Candace Owens, who is a rather notorious black woman who is an American conservative activist, said in a recent interview that if she were a man running a company, she would not hire a single woman.
Her argument for this is that hiring women comes with an enormous amount of sociopolitical drawbacks and baggage, and no benefits to compensate for them.
More particularly, when men interact with each other for example at a workplace, they can be pretty chill and relaxed with each other. In general men don't really need to fear "insulting" other men by simply casually talking with them and interacting with them, even making comments that go beyond pure professional topics related to their work.
However, when men interact with women at the workplace they always need to be walking on eggshells, especially at certain places: They need to always be extremely careful about what they say and do, and even then it might not even help, no matter how careful they are. Even a very simple casual compliment said to a woman could be taken as "harassment" or other kind of "crime", and in this day and age, especially at certain places, the word of a woman is gospel, and if she says that she was harassed by a man at the workplace, the career of that man will be over, no questions asked.
(In fact, many feminists, including feminist journalists, have lamented the fact that during the last decade or so men have started interacting less and less with women in the workplace. Men tend to outright avoid women and want to do as little as possible with them. This makes sense: Someone who has built an entire career, and whose entire life may depend on that career, doesn't want to risk it all going down the drain because of the word of a random woman in the workplace who misinterpreted, innocently or maliciously, something the man said or did.)
In other words, a woman hired at a workplace carries with her a lot of additional baggage and burden to the company and the men working there: In essence, she needs very special treatment. Men need to tread carefully, need to be wary of what they say and do, something they don't need to do with their male coworkers, and this creates a stressful and unpleasant working environment. A working environment that's very precarious to every single man working there: At any moment, for any reason, he may lose his job, his reputation, his livelihood, because of the word of a woman working there.
And the thing is: What are the benefits of hiring women, which compensate for this extra burden? What balances it out? What's the incentive? What do women contribute to the workplace that men don't, which makes it worth having these implicit (and oftentimes even explicitly stated) extra rules and special treatment, and the extra danger for the male workers of their careers and livelihoods ruined? What do women bring to the table that justifies their privileged position in the workplace?
According to Candace Owens, nothing. It's purely an extra burden with no benefit.
It's hard to disagree with her.
(Of course this isn't the fault of (most of) these women. It's the current feminism-run society that has created this situation. It expects women to have these privileges with nothing to compensate for those privileges. It expects companies to hire women and to engage in this special treatment, for no benefit whatsoever. So why should a company hire women? What's the motivation? What's the benefit?)
Comments
Post a Comment