Let's see feminists womansplain their way out of this one:
As we're all aware by now, it's been a longstanding tradition of feminists to ally themselves with non-white interests - especially the kind that are destroying their countries (look at Sweden).
Here's how they're being rewarded for it:
See? I've said it, time and time again; the more "whitey" gives, the more Shylock-takes; and Shylock's doing it, through "interSEXionality," too:
I'll invite Black Pigeon to Speak, on My behalf. "Feminist" societies, throughout the west, are actively inviting a legitimate rape-culture into their own societies; and, it's all for the sake of Global Virtue-signalling; largely, to the same nonwhite-demographic responsible for literally raping them to Death. Witness your own DEMISE! BITCHES.
You know – I might not have realized it, until watching this video; and some of you might identify with the following, already: but I have been fired time and time again, simply for being “too masculine...”
Now, they don’t just come right out and say it. They’re gonna use terms like “uncomfortable,” “inappropriate,” or lately: “problematic,” which are all, inarguably, highly-relative terms.
And, based on the tendency of women – who can’t actually perform the same jobs as men every single time, as well as a man, every single time – to side-step natural meritocratic-law, by weaponizing their vaginas (and legal-experts [subsidized]) into policy-forming instruments (instead of the DNA mixing-chambers that gave women their intrinsic-value, previously), which silence all forms of dissent (just look at the modern feminist movement, and what happens to those who step out of line from it, for an example...) based on the relativistic “feelings” of those for whom these policies are designed to “protect” – namely, women – then, you get-into a situation where:
A) Product-quality suffers, because
B) Customer-care suffers, because
C) MANAGEMENT-POWER suffers, because
D) A COMPANY THAT CANNOT HANDLE CRITICISM, WILL NOT IMPROVE, and
E) A COMPANY RUN BY WOMEN CANNOT HANDLE CRITICIZM (as steadfastly as men); THUS, IT WILL FAIL…
Now, in a natural-economy (as-opposed to the one we have right now, that is propped-up by litigation and subsidy), if that were the case for only a handful of companies, then the problem would immediately rectify itself… namely, because: customers don’t demand products that suck.
“So what’s the problem,” you ask? “Don’t people have free-will? Can’t they decide for themselves, which products to buy (and which not to?)” “What’re you so worried about, exactly?”
Well, let’s drag Obamacare into that equation, for a minute, to help answer this question.
Obamacare set the dangerous precedent for governmental coercion of people into the PRODUCT–marketplace. In this case, it was “for health-reasons.” (or price-reasons, depending upon how you want to look at it; which the government created, itself - but that's another story...)
Since the establishment is going to use any means necessary to substantiate their completely self-oriented, egocentric agenda, we could safely predict that “psychological-health” constitutes a relavent-component, for health-related matters… (they’ll use whatever psychological think-tank is willing to shill for this conclusion, that they can find)
With a component of governmental-coerciveness already having been estalished through what essentially amounts to “forced-payment,” in this case into a redistribution of risk (health-insurance), COMBINED with the extremely litigious-nature of a woman’s overall-introduction into the otherwise-unfettered marketplace (e.g., your friggin’ office), then we could foresee:
COERCIVE-MEASURES BEING INTRODUCED INTO THE LABOR MARKET… otherwise, known as Slavery.
With men continually opting-out of displaying any signs of professional-ambition – to say nothing of marital-ambition, entirely – then, what other recourse will a tax-dependent government-redistribution system have?.. Especially, with pro-establishment “stewards” at the top, willing to resort to any pragmatically-desirable measures to safeguard the value of their currency, and retention of power?
The alternative, of course, would be a race to the bottom – which, is what we’re in… because, it isn’t just a handful of corporations/companies which have been forced to adopt a “women’s-first” type of feminist re-construction of otherwise masculine/competitive norms… it’s all of them.