From the Saw That Coming Department: #MeToo results in chilling effect on hiring women

Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#51
Well you actually do, because it could take on other forms instead not related to hiring, such as senior men being less prone to mentoring woman than before.

But if anything since a few people like treating work as a dating scene, I see companies being more likely to have stricter employee relationship policies. But other than that I don't see it affecting hiring to any noticeable degree. A survey doesn't actually translate because whose responsible for hiring is a thing too.

But as it stands female leaders are still more in demand now than ever before. I also think companies much rather not get hit with gender bias class action lawsuits, which avoiding women would create.
If you want to make a legal case, of course, evidence is obviously required. But I was talking about our informal discussion here. It’s just such a duh thing for anyone with a basic understanding of economics as @appaws pointed out. The way many employers will see it is: women = risk, risk = cost, therefore hire less women.

Also, what an indictment of the current culture where you can say something like “but as it stands female leaders are still more in demand now than ever before” and then unironically complain about gender bias in the very next sentence 😂
 
Oct 27, 2017
925
886
230
Moore Park Beach
#52
Well you actually do, because it could take on other forms instead not related to hiring, such as senior men being less prone to mentoring woman than before.
That absolutely happens. I can confirm that from a personal level.

This started years before the MeToo movement. MeToo made it a main stream issue but it was present before.
Myself I worked as a very senior engineer at multiple bay-area tech giants. As you may suspect, that was a super liberal
and super left environment where you sometimes have to be very careful when you talk to people.

We constantly get young people, straight out of college, men and women. They all seek guiance and a mentor to help guide them.
For the young men, I mentor them, if they have questions about design or how some pipeline we use works I would never hesitate to pull them
into a small phone room or conference room and do some whiteboardding, or just talk in a quiet area (open space cube is noisy).
Sometimes they want to bond or want to have a beer after work to talk, no problem.
Did that all the time.

For young women, ouch, there are no circumstances ever where I would meet up with you outside of work on a 1-on-1 basis for mentoring or bonding,
there are no circumstances ever where I would go and whiteboard in a conference room with you. You talk to me, in the cube I share with the rest of the team or we don't talk at all.


I have several other friends in the same situation. No interview female candidates, never lunch 1-on-1 with a female peer, never meet alone in conference room ...
At some stage it just gets too complicated to find safe ways to interact so that you just cut them off. Don't help them, don't talk to them, ...

That is what happens. Is it fair? No. Is it justified? Yes, sometimes it is.
I have seen too many peers being dragged through the coals for making the wrong joke, doubting the far-left message or just interacting or talking to the wrong person.


It is basic risk analysis. You see peers that are sacrified for non-issues over and over. At some stage you just decide it is not worth the risk.
Does this make it even harder for women in the workplace? Yes, but I am not willing to risk it.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,333
1,059
735
#53
That absolutely happens. I can confirm that from a personal level.

This started years before the MeToo movement. MeToo made it a main stream issue but it was present before.
Myself I worked as a very senior engineer at multiple bay-area tech giants. As you may suspect, that was a super liberal
and super left environment where you sometimes have to be very careful when you talk to people.

We constantly get young people, straight out of college, men and women. They all seek guiance and a mentor to help guide them.
For the young men, I mentor them, if they have questions about design or how some pipeline we use works I would never hesitate to pull them
into a small phone room or conference room and do some whiteboardding, or just talk in a quiet area (open space cube is noisy).
Sometimes they want to bond or want to have a beer after work to talk, no problem.
Did that all the time.

For young women, ouch, there are no circumstances ever where I would meet up with you outside of work on a 1-on-1 basis for mentoring or bonding,
there are no circumstances ever where I would go and whiteboard in a conference room with you. You talk to me, in the cube I share with the rest of the team or we don't talk at all.


I have several other friends in the same situation. No interview female candidates, never lunch 1-on-1 with a female peer, never meet alone in conference room ...
At some stage it just gets too complicated to find safe ways to interact so that you just cut them off. Don't help them, don't talk to them, ...

That is what happens. Is it fair? No. Is it justified? Yes, sometimes it is.
I have seen too many peers being dragged through the coals for making the wrong joke, doubting the far-left message or just interacting or talking to the wrong person.


It is basic risk analysis. You see peers that are sacrified for non-issues over and over. At some stage you just decide it is not worth the risk.
Does this make it even harder for women in the workplace? Yes, but I am not willing to risk it.
Indeed. This has been a thing forever, and is only of many others why getting women into these fields requires actual women in them, so they can deal with women (lol). #meetoo could add small waves like this (and the company has to sniff it out).


If you want to make a legal case, of course, evidence is obviously required. But I was talking about our informal discussion here. It’s just such a duh thing for anyone with a basic understanding of economics as @appaws pointed out. The way many employers will see it is: women = risk, risk = cost, therefore hire less women.

Also, what an indictment of the current culture where you can say something like “but as it stands female leaders are still more in demand now than ever before” and then unironically complain about gender bias in the very next sentence 😂
I just read a story about Nike and a gender bias lawsuit, and how they're scrambling to protect their reputation. Nike before and after has been aggressively going after women, and yet it still happens.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#54
Indeed. This has been a thing forever, and is only of many others why getting women into these fields requires actual women in them, so they can deal with women (lol). #meetoo could add small waves like this (and the company has to sniff it out).




I just read a story about Nike and a gender bias lawsuit, and how they're scrambling to protect their reputation. Nike before and after has been aggressively going after women, and yet it still happens.
Nike’s hiring policies are only a cynical response to their perception of the current culture. They’re selling a product, and if they believe biasing hiring towards women will help them sell more products, they will do so. They will also bias their hiring against women if they perceive the culture to shift in that direction. The only thing that will circumvent this is if they hire a bunch of grievance studies graduates who weasel their way into executive positions and ossify their bad ideas via corporate policy.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,333
1,059
735
#55
Nike’s hiring policies are only a cynical response to their perception of the current culture. They’re selling a product, and if they believe biasing hiring towards women will help them sell more products, they will do so. They will also bias their hiring against women if they perceive the culture to shift in that direction. The only thing that will circumvent this is if they hire a bunch of grievance studies graduates who weasel their way into executive positions and ossify their bad ideas via corporate policy.
I agree that they in significant part hired women to better sell to women, and other things, but on hiring they would not go backwards from a sales, risk and strategic pov. Not anytime soon, society would be pretty different for that to happen.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#56
I agree that they in significant part hired women to better sell to women, and other things, but on hiring they would not go backwards from a sales, risk and strategic pov. Not anytime soon, society would be pretty different for that to happen.
Nike is not the only company in the world and they're very different to the type of male-dominated industries that the OP article was talking about.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,135
179
1,000
#58
Companies need to grow some balls and stand by their investigations.
Your quarterly reports don't have a "balls" column, nor is there a "balls" index on any of the stock exchanges. The thing about those virtual balls? They're just swinging there, waiting for a twitter army to pick up a bat. They don't do anything besides make you vulnerable.

The safe(read: fiscally sound) route is to avoid putting those balls on the line. If that means---well, more importantly if the decision makers think it means---picking the man over the woman in this political climate when dealing with similar qualifications, then that's what is going to happen at a lot of places. Just ask yourself this question: Which is harder, disproving a sexual harassment claim or proving a sexually-biased hiring claim? Which type of claim is going to cause more damage to your company's image regardless of how the case turns out?
 
Last edited:
Sep 25, 2012
1,946
654
440
#59
1) Somehow ensure that you only ever hire men who will never ever harass a woman.

2) Hire fewer women.

Predictably, the simplicity of option #2 is winning out.
3) have a robust HR system that deals with harassment claims instead of burying them so lawsuits don't happen in the first place.

Wallstreet was always rooted in broski misogyny to begin with, and their "avoid women at all costs" policy sounds more like they saw an opportunity to mask a vindictive attitude behind a farce of "well I just don't want to get sued or accused!" Women were already left out of the after-work meetings at the bar to begin with, and this just ads an exculpatory layer that these men can latch onto to "oh, yea... this is the real reason why we didn't try to work with women for the past 8 decades!"

I.E. women still get extremely high rates of acceptance for STEM positions vs men due to how that field wants female representation. It's a problem wall street men have in particular for some strange reason.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
618
373
215
#61
3) have a robust HR system that deals with harassment claims instead of burying them so lawsuits don't happen in the first place.

Wallstreet was always rooted in broski misogyny to begin with, and their "avoid women at all costs" policy sounds more like they saw an opportunity to mask a vindictive attitude behind a farce of "well I just don't want to get sued or accused!" Women were already left out of the after-work meetings at the bar to begin with, and this just ads an exculpatory layer that these men can latch onto to "oh, yea... this is the real reason why we didn't try to work with women for the past 8 decades!"
The reason why some people are left out of after work parties may not have to do with gender issues in a rat race or discriminatory way. it can simply be one of those things where guys want to hang with guys, and women want to hang with women.

If a female sees some dudes are going to bar and isn't invited. Too bad. Maybe the guys want to chat sports and chicks all night. I've never seen or heard of a guy complaining a bunch of female coworkers are going out to lunch together or posting dinner party photos on Facebook where none of the guys were invited.

I.E. women still get extremely high rates of acceptance for STEM positions vs men due to how that field wants female representation. It's a problem wall street men have in particular for some strange reason.
And that's unfortunate.

I've never been a fan of any of the silly quota ratio hiring thing. People should be hired based off a good set of qualifications, personal skills, and of course whether their salary ask is reasonable and within the HR budget.

I don't see how purposely hiring more women for STEM jobs suddenly creates better value for the fields of study. It's not like mother nature suddenly tells mankind more secrets of the universe because Susie is doing R&D rather than Steve.

However, for social jobs like police, I can see the need for minorities and women being purposely hired more even if the typical white dude has better qualifications.... if it can be proven it leads to beater civilian relations and safety.... something that can't be measured in tests. A job like this is like sports..... a team isn't necessarily better the players can run the fasted. Sometimes an untrackable skill like leadership can make a difference too.

Although I'm not sure if there are proven studies that may show hiring a less qualified minority (on paper) is better for a minority neighbourhood over a white guy having better marks patrolling the area.
 
Last edited:
Likes: RedVIper
May 22, 2018
2,619
1,778
240
#64
Not surprised that you would jump in with a bad faith argument.
That is not at all what this is about.
Unless I somehow misread the entire OP that is exactly what this is about. The OP even says

In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?

Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.
So business leaders are now afraid to hire women because they are afraid the women will speak out about possible harassment in the workplace. So they should be focusing on providing a safe work environment for women in order to make sure that there will be no sexual harassment.


Not getting rid of women entirely. That is literally the worst way to handle the situation.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
466
208
180
#65
It is just natural. Better safe than sorry. Last time I visited Europe I avoided talking with women there on any topic beside work and some neutral stuff like weather. Who knows where it might lead...Leave that to migrants.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
466
208
180
#67
Or you know....they could just provide a safe work environment.

But hey that would just be too hard right?
The thing is that safe environment implies no false accusation. Unlike men, women are much more vile when they want to get something or revenge. Stay with a woman alone, and if you piss her off later, she might accuse you of rape and you won't be able to prove that. Reminds me of delations - who cares if it is true or not. Delation was made and personal life might be ruined.

Girl started to date a boy, who dumped a girl. Dumped girl with a friend put, new girl into the bath of hot water and burned part of internal organs. Can you imagine man doing that?
 
Last edited:
Likes: RedVIper
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#68
3) have a robust HR system that deals with harassment claims instead of burying them so lawsuits don't happen in the first place.

Wallstreet was always rooted in broski misogyny to begin with, and their "avoid women at all costs" policy sounds more like they saw an opportunity to mask a vindictive attitude behind a farce of "well I just don't want to get sued or accused!" Women were already left out of the after-work meetings at the bar to begin with, and this just ads an exculpatory layer that these men can latch onto to "oh, yea... this is the real reason why we didn't try to work with women for the past 8 decades!"

I.E. women still get extremely high rates of acceptance for STEM positions vs men due to how that field wants female representation. It's a problem wall street men have in particular for some strange reason.
Your first paragraph is optimistic but ultimately naive. That is not how an HR department will ever work in the real world. They are paid by the employer and therefore exist to protect the employer first.

The “we” in your second paragraph is misplaced because no individual male has been in the workforce for the past 8 decades.

Regarding your third paragraph, I will never agree that representation for the sake of representation will ever be a good thing. People should be hired on competence and merit first and then the pieces should be allowed to fall where they may. Any other approach requires discrimination based on immutable characteristics and ignores all of the individual responsibility and personal choice that determine graduation rates in different fields.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#69
Unless I somehow misread the entire OP that is exactly what this is about. The OP even says



So business leaders are now afraid to hire women because they are afraid the women will speak out about possible harassment in the workplace. So they should be focusing on providing a safe work environment for women in order to make sure that there will be no sexual harassment.


Not getting rid of women entirely. That is literally the worst way to handle the situation.
The men making risk-based hiring decisions are not the ones making it harder for women; the feminists upending due process and instilling justifiable paranoia in men are the ones doing that.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,475
2,062
430
#71
"Hey, here's a game. The rules are contradictory and change without notice. There is no win-state available to you".
..
"Why are you unwilling to participate in the game?!?"

Or you know....they could just provide a safe work environment.


But hey that would just be too hard right?
Safe for who? Specifically.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
925
886
230
Moore Park Beach
#72
Unless I somehow misread the entire OP that is exactly what this is about. The OP even says



So business leaders are now afraid to hire women because they are afraid the women will speak out about possible harassment in the workplace. So they should be focusing on providing a safe work environment for women in order to make sure that there will be no sexual harassment.


Not getting rid of women entirely. That is literally the worst way to handle the situation.

Read again. The risk is not that genuine assault victims will speak up.

... What if she took something he said the wrong way? ...

Sometimes it is not assault. I have seen people accused after the person they mentored failed their project, felt slighted
and wanted to destroy their mentor as a way to deflect the failure.
There are a milion reasons why people behave like assholes.

I am ok with taking action against genuine offenders, but when someone that is just angry can lash out and try to destroy someone that
did nothing wrong, that is when people start to re-evaluate the workplace interactions.


Just so you know, successful senior people have a lot to lose. They have a successful career and life. They do not want to take on unnecessary risks
that could destroy it all, with no defense, no explanation, no recourse.
You are accused and your life is destroyed. Who cares if it was genuine or not. False accusations happens.

Successful people do not want to take on these catastrophic risks and thus the result is segregation by gender.
That is why some/a lot of successful senior engineers in tech avoid interactions with female engineers unless there are other people present.
This definitely does hurt the female engineers career prospect since she/they will NOT have the same opportunities than her male peers.
She/they will not have the same opportunity to build networks, since the important people to network with will actively avoid her/them.


It is unfortunate but, risk analysis gives this rationale :
It is MORE important to me to NOT expose myself to the risk of a false accusation that will destroy me than the importance that my junior female colleagues will have a successful career.


If you argued in good faith you would understand that
This is not about letting people that abuse keep abusing. No those folks deserve what is coming to them.
It is about people that DO NOT abuse that no longer feel safe to work with or help female peers.

That is a big problem. You should feel ashamed for trying to twist the argument to be about shielding abusers. Bad you.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
2,619
1,778
240
#74
The thing is that safe environment implies no false accusation. Unlike men, women are much more vile when they want to get something or revenge. Stay with a woman alone, and if you piss her off later, she might accuse you of rape and you won't be able to prove that. Reminds me of delations - who cares if it is true or not. Delation was made and personal life might be ruined.

Girl started to date a boy, who dumped a girl. Dumped girl with a friend put, new girl into the bath of hot water and burned part of internal organs. Can you imagine man doing that?
What in the actual fuck is this sexist bullshit right here?


"Women are much more vile"


Are you kidding me right now? @Bill O'Rights is this kind of rhetoric even allowed?



(Sorry to @ you, but I still can't use the report function)
 
Last edited:
#75
What in the actual fuck is this sexist bullshit right here?


"Women are much more vile"


Are you kidding me right now? @Bill O'Rights is this kind of rhetoric even allowed?



(Sorry to @ you, but I still can't use the report function)
To be fair, you took the most clearly opinionated post to call out. Plenty others were continuing a good conversation with you.
 
Likes: JimmyJones
Oct 27, 2017
925
886
230
Moore Park Beach
#77
To be fair, you took the most clearly opinionated post to call out. Plenty others were continuing a good conversation with you.
You are new to @Nobody_Important ?
He is not really looking for good faith discussion about anything with anyone. He mostly just wants to find someone he can call a bigot.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
2,619
1,778
240
#78
You are new to @Nobody_Important ?
He is not really looking for good faith discussion about anything with anyone. He mostly just wants to find someone he can call a bigot.
Yeah me getting upset at blatant sexism is me not wanting to have a good discussion. Yet you talk shit about me to other users while talking about "good faith"


Mhm. Okay lol makes perfect sense :messenger_ok:
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#79
What in the actual fuck is this sexist bullshit right here?


"Women are much more vile"


Are you kidding me right now? @Bill O'Rights is this kind of rhetoric even allowed?



(Sorry to @ you, but I still can't use the report function)
I bet you were that kid in school that no one liked because he would always go crying and snitching to the teachers. Grow some balls man, good lord.
 
Likes: JimmyJones
Mar 19, 2015
768
347
255
#80
Music to my ears. I was reading a #metoo thread on REERA the other day and there were teachers commenting about how they're afraid to be alone with students etc for fear of being accused. All of the usual crazies started posting about how they should have nothing to be afraid of if they were doing nothing wrong.

Here's a few quotes from the crazies...


"See, when men say "I don't meet with students alone with the door closed", what I hear is "I think women are either hysterical enough to claim anything is sexual assault, or lying crazy bitches who will make false allegations for no reason".

"I don't know man, in my head "don't be a jerk and harrass women/other people" sounds so simple and so obvious"

"And people who come into threads like these and push false accusation concerns are forwarding an effort to discredit real accusations whether they mean to or not."


These people don't live in the real world.

I used to work as a janitor and completely sympathize with this one dude...


"I was substitute at a French immersion school and the students would come hug me and get too close all the time. I'd be pulling them off me asap or throwing my arms up in the air. I'd have to tell them it was inapproriate to be making physical contact, these were 5-7 year olds who didn't understand."


I was a janitor for 5 years and experienced the exact same shit. Male teachers etc are fucking wide open to false accusations and there is absolutely nothing they can do to protect themselves. You need to be fucking crazy to be a male teacher in today's society.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
May 9, 2016
1,389
157
240
#81
"Women keep getting mad when we sexually harass them! What should we do?????"


"Let just not hire women!"






Because obviously that is the easiest way to go about it.....
You know that's not what the issue is, c'mon now. Inviting harassment and a fear of actions being misconstrued as harassment are not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Mar 23, 2018
701
366
250
#83
This happens all the time.

Some nijab muslim woman comes in this company to solicitate for a position that has to do marketing and talks with higher profile clients. She refuses to shake hands or remove her nijab on the work place and basically got instantly shown the exit.

She sues them wins because discriminations against her believes and gets money from the company which was a forced fine by the judge so the company would learn its lesson for not discriminating on this type of level.

You would think that now they would hire people like that etc without any issue right?

nope.

They now have a process where they eliminate anything that involves head gear + muslim woman out of there solicitation process.

Problem solved.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,475
2,062
430
#84
"Lol I love the [generalisation] in here that [misrepresentation and exaggeration] [thing I dont hate] acting like this means [misrepresentation and exaggeration]. Just gave [thing I don't hate] yet another kick of validity"

Cunning.
You can't challenge the logic and substance of a statement if it doesn't have any to start with.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#85
"Lol I love the [generalisation] in here that [misrepresentation and exaggeration] [thing I dont hate] acting like this means [misrepresentation and exaggeration]. Just gave [thing I don't hate] yet another kick of validity"

Cunning.
You can't challenge the logic and substance of a statement if it doesn't have any to start with.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
#86
"Lol I love the [generalisation] in here that [misrepresentation and exaggeration] [thing I dont hate] acting like this means [misrepresentation and exaggeration]. Just gave [thing I don't hate] yet another kick of validity"

Cunning.
You can't challenge the logic and substance of a statement if it doesn't have any to start with.
Then I wasn’t talking about you. Move along. I’m glad you don’t hate feminism.
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,475
2,062
430
#88
Then I wasn’t talking about you. Move along. I’m glad you don’t hate feminism.
You post a largely fallacious comment on a public forum for anyone to see, then anyone else can comment.

Your assumed authority to order others to 'move along' is misplaced.

Also, you should not be making assumptions about what people approve or disapprove of, or the strength of that approval or disapproval.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
#89
You post a largely fallacious comment on a public forum for anyone to see, then anyone else can comment.

Your assumed authority to order others to 'move along' is misplaced.

Also, you should not be making assumptions about what people approve or disapprove of, or the strength of that approval or disapproval.
YOU said you don’t hate feminism! Twice. lol

Sorry for assuming you don’t hate the thing you said you don’t hate lmao

Are you so grasping for opportunities to scold me you’re forgetting your own posts?
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
#90
Unless you mean other people, in which case you should know I was talking about the people vocal about their hatred of modern feminism. We don’t have to pretend those people aren’t on the forum now
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,475
2,062
430
#91
YOU said you don’t hate feminism! Twice. lol

Sorry for assuming you don’t hate the thing you said you don’t hate lmao
I don't recall expressing my view on that matter in the terms you claim. I dispute your allegation.

Please can you provide a link or quotation that supports your claim? Specifically the 'hate' aspect and me expressing this more than once.

Thank you.

Are you so grasping for opportunities to scold me you’re forgetting your own posts?
1. It's entirely possible I don't recall the two events you refer to. However I rarely express my views on things in terms of 'hate'. I try to choose my words with more care.

2. My views and position have been misrepresented a number of times by others. This misrepresentation serves as the basis of disengenous comments and dismissals and, in some cases, outright lies and slander. I object to this.

3. For my part, this isn't personal and any efforts to present it as such is dishonest victim-play.

4. None of the above alters the largely fallacious nature of the comment that started this exchange - nor the misplaced assumption of authority when you instructed me to 'move along'.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
#92
I don't recall expressing my view on that matter in the terms you claim. I dispute your allegation.

Please can you provide a link or quotation that supports your claim? Specifically the 'hate' aspect and me expressing this more than once.

Thank you.



1. It's entirely possible I don't recall the two events you refer to. However I rarely express my views on things in terms of 'hate'. I try to choose my words with more care.

2. My views and position have been misrepresented a number of times by others. This misrepresentation serves as the basis of disengenous comments and dismissals and, in some cases, outright lies and slander. I object to this.

3. For my part, this isn't personal and any efforts to present it as such is dishonest victim-play.

4. None of the above alters the largely fallacious nature of the comment that started this exchange.
"Lol I love the [generalisation] in here that [misrepresentation and exaggeration] [thing I dont hate] acting like this means [misrepresentation and exaggeration]. Just gave [thing I don't hate] yet another kick of validity"

Did I misunderstand and you were quoting as me saying thing I don’t hate? You can see how I read this as you saying you don’t hate feminism right?
 
Dec 15, 2011
1,475
2,062
430
#93
"Lol I love the [generalisation] in here that [misrepresentation and exaggeration] [thing I dont hate] acting like this means [misrepresentation and exaggeration]. Just gave [thing I don't hate] yet another kick of validity"

Did I misunderstand and you were quoting as me saying thing I don’t hate? You can see how I read this as you saying you don’t hate feminism right?
Thank you.
Yes this was a misunderstanding on your part fuelled by poor communication on my part.

I should have been clearer about how I was repeating another's statement rather than expressing one of my own. I had thought the "quotation marks" were sufficient clarification.

Lesson learned.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
#94
Thank you.
Yes this was a misunderstanding on your part fuelled by poor communication on my part. I should have been clearer about how I was repeated another's statement rather than expressing one of my own. Lesson learned.
To be honest it seemed weird to me that you had included that with what I thought. Seemed more... defensive than your usual style.

Scolding me for “assuming a person’s feelings on an issue”, (when I wasn’t doing that) is much more your style
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2018
1,854
2,075
255
29
Southeastern USA
#95
The dirty little secret behind all this crap is that it's just a grab for power, it's not about actually helping victims or stopping harassment.

No, it's about creating a society where women have all the power by way of their ability to destroy any man's life with their word alone, no questions asked.

Those who cry the loudest about "patriarchy" simply want to replace it with a matriarchy, what we call "feminism" today could be better described as female supremacism, piggy backing off of and coming under the guise of an earlier movement that simply stood for equality.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
#96
The dirty little secret behind all this crap is that it's just a grab for power, it's not about actually helping victims or stopping harassment.

No, it's about creating a society where women have all the power by way of their ability to destroy any man's life with their word alone, no questions asked.

Those who cry the loudest about "patriarchy" simply want to replace it with a matriarchy, what we call "feminism" today could be better described as female supremacism, piggy backing off of and coming under the guise of an earlier movement that simply stood for equality.
I’m down.
 
Jan 25, 2018
1,854
2,075
255
29
Southeastern USA
#97
I would respect it more if people were at least honest about it.

The idea is that men have not done a good enough job running the world and women should be given a turn, fair enough.

But I dislike the tactics that they use, giving women more power by way of giving them the ability to ruin an innocent man's life is wrong.

And my gut instinct says a society that is equal is what we should be striving for, not one where one gender dominates the other, whether it's men dominating women or women dominating men, simply flipping the script on how things used to work is not justice, but it's what SJWs want.

And I'm just overall skeptical that a world run by women would be any better, since I, unlike modern feminism, believe men and women are more alike than they are different, so I don't see an end to war, poverty and so on just because women control everything.
 
Likes: Shaqazooloo
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
#98
I would respect it more if people were at least honest about it.

The idea is that men have not done a good enough job running the world and women should be given a turn, fair enough.

But I dislike the tactics that they use, giving women more power by way of giving them the ability to ruin an innocent man's life is wrong.

And my gut instinct says a society that is equal is what we should be striving for, not one where one gender dominates the other, whether it's men dominating women or women dominating men, simply flipping the script on how things used to work is not justice, but it's what SJWs want.

And I'm just overall skeptical that a world run by women would be any better, since I, unlike modern feminism, believe men and women are more alike than they are different, so I don't see an end to war, poverty and so on just because women control everything.
I mean there’s always gonna be someone on top. Life is ALWAYS going to be a crawl for a bigger pile
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,320
700
Australia
#99
The dirty little secret behind all this crap is that it's just a grab for power, it's not about actually helping victims or stopping harassment.

No, it's about creating a society where women have all the power by way of their ability to destroy any man's life with their word alone, no questions asked.

Those who cry the loudest about "patriarchy" simply want to replace it with a matriarchy, what we call "feminism" today could be better described as female supremacism, piggy backing off of and coming under the guise of an earlier movement that simply stood for equality.
Agree with you except for the assertion that feminism was originally about equality (equality of what?). People give the first and second waves of feminism a free pass because of the insanity of the third. However, feminism has always been based on a foundation of Patriarchy theory, which is just an incorrect interpretation of the (Western) world. There is a reason that every wave of feminism has coincided with a generational change following a major conflict. It is because the role that men play in society (defense of the tribe) is no longer visible and perspective is lost. While I believe that women gaining the right to vote was the right treatment, it followed from an incorrect diagnosis (Patriarchy theory). If the movement were truly about equality, that right to vote should have come at a higher price, namely the shared responsibility of defending the tribe. I have never heard of a feminist putting their hand up for the draft during wartime, only those pushing for "equality" in the military during peacetime when the risk is at a minimum and a well-paid, secure job is on offer.
 
Jan 31, 2018
466
208
180
The dirty little secret behind all this crap is that it's just a grab for power, it's not about actually helping victims or stopping harassment.

No, it's about creating a society where women have all the power by way of their ability to destroy any man's life with their word alone, no questions asked.

Those who cry the loudest about "patriarchy" simply want to replace it with a matriarchy, what we call "feminism" today could be better described as female supremacism, piggy backing off of and coming under the guise of an earlier movement that simply stood for equality.
Every movement is about rearrangement of the power. Increased well-being comes as a side effect as you have to move masses somehow. You can't move them by saying nothing will change but hey let's riot for fun and profit (some of them would agree to do that though). No movement leader (with certain exceptions..or not) who took over evil government as said - now I live everything for you people and will return to my hut. Eventually life became worse (technologically wise not neccessary) because the rules of power doesn't change, people will become discontent with something eventually.

People want equality when the want to be on top.
 
Last edited: