Summary: Another demonstration of fourth wave feminism’s power in academia, hints at rising fear among corporate executives – and a possible push-back. So far women are winning the Gender Wars, but what they win remains to be seen.
“What’s happening is good, but it is having a chilling effect on camaraderie. I think this is going to be the new normal.”
— Joyce Thomas-Villaronga, president of the United Auto Workers chapter in Sacramento, CA. She’s wrong. Revolutions always run further than expected. We have not yet seen the new normal.
This article about the consequences of the #MeToo movement was posted to LinkedIn on 11 June 2018 and quickly went viral. The usual outrage campaign got the usual response. It was considered thoughtcrime by LinkedIn’s executives and deleted. The profile of the author is also gone. Here it is, courtesy of the Internet archive formerly known as Archive Today.
“Congratulations #Metoo. You’ve Made Women Employees Radioactive.”
“…As a corporate CEO, I have an {sic} fiduciary and moral obligation to my employees, NOT to do something stupid that will destroy the company and throw them out into a very hard and dangerous world. The streets of Silicon Valley are full of RVs and campers with homeless former engineers and former managers, many with no health insurance. I am obligated by law and by custom not to add my people to that list. That’s why I can’t hire women.
“Even before #Metoo, hiring women came with a significant risk. I’ve seen several small companies wiped out by some angry ex-employee claiming some sort of sexual harassment. In each and every case, the company leaders honestly tried to prevent the problem, but were wiped out anyway. “$150K just to walk in the front door” says any law firm. That’s enough to destroy most startups.
“…Because of #Mettoo, women walk in the door with the metaphorical equivalent of a suicide bomb strapped to their back. The slightest wrong move, the slightest insult, and BANG. Everybody is dead. In the past it was just a few women who had this tendency to use lawsuits to destroy. Now in the era of #Metoo, it has become fashionable …”
There are another 386 words elaborating on this. It is worth a quick look. I cannot determine if the author is a CEO, or of what corporation. That does not affect the degree of validity to this analysis. I personally have seen an example of this (fortunately, against a co-worker). It is not pretty.
This is the spread of fourth wave feminism (reaching beyond equality for superiority) is from colleges to businesses. Laura Kipnis describes life at affected institutions. A woman complains that a man “forced her to drink” too much at a public venue. A woman can file charges about an incident days, weeks, months, or years later – after friendly relations, without any evidence. Often with serious effects on the man. Or perhaps the victim?
Despite all these stories from our colleges of weird accusations and kangaroo courts, you might still believe that the above “CEO” is exaggerating the situation (you might change your mind after reading the next section).
“Because of #Mettoo, women walk in the door with the metaphorical equivalent of a suicide bomb strapped to their back.”
A patriarchal attack by an entitled sexist male
The International Studies Association (ISA) is one of the oldest interdisciplinary associations in its field. Founded in 1959, it has over 7,000 members in 100 nations. They held their 59th annual conference in San Francisco during 4 – 7 April. An important event there overshadowed the vast intellectual output presented there. This shows the nature of our America. Alumni of the Stasi read this story and went green with envy. You must read this story in order to believe it.
A man in an elevator joking asks to be let off at “ladies’ lingerie.” A feminist in the elevator feels harassed and files charges with the ISA which can destroy his career. See the woman’s description of this horror.
“Speaking up in the Age of #MeToo and Persistent Patriarchy or
What can we learn from an elevator incident about anti-feminist backlash“
By Simona Sharoni at Feminist Review.
She is a Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies and Director of the Interdisciplinary Institute at Merrimack College (see her website and Wikipedia). Her logic is amazing. See the next article, which shows our intellectuals at work, and why they should not be let near the controls of society.
“Dispute Over ‘Lingerie’ Comment Persists, as Society Rejects Professor’s Appeal“
By Katherine Mangan at the Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 November 2018.
In the following, see a detailed review of this incident, showing how it combines ideological fervor and madness at every level.
“Is ‘Ladies Lingerie’ a Harmless Joke or Harassment?“
By Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic.
Especially see his analysis at the end. This is how our social science intellectuals conduct their business. Remember that when reading their criticisms of American society.
Updates
(1) More pushback by men: “Men afraid to mentor young female lawyers, solicitor chief claims” in The Times, 10 November 2018. Hat tip to Dalrock. For more examples, see MeToo discovers that there is always a counterrevolution.
(2) Feminists respond to men’s reactions: “Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost” by two women reporters at Bloomberg. First, efforts by men to protect themselves are inherently bad.
“If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”
Second, men’s fears are silly. There are no false accusations!
“‘One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room. Finally, he landed on the solution: ‘Just try not to be an asshole.’ That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. ‘It’s really not that hard.’”
(3) Here is another example of radical Leftists at work in academia. A climate scientist wrote about the link between wildfires and warming. A fellow scientist at that university tweeted rebuttals. “That’s white male identity politics to a T.” “This is a form a violence. Stop. Please stop.” The university’s Assistant Dean for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion broadcast a chilling memo alleging that his article was “racially insensitive and caused offense to a significant number of members in the departmental community.”
Conclusions
3x as many male managers are now uncomfortable mentoring women in the wake of #MeToo. This is a huge step in the wrong direction. We need more men to #MentorHer. https://t.co/RyPo0PBz7N
— Arianna Huffington (@ariannahuff) February 6, 2018
Fourth wave feminists are removing the bolts from American society. If you listen closely, you can hear the strange noises coming from America’s social machinery. Bolt by bolt. It will only grow worse. In five years the “CEO’s” advice and the Pence Rule (President Pence’s rule?) might be common sense.
“In 2002 Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side.” {Source: WaPo.}
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, about marriage, and especially these …
- Summary – Starting World War G: the gender wars.
- The feminist revolutionaries have won. Insurgents have arisen to challenge the new order. As always, they’re outlaws.
- As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
- Look beyond the stories to see how we define harassment.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- MeToo = Salem Witch trials 2.0 — see the similarities.
An early book of 4th wave feminism
Manning Up: How the Rise of Women
Has Turned Men into Boys![]()
By Kay Hymowitz (2011).
Got to love her certainty about what is “real adulthood.” How would she react if men told women what was their “real adulthood”? Also, it seldom occurs to women feminists that there might be a rational basis for men’s behavior. From the publisher …
“Women complain there are no good men left – that men are immature, unreliable, and adrift. No wonder. Masculine role models have become increasingly juvenile and inarticulate: think of stars like Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell, or the dudes of the popular Judd Apatow movies. There are no rules for dating and mating. Guys are unsure how to treat a woman. Most importantly, dating in the pre-adult years is no longer a means to an end – marriage – as it was in the past. Many young men today suspect they are no longer essential to family life, and without the old scripts to follow, they find themselves stuck between adolescence and “real” adulthood.
“In Manning Up, Kay Hymowitz sets these problems in a socioeconomic context: today’s knowledge economy is female friendly, and many of the highest profile areas of that economy – communications, design, the arts, and health care – are dominated by women. Men are increasingly left on the outskirts of this new, service economy, and take much longer to find a financial foothold.
“With no biological clock telling them it’s time to grow up, without the financial resources to settle down, and with the accepted age of marriage rising into the late 30s or even 40s, men are holding onto adolescence at the very time that women are achieving professional success and looking to find a mate to share it with. A provocative account of the modern sexual economy, Hymowitz deftly charts a gender mismatch that threatens the future of the American family and makes no one happy in the long run.”
To me the most fascinating aspect of Coror Friesdersdorf’s Atlantic article is how it was accompanied by an ad for a bra. Perhaps we should deal with computer algorithms before dealing with men.
Robert,
That is a great coincidence. Sexist algos!
I’m a little skeptical of the LinkedIn article. There’s no screenshot showing it inside a LinkedIn webpage. Searching for Jan Turner or Grandmere pulls up nothing. Also the wording of the article itself is a little too “perfect”. This last point proves nothing by itself, but combined with the other evidence, paints a picture that is consistent with the quoted piece being given a false attribution and a false backstory by its originator–whoever that may be.
Matt,
“I’m a little skeptical of the LinkedIn article. ”
Me too (not #MeToo). That’s why I said:
Focus on the content, not the author. That’s my rule with most articles. That’s an out-of-fashion belief in today’s America, where many people focus first of all on the author’s tribal identity – since Tribal Truths Are Trump.
I have seen similar articles on Quilette.
Sven,
Wow! Thanks for drawing that to my attention. Lots of stories at Quilette about the radical feminist madness. Here are a few:
How An Anonymous Accusation Derailed My Life.
#MeToo Casualty Ian Buruma Was the Editor We Needed.
How the #MeToo Movement Helped Create a Script for False Accusers.
Larry,
Have you heard of California’s new law requiring female board members on corporate boards? This is to your point that revolutions tend to run further than anyone intended and have more consequences than anyone foresaw.
Yes, and these men were largely feminists and open-borders liberals.
We are like hicks traveling on our first jet. We look out the window and feel the power of its engines as it moves. “Isn’t this amazing!” Then it takes off into the air.
Looking at “s” curves, people forget that first flattish section feels amazing to people on it. Only by comparison with what comes next does it seem flat.
Radical feminists have moved slowly while they have taken control. Now they can move faster.
“Yes, and these men were largely feminists and open-borders liberals.”
They were? How did you know that?
A quibble: is it true that the streets of SV are filled with homeless former engineers?
I ask only because as an engineer, I know tons and tons of engineers who work in SV and not once have I heard that any of them became homeless. At worst, their startup failed and they switched to a cushy job at Google (this is actually a quite common path from what I’ve seen).
I’m having a very hard time believing this – especially since my network is filled with engineers.
Vyasa,
IT’s true in two senses. First, there is a high burnout rate. Young people in silicon valley are often expected to work long hours under great pressure. Some break: psychological problems, alcohol or drug addiction.
Second, the fantastic cost of housing puts many young workers into housing that, while not homeless, is similar to life in 3rd world tentaments. Some of them fall one step down into homelessness.
See “The Dark Side of Life in a Silicon Valley ‘Hacker House’” Lots of stories in the news like this: a man with 3 years experience as a software developer and becomes famous: “Photo of Homeless Man in Silicon Valley Handing Out Resumes Goes Viral.“
I find the quote about homeless former engineers incredibly hard to believe.
I’m an engineer myself, and I have many friends in the software space. Not once have I heard of any of them having a hard time finding a new job. All my friends who had startups that went bust ended up working a well-paid job at a big tech firm (usually Google).
It makes me wonder if the LinkedIN post was fake.
Ram,
“Not once have I heard of any of them having a hard time finding a new job.”
SV is a boom and bust operation. I lived there for 30 years and saw how hard people some people fall during the booms. Even now there are casualties. See my reply to Vyasa – linking to the many news stories about them. Just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they are not out there.
“All my friends who had startups that went bust ended up working a well-paid job at a big tech firm (usually Google).”
You have lucky friends. Google hires a microscopic fraction of the tech people who apply there. Your implication that it is an easy street for techies is bizarrely false.
Ram aka Vyasa,
You appear to be the same person. Sockpuppets are not allowed here.
Wasn’t meant to be a sockpuppet. I didn’t see my first comment initially. Wasn’t sure why, so used a different account.
Thanks for the response.
“Your implication that it is an easy street for techies is bizarrely false.”
There are nicer ways of responding to commentators. You could’ve left out this sentence and your point would’ve still valid. This is just antagonizing behavior on your part.
Instapundit linked to a piece a few weeks back where feminists were complaining that male lawyers were less willing to mentor young women due to fears of being falsely accused: “Men afraid to mentor young female lawyers, solicitor chief claims” in The Times, 10 November 2018 – “”Senior male partners at law firms are refusing to mentor younger women because of fears that unjustified allegations will be made against them, the head of the profession claims.”
One commenter nailed it: “How dare you protect yourself against our future unjustified allegations!”
Going to be lots of that. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Just the way they want it.
Dalrock,
Thanks for posting that story. I added a full cite and excerpt from The Times’ article.
Ten months ago I showed that severe pushback from men was the likely result of #meToo: MeToo discovers that there is always a counterrevolution. As Newton said (paraphrased), for every action there is an opposite reaction.”
A possible big winner from #meToo: Mike Pence. Karl Popper said that successful predictions are the gold standard for science. Prescience is a big deal for politicians. Liberals mocked the Pence Rule. Nobody is mocking it now.
Pingback: Weak men are screwing #MeToo up. | Dalrock
On the Ladies’ Lingerie incident, the original complainant was shocked that the man did not keep everything confidential. He probably would have if she had gone right to him instead of escalating up the chain.
Caspar,
“the original complainant was shocked that the man did not keep everything confidential.”
Since by then everybody was talking about it, her belief that he is the only one to be gagged shows her biased thinking. Throughout the process she considered his efforts to defend himself to be illegitimate. It appears, from what little we know, that the ISA’s officials shared her belief.
It’s too late. The activists will do whatever they can to profit from the war, as they say.
But attitudes about #metoo are already changing dramatically – unsurprisingly among women themselves – and within a relatively short period of time. They seem to be coming back down to earth, and the day-to-day grind. In another year, women and men may come to observe and experience the real after-effects of #metoo in the workplace. In my personal opinion, the verbal backlash is pretty over. People are entrenched in their positions. It’s the silent, unspoken stuff – the strategic and tactical response – that is already in the works – and what is really going to hurt the most:
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/10/20/measuring-the-metoo-backlash
“The share of American adults responding that men who sexually harassed women at work 20 years ago should keep their jobs has risen from 28% to 36%. The proportion who think that women who complain about sexual harassment cause more problems than they solve has grown from 29% to 31%. And 18% of Americans now think that false accusations of sexual assault are a bigger problem than attacks that go unreported or unpunished, compared with 13% in November last year. (The National Sexual Violence Resource Centre, an American non-profit organisation, estimates that 60% of sexual assaults are not reported to police, whereas between 2% and 10% of assault cases are falsely reported.) The change of opinion has been more pronounced among women than among men. But rather than breaking along gender lines, the #MeToo divide increasingly appears to be a party-political one.”
If I wanted, longer term to make a world more suited to the religious right (Christian or Muslim), where men and women worked separately, were schooled separately and dated less before marriage, then we are swinging the ultra liberal pendulum far enough to push us the other way all the way to the Victorian era.
I have read about Culture wars, I am only just seeing how they will play out.
Thanks for the insightful articles and comments, but OMG!
Just a Guy,
Interesting speculation! I have no idea how this will play out, other than the probable path to a solution is (guessing) by men standing together.
Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
And, weak men create hard times.
Karoly,
That’s a common saying. I’ve never found the source. But it makes no sense.
Hard times often create weak dispirited people who give their lives over to tyrants – relieving them of the burden of thought and self-government.
There is zip evidence (just cherry-picking) that good times creates weak men. The long springtime of Classical Greece produced the men that waged for Peloponnesian War for two generations – fought with such ferocity that it burned away their civilization.
The long peace in Europe (1815-1914) produced the generation who fought WWI with fantastic ferocity, ceasing only when their armies were broke and exhausted.
Also, what do “strong” and “weak” men mean? Describing moral and spiritual strength, mental strength, or physical strength? They are very different qualities. Many Greek philosophers taught that excess in any one of those over the others produced deformed men. True strength came from a balance of those qualities, perhaps even more important than their magnitude.
There is zip evidence (just cherry-picking) that good times creates weak men. The long springtime of Classical Greece produced the men that waged for Peloponnesian War for two generations – fought with such ferocity that it burned away their civilization.
”I think this saying was in response to the observations of barbarians often overrunning civilizations that are perceived to be decadent and weak”
Like the Mongols and their military successes against the much more sophisticated civilizations of china and the middle east.
As well as other Nomads that keep being the scourge of civilization until the invention of Gunpowder.
And of course the barbarians overrunning the Roman Empire.
Leading to the conclusion that wild men have more vigor as a result of the hard conditions they live in. Mental strength as a result of overcoming harder obstacles and so forth.
info,
Unless some evidence is shown that those civilizations were “weak”, then those examples are exercises in making stuff up. There are many other explanations.
“Leading to the conclusion that wild men have more vigor as a result of the hard conditions they live in.”
That’s obviously quite false. Those civilizations not only held off barbarians for centuries, in many cases they kicked their butts. If there was an inherent superiority to “wild men”, then history would be different.
”That’s obviously quite false. Those civilizations not only held off barbarians for centuries, in many cases they kicked their butts. If there was an inherent superiority to “wild men”, then history would be different.”
That’s true with organizational and technological superiority and when a civilization is on the rise.
What’s your thoughts on decadence contributing to civilizational decline? Which weakens them from within leading to their eventual defeat?
Info,
“What’s your thoughts on decadence contributing to civilizational decline? ”
I believe we do not understand what makes civilizations rise and fall. So we tell stories. This clouds our vision. Let’s focus on the road that lies ahead of us and on direct lessons from history, and save wild speculation for entertainment.
info – follow-up.
The story of Rome’s collapse is complex. It’s poorly understood by historians, and not at all by the general public.
Here is one story about Rome’s end times (told, as history usually is, for political effect in today’s conflicts). But the basic facts are correct: “1,700 years ago, the mismanagement of a migrant crisis cost Rome its empire” by Annalisa Merelli.
Larry,
The quote (favored by MGTOW) comes from the below novel:
Those Who Remain (The New World Series) (Volume 7) by G. Michael Hopf
Interestingly, four phases show up in the Strauss–Howe generational theory also.
Be honest, I haven’t read it but supposed to be good:
THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL by Sir John Glubb
people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
Karoly,
I saw that cite. The first line “Hard times create strong men” predates 30 Dec 2016, what Amazon shows for as the published date for Those Who Remain. Google shows lots of page dates for the saying before that date – but those are often wrong. Some in Summer 2016 look possible, but it is too difficult to pin down.
“Strauss–Howe generational theory”
That’s intriguing! It’s interesting stuff, although not my cup of tea. That goes back to the 1980s, and would make a possible origin for this saying!
Things will change when the first man kills the cunt who destroyed his life. I hope to see that in 2019.
A Number,
Why will that make murder improve conditions? It sounds like the dream of a radical feminist, from the top of their wish list.
As radical as it sounds, AN’s idea isn’t entirely without merit. Something needs to be done about false rape accusers like Emma Sulkowicz and Souad Faress.
@Larry Kummer
”Why will that make murder improve conditions? It sounds like the dream of a radical feminist, from the top of their wish list.”
Indeed. That’s a thinking of emotion and vengeance. Although what would a Master Strategist do in your opinion?
I see only boycott of toxic behaviors like this and find ways to regain power back from those people.
info,
“Although what would a Master Strategist do in your opinion?”
No master strategists here. Nor are top-down solutions usually effective for such things. I’ve written quite a bit about solutions to the Gender Wars, from those for the individual to those for America. See them here.
A Number.
It is happening all the time, all over the world. Men murdering women (and vice versa) for all possible reasons: jealousy, adultery, professional rivalry, you name it. It doesn’t change a thing.
Taraxippos,
“It is happening all the time, all over the world.”
History is not the rise of new things, since human nature is the same everywhere and always. It is variations in magnitude and mixtures. So it is with spousal murder. See this excerpt from the chapter about “Slow Poisoners” from Charles MacKay’s great Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds (1841)
“Beckmann, in his History of Inventions, and Lebret, in his Magazin zum Gebrauche der Staaten Kirche Geschichte, or Magazine of Materials for a History of a State Church, relates that, in the year 1659, it was made known to Pope Alexander VII. that great numbers of young women had avowed in the confessional that they had poisoned their husbands with slow poisons. The Catholic clergy, who in general hold the secrets of the confessional so sacred, were shocked and alarmed at the extraordinary prevalence of the crime. Although they refrained from revealing the names of the penitents, they conceived themselves bound to apprise the head of the church of the enormities that were practised. It was also the subject of general conversation in Rome that young widows were unusually abundant. It was remarked, too, that if any couple lived unhappily together, the husband soon took ill and died. …
“After her death the mania for poisoning seems to have abated; but we have yet to see what hold it took upon the French people at a somewhat earlier period. So rooted had it become in France between the years 1670 and 1680, that Madame de Sevigne, in one of her letters, expresses her fear that Frenchman and poisoner would become synonymous terms. As in Italy, the first notice the government received of the prevalence of this crime was given by the clergy, to whom females of high rank, and some among the middle and lower classes, had avowed in the confessional that they had poisoned their husbands. …
“Two women, especially, made themselves notorious at this time, and were instrumental to the deaths of hundreds of individuals. They both resided in Paris, and were named Lavoisin and Lavigoreux. Like Spars and Tophania, of whom they were imitators, they chiefly sold their poisons to women who wanted to get rid of their husbands; and, in some few instances, to husbands who wanted to get rid of their wives. …It is not known how long they had carried on this awful trade before they were discovered. Detection finally overtook them at the close of the year 1679. They were both tried, found guilty, and burned alive on the Place de Greve, on the 22nd of February, 1680, after their hands had been bored through with a red-hot iron, and then cut off. Their numerous accomplices in Paris and in the provinces were also discovered and brought to trial. According to some authors, thirty, and to others, fifty of them, chiefly women, were hanged in the principal cities.”
Seems to me that male executives (much like modern American husbands) are in an impossible situation. If they don’t hire/mentor women they will be charged with discrimination. If they do hire/mentor women they are at risk for sexual harassment charges at the woman’s whim.
Pingback: The Coming Crackup of the US II – Bryce Sharper