[Suits]

The LinkedIn article posted by OP reads as fake as fuck.

I absolutely don't believe it was written by a CEO of anything, except maybe a business empire that exists within Minecraft.

100% guaranteed that this was written by a member of the manosphere and quite likely a MGTOW.

[CynicalContrarian]

(06-26-2018 04:21 AM)Suits Wrote:  

The LinkedIn article posted by OP reads as fake as fuck.
I absolutely don't believe it was written by a CEO of anything, except maybe a business empire that exists within Minecraft.
100% guaranteed that this was written by a member of the manosphere and quite likely a MGTOW.

However, I can imagine the underlying sentiment is still at play.
Sure there are some CEO types who clusterfuck their way up the corporate ladder.
Yet you'd have to assume there are plenty of savvy if not clever CEO types who would be thinking along the lines in the article.

If you can simply circumvent the rapid mob as it stampede's off the cliff, without getting caught up in the chaos; why not...?

[Ice]

I can speak of my own experience:

I was recently working at a company where I was responsible for leading a department. In this position I was also responsible for making hiring decisions. The company is based in Europe, and a few months ago we had an American girl applying for a job. She had a fitting background and a good portfolio, but I checked out her social media and saw that she presents herself as a "feminist" and posts quite often about this topic.

So for me the the decision was clear to find an excuse to not invite her for an interview. Because fact is, I'm a white heterosexual male, and as thus I am her enemy. At the same time I would be her boss if she worked at my company. I can very well imagine that in her mind she would construe that as being oppressed by the patriarchy or something like that. I simply don't want to risk having to deal with conflicts like that in my department, so for me it was an obvious solution to not invite her for an interview.

Finding a reason for not inviting someone to an interview or not hiring someone is no problem at all. You can easily make something up.

[TravelerKai]

(06-26-2018 05:24 AM)Ice Wrote:  

I can speak of my own experience:

I was recently working at a company where I was responsible for leading a department. In this position I was also responsible for making hiring decisions. The company is based in Europe, and a few months ago we had an American girl applying for a job. She had a fitting background and a good portfolio, but I checked out her social media and saw that she presents herself as a "feminist" and posts quite often about this topic.

So for me the the decision was clear to find an excuse to not invite her for an interview. Because fact is, I'm a white heterosexual male, and as thus I am her enemy. At the same time I would be her boss if she worked at my company. I can very well imagine that in her mind she would construe that as being oppressed by the patriarchy or something like that. I simply don't want to risk having to deal with conflicts like that in my department, so for me it was an obvious solution to not invite her for an interview.

Finding a reason for not inviting someone to an interview or not hiring someone is no problem at all. You can easily make something up.

I worked a contract s that after I was selected, they told me, gee you passed our social media screening with flying colors. Then they showed me the 20+ people they rejected before me. All kinds of dudes and women. Black and white. Some had their own business selling weird stuff or ranting online about politics and other dumb shit. They actually printed out whatever they found and kept it all in a folder, like kill trophies.

Their point was that they wanted people that STFU and do the damn projects without tons of opinions about outside junk. Of the few years I was there, only one person was super opinionated and talked too much throughout the day. He eventually got fired within months.

[heavy]

(06-25-2018 03:32 PM)Tactician Wrote:  

They Left really doesn't understand unintended consequences, do they?
...

Could post that everyday, and it would be the most true thing on the forum.

Unemployment: A certain percentage of people lose a certain percentage motivation if they have $ coming in.
Rape: Let's slap this word on everything from knife-point in an alley to drunken consensual. Marginalizes real rape.
Sexual harassment: Quid pro quo to seeing a picture of guy's wife in a bikini in his cubicle, it's all the same.

The left is in the interest of de-compartmentalizing everything. Or better put, de-compartmentalizing things is left-ism. Be leery with products or services promising "We're going to give you a more holistic solution to your problems".

(Note, Rush has been saying this since the 80s. I'm reminded every day how much Rush Limbaugh used humor and entertainment to clarify the world for me at a young age.)

This is obviously regardless of the bogus nature of fake blog posts.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(06-26-2018 07:21 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 05:24 AM)Ice Wrote:  

I can speak of my own experience:

I was recently working at a company where I was responsible for leading a department. In this position I was also responsible for making hiring decisions. The company is based in Europe, and a few months ago we had an American girl applying for a job. She had a fitting background and a good portfolio, but I checked out her social media and saw that she presents herself as a "feminist" and posts quite often about this topic.

So for me the the decision was clear to find an excuse to not invite her for an interview. Because fact is, I'm a white heterosexual male, and as thus I am her enemy. At the same time I would be her boss if she worked at my company. I can very well imagine that in her mind she would construe that as being oppressed by the patriarchy or something like that. I simply don't want to risk having to deal with conflicts like that in my department, so for me it was an obvious solution to not invite her for an interview.

Finding a reason for not inviting someone to an interview or not hiring someone is no problem at all. You can easily make something up.

I worked a contract s that after I was selected, they told me, gee you passed our social media screening with flying colors. Then they showed me the 20+ people they rejected before me. All kinds of dudes and women. Black and white. Some had their own business selling weird stuff or ranting online about politics and other dumb shit. They actually printed out whatever they found and kept it all in a folder, like kill trophies.

How thorough were they with this screening? DId they just check the applicant's FB profile or did they trawl around for their comments on news articles and such?

[TheFinalEpic]

As a business owner, why would you take the risk? Why would you waste money on creating an infrastructure that protects yourself (via CC cameras etc) when you could forego this entirely by solving the problem at the source? HR departments will be dead in the next 10 years, AI can do what they do in a second, and already has been for some time, combing resumes for keywords. I will never have an HR department in my company, no matter if it grows to 100 or 10x that employees.

Have you seen what's happened to Uber? Kalanick was ousted due to the "culture" of the company. Uber is going to fail in the next 3 years. The one-sided viewpoint of many tech companies is leaving a very wide hole to be filled by companies that are all results orientated and not about filling quotas or signalling how "ahead of the times" they are. Countries with the companies that focus on productivity are going to thrive, while the countries with diversity quotas are going to regress.

I want a workplace that has constant debates about the correct direction that we should take, so that we see things from all angles, and are able to adapt and shift on the fly. Women in that scenario get emotional, where I need complete detachment from personal views and to only look at the facts and possibilities when making the big decisions. It's that simple. We inadvertently just got thrown back into the 1930s by this movement. No complaints here.

[TravelerKai]

(06-26-2018 07:51 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 07:21 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 05:24 AM)Ice Wrote:  

I can speak of my own experience:

I was recently working at a company where I was responsible for leading a department. In this position I was also responsible for making hiring decisions. The company is based in Europe, and a few months ago we had an American girl applying for a job. She had a fitting background and a good portfolio, but I checked out her social media and saw that she presents herself as a "feminist" and posts quite often about this topic.

So for me the the decision was clear to find an excuse to not invite her for an interview. Because fact is, I'm a white heterosexual male, and as thus I am her enemy. At the same time I would be her boss if she worked at my company. I can very well imagine that in her mind she would construe that as being oppressed by the patriarchy or something like that. I simply don't want to risk having to deal with conflicts like that in my department, so for me it was an obvious solution to not invite her for an interview.

Finding a reason for not inviting someone to an interview or not hiring someone is no problem at all. You can easily make something up.

I worked a contract s that after I was selected, they told me, gee you passed our social media screening with flying colors. Then they showed me the 20+ people they rejected before me. All kinds of dudes and women. Black and white. Some had their own business selling weird stuff or ranting online about politics and other dumb shit. They actually printed out whatever they found and kept it all in a folder, like kill trophies.

How thorough were they with this screening? DId they just check the applicant's FB profile or did they trawl around for their comments on news articles and such?

Both. They googled people very aggressively as well.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-26-2018 07:21 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 05:24 AM)Ice Wrote:  

I can speak of my own experience:

I was recently working at a company where I was responsible for leading a department. In this position I was also responsible for making hiring decisions. The company is based in Europe, and a few months ago we had an American girl applying for a job. She had a fitting background and a good portfolio, but I checked out her social media and saw that she presents herself as a "feminist" and posts quite often about this topic.

So for me the the decision was clear to find an excuse to not invite her for an interview. Because fact is, I'm a white heterosexual male, and as thus I am her enemy. At the same time I would be her boss if she worked at my company. I can very well imagine that in her mind she would construe that as being oppressed by the patriarchy or something like that. I simply don't want to risk having to deal with conflicts like that in my department, so for me it was an obvious solution to not invite her for an interview.

Finding a reason for not inviting someone to an interview or not hiring someone is no problem at all. You can easily make something up.

I worked a contract s that after I was selected, they told me, gee you passed our social media screening with flying colors. Then they showed me the 20+ people they rejected before me. All kinds of dudes and women. Black and white. Some had their own business selling weird stuff or ranting online about politics and other dumb shit. They actually printed out whatever they found and kept it all in a folder, like kill trophies.

Their point was that they wanted people that STFU and do the damn projects without tons of opinions about outside junk. Of the few years I was there, only one person was super opinionated and talked too much throughout the day. He eventually got fired within months.

Unless a corporation is all SJW - like Google, then most companies will screen for highly volatile political opinions. They know that the transgenderqueer SJW is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Women could be added to that list.
They are on par with Muslims. (there have been cases where Muslim women won even settlements for not getting hired or they forced changes in production cycles to get their 5 prayer breaks)
Next are Social Justice Blacks.

I would be most relaxed about White and Asian men, simply because they are very unlikely to sue for any kind of discrimination. Smarter companies are likely checking for radical political views - the most dangerous ones being on the left. If you see a black guy or a pretty girl with a Trump hat, then you will be in the green as well.

But I doubt that this will move the needle much except in small and medium-sized private companies. The bigger ones are in the choke-grip of social justice.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I made three "Old Economy Steve" memes to commemorate the way the business world was before #metoo and Millennials. All are based on things that actually happened to me (and the woman they caught me with later became my wife -- hehe).

Complain about Baby Boomers if you want, but back in the old days they let us Gen X-ers get away with total craziness in the office. That's because they themselves were engaging in God-knows-what.

[MrLemon]

(06-26-2018 04:21 AM)Suits Wrote:  

The LinkedIn article posted by OP reads as fake as fuck.

I absolutely don't believe it was written by a CEO of anything, except maybe a business empire that exists within Minecraft.

100% guaranteed that this was written by a member of the manosphere and quite likely a MGTOW.

Likely true. It got taken down almost immediately so doesn't matter. The comments from other people in the master thread (talking about #Metoo) are not that far off in sentiment.

[MrLemon]

(06-26-2018 11:40 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I made three "Old Economy Steve" memes to commemorate the way the business world was before #metoo and Millennials. All are based on things that actually happened to me (and the woman they caught me with later became my wife -- hehe).

Complain about Baby Boomers if you want, but back in the old days they let us Gen X-ers get away with total craziness in the office. That's because they themselves were engaging in God-knows-what.

Haha. I worked at a defense contractor for 10 years. These people built fucking incredible technology...huge, huge company where the CEO hobnobbed with Senators on a monthly basis.

For DECADES (before my time even, but I heard stories) their culture used to revolve around weekly company meetings that were: A) Barbecues and B) Huge booze-fest. You young guys have no idea what it was like...booze was not just accepted by EXPECTED. The old guys now lament the loss, they say "all the important decisions were made at the weekly beer bust...that's when people could let down the trouble of the week and just focus on strategy". Beer of course but any other liquor you wanted. CEO was the bartender. Of course the female employees, mostly secretaries but plenty of accountants, purchasing managers, QA inspectors and so on, those girls loved those parties. Most of them were married to the men in the company so there was an element of 60-s married couple boozing. The single young girls would get drunk and fuck various men, which the married women would then gossip about. Then they'd harass the drunken hookup couple to get married. That's how people found their spouses.

Today's world is a weird techno-puritan wasteland. Today's people have no fucking idea how weird and puritan they appear to the rest of the human race.

[Teedub]

(06-25-2018 05:53 PM)christpuncher Wrote:  

Women want jobs at huge corporations, in sections where the entire department exists to be in compliance with some government mandate... Where they can work for 5 out of 40 hours per week, gossip the other 35, and take home an above average paycheque with full health benefits to their downtown luxury apartment.

I'm from the UK and work there, and I'm going to play devil's advocate anecdotally. I manage a small team, two fresh grad girls, and two mid-20s guys. They all work about as hard as each other. As in, in the 8 hours they should be working, they get their actual job done in about 4 or 5 (as everyone does), and then spend their time on social media/news sites (girls) and sports news sites (guys). Thankfully there's no feminist attitude in my company, probably because of the industry it is (sports/fashion related), as it attracts attractive women on the whole.

(06-25-2018 10:05 PM)The Father Wrote:  

What pisses me off about LinkedIn is the "you go girl"ism of many of my female connections...anytime there is a story that says "Sally Lou Boo-Hoo has just become the FIRST CxO of XYZ Corp!", my female connections all instinctively hit "like", like they were flicking their bean in the bath. None of them know Sally Lou. None of them have ever worked, or know anyone who worked, at XYZ Corp. None of them even know what a CxO really does. But they all cheer, like lemmings. Or children.

Yep, I have this experience daily. I also have to suffer from people saying things like "Oh my god, it's so vibrant and the diversity is fantastic!" about a recent Nike advert based in London where there were basically no white people. How is that diversity? We all know what "diversity" is a codeword for.

(06-25-2018 11:49 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Women are more social than men, so they're the ones who will suffer more in the new sterile office environment. So they really shot themselves in the foot with #metoo, in more ways than one.

Thankfully I work for a company that, on Glassdoor (website where you can review your employer [or even just a company you've interviewed for on their process] anonymously) has been called 'sexist' a few times. Personally, I don't see it. But, if you were a blue haired hambeast I imagine you would want to leave rather immediately, such is the nature of the industry. I've never been happier to say "I work for a sexist company".

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(06-26-2018 12:36 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 11:40 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I made three "Old Economy Steve" memes to commemorate the way the business world was before #metoo and Millennials. All are based on things that actually happened to me (and the woman they caught me with later became my wife -- hehe).

Complain about Baby Boomers if you want, but back in the old days they let us Gen X-ers get away with total craziness in the office. That's because they themselves were engaging in God-knows-what.

Haha. I worked at a defense contractor for 10 years. These people built fucking incredible technology...huge, huge company where the CEO hobnobbed with Senators on a monthly basis.

For DECADES (before my time even, but I heard stories) their culture used to revolve around weekly company meetings that were: A) Barbecues and B) Huge booze-fest. You young guys have no idea what it was like...booze was not just accepted by EXPECTED. The old guys now lament the loss, they say "all the important decisions were made at the weekly beer bust...that's when people could let down the trouble of the week and just focus on strategy". Beer of course but any other liquor you wanted. CEO was the bartender. Of course the female employees, mostly secretaries but plenty of accountants, purchasing managers, QA inspectors and so on, those girls loved those parties. Most of them were married to the men in the company so there was an element of 60-s married couple boozing. The single young girls would get drunk and fuck various men, which the married women would then gossip about. Then they'd harass the drunken hookup couple to get married. That's how people found their spouses.

Today's world is a weird techno-puritan wasteland. Today's people have no fucking idea how weird and puritan they appear to the rest of the human race.

Everyone dated everyone in the office back then. My old company has an alumni page on Facebook and I was surprised by the number of married couples who met there. I knew there were about a half-dozen, but it now seems like half the group met their spouses at the old company.

Liberals were actually liberal back then. These were ex-hippies running companies. If you did something crazy, not only didn't you get in trouble, but they'd rush to tell you stories about how much crazier it was in their days ("You guys drink on the job?That's nothing! We used to do mescaline and hide it from the editor. Ever tried to meet a deadline on mescaline?!").

It was a different culture. Even the NPR types were reasonable. It wasn't a matter of not getting fired for "transgressions." It was that no one would have thought to fire you for that stuff to begin with. Maybe you'd get a reprimand, but they weren't about to get rid of someone and risk alienating all that persons friends, then start the training process all over for a new employee, etc.

#metoo has rigged it so that instead of meeting a guy at work they can trust, women now have to go on dating apps and meet strangers who can use and discard them with no repercussions.

This rarely happened in the office because -- as in school -- if you mistreated someone, word would get around and your rep would take a hit. But when it's a stranger, you can act however the hell you want. This is progress?

[Foolsgo1d]

I dont know about the US but there is a demand for the government to force - by law, to make a % of the CEOs and top suits in a company to be women.

That would work out wonderfully!

[Super_Fire]

(06-25-2018 11:49 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

The office has become like Winston Smith's in "1984," where you don't dare speak to anyone for fear of saying the wrong thing and being booted out.

Women are more social than men, so they're the ones who will suffer more in the new sterile office environment. So they really shot themselves in the foot with #metoo, in more ways than one.

No, only men will be booted out for saying the wrong thing, not women. Their protections are enshrined in the hallowed, O'Keefian halls of HR, and guarded with vigor by the white knight sentinels of middle management.

[MrLemon]

(06-26-2018 01:39 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 12:36 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 11:40 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I made three "Old Economy Steve" memes to commemorate the way the business world was before #metoo and Millennials. All are based on things that actually happened to me (and the woman they caught me with later became my wife -- hehe).

Complain about Baby Boomers if you want, but back in the old days they let us Gen X-ers get away with total craziness in the office. That's because they themselves were engaging in God-knows-what.

Haha. I worked at a defense contractor for 10 years. These people built fucking incredible technology...huge, huge company where the CEO hobnobbed with Senators on a monthly basis.

For DECADES (before my time even, but I heard stories) their culture used to revolve around weekly company meetings that were: A) Barbecues and B) Huge booze-fest. You young guys have no idea what it was like...booze was not just accepted by EXPECTED. The old guys now lament the loss, they say "all the important decisions were made at the weekly beer bust...that's when people could let down the trouble of the week and just focus on strategy". Beer of course but any other liquor you wanted. CEO was the bartender. Of course the female employees, mostly secretaries but plenty of accountants, purchasing managers, QA inspectors and so on, those girls loved those parties. Most of them were married to the men in the company so there was an element of 60-s married couple boozing. The single young girls would get drunk and fuck various men, which the married women would then gossip about. Then they'd harass the drunken hookup couple to get married. That's how people found their spouses.

Today's world is a weird techno-puritan wasteland. Today's people have no fucking idea how weird and puritan they appear to the rest of the human race.

Everyone dated everyone in the office back then. My old company has an alumni page on Facebook and I was surprised by the number of married couples who met there. I knew there were about a half-dozen, but it now seems like half the group met their spouses at the old company.

Liberals were actually liberal back then. These were ex-hippies running companies. If you did something crazy, not only didn't you get in trouble, but they'd rush to tell you stories about how much crazier it was in their days ("You guys drink on the job?That's nothing! We used to do mescaline and hide it from the editor. Ever tried to meet a deadline on mescaline?!").

It was a different culture. Even the NPR types were reasonable. It wasn't a matter of not getting fired for "transgressions." It was that no one would have thought to fire you for that stuff to begin with. Maybe you'd get a reprimand, but they weren't about to get rid of someone and risk alienating all that persons friends, then start the training process all over for a new employee, etc.

#metoo has rigged it so that instead of meeting a guy at work they can trust, women now have to go on dating apps and meet strangers who can use and discard them with no repercussions.

This rarely happened in the office because -- as in school -- if you mistreated someone, word would get around and your rep would take a hit. But when it's a stranger, you can act however the hell you want. This is progress?

Oh yeah. But important for us to remember that #Metoo was NEVER meant to "help" women.

#Metoo was created by horrifying lesbian haters who despise everyone and everything. It's a philosophy of hatred and war. #Metoo leaders HATE normal good-looking women and want to drag good looking women into their pit of misery.

#Metoo is about starting a war between men and women. That is what lesbians consider normal...war and hatred between the sexes.

What's sad is that today's women are so stupid, they are falling for it. Step by step, they have been prepped for this moment by Feminism. Feminism is playing a very long game here, a game of Genocide.

Never forget who is evil here. It is a specific group.

[Montrose]

A friend of mine has a small business and he has only hired women. There’s not a single man on the payroll. I think it’s smart because it protects him against most discrimination and harassment suits. The only risk is that he himself be accused of harassment but it’s easier to manage. On the upside, women are known to be bad at bargaining for higher wages.

[Thrill Jackson]

I know a manager that keeps a small ratio to women to men in his restaurant and he openly says it at least to his employees.

This was in 2014 before #MeToo he has probably doubled down now haha.

[Malone]

(06-27-2018 01:43 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

A friend of mine has a small business and he has only hired women. There’s not a single man on the payroll. I think it’s smart because it protects him against most discrimination and harassment suits. The only risk is that he himself be accused of harassment but it’s easier to manage. On the upside, women are known to be bad at bargaining for higher wages.

That is the opposite of smart. Sure he protects himself from "discrimination" lawsuits —by women. But a man could file one.

The real timebomb he's set up is that he will get set up for a lawsuit by one of those women.

Also, depends on the industry of course, but there's not many industries where women are the tops dogs/most competent. Fashion, maybe?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(06-27-2018 01:43 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

A friend of mine has a small business and he has only hired women. There’s not a single man on the payroll. I think it’s smart because it protects him against most discrimination and harassment suits. The only risk is that he himself be accused of harassment but it’s easier to manage. On the upside, women are known to be bad at bargaining for higher wages.

I would only hire women too if I was running a porn production company.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(06-27-2018 01:43 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

On the upside, women are known to be bad at bargaining for higher wages.

[MrLemon]

(06-27-2018 01:43 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

A friend of mine has a small business and he has only hired women. There’s not a single man on the payroll. I think it’s smart because it protects him against most discrimination and harassment suits. The only risk is that he himself be accused of harassment but it’s easier to manage. On the upside, women are known to be bad at bargaining for higher wages.

Are you joking? How does this protect him from anything?

No offense but I think you are still not getting it. Women don't sue because they've been discriminated against by a man. They sue because they are retaliating for getting fired, or because they had a bad week with the hubby, or because their bored, or because they think they can get 500K out of the owner (this is most common).

They don't sue co-workers, they sue the owner. He's male. Therefore, he's as much or more of a target than ever.

The fact that he employs only women is utterly meaningless. How does this protect him even a tiny bit? You need to understand that NOBODY IS LOOKING. No courtroom sees any of the paperwork. No judge cares or even looks at the numbers. No reality has anything to do with anything, because as a business owner, you don't even get to submit reality. You don't get to go in front of. a judge until you have paid hundreds of thousands in fees.

The legal system has a form, called a "sue your employer form". (I'm simplifying this, but bear with me). The form has two boxes: "Are you female? Y/N. and "Is your manager Male? Y/N". If both boxes are checked Y, then the lawsuit proceeds, automatically. It doesn't matter what the body of the lawsuit says...you could paste Charlotte's Web in there, and nobody would care because they don't even read it at that stage.

Any woman can file. You have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, out of your own pocket (second mortgage on your house if needed, or cashing in your IRAs) just to HIRE a law firm to set a court date. They won't care about reality either. They won't get the lawsuit dismissed...why would they do that? They WANT ALL OF YOUR MONEY. All the defense law firms exist to take every dime of your savings.

Nobody will care when he loses his savings. Nobody will pity him. His wife will divorce him and call him a stupid loser. She will try to persuade him to commit suicide so she can get the insurance money. His elderly parents will stop calling him (even his mom). Everybody will automatically assume that the woman who sued him was right. Nobody will care about his side.

Nobody.

Every single time he hires a woman, he is paying Russian roulette with his life savings. Every single time. If he thinks he is being clever, he is going to find out the hard way one day.

[questor70]

(06-26-2018 12:36 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Today's world is a weird techno-puritan wasteland. Today's people have no fucking idea how weird and puritan they appear to the rest of the human race.

Maybe in some circles. Musk is still going to sex parties.

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk...rly-2018-1

About 10-15 years ago at one major dot com I worked for there was some inter-office romance going on. It smacked of nepotism to me as far as the girlfriend/secretary moving up the org-chart but nobody made a federal case about it. Everyone knows that the workplace is not a pure meritocracy but it seemed women had more to gain than lose in screwing around.

Also worked in a lawfirm where it became wellknown that there was screwing around between some of the partners and the female coworkers / office managers. I don't think it's particularly ethical but it doesn't have to lead to this sort of shit:

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/details-...48770.html

[jeffreyjerpp]

(06-27-2018 02:48 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 12:36 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Today's world is a weird techno-puritan wasteland. Today's people have no fucking idea how weird and puritan they appear to the rest of the human race.

Maybe in some circles. Musk is still going to sex parties.

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk...rly-2018-1

About 10-15 years ago at one major dot com I worked for there was some inter-office romance going on. It smacked of nepotism to me as far as the girlfriend/secretary moving up the org-chart but nobody made a federal case about it. Everyone knows that the workplace is not a pure meritocracy but it seemed women had more to gain than lose in screwing around.

Also worked in a lawfirm where it became wellknown that there was screwing around between some of the partners and the female coworkers / office managers. I don't think it's particularly ethical but it doesn't have to lead to this sort of shit:

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/details-...48770.html

This will take at least a decade to truly play out. As we're seeing with #MeToo, you can be accused for decades after something allegedly happened, and are powerless to do anything about it. Men on this forum are getting wise to the game, it will take a few years for the blue pilled public to catch on.

At my company we already had a woman attempt to file an EEOC suit, but luckily it was tossed out due to lack of evidence (she was both crazy and stupid, thankfully, an intelligent woman could have done serious damage). 85% of such suits are tossed out, and it is pretty hard to sue via EEOC, so maybe MrLemon is referring to civil lawsuits. Those are dangerous because of the reputational damage they cause, and the immense cost to defend them. Threats exist both to companies and individual men, who at any time can be accused of anything and immediately fired without appeal.

Millenial women have been trained that any sex they don't like is rape, and any interaction they don't like is harassment. So I actually expect that the formal #MeToo movement is going to have major setbacks, but accusations of harassment etc. in office settings will probably increase in the next several years, and eventually backfire spectacularly on the women making them.