Said Pat Milligan, who advises companies about gender issues, quoted in "Another Side of #MeToo: Male Managers Fearful of Mentoring Women" (NYT). She's trying to overcome the problem the title refers to.
There's also this, from Marc Pritchard: "It’s not enough to stand by when toxic masculinity is on display. It’s not enough to stand by and say ‘that’s not me.’ You need to be a role model for the next generation.... We need something like Lean In circles for men."
The NYT identifies Pritchard as the chief brand officer for Procter & Gamble, but it doesn't mention that P&G owns Gillette and that Gillette just put out that strange commercial that actually uses the term "toxic masculinity."
Anyway, I think Milligan's triad might be helpful — clueless, creepy, or criminal. Not that it's easy to know and to perceive where these lines are.
"Toxic masculinity" is a problematic term for general use because it has 2 possible meanings, as I discussed a few days ago:
The okay meaning sees the adjective "toxic" in "toxic masculinity" like the adjective "red" in "red shoes." It identifies a subcategory — the shoes that are red (as opposed to all the many other shoes) and the masculinity that is toxic (as opposed to all the other masculinity).I did a little survey that I think shows why the term should be avoided:
The hateful meaning sees the adjective "toxic" in "toxic masculinity" like the adjective "beloved" in "beloved country." You're referring to one thing — one country or masculinity as a single concept — and you're branding it as "beloved" or "toxic."
Posts
143 comments:
Well, based on the Gillette commercial, the solution is obvious, right.....hire lots of woke black men to step in and teach the toxic white males what is and isn't appropriate.
I don't give a goddman about "defending women" from tosic masculinity wandering around a business.
"For years, all-male panels at Davos were a common sight, and the proportion of female participants has only marginally increased in recent years, reaching 22 percent this January."
--
Toxic Logic
Must be nice to get paid for advice on how to ruin a company.
“Lean In Circles for Men” = circle jerk
I take issue with Toxic Masculinity and Crony Capitalism for roughly the same reason. Crony Capitalism is the close cousin to Fascism and bears little relation to free market capitalism. Same for toxic masculinity or hyper masculinity. Masculinity is about providership and honorable protection. The behaviors associated with toxic masculinity hurt those who would be protected or provided for - the opposite of masculinity.
Asshole would be a far more accurate academic label.
It's also interesting that those who would employee either term tend to not like the non-modified version either.
"Lean in"?
How MSNBC/Maddow
I have worked with women that used accusations of sexism or sexual harassment to do many things. Get rid of a man they didn't like, get rid of a supervisor that asked them to do their jobs, get promoted, not get fired, and get of a performance improvement plan.
I fully respect any man that takes the "Pence" attitude to working with women. I've seen how bad it can get.
Just like men can be vicious creatures, women can be vicious creatures as well. They just wear make-up when they do it.
I read somewhere that a female wrote that preachy Men's razor ad.
Men - step up and sell me some tampons. I demand equality!
Creepy is in the eye of the beholder.
Shonin
I can only imagine what life is like in any corporate business these days. Big to small, you men better watch it. Not even a hint of something toxic.... like say, an inappropriate smile.
There are several business owners I consult for that told me in private after the Kavanaugh hearings that "they'd hired their last woman" - forever. HR would be transitioned to additional future males staff to curb the gender-nepotism. Female retirements, resignations, or firings will not be replaced with female staff.
It's not just "not mentoring" women. It's not hiring them. The damage women have done for their opportunities from the Rolling Stone piece to fake #metoo accounts to Kavanaugh will be felt for decades. It just hasn't hit home.
It's not worth it, creepy or justifiable or no. The problem can be avoided by not hiring women. There are creative ways to deal with that problem on the front end, rather than dealing with it on the back end.
Toxic masculinity.
When you say that to me, Smile.
"If you think they are clueless, you can coach them... Clueless can become creepy very quickly if you don’t address it. If they are creepy, you have to act."
My experience with working with women over fifty-two years points to a fourth possibility, e.g., the men are okay but the women involved may be hysterical snowflakes who are ill suited for their profession.
Time for a lesson from Lazlo’s diversity counselor....
Thank God, I'm not working in the corporate world.
I don't have to put up with the women's asshole ideology much. Hardly at all.
As someone who works in the Corporate world, I can tell you there are two separate problems.
1) creepy clueless men
2) creepy clueless women.
The Second is never discussed. There are a lot of batty women - and evil ones - who will use sexual harrassment claims for revenge, promotion, and everything in between.
Women aren't angels - as I've often explained to some clueless man.
"Clueless, creepy or criminal"
What's missing? "None of the above"
And why shouldn't the accuser be subject to a the same test?
Sometimes when I've talking to a clueless "White Knight" in trouble, I wish he'd just quit or retire. What dumbos they are!
How do you get a college education and spend years in a corporation and not understand the first thing about 1/2 of the human race?
believe it or not, there are STILL men out there that think every woman is like their girlfriend, mother, or sister.
"clueless,
creepy,
or criminal."
"forgot" to take her birth control pills — clueless
because, she says, she has better orgasms without them — creepy
or else, no problem, she'll just murder the fetus — criminal
The ‘Lean in Circle for Men’ for men was called the old boy netowrk and you made them get rid of it.
Substitute; is it ok for a woman to make a man feel uncomfortable? When the man is uncomfortable, is it because the woman is clueless, creepy, or criminal? Might there be another option when it is the man that is uncomfortable, and other than sexism, why wouldn't that option apply to an uncomfortable woman?
What if the woman is uncomfortable for a reason outside the man's control, but the man is part of it? For example, the woman isn't very good at her job, and can be replaced by the man? Perhaps she knows it and he does not, because maybe he assumes from observations that she is good at her job. Maybe the woman is living paycheck to paycheck, needs the job, and has external stress, but the guy isn't even interested in her job, learned to save early in life, and thus always has a smile on his face, which is perceived as a smirk?
I submit many people prefer to keep their head down and get their job down. They don't ask for a lot of money. They get enough to provide for their needs and wants. They are cheap for the work they do, and thus exactly what the company needs. You can fire all those people for not caring about what goes on around them. Fire them for not getting involved socially with the company. But I then submit some of their replacements will be more expensive and less efficient at the basic job needing to be done. What I need from my razor is a shave. What I need from the company making my razor is just the razor. I don't want to pay more for a social message to go along with my razor, particularly when there are less expensive and more efficient razors available. I look for the same in employees. I don't need social baggage to come along with their work ethic.
Good that you're educating yourself about how fed up men are over the "toxic masculinity" canard, Althouse. Meade should help.
Because of course, women must never be uncomfortable.
It would not take long to create a definition, or list of actions, for clueless, creepy, and criminal behavior. Once that is done you will have a very easy time of classifying transgressors. My workplace (a large, multi-national company) mandates two hours of education for a variety of subjects including "Workplace Harrassment". It is an online training thing that you have to complete every two years. The course has changed and evolved over the time I've been at this company (10 years+) - originally it was titled Sexual Harrassment and focused exclusively on men's behavior toward women. Now it covers a broader set of behaviors, isn't exclusively focused on sex related things, and applies to behavior from men and women that is unwelcome.
Toxic Masculinity is a pejorative usually used for the purpose of threaten others, politically. It's use should be fought as much as possible.
There is a surefire way to find out the intended meaning of people who use the phrase.
Roll out "toxic femininity" and see if they immediately assume you're using the charitable version...
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
Crass, Crazy, Constanza
You missed one Meade
Lied about taking her birth control pills to get pregnant and trap the man.
I've known them.
Once companies have identified those who make women uncomfortable, they have to assess whether the men are 'clueless, creepy or criminal'...
Sounds facially discriminatory against men.
Does that mean women should be exempt from such charges, and that men should be entirely excluded from having their claims investigated?
And as a matter of due process, shouldn't the first step in the investigative process be to determine whether the person(s) who claim they were made uncomfortable are unreasonable, vindictive or malicious?
@stevew -- my company does likewise. And I'm told that the manager training is significantly more intensive than the individual training. In a way, this is just old news.
So what do you do if you have a coworker who insists on working snide anti-Trump barbs into practically every situation? Imagine working with a trumpit or a Chuck, day in and day out. In the end, you shun them or avoid them.
There is a subspecies of feminist which deserves the moniker "toxic feminist."
On thing that makes me smile about Mr. Pritchard's quote is the phrase "on display".
Makes me think of animal documentaries.
Kevin wrote: Roll out "toxic femininity" and see if they immediately assume you're using the charitable version
I don't think there is anything toxic about femininity. But there are clearly "toxic feminists" and they have supporters and a well-paying support system. By their Kool-aid ye shall know them.
@Henry: I manage a team at my company, and have for several years, you are correct, the manager version of the training is more intensive. In particular the differences relates mainly to a manager's responsibilities when confronted with bothersome behavior. One example is a situation in which I'm walking down a hall and over hear a conversation between some coworkers. This conversation includes one person telling an off color and thus potentially offensive joke. Even if none of these people report to me, and none appear to be offended, I'm expected to drop a dime to HR about the incident in order to launch an investigation.
Not easy when we live in the age of "That's Not Funny!". ;-)
My biggest problem with all of this is the scope and origins of the message, not the message itself.
"Don't harass women" and "stop guys from harassing women" are fine ideas. "Don't mug people" and "stop muggers" are fine ideas, too. But if Colt .45 ran a message suggesting that black guys have a special obligation to stop toxic blackness by refraining from mugging people and telling their peers not to mug people, we'd be rightly pissed.
Ditto if Secret Deodorant ran an add telling women that toxic femininity is no longer okay, so they need to stop being gold-diggers and bitchy friends.
Being against a bad behavior doesn't justify trashing demographic groups with stereotypes or assuming special authority to wag a finger at the rest of us.
Mike Pence just laughs and laughs.
When you make something costly or dangerous you get less of it (ceteris paribus). If it's seen as dangerous to mentor women it will happen less. The pernicious/evil part is that the same people who cheer making it dangerous (by supporting a "believe all women" super-low standard of proof for accusations) will simultaneously push harsh punishments for those who try to avoid the risk (if you don't meet your "mentoring women" quota you'll be fired, etc).
But don't you dare complain about that! If you do nice centrist people will laugh at your tears. What was the quote, something about laughing in their scrunched up faces? Yeah.
I will tell you it’s OK when I see major media freely bandying about the term “toxic femininity” Meanwhile, this kind of behavior is aberrant and just doesn’t fit into any definition of “masculinity” that I ever understood. Maybe they would be better off not mixing this kind of behavior into the cultural concept of masculinity? Naah! And give up men bashing? Bah! Humbug!
Meade said...or else, no problem, she'll just murder the fetus — criminal
Naw, not in New York! Say it's for the health of the mother--her mental health, to prevent the agony of having to raise a kid--and you can kill that baby right up to the moment before it's delivered full term. Hell, they lit up the spire of One World Trade to celebrate it!
Obviously, the proctologists made the gamble at that company and lost.
Was it toxic femininity when those two female officers on that Navy ship were not talking to each other and the ship was rammed by a tanker, when they were in possession of equipment that would reportedly show a swimmer in the water at two miles?
How about the “femininity” that sunk that warship in Norway with the proudly proclaimed “all female crew!"
If masculinity was so toxic, why does every study show worse outcomes for families with no men in the house?
Wouldn't the opposite be true?
"One challenge is to assess the risk of sexual harassment in a company and to identify men who make women uncomfortable — or worse, harass them. Traditional tools like employee surveys are not effective, said Ms. Milligan, who recommends technological tools that allow for real-time and anonymous chats.
Once companies have identified those who make women uncomfortable, they have to assess whether the men are “clueless, creepy or criminal,” Ms. Milligan said."
--
So....kinda like cops that go online to flush out pedos.
Cool.
I wonder if there is a formal title for that position.
Babes are okay at work but the job is more interesting.
The trouble is if have all women, you have nobody to assign to a job that needs a man.
The "reasonable person" standard is officially dead and buried now, I take it.
Willie Brown mentored Kamala Harris, and she turned out just fine. No toxic masculinity in that case, right?
I've never done anything criminal, and I'm sure I'm clueless about most aspects of female behavior. Creepy is kind of hard to pin down. I think it probably refers to clueless men who women don't like.......I'm clueless as to why women would consider wearing a MAGA hat creepy, but a lot of them do.
All female crew:
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2018/11/20/norwegian-warship-accident-raises-questions-on-women-in-armed-fo.html
Worse, the bridge crew were not on talking terms with the warship’s electronic nerve centre, the combat information centre (CIC), which also had access to sensors displaying what was going on around them. -- https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/leaked-uss-fitzgerald-report-paints-a-damning-picture-of-a-dysfunctional-ship-and-crew/news-story/15f056f5fad65c58aa0517d9dd97ab9c
There is no toxic masculinity, is the trouble with the phrase. It's a slogan amoung clueless women.
"Once companies have identified those who make women uncomfortable, they have to assess whether the men are 'clueless, creepy or criminal'..."
So, that's the new standard then? If it makes a woman 'uncomfortable'; it has to stop?
LET'S TAKE A POLL!
how many women out there are 'uncomfortable' with the fact that a man makes more money than you, just because he works more hours than you do?
If the number is more than one, that has to Stop, Right?
Side note: when it's men complaining about being unfairly punished economically nice centrist like Prof. Althouse mock them and their "whining about their meager money." When it's women who might possibly lose out on a promotion or two because some men rightly fear false accusation it's damn near a national emergency we're all supposed to care deeply about and fund whole departments to try and prevent!
But hey, that's equality for you--women just matter more, even when we're not talking about "their bodies."
Perhaps women overestimate what they have going for them in life.
Don't confuse toxic masculinity with hyper masculinity or masculinity in general. Toxic masculinity is spawned by relatively weak men who try and dominate women because real men treat them like the punk ass bitches they are. The toxic male fantasizes and fetishisms war and military, engages in overtly macho talk of phony bravery and cowers in the face of resistance. IOW, about 40% of Trump voter
Under the current intersectionality rules, it is always a "reasonable person, similarly situated" for everything.
It is immoral.
gilbar,
They refer to a more nuanced, maybe "creepy" process.
Anonymous diagnostic chat of some sort.
I'd love to see how they work that.
"There are several business owners I consult for that told me in private after the Kavanaugh hearings that "they'd hired their last woman" - forever."
OK for small firms that can fly under the radar - I'm sure there are lots of them that operate like that, and have for years. A company of any size, and particularly a public company, couldn't do so. Not that they would want to - the SJW feminists have long since taken over the HR departments of every firm of any appreciable size.
I have worked for many companies, large, medium and small. The very best atmosphere has been in a small company where my boss was a woman. No time for bullshit, politics, made-up slights or other distractions - get the job done or get out. Liberating for all.
SNL: Sexual Harassment & You
SNL: Sexual Harassment Charlie
Toxic masculinity is spawned by relatively weak men who try and dominate women because real men treat them like the punk ass bitches they are.
Right, it’s not masculinity at all. But as to your Trump voter comment, maybe you should get yourself up to date on the comments by Trump haters on the Afghanistan move. Same with Syria. Trump is just working for peace internationally.
toxic feminity
Howard cannot be toxically masculine, what with all the self-fellatio.
"Don't confuse toxic masculinity with hyper masculinity or masculinity in general."
The entire point of the phrase is to make sure everyone understands that they are all one and the same. Simple enough even for Hillary voters to understand.
This was a foregone conclusion the minute we
let women in the workplace.
Objectively, any war monger would have voted for Hillary. The proof is that the Neocons were all for her and against Trump.
Are these creeped out people the same ones who think it's a good idea that anyone who wants to can go in the ladies' room, and that's not sexual harassment, but rather protected choice?
Ooops! “Objectivity is a tool of oppression!”
The first SNL skit- that was Tom Brady, wasn't it? That was hilarious! SNL nailed it for once.
Birkel,
That's pretty charitable to him.
So an easy solution. All of the white males over there, all of the white females over there, all of the female POC over there and all of the male POC over there. Nobody talk or interact with anyone not in their group. No company can hire anyone, nor sell to anyone or interact with anyone except from thier group. So we get all white male companies selling stuff to only white males, etc.
We just re-segregate completely and everything will be terrific.
At some point, I really hope we hit peak stupid and the pedulum starts to move back to the center. If not, we are truly screwed.
This what happens when you interact with women but are unattractive.
So companies can either 1) only hire attractive men or 2) stop hiring women.
I like how the harassment is assumed becuase women are uncomfortable or "creeped out". Watching TV with the females in my family tells me that women get creeped out simply by how a man looks. Sometimes too attractive and sometimes too ugly.
The entire ethos of sexual harassment/victim feminism makes me uncomfortable. I don't fear some woman asking me out, I fear her lies and weakness might cost me my job and reputation. They don't know what real uncomfortable feels like. The power has shifted and it's up to women to not make it worse than the old kind, and hopefully better. Men have no role in that.
The power of the female has always been with their choice to to disapprove, withhold approval, or reject men and their advances. That power has now been weaponized against a group who is openly treated like the enemy. Progress.
Well, snark doesn't pay the bills, and Male Core Competency is to be a Problem Solver.
So, since we are dealing with flighty emotional snowflakes called women, whose major goal in life is to 'be heard', I offer FIDO's patented Corporate Strategy.
1) Find Creepy Guy and hire him.
2) Allow Creepy guy to irritate female workers with outrageous behavior
3) Fire Creepy Guy very publicly for Creepy Behavior (and privately give him a generous separation agreement at the tail end for being a great fall guy)
This results in a resetting of feminine expectations. "I am SO glad the company got rid of CG. Compared to him, the rest of the office are saints! And the corporate management is SO WOKE."
Viola! Females cowed and satisfied, remaining men look better, management seems on the spot.
Designated Creepy Guy can go from office to office, getting nice severance packages until he can retire to Tahiti.
I've been in the legal profession almost four decades. Senior lawyers don't just take junior lawyers alone out to dinner or out for a drink for mentoring. That one-on-one situation has never happened to me in either direction. This is such a non-issue. Meals and drinks happen because work-related, and there is no reason to worry about me-too in that context. Not to say work romances don't happen, they do, and when they end that can be messy. But that's not what me-too is about.
Mostly sexual harassment happens in companies with deep pockets.
#MeToo = toxic femininity.
If masculinity was so toxic, why does every study show worse outcomes for families with no men in the house?
Every study doesn't show that. In fact there's little or no difference in non-financial "well being" outcomes when the father is absent due to death by disease or injury.
I like to think the best of people. Companies seem to want to think the worst of many of their male employees. Not a lot of good can come from that IMO.
"Naw, not in New York! Say it's for the health of the mother--her mental health, to prevent the agony of having to raise a kid--and you can kill that baby right up to the moment before it's delivered full term."
As I understand it, New York's law only tracks Roe as restated in Casey. Be happy New York doesn't remove ALL restrictions on abortion as being a crime.
In fact there's little or no difference in non-financial "well being" outcomes when the father is absent due to death by disease or injury.
That’s a pretty narrow statement. Maybe such fathers who don’t abandon their kids voluntarily have a lasting influence, even after they pass.
Was it toxic femininity when Harvey Weinstein found out that beautiful starlets were willing to blow him to get parts? Blowjobs are hard to refuse, honest. Women know it.
Lied about taking her birth control pills to get pregnant and trap the man.
Men have agency here. I don't feel much sympathy for men trapped in this way. If you don't want children either get snipped or wear a condom.
We have to determine if the women are sluts, whores, or just bitches. These terms are not identical, despite great areas of overlap.
Maybe part of toxic femininity is finding men creepy because they are unattractive and try the same shit they see attractive guys get away with routinely.
Every study doesn't show that. In fact there's little or no difference in non-financial "well being" outcomes when the father is absent due to death by disease or injury.
Didn't you just prove his point? Houses without men are worse off, whether from death, disease or (Snap Snap Snap) Strong Independent Women!
That this is so frequently a self inflicted injury to the home by women is Karma The Bitch earning her due without favoritism.
readering denied the experiences of Others.
Othering is fun for boys and especially girls.
Fucking fascists.
Thank God I run my own business and contract out any labor I need.
Anything else is pure insanity anymore.
readering,
Once it becomes "believe all women", actual confirmed interaction of ANY sort becomes unnecessary. Not everyone is capable of defending themselves like Kavanaugh, even though he still lives under cloud.
Pence's rule relies on the same fallacy.
Clueless or Creepy?
At one point in my early twenties I worked for a large government contractor. My department was within finance and had two groups that didn't interact much. My group was majority female the other consisted of three men. One of the men (who used to pass gas while walking through our maze of cubicles) used to come into the cubicle that I shared with three other women to discuss work and occasionally chat with us and when he would do this his hand would go into his pocket and he would jingle the change in his pocket. We were sitting. He was standing. Jingle jingle jingle.
At first you wonder if you are crazy. Then you mention it to your friend/coworker. You laugh and say OMG you noticed that too. We didn't report him. But we did all start to stand whenever he would come into our cubicle and we would all excuse ourselves and leave unless it was directly work related.
He was extremely smart and socially inept. He was never going to make it into management but was very good at his job.
#MeToo is supposedly about ending the bad behavior of powerful men.
What it's going to turn into is excluding and banishing marginal men from the workplace.
It's much easier to get rid of someone at the bottom of a social hierarchy than at the top. Simply label them as "creepy" and they are gone. Try that on your boss and the boss will fight back.
Women are much more prone to excluding people, men and women, whom they don't like, than men are. Men will make life hard for people at the bottom. Women just shut them out.
How does one defend oneself from an accusation of being "creepy?" If the label isn't tied to behavior, but to discomfort in someone else's mind, how does one change the perception? Does a fat man lose weight? Does an ugly man get plastic surgery? What about mental illness? Mentally ill people can't have jobs? Your average autistic man is going to come off as "creepy" no matter what he does.
What this means for men who are awkward or unattractive is they had better stay out of jobs where many women work. They get labeled creepy if they interact with women and creepy if they keep to themselves. Better go drive a truck instead.
Let's keep those creeps out of sight and out of mind.
Lied about taking her birth control pills to get pregnant and trap the man.
Men have agency here. I don't feel much sympathy for men trapped in this way.
What the Hell..they're just splooge stooges after all. (Apparently women don't have agency when it comes to reproduction..or responsibilities..just the right to kill their child)
What about men trapped raising another man's child because she had an affair and lied? What about men (and boys) who are raped by women and then forced to pay them child support? What about women who steal used condoms from the trash or save sperm from a blow job and inseminate themselves?
If you don't want children either get snipped or wear a condom.
Try telling a woman if you don't want children get your tubes tied or use birth control instead of killing your child trough abortion.
"Men have agency here. I don't feel much sympathy for men trapped in this way. If you don't want children either get snipped or wear a condom. "
I agree with you, MadisonMan. Keep track of your own semen (Bill Clinton). Don't be a stupid, be a smarty. Never join a splooge stooge party!
Be happy New York doesn't remove ALL restrictions on abortion as being a crime.
What's left?
Read the statute.
Individual dignity, intrinsic value, and, perhaps, inordinate worth. Go forth and reconcile.
Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature.
Diversity denies individual dignity and paints people with broad, sweeping, unprincipled strokes. #HateLovesAbortion
Keep track of your own semen
So men are expected to keep track of millions of sperm they produce each day, but it's not fair to expect women to keep track of one egg a month?
Is it even remotely possible that the man is fine and the woman is clueless?
Meade said...I agree with you, MadisonMan. Keep track of your own semen (Bill Clinton).
You guys are hopelessly out of date. In 2019 you don't NEED semen to make "splooge" capable of impregnating a woman. All she needs is a clean DNA sample--of any kind (hair, saliva, skin cells).
Researchers were turning stem cells into gametes back in 2014. They're working now on perfecting turning somatic cells (or just a good DNA sample) into stem cells. [It has been done with mice and word is only bans on human testing have kept it from being done/publicized with people.] From there it's a short walk--get some hair, lab sequences that, makes stem cells, turns those into gametes, use those to fertilize woman's eggs, implant those...boom, instant fatherhood. And the DNA test on the kid will 100% prove paternity!
It's fun to say "guys should be responsible for not adequately destroying their semen--if a woman manages to steal some against his will that's just too bad for him." How's that gonna work when she's just taking a few stray hairs from your desk or the table at lunch? It's a Gattaca world, baby.
Naturally nice centrist people like Prof. Althouse will still say that it's the woman's body bearing the baby and it's her choice, so forcing the male "parent" is still the only choice. But, you know, keep laughing it up about stooges.
"Try telling a woman if you don't want children get your tubes tied or use birth control instead of killing your child trough abortion."
I have tried. And it works! Only I put it more like this: If you want the sexual ecstasy I can bring you, you have to agree to be a good mother to the child we might be creating. Otherwise, find a splooge stooge to get you off. It ain't me, babe.
Or as rh's boss told him (and I paraphrase): Just stay away from the women.
Blogger Meade said...
""clueless,
creepy,
or criminal."
"forgot" to take her birth control pills — clueless
because, she says, she has better orgasms without them — creepy
or else, no problem, she'll just murder the fetus — criminal"
Tonight would not be a good night to get locked out of the house.
"Naw, not in New York! Say it's for the health of the mother--her mental health, to prevent the agony of having to raise a kid--and you can kill that baby right up to the moment before it's delivered full term."
The fetus, the baby, the "burden". Women are beasts of burden in the Natural order and under feminist ideology, and taxable commodities and a source of political leverage in the Democrat party. The male sex is a useful link with a toxic gender that needs to be cleansed.
You guys are hopelessly out of date. In 2019 you don't NEED semen to make "splooge" capable of impregnating a woman. All she needs is a clean DNA sample--of any kind (hair, saliva, skin cells).
So that whole scene in the movie Ted 2 about Tom Brady was total BS?
I mentor women like I mentor men.
Discuss work in open office
Drink at open bar
And that’s it.
Read the statute.
I'm sorry..I thought you brought the subject up because you wanted to discuss it.
"But, you know, keep laughing it up about stooges... All she needs is a clean DNA sample--of any kind (hair, saliva, skin cells)."
So also keep your hair, saliva and skin cells to yourself. One more reason to shave, use a handkerchief and shower regularly. It's 2019, man! How hard is that?
"Tonight would not be a good night to get locked out of the house."
LOL. I'll advise her.
What it's going to turn into is excluding and banishing marginal men from the workplace.
I disagree and it was referred to up thread.
It's going to lead to excluding and banishing marginal women from the workplace. It's simply not worth the hassle and people will find a way - legally - so they won't have to deal with that hassle.
Good thing I put up some sex topics to help people with their cabin fever.
The rules in NY are that you cannot kill the baby after it crowns.
You probably cannot discriminate based on gender or race.
We must be anti-discrimination when killing 39-week babies.
They could just put up pictures of potential candidates and have women vote on them.
Meade said.So also keep your hair, saliva and skin cells to yourself. One more reason to shave, use a handkerchief and shower regularly.
--
Page outta Jake Patterson's upcoming book.
But hey..when traveling/staying in hotels, clean that hair out of the tub.
It's going to lead to excluding and banishing marginal women from the workplace. It's simply not worth the hassle and people will find a way - legally - so they won't have to deal with that hassle.
Alas, it is not that easy. They vote and hire lawyers too.
The man who can build a 'bitch detector' could probably retire to his own private island...Australia maybe.
These days you just need to use stop-gaps like asking their opinions on 'intersectionality'. If you get anything except 'what?', you got a problem on your hands.
" If you want the sexual ecstasy I can bring you, you have to agree to be a good mother to the child we might be creating."
Wow, that sounds like a crummy deal. Either one of you could be lying. The thing is if you lie she gets ripped off for between 1-6 orgasms. If she lies, you get a bad mother for your kids, a bad wife, and bills for both forever. As your advisor I suggest not doing this deal.
The only real way to avoid the risks associated with any activity is abstinence, and as noted above by others, your abstinence is not enough. It has to be her - it's the only way to be sure.
Meade said...So also keep your hair, saliva and skin cells to yourself. One more reason to shave, use a handkerchief and shower regularly. It's 2019, man! How hard is that?
Hilarious! It's fun to laugh about the terrible implications of the standards we impose on others.
I mean, in another context such lack of empathy would be enough to prmopt tears, but when the people we're not feeling sympathy FOR are the BAD PEOPLE it's funny instead.
YT: Gattaca 1
YT: Gattaca keyboard
Now in practical terms a normal guy like me isn't at much risk of this--the people at risk are the very rich, the famous, etc. Someone snagging a hunk of Tom Cruise's hair stands to make tens of millions. That's probably why there will be an actual push to change the standards--it'll be the rich and powerful who stand to lose the most under the current system.
Still, it's fun to laugh at the danger and misfortune of others! "It's your fault for not keeping track of all of your hairs, now pay up you stooge!" So funny.
Still, it's fun to laugh at the danger and misfortune of others! "It's your fault for not keeping track of all of your hairs, now pay up you stooge!" So funny.
The misfortune of who others? Are there any real specific examples of this actually happening — women stealing hapless men's hairs to trap them into childcare payments?
If so, then my serious advice would be yes, stay away from women. All women. Far far away.
Ann Althouse: "Good thing I put up some sex topics to help people with their cabin fever."
Cabin fever?
Why?
Snowfalls are a thing of the past.
Are there any real specific examples of this actually happening — women stealing hapless men's hairs to trap them into childcare payments?
Not yet, but there will be. We already have cases of them stealing semen to do so.
HD at 12:18, awesome links.
I liked this one too.
Blogger Meade said..."If so, then my serious advice would be yes, stay away from women. All women. Far far away."
Want them all to yourself, eh?
Meade said...The misfortune of who others? Are there any real specific examples of this actually happening — women stealing hapless men's hairs to trap them into childcare payments?
The danger exists as the technology to carry that out matures. We're close now. If you're saying we can't take seriously nor care about potential harm (and discount that potential down to a current value) then I'm afraid we're going to have to revisit the calculus of many, many things--namely abortion (which is, to nice centrist people, important because it prevents the potential harm suffered by the unwanted use of "her body" in the future). Add on to that the actual misfortune suffered by any number of men in examples we've already given (and which you nice centrist people have already dismissed) of individual men being raped, forced into sex while underage, and so on yet still being found legally responsible for the resulting offspring.
But yeah, I get it: it's a stupid concern and there's no reason to revisit the priors underpinning the morality of "man ejaculates and is therefore responsible for anything and everything that happens [started to say "comes"] after that, no matter what other circumstances exist." We'll keep that same framework even when ejaculation is no longer necessary for the result. Men must be responsible, no matter what! That's what equality demands.
"Want them all to yourself, eh?"
At my advanced age, one (albeit one very fine one) will do.
In a word, yes.
"You need to be a role model for the next generation.... We need something like Lean In circles for men"
This is one way progs get to feminists like Althouse. Men need to be better! Men need to step up! Take responsibility, gents --don't let those toxic fellows do their toxic stuff!
And when the same progs baselessly smear an actual man, such women find it "terribly sad."
Meade said... Are there any real specific examples of this actually happening — women stealing hapless men's hairs to trap them into childcare payments?
Also: how would we know? "I never slept with her, your honor, I swear!" Oops, the paternity test says the kids is yours, so...
Anyway expand the problem out if you like: it'll be much easier to "fake" things like crimes, assaults, etc--for those you won't even need fancy CRISPR or other editing techniques, you'll just need a sample and the ability to synthesize/replicate a large quantity of DNA cheaply. I get a sample, batch a bunch of the DNA from it, stick that in some cells, contaminate a real sample of semen or blood or whatever with that...and suddenly you're conclusively proven to have been involved with the crime. I show you that evidence and you decide to settle out of court for $X, since we all know juries believe DNA tests over all. I'll even let YOUR lab examine the sample!
It's a problem; it will be a problem.
"We need something like Lean In circles for men."
I would rather be kicked in the balls than have to suffer through something like that, granted a hard enough kick might render the entire issue moot.
How can anyone who ever witnessed what high schools girls do to each other ever trust in the innate sanity or goodness of female social relations ever again?
I consult & have consulted in many different offices. My rule of thumb: all male environments move towards the ethos of the barracks, all female towards the ethos of high school girls cliques.
The upside of the ability to use somatic cells to impregnate someone is otherwise-infertile people may be able to have kids. That's a big deal and a great thing.
The downside to that ability is if you can do it for someone who wants it you can use the same technology to do it to someone who doesn't. That's a danger and a big deal, too.
Didn't realize at the time,but retrospectively, I may have been victimized.
She has her own small business and a wealthy husband now.
Googling lawyers ...
If you get men into “lean in circles” then you will have already won the war, you will have erased the final vestiges of masculinity. You could maybe get there by castrating men at birth and all reproduction will be done via other cells, donors juried of course, for characteristics pleasing to women.
"Didn't realize at the time,but retrospectively, I may have been victimized."
Not only victimized but oppressed! Upside — you now have your very own intersectionality. Welcome, fellow oppressed victim!
"You could maybe get there by castrating men at birth and all reproduction will be done via other cells, donors juried of course, for characteristics pleasing to women."
Move aside, dystopian Handmaids Tale. Make room for Handjobs Tale.
What do I hear? I hear myself saying, "I'm never buying another Gillette product as long as I live!!!"
The more I think about it,the worse I feel.
Googling lawyers and therapists..
Blogger Meade said...
"Didn't realize at the time,but retrospectively, I may have been victimized."
Not only victimized but oppressed! Upside — you now have your very own intersectionality. Welcome, fellow oppressed victim!
One challenge is to assess the risk of sexual harassment in a company and to identify men who make women uncomfortable — or worse, harass them.
A corporate Stasi. What could go wrong?
“If they are creepy, you have to act,” she added.
A vague, emotional, unchallengeable standard. Perfect.
Now all you need are investigators practiced in ignoring exculpatory evidence so even obviously innocent people can be judged guilty whenever the victim hierarchy demands. Luckily we're training these professionals as Title IX investigators all across the country. They'll be enough of them soon.
First, they came for the fetuses... babies, and people said that it was a amoral principle under the PC (e.g. Pro-Choice, politically congruent) religious philosophy, and legal under the Twilight Amendment to The Constitution, necessary to remove the "burden" from the beasts a.k.a. feminine females, to exploit them as taxable commodities, and for sociopolitical progress.
Irrational and reflexive dislike or fear of homosexuals: Homophobia.
Irrational and reflexive dislike or fear of heterosexuals: Heterophobia.
Solution: don’t hire women. You will have to hire more HR people and spend more time fighting through the latest maze of laws designed to destroy working relationships, rather than concentrating on your core competency.
"There's also this, from Marc Pritchard: "It’s not enough to stand by when toxic masculinity is on display. It’s not enough to stand by and say ‘that’s not me.’ You need to be a role model for the next generation.... We need something like Lean In circles for men."
Well no, "we" don't have any such need.
How about you get back to me if/when you can bother to show as much concern for problem behaviors women exhibit in the workplace?
And, no, you're not going to get many to "Lean In" until/unless they see a reason for doing so. Do you really think bellowing "Men are defective, they need to be fixed" is an effective motivator?
“Do you really think bellowing "Men are defective, they need to be fixed" is an effective motivator?”
Haven’t women always thought or said that?
Post a Comment