Plenty has been said about women in the workplace and their interaction with men, and most of it has been negative. Feminists and progressives on one end have little good to say about female prospects at work in the face of discrimination, while on the other end men and many conservatives are concerned that efforts to dampen supposedly rampant instances of sexual abuse/harassment in workplaces are making it too difficult to navigate the work environment without walking on eggshells all the time.
While harassment certainly does occur at work due undoubtedly to the presence of many very thirsty and tactless betas in America, feminists still all too often make mountains out of molehills. This recent article on ThinkProgress (which, unfortunately, recently made itself abundant on my facebook newsfeed) drives this point home. The title? “Five Examples Of How Employees Turn Women Into Sex Objects”.
…issues that women encounter on the job can run deeper than being unfairly assumed to be less competent or less valuable than their male counterparts. In many cases, women are up against very specific assumptions about their sexuality, their role as “objects” intended to be attractive to men, and their responsibility to prevent men from desiring them.
This argument is a common one from feminists and, as usual, it seeks to remove all consequences of female action more than it seeks to create actual equality.
The reality here is that both genders have a responsibility in the workplace. Men have to keep their thirst in check and avoid letting it run rampant in their pursuit of ass. Women, conversely, are asked to make this a little easier by not trying too hard to attract those same men in the workplace.
Both sides are asked to tame their sexuality to some significant degree in order to facilitate their getting along. Many men, who instinctively enjoy the act of pursuing/chasing an attractive woman and would normally be immediately inclined to make many sexual/romantic overtures upon the sight of a woman who appeals to them have to avoid doing this in the work place.
Many women, who instinctively enjoy (and are usually quite skilled in) the act of getting men to initiate said pursuit with themselves as the target, are asked to avoid doing this at work. On paper, this sounds like a fair tradeoff.
Feminists do not agree, and have listed five examples here to tell us why:
A New Jersey judge ruled that casino waitresses can be fired for gaining weight.
Twenty two former cocktail servers sued a popular casino in Atlantic City over a policy that forbids waitresses from gaining more than seven percent of their original body weight.
This is the silliest example provided by the article.
Certain occupations rely on the maintenance of a certain level of physical fitness and/or appearance. An employer should have every right to take such things into consideration if (and only if) they can be considered relevant to the success of the business at hand. In this case, the casino waitresses are there to look hot, fit and enticing to customers in order to encourage their making the kind of decisions (drinking and gambling) that result in their handing the casino their money. To ensure that their waitresses meet this standard, the casino sets a weight limit and it is well within its rights to do this.
Similar examples that impact men abound all over the country. In professional sports, many men are contractually obligated to maintain a certain weight lest they find themselves released altogether. The same thing happens in Hollywood, where the ability of many actors to maintain a role is tied directly to their ability to maintain a certain physical appearance. There are plenty of men in Hollywood who would have an issue if they gained seven percent of their original body weight after taking a role, even if most of that weight came from healthy muscle mass instead of fat accumulation (bulkier men are not desired for many roles). This is to say nothing of the well known advantages that men with certain physical appearances (ex: more height, certain skin tones, etc) have in the workplace, advantages that put more pressure on men.
The bottomline is simple: men as a sex are not exempt from the need to maintain certain physical standards in order to keep certain jobs. Women should not expect to be either.
A widely-used employee training manual tells women how to make sure they don’t lead men on.
Earlier this week, Jezebel reported that a popular manager training guide — used as companies like Google, Groupon, and Modcloth — essentially tells women that they’re responsible for preventing advances from their male co-workers.
And men are responsible for doing the same exact thing.
The manual tells women who are “touchy-feely or flirtatious by nature” to “dial it back,”
…something men are also asked to do.
Women at Merrill Lynch have been instructed to seduce their way to the top.
Other employee trainings have similarly gone off the rails when it comes to guidance on women’s behavior in the workplace. Female employees at Merrill Lynch allege they were made to read a book called “Seducing the Boys Club: Uncensored Tactics From a Woman at the Top”… To get men to do their work, the book suggested “play[ing] on their masculine pride and natural instincts to protect the weaker sex.” To diffuse tense situations, it pointed out that men “puff up” at being told, “Wow, you look great. Been working out?”
I can’t even really get the issue with this bit. If anything, it evidences sexism directed at men by implying that they are easily manipulated and suggesting how to carry out such manipulation.
The Iowa Supreme Court decided it’s okay to fire attractive women if they pose a risk to men’s marriages.
James Knight, a dentist in Iowa, didn’t fire his female assistant Melissa Nelson after 10 years of working for him because of performance reasons. Instead, Nelson alleges that Knight’s wife told him to do it because “she was a big threat to our marriage” given that he was sexually attracted to her. Yet in July, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court stood by an earlier decision that she wasn’t improperly fired because it wasn’t gender discrimination.
I’m more torn by this one. I don’t feel that it is ok for a man to fire a woman simply because he grows to find her attractive, but the alternative doesn’t seem great either. If he continues to employ this woman and the sexual tension between them remains (even if neither of them act on it), he could lose his marriage which, as we’re all aware, could be financially devastating for him.
In either case, the Iowa court was right to uphold their earlier decision. The female employee was not let go simply because she was a woman. She was let go due to details relating to her specific relationship (not that of her gender, just her) with the dentist, a fact that would preclude any notion of gender discrimination.
Gender discrimination does exist in workplaces and, as I’ve said before, plenty of thirsty and tactless betas in the working world give women a hard time there. This is a reality I don’t doubt. What I also do not doubt, however, are realities that feminists fail to acknowledge in their bid to manufacture this notion of a pervasive “rape culture”. Women can be held in certain occupations to certain physical and aesthetic standards, but so can men. Women are asked to put a lid on their sexuality when working with the opposite gender, but so are men.
These are truths, and ignoring them will not make them disappear.
Read Next: Human Resources Have Absolute Power Over Male Workers
Spot on. If being attractive is part of the job description, ala the examples cited here, I have a hard time believing that this isn’t made very clear from the beginning. If you don’t want to live up to your end of the bargain, then you shouldn’t take the job, much less pursue legal action when you get rightfully canned.
Women will always be objects to men, first and foremost. For me to be any other way is to betray my nature as a man. Even the most cuckholded beta schlub is no different.
Sure, you’re going to have to have some semblance of a personality if ( and its a big if ) we ever spend any long term time together, but until then, all I care about is your t&a.
Too bad about those two inches.
An attempt at emasculation?
How refreshing.
Im sure all the men on this sight are just heartbroken over your well thought out insults.
If an employee can’t physically do her job because of weight gain, then it’s understandable that they be fired. Any business can say, “A hot woman will drive more sales so it’s arguable to fire her for becoming unattractive to customers because that means less business.” It’s such a weak argument though and it definitely doesn’t make it morally correct or excusable for them to fire her.
“In this case, the casino waitresses are there to look hot, fit and enticing to customers in order to encourage their making the kind of decisions (drinking and gambling) that result in their handing the casino their money.”
That is really sad. If a business has to rely on a woman’s sexual desirability to drive sales, they are probably a shitty business to begin with and don’t know what they are doing. Not to mention what message that sends, that a woman’s sexuality is what is holding them up. How embarrassing for that business.
It’s a casino, not an investment bank… give customers free drinks served by pretty women so that they’ll spend more gambling.
Not sophisticated, but very profitable.
Indeed. Nobody is talking about firing the data entry clerk (of which maintaining a base level of attractiveness is not a material part of the job, and thus, would be a wrongful termination) because she put on 10 pounds over Christmas.
I really can’t wrap my head around the moral outrage standpoint here. If a material part of the job responsibility is to look hot/attractive, and the employee can’t do it, then don’t take the job. No employer has a moral obligation to keep an employee around if they aren’t living up to the job expectiations. Plain and simple. Say what you will about the viability of the business plan (I disagree with you – having attractive women around to lure men into spending money is a good business plan, IMO), but there is zero moral obligation by any employer to keep an employee around that isn’t doing their job. Classic feminist whining about having to take any responsibility.
” No employer has a moral obligation to keep an employee around if they aren’t living up to the job expectations.”
I would take that a step further; no employer has a moral obligation to hire anyone. State and federal employment laws notwithstanding, if a private employer does not want to hire anyone for anyone, for any reason, that is his business.
Famke said: If a business has to rely on a woman’s sexual desirability to drive
sales, they are probably a shitty business to begin with and don’t know
what they are doing.
So you’re saying that the porn industry, any stripping establishment, escorts/prostitutes, glamour magazines and the pop music industry are composed of shitty businesses that don’t know what they are doing? They know exactly what they are doing which is why they are some of the most profitable, long lasting and recession proof businesses out there.
Money talks honey ! They may be shitty businesses, but it they rake in the money, there will always be tons of people doing it – women included. Tell the likes of Miranda Kerr that she is in a shitty business.
Says the successful business owner……lol
Ridiculous, if you don’t want to pay an employee for any reason it’s none of the government’s business. And if the employee doesn’t like working there they know where the door is. Discrimination regulations can only apply to government positions; until the government provides start-up funding and controls prices they certainly have no grounds for a Communist takeover of private business
Just history repeating itself, A communist regime is just what the Govt/Media/Corporate Cartel want. Control, Control, Control.
1st. Control men by controlling women
“If a guy could fuck a women in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house”
Dave Chappelle
2nd. Control our wealth/assets through divorce
self-explanatory
3rd. Control our business environments
One reason I moved to a right to hire state.
I no longer have to listen to union crybabies blabber about how they destroyed auto industry jobs with their communist agitating.
“An employer should have every right to take such things into consideration if (and only if) they can be considered relevant to the success of the business at hand.”
The problem with this is that it inescapably leads to a he-said-she-said debate. The employer will say these employment restrictions are germane to the job, and the plaintiff will say they aren’t, they’re only there to exclude X group. Either one or a mix of both is plausible, and regulating employment discrimination means having a judge step in and divine the truth about a workplace he may know nothing about.
For example, there could be a store that hires only people that can overhead press 90 lbs, because workers will have to press unwieldy 30 lb crates of bottles overhead onto the top shelves. This will naturally exclude most or even all female job applicants. Could the employer find a way to accomodate weaker workers, so as to hire more women? Maybe. Is he doing it just to exclude women, and it’s really an unnecessary requirement? That’s plausible too. You’re giving government judges Solomonic powers when they may lack Solomon’s wisdom.
Professional feminists do not want an end to “sexual harassment” any more than professional anti-racists want an end to alleged racism. It’s their bread and butter.
Bryce Covert, who’s essay you linked, combines both functions in one package, and she’s hot too : http://thinkprogress.org/person/bcovert/
As “Senior Economic Policy Editor for ThinkProgress” she must have a wealth of business experience to draw upon when writing her insightful essays on gender and racism in the workplace.
A classic White Feminist.
Bryce Cover is not “hot.” Have you Googled a pic? Is Uncle Elmer losing his vision or lowering his standards?
That is so lookist.
Hi Elmer,
I posted on the ABC article and I was put on moderate immediately! LOL!!
So much for freedom of speech.
“Men in the manosphere hate women!!!!”
“Oh, you replied, lets block you!”
>turning women into sex objects
It’s like saying “turning apples into fruits”.
So you are saying that women are just for sex? Are men made for death then since all the war we part in?
Hail Satan, the true lord
” . . . just. . .”
I saw what you did there.
Excellent point.
Lol.
If I need companionship, friends, or people to hang out with I have male friends.
Without pussy, Id never talk to a woman.
You are just a thirsty omega.
Work on yourself before impugning others with out of context quotes.
So you believe that women are, by definition, sex objects? Worth nothing more than as a thing to get your rocks off?
All you need to look at to see their intellectual bankruptcy is their equivocation of “rape” (a violent crime) with any of these other things.
This article isn’t tough enough on the farce of gender discrimination and borders on egalitarian. A job is not a right and you should be able to be fired for any fucking reason. Sure if it gets out a job fires people for wackadoo reasons people might not want to work there or do business there but so be it. Also hostile work environment laws are crazy fucking shit. Gender discrimination is not a problem that should be addressed by law.
Yes, it should be. Get a clue.
No its not.
In the land of the free your right to hire, or not, anyone, for anything, is not superseded by the feels of the less fortunate.
Using the law to discriminate against employers is just one more tiny reason feminazis are a laughing stock.
Damn! Is it me? Because I can’t believe those hooters girls in the second set of pics work at any Hooters. Granted, that in Orlando Florida, where everybody has to drive to get around anywhere, the average girl doesn’t have a tight body.
But then again it’s not like you can walk to the store in Winnipeg either! Those girls are 9’s and 10’s compared to the 5’s and 6’s I see in the one from Orlando.
These hooters photos tell a second story. The feminists want to have as many choices available to them without having to put in the hard work (into their body) necessary to earn them. They are doing it by co-opting betas in positions of power.
Well, it seems to be working judging by the stark difference between the the Orlando and Winnipeg pics.
unless you have a contract with an employee, you should fire them for any reason you decide.
The same thing happens in Hollywood, where the ability of many actors to maintain a role is tied directly to their ability to maintain a certain physical appearance. There are plenty of men in Hollywood who would have an issue if they gained seven percent of their original body weight after taking a role, even if most of that weight came from healthy muscle mass instead of fat accumulation (bulkier men are not desired for many roles).
Totally
I personally hate the term “rape culture”. It is 2 words that generate a totally misleading innuendo about the nature of what it describes. Just like the term “islamophobia”.
And I would also suggest that the same women who complain about the pervasive sexual bias in the workplace, are the first ones to get around in tight skirts, high heels, pancake makeup, and tight tops with a few strategically unbuttoned buttons.
Thus, they go out of their way to ooze sexuality, and then complain about the response in generates in the men around them. The same males that they always complain about as only being interested in “one thing”….. ie, they are well aware of the attention they receive.
Hypocritical attention whoring at its finest.
Just because there’s rape doesn’t mean there’s a “rape culture”. Where are the rape aficionados? Do they have a club? Is there a forum? A magazine?
It’s just another case of misusing worlds in order to exaggerate rape. A CULTURE! OMG! That means it’s EVERYWHERE!
Poorly written but of course that’s unsurprising.
http://i.imgur.com/N85Ev.gif
Just ask for a link to smart1’s own posted material.
Everyone is an expert.
http://i.imgur.com/N85Ev.gif
women hold the ultimate trump card in the game of office politics: a sexual harassment accusation.
“A widely-used employee training manual tells women how to make sure they don’t lead men on.”
Chapter 1: How Not To Lead Men On
Instructions
– Act like a feminist.
This concludes your instruction course.
Women should just stay out of the workforce. They’re disruptive and drive down men’s wages
In case you didn’t know, we are after equality. so, a feminist who is against gender discrimination in the workplace on the basis of appearance, would (and should) also take the side of men who have these issues.
Oh, and being a feminist works at driving away the wankers like a charm. 😉
To answer the question about how this ties together with “rape culture,” lets lay some ground rules, or facts down, that of course only deal with cis-gendered heterosexuals:
a)Women and men are different. They look different, and their sexual behaviour is different.
b)What is deemed attractive in a woman, is very different to what is deemed attractive in a man.
c)Our culture promotes attractiveness, looking after one self (whatever that may mean to you) for BOTH sexes. We can also agree up to a certain point what makes a woman or a man attractive (healthy weight, fit, and clothing that accentuates one’s good features)
Now, let’s put this in a scenario. An evening at a bar.
If a woman, by wearing a tight dress & high heels, is in HIGH risk of getting groped/molested/raped, whereas a man in a crisp & clean shirt, a nice pair of trousers, polished shoes, and expensive cologne is in NO risk, then THAT is rape culture. Both sexes are attractive. So why are only the women in risk? If you tell me that it is because it is mostly men who commit violent acts (such as rape), think of why that is.
Because men are more aggressive? We apply predator tactics to finding sexual partners. Like you said, different sexual behavior.
>Women are victimized more, that makes it a culture!
You heard it here first folks
Feminazi slob1-these men are too aggressive. I need a ‘real’ man.
Feminazi slob2-these docile men arent aggressive enough. I need a ‘real’ man.
You completely contradicted yourself.
Here is what you said earlier in the post:
“Women and men are different. They look different, and their sexual behaviour is different.”
We can all agree on that. But then you follow up with this:
“If a woman, by wearing a tight dress & high heels, is in HIGH risk
of getting groped/molested/raped, whereas a man in a crisp & clean
shirt, a nice pair of trousers, polished shoes, and expensive cologne is
in NO risk, then THAT is rape culture. Both sexes are attractive. So
why are only the women in risk?”
If you accept that male and female sexual behavior is different, then it follows that the male reaction to an attractive female will differ from the female reaction to an attractive male. If we take that assumption of different male/female sexual behavior to be fact (as you have already done), then there would be no logical reason to assume that women will treat attractive men in the same way that men will treat attractive women. Differences in sexual behavior are going to lead to different approaches to attractive members of the opposite sex by each sex.
In short, you’ve already answered your own question.
“Cis gendered” LOL!!!!!!
This is complete bullshit because it’s based on a premise that all men are animals, unable to control their sexual desires no matter where they are, even at work. While the man who wrote this certainly sounds like an animal in the worst of ways, he is indeed a human being, as all men are, capable of “holding himself back” from women. It is not our job as women to dress a certain way or wear our hair or make-up a certain way simply so that we are not harassed in our workplace.
Yes it is.
Reality means if you look easy, someones gonna try….
Seriously, being friendly or flirting, is NOT harrassment.
Repeated attempts after a denial is.
You idiots dont know the difference or just act that way to slander people to give yourself a tiny sense of power.
Isn’t Athlone a college kid who has never been in the professional workplace?
This was probably the most respectful article I have read about women on this site, because at least it acknowledges that there is harassment in the workplace and doesn’t vehemently ignore the issue and pretend that women just pulled the issue out of their ass. However, I don’t know why some people feel like they’re “walking on eggshells” at work. Just don’t comment about someone’s appearance. Since most work places have a somewhat formal dress code, I’m sure there’s not that many outfits that are too distracting. After all, are you really that distracted at a beach with women in bikinis around? You may ogle, but you can probably still function properly.
Because NO ONE has ever had a statement taken out of context and used against them in the workplace.
If you need big guv to hold your hand all the time, dont bore me with your equality fantasies.
When I was younger I worked at a fast food job.
I would hear all manner of double standards from the female pill popping rejects who were destined to be lifers.
They thought it was a good idea to throw feminist nonsense my way even though an inarticulate drug addict begging for tips is in no way a feminist.
Then, they would ask me to pick up heavy things/reach up for things they couldnt reach and Id say no.
They whined like babies, much to my delight, and complained to my manager.
Manager asked me why, and I said that their job isnt my responsibility.
He just laughed and bought a step ladder.
I didnt really get a lot of pussy at that job from the employees, but I also didnt get VD and a baby momma that I would forever despise.
You thirsty FAGGOTS make me wanna fucking puke!!!