Are There Really Seven Million American Men Refusing to Work?

Senator Josh Hawley was on Hour 2 of the Tuesday, June 20, 2023 Dennis Prager Show to promote a book. [This entry is being bumped up because I just saw the claim in the post title again -things haven’t changed in years?]

Senator Hawley and Mr. Prager were lamenting the "crisis" that supposedly seven million able men of employable age are NOT working in the USA, and that is supposedly NOT including men who are on Unemployment. Of course one of the biggest problems they see with this is that women don't want to marry guys who aren't gainfully employed, because Heaven forbid women not get whatever they want and some people NOT marry.

The assumption is that these men are sitting around playing video games, watching adult media, and getting high.

Curiously, there were no figures provided for women who aren't working to provide as a comparison. That's because it is OK for women not to work. It's not OK, in the minds of some people, that a man doesn't work.

It is unlikely that there are really seven million men who are perfectly healthy who are sitting around just doing whatever they want and nothing else even though they're financially dependent on family, a girlfriend, a wife, etc. There might be a few men doing exactly that, but if I was a betting man I'd bet that almost all of those 7 million men have one or more of the following going on:

• Undiagnosed/untreated/unregistered physical and mental disorders
• Homeless
• Retired, even if unofficially and early
  
• Stay at home dad or house husband (yes, some women agree to this, and some men are with other men who agree to it)
• Helping to care for younger or disabled siblings, elderly or disabled parents
• They own enough (investments, real estate, etc.) they don't need employment
• They have their own business but haven't officially registered their business
• They work gigs
• They buy, sell, and trade without being registered as a business
  
• Under the table work
• Work in the family business, off the books 
• They consider themselves artists and are supported by others enough (even if just their parents) they don't need a registered job
  
• They're getting their education
  
• Black market
• Going through the criminal justice system
  
• Traveling or exploring
• Working on their skills outside of formal education
• Jobseeking while not formally on Unemployment 

Obviously, men being in some of those categories is a bad thing, but for other categories, it's not a problem at all.

The fact is, the overwhelming majority of men who play games, watch adult media, and/or do drugs are employed. Most of them are married or in some form of romantic or sexual relationship.

If a man has gotten the message that he's not needed or wanted in workplaces and doesn't want to sign a terrible state contract, and he's found a way to stay off the public dole that isn't destructive, good for him. I don't see a need for him to change to please a Senator, a talk show host, or a woman.

The Senator claimed this has been building for fifty years. Now why would that be? What happened 50 years ago? Hmmmm…

He also says America needs you to get a job and start a family. How about... America needs you to not be dependent on government. We don't need every man out there to start a family. Want more men to marry? See what I wrote here.

Why Some Men Refuse to Interact With Women in the Workplace

In some places in America, sexual harassment laws and polices have gotten so absurd we may look back someday and laugh at our own stupidity. But it isn't funny for people who have to deal with the problems now. It isn't funny for grade school boys who get labeled harassers for hugging grade school girls. [This was posted here in May 2012. It is even more relevant than ever.]


As with so many other things that involve the government, the cure is worse than the problems.

Imagine three workplaces:

1) A workplace where interaction between coworkers is dull and strained, with little socialization; everyone is fearful of acting naturally.

2) A predominantly male workplace where men talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading lady in the movies and how hot she is, and where women get asked out for dates, and everyone jokes.

3) A predominantly female workplace where women talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading male in the movies, a star male athlete and his physique, PMS, a jerk of an ex, and everyone jokes.

Now, I know those are just three examples and do not exhaust the spectrum, but who really prefers the first option?

Here's where we are in the workplace in some states:

A regular customer comes in, chats with a favorite employee, and hugs that employee before leaving. A different employee, who was on the other side of the room, files a complaint for a "hostile work environment". The customer and the first employee are barred from hugging again.

That is the world that has been created. Normal, harmless (even beneficial) human behavior that has gone on forever in the workplace is now banned. It isn’t by employer choice, really. Since I believe in property rights and freedom of association, I think business owners should generally be able to hire, fire, promote, or demote anyone or any or no reason, and set the tone of the workplace to their liking. Under that policy, if they create a workplace someone finds hostile, that person can take their services or business elsewhere. Guess who loses? The business owner, if that was a good customer or employee. But employers have lost or are losing the freedom to set the terms and conditions and tone in their own workplace, due to laws and court decisions about sexual harassment.

It’s another way trial lawyers and stupid juries are doing some harm. It is another way the Left takes the fun and joy out of life. Yes, this is a Leftist issue. Sexual harassment is something that has been the drumbeat of Leftist feminists. Leftist feminism was, to borrow from El Rushbo, largely about getting less attractive women greater access to the mainstream, and “hostile environment” sexual harassment is their way of punishing men they find unattractive. That is evidenced by the fact that two people can say the exact same thing ("that's a nice blouse") to the same woman in the same tone, and the male who says it is punished while the lesbian who said it isn't. It is also about forcing all workplaces to cater to female sensitivities, even if there are 100 men there and 1 woman. The people who investigate allegations are usually, guess what, women. Leftist women. And men are more prone to violate restrictions because we're visual creatures, we want sex more than women, and we're expected to do the pursuing.

Policy and law about quid quo pro isn't as ridiculous, but even with that, I tend to prefer property rights and freedom of association. If your boss asks for sexual favors, it is time to find a new place to work, if you don’t want to do your boss.

The Left loves to convince people they are victims, and this is just one more way they can be victims.

I know that discrimination and a bad work environment do hurt some people. None of this is to say I think assault, exposure, stalking, or slander/libel should be legal, nor that I think quid pro quo or creating a hostile work environment is morally acceptable. I have a mother, a daughter, sisters, and a wife. I don't want them treated crudely and rudely. However, I'd like to think they all know how to hold their own against rude jerks. But I'm also a man and I have a father, a brother, and a son, and I don't want any of them screwed over with ridiculous laws and polices stacked against men.

Creating a workplace in which nobody will ever be offended in regards to their sex, body, love life, sexual orientation, or delusions about "gender identity" is not possible. I can only conclude that stringent laws and standards regarding "hostile work environment" in regards to sexual harassment are those that everyone knows will not be followed or met most of the time, and are meant to give women an edge over men and to punish employers and reward trial lawyers and government bureaucrats. Employers subject employees to laughable prevention training for the sake of liability issues, though sometimes it doesn’t matter if everyone's been through training – the employer will still get nailed and have to pay out large sums of money.

Why does sexual harassment get special status? If an employee eats bacon in a lunchroom, is that dietary harassment to someone trying to avoid pork products for weight loss, health, or religions reasons? What about if I eat a big, beefy hamburger in front of a devout Hindu? Or if a vegan tells me how wrong I am for eating meat?

Why has the workplace had to conform to female sensitivities, rather than how things used to be when a woman entered a male-dominated workplace or profession: the thickening of her skin, and often sharp wit on her part that disarmed rude men and charmed others? I've personally known women who broke glass ceilings with no help of quotas or sexual harassment polices – they succeeded because they were outstanding employees who knew how to deal with people as adults.

If I invite someone to my home and I want to be a good host, I’ll strive not to offend them. But since when has there been a right to never be offended anywhere, especially if you are a member of a group favored by the Left? (Nobody cares about offending heterosexual white Christian males.)

Why couldn't I run a workplace the way I’d like? As it happens, I would choose to have a policy against quid pro quo harassment and I would have a fairly high standard for decorum. But that should be my choice, not something determined externally and imposed upon me.

What say you?

*****

UPDATE: Post "#MeToo", some men are refusing to mentor or even hire women, or women who are at all attractive. It's sad, but it is an understandable reaction. Saying "Just don't be a jerk" expresses a nice sentiment, but one that doesn't deal with reality. Men could act within the rules of today, only to find in 10 or 20 years that they're being attacked because their behavior or the words they used have since been deemed problematic.

Men Need To Protect Themselves In the Workplace

 

Don't be fooled, guys.

It doesn't matter how relaxed your workplace feels or seems. It doesn't matter what your boss does, what other men do, or what the women do there.

You must always remember that normal adult behavior, including harmless behavior that has gone on in workplaces for as long as workplaces have been a thing, can now get you in deep trouble. Normal behaviors, normal conversations, can lose you your job, your entire career, and more.

Your job, your workplace, is not a place to find a date, or a lay, or a girlfriend, or a wife. It doesn't matter that people have done that for as long as there have been workplaces and are still doing it now. It is far too much of a risk for you. You need to think about you, and covering your donkey.

No, it's not just crude jokes, or lingering hugs, or cheesecake screensavers, or trading favors. The way you look at a woman, even if she is fine with it, can get you into trouble.

So, how do you prevent accusations?

The best way is to work for yourself, or for very small business at which no women work and no women will ever work. Even then a woman who interacts with you as a customer or supplier or whatever can make accusations, but you have more control and protection than if you're working for a large employer, especially one where misandrist feminists are in control, or at least in control of dealing with alleged sexual harassment.

But if you do work somewhere that women also work, you need to be very careful, deliberate, and consistent in what you do:

Keep your interaction with women strictly professional and to the minimum that is absolutely necessary.

What does this mean in practice?

One Reason You're Not Husband Material

Guys, I often write about how there isn't suitable, compatible wife material for you to marry. But another reason you should avoid marriage (or at least, a reason you can tell others when they ask you why you're not married) is that you aren't husband material. This isn't an insult, mind you.

Below is a list put together through listening to Dr. Laura for many years. She is very pro-marriage and used to do marriage and family therapy.

If a woman is looking for a man to be a husband and father to her children, this is the kind of employment he must have. This is just about his job. This doesn't even cover all of the other qualities he must have. If you don't have a job like this, you're not (first) husband material, and so you shouldn't marry. (And, if you don't marry during the child-raising years, then you're not going to be marriage material later on, because you didn't marry earlier, which means you're not the type to commit to marriage.)

A (first) husband has to have a job that, in no particular order...

Having a Family Doesn't Guarantee Happiness

Matt Walsh, who I agree with some on some really big things, is back [this entry is being bumped up] to beating the drum to marry and pop out kids. He starts off his column at The Daily Wire citing comments by former First Lady Michelle Obama. [This entry bumped up from January 2021.]

The former First Lady was interviewed by "Blackish" star Tracee Ellis Ross and the women together lamented the fact that girls "still dream of weddings" and "Prince Charming." The two agreed that some women (Tracee Ellis Ross included) can sacrifice family for the sake of a career and be "happy as a clam." In fact, it would seem that Mrs. Obama — who is married with two kids — thinks this path is preferable, given that she considers it a problem when girls aspire to marriage. Ross provided compelling evidence to prove that her decision to forgo family life was the right call: "Look where I'm sitting," she declared. Yes, the summit of all happiness is to sit on a stage with a former First Lady. Truly, this is the eternal bliss for which we were designed.

Maybe Ross is happy? I'm not aware of Walsh having psychic abilities.

The Modern Workplace and How It Relates to Marriage

Men are expected to "provide". It isn't just traditionalists like Dr. Laura who say this. Most women seek out and marry men they think do, or will, earn more than they do, even if they claim to be liberated, feminist, independent. Notice Oprah's lack of legal marriage. It would be difficult for her to attract a man who earns more than her.

In order to pay for a family, men generally need stable, well-paying jobs that provide a reasonable level of security. However, our economy has changed.

Cult of the Cubicle

The lockdowns associated with the 2020 pandemic widely revealed something that some people had already discovered:

Thanks to technology, many office jobs can now be done entirely or almost entirely from home, or some other "remote" location.

Some employers embraced this for the long term, significantly reducing the office space their company leased or owns.

Others, steeped in what I'll call the Cult of the Cubicle, have been trying to get everyone back into their cubicles, or even worse, their "open" workstations.

If responsibilities can be handled through telephones and computing devices (smart phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, etc.), they can be done through "telework" or remotely. Presentations done on screens can be presented and experiences remotely. Meetings can be done remotely. Trainings can be done remotely.

There are tasks, there are personalities, there are home situations which make it preferable for some people to work in the common office. Some collaborations are going to be better that way.

But for others, why not let them work from home/remotely full-time, permanently, if that is what they want? Either they can do quality work at the quantity needed or they can't. If they can, what is the problem? I can't think of any except for a desire to have a feeling of control over people.

Commuting has costs and risks. For many people, their residence and their employer aren't going to be close, or the commute is going to be slow and stressful even if the physical distance isn't all that far. In the greater Los Angeles area, it isn't unusual for people to have commutes that are over an hour one way, and that's without an accident that stops a commuter train, or closes lanes on a freeway or tollway. The saving grace for people in those commutes is usually radio, podcasts, or audiobooks, or they might do phone calls as they move slowly along the roadways.

But that's about the employee's quality of life. How does allowing more people to work work "from home" more of the time benefit employers? There are many ways. In no particular order:

Married Fathers Do Better in the Workplace?

[Bumped up from Oct. 21, 2014 because it is still relevant.] On the episode of the Michael Medved Show still airing as I type this, Medved is talking about how a study says being a father can increase your success in the workplace while being a mother can limit your success in the workplace. While some of Medved's point is that men and women are different, he also again is trying to sell marriage to men. He cites all of the effort unmarried men put into "chasing women".

The problem with these statistics is that they lump everyone unmarried together. That means guys who can't get a date are lumped in with men who deliberately avoid marriage and fatherhood.

Things have changed a little bit since Medved was a single guy.

Today, the unmarried guys who aren't avoiding women entirely can spend very little time, money, or effort to get sex with a variety of women (thanks, feminism!).

Also, unmarried guys can work more and longer hours and don't have to check in with the "control tower" to get approval to do so. It is easier for unmarried, childless guys to go on business trips, network at happy hours and business lunches, and move for promotions. Married fathers are now expected by their wife/child to take time off to go to school, sporting, and performance events. That's a detriment to work.

Yes, there are the masses out there who let life wash over them and those guys who can't get dates because they have no game. However, there is a growing percentage of men who think these things through and are deliberately avoiding marriage and fatherhood and are better employees as a result.

I know with certainty that I was a better employee when I was single and childless. I know I'd also be taking home more pay, if not outright having a more advanced career.

In a culture in which women are becoming more and more difficult (more personality disorders, etc.), having a wife is increasingly becoming a liability to a man's career. (Remember, I'm talking about men dealing with women. If you're a woman, you might have found men increasingly problematic.)

When people like Medved tout stats about married men earning more, they want us to believe that marriage has "civilized" the man and encouraged him to work harder. But once again we're dealing with a correlation that could have a different explanation: maybe it is the men who are likely to earn more who attract a wife rather than the men who get married who are likely to earn more? Ever notice that women tend to prefer a man who earns more over one who doesn't earn as much? Implying that a man will do better professionally if he marries can be very misleading and set people up for failure.

Finally, even if I did earn more than I would have if I never married and never became a father, since half of my earnings legally belong to my wife, I'd have to earn twice as much to be personally better off. Also, so much of my money goes into raising the children. So a slightly better income is more than offset, isn't it?

Hey Anonymous Commenter: Stop Seeing Your Coworker

There are hundreds of comments on this blog's most popular entry, so it is easy to miss one. I'm addressing one in particular with this entry, but also below I will post an edited version of two recent comments on the same entry. I tend not to actually publish comments with "profanity", but if they're worthwhile, I'll address them like I'm doing here, edited.

Anonymous 6:36 AM:

Ok so, I'm not sure if anyone will read this or help me by responding but let me explain a bit on whats been going on. I'm 29 years old and have had my eye on this woman I work with for months,

WOAH!!! Hold up there.

If you care about your job, NEVER NEVER NEVER date a woman you work with, or who works for the same employer, or in the same location. NEVER!

Guys, do not ask them out.
Do not flirt with them.
Do not joke with them.
Do not socialize with them.
Do not compliment them.
Do not touch them (except for a handshake, when it is absolutely necessary). No hugs, no high-fives, no taps on the shoulder, no touching!!!
Do not look at them for more than a second at a time, and only in the eyes, or better yet, at their forehead.
Do not gossip or chit chat with them.
Do not talk about personal matters with them, or listen to them talk about personal matters.
Limit your interactions with women at work to what is STRICTLY NECESSARY per your job responsibilities.

When asked a personal question, redirect.

Example:

Retirement is Something To Which Most Workers Look Forward

Dr. Laura has said multiple times on her show that she's going to work until she dies.

And why wouldn't she?

Your Child, Your Choice, Your Responsibility

The mommy wars never end. Michael Medved, as I type, has Erica Komisar on his show, who has a book out about the importance of mothers being with their children from birth to age three. Of course there are women calling up complaining about the fact that children benefit from actually being with their mother. They'd rather not hear the truth, apparently. And others are complaining that their employer doesn't facilitate this.

There are thee issues here.

1) It is YOUR responsibility to plan things so that if you have children, they will have their mother* with them. Your choice, remember? With choice comes responsibility. Daycare is almost always voluntary and a bad choice. If you're not cut out to be a mother, don't become one. If you don't have a marriage that allows for you to mother your own children, don't have them.

2) It is not a legitimate role of government to compel employers to provide daycare or maternity leave or any other of these accommodations parents want.

3) Employers should be free to run their businesses as they want. If they want to give mothers paid time off to raise their children, fine, but expecting all employers to offer it is an attitude of entitlement.

ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO: Look Up "Anita Hill"

"ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO" wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm a 27-year-old professional who works long hours at a hospital.

She probably doesn't remember Anita Hill, because she is too young.

Dating isn't easy for me, so I decided to try an online service.

That's understandable, given the hours.

My first time online I recognized a co-worker I see on a regular basis and have always exchanged smiles with, but don't know personally. I wrote him a message just to say hi.

BZZZZZT WRONG! Well, since you're female and most of HR is female, you have nothing to worry about. But you shouldn't have done that.

I didn't say I was interested in him. I never heard back from him.

He's trying not to get fired and sued.

Since I sent that message he has checked my profile several times.

He shouldn't do that. He's risking his job, his finances, and putting your employer at risk.

But when he sees me in the hallways, he turns red and now just gives me half-smiles.

He should ignore you completely.

I was waiting at the elevator with him the other day, but he was so embarrassed by the silence that I bailed and took the stairs.

That was merciful of you.

He continues to smile, but I'm not sure what to say to him the next time I see him.

Nothing. Do not interact with him at all. Unless you want to get him fired and score some money from suing your employer.

I think it's rude that he didn't reply to my message -- even with a "See you around!" -- but I'm too embarrassed to do or say anything when I encounter him.

Yeah, well, welcome to the world creating by laws, courts, lawsuits, and employer policies. Never mind that people have met their spouses on the job. Now, whether or not a man keeps his job or an employer has to pay out is entirely up to the whims of a woman. Man A can say X, Y, and Z to a woman and get fired. Man B can say the exact same thing to the exact same woman and get laid. It is all up to her whims. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't get the man fired or sue your employer - the fact is, you can. And some women do. Besides, you might become one of those women if you dated him and then he dumped you. It is just too risky for men. This is what we're doing to our brothers and sons, as well as our sisters and daughters who would, in the past, find a good husband on the job.

Men used to say X, Y, and Z to each other and there was no problem. Now, if a woman overhears them saying that to each other, they can get fired.

Dear Abby responded:

The next time you run into him in the hall, just say hello. If he has any manners at all, he'll return your greeting and it may melt the ice.

Easy for you to say, DA. You don't have a penis (as far as I know). It's not about manners. It is about survival. Enjoy the world that lawyers, juries, "sensitive" men, and anti-male feminists (not all feminists are anti-male) have created. It's great, isn't it?

Who Says Gays Can’t Get Married?

CONFUSED ON WHAT TO DO wrote in to Dear Abby:

I started a relationship with a co-worker.

Guys, unless you don’t care about your job, do NOT socialize with your female coworkers. Sexual harassment laws and policies make it too risky. Keep your communication with female coworkers to the bare professional minimum.

We went out for several months, and I found myself really enjoying his company. The feeling was mutual. After several months I told him I was developing feelings for him, more than just friends. He told me he was gay.

So he's thinking he’s getting a new friend, and she was looking for a husband. She should be very thankful that he was honest with her. I've written about, and heard from, women who've discovered after marrying that their husband's homosexual.

I was shocked, saddened and angry all at the same time, but we went on to develop an even stronger friendship.

So everything is okay, right? Right?

I have fallen in love with him, but I have had counseling and I believe those feelings are in check.

Uh huh. Sure.

We have a special bond that's hard to explain.

If you say so.

For lack of a better term, we have used the words "soul mate" to describe this feeling.

So you're deliberately avoiding sex and marriage? Why is that?

He has even said he would like a lifelong commitment with me and has thought about marrying me.

I would strongly advise against this, because of your attraction to him. If you weren’t attracted to him, and you didn’t want sex, and you were fundamentally compatible with him in other ways, and you got a pre-nup and didn’t make babies, then it could be okay.

Dear Abby responded:

But while you're thinking, consider carefully how important sex is to you. Some, not all, women would be content with what he's offering. But what if you should meet someone? You also need to know whether this man is ready, willing and capable of forgoing a sexual relationship with a man. How would you feel about it if he met someone?

Good points.

What do YOU think?

Female CEOs Earn More Than Male CEOs

This ABC News report by Bianna Golodryga and Michael Murray has some good news for women.

A new report from Bloomberg News, the leading provider of business news worldwide, shows that women who head the nation's largest companies are earning substantially more than their male counterparts.

Good for them. Are there any feminist leaders upset by this inequality? Probably not. These women should be getting whatever they’ve negotiated - no more, no less. It is up to the companies.

What's more, in 2009 female CEOs got raises averaging nearly 30 percent, while male CEOs took pay cuts.

In addition to invoking the bogus general pay gap, though, the article continues...

Despite those huge salaries, there is a huge caveat: There are still very few women who have made it to the corner office when compared to the number of men in those positions of corporate power. Only 16 companies listed in the S&P 500 are run by women.

The percentage of women in those positions will increase over time- but it does take time. Most of the current CEOs for these companies launched their careers decades ago, when things were very different. I do not expect, though, that there will ever be a 50/50 split, due to the realities of human nature. Social engineering only goes so far. It is nice that women have real choices in life, but I expect that fewer women than men are going to make the choices that will take them to the top of the corporate ladder. Flip the issue though – women can make those choices and be socially supported. Men have much less of a real choice to be “stay at home” fathers.

"There's 16 women making money and that's great," says Marie Wilson of The White House Project, a women's advocacy group. "I'm concerned about the vast majority of women who are now the majority of the workforce & it's kind of like the 16 supercorporate women are doing well. And that's a good sign - but it's not good enough."

It will never ever be enough. If it was, she’d be out a of job.

The article then goes on to really push the bogus general pay gap nonsense. Can't focus on the good news, can they? Nope. Gotta try to convince women that they are getting screwed over in a way that men aren't.

In one ABC News behavior lab experiment, volunteers were told they would be paid between $5 and $12 for their time participating in a study. Everyone was offered the minimum, but the men and women differed wildly in their reactions to the payment. More than half the men asked for more money, but only a third of the women bargained for more.

Whose responsibility is it to ask for more?

See this previous entry and this previous entry on the bogus general pay gap notion.

Prospective Employers and Improper Questions

"Sick of It" wrote to Dear Margo with complaints about questions she is being asked in job interviews.

Within the first five minutes of these interviews, I am being asked about my marital status, whether I live with someone and have kids, and, the worst: "How are you paying your bills right now?" I almost walked out of the interview on that one.

Dear Margo replied:

I would say the appropriateness of such questions depends on the industry and the job description. For example, if traveling were part of the job, a prospective employer would legitimately need to gauge the family responsibilities you have. The "living with someone" question is definitely out of bounds. I can’t tell whether you think, by the nature of these questions, that these men are hitting on you.

From what I understand, interviewers are supposed to be extremely confined in what questions they ask and how, because they fear lawsuits or otherwise running afoul of the law in discrimination and sexual harassment. I've also heard from interviewers some amazing stories about what job applicants said in interviews. But I digress.

I'm in favor of property rights and freedom of association. As such, I believe employers should be free to ask any question, and the applicant should be free to not answer. Employment is a mutual decision. If someone doesn't want to hire me because I'm a married father and they think I'm less likely to be willing to travel or work long and odd hours, so be it. If they won't hire me because I won't tell them my favorite sexual position, or because I'm a Christian, then so be it. It is their loss.

Now, anyone who works for me would be limited in what questions they ask, out of respect and courtesy, but in a perfect world that would be by my choice.

As far as the letter writer – she should ask herself if she really wants to work at places where they ask those kinds of questions.

The Law Applies to All

More men are filing sexual harassment claims, reports Associated Press writer Sam Hananel.

During more than two years as a food runner at an upscale steakhouse in Scottsdale, Ariz., [John] Pilkington says his male supervisor groped, fondled and otherwise sexually harassed him more than a dozen times.

I'm a firm believer in the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery. I'm also a firm believer in freedom of association and property rights – things that although are supposedly Constitutional, aren't enforced as well as the Thirteenth Amendment.

My point?

The way I see it, Pilkington had three possible good options if he didn't like the groping:

1. Go to the supervisor's boss or the business owner and complain. The owner should be responsible for the tone of the workplace.
2. Quit.
3. Tell the supervisor that he will quit if he does it again, and then quit if the supervisor does it again.

Now Pilkington, a married father of two, is the star witness in a federal lawsuit against Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar and one of a growing number of men claiming they are victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

I fail to see why the owners of the steakhouse should be held responsible in a court of law if Pilkington didn't like the work atmosphere. He wasn't a slave. He was free to quit. Somehow, we go the idea in this country that if someone hires you, they are obligated to make you feel comfortable in perpetuity. They aren't – or shouldn't be. They are obligated to compensate you as mutually agreed for the work you do. If I hire someone to add on to my house, I should not be obligated to make sure that person is never offended by anything he sees at my house.

I agree that the supervisor's actions were wrong. But I don't think that everything that is wrong should be addressed in the law or a court.

From 1990 to 2009, the percentage of sexual harassment claims filed by men has doubled from 8 percent to 16 percent of all claims, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Well why not? The law applies to all. Either we have equality under the law or we don't. Some of the people who supported sexual harassment laws, like some supporters of other laws, only meant for the laws to be used by certain people against certain people - but that's too bad. I remember how upset some self-identified feminists, who had been so insistent that sexual harassment claims against (now Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas be taken seriously, got when sexual harassment law was applied against President Clinton. That wasn't supposed to happen. Other feminists, like Tammy Bruce, recognized that Clinton's behavior was wrong and called him on it, and called other feminists out for defending Clinton.

Women still file the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment claims with the EEOC and state and local agencies.

That's a given considering the previous sentence – that 16 perfect of claims are filed by men. The options are kind of limited as to who is filing the rest.

While some cases allege harassment by female supervisors or co-workers, most charges involve men harassing other men.

That's because most men who are being sexually groped or pressured by females or being subjected to females exposing themselves or touching themselves don’t mind it. Okay, so I’m joking. Partially. Actually, it probably has more to do with testosterone. But hormone defenses in court cases don’t work as well for men as they do for women.

In the past, some employers might have shrugged off such antics as "boys will be boys" horseplay or fraternity-type behavior. But the EEOC has been filing more lawsuits involving male victims, saying it wants to send a message that such behavior is unacceptable and unlawful.

So not only have women been successful in making previously male cultures be readjusted to the sensitivity levels for women who are present, but even when a female isn't there, we're still supposed to act like there is a sensitive female there.

What ever happened to people handling things like grown-ups? Harassment is childish, but people used to respond along the lines of "sticks and stones may break my bones...". A clever comeback used to smooth the situation over. A swift kick to the nuts of the groping supervisor would have done much to get the message across.

The EEOC said the abusers would drag some victims kicking and screaming into a walk-in refrigerator, touching and grinding against the victims' genitals and take turns simulating rape.

There's a difference between harassment and assault.

Again, I do not justify harassment. It is morally wrong. But what we're seeing is a predictable result of 1) women making inroads into previously male-only professions and positions; 2) a general increase in crudeness and sexuality in the culture; and 3) the ideas that we have a right to ongoing employment regardless of what our boss thinks and a right to not be offended or uncomfortable when interacting with other people.

I'll stop here before I end up rewriting the rest of what I already wrote in this previous entry.

There's a lot of truth in this video from Saturday Night Live.

Women Fail to Pull Their Corporate Share

Ladies, you have apparently been slacking off at the office, and as such, you have failed to reach executive positions in the top publicly traded companies in California in the numbers you "should" have.

Okay, so I'm kidding by twisting this story around in an effort to get your attention. Nathan Olivarez-Giles reports in the Los Angeles Times that top female execs in these companies are still "rare" according to a study.

Citing "a bleak picture of the progress of women in corporate leadership" over the last five years, the report said that women held just 10.6% of executive positions and board seats at the state's biggest companies this year, a slight decline over 2008.

And yet women outnumber men as students in higher education. So what is going on? Is it sexism, or are women holding themselves back (including spending too much time in higher education), or is it just taking time for women to filter up...or is it a combination of these things?

And what are the stats on women in smaller businesses, sole proprietorships, and public sector jobs? I wouldn't be surprised if women actually hold more shares of these companies than men, especially through retirement investments such as mutual funds, as women are more likely to outlive their husbands.

The survey of California's 400 largest publicly traded companies by UC Davis and a women's advocacy and networking organization found that the number of women in top leadership positions had barely budged since the study began in 2005.

What, so in four years you expected major changes?

The reasons for the stagnation are complex, said Wendy Beecham, chief executive of the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives, which helped UC Davis produce the study.

Part of the problem, she said, is that women don't always have role models or mentors to help them advance in corporate careers.

It can be worse than that. Women I know have told me they think it typical of women they work under to stab them in the back. If women are doing this more than men, they are holding each other back.

Also, she said, people tend to hire those who are like themselves.

That's what I mentioned with the filtering up. Although, smart business people like to hire someone who has skills they don't, to fill a need.

In general, smart businesspeople care most about what a person can do for the business, not their skin color, sex, or whatever, unless that is integral to the position.

The filtering up takes time, unfortunately.

Of the companies surveyed, 15, or 3.8%, have female chief executives, up from 13 in 2008, the report said. Women hold 9.8% of the 3,252 board seats at the firms.

Almost half, 46.3%, of the companies have no female directors, and 30% had no female directors or top executives.

I know I have ladies reading this blog. What do you think?

I think we'll eventually see more women in those executive positions, but I doubt it will ever be 50/50. The fact is, women carry, birth, and nurse babies – men don't; there are also other biological and socioligical factors at play. That doesn't mean there aren't (and won’t be a lot more) excellent female executives; it just means that when you are dealing with the world as a whole (or in this case, a large state), the fact that men and women are different does have an impact. Even with truly equal opportunity, not everyone is going to take opportunities in an identical way or use them in an identical way. Throw in barriers to equal opportunity, and the disparity is even more pronounced.

Sounds Like a Guy to Avoid

This is the second letter from a Dear Margo column that provided fodder for me yesterday. CONFUSED IN PLATTEVILLE wrote:

I am worried about a friend at work. She was married to a man who abused her. Two kids later, she divorced him. Then she met another man. She loves him and wants to marry and have a baby. The problem is that he is very controlling.

If you read the letter, it looks like he is actually controlling. This is opposed to the kind of "controlling" that some women call men when we:

--Expect our significant other to appropriately respect us, especially when it involves woman maintaining the same level of boundaries involving the opposite sex that she demands we maintain in our dealings with the opposite sex

--Say "no" to something a woman asks of us, especially when we refuse to enter into losing situations

--Maintain control over our own earnings (unmarried, so we're not talking community property)
That is not an extensive list, of course.

The guy sounds very insecure. But she is going to keep picking guys like that unless she figures out why she is doing it in the first place. Maybe it is what she was raised with, and so what she knows and finds "comfortable".

She was expecting a diamond on her birthday, but was disappointed.

Now that is not controlling, nor abusive.

He told her they will get married when he "gets all of his ducks in a row."

Neither is that.

A couple of us have decided that he hasn't even found his ducks yet.

So, she should stop seeing him. She has volunteered to see him and keep seeing him.

He's been in other relationships where he's out the door at the mention of marriage.

Has he ever given any indication that he actually wants to get married? And why would she want to marry someone like this??? She's better off that he hasn't asked and she hasn't accepted!

Now she thinks she may be pregnant! We’re afraid that if she tells him he will go nuts.

Why would he do that? Did she lie about being monogamous or using contraception? Regardless, if she is pregnant, she has boosted her chances that she'll be the victim of violence. She needs to get away from this guy.

Should we tell her what we are thinking?

Yes. But she won't listen.

Dear Margo gets it right when she replies:

This guy is nuts already … and I have a few doubts about your friend, as well.

Exactly.

If she is pregnant and he dumps her, remind your friend that he is responsible, by law, for child support.

How about giving the kid up for adoption? She can start making that possible by filing charges against him for any assault, property destruction, threats, etc. that he does actually commit. That way, she can show in court that he's likely to be an unfit parent, should he want custody or visitation.

Wouldn't it be a kicker if the woman in question filed sexual harassment complaints against her coworkers if they tell her what they think of this guy? "Hostile work environment."

Nice guys who are single but looking see situations like this, not realizing that something is wrong with the woman, and they see that jerks get women. And some of those nice guys stop being so nice. Meanwhile, this scary guy can keep getting women to "sleep" with him. He may not have much motivation to change as long as they do and as long as he doesn't run into trouble with the law.

More Men Losing Jobs

Greg Burns wrote in the Los Angeles Times that men are suffering the brunt of layoffs.

To a much greater extent than in past recessions, men are bearing the brunt.

In December 2007, when the economy started tanking, unemployment ran nearly even at 4.4% for men and 4.3% for women. In February, that tally had shot up to 8.8% for men and 7.3% for women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The 1.5-point spread is historic and likely to widen as the overall numbers keep soaring, said Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint. "I don't see it turning yet."

I'm sure Obama will get right on this and other issues disproportionately hurting men by creating a Commission on Men and Boys. I'm so confident he will I'm going to hold my breath.

Here I go...

...

Okay, so I decided that wasn't a good idea.

A bona fide "man-cession" invites all sorts of social theories: Maybe women are cheaper to keep on the payroll because they tend to make less. Maybe women are better communicators, which helps shield them from the ax. Maybe women feel they have more to prove, so they get retained for trying harder.

Such sexism! Such stereotypes!

Since 1981, women have earned far more bachelor's degrees, collecting 135 for every 100 awarded to men, Perry said. At the master's level, the "degree gap" is an even wider 150 to 100.

So much for the patriarchy.

Counting farm labor and the self-employed, working men outnumber women by about 10 million. It's not 50-50, but it's moving that way.

Ah! And here was I just about to suggest women should take over paying for dates.

All that higher education and the economic devastation of traditional male strongholds won't make much difference in cracking a "really prevalent" glass ceiling, said Jenny Hoobler, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago's College of Business Administration.

"As far as leadership, it doesn't translate," Hoobler said. "Women don't ascend to the top ranks."

Oooh, so that evil patriarchy does exist! What else could explain this? Certainly not the articles we've read on women taking more time off, women deciding to place family before their careers (which I applaud, if they want a family), or women sabotaging each other.

Seriously, the bottom line is that there are more men in the workforce, so more men are losing their jobs. Likewise, the "wage gap" that is touted as favoring men is almost entirely explainable without sexism.

Risky Business: Workplace Romances

Ellen Wulfhorst has this Reuters story about an office romance survey for CareerBuilder.com.

Forty percent of U.S. workers have dated an office colleague, with 31 percent of them going on to marriage, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

Coworkers may have a lot in common, and they spend a lot of time together. In the past, it was natural to find your spouse on-the-job, and I've known many people who have done that.

However, in the post-Anita Hill era, it is VERY risky (especially for a heterosexual man) to date a coworker. It is so risky that it is stupid to do so.

Those eyeing a co-worker was skewed between the sexes, with 14 percent of men but just 5 percent of women saying they would like to date a colleague.

Probably because most women would only date someone earning more than themselves, which limits the choices.

Of those who dated a co-worker in the last year, a third said it was someone with a more senior position in the company. Of those, 42 percent have dated their boss, said.

Those bosses are idiots – that is, if they care about their jobs at all.

Since men are usually (and expected to be) the initiators, sexual harassment laws and polices are designed to punish less attractive men. They are arbitrarily applied based on the subjective feelings of the person approached. Two male coworkers could say the exact same thing to a woman, and if she likes one, but not the other, the one she doesn't like could get fired for saying the exact same thing as the guy who doesn't get fired. When it boils down to "he said/she said", guess who is favored by the female-dominated Human Resources staff?

Welcoming women to all levels of the workplace was generally a good thing. Unfortunately, instead of asking women (the newcomers) to adopt to the workplace cultures that had long been established according to male standards and tendencies, everyone had to readjust to things being set by feminine standards and sensitivities, emasculating men.

Am I saying I would like some creep being lewd towards my mother, sister, wife, or daughter? Of course not. But I would hope that the women in my life could handle themselves like adults instead of running to someone else to make things right and comfortable for them. When I was a kid, my parents taught me how to deal with other kids who said or did things I didn't like - it was usually along the lines of "ignore them" or "have a good comeback".

I find the very phrase "sexual harassment" curious. We don't talk about (much less have training about) "nutritional harassment" when a vegetarian chides someone for eating meat. If sexual harassment is to be condemned in the workplace, shouldn't all forms of harassment be prevented and punished? And if it is wrong because it makes someone uncomfortable, then I want to know if anyone is allowed to object to having to take sexual harassment prevention training on the grounds that the training sessions make them uncomfortable? Why is that person's discomfort any less valid? I suppose the fact that we have the phrase "sexual harassment" is just another example of how sex is different and not just another activity or body function (like how guys will pay to see a woman strip, but who pays to see a steak slowly unveiled and waved around)?

Hedonist male-targeting radio talk show host Tom Leykis reacts to sexual harassment issues in the workplace by advising his listeners not to interact with female coworkers any more than strictly necessary, not saying one word more to them than absolutely essential to get the job done. No small talk, no compliments, no joking, no greetings, no socializing. How boring things would be if everyone followed that rule. But having a boring workplace is preferable to being fired. Leykis can work that way due to the nature of his work. Most of us would have a very difficult time doing that.

Aside from sexual harassment issues (not to mention charges of favoritism), there's another reason to avoid dipping your pen in company ink. Most relationships do not last as romances, and the fallout from a breakup, even if it isn't nasty, can be tough to deal with – not just for the participants, but for their coworkers. Also, some (potential) spouses have a hard time dealing with the idea that their spouse is working with someone they used to date.

People don't always think things through, so I expect workplace romances will continue to happen. But I will tell any guy who listens to to me to avoid them.