Carve out the job you deserve!

Deep-pocketed corporate employment, the kind that used to be called “a good job”, as depicted in the Monster.com ad, will be increasingly out of your reach as the years go by. But don’t fret; there are other options, and you’d do well to aggressively pursue them.

That said, what if you could…

  • Not act like a wimp?
  • Compellingly negotiate with your boss so that he doesn’t want to waste your time and attention?
  • Not depend on how other people treat you to maintain a good mood and high energy level?
  • Go home in a great mood, even if the boss snapped his fingers at you?
  • Build rapport with the old boy?
  • Initiate change instead of just react to your experiences?

Then YOU could have that lady’s job after she miraculously finds one that revolves around HER needs! And you could find it a lot more satisfying than she ever did! Win⸺win! Subscribe today and I’ll tell you how!

Don’t think in terms of “getting” (sic) “the job you deserve”; if it was handed to you, YOU DON’T DESERVE IT. The message of passivity is reinforced by the monster having to rescue the damsel in distress.

Think more like an entrepreneur, EVEN IF YOU’RE WORKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE. What do I have to do to make a compelling offer to my boss, so that he thinks of me as a strategic partner, not as an organic and highly interchangeable (that is, replaceable) cog in his machine? How do I take initiative? Add value? Leave my boss and colleagues delighted customers? Keep coming up with new benefits that keep them coming back for more?

 

Harpy attack! Here’s what to do…

NB, foul language in the video! (there’s also one naughty word in my commentary below)

This video isn’t new but it’s recently been circulating among some of the people I follow on Twitter. The young woman in the video is apparently triggered by white males. “White” has become the trendy whipping boy but male is probably the key factor.

I ran into that kind of behavior in college even though that was a while ago. It wasn’t as common then as it is now, was tolerated more than condoned, and like most people I foolishly assumed that it would burn itself out, rather than turn into the conflagration it is now.

Actually, it goes back long before then. Misandric fixation has apparently always existed.

Contrary to what we might nowadays suppose to be the case, misandric fixation is not necessarily the result of subjection to ideological indoctrination. Historical cases reveal that the condition can take hold without the subject having been influenced by either Marxist or eugenics ideologies. Indoctrination can, obviously, exacerbate certain vulnerabilities in the subject – weaknesses of character which were pre-existent; yet indoctrination is not a necessary prerequisite to the misandric fixation condition.

Some things that changed over the years is that I grew up in the tail end of expectations of public behavior that no longer exist, and there were also taboos against talking about fringe elements, so these kinds of incidents got scrubbed from public awareness. There were no guerrilla youtube videos then either. You only knew about these incidents if one of them happened to you. As a result they came as nasty surprises.

A typical incident when I went to college was when I was working in the university cafeteria, and a woman dressed like a stereotypical terrorist came to order an espresso. As I was making it, she launched into a monolog about all the things she thought was wrong with me.

Her comments were extremely personal; she was talking about me as if she had know me for years, but we’d never met before. She was ripping into me with completely made-up accusations and insults right off the top of her head, one after another, on and on. She was calm but “creepy”.

Without knowing her life story, I could take a guess: it’s a mental illness such as “malignant paranoia”. Those are the ones who accuse other people of their own dark and hostile thoughts.

There were a few similar incidents, often involving minor contentions. One of them walked up to me out of the blue while I was using a public phone, and demanded that I end my call and turn the phone over to her. I had just started using it, and she hadn’t been waiting. I finished my call, and she launched into a barrage of insults. Another guess: narcissistic personality disorder, or something similar. Those are the ones who are self-obsessed to the point of not caring about anyone else’s rights or feelings.

In both of these incidents, what seemed to trigger the confrontation was running into a man and not wanting him to exist.

There were a lot of other incidents that were briefer and less dramatic. Middle fingers and a few foul words in passing, that sort of thing. Typically there was no warning and no provocation on my part that I could discern, or it didn’t make sense, like getting angry after I just did her a favor (that she interpreted in some twisted way to imagine malicious motives), just a sudden hostile confrontation, leaving me upset and wondering what I’d done wrong.

If I had to guess, there are some commonalities:

  1. failure to ever come to terms with their sexual orientation and, by extension, their feelings about men as sexual rivals.
  2. subclinical mental illnesses such as personality disorders. These are rarely professionally-diagnosed or treated, hence the expression “sub-clinical”.
  3. the politicization of their thought processes and feelings. In the old days, these women would have been isolated by high cost of travel and communication, but nowadays, they can easily find each other, convince themselves that they’re “normal” by way of “social proof”, and synergistically feed off each other.

The young man whose voice we can hear in the video is trying to reason with her. There’s no point; anything he says will actually make her dig in her heels all the deeper just because he’s saying it. Here are some tips for when you run into one of these:

  • Don’t take it personally. It’s not you, it’s something going on in her own head.
  • Don’t feel bad for not being approved of, and don’t grovel for approval. She has no incentive to give you any; on the contrary, the more you react, the more she’ll zoom in on whatever she figures out gets your goat. Remember, she wants you to feel bad (notice how the young woman in the video is grinning with delight as she hurls insults), so don’t give her any feedback that will tip her off.
  • No point getting angry either.
  • Disengage as soon as the behavior starts. There’s no point; you can’t help her, and you have better things to do with your life.
  • Say as little as possible to end the conversation. Be aware that this type often craves a good fight, might start following you to taunt you more, & might even try to stage an incident. Disengage and get out of the situation.
  • If you run into one of these at a business, take your business elsewhere, and write the management a polite letter regarding what happened. Keep calm, don’t exaggerate, and keep it objective. Don’t sound like you’re complaining, sound like you’re trying to alert a responsible person that there’s a problem he or she needs to know about.
  • Colleges are full of these, and often they get themselves into “gate-keeping” roles; beware! These are a good reason why it’s a bad idea for young men and especially white males to go to college anymore.
  • If you run into one of these in a workplace situation, document every incident, tell trusted 3rd parties who might later be witnesses if you need them, and get ready for the possibility of legal action. Bear in mind that she is likely to bring it against you, despite being the guilty party. And, using “pussy power”, she might very well get away with it! You might need to look for another job, but jobs are scarce, and these creatures are ubiquitous, so you might have to stand and fight a battle of law and persuasion. Be prepared to do so.

Fired for being a man

Late in 2016, I heard about a lawsuit against Marissa Mayer and two other executives of Yahoo Corp. over policies that lead to a purge of male employees.

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led illegal purge of male employees, lawsuit charges

Recently I looked to see if I could find a resolution, but I couldn’t.

What happened was that Mayer hired two executives with stated objectives of employing more women, and an apparent willingness to fire male employees to make room for them.

She also instituted a performance-review process that forced managers to allocate specific percentages of their staff to various performance grades, without regard to their actual performance. In other words, if a highly-competent manager assembled a team of 5 high-performing staff, she would still be forced to rate some of them as under-performers in order to fill her quota of staff to get rid of.

This is a trick some major corporations use to evade labor laws requiring major employers to publicly announce layoffs. This improves their image to the investment community; instead of framing it as “company in financial trouble has to lay off staff”, it turns into just a low-key matter of getting rid of dead weight.

Planning layoffs as a cost-cutting measure, and covering it up by staging an elaborate deception about firing employees for underperformance, is quite a nasty trick: it makes it hard for the fired employees to ever find another job, because it’s impossible to hide lack of good references.

The way these types of performance-review systems are set up, managers have an incentive to spare or sacrifice staff according to the strategic value of their role, instead of on their actual performance. For example, if an employee serves as a shared resource among several different work-groups in different departments, his supervisor has an incentive to give him a low mark on his review, because some of her budget is being spent on service to other departments. She would rather lose staff she’s forced to share with other departments, than staff who work 100% for her.

One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit unwittingly made himself expendable by taking an approved sabbatical. He was working on a story for the company while on sabbatical, but since he wasn’t working for the company full-time, there was an incentive to get rid of him.

That said, it wasn’t his supervisor who got rid of him. His supervisor’s rating of him was over-ridden by an executive named Megan Liberman. That was another way that the system was designed for abuse: higher-ranking managers could over-ride the ratings assigned by direct supervisors, even if they had no direct awareness of the staff’s actual performance. The point was to allow executives to prune staff according to their own objectives. Liberman and another executive named Savitt had an objective of replacing men with women.

The reason I’m writing about this scenario is because it might happen to you. Your employer doesn’t love you. In all fairness, some employers are conscientious about treating their employees fairly, but competitive pressure, and pressure from investment banks, favor the ones that are ruthless. Your employer pays you money only to the extent that they need your services; if they can, they will get rid of you for any reason that’s compelling to them, often for reasons that aren’t even strictly business-related.

Off the top of my head, I’m aware of four other cases where men were fired for being men; two of them were large-scale systemic purges. I’m also aware that there were organized groups of women at Microsoft lobbying to replace male programmers with women; I would guess that it’s a popular cause in many big corporations.

To understand the risk, it might help to think about why companies would fire men to make room for more women:

  • PR points if they can frame it as “empowering women”. Since women make something like 80% of all consumer purchases, companies selling consumer products have an incentive to frame themselves as “pro-woman”.
  • Avoiding trouble from the equal opportunity commission, which tends to over-look favoritism for “protected” groups. Basically, if the feds want you to employ more X, then you can avoid trouble by employing nothing but X.
  • The recent phenomenon of putting ideology ahead of business profits. We now have activist corporate executives.
  • Misandric executives acting on their personal impulses. Political pressure to hire “feminists” into executive ranks has seeded corporate systems with literal man-haters.
  • Wishful thinking about “pay gaps”: some corporate decision-makers hope that women really are willing to work harder than a man for less pay. Aside from not being true, because as any Libertarian will tell you, everybody gets what they are worth, these strategies backfire spectacularly when women sue their employers for thinking this way.
  • The assumption that women are less ambitious than men and therefor less of a threat as rivals. I’m not so sure about this one. You can find mousy women, but there are plenty of women with fangs and claws, and for that matter, you can find mousy men too. The real problem is that performance is usually tied to aggression: you don’t usually find super-performers willing to meekly submit. More likely, someone needs to tame his or her own ego so (s)he can work with high-performers.
  • Sweetheart deals that are nothing more than legal prostitution. Aside from being the most expensive way ever conceived to get sex, these schemes create liability when the prostitute decides its time for the lawsuit windfall.

All of these motives to replace men with women have costs to the bottom line, but because the cost is transferred from the decision-maker to the stock-holder, there’s an incentive to do it anyway. Corporations tend to have a lot of problems like this one because of the way that decision-makers don’t bear the costs of their decisions.

By the way, I see no reason that companies wouldn’t also start firing employees for other personal attributes. I would guess race is next, if your race does not constitute a protected class.

One way to avoid the problem is to have a preference for working for smaller companies, which can’t afford not to make decisions for reasons that are at odds with profits, and for privately-held companies, which tend to be much more profit-oriented than publicly-held companies. Better yet, be self-employed.

For that matter, it’s a good idea to bail out from any company that starts putting social politics ahead of profits; like Yahoo!, they always end up in financial trouble.

You can also reduce your risk of getting fired by being indispensable. The mistake one of the men made who was fired from Yahoo was taking the sabbatical. Even though he had permission to do so, and was working on a report for the company, that still meant that he wasn’t contributing as much as someone else who was actively working at the company when the company decided to do a round of layoffs.

He probably didn’t realize that layoffs had been planned; the company presumably kept it a secret from employees just like they did from the state. If he would have had a little more sophistication about life, and broader horizons than just his own plans, he would have anticipated it anyway.

Another way to reduce the risk of getting fired is to be popular. First of all, bosses, like most people, tend to make decisions for emotional rather than practical reasons. You’re less likely to get fired iif your boss likes you more than another option for firing. Second, in corporate executions like the ones at Yahoo!, a typical strategy for preparing to fire someone is to socially-isolate him. It’s classic bullying. That’s easier to do if you’re the type who just does his job and keeps to himself aside from some drinks after work on rare occasion, which is true of probably most men. That’s not the way you build working relationships. What matters is the way you relate to others while you are actively working with them.

What about lawsuits? That’s not something I can advise you about, because I’m not a lawyer. It’s also not a matter in which you personally have any control: it’s up to a judge. In this particular case, I haven’t seen any news of a resolution. That means the plaintiffs are still in a bad situation. Part of the problem is that men are not generally sympathy figures; at the moment we’re more likely to be targets of hostility. I wouldn’t count on the courts to protect men from being fired for being men. Lawsuits are at best an act of desperation. It’s better to avoid the situations that lead up to one.

One thing that might help is having counsels to go to when you need advice about a work situation. That’s why I set up a forum to talk about that very topic.