda (walmart) car park. https://i.imgur.com/bMCG8SP.jpg You can see it here.
I call it "single mother syndrome".
The same people who smack into you with their trolley or at times, use it to push you out the way.
The same people who stop to use their phone in the middle of doorways.
SMS!
Exactly. But as @whisper pointed out, this behavior is indistinguishable from normal female behavior. That is what is truly scary about what our society has become in this regard.
God I wish this weren't so damn true...
They might not. But if backlash comes, their hamster can adapt to anything. They'll just find a new way to blame it on men.
This is what every single mom does. She's not the first genius to figure it out.
Yes and the hamster tells them to use the excuse of "protecting their child from unknown predators" as the reason for not telling sooner.
Alrighty... but they are not above petitioning some 'dough' out of these predators
Of course not. Seems womens only reason to do anything is to get something out of some man.
I got a similar amazing response from a 25yo female on online chat recently when I mentioned the damage that sun exposure does to your skin, and she was amazed, she thought men didn't know anything about this sort of thing at all. I was like, you what?
I had a woman pull that shit on me, except she was hiding an uncurable STD and not a kid. I never could figure out how she thought she was gonna get away with it.
I guess you're right, she didn't think at all, obviously. Great observation, I haven't made that connection before.
That is assault, if she knew she had an STD
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled... I genuinely don't think she had any ill intentions though, I just chalk it up to female stupidity. I got off clean, told her off and left it at that.
Hope she's not gonna turn around and say you gave it to her
After a lot of experience I came to the realization, even before TRP, that women simply don't understand the principle of cause and effect.
It was hard to grasp because as a logical being, cause and effect is in fact the foundation stone of all logical thinking, of plan making, of strategy including relationship and business strategy, heck of whatever you can think, "if I do A, B happens" is the staple. Like in, if you are always getting an outcome you don't want, just try different actions to try to achieve different outcomes. You know, kindergarten stuff.
Well, women don't give two shits about cause and effect. Like, the rules reality operates by don't apply to them. Instead they operate strictly on wishful thinking, which means doing whatever they feel like and expecting the most favourable outcome for them.
I'm sad to report that practice tends to make men better at spotting this over time. And it's not a not a small percentage of women who are affected by this.
Empty sense of self.
Need to constantly put down others and their achievements.
Hatred for critics and love for sycophants.
Inability to reflect and improve.
I suppose you are exaggerating as an expressive resource, but it is true that women are on average more narcissistic than men, measurably so.
I often wonder if the cause is neurological or if women being more cuddled and pampered from birth than men leads them to develop this way.
Just finished my psychiatry rotation for medical school, and I'm afraid to say this is patently wrong. Men are higher risk demographically for anti social disorders and narcissistic personality disorders, women usually fall under histrionic or borderline personality disorder.
You need to be diagnosed to be part of the statistics. Most narcissistic women go through their lives just fine without ever discovering that they have a problem.
This is true and an interesting confounding principle that I never considered!
I don’t think he was talking about the disorder, just the tendency to exhibit some of those behaviors in your personality.
AFAIK, women on average score higher in narcissism than men. That does not mean that all of them are pathological. Or that there are no pathological narcissist men. Although it surprises me that there are more men diagnosed with borderline narcissism than women.
Just like men are supposedly more guilty of spousal abuse, but if the true numbers were reported women would probably be overrepresented (as far as assault against a partner).
As a product of female hypo-agency as well as solipsism, they never have to deal with things like consequences when they are never agents, and they assume everybody's experience is the same because they are unable to comprehend that other experiences exist.
The net result? Women continue acting like children until everything on the planet is ruined or men wise up.
Your last sentence is one of the best things I've read on this forum. Totally true.
It's called solipsism, and is a little different than narcissism in that it is more of a mental limitation than a frame of mind. Of course, women are super prone to narcissism as well (you would be too if everyone wanted to fuck you) but even a humble, sheltered, sincere woman is going to be solipsistic whilst not necessarily narcissistic.
I said that women's behaviour is indistinguishable from narcissistic personality disorder, not that it is NPD. In fact, the underlying motivations are almost precisely the opposite.
True cases of NPD are much more common in males.
NPD's core pathology is a delusional and persistent belief on the part of the patient that he is inherently unlovable. This causes him to construct a "false self"... an image he will project of how he wishes to be seen, which he believes others will be able to love and admire. Often this image is constructed with an unrealistic focus on perfection or flawlessness.
NPD behaviour is almost entirely driven by a deep and obsessive need to be loved, respected, and admired, and often works in counterproductive ways... offending others with self-centered and attention-seeking behaviour.
The delusional core belief appears to result from a complete or near-complete lack of parental affection in childhood, whether or not it is accompanied by emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. This presents the child with two possible alternatives: either the parent is incapable of love, or the child is incapable of inspiring love. Of these two, the child chooses the later possibility because it is less threatening... he can do something about his own inadequacies, but not those of a parent.
Solipsism, such as that of women, produces some of the same kinds of behaviour, but the underlying dynamics are almost precisely the opposite. Women generally believe they are lovable, valuable, and important... often quite out of proportion to their actual merits or the feedback they receive from others.
Because they get things by persuading others, their environment is almost entirely social, and they seldom are forced to deal with the requirements of the physical universe in any kind of complex capacity. This means that they are not so much unaware of what the truth is as simply unconcerned with it, since what people believe affects their lives far more than what actually is.
God damn you went in at the end LMAO!!
The snowflakes who came up with #metoo, #toxicmasculinity, #patriarchy, #mansplaining etc. live in a bubble world of academia/non-profits. Few have much experience in the business world. I used to work for non-profits - alongside folks who were too high-minded to work in the "filthy" business world....lots of bored housewives with high-earning husbands too ( one such housewife once said to me..."It's funny...the money my husband makes is "our money" but the money I make....that's "my money"..ha ha ha")
You do realize it's mostly high school lefties who buy into these things right? Whatever it takes, in order to take down the evil egotistic capitalism.
This movement is being led by radical fems on college campuses across the US and Canada.
Those radical fems that would previously have took their soft media and psych degrees out to the real world and got white collar sales and marketing jobs will find those jobs are not open to them anymore. It’s going to be carnage.
Re: Marissa Mayer.
Super CEO to leper loser
I have a more pessimistic outlook. This backlash of not hiring women will only make the feminazis scream more about "patriarchy" and "inequality" and only confirm their world views. Since the already control the dialog, it will lead to quotas for smaller and smaller companies down to start-ups.
Once in place, these laws will not get thrown out even when the basically kill of almost all start-ups. Why? Because it would admit that women are worse employees than men (and hence should actually be paid less).
It's a self-enforcing downward-spiral. As long as laws are made by politicians that want to get reelected and judges that get elected or appointed by such politicians no one will dare to stand-up to feminism. (And no trump isn't and his power is also limited. He mostly focuses and making him and his buddies richer.) Ultimately this will get worse-and worse until enough men having nothing to lose which means riots and women now actually will need to be scared of going out alone, here they will feel the real backlash by getting beaten up, and ultimately revolution.
You can't fight evolution.
First, the companies will try to find holes and ways to not hire women or if so, to make sure they can't do much harm and have as little influence as possible. Those companies who are unable to pull this of or at least worse at it, will be pushed off market fast, as long as customers buy the products with the best value for its price.
But let's assume that laws and there enforcement are so good that companies have no ways and no choice. What happens is that other groups (here: countries) are going to be able to offer products much more cheaper. There is only two ways to prevent this: either control all the other countries and make them have the same rules. Or isolate from them. If the first one happens, well, that's it for us. The latter one, however, won't work. The difference between economics and technology will grow and grow and when it gets to big it starts to become hard to be isolated and not be controlled by the other country.
Take a look at north korea. Let's see how this goes on because it is actually showing what will happen in the future.
No CEO, man or woman, wants their company to fail. Their job role is the exact opposite.
The backlash has nothing to do with the sex of the CEO, rather their level of competence. If they don't have a solution for the effects of sexual harassment claims, they mitigate that by reducing the risk of them ever occurring, hiring discriminating by sex (likely reducing the competence level of their employees).
Discriminating against women is unlikely to reduce the competence level of their employees. The net effect will likely be higher competence. So not only will companies that don't hire women have lower risk, they'll also perform better.
And once that cycle is established, and the lobbyists walk in, you are never gonna change it.
The irony: something genuinely crafted to protect women led to their ouster from the office space just because the leaders if the movement didn't have the discretion God gave a mouse.
How in the world discriminating against women will improve competence level? There are just 2 cases, either the man is more competent than the woman and therefore he would get the job anyway, or the woman is more competent than the man and doesn't get the job (less competence because the person who got the job wasn't the best).
Either you stay the same or you lose, you never win.
Because women are less competent.
This is not the current reality.
a) Irrelevant. If a woman was less competent than the man she wouldn't have gotten the job either way, you get the same level of competence (the one of the man in this case) with or without bias against women.
b) Factually incorrect. Which women are less competent than which men at what things? Hopefully you aren't trying to say that every man is better than every woman at everything.
In trials where you made CV:s impersonal and hid the gender, women were LESS likely to be hired. It proves that not only is discrimination against women not real, but it's men that's being discriminated against. It also proves that men are inherently more hireable. So no, you are wrong.
I'm gonna need a source for that.
Less likely doesn't mean that out doesn't happen, thus, if you restrict, you might lose some.
Like black people are better at basketball (for one reason or another) but discriminating against non black people would degrade the quality of the NBA, because there are some other ethnicities there that have proven to be better than SOME. I don't understand why so many sane comments are being downvoted. Do you really think all men are better than all women at anything?
I'd love to get you average joes in a ring with a female MMA fighter.
Or taking an IQ test against some women. Jesus Christ.
Do you think Neil Degrasse Tyson is less intelligent than you because he is black?
There are three cases. # 1. Man is more competent. #2. Woman is more competent #3. They are both equally competent. In 2 out of the 3 cases the company would mitigate risk by hiring male candidate with no loss to the business.
So in 1 out of the 3 cases there would be a loss. If you do that in millions of companies, it amounts to SOME kind of loss. QED.
Yeah, but that's like saying that a coin can land on the edge in a coinflip. The probability that 2 people are exactly as competent for something is very low. It's just 2 cases practically speaking, and the company would lose productivity in 1/2 of the cases for not choosing the best candidate.
If you find it confusing then that is a reflection of the confusion feminists have brought about in society. They say 'women are equal to men; but women are better than men'. Explain this and you will have your answet
I don't find it confusing, it is logically absurd.
No one has ever said that.
You speak like if feminists could have unleashed this #metoo without the authorization of the elites of this society. It's all done in purpose.
Plus they get pregnant and leave at any time. My work just got burned by this. Train someone, train for a month, then she gets prego and goes on paid leave then quits to watch the baby.
Happened to me when I hired the daughter of a family friend who I had known since she was a toddler. She claimed to want to go into my industry, and I made it my mission to fast track her into a position with a lucrative and portable skillset.
After way more than a month of intensive mentoring, she announced that she was pregnant, quitting, never cared about the job, just worked long enough to qualify for public assistance, and planned the whole thing all along.
Her extended family, my friends of over 15 years, knew all along too, thought nothing of it, and didn't understand why I would cut contact with the lot of them in the aftermath.
It was a harsh lesson that there is NO depth of connection that a woman won't exploit, fuck over, and discard when it suits her goals according to Briffault's Law.
Asides from the opportunity costs, what else did the company have to pay?
Training new employees is extremely expensive. Remember, while an employee is being trained, they are a net loss to the company. In addition, you can't fire an employee on maturity leave and you have to keep that position open while that employee is on leave. So now you've lost money from training, you have either a temp to permanent position that you need filled but would still have to train the new hire regardless.
The cost of a bad new hire is the reason why many managers choose to keep mediocre employees that can do the job.
You don't have to keep that exact position open, you just have to have a similar position available for when they return.
Considering training is usually paid and very expensive, I'd wager the company lost a LOT. You gotta pay the person AND allocate resources to train that person. That means the trainer is probably not working as fully as he should be at his original job tasks because he needs to constantly mentor the trainee.
You know, they say God first made the world, then he made man, then he made woman. And that's how the brain control logic was designed to run...
Many women in Denmark finish their Master degrees around age 25-30. Then they find a job, so they can get pregnant within the first couple of months of being hired, all planned of course.
They wouldn't think of getting pregnant while not having a job.
In Denmark you have a maximum 50 weeks of paid maternity leave. Then they come back to work a year after and repeat the same process.
Even though you get 85-90% of their wages covered, this has huge consequences for small start-up companies.
It's mindblowing the amount of women I know who work as teachers here in the US that happen to get pregnant with a due date in the middle of the school year. They have it figured out that if you have your kid in early spring, you get the standard maternity leave (paid) which then morphs into summer vacation. Voila! 7 months off! Kids in the classroom then suffer by getting a barely qualified substitute who doesn't give a shit for those final months.
Does the government pay that 90%?
Probably, the have super high taxes. Literal a cuckold country.
Mate as a business owner its horrible. Even if you dont train her, she has a baby you are entitiled to pay her leave but shes also entitled to her job when she comes back. Meaning you are stuck in limbo finding a temp hire till then.
if i ever owned a business i would only hire contractors and just pay the premium of a higher wage. fuck employees
Or pay to get a abortion and keep her as a worker.
This guy sounds legit to me.
"To my granddaughters who are just entering the workforce, and to the many wonderful women who long ago learned to ignore male clumsiness and just get the job done"
A bit bluepill, but basically, like most men, he has nothing against women and yes even has some female relatives!
"They are dragging you into a conflict which will leave you burned and the men in your lives burned."
There will be many thousands, hundreds of thousand employers who never gave a persons gender a second thought when hiring. Now, with #metoo, these people will be actively finding reasons to hire a man, for the reasons this CEO mentioned.
My view is that capitalism will be the way we grow through this shit.
Unless globalist scum enforces socialism/communism with forced equity in the US. The modern Left in the West is violent and unhinged. And the rich families of certain ethnicity have plenty of money to fund armies of useful idiots.
Oh please. The slightest discomfort, the minute female employment drops by even 5%, is the cue for white knights to "Man Up!". Women will screech on tv, laws will be changed, new policies will be passed and national constitutions ignored. More witch hunting will ensue, exact details unknown but the net result is always: women will get more, men will suffer more. This has been going on for the past 200 years.
I've already prepared my army of undercover atheist muslims. We're going to Unwind this shit.
You ever wonder if that is in fact the endgame? Western white men deciding, en masse, "ok we're Muslim now lol" so that they can do what they want and the cultural Left can no longer attack them (b/c anyone on the Left who does will be torn apart by other Lefties for Islamophobia).
wait but being fathers reduces testosterone
not sure how that physical removal part will work then.
Guess we'll have to go raw!
plus it's not about islam but the genetic stock. If these ivnaded palces convert fast enough they can get back to making enough babies and eventually repeal the hordes and finally return bakc to some more rational unwindining
I could see that happening. European countries Islamify (including the white people) -> native European birthrate shoots up due to said Islamification and third-world conditions -> racial civil wars where the Europeans kick the ethnic Africans and Middle Easterners out.
That's not a particularly rosy scenario for anyone involved and sounds like a bad dystopian novel, but similar things have happened throughout history. Hell that's sort of what the Yugoslavia conflict was.
lol did the non muslims convert to islam faster than the original muslims made new babies?
I actually have many Muslim friends so I know it's not all nice and dandy on their side too.
Islam currently struggles with feminism too, just in different ways we are not aware of. Iran's feminists and liberals are borrowing Western support, clearly with the intent to topple their own Patriarchal government. Lebanon is full-on feminist, some Muslims don't even consider them a "Muslim country". Jordan is 100% sucking Western cock, just look at their royal family. These "Muslims" are slowly becoming the new mainstream. Even Saudi Arabia had to change their laws several times in recent years to be more in tune with "international human rights" (translation: women's rights)
Yeah, they just allowed women to legally drive their own car with license a week or two ago (as long as some male family members approves it)
Lebanon is predominantly Christian btw. That's why they aren't considered a "Muslim" country LoL.
bullshit Lebanon is still muslim. about 55-60% but its close. Speaking in absolutes doesn't make u right. dont let it happen again
Hmm just goes to show what happens when you don't check your sources. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
lebanon is the most civilized arab country.
Make me the general, im the redpilled ex Muslim atheist virgin with 100 iq
Where did you get 200 years from?
"Declaration of sentiments" in 1848, literally a bunch of feminists declaring their feelings. Who knows how much work they put in before that
I got canned at a start up 6 months after I got promoted into a management position for making "sexist comments". Supposedly a few different people came forward.
I had beat out this immigrant butch irish lesbo woman for the job and she had a vendetta against me moving forward. I remember she asked me to lunch one day. "How nice" I thought. She sat me down and told me how several people had come to her and told her I said the only reason the company continued to sponsor her visa was because she was a woman. "Excuse me?" I said. "Who are these people who told you this?" "I can't tell you..." she said. It was downhill after that.
I was ganged up on and scapegoated in brutal fashion. The power that feminist devil women have in the work place is the equivalent of giving a child a hand grenade.
They didn't even ask for proof? Jesus that's bad.
I’m a c-suite exec and our company is 100% male because of my subtle recommendations and general manoeuvring of a clueless CEO. We’ve not hired women because we’re sexist, honestly 😁 The poor girls just weren’t a good “cultural fit” for the company 😂
Have you been reading 48 Laws? Well done.
For real though how did u actually manage to pull this off? It would definitely raise red flags with the government or whatever. Do yall at least interview women? Cause if a woman submits a resume with a male name and one with female name and only the male one is called up that's a liability.
It’s not illegal to have an all male company. Despite what twitter and the left wing media would have you believe, the government isn’t keeping tabs on gender and race distribution in every SME, lol. The only liability is reputation. I’ve passed over female resumes with the reason that they either didn’t have the experience we need or we already had resumes from more qualified (and just so happens) male candidates.
Actually, I would tell anybody that I asked that several of the men that work there identify as women, therefore you've technically hired women. Since that's how they self identify, the lefties can't say that it's wrong.
Very interesting and as much as I have a number of great female coworkers, I understand this perspective.
In my experience India and Asians don't get caught up in all this feminist bullshit. They remain married (power couples) and will likely be the ruling groups in America's future. Companies impkrt about 50k of them each year on visas.
This happens because they are behaving in order to keep that sweet H1-B. Asians raised in the west ride the carousel just as much as the rest.
Of course. No one is claiming it's genetic, it's cultural. "Asian" isn't an ethnicity.
Indian liberals aren't any better 😂. Replace caste with race, and you're mostly done. Incidents where a upper caste is killed by some Communists is "not casteism" because it's not systematic blah blah.
I've never seen Westernisation at this rate. We already have movies that condone cheating on your husband, and recently threw out our version of Sex in the City. The disease is coming here fast. I doubt anyone can stop it. The only correct move is to embrace it.
Nobody can stop the inevitable. We Indians are just as screwed as the rest of the world. I work in a PR firm with a f2m ratio of 90:10. Favouritism and butt licking is the norm here if one wants to scale up.
Companies have begun hiring females to fill their quotas, irrespective of the qualifications. An ex-colleague who was my junior here recently got hired by a French sporting goods company. And guess what? She is getting paid 3 times more than I do inspite of having not even half my knowledge or experience.
Hmmm. Interesting read. Honestly the question here is how long can you go not hiring women before a few try to fire the discrimination clause at you? Sounds a bit risky even if you just say you weren't qualified. Would you have to hire women every blue moon to throw off the scent?
You’d avoid hiring fresh college grads who are liberal. Older crazy women don’t work.
Mom is a corporate lawyer. Not hiring someone based on discrimination is really hard to prove.
Even if their qualifications are good enough, the company can just say they didn't do well in their interviews.
I imagine you could get creative with strategically hiring women or else throwing observers off the discrimination scent.
It's not a blanket "zero women policy", but rather they wouldn't hire liberal college grads with degree's in bullshit. Those grads invariable plaster their feminist accomplishments all over their resume so it's easy to pick up on. Instead look to hire older married women with children who come off as more mature. Put them in places where they have little organizational impact, even if it's with a fancy sounding name. Something like "Records Enforcement Manager" who's responsibilities include maintaining the Corporate Records Policy and ensuring all Corporate documents are disposed of accordingly.
Sounds important, it's just the person who comes along once a year during record cleanup.
Maybe unrelated but
is accurate nowadays?
Women in Silicon Valley have no trouble finding high paying jobs because all the companies there hire for diversity purposes and not so much for merit. All the companies compete hard for them.
eh, don't worry... I'm sure there will be a LAW that requires some sort of quota where women MUST be hired or else.
There are plenty of countries that want reservation mandatory at least in the government. They've even tried to get into parliament on reservations, but at the top it's too brutal and performance based, so that's why very few even want to go there.
Jesus, which country is this? Sounds like Sweden for sure. Or UK.
This is true. There are companies that have policies dictating a male to female ratio, in every department. When I say male to female ratio, they don't care if there are more females, but just the fact that there should be a certain amount of females (equal or particular number) in any given department.
I know for a fact that someone from a higher up in managerial position has it in their objectives to ensure there is a number of females that he MUST hire.
It's not a quota, but if your company has tons of employees of one sex, it will be much easier for the opposite sex to build a discrimination case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States
Direct to the boardroom, right after college and that gender studies degree they have in hand. I'm sure it will be put on the books somewhere at some point.
Have the men start in the mail room and work their way up, Like they've always had to do.
Google Webcache has the post. You can see the name of the person who made the post on LinkedIn as well as which company he works(ed?) at. His LinkedIn profile has also been removed.
Cause and effect.
Cause:
Women fuck around at work and are straight up incapable of heavy lifting, along with turning every one-person job into a two-person job, costing time and resources
Women actively insist that their air-conditioned office job is just as stressful and strenuous as that of a manual laborer
Women still cry injustice (and just cry period) because wage gap, even though that’s been disproven again and again
Feminists create a situation in which they hold a Sword of Damocles over the head of a CEO (and all senior leaders) if they encounter any difficulty real or perceived at work
Women openly gossip and bullshit while others are working, then claim misogyny and “problematic” treatment if any issue is raised, making them uncoachable at best
Women treat the workforce as a dual purpose service: as a dating pool to fuck attractive men, and to shore off basic job tasks to unattractive men
Feminists still push for every possible inch they can get at work until they’re more equal than everyone else, or until every woman is able to nuke a company with a shark attorney and the right amount of media attention — wait we’re already there
Effect:
Then perhaps the key is to change the dialogue. Having ultimate power to nuke a company with just one call to a lawyer amounts to terrorism.
TERRORISM: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Therefore the radical feminists should be reclassified as a domestic terror organization and be dealt with accordingly. After all, they have been all-but doing the same to men...including groups like this by the way.
This makes me happy. This is the grave women have dug.
What he's saying isn't implausible, but just google the author's name and you'll see he's not really the type that veracity adores.
Thank you. I’m upset that I was duped at first. I had to scroll so far in the comments to find this.
Soak it in TRP. You’re reading a white supremacists’ work.
I'll believe this when someone shows me how to make an anonymous post on LinkedIn.
If you google the title, it comes up in search, but the page has been removed on LinkedIn when you click through. So it was there. Someone probably just made a dummy account with no details to post it.
Make a throwaway account and use that. It's not hard.
The only thing I find suspect about the article is this very sentence, "As a corporate CEO, I have an fiduciary and moral obligation to my employees"
As a CEO, your fiduciary duty is not to the employees, it is to the owners. I understand his point that as the company's CEO he wants to look out for his employees, but his sole fiduciary duty lies to those who own the company.
That line just seemed a little fishy to me.
Yeah, the language used and the number of times he reminds us "as a CEO" seemed a little fishy.
a lot of good stories are BOATS (based on a true story) - so I wonder what the actual truth is; probably CEO of a startup with 2 employees, him and 2 other guys, with no intention of hiring women currently. Probably knows of other companies that have been tanked by sexual harassment claims.
The likelihood this person is a CEO of a blue chip listed company is next to 0.
Overall is hits home and gets attention because there is truth in it, whether OP is exaggerating is well, very likely.
This seems the most likely scenario.
What if it’s an employee-owned company?
He wants to feel like he's "the nice boss", that's why. All the"oh i don't want my engineers to go homeless" stuff is bullshit though, tech companies have mass layoffs all the time.
Women are sollipsistic. When their feminine buttons are ramped up, they shift the focus of the entire space around to them and what they can see and feel at that moment. Their awareness of the long term, bigger picture is rather poor, but their adaptability in making their hamsters spin to whatever happens down the road is amazing.
Again and again I've had so many discussions frustrated at home because women tend to never discuss to find the truth but only what they want. I stopped discussing most stuff with them at home for this reason. Women tend to be disruptive in goals that really are outside their sollipsistic frame.
Most women are driven by the need to feel included and change the world to benefit them rather than the raw drive of the masculine to change the world with great achievements and benefit everyone. It's almost unheard of that men intentionally aim to do something at the expense of women (the times it actually happens is more of a tunnel vision problem than any deliberate thing) because that was a non issue till now.
Good observation. "Thinking Ape" youtube channel gets into this sometimes. He often says grimly "You either love women, or you understand them."
Don't try to understand women. Women understand women and they hate each other.
- Al Bundy
ha ha. good man Al. Who'd have thought this gem would come out of his mouth
I've also heard that e.g. female lobbyists have problems accessing politicians in Australia. Plus there are more and more company policies regarding no men and women going together on business trips which in the end disadvantages the women due to smaller numbers.
metoo is divorce profiteering applied to corporations and celebrities. With much higher profit/damage potential the inevitable marriage/commitment strike will be even stronger for potential problem employees/celeb dates.
It’s interesting that in these MeToo incidents the solution is Higher Power that obliterates eveything. Not “sort that shit out locally”. No consideration or responsibility for keeping the company going.
With the magnificent about face the Supreme Court is about to take, the snarling insufferable beasts that are feminism, female careerism and gender egalitariansim all die with a whimper. I do business consulting with hospitals and there are already 100 companies who per our guidance are paying all their female doctors and PAs one third less than their male colleagues. It’s colloquially refered to as the “competency tax” by these boards and it is now universally mandatory at the behest of feminist harpy cunts everywhere. Affirmative action will be dead in less than 18 months and with it so goes the failed experiment of female financial autonomy. It really is over.
But think of all the anti depressant companies out there.
I'm not that optimistic, because the real opiate we have problems with is "victimhood." Trump did say there'd be a lot of winning though.
Na. The culture is not going to improve. There is no light at the end of this tunnel that US politics has entered. The left quadruples down every time they suffer a minor defeat.
You mean train wreck. Don't be cucked by Trump and his idiot fan boys.
You an egalitarian? Vote libtard then. Support the right and you support natural law. You endorse equal pay laws? You find no problem with sluts sucking off their professors to users prestegious grad school slots that are the rightful provenance of Men? This is the left you so voiciferously want to encourage others to fellate. I have to tell you man, no one is going back to that bluepilled cucktastic bullshit.
You really don't understand what the left and right are. I'm glad my country is not stupid enough to only have two parties.
The right have nothing to do with natural law, and egalitarianism has nothing to do with anything.
Trump is not a conservative. He is a corrupt idiot who is ruining the nations reputation, and putting the US behind other nations. He let's foreign nations know what his military is doing before his defense secretary.
The guy who created TRP made a great post about not being cucked by conservatives.
You liberal soyboys crack me up.
You cucks who pigeonhole yourselves to particular parties crack me up. Tribalism doesn't make you a better person. It's actually a rather blue pill thing.
The only place they have left to go is government jobs
I was accused of a woman from work of showing up to work in a bathrobe without clothes underneath. I do wear my bathrobe over my clothes on Sunday cuz fuck it it's Sunday and I'm pretty isolated and not customer facing.
She had also accused me of following her around and using the women's restroom.
Management looked into it, found out she was full of shit, and she went ape and got fired. No lawsuit required.
I guess the point is you don't need to fear hiring women as long as management investigates claims.
And if you're a man, just don't do anything that could potentially get you in trouble, it is a business after all and that demands professionalism
So, more meat for the porn industry? Can't be all bad then.
Programmer here. Lost my (over 7 years) job in part due to women at work complaining of me being creepy.
You can hire women just not hot ones
I think the ugly ones are more likely to sue because of how angry they are.
Eh typically it’s the HB 5-7 range that’s the most dangerous. They still have a level of entitlement but aren’t quite “hot” so they need the extra attention and status signaling of being a sexually harassed or discriminated against woman.
I wouldn't call a 5 a HB under any circumstances. Not evem most 6s. HB in and of itself implies 7+
Sadly, they were at one time pretty.
ha ha. In the middle east i put them in bin bags...
Well you hire all women with hooker paperwork. Any woman that isn’t turned on by that isn’t a good culture fit. Most women who actually would contribute to the company would be relieved that they now can tell their beta husband “oh I cheated on you because it’s in my contract”
Are you a CEO or something? Would have helped it you mentioned that in your post once or twice.
> just get the job done
You want equality? DO IT!
I half own a business and I wish to avoid hiring women at all. I need the place to run efficiently without issues. Women would invite them.
Yes. Now you see why leftists always want quotas for everything. :)
women will still be hired along with dindus for diversity quotas but any real work that needs to get done will be done by consultants/contractors (pretty much whats happening now)
Not hiring women at all is risky for company image and may cause legal troubles. I would be more interested in how they separate troublemakers from the ones who as OP puts it, have learned to ignore male clumsiness and are there to get the work done.
have you people read what Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Roger Ailes, Matt Lauer, and others have been accused of.
the accusations vary from unethical to outright criminal, but they all deserved to be fired, they all brought this upon themselves, and created this mess we’re in.
Even if there’s large percentage of women you don’t like simply for having tits, don’t act like the behavior of these men is in any way excusable.
In the context of mainstream media and hollywood, #MeToo was unavoidable. Why do all these startup tech companies think they’re hollywood movie studios?
You are confusing politics for justice. Those are all public figures with a hand in the game. Their behavior was acceptable to thousands of people until it was political convenient for it not to be. If this was sincerely and purely about sexual behavior and justice, something would have been done about it long ago. So stop pretending their was a tectonic shift in society. This was about taking down people with a new hammer. This shit has been going on since the dawn of civilization.
No one gives a fuck if you were touched in the no-nos. They only care about how it can further their own situation.
Yes they were accused. And some of them - maybe even all - deserved it for their behavior. However, the court of public opinion is no real court and we do not know for certain what happened. Who has been convicted of crimes? Victims need to report actual crimes. Mere accusations some decades after claimed wrongdoings should be unacceptable, as they can destroy the lives of potentially innocent people.
The problem with the #metoo movement is that issues get blown out of proportion and lots of perceived injustice, dissatisfaction and unwanted romantic advances get labeled as abuse. Even worse, the whole thing gives power to women who abuse it to get their will or enect revenge on somebody that outcompeted them. Not saying there is no actual harassment, but it is a much smaller issue than the flood of metoos would have you believe. Many men at some point also receive unwanted attention or end up in uncomfortable situations. What men then do is shrug and move on. They don't go on Twitter and cry. Even in severe cases where action is warranted, they would not be taken seriously anyway.
Sure, fabricate an accusation (misogyny!) due to implied statements that were not even made. The point is not to excuse criminals. The point is the damage that an overblown hysteria does to everybody.