.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

War of the Genders

A confrontational soapbox for rants and politically incorrect manifestos regarding feminism, chauvinism, dating and gender issues.

Name:
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

This isn't a dating site. If you wish to propose marriage or to beat me up, leave me a note.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Women are Wimps

Here's an interesting article that describes a court ruling that basically says that since women are more sensitive, any non-sexual intimidating behaviour at work that is not directed specifically at women may still be defined as sexual discrimination.

As usual, women want it both ways. Now when we work and talk with our employees, we have to consider their sex before assigning work to them. This ought to help men look at women as equals, wouldn't you say?

Will this whiny, wimpy, hypocritical madness never end? Perhaps the best solution is not to hire women in the first place...

9 Comments:

Blogger jan@theviewfromher said...

Oh good grief. Of course you can still assign us work in the workplace. Please just use your moderate, friendly indoor voice, and not your loud, intimidating, big bully voice when doing so. whew! I was afraid I was going to have to call my lawyer there for a minute... :-)

October 06, 2005 9:28 am  
Blogger Baron said...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN?! WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY OUTDOOR VOICE?!

Kidding aside, obviously a more pleasant voice is more pleasant, but where is this going to end? What if I use a moderate, friendly indoor voice but use offensive words like... 'let's get our asses moving on this OK'?

Will some of you frail women drag me to court for that as well? According to the court ruling, this could be sexual discrimination. All it takes is a few offended women...

October 06, 2005 9:53 am  
Anonymous Scott Cunning said...

Gah. Gets worse every day.

What makes this particular case sticky is that the boss in question was obviously an abusive bastard, and probably out of line (although, Lord knows, the modern workforce needs to be screamed at now and again...), but rather than just condemning his conduct for being out of line, they had to go and use it to shore up a precedent that further removes "intent" from determining discrimination.

The courts say we have to build more and better bathrooms for women because they take longer and can hold less in? Fine, I'm with it, that's out of their hands. The courts say nonsexual behavior that doesn't offend reasonable men but does offend reasonable women is discrimination? Grow up and give me a break.

I think you nailed the problem; now that the standard is set, people without anger management problems are going to have to watch what they say and do that much more carefully, and many millions of dollars will be sucked away from productive activities, lost to new inefficiencies and an asinine new wave of sensitivity training.

Thanks very much, Ninth Circuit.

October 08, 2005 3:22 am  
Blogger Baron said...

The way I see it, there are at least two big issues here. One is that a precedent has been made which allows any group of 'reasonable' women to sue for discrimination based on their say-so as to what consistutes abuse. This can easily create ridiculous situations both at work (untenable sensitivity needed) and in court (the term 'reasonable woman' becomes more ambiguous and intent is irrelevant).

But what bothered me more is the hypocrisy. Let's assume for argument's sake that women are really more sensitive and can't handle intimidating behaviour and therefore require more attention and sensitivity than men do. This automatically contradicts the 'women are equal' argument. Among other things, this could support paying them lower salaries simply because they require special attention. It will also make men treat women as women instead of treating them as co-workers which is something feminists have been barking about for years.

October 08, 2005 9:17 pm  
Anonymous Dick Masterson said...

Great post.

I can't understand how any women get hired at all. Despite the obvious motive of "improving office decor" there is absolutely no reason to hire a woman to do anything. Just look at the stats. How much money do these lawsuits cost? There's one sure way to avoid them.

-Dick, menarebetterthanwomen.com

October 26, 2005 8:30 pm  
Blogger Baron said...

Well I don't know about you but I hire women in order to get laid. I'm chauvinistic and pathetic like that. But then the strangest thing happens: They produce work!

October 26, 2005 10:13 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not cut to the chase and produce a newspeak or more accurately a femspeak dictionary for all workplaces? We all carry a little pink book for quick reference when interacting with our genderised equals.

How about, beyond say sanctioned and standardardised verbal replies everything else could proceed by way of written response. Hmmm... email would help there. Great we could automatically spell and dicktionary check it.

Moving on, we could introduce men/women only departments with all interchange mediated by a team of translators.

November 29, 2005 12:59 pm  
Blogger Baron said...

Sure, and then we'll need instant and constant updates for the Femspeak Dictionary in case some women somewhere decided that some of the listed phrases were outdated and insulting to women.

November 30, 2005 10:30 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People like you ruin the internet.

June 11, 2011 11:55 am  

Post a Comment

Links:

Create a Link

<< Home