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.
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.
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.
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.
Re-distribution of wealth is a great tool for raising millions of people out of poverty to join the middle classes. The problem is that it is not real. People become addicted to free fiat currencies. This corruption to free stuff produces anger to any voice that brings the truth (reality) to those that have been corrupted. Government fiat currencies are the most addictive drug known to mankind. Like any drug, if you stand between an addicted person and their drug of choice you get exposed to growing degrees of manipulation, cajoling, charming, rage and eventually violence.
Addicted to Free Stuff
The question is who would stand between the addicted and their free fiat currency they are addicted to. People who have been red-pilled, people who pay that fiat currency to the addicted are in the way. As we all know governments do not have money unless they print, borrow or tax people. Conservatives, libertarians, free market individuals, anarcho-capitalists and the voluntarists all stand in the way of the addicted and their free fiat currencies. Once you get people addicted to free fiat currencies and you continue stand between the addict and her supply, who genuinely believe they need it to survive, you get violence. This is even more true when it flows down to the poor and lifts them into the middle classes.
Highs Don’t Last Forever
One could be happy by working hard, bettering oneself with experience and education, working on keeping one’s relationships strong and trying to be a good person and being virtuous or you can take that drug, that free fiat currency. The problem is, like with any drug, this is unsustainable. Governments need to create or print, borrow or tax to have fiat currency. Again, like any drug, when the effects wear off you are worse than you were before.
Unrealistic Relative Wealth is not Wealth
The façade of alleviating poverty by printing money and injecting it into the economy is unsustainable, the façade breaks down because people have received wealth without the hard work, the discipline, the increasing of human capital, the reading of books or the development of skills. This wealth was acquired without the skillset that would usually take to rationality acquire it and they begin to panic, justifiably so. They have only obtained free money from the government which brought them up to this relative wealth unrealistically and mathematically it is impossible to continue.
Money for Free
Today’s leftist government’s social programs straight up give money to “today’s families” and are responsible to a degree for getting “today’s families” out of poverty and are cash transfer programs with minimal if any stipulations or regulations. What little regulations there are look like: you get this much of a hand-out per month and you get this much more for each child you have. These hand-outs never need to be paid back, never run out, have no requirements of having to prove she is looking for work and in many countries are called entitlements to not offend the recipients into think they are indeed hand-outs. The recipients of these hand-outs do not consider them as help at all but rather that these hand-outs are their rights, like air.
Anti-male Social Programs
These programs are written using such jargon as ‘family’ to not explicitly exclude men from receiving them, however, any man who could muster the legal know-how to qualify for them would be pressured and shamed into getting a job and not ‘abusing’ these types of programs.
All welfare programs have ‘anti-male’ undertones or prejudices. Welfare states do not need men anymore. Welfare states force men to pay women for irresponsible sexuality, for not being a good wife, for having too many children, for not being good at your job, for not being good at any job. In fact, one could easily argue that these ‘family’ programs not only condone these types of behaviors but motivate and promote women to participate in these types of behaviors. The welfare state is the single mother state.
Today’s Families are not Nuclear Families
Once upon a time woman served men to get money and men served women by bringing home the money. This was the basis of the family once known as the ‘nuclear family’, but today women no longer need to serve men to get money. With the welfare state you no longer need to be nice to men any more. The welfare state is financed by men to a large degree. Statistics show that women take out far more from social programs, from government spending than they pay in taxes, that women pay a net negative and that men pay a net positive in taxes. Therefore, the welfare state is paid for by the exploitation of men.
No Need for Men
The families in welfare states no longer need men. “Today’s Families” not only no longer need men, but there is an emotional motivation to scorn men. To exploit someone, you first need to dehumanize them. You can’t just be indifferent to men, you need to be hostile towards men. If you took something from someone we can equate those actions, grow empathy and create normal, sane and just human relations by saying how would you like it if that someone took something from you.
If you said that person is really a horrible person and that they stole that bike from that kid down the block that died from cancer a month ago, then it would be much easier for you to steal that bike from that someone, to justify, violently striping that someone of that bike and you ending up with that bike.
Sexual Marketplace Value (SMV)
From an amoral Darwinian evolutionary perspective, a man’s sexual market value (SMV) is primarily his resources and a woman’s SMV is primarily her sexuality. To strip a man of his resources is the same as to strip a woman of her sexuality, to give a woman a man’s resources is the same as to order that a woman must marry a man and force her to have sex with him.
Men do not use the government to strip SMV from women, to take women’s money from them, to take women’s children from them, or take whatever from women, men do not use the government to force women to marry men or for women to have sex with men. If they did, most everyone would find it appalling and justifiably so. To get past this feeling of being appalled, men would need to dehumanize women, men would need subjugate women, to objectify women. Men would need to be indifferent to women and to be hostile towards women.
How to Exploit
The welfare state is financed by the taxes of men and to exploit men to finance the welfare state, to strip men of wealth and resources (SMV) and give it to women without that feeling of being appalled, men need to be dehumanized. This stripping of men of their resources and therefore their SMV is analogous of forcing women to marry men, forcing women to have sex with men and therefore stripping women of their SMV.
To use the power of the state to exploit people, to use the power of the state to strip resources from men and give those resources to women, you must dehumanize men and not only be indifferent to men but be hostile toward men. Today, the state practices misandry and elevates the testimony of women to that above the testimony of men. Women are more reliable in the eyes of the state than men are.
The effects of Institutionalized Misandry
This is why the state pays women child-care and not men. This is why women are on welfare and not men. This is why men pay women alimony and child support and it is an outrage when a woman pays a man. This is why children are torn from their fathers. This is why there are deadbeat dads and not deadbeat moms.
Women are Biologically Natural Leftists
The leftist state likes women because women like the leftist state and because women like the leftist state, the leftist state says women are more reliable with money than men and therefore the leftist state gives women money. What the leftist state is really saying when they state that women are more reliable with money is that women are more reliable voters for leftist programs.
Marriage Options for Women Today
Women today have many options in life. Regarding marriage they can remain single, marry a man, marry a woman or marry the government. Marrying women have no real benefit for either woman as neither obtain status over the other and neither obtains status from the other. Remaining single has some benefits regarding men, but men eventually see them as trollops and the wall always approaches must faster like car mirrors that state, “objects are closer than they appear.” Marrying a man is still viable for many, except being indoctrinated into hating men from early ages, married women usually need to ‘put up’ with men before the windfall of divorce spoils. Additionally, with the advent of life-long bachelorism, one of the best happily-incurable diseases for men to catch today, MGTOWs, MRAs and the swallowing of bitter red pills, men are quickly waking up to the ill-effects of what modern marriage has to offer (or rather not offer) them.
When the Government is your Husband
The most lucrative of options regarding marriage for women today is to marry the government. When the welfare state, or single mother state provides you your resources you no longer need to stay attractive to men, there is no need to find value in men, you have no need to like men anymore. Once you get a welfare or single mother state, you get radical feminism, you get female obesity, you get blue, yellow and red haired, tattooed women that have absolutely no need to be attractive because you are getting your money from the state rather than a man
Politics is the Illegal being Legal, the Immoral Dressed as Moral
As mentioned earlier, the government has no money. They either create it by printing it, borrow it or tax the citizens that it will not be redistributed to. The GDP spent by the government by bribing the current population and redistributing it to the poor or newly elevated middle class is stolen. This redistribution is solely for political power, to create economically dependent classes of people who over time, being bribed time after time after time, continue to be hoodwinked under duress to make significant life decisions regarding the continued flow of free stuff used to bribe them into making these significant life decisions.
At least Drug Addicts Know Drugs are Bad
Unlike the drug addict who knows cognitively somewhere inside that this drug is bad and needs to be quit, that this drug may and could potentially not only destroy them financially, mentally, that this drug could destroy them socially, it could kill them, the free-money addicted does not see this. They think this free fiat currency is the real economy. They mistake it for charity. They mistake it for being kind. They mistake for helping the poor out of poverty.
More dangerous than drugs
The reality is that free money is worse than being addicted to drugs. Free money is a substance that cannot possibly continue without hurting people, many people. It only creates more government debt. It influences people in making fundamental life decisions such as leaving their husbands, jobs, or buying things they cannot afford. It demotivates people to learn new skills, to increase their value from a human capital perspective. Why would you better your skills to get money if you are already going to get that money anyway? These people are deluded, living a delusion and they are addicted to violence.
Do as I say, not as I do
These people require everyone to be addicted to a government’s handicapped vulnerable fiat currency and any person that uses or tries and create a competitive currency to that government’s fiat currency and tries to pay their taxes with it will be overtaken by force from the end of a barrel of a gun and will be thrown in jail. You cannot do what the government does because what the government does is illegal and if you do it, you are doing something illegal, namely fraud.
Normalizing Violence and Misandry
These people are not fundamentally addicted to fiat currency itself, but the coercion and violence that accompanies a government in gathering that wealth that is re-distributed to them, a wealth they genuinely believe they need to live and potentially, they are correct in that need, that they have been fattened up like a pig readied for the slaughter and essentially have no skills worthy enough to live in society.
Addicted to Violence
The idea that someone, anyone, who may potentially interfere with that free flow of money, with that re-distribution of wealth, may be dehumanized, marginalized, subjugated, hated, the idea that someone who may potentially interfere with the free-money addicts’ needs experiences violence or even death is entirely inline with the fact that people dependent on the state are addicted to violence. The idea that the state may initiate policy that is misandric in nature should not and is not surprising, it is manifest. It is with the group compliance of the supporters of leftist policy that it looks like there is no misandry. Do not pay what the government wants you to pay so they can do what they want, prevent them from their abuse of power to further solidify their political power, so they can ‘help’ those that vote for them, and they will put you in jail. In jail you can be raped, stabbed, murdered, contract diseases, experience sub-standard health care or nutritional requirements.
The Government is Corruption
There is no corruption in the government. The government is corruption. The government is exploitation, lies, propaganda, the selling of the unborn into perpetual enslavement via debt incurred before they were ever born and had no stake or say on.
Government is force, taxation is theft, money printing is counterfeiting and theft. Generally, in a democracy, the women get free stuff (free money), such as social programs, health care, child care, government education, etc. you go to jail if you do not pay the women off. The chaos of the welfare state, the single mother state, the chaos of the violence that erupts because of a society where significant portions of the population are addicted to the coercion and violence that is accompanied the gathering of wealth by a government to be re-distributed will manifest into outright violence as is being seen now all over the western world.
To bring to the forefront, the very idea that misandry has become institutionalized means that you are potentially humanizing men, that portion of society that is responsible for all these free-money addicts to be able to continue living. In doing so, humanizing men, you are potentially interfering with the collection of wealth, the amount of wealth, the very unpinning of all the leftist programs that these free-money addicts genuinely believe they require to live and you are the enemy. Under no circumstances can you be correct or even perceived as correct no matter how dumb their arguments for or against stances become.
This is why you see all the statements in recent supreme judge appointment hearings stating that if so and so gets appointed women will actually die. Here is a news flash for those very women that are crying for the women. Men have already died, are dying and will actually die no matter what the decisions are. This is a fact of life. Men want freedom. The larger the government, the less freedom men will have. Misandry is not only prevalent in today’s left-leaning societies, it has become institutionalized misandry. Why should we listen to you anymore?
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.
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: