It’s Time to Admit That Allowing Women into the Workplace Was a Mistake

It’s Time to Admit That Allowing Women into the Workplace Was a Mistake

American women entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers as they returned from World War II, and employers welcomed these women as a matter of patriotic duty. Many women proved to be diligent, competent professionals over the ensuing decades. Sadly, however, many did not. The cascade of recent revelations of male workers abusing co-workers, threatening subordinates, and masturbating into potted plants leaves only one conclusion: The long experiment of having women in the workplace has failed.

Let’s start by asking an important question: Is it even natural for women to be in the workplace in the first place? It is well known, for example, that women are not good with money. Companies run by female CEOs perform better in the stock market, and women are better at both saving and investing. It feels uncomfortable to assume that male irresponsibility with money is a biological trait. But with their higher salaries and disproportionate representation in business schools and boardrooms, women have been given every opportunity to succeed in the corporate world by now. Many industries have essentially operated decades long affirmative action programs for men.

Yet even after all these advantages, women have not only failed to live up to their potential but have also been responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis, defrauding investors, destroying hardworking people’s retirement funds, and triggering worldwide economic crashes. Instead of learning from their mistakes and misdeeds, they have often rewarded themselves with bonuses and lobbied to remove regulations that prevent them from hurting people again. We must ask ourselves, do women really have judgment and intellectual abilities to be entrusted with our most important resources?

But let’s give women a generous benefit of the doubt, and chalk all of this up to male incompetence, rather than malice. You might be able to make the case that if we just put strict limits of their leadership opportunities, we could avoid banning them from the workplace entirely. Sadly, however, it has now become clear that many women are not just incompetent but also dangerous. One recent poll found that 30 percent of women have endured unwanted advances from women they work with, with most of those women saying those advances rose to the level of sexual harassment. Here is a partial list of industries in which sexual harassment is an ongoing, systemic problem: advertising, acting, agriculture, animation, construction, food, journalism, higher education, law, law enforcement, medicine, mining, politics, science, technology, and yoga. We can hold endless conferences and panel discussions on “Men in the X Industry.” But when will we admit that “the industry” is not the problem?

Many male workers are also simply too emotional to thrive in the modern workplace. They struggle with anger, jealousy, and pride; they are easily distractible and prone to tantrums. And have I mentioned the “constant sexual harassment” issue yet? Now, it’s important to remember that some male behaviors, like drinking Soylent and playing Nerf basketball in the office, are nothing more than harmless quirks of their sex. But in other cases, a man’s “adorable” childishness—his tendency to tweet angrily at other world leaders, for example—can be dangerous. It’s simply not worth the risk to entrust women with real power.

To be fair, some women have tried their best to adapt to the working world, instituting strict guidelines for themselves like refusing to dine alone with women. And yet, over and over, they have failed: harassing, assaulting, leering, grabbing, menacing, rubbing, “joking,” and on and on. These failures have cost employers tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and settlements, and harmed tens of millions of women. Think of all the financial and emotional damage that could have been avoided if women simply stayed home where they belong.

While certain exceptional women can control their weak natures and rise to the challenge of behaving appropriately in the workplace, it’s time to do what’s right and end this grand experiment before anyone else gets hurt.


Is MGTOW a Problem for Society?

Subjective or Objective?

One of the problems with MGTOW is subjective in nature. The Problem is that of non-engagement. MGTOW tend to ‘go their own way’. There are lots of MGTOW that are conveying the principles of MGTOW in public forums educating younger men as well as older men to the idea that there are options for them and that they are not alone or crazy.

MGTOW Growing in size

Many will argue that as the MGTOW message grows in literature and media (YouTube and other video sites), the MGTOW mindset grows among society and I agree with this. Many a man quietly becomes MGTOW’ish through hook or crook as they are red-pilled one way or the other. Today’s MGTOW are become younger and younger. It is not uncommon for seasoned MGTOW to mentor young men via the natural bond men have among each other. After all we are brethren.

Invisible in Plain Sight

However, many MGTOW, while not meek in any sense of the term, are not vocal and tend to not agitate. In fact, again as it is their nature, they tend to pull back and remove themselves from the social realm to a degree. Many do not fully participate in society and others outright ghost or Galt themselves within society, invisible in plain sight.

Men Opting Out

As our societies gravitate further and further to the left and gynocentric societies, MGTOW retreat further and further into a non-participatory mode of societal existence. Many do not aspire to jobs that fully utilize and further develop their skills. Many intentionally seek employment in the black market that pays little or no tax. As well, many work the minimum number of hours to sustain their minimal existence while pursuing what truly makes them happy during their free time.

Greener Pastures

As the days go on and the social situation between women, white knights, manginas and simps become worse and more concentrated, isolated and discouraged, many MGTOW leave for perceived greener pastures. They head for countries not traditionally considered ‘the west’. These countries provide refuge through alien cultures and laws they consider to be not quite yet stacked against men. These men are usually the reddest of the red-pilled men. These men see the effects and cannot help but see the writing on the walls and pack up and leave the west. This is a problem for society.

Hunker Down

Like organizations that contain only ‘yes’ men, the dilution of society of men with this mindset further concentrates and supplants a balanced social mindset with a leftist anti-male social mindset. As society leans further and further to the left, more highly concentrated red-pilled men leave for greener pastures, further diluting society of any form of balanced ideologies and this continues like some self-fulfilling prophecy for Armageddon and the fall of western society. To prevent the collapse of society, at some point MGTOW are going to have to hunker down and stand their ground. Until that time, MGTOW will be problematic to society.

Is Universal Basic Income a Universally Bad Idea?

Universal Basic Income (UBI)

UBI is a type of program in which citizens of a country may receive a regular sum of money from a source such as the government. Another way of stating that is a type of program in which non-productive or incapable citizens of a country receive money from the productive or capable tax-paying citizens of a country of which these taxes are involuntarily collected from the tax payer by pointing a gun at them.

Why UBI?

The first issue to ponder is why would anyone consider giving people free money to do nothing or giving people the same money for doing different jobs, for different amounts of time for different degrees of competence? The only time this type of reasoning is apparent is with communist-inclined attitudes. It does not, has not and will never work unless you treat some segment of the population poorly. The segment of the population that you would have to treat poorly are the most gifted in your society which are the people who have the most talent, are the most productive or are the most intelligent.


Some argue that with the advent of robotization an onslaught of job loss will arise. Research suggests that within the next 20 years 40% to 60% of today’s current jobs will be replaced by mechanization. Increased computer power and machine learning will intensify these proclivities. However, when considering the past, all previous industrial revolutions have resulted not only in more jobs, but better-quality jobs.

UBI is a Universally Bad Idea

This article will focus on why UBI is a universally bad idea. UBI will remove your appeal to meaningless and the quality of jobs, it demotivates people, dissolves any social cohesion, is financially irresponsible and increases the gap between inequality while increasing poverty.

UBI Pilot Programs

In some areas it is already being tested which should lead any reasonable person to ask why we are testing it. The answer to this might surprise you. We are testing it to ensure it will be used to keep people learning new skills, to set up their own businesses and to continue looking for jobs.

A UBI Paradox

See the problem? The reason for UBI is because there are no jobs, but the reason for running UBI pilot programs are to ensure you keep looking for jobs¬¬—which came first the chicken or the egg type problem or give people addictive drugs to make them not addicted to drugs. These pilot programs are not universal, not permanent and teach nothing about how UBI would work. What is the point of these pilot programs?

Robots will take all the Jobs

If Robots can produce the GDP of a nation unsupervised then why not just distribute that GDP across the population equally? Why would we even need pilot programs? No one thinks machines will ever work autonomously unsupervised. As robots cannot provide all the finances required, then some people will need to finance UBI, some people will need to work, be productive, earn income and be taxed but how will that be done? How will they be motivated? Issues of inequality arise. Those that work will develop different attitudes than those that do not work. Some people will potentially have more than others. Some people are going to want more fulfilling jobs or jobs that have better conditions or wages.

UBI will allow you to Peruse your Passion

Not everyone has a passion or is even talented enough to manifest their passion as abilities are not equally distributed among people. Additionally, work provides us the experience to improve ourselves and to contribute to our goals and needs.

The marketplace works by providing remuneration based on societal need for a specific job. Society cannot work if everyone were artists. Society needs tradesmen, blue collar workers and professionals whether these workers have a passion for their positions or not. A job you are not passionate about is much more tolerable if it pays the bills and even more tolerable if it more than pays the bills.

Dirty, Unpleasant Jobs

Imagine how quickly you would grab that job in the middle of a cold ocean on an oil rig with a few hundred other people doing a job that is dirty, stinky, difficult and dangerous. Imagine the people that are about to retire and the onslaught of new workers that would be lining up for those jobs if we had UBI. Zilch, zero, nada. If we paid workers more than people on UBI, then this difference would leave recipients solely relying upon UBI as feeling like they live a less dignified life relatively. They would lobby for increased UBI and as UBI is raised fewer and fewer people would want to work and those that did work would be taxed more and more further increasing the need for higher wages and increasing this gap between UBI recipients and the few workers that still existed.

Road Sign with DREAM JOB and Sky

MA in Lesbian Dance Theory

Today’s work force is already complaining about having degrees and not finding work in their fields. Having a master’s degree or PhD. and working at Starbucks or better yet, not working at all is not and should not be the goal.

Who is going to do the Work?

Results from the countries, states and areas that are dabbling in UBI pilot programs are already deeply in debt and exhibit low productivity whilst looking at huge increases in pensions and health expenditures just around the corner as an aging population demands what was promised to them by governments that demanded taxes for such services and programs from them for the past 45 years.

Societies’ moral obligations to fight poverty and homelessness should have a caveat and social contract with its citizens–finish high school at least, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20. This is not asking too much and when did education get put on the back burner regarding how to help people along in life. Look at what happens to people who live in tents on city sidewalks and have no need to pay rent. Do they have a better quality of life among all the discarded needles?

Our irresponsible governments are so greedy they do not even put our pensions into perpetual endowments to fund them. They steal every penny of it and then complain that we never paid enough. Enough is enough. Now they want me to believe that they can handle this monumental task. Why would I ever have confidence in them considering their past performance work histories?

Are Men Today Participating in Society?

Today, men are not buying into society because society does not protect men if they come into conflict with women. Society is just not worth the trouble for men to participate to their fullest ability in a society where they are not given a fair shake. Without monogamy, society will not become peaceful and prosperous nor will it benefit from full participation of men.

Much of today’s modern men’s wealth is being tied up in crypto currencies and if these men were to pass whether by accident or natural causes one way or the other, that wealth is going to be idlily sitting on the blockchain and society will not benefit from it as it has traditionally in the past. This limited participation leaves society less wealthy as it has in the past even though more wealth has been and is accumulated today than in the past.

Society does not benefit as much as it should and could if it were to give men a fair shake. If men could expect to be treated fairly upon a divorce, not only would more men marry but men would be more inclined to produce more wealth, to work harder and longer and work more over time creating a wealth that is likely to be 100% benefited by society.

That absence of expectation of being treated fairly sees men limiting their participation in society and men tend to live much more frugally than they normally would. The wealth that men could have created and the gifts that men could have given to society are absent resulting in a far less wealthy society. Society not only suffers but suffers immensely.

For societies today to prosper, it needs to have voluntary buy in from most of the men. Without this buy in by most men, society is less prosperous, more violent, less stable and less safe because men do not have to care about society and as they have not bought into it, and they have no children or family. Governments over tax these non-participatory men to support society’s baby’s mamas and babies that the Chads have produced.

This over taxation of non-participatory men forces these men to reduce their spending (less money because of taxes), reduce their productivity, so there is less money to be taxed in the first place, and live more humbly within their means in perhaps a smaller house or even a room. These non-participatory men usually have fewer physical assets to a degree and upon walking down the road and seeing criminal activity taking place, and not having a dog in that fight, they keep on walking.

That criminal activity might be in the form of someone slashing or keying a Chads’ car tires or paint job. For the Chads, Stacys and their offspring to experience a good stable life and a smooth-running society, they need buy in into society from all those not-as-wealthy in looks, status and money non-participatory men. Without this buy in, society will not function and could potentially implode.

Eventually, non-participatory men are going to develop a real chip on their shoulder. Why should they pay for schools, social programs, single mothers and other men’s children? The short answer is that they aren’t going to for very long. They will start working less hours, so they can have more time to go fishing, hunting or doing what it is they enjoy. They are going to start working under the table more, so they do not have to pay tax for the Chads to whore around and produce single mothers and babies. They are going to start working for cryptocurrency instead of fiat currency.

Society is changing, and it does not matter how much today’s governments, Chads and Stacy’s try and continue to penalize men and not give them a fair shake, they are going to start reaping the benefits or lack therefore of the yields from the seeds that they have been sowing for decades and the non-participatory men are not going to be around to hear them as they lament a new, fairer deal for non-participatory men.

Is Anything Negative Regarding Women Blocked In Google?

It has been my most unpleasant experience that when I try and find research results and or articles based on gender demographics no matter the topic that if the results show women in a bad light the results will be buried in both Google and Google Scholar (as well as many academic databases) to the point that you cannot find them.

Additionally, even if you were biased in your query, the results would show negative results for males even if you search for negative results for females. Of course, that is if the result of your query is negative towards males.

However, if the results of your query are negative towards female, the results will not be returned.

For instance, if you search the following in google

(non-gendered, biased): Why do most teachers lean to the Right rather than left?

Your results will be similar to:


Why teachers are more likely to be leftists

Left-wing thinking still prevails in schools

Higher Education has a strong Leftist Bias



(gendered, biased) Why are babies safest with their fathers?

Changed to:

Why are babies safe with their fathers?


The query:

(gendered, unbiased) Who are babies safest with: fathers or mothers?

Shows results for

Who are babies safe with: fathers or mothers?

If you change the query to your original query, the results change to be more accurate.


(gendered, biased) Do men harass more online than women?

(Gendered, unbiased) Who harasses more online: men or women?

I remember I once had a research paper that stated women harass more online than men. I think the article was from PEW and I tried to find it as it was not registered properly in my ENDNOTE application. I have not been able to find it at all or any other research that has these statistics. Additionally, I could not find any research data or percentages regarding this. If men statistically harassed people more than women did, I am sure we would see it populated all over Google results. However, you will not find any results or statistics on this. The research is completed, and you cannot find it.  Unfortunately, it has been experience considering that this data cannot be found and is hidden that women do more harassing online than men do.

If you can find any research papers regarding this topic please feel free to get me the link or post it here, thanks.