Or are women violating their trust and position in society? No doubt any form of violation towards a woman by a man is wrong, especially in the workplace just as are the facts that deaths at work are men at rates of 95%, men commit 90% of suicides and men are 75% more likely to receive jail terms for crimes than women are and then receive jail terms twice as long as women in the even a woman is even convicted of the same crime.
However, upon reading the article “#MeToo Backlash in Corporate Canada Sees Women Locked Out”, it becomes overwhelmingly obvious, at least for the author of this article as to why the majority of men only pretend to listen to women and the rest of men outright ignore women.
When women are at risk, they should do everything they can to minimize their risk and protect themselves. However, there is obviously a double standard here. Men are not allowed to do the same and when they do, they are misogynists.
This article bemoans how men no longer have meetings with women behind closed doors, only take meetings with women if someone else is there and are ‘shying’ away from mentoring young women. Well, we all know men are ‘shy’. Wake up! Men are not shying away from mentoring young women at all. It is not worth it. PERIOD. Also, it is not good enough to take meetings with a woman unless someone else is there if that someone else is a woman. Let me state that again, it is not good enough to have meetings with a woman unless someone else is there if that someone else is a woman, it needs to be recorded by not one camera but three if possible. It is not good enough if an additional woman is there or if an additional man is there.
Isn’t this wonderful? And this is because men are such pigs, isn’t it? It sounds like women would be just fine by themselves, and I am sure they will be. Somehow, I think this is exactly what is being pushed. If only all the bosses were women, wouldn’t that be great?
However, that also insinuates that men would be just fine by themselves as well. But you and I know that would be misogynistic.
In the article, there is a video interview with a woman from IBM who is telling us all about a wonderful program for getting women back into the workforce in their 30s, into IT. Of course, we need even more programs for women because there are not enough yet. Also, the poor wimmins need extra help when they are 30 because they are long past their prime, or are they not near their prime, who knows? Anyhow, you will notice how this IBM Global talent executive talks about getting women back into the workplace because diversity is so needed. Mind you there are zero studies about diversity being anything but divisive but I digress. As she continues about how they have paid women the same as men for decades, just like every other company in the west mind you but some how this magical, mystical 78 cents-per-dollar unicorn keeps popping up all over the place, we just cannot find that place, she elaborates about many programs for women.
Honestly, I have never heard about a program dedicated to men, to get them into the work force. Anyhow, the program for “women who take a break from the workforce to raise a family or for other personal reasons”. Hold on a moment. Can men take a break from the work force ‘for personal reason’? Do men do that? If men did that, just how employable do you think they would be?
She continues to state that when women in STEM hit their 30s, more than half (50%) stop working and there are more than 500,000 jobs available. Now, step back and review that statement. What comes to mind? We need to help the wimmins, the poor wimmins, what can we do to stop this injustice? No. What comes to mind whether you are a man, or a woman is “what a total waste of time and a human being”. As an employer you would be stupid and dumb to hire a woman. All the training, education, and effort for this woman was a total waste of time and will be a waste of time in the future. This actually justifies the statements at the beginning of this article where men do not want to mentor women.
Continuing, the interviewee states how the program is for women to this and for women to that. The Interviewer then states is this for people who used to work for IBM, for someone from outside IBM to etc. I find it very odd that she (the interviewer) stopped using the word women. Women are people but so are men and no, this program is not for men and there for the use of the word people or someone is not appropriate here. Isn’t is nice how the wimmins don’t like to use words like policemen and firemen when it suits them.
At this point the interviewee begins to parrot the interviewer and interchanges people and women throughout the rest of the interview. It should be noted that it would be perfectly and is only perfectly correct to use the term women in the entire interview, however, it appears that both women are either uncomfortable or embarrassed that this is a wimmins thing only.
The rest of the interview goes on and it is quite obvious this article, program and sentiments are all about our wonderfully diverse world of wimmins.
The last paragraph of the article is telling:
“It is as if people don’t understand what they shouldn’t be doing. As long as you don’t grab someone or proposition them, you can take someone to lunch…It is completely obvious how to be professional.”
The only thing that is completely obvious here I guess is that this is what you should expect from a Huff Post piece. They still do not get it. It is not the people that grab someone of act unprofessional that are concerned or even care, obviously. It is the people that do not grab someone or the people that need to have lunches for their jobs that have concerns.
The solipsism, as usual, is vast here. After all, what could possibly go wrong? Oh, men will not put themselves in a position where a person can destroy their careers, lives, income and freedoms as easily as they once would. Those silly men, they do not need to be concerned, this is about the wimmins.
Again, the beef is strong here. Even if they do manage to pad the top brass of every company in Canada or wherever with the wimmins, men are not going to take any position that puts them at risk as easily as they once would. Men are going to think twice, or even three times.
Once the top brass positions of companies are populated fairly like university attendance is now populated, you know 70% women and 30% men, I predict the next phase of articles within a year will be how men will not even take jobs that put them an any form or risk and men in general will be labeled as they are now, misogynists.