Why should we hire women? By Anonymous. A long post on an incendiary issue as society comes to a turning point.
The #metoo hashtag … movement is about speaking out against sexual harassment … It´s like poverty or living an unhappy life — nobody is actually promoting poverty or living unhappy. …
There are however two big problems with the whole situation:
- Accusations alone kill careers and businesses just through the media attention and absence from any investigation or evidence
- The narrative of the whole debate is that every claim must be believed — regardless how ridiculous the claim itself is and that any questioning of this or that people want an investigation is automatically anti female.
These two social justice paradigms have made it impossible to defend anybody against accusations …
Another problem is that the meaning of sexual harassment was widened to include what most of us would consider normal behavior among adults. This includes but is not limited to: getting invited for a drink, making somebody a compliment or standing in the same room.
This paints almost any interaction at a workplace in a sexualized context which in turn makes it almost impossible to be comfortable with each other. This has a major chilling effect on teamwork, arbitration and general communication. …
“If you make any women in any way uncomfortable” then you are doing something wrong and support harassment…
James Damore spoke truths that made some women uncomfortable:
When James Damore was asked for feedback from his supervisor and internally circulated his google memo, it got leaked, he got fired and women stayed at home the next day because “for emotional reasons”
A ten page summary of data and analysis from Damore was enough to “emotional distress” the women at the company.
I’m not arguing here about the validity of the memo — we can talk about that on a separate occasion — my point here is that a ten-page document with written words that suggested possible gender differences cost multiple sick days!
Where does this leave men?
Right now the message of #metoo to men is very clear:
- As a man, you are automatically a possible rapist
- As a man, it is automatically harassment if you make women uncomfortable in any way
- And if you say anything against that then you are just some misogynistic a**hole that doesn’t want women to succeed or have their freedom
So what are men doing in response? The author owns a business and talked to some of his friends:
“We will probably not hire women if they have to work together with men” (paraphrased) …
“We have to consider gender segregation at the workplace as a next step so we hire women only for positions where we can make a team out of them and where we have to hire a spot in the male-dominated parts we hire additional men” (paraphrased) …
“We are considering to drop our female staffers in the non-support teams, this way we can eliminate the risk and from the outside, it looks like we just have a 90/10 split which is low but not unreasonable for a tech company” (paraphrased)
I have to say it makes perfect sense when I heard their reasoning… Even an unproven or false allegation can cost a company a significant sum of money! For some businesses it could even mean bankruptcy because clients could drop them, they can’t bear the expensive legal fees or the media outrage kills their reputation.
And I don’t know anyone who is willing to take that kind of risk.
Adding to that the risk of possible pregnancy, that some call for sick leave when they have their period and the whole depiction of women in the mainstream media — and you have the perfect mix for “high risk, high cost, low reward” (actual quote) …
Now you have to understand here, these are not people that don’t want women to succeed. They are not bigots or misogynistic pigs! Some of what you read was said by women. These are people that have their own business, they feel responsible for everybody to provide a good work atmosphere, to pay good salaries and they take responsibility for everybody under their roof. …
It’s like a return to the old ways, before the 1960s:
Maybe we do need gender-segregated workplaces…
A lot of young men are pissed — in my view totally justified — and the media could start a 4-week apology tour and it wouldn’t bring anything anymore… The damage is done!
A lot of men I know even in their private lives shifted in the last years from “I want to help women” to “I don’t care anymore”. This applies especially to young men in their 20´s but also older veterans and older women that could be great mentors. …
Movements like MGTOW get more and more members & momentum and everytime women say “men are the problem — get with the program” they annihilate more men for their side and push them to see women just as rivals.
Feminists used to mock Victorian ideas about the fragility of women. Now they embody them.
This is why a sole proprietor or small partnership is a far better way of doing business.
You can manage to avoid hiring females if you stay small. The only other thing that I’ve seen that works is to have only one woman working in the office, preferably an older woman. More than one and the claws come out. …
Men built civilization because their biological ability to cooperate with other men to achieve a greater result than they could alone increases everyone involved’s status and resources, and those resources were apportioned by their effort, mental or physical. Women destroy civilization because their biological ability to apportion those resources is solely related to their derived status, and resources are divided based on that status, not effort.
Replace civilization with any word, like work, business, etc. Women devolve to mud huts and grass skirts, because they can’t cooperate with other women but must always compete with them as if everything is a zero sum game.
Don’t hire women. Work for yourself. Men know that life is not a zero sum game.
The talk of zero sum games based on status, versus positive sum games where only results and effort count, are redolent of socialism versus capitalism.
I too am tired, so tired, of the drama from women, from minorities, from immigrants, from SJWs. I want to live my life without their demands on me. I don’t make demands on them. If a homosexual wants to discriminate against me, he can. If a woman doesn’t want to hire me, she can. If a Mexican doesn’t want me in his restaurant, just say the word. If a Black doesn’t want to put any White actors on his TV show, don’t.
My only demand is to leave me the hell alone. …
Every single woman comes with litigation risk because every single woman falls under the category of “protected identity.” This means that every single woman has the power, if she chooses to use it, to accuse you and ruin your life, a power that men do not have under law. You are categorically safer to hire a White man than you are a woman, a racial minority or a sexual freak.
Substitute “mass murderer” for “woman” and you may see the problem. That mass murderer doesn’t kill every single person he comes across in his daily life, so most people are safe in his presence. Ted Bundy didn’t kill everyone, just some people. So, within the group of mass murderers there will be people who will kill you and some who won’t. The problem here is not identifying which will kill you and which won’t, the safe play is to not have mass murderers in your presence, thereby taking yourself off their potential target list.