Gretel Smetel’s recent letter in these pages “No women allowed out after dark”? What a Totally. Awesome. Idea. I have, quite genuinely, been racking my brain as to what we can realistically do to ensure women’s safety after dark.
Demanding safe passage at all hours, regardless of where we are, what we’re wearing, or our blood-alcohol level is all very well but that is never going to happen, no matter how much “education” there is. There are always going to be random drunken women who dress like sluts who walk down dangerous areas on a whim, oblivious to safety out there.
So how do we shift responsibility for women’s safety from the entire population to the individual women?
Adding her bit to the debate – and in response to the suggestion from yet another letter-writer that men shouldn’t walk alone at night – Mz. Smetel came up with perhaps the most practical and efficient solution yet. A curfew on women. Genius.
Under the new regime any women out after dark would have to be accompanied by a responsible male.
There are a number of options. One is simply to ban all women from being on the streets or on public transport after, say, 9.30pm (10.30pm daylight saving). Which is effectively the restriction currently placed on men.
As males, once we’re out and about after dark, post-peak hour, we all know we’re in potential danger. So, let’s shift the burden back on to the birds – who certainly could be at large after curfew if they chose to but would know they’re at constant risk of being caught and spending the night in lock-up. (Which, in the scheme of things, still isn’t as bad as the risk of being accused as a rapist and murderer.)
But how about when I want to, say, go out and have dinner or a few drinks with female friends? Well, right now, at the conclusion of an evening’s festivities one or more of my female companions see me safely into a taxi. But under the new regime any women out after dark would have to be accompanied by a responsible male, and escorted in person to appropriate transport. It’s completely do-able. I can attest to it. I’ve been doing it for decades.
Same rules for any chick who works nights.
And if you can’t afford a taxi or an Uber or arrange for a friend to collect you? Well, ladies, you’d have to take your chances, just as the gentlemen currently do. (See above re risk of arrest and imprisonment v risk of gruesome, terrifying life-threatening accusations.)
I know it sounds untenable when the bare bones are laid out like this but I – and every other man in Canada – can assure you that it’s irritating, sure, but you do get used to it. Eventually it’ll become second nature.
And I know now the idea is out there – and given the passion of our political leaders for law and order and keeping us all safe – draft legislation can’t be far away.
Melanoma Whoston, who is a fucking insane media contributor, originally wrote this article on 9 July 2018, however, this version has switched genders for everyone to see how ridiculous and misandrist not only women, but the media in general, has become. If you would like to see what the publisher of this articles means, please view the original article here:
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.
Close up of woman locking entrance door with a key. Person using key and unlocking apartment door.
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.
The term heckler’s veto was coined by University of Chicago professor Harry Kalven to denote the suppression of speech by government to prevent the heckler’s behavior from becoming violent. In today’s parlance one would be forgiven if they were to call this the snowflake’s veto. Additionally, as apparent in many situations today such as universities or recent talk’s scheduled by Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern, speakers are silenced without the intervention of the law. Basically, the speakers’ messages are silenced because of threats of violence and the promoters or owners of the venues voluntarily cancel the venues.
One of the more egregious tendencies lately has been the burdening of huge fees levied against the event promoters, participants or both of fees for security because of the potential illegal actions of protesters. Again, this several speakers have had this tactic imposed upon them such as Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos and almost any conservative speaker since 2014.
Again, this type of lazy tactic is for the intellectually lazy or inept as they usually cannot debate the issues by providing claims and premises to refute another’s position or stance. It should be noted that this tactic is predominantly, if not entirely used by the left to shut down centrist or right leaning ideas. When analyzing this phenomenon, one cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that there is something wrong with the position taken by the individuals that utilize this tactic.
My question to you, do you think the snowflakes’ veto should be vehemently opposed at all costs?
Is boosting self-esteem a good thing or has it led to a generation of self-entitled snowflakes who do not have the skills to cope with the challenges life throws at them. Although there tends to be a preoccupation by parents, teachers and society in general to boost esteem, is it a dangerous preoccupation that only boosts ego? Are purveyors’ motives of boosting self-esteem grounded in scientific fact or intuitive feelings of doing good? Research has shown for decades that such efforts do little, if not anything, to improve academic performance, develop better interpersonal skills or prevent troublesome behavior. In fact, evidence supports the opposite, that artificially boosting self-esteem may lower overall performance, leave people more prone to disregard risks such as drug abuse as well as engage in sex (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2005).
The corollary, that the root of individual and therefore societal problems lies within the annals of low self-esteem is not only wrong, it is counter productive at best and dangerous at least. Raising self-esteem has been argued to reduce crime, drug abuse, academic underachievement, teen pregnancy, pollution and even as increased self-esteemed people supposedly earn higher wages, pay more taxes and therefore help balance state budgets as put forth in the late 1980s in California (Mecca, Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989). Little, if no evidence, was cited supporting assertions in the report.
Research has shown that people who consider themselves to be physically attractive have inherently high self-esteem. People who do not consider themselves to be gorgeous in their own eyes have low self-esteem, tended to be negative about everything and traditionally have been erroneously assessed prejudiced. However, it is difficult to justify a person to be prejudiced for rating people not like themselves negatively when they also rate themselves negatively. In fact, using the same criteria, the reverse is found. People with high self-esteem appear to be more prejudiced. The negatively natured low self-esteemed individuals usually describe their lives in a similar manner, negatively, and furnish an appearance that low self-esteem has unpleasant outcomes. Indeed, if high self-esteem manifest positive outcomes, then it would well be worth the time, effort and expense of instilling into individuals. However, if a positive self-image results from good behavior or success, then there is little to be gained in expending this time, effort and expense instilling self-esteem alone into individuals.
Upon reviewing studies relating self-esteem to academic performance, it was reasoned that boosting self-esteem a potent tool for helping students as logic suggests high self-esteem enhances students’ persistence and striving while reducing the paralyzing feelings of self-doubt and competence. However, studies do not show that higher self-esteem induce students to do better.
Pottebaum, Keith, and Ehly (1986) studied over 50,000 students along with several other studies (Baumeister et al., 2005; Keith, Pottebaum, & Eberhart, 1986; Pullmann & Allik, 2008) which indicate that rising self-esteem did not offer students much benefit. In fact, some studies suggested that artificially raising self-esteem may lower subsequent performance.
Researchers found the correlation between sophomore self-esteem and senior academic performance the same as the correlation between sophomore academic performance and senior self-esteem making it difficult to identify if either trait helps the other or if there is a third factor that gives rise to both superior achievement and high self-esteem.
Further, in considering that artificially raising self-esteem could serve a purpose later in life on the job it was concluded that the same effects echoed that of schoolwork studies. Even this failure to contribute significantly at school and the office would easily be offset if this heightened sense of self-worth helped people get along better with others. A good self-image might be preferable over individuals that suffer from self-doubts and insecurities.
People with high self-esteem regard themselves as popular and rate their friendships as superior to those of low self-esteem who report less social support and more negative interactions. However, these assertions do not reflect reality as Bishop and Inderbitzen (1995) found when asking 542 ninth-graders to nominate their most-liked and least-liked peers of which the resulting rankings displayed zero correlations with self-esteem scores.
The same has been found true in adults. Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, and Reis (1988) found strong links between self-esteem and various interpersonal skills but only when subjects rated themselves. When their roommates rated these same subjects, correlations with self-esteem fell for four of the five skills surveyed to levels that were not significant. However, as one might expect, the correlation between self-esteem and prowess in initiating relationships stayed somewhat robust.
The study found that college students with high self-esteem claimed to be substantially better at initiating relationships, disclosing personal aspects about themselves, asserting themselves in response to others’ objectionable behaviors, providing emotional support and even managing interpersonal conflicts. As mentioned earlier, the correlation with self-esteem for four of the five interpersonal skills surveyed dropped to near zero except for the subject’s ability to initiate new social contacts and friendships.
As expected, people who think they are desirable and attractive should be adept at starting conversations with strangers, contrasting those with low self-esteem who tend to shy away fearing rejection.
Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, and Kusche (2002) found that people with low self-esteem tend to distrust their partner’s expression of love and support and constantly expected rejection. Currently there has not been any evidence that such relationships are especially prone to dissolve. In fact, on the contrary, Rusbult, Morrow, and Johnson (1987) found that those with high self-esteem were more likely than others to respond to problems by severing relations and seeking other partners via the ‘exit’ option of the exit-voice-loyalty-neglect model.
Sexual activity among teenagers is regularly attributed to low self-esteem and this subject has been extensively examined and, all in all, the results do not support that low self-esteem predisposes young people to earlier or more sexual activity. Contrastingly, those with high self-esteem are less inhibited, more willing to disregard risks and more prone to engage in sex. Further, bad sexual experiences and unwanted pregnancies appear to lower self-esteem.
One of the most worrisome behaviors among young people has been the abuse of substances whether alcohol, illicit drugs or tobacco and psychologists once believed that increasing self-esteem would prevent such problems as people with low self-esteem, it was thought, turned to drinking, smoking or drugs for solace. However, data do not show that low adolescent self-esteem causes or even correlates with the abuse of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs. In their large scale longitudinal study, McGee and Williams (2000) found no correlation between self-esteem measured between ages 9 and 13 and drinking, smoking or drug use at age 15. What little findings that do show links between alcohol use and self-esteem are mixed and inconclusive.
The only evidence found that supported links between low self-esteem contributing to illicit drug use was Andrews and Duncan (1997) who found that declining levels of academic motivation caused self-esteem to drop, which in turn led to marijuana use. Not only is the connection weak, but the interpretation of the findings on drinking and drug abuse is complicated by the fact that some people approach the experience out of curiosity and others via thrill seeking. Still others may use it to cope with or escape from chronic unhappiness with the overall result being that no categorical statements can be made. A study-by-study review uncovered a preponderance of results that show no influence resulting in the same to be true for tobacco use as well. What little positive findings that were unearthed could reflect nothing more than self-report bias. Further complicating the issue is that the category of people with high self-esteem contains people whose self-opinions differ in important ways as people with a healthy sense of self-respect were commingled with those who are narcissistic and unsurprisingly, produced weak or contradictory findings.
Baumeister, Smart, and Boden (1996) challenged conventional views regarding low self-esteem being an important cause of aggression concluding that perpetrators of aggression not only held favorable views of themselves but inflated views of themselves. Dan Olweus first disputed the notion that bullies suffer from insecurities and self-doubt under their tough exteriors showing that bullies were surer of themselves and reported less anxiety than other children. The same has be found to apply to violent adults (Baumeister, 2001).
After concluding that high self-esteem does not deter adolescents from turning to tobacco, alcohol, drugs or sex. That it fails to improve academic or job performance and that it does not lessen a proclivity towards violence. It was satisfying to looking into how self-esteem relates to happiness, that it was consistently found that people with high self-esteem are happier than others and that they are less likely to be depressed.
In Diener and Diener (2009), high self-esteem emerged as the strongest factor in overall life satisfaction after 13,000 college students were surveyed. Once again when Lyubomirsky, Tkach, and DiMatteo (2006) reported data from more than 600 adults between the ages or 51 and 95, happiness and self-esteem were closely correlated.
It still needs to be established that causation exists, that high-self esteem brings about happiness, however, currently no research shows that outcome. It could be that academic, occupational and interpersonal success causes both high-self-esteem and happiness and that correspondingly, failures academically, occupationally and interpersonally cause both low self-esteem and unhappiness. Further, temperament or the disposition to feel good, that happiness itself, can induce high self-esteem.
Happiness (and depression) has been studied by means of self-report and a subject’s negativity may produce low evaluations of aspects of their lives as well as low opinions of themselves. However, there are no other agreed upon scales or constructs available to replace the current assessments, that to objectively measure a person to be more or to be less happy than they supposed convincingly is not within our reach. Additionally, we should not subsume self-reporting to be accepted uncritically.
Self-esteem has been found to improve persistence when faced with failure and some individuals with high self-esteem perform better than individuals with low self-esteem in some groups. Poor self-image is a risk factor for certain eating disorders in some people (Vohs, Bardone, Joiner Jr, & Abramson, 1999). Although lacking objective evidence, one could be inclined to accept subjective evidence that self-esteem goes hand in hand with happiness.
Artificially boosting self-esteem might be valuable for the individual, but this inflated self-worth could easily prompt some to demand preferential treatment or exploit others at a very real and considerable cost to society especially considering that little has been found to indicate that promoting self-esteem among children and adults for the sole reason of being themselves offers society any compensation beyond the self-edification of those involved.
It should be noted that all evidence for what promoting high self-esteem cures is not only notoriously unclear but is flawed or unsupported. There may be some correlations, but these correlations are just that, correlations and causation has not been established.
High self-esteem. May be popular. More likely to engage in other problem behaviors later in life, such as criminal activity or alcohol or other drug abuse.
Who do you find to be of higher servitude to society, of a higher value to society? The individual of high self-esteem, overly confident without cause, somewhat arrogant, perhaps competent or not, or the soft-spoken, humble individual, less confident, less boisterous, perhaps competent or not? Of inverse to what it is we have been espousing, that high self-esteem is the goal, there are many fine individuals of immense accomplishment, humble and self-deprecating and on the other hand, it is not uncommon for drug dealers, burglars, con artists and murderers to have very high self-esteem. Perhaps, once again, we have gotten it wrong.
References
Andrews, J. A., & Duncan, S. C. (1997). Examining the reciprocal relation between academic motivation and substance use: Effects of family relationships, self-esteem, and general deviance. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20(6), 523-549.
Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Violent pride. Scientific American, 284(4), 96-101.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Exploding the self-esteem myth. Scientific American Mind, 16(4), 50-57.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological review, 103(1), 5.
Bishop, J. A., & Inderbitzen, H. M. (1995). Peer acceptance and friendship: An investigation of their relation to self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(4), 476-489.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 55(6), 991.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (2009). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. In Culture and well-being (pp. 71-91): Springer.
Keith, T. Z., Pottebaum, S. M., & Eberhart, S. (1986). Effects of self-concept and locus of control on academic achievement: A large-sample path analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4(1), 61-72.
Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2006). What are the differences between happiness and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research, 78(3), 363-404.
McGee, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Does low self-esteem predict health compromising behaviours among adolescents? Journal of adolescence, 23(5), 569-582.
Mecca, A., Smelser, N. J., & Vasconcellos, J. (1989). The social importance of self-esteem: Univ of California Press.
Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Bellavia, G. M., Holmes, J. G., & Kusche, A. G. (2002). When rejection stings: How self-esteem constrains relationship-enhancement processes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(3), 556.
Pottebaum, S. M., Keith, T. Z., & Ehly, S. W. (1986). Is there a causal relation between self-concept and academic achievement? The Journal of Educational Research, 79(3), 140-144.
Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2008). Relations of academic and general self-esteem to school achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 559-564.
Rusbult, C. E., Morrow, G. D., & Johnson, D. J. (1987). Self‐esteem and problem‐solving behaviour in close relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 293-303.
Vohs, K. D., Bardone, A. M., Joiner Jr, T. E., & Abramson, L. Y. (1999). Perfectionism, perceived weight status, and self-esteem interact to predict bulimic symptoms: A model of bulimic symptom development. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(4), 695.
While watching a news clip I found myself doing a second-take, rubber-necking, if you will, to see if I understood that what I just heard was what I just heard. A representative of NOW (National Organization for Women) stated that the proposed attempt to defund abortion via Planned Parenthood, the US nation’s number one clinic for abortion, was not to prevent taxpayers from funding abortion but was “forcing women to have children.” Sonia Osorio, President of the New York Chapter for the National Organization for Women dishonestly stated that the proposed attempt would “take away access to abortion and take away birth control.” Ms. Osorio is a liar and intellectually bankrupt to put it mildly.
At one-point Ms. Osorio stated that Mr. Carlson should not “joke” about forcing people at gunpoint to pay for abortions. Apparently, she does not understand that if you do not pay your taxes you will have someone visit your home and escort you to jail at the end of a gun.
In fact, she is the exact reason why most men pretend to listen to women while the rest of men do not even pretend to ignore women. Why should taxpayers pay for abortion? Why should men pay for abortions? Additionally, women still have access to abortion if the proposed changes are accepted. They will just need to pay for them themselves. If you do not want to pay for your abortions, do not get pregnant. Remember, your body, your choice.
Further, birth control is not being taken way at all. Again, why should men or taxpayers in general pay for women’s contraceptives? Do taxpayers pay for men’s contraceptives? No. Women, I have a tip for you. If you lie, you will be called a liar. Stop lying and grow up. Furthermore, anyone can buy affordable birth control at any corner store or drug store.
Honestly, I am sick and tired of hearing women cry and bitch and whine like little unaccountable crybaby children about how they are so weak and need help from men all the time (the only people that actually pay taxes after transfers by the way). Women are the majority of people, the majority of university students and graduates, have affirmative action in order to hire them based on stupid equality of outcome guidelines that are discriminate towards men because they are so weak and inferior to men, obviously justifying these types of policy’s existence and actually earn more than men if you care to look at the statistics and facts, which women do not.
My body, my choice is a joke if you can do whatever you want and then coerce or black mail men to pay you for YOUR choice for the next 18-25 years. Also, lets be honest, ‘forcing women to have babies?”. No, screw that, lets force MEN to have babies.
I do not agree with abortion; however, I do not think it should be taken away from you or limited if you choose that have an abortion. With that said, I am vehemently opposed to having taxpayers pay for it. Ms. Osorio feels that abortion is a constitutional right and should be funded. She thinks this is a good position, claim and argument. It is not, and it is easy to conclude that in fact it is not. One only needs to read the constitution. In doing so, one can see (not feel) that one has the right to own guns.
Upon being asked about the same claim but for a real constitutional right, that if it is a constitutional right to own a gun, then why taxpayers aren’t forced to pay for guns or the NRA, Ms. Osorio’s response, “Now who is talking lunacy and who is being dishonest”. Her solipsism is palatable, and her beef is strong. Why do we listen to these types of women? Should we even pretend to listen to these types of women? Is this the problem? Is the problem, that we are polite and pretend to listen to them that they just keep talking? It is time we stop pretending to listen to women and shut down this type of banter before we just tune out whenever a woman opens her mouth in the first place or are we already there?
