After this thread (regarding a restraining order against a comic book artist for violence directed at a female comic book artist) and the various Brian Wood threads, the realization has set in that when it comes to my business why should I EVER hire a woman to work for me, all things being even remotely close to equal?
Given that I have less than 15 employees and therefore am free of any and all EEOC concerns, I know I am effectively immune to EEOC lawsuits regardless of what I do. Hiring a woman for a position rather than a man greatly increases the likelihood of various problems not faced if I hire a man. A woman would have to be VASTLY more qualified than every man for a position in order to overcome the increased potential for distraction and disruption to my business.
I 100% agree with you that misconduct, especially violence, toward women should not be tolerated and needs to stop. The only way I can guarantee that never happens at my business is by never having a female employee.
Reading on further through the thread, this guy doubles down on his misogyny by discussing how all women have the tendency to have greater healthcare issues and are likely to become pregnant and leave employment, so it’s their own fault they’re “worth less” as employees than men are.
A couple things spring readily to my mind here…
- Lets be clear here: the “misconduct” he’s discussing is a crime, and the men who engage in it in the most dangerous cities in CT are criminals. This guy is saying that he’d rather keep criminals in his employ than women.
- Women who are potential victims of “misconduct” are penalized no matter what they do; by being victims of criminal behavior, or by being the potential targets of criminal behavior. So we’re fucked either way.
- I don’t know what kind of business this guy runs, but surely there are women who interact with his employees somewhere along the line. What care does this employer take to protect women who are his consumers from the criminals he likes to employ?
- Why is it not just as effective to eliminate the men who harass as the women? Wouldn’t it be just as cost effective to fire men who harass, not to mention “the right thing to do” to side with the victims and not the criminals?
- If I can discover who this guy is, I can never patronize his business and lead other women to never patronize his business by widely publicizing his point of view. The disruption to his profit that would cause would far outweigh any advantage he gains from never hiring women in the first place.
- Nothing prevents women from doing the equal but opposite thing; hiring only other women and no men. If I were running a business that had less than 15 employees, this would be a temptation, just to balance the playing field.