The glass ceiling is now made of concrete.

[Toni]

I'm not the owner of any major corporation but personally, I would not be happy with any of my CEO's who were more concerned with maintaining their own personal status rather than doing what is best for my corporation.

You're even assuming their employer would want them to. They're going to be named in the lawsuit also, the employer very well might prefer that the young women not be mentored rather than face the risk of a bogus claim.

Unless you inherit a corporation, I don’t think that many CEO’s are actually so stupid or so clueless as to prefer to exclude young women from their pool of fresh talent in favor of dirty old men who won’t keep their hands and other body parts to themselves. And where CEOs are that clueless and stupid, boards of directors are not. Heck, sometimes there are actual women sitting on boards of directors. They are not usually stupid or clueless either. They realize full well that it is no longer 1959 and that women can do more than fetch coffee and spread their legged on command. In fact women are fully capable of doing the commanding and directing and running things. Boards of directors don’t need sexist misogynist dinosaurs and their outmoded excuses for not hiring or mentoring women as well as men. They need intelligent, strong, ethical, forward thinking leaders, not creeps who can only think with what’s in their pants. Assuming what’s in their pants even works.

 

[Underseer]

I'm not the owner of any major corporation but personally, I would not be happy with any of my CEO's who were more concerned with maintaining their own personal status rather than doing what is best for my corporation.

You're even assuming their employer would want them to. They're going to be named in the lawsuit also, the employer very well might prefer that the young women not be mentored rather than face the risk of a bogus claim.

Unless you inherit a corporation, I don’t think that many CEO’s are actually so stupid or so clueless as to prefer to exclude young women from their pool of fresh talent in favor of dirty old men who won’t keep their hands and other body parts to themselves. And where CEOs are that clueless and stupid, boards of directors are not. Heck, sometimes there are actual women sitting on boards of directors. They are not usually stupid or clueless either. They realize full well that it is no longer 1959 and that women can do more than fetch coffee and spread their legged on command. In fact women are fully capable of doing the commanding and directing and running things. Boards of directors don’t need sexist misogynist dinosaurs and their outmoded excuses for not hiring or mentoring women as well as men. They need intelligent, strong, ethical, forward thinking leaders, not creeps who can only think with what’s in their pants. Assuming what’s in their pants even works.

Yes, but you are conveniently forgetting the part where men are inherently superior in the workplace by virtue of their birth as superior beings.

You only think women should be treated equally because you are an evil Social Justice Warrior out to persecute your superiors because you are jealous of their penis-powered intellects. It's a known fact that your weird and incomprehensible lady parks causes your brain to malfunction, while penises cause brains to work better, and that's why people who think women are equal are bad evil people who are persecuting men.

Now please stop saying that women should be regarded as equal, as this hurts the feelings of the fragile snowflakes on the right. You really should know better than to express such opinions in public. Surely, you know from experience how much crying it causes. [/satire]

 

[bigfield]

One can distinguish good satire by the lack of a [/satire] tag.

 

[Toni]

One can distinguish good satire by the lack of a [/satire] tag.

Some people can, sure.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

This shouldn't surprise anybody. This is what happens when the digital mob lynches mens careers based on nothing but unsubstantiated accusations.

It took about a week of #MeToo before I realised that it'll do more damage to women's rights and gender equality than helping it. I think women will increasingly be locked out of the early stepping stones of careers. Eventually women will be gone completely from any management positions in industry.

And I think this is where it's inevitably heading because there's no way to go back to the way it was.

I didn't see anything about lynch mobs or unsubstantiated accusations in the article. I did, however, see this:
There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.

Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”

That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”

Yep, it's not that hard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not the owner of any major corporation but personally, I would not be happy with any of my CEO's who were more concerned with maintaining their own personal status rather than doing what is best for my corporation.

You're even assuming their employer would want them to. They're going to be named in the lawsuit also, the employer very well might prefer that the young women not be mentored rather than face the risk of a bogus claim.

Unless you inherit a corporation, I don’t think that many CEO’s are actually so stupid or so clueless as to prefer to exclude young women from their pool of fresh talent in favor of dirty old men who won’t keep their hands and other body parts to themselves.

The problem here is that you continue to assume all allegations are true. So long as you persist in this delusion you will not understand what's actually going on.

 

[Toni]

Unless you inherit a corporation, I don’t think that many CEO’s are actually so stupid or so clueless as to prefer to exclude young women from their pool of fresh talent in favor of dirty old men who won’t keep their hands and other body parts to themselves.

The problem here is that you continue to assume all allegations are true. So long as you persist in this delusion you will not understand what's actually going on.

The problem here is that you continue to assume, with zero evidence, including from Dr. Z's many posts and the article linked by Dr. Z that there is actually a problem with false allegations.

Dr. Z is the one who decried the firing of a famous journalist who was called out on various bad behavior, which included propositioning a 14 year old (unless you think Dr. Z is a liar) who was applying for a job on the excuse that the journalist was drunk and didn't know that she was 14--and that he hadn't been arrested or charged with an actual criminal offense. I'm not the one saying these things: Dr. Z is. I just don't see how it is acceptable to tell any job applicant, no matter their age, that the job is theirs if they will sleep with you, whether you are drunk or sober. Every single part of that would give any decent human being pause. I cannot believe that you think this behavior is ok and that it was not good cause to fire the journalist.

Do I think that some allegations will be proven to be false? Probably. I've never called for anyone to be fired or censured for mere allegations. I'm all for due process which is not the same process as it takes to prove a criminal offense.

I'm all for treating everyone with dignity and respect, particularly in the workplace. Being so fond of big business yourself, I would think you would agree. To do otherwise: to treat some people poorly based on their gender or race or sexual orientation is to risk exposing the business to serious repercussions that most businesses wish to avoid. Besides that, it costs nothing to treat other people well. Nothing. Not a damn thing. AND it's the right thing to do.

There is nothing wrong with taking normal precautions such as making sure to leave doors open when meeting with an employee, keeping drinking at business meetings to a bare minimum, treating everyone with respect and maintaining a professional demeanor. In fact, this is the way to get the best candidates on board, to get the best work out of every employee, to help every employee advance to the highest level they are capable of, to enable every single employee to help the company operate in the best, most profitable way possible.

I have to shake my head at watching men react in horror at the idea that for their own protection they need to watch their behavior, avoid being alone behind closed doors with employees, etc. What do you think women are expected to do every damn day of their lives, from before puberty forward? Not only do we have to worry about our jobs and careers being at risk but also our own physical safety. So pardon me if I am not too bent out of shape over men needing to keep doors open when they meet with attractive young female employees. I know it makes the women feel more secure. Unfortunately, that's a fact of life.

And why is it a fact of life? Because some men can't or won't keep their hands and dicks to themselves. That ain't our fault, Loren. Quit excusing that behavior.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It'll take many years before it shows effect. The women already on the inside of these major companies aren't going to get kicked out. They've already proved they can be trusted. Nor effect older women that much. It's the young women who are now going to be treated like they are toxic. We'll in the coming years see a drop off of young female interns who are fast tracked for high level management positions. On the numbers that are measurable on the outside in the companies the numbers will be fine for about 10 years and then I predict a sharp decline of women on high level management positions. But of course, on the inside of these companies it's already obvious. Just talking to them says it all.

I hang out with top level managers and CEO's of Stockholm. I can hear how they're talking. They're all afraid of taking on young women now. It's genuine fear. They're all terrified that things they've said in the past can be used against them. Nobody knows if they're safe, because the incriminating statements are always taken out of context. According to the rules of #MeToo I'm sure all men are guilty. Because #MeToo ignores how men actually talk. Or I shouldn't say men... I mean humans.

Poor babies! To think that past sexism and misogyny which is totally, 100% erased from their minds, actions, and beings could possibly be held against them if they try to grope some woman or tell a 14 year old--or 40 year old she can have a job if she'll sleep with him! How terrible women are not to take each incident as a totally separate incident and not as one in a chain of events that demonstrate systemic, entrenched discrimination and misogyny!

Again... you are completely misrepresenting what their/the problem is, or what the OP is about. Try again.

I'm not the owner of any major corporation but personally, I would not be happy with any of my CEO's who were more concerned with maintaining their own personal status rather than doing what is best for my corporation.

Sex scandals damage a company's image. So avoiding that is what will be best for your corporation. If a false accusation of a sex scandal has the same impact on a company as a true accusation, then it is in the companies best interest to keep young women away from men of power. The regrettable result is that this prevents them from later reaching high level corporation management positions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem here is that you continue to assume, with zero evidence, including from Dr. Z's many posts and the article linked by Dr. Z that there is actually a problem with false allegations.

That's still not what this thread is about. There are cases where false accusations took down innocent men and these women met virtually no resistance. On the contrary, uncritically cheered on by almost everybody with great force. Even when the innocence of the men was clear and obvious. That's the precedent. Since people respond to incentives it would be irresponsible for companies not to act on this. At the moment there is no protection from it other than keeping young women away from powerful men. I see nothing on the horizon that shows that consumers of media are becoming increasingly critical about #MeToo accusations. I'm not the only person who has made that observation.

Just the fact that the men and companies take a hit immediately upon the accusation being made, rather than after the accusations has been validated through the courts, proves it.

 

[thebeave]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. Or perhaps he'll get accused of "mansplaining" a concept to her, or alternatively, purposely talking over her head to confuse or intimidate her. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

 

[Toni]

The problem here is that you continue to assume, with zero evidence, including from Dr. Z's many posts and the article linked by Dr. Z that there is actually a problem with false allegations.

That's still not what this thread is about. There are cases where false accusations took down innocent men and these women met virtually no resistance. On the contrary, uncritically cheered on by almost everybody with great force. Even when the innocence of the men was clear and obvious. That's the precedent. Since people respond to incentives it would be irresponsible for companies not to act on this. At the moment there is no protection from it other than keeping young women away from powerful men. I see nothing on the horizon that shows that consumers of media are becoming increasingly critical about #MeToo accusations. I'm not the only person who has made that observation.

Just the fact that the men and companies take a hit immediately upon the accusation being made, rather than after the accusations has been validated through the courts, proves it.

I'm pretty sure you haven't actually read the article you linked in the OP. At least two people have quoted directly from it, and shown the article contradicts your thesis. Frankly, you contradict your own thesis rather thoroughly. So far, you haven't even once provided an example of something terrible happening to an innocent man. BTW, you're the only one who thinks an adult male telling a 14 year old (or 40 year old) that she can have a job if she sleeps with him is ok or excusable because he was drunk while he made the proposition. Instead of proving your point---that poor, innocent men are harmed! you've demonstrated the exact opposite.

That's on you.

 

[Toni]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

I'm sure that there are men who are worried about fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. I know that there are women who worry about actual rape and sexual assault in the workplace. I know which is documented to take place and which are speculation.

I'm not sure why it is necessary to engage in after hours socializing that involves becoming drunk and acting inappropriately. I'm pretty certain that the biggest issue for (some) men is that they will no longer be able to engage in bad behavior but instead must watch their behavior and the amount of alcohol they consume.

That's a real drag.

Ask any woman.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. Or perhaps he'll get accused of "mansplaining" a concept to her, or alternatively, purposely talking over her head to confuse or intimidate her. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

That's an excellent point. The interpreter of the action sits on all the power. That literally means that no man who has contact with women is safe. It would be stupid and irresponsible not to take precautions

- - - Updated - - -

The problem here is that you continue to assume, with zero evidence, including from Dr. Z's many posts and the article linked by Dr. Z that there is actually a problem with false allegations.

That's still not what this thread is about. There are cases where false accusations took down innocent men and these women met virtually no resistance. On the contrary, uncritically cheered on by almost everybody with great force. Even when the innocence of the men was clear and obvious. That's the precedent. Since people respond to incentives it would be irresponsible for companies not to act on this. At the moment there is no protection from it other than keeping young women away from powerful men. I see nothing on the horizon that shows that consumers of media are becoming increasingly critical about #MeToo accusations. I'm not the only person who has made that observation.

Just the fact that the men and companies take a hit immediately upon the accusation being made, rather than after the accusations has been validated through the courts, proves it.

I'm pretty sure you haven't actually read the article you linked in the OP. At least two people have quoted directly from it, and shown the article contradicts your thesis. Frankly, you contradict your own thesis rather thoroughly. So far, you haven't even once provided an example of something terrible happening to an innocent man. BTW, you're the only one who thinks an adult male telling a 14 year old (or 40 year old) that she can have a job if she sleeps with him is ok or excusable because he was drunk while he made the proposition. Instead of proving your point---that poor, innocent men are harmed! you've demonstrated the exact opposite.

That's on you.

Come on. Why not challenge the things I've actually said?

- - - Updated - - -

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

I'm sure that there are men who are worried about fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. I know that there are women who worry about actual rape and sexual assault in the workplace. I know which is documented to take place and which are speculation.

I'm not sure why it is necessary to engage in after hours socializing that involves becoming drunk and acting inappropriately. I'm pretty certain that the biggest issue for (some) men is that they will no longer be able to engage in bad behavior but instead must watch their behavior and the amount of alcohol they consume.

That's a real drag.

Ask any woman.

Whataboutism. Lame argument. Try again

 

[Toni]

That's an excellent point. The interpreter of the action sits on all the power. That literally means that no man who has contact with women is safe. It would be stupid and irresponsible not to take precautions

- - - Updated - - -

The problem here is that you continue to assume, with zero evidence, including from Dr. Z's many posts and the article linked by Dr. Z that there is actually a problem with false allegations.

That's still not what this thread is about. There are cases where false accusations took down innocent men and these women met virtually no resistance. On the contrary, uncritically cheered on by almost everybody with great force. Even when the innocence of the men was clear and obvious. That's the precedent. Since people respond to incentives it would be irresponsible for companies not to act on this. At the moment there is no protection from it other than keeping young women away from powerful men. I see nothing on the horizon that shows that consumers of media are becoming increasingly critical about #MeToo accusations. I'm not the only person who has made that observation.

Just the fact that the men and companies take a hit immediately upon the accusation being made, rather than after the accusations has been validated through the courts, proves it.

I'm pretty sure you haven't actually read the article you linked in the OP. At least two people have quoted directly from it, and shown the article contradicts your thesis. Frankly, you contradict your own thesis rather thoroughly. So far, you haven't even once provided an example of something terrible happening to an innocent man. BTW, you're the only one who thinks an adult male telling a 14 year old (or 40 year old) that she can have a job if she sleeps with him is ok or excusable because he was drunk while he made the proposition. Instead of proving your point---that poor, innocent men are harmed! you've demonstrated the exact opposite.

That's on you.

Come on. Why not challenge the things I've actually said?

I have repeatedly challenged what you've written.

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

I'm sure that there are men who are worried about fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. I know that there are women who worry about actual rape and sexual assault in the workplace. I know which is documented to take place and which are speculation.

I'm not sure why it is necessary to engage in after hours socializing that involves becoming drunk and acting inappropriately. I'm pretty certain that the biggest issue for (some) men is that they will no longer be able to engage in bad behavior but instead must watch their behavior and the amount of alcohol they consume.

That's a real drag.

Ask any woman.

Whataboutism. Lame argument. Try again

My argument did not crash and burn. I simply reported restated what you argued and what your link actually stated. You keep saying that there are all these men out there who are falsely accused and punished and proven to be innocent. Yet you have not actually given a single valid example. FWIW, I'm not the only person who quoted directly from the article you linked in the OP. You know: the part that said that men should maybe resort to not being jerks. Here it is again, from your link in your OP:

“Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.”

There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.

Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”

That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”

Your OP. Your link. Your petard.

(for easy reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard

 

[thebeave]

Here's a real life example from my neck of the woods. This is an outake from The Red Pill documentary, where the director (Cassie Jaye, then a feminist) does a "man on the street" type interview with a former HP software engineer who had a rather interesting story to tell. His experience happened long before the #MeToo movement, but I can imagine things have gotten worse since his incident.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye4fAZTkvNg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[RavenSky]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow... After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now... If you do include [women], you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing...

True incident:

Company hired a regional sales executive effective on a Monday. We will call him John Doe. I was asked to meet with him and two other recently hired regional sales executives to get them all up to speed, and to generally get to know each other because we would all be part of the east coast team. On that Friday, we met at one of our offices in the conference room, and then later I took them to lunch.

During the office meeting, we went around the table introducing ourselves. Each of us gave our names, short career background, and where we were originally from. Miami, New York, Chicago, California... John Doe proceeds to single out the other woman in the room, DL, to ask her where she was from "before California". She said, "I was born in California"; so he followed up with, "OK, but where are your parents from?" It was obvious to all of us why he was asking, but she simply said again, "California."

A little bit later, as John Doe was telling us his ideas for getting started in his territory, I joked that he was going to give JK (one of the other sales executives attending this meeting) competition for top producer; to which John Doe replied that he was also going to crash all of JK's events and bring "dancing girls" to sit on all of the men's laps thereby stealing JK's business.

A bit after that, as I was discussing Fair Housing laws, John Doe announces that people from Chicago don't pay any attention to Fair Housing laws. I ignored this aside & continued, but he wouldn't let it drop until I had to sharply tell him that in Florida & in this position, he WILL follow Fair Housing laws.

On our way to lunch, during the general chit-chat, John Doe announces that the only reason he took this job was to find a rich Realtor wife.

At lunch, after he made a lame joke about none of the rest of us ordering an alcoholic drink, he again asks DL about her ethnic background. Then he asks her if her husband is also Korean. She said "no". He then comments that hopefully her husband drinks a lot at least, to put her parents at ease. I could feel her entire body just stiffen next to me as she told him very coldly that her parents don't drink at all.

We made it through lunch and went our separate ways, but before I was even out of the parking lot I was on the phone to my supervisor, who in turn called HR. I and the other two employees at the meeting were interviewed by HR; and John Doe was promptly fired.

I am 100% sure that John Doe really believes (as he claimed to HR) that his "words [were] twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning".

What do you think?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What do you think?

I think it's weird that you stopped your post in the middle of the story. Did the man find his rich realtor wife or not? I am so hoping for a happy ending for this emotionally scarred, hapless victim of the SJW agenda.

 

[RavenSky]

What do you think?

I think it's weird that you stopped your post in the middle of the story. Did the man find his rich realtor wife or not? I am so hoping for a happy ending for this emotionally scarred, hapless victim of the SJW agenda.

No. The feminazi turned him down.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What do you think?

I think it's weird that you stopped your post in the middle of the story. Did the man find his rich realtor wife or not? I am so hoping for a happy ending for this emotionally scarred, hapless victim of the SJW agenda.

No. I turned him down.

Fucking hell. First Bill Cosby and now this guy. When will decent people be able to catch a break against the screeching harridans who want to use #MeToo to destroy lives for the sake of evil?

 

[Jokodo]

Here's a real life example from my neck of the woods. This is an outake from The Red Pill documentary, where the director (Cassie Jaye, then a feminist) does a "man on the street" type interview with a former HP software engineer who had a rather interesting story to tell. His experience happened long before the #MeToo movement, but I can imagine things have gotten worse since his incident.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye4fAZTkvNg[/YOUTUBE]

So he had an incident listed in his annual evaluation he didn't feel merited reporting, and his protests against its inclusion were ineffective. He was not fired, nor it appears skipped for promotion or indeed, it seems, suffer any real world consequences for it, yet concludes that men have no rights anymore?

Seriously, if this is the evidence you build your case upon, you have no case.