Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

what do y’all BSDs think about this?

Quick comment of fake news, awfully ironic for the liberal media to say you shouldn’t stereotype people when they stereotype people who work on Wall Street.

Twenty years ago I was a sole proprietor CPA and I rented office space from a larger CPA firm. I was talking to a female friend commenting about how I would like to get my own space, but I wouldn’t want to hire a woman assistant or staff accountant. She flipped, said I was sexist, etc. Hate to say I was ahead of my time, but…

It’s simple. Ask them how the name of the # sign is said.

If they say hash tag me too, then you stay away.

If they say pound me too, then you take them out for drinks or dinner.

So I been thinking about this… I think the only solution is serious repercussions for false accusers. Like bar from the industry for life, a database, maybe serious jail time. The honest folks on both sides of the debate should support that. If false accusations are so rare, as some say, few will ever face that kind of punishment and real victims will also be taken more seriously.

i mean cant you sue for defamation already?

Reminds me of an article I read about one of the top golf instructors in the UK, who stopped giving classes to women when the #MeToo rage got out of control. Way too much to lose, very little to gain. Better to play it safe and go with the sausage fest.

hahaha what a funny article. But I do agree with it.

The underlying idea behind #MeToo is great. However, it has been turned into a social weapon which may be used mercilessly by zealots while ruining the good cause for everyone.

I heard yesterday that a few radio stations in Canada will not be playing the holiday classic song “Baby it’s cold outside” due to some “inappropriate lyrics” in the song. This shit is getting out of hand.

yea thats actually kind of a rapey song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFJ7ie_yGU

here’s the original. anyways my opinion is that most of your dudes have prolly done somethign far worse than this in terms of applying pressure. lol

^ right…I’m sure in today’s rap music there isn’t any language that isn’t even as close to being as offensive as a song written in the 1940s or whatever.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/nyc-mayor-s-ex-goldmanites-blast-ice-out-of-wall-street-women

“Men in these firms should be required to break bread with female colleagues – especially the up-and-coming ones of whom the men in the article were so afraid.”

“required” LOL

“Because so many major career conversations take place during casual interactions like grabbing a coffee or a beer or going to karaoke…”

  • From the article

Ah yes, I remember how my career trajectory went supersonic after my choreographed rendition Livin’ On a Prayer.

I’m still waiting for feminist to push for more women to work in manual labor, dirty, and dangerous jobs (which are honorable jobs, that deserve a lot of respect).

Why does all the talk revolve around high paying white collar leadership positions?

^they’re thirsty for power bro

haha very fair point. but the difference is this is a prudish girl who is actively saying no, and a dude making bs excuses to try and get it in.

most rap songs are about thots and thots are consensual.

At the time the song was written (70ish years ago?) women were expected to act prude.

Her protests center on society’s expectations of her. Her fear of other’s disapproval about her staying the night with a guy she isn’t married to. Her mother will worry, her father will be pacing the floor, the neighbors will talk, her sister will be suspicious of her excuses, her brother will be furious, her maiden aunt’s mind is vicious. Vicious about what? Sex. Unmarried, non-good girl having, sex.

He’s providing her with a list of cover stories, excuses she can use to explain why she hasn’t or won’t go home. It’s cold out.

Also the lyric “what’s in this drink?” was a common line in classic films used when a character did or said something uninhibited.

yes but times are a changing. and its meaning will be taken out of context. what millenials will think is bill cosby trying to slip a roofie on a pawg.

see below for consensual songs lol

How lucky can one guy be? I kissed her and she kissed me Like the fella once said “Ain’t that a kick in the head?”

The room was completely black I hugged her and she hugged back Like the sailor said, quote “Ain’t that a hole in the boat?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f20Oz9Yr_So

how about this light-hearted gem from back in the day? it’s all about context amirite6

that’s an interesting take! perhaps it was more commonly accepted!:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#History

Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband’s authority over his wife.

Political agitation and the first-wave feminist movement during the 19th century led to changes in both popular opinion and legislation regarding domestic violence within the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries.[37][38] In 1850, Tennessee became the first state in the United States to explicitly outlaw wife beating.[39][40][need quotation to verify] Other states soon followed.[35][41] In 1878, the UK Matrimonial Causes Act made it possible for women in the UK to seek legal separation from an abusive husband.[42] By the end of the 1870s, most courts in the United States had rejected a claimed right of husbands to physically discipline their wives.[43] By the early 20th century, it was common for police to intervene in cases of domestic violence in the United States, but arrests remained rare.[44]

In most legal systems around the world, domestic violence has been addressed only from the 1990s onwards; indeed, before the late-20th century, in most countries there was very little protection, in law or in practice, against DV

“Physical discipline of children is allowed and, indeed, encouraged in many legal systems and a large number of countries allow moderate physical chastisement of a wife or, if they do not do so now, have done so within the last 100 years. Again, most legal systems fail to criminalize circumstances where a wife is forced to have sexual relations with her husband against her will. […] Indeed, in the case of violence against wives, there is a widespread belief that women provoke, can tolerate or even enjoy a certain level of violence from their spouses.”

rape within marriage, which for a long time had not been recognised as rape because of the relationship between victim and perpetrator."

Crimes of passion in Latin America, a region which has a history of treating such killings with extreme leniency, have also come to international attention. In 2002, Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, argued that there are similarities between the dynamics of crimes of passion and honor killings, stating that: “crimes of passion have a similar dynamic [to honor killings] in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable”.[52]

Historically, children had few protections from violence by their parents, and in many parts of the world, this is still the case. For example, in Ancient Rome, a father could legally kill his children. Many cultures have allowed fathers to sell their children into slavery. Child sacrifice was also a common practice.[53] Child maltreatment began to garner mainstream attention with the publication of “The Battered Child Syndrome” by pediatric psychiatrist C. Henry Kempe. Prior to this, injuries to children—even repeated bone fractures—were not commonly recognized as the results of intentional trauma. Instead, physicians often looked for undiagnosed bone diseases or accepted parents’ accounts of accidental mishaps such as falls or assaults by neighborhood bullies.[54]:100–103