Now men are assholes taking steps to protect themselves from #metoo scenarios

[RASmanParticipant 1994]

It’s hard for a relationship like that to develop if the senior person is unwilling to spend one-on-one time with a more junior person.”

I find the term “One ON one” offensive. That would mean the man ON the woman; “ON” has to go.
Under is also offensive- “I served UNDER him” – how does that sound?
Also subordinate – that would mean she was his “SUB”; “subordinate” has to go.

[BoarParticipant]

When proximity to whimyn has become a clear and present danger to men, what did they expect us to do? Until there is equal accountability for both genders, there can be no equality. And we all know feminism was never about equality.

Untamed wrote: Quit complaining and Go Your Own Way in whatever manner suits you best.

[SH3LLZParticipant 5569]

F~~~ these broads!

#ICETHEMOUT!!

#ICETHEMOUT!!! #MANOUT!!! #HIDEYOURWEALTH #VAGINAISWORTHLESS

[JustAnotherGuyParticipant]

Secret Agent MGTOW wrote:

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?

I am not in a managerial position. I have no desire to maneuver for that kind of position. But even I have been a victim of this. Female colleague once upon a time ran to my immediate supervisor with some contrived story about how I was giving her unwanted attention. The boss sided with me because of my reputation and tenure at the company…but if I had been an actual manager or a new hire? I would have had a walk to HR.

Women at work are sensitive to EVERYTHING. Sometimes they can’t help it, sometimes it is intentional and they are looking for a payout.

The only play is non-engagement, and that doesn’t just apply to the bosses, managers, leaders, or donors.

This is the future THEY wanted. They thought they could just seize at power undeserved and there would be no reaction, but men aren’t stupid.

Cupcakes are Cold. MGTOW is Absolute Zero.
“Let us wait a little; when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him” –Napoleon Bonaparte, 1805

[JustAnotherGuyParticipant]

Secret Agent MGTOW wrote:

And what you just said doesn’t even work in real life. Higher up women do not mentor lower women as replacements. They dont do it. in fact another story posted here not too long ago made a clear case that almost all women do not like working for a woman superior.

So this whole idea that there needs to be a woman higher up to ensure other make it up the chain, in real life, that just does not happen.

Nobody wants a female boss…especially a female employee. They KNOW that women are dishonest and unfair (hashtag not all) and cannot handle the continuous pressure of being in charge. Women don’t want to be the boss, but they want to pretend that they do just long enough to get some kind of payout or secure a high-value male (“nice husband”). Women don’t WANT to be in charge–that’s why there is such a dearth of female leaders and executives.

Cupcakes are Cold. MGTOW is Absolute Zero.
“Let us wait a little; when your enemy is executing a false movement, never interrupt him” –Napoleon Bonaparte, 1805

[MonkParticipant 16979]

What’s scaring them is that they are now seeing drastically reduced opportunities for snaring a high-rolling husbank.

[TicParticipant 4329]

Secret Agent MGTOW wrote:

“Women are grasping for ideas on how to deal with it, because it is affecting our careers,” said Karen Elinski, president of the Financial Women’s Association and a senior vice president at Wells Fargo & Co. “It’s a real loss.”

Oh for f~~~s sake, how many times will these women claim victimhood. They always find a way to cry foul. In any situation, time, location. It never ends. “Me, me , me ,me… who s gonna feel sorry for me. ”

And they wonder mgtow don’t want to deal with their bulls~~~.

God bless peace and freedom.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Here’s what isn’t being said specifically about this situation. Almost all guys go through their entire career without ever sexually harassing a woman. At most they may say something that can be taken out of context by someone who is just looking for a free handout and will go to HR and be “offended” and want to sue.

So most of us are just caught in the jet wash of a few assholes. I KNOW I will never sexually harass a woman at my work intentionally. I KNOW I will never ask one of them out on a date. I KNOW I will never try to get one of them to have an affair with me. So my only risk at work is a woman that is looking for any way to get sexual harassment charged filed on some idiot at work and get herself PAID.

I am forced to protect myself due to the behavior of 1% of men. Judy will have to deal with the consequences of me protecting myself against 1% of women.

And for the record, I have women that work for me now that do a great job and I have gone to bat for them numerous times. And I can do all of that without ever going to lunch by ourselves, meeting after work by ourselves, or having any sexual tension at all. I don’t think that any of them would ever be “that” 1% woman, but just as a matter of practice I don’t go out one on one with anyone from work. In a group, fine. And that goes for men or women.

So in a way, the guy that said it’s not that hard is right. It’s not that hard to keep work to work and personal to personal. All I have to do is protect myself from the 1%. And all Judy has to do is work with the fact that I’m protecting myself from the 1%.

I might also suggest that if the only way to get ahead is to deal with sleazy men then maybe don’t go into that profession. Or, start an all women’s company and kick their ass.

Order the good wine

[Branched offParticipant 10926]

“Men have to step up, she said, and “not let fear be a barrier.””

You will be dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.

SO DON’T! Be dammed for walking away. Its got so much more self worth and self satisfaction in it than the anger and self loathing that will follow for being dammed for being a mangina white knight who just got shafted.

A woman is like fire -fun to play with, can warm you through and cook your food, needs constant feeding, can burn you and consume all you own

[narwhalParticipant]

TaxGuy wrote:

I am forced to protect myself due to the behavior of 1% of men. Judy will have to deal with the consequences of me protecting myself against 1% of women.

That’s incorrect. The fact that 1% of men are potential rapist (whatever the number is), is not the reason you have to protect yourself from false acquisition. That SHOULD be the reason why women protect themselves from rape. What you and other men are doing is protecting yourself from women.

Look at it this way, if the number of actual rapes dropped to below .00001%, would you have any less need to protect yourself from false acquisition? Women have pushed out that a woman must be believed, that a man must prove his innocence. If this were not the case, then you would not need to protect yourself. In fact, at times in history were much higher than 1%, you would not have to protect yourself from false acquisition.

Women do not want to protect themselves from rape. Any suggestion they make any attempt to protect themselves is labelled as ‘victim blaming’. Logically, they should be praising this change that is removing the need for them to be alone with a man to further their career. They should be encouraging this and pushing for mentoring programs that don’t push them into these situations.

But it’s not about protection from harm, it’s about power. Women want to be able to take risks without consequences. They do not care about equality or fairness if in conflicts with their ability to take risks without consequences.

Ok. Then do it.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

narwhal wrote:

Women do not want to protect themselves from rape. Any suggestion they make any attempt to protect themselves is labelled as ‘victim blaming’.

Yeah its ridiculous. If you tell someone if you want to lessen your chances of having your car broken into or stolen, don’t leave anything valuable in plain sight inside your car of someone who walks by and looks in the window, don’t leave your windows down, your doors unlocked, or the keys in the ignition, pretty much everyone would agree that is good advice. We all know breaking into and stealing cars is wrong, but we also know a certain percent of the population is going to do it regardless and not give a f~~~.

However, you say to a college chick if you want to lessen your chances of a sexual encounter you regret, or possibly even getting raped, don’t go to parties dressed liked a tramp and proceed to get blacked out drunk and/or high, and now you are victim blaming, she should be able to do what she wants and men should keep their peckers in their pants.

Hey honey…that’s great, I’m not disagreeing, but you know what, I should be able to park my car with my laptop on my backseat, the windows down, and the keys in the ignition anywhere I want and not have to worry about it too, but unfortunately that is not how the world works, and if you want to lessen your chances of being a victim don’t do things to put yourself in a high risk group. They just can’t seem to grasp that logic. Its easier to play victim for being told don’t put yourself in a high risk situation, and then should something bad happen its a smooth transition into playing victim over something bad happening.

[narwhalParticipant]

Beer wrote:

However, you say to a college chick if you want to lessen your chances of a sexual encounter you regret, or possibly even getting raped, don’t go to parties dressed liked a tramp and proceed to get blacked out drunk and/or high, and now you are victim blaming, she should be able to do what she wants and men should keep their peckers in their pants.

In a way, I get it. They don’t want to dress like a librarian and live a boring life, as they see it. That’s fine. However, I’ve never seen someone who rides motorcycles start saying that everyone else needs to drive safer after they get in an accident. That’s not to say that people shouldn’t drive safer, just a realization that making motorcycles 100% safe is not realistic. They accept the risk and the consequences that come with it. After the accident, they either give it up or accept the risks yet again.

Ok. Then do it.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

narwhal wrote:

They accept the risk and the consequences that come with it.

Exactly. I’m by no means saying a girl who dresses slutty and gets trashed at big parties around many people she doesn’t know deserves to get raped, nor does it make it ok for a guy to rape her based on her actions…I’m just saying their idea of “victim blaming” is a retarded rationalization when they are reminded risks have consequences, and if you don’t want to face those very real consequences don’t put yourself in a high risk pool.

It doesn’t mean she has to dress like a librarian and live a boring life…just don’t go getting so f~~~ed up you don’t know where you are, and always go to parties or bars with a group of friends so you don’t end up willfully going home with some random and regretting it when you sober up when a friend might have been able to keep you out of that situation before you crossed the line.

Its pretty much like your riding a motorcycle, obeying the laws, and someone texting and driving hits you because they weren’t paying attention, you are a victim. If you are ripping a wheelie down the highway while going 110 and lose it and wipe out, you are an idiot. Both were in a motorcycle accident, yet under very different contexts one a victim, the other just stupid. Its no different than some girl at a party having some random dude slipping her a roofie and raping her, and some girl at a party feeling good after a few drinks, getting willingly gang banged by the rugby team, then crying #MeToo the next day when she realizes word got around campus. When you put those events in context one of those girls in a victim and did nothing wrong, and the other was an idiot and her situation 100% caused by her own stupidity.

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

A year ago, I was thinking about trying to stop all this. Then I realized… Why?

Why do something like take women’s rights away when you can just take yourself out of the equation?

Finance does not require a physical presence to do the job. Almost everything can be done virtually.

They have women only companies, doing segregation in the workplace under the radar would be all to easy. Remember, these people find loopholes that would make a Hacker jelly in the code of law.

Besides, is anyone going to care? Nope. These are the people who run the system. They profit from all its misery. You think they are going to open themselves up to the same s~~~?

Think again. Follow the money. Then you will find out just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Those laws? Those Law Firms? Who do you think put up the capital to get them there? How else could put such a system in place if there was not so much money to be spread around?

Wonder who might know how to do that.. Hmmm..

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[Mr. SpockParticipant 10907]

Secret Agent MGTOW wrote:

“There aren’t enough women in senior positions to bring along the next generation all by themselves,” said Lisa Kaufman, chief executive officer of LaSalle Securities. “Advancement typically requires that someone at a senior level knows your work, gives you opportunities and is willing to champion you within the firm. It’s hard for a relationship like that to develop if the senior person is unwilling to spend one-on-one time with a more junior person.”

Not our problem. Women now admit that they need the bicycle. How quaint.

Feminism isn't about equality with men, it's about leverage over men.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Awakened wrote:

THEY brought it upon themselves.
What we have here is simple self preservation.

And the really weird thing is that many women still just don’t ‘get-it’. I suspect that they never will.

It’s not a hatred for women. It just survival…

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Puffin Stuff wrote:

Harvard announced today that any student that is in a segregated club or society is no longer able to be have full rights on campus.

So make it a Selective Service Club. Membership is only open to individuals, of any professed sex, race, creed, etc., possessing a U.S. Selective Service Card.

When women bitch, look them straight in the eye and explain to them that they’ve only had a century, and several major wars, to correct this bureaucratic oversight.

And if Harvard bitches, sue them into the stone age. The sooner the better. While they still have money. Harvard is so f~~~ed when the higher “education” bubble pops.

[JB BooksParticipant 3182]

Amazing how the law of unintended consequences works!

We just don't realize life's most significant events while they're happening. Back then, I thought, "Well, there'll be other days". I didn't realize that that was the only day. - "Moonlight" Graham

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

Puffin Stuff wrote:

Men are starting to wisen up and realize that women have been trying to knock men out of all positions of power. If you read the article, the only problem feminists have with gender segregation is that there are not enough senior women to guarantee the success of each and every ambitious little worker bee to be boss one day.

If the feminists plans succeed there will be no men in management and having a vagina will be the only requirement for managerial positions.

Men will be sent off to work in the mines.

^this^

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[WraithParticipant 242]

Puffin Stuff wrote:

Men sexually segregating from the Gynocracy is such a devastatingly effective tool that Harvard announced today that any student that is in a segregated club or society is no longer able to be have full rights on campus. If you are a male and seen to be in a male only group you will no longer have the right to be the Captain of things such as sports teams. Basically relegating those who try to avoid putting themselves at the mercy of the Gynocracy as persona non-grata in society.
Gynocentric groups, like female only clubs, sororities, female empowerment clubs, are exempt.
Of course.
I believe this will not hold. Segregation of the sexes is he natural state of things. Most major religions practice segregation of the sexes. It is we who are so full of ourselves and far from the truth in this endeavour to place women above men. A position they are not qualified for.

According to this WSJ article, Harvard is being sued for this policy. It looks like the policy has been in place for around a year.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/harvard-faces-lawsuits-over-sanctions-on-single-sex-clubs-1543873206

They say that the sanction for membership in single-sex groups is aimed at the final clubs, which one university official seems to believe he can effortlessly vilify by saying it’s about white male privilege. Even if that’s true, so what? People of other identities can form their own groups. Those other groups probably already exist.

[Author]

Posts