In September-October 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review (HBR) they have published a study under the genre ‘gender’ and related to the #MeToo movement and its implications on the industry. Some of the outcomes of the study were stated as ‘Unintended Consequences’ that are ‘very expected’ consequences to us, MRAs.

For example, the study found about 16% of men and 11% of female respondents said, they will be more reluctant to hire attractive women; 15% each of male and female respondents said, they will be reluctant to hire females for roles involving more interactions; 30% of males and 43% of females believed that more women came forward with #MeToo complaints, women will be blamed more or a sizeable percentage of respondents said males will exclude females more in all social interactions.

The projection of these outcomes as ‘unfortunate’ shows the feminist angle of the study. The study was conducted by Prof Leanne Atwater, a management professor at the University of Houston and that doesn’t surprise us why the study was a feminist one. The study had some really funny findings that will be explained now.

1.      Problem with 3-items where the two genders differed

The first LOL factor is that the paper said, that out of 19-points asked male and female respondents to understand their perspective of sexual harassment, the two genders’ responses matched in most cases except on 3-points. Even though the paper didn’t elaborate on which points the genders differed, the paper added that on these 3-points it was the male respondents who were more likely to identify those three actions (by males) as sexual harassment (to women) and NOT the women respondents.

So, the problem is when most women themselves didn’t identify those three male behaviours as sexual harassment (of women), then why did researchers consider those behaviours as sexual harassment in the first place? This point made by the researchers confirms that men are overcautious about sexual harassment of women in workplaces compared to that of women themselves. If that is so, then how are they (males) engaging in sexual-harassment at all?

The contradiction of this finding of the researchers with the rest of the study becomes prominent when we understand a few other conclusions of the study as shall be elaborated now.

2.      Men Know Which Behaviour is Bad

The second LOL factor is that the research also ‘found’ that the theory, “men don’t know their behaviour is bad is largely untrue”. This very much goes along with the 1^st point mentioned above. So, this finding in a way says that men know very well about bad behaviour and they still engage in that (since per the feminist definition, it is men who commit sexual harassment).

This goes very well with the first finding where men have identified more male behaviours as unacceptable than women did. So, the paper concluded that men knew that their behaviour was bad and still engaged in it. However, is it the same men who identified those behaviours as unacceptable and still engaged in it? The report didn’t try to find out. In a way, the researchers thought that all men (and all women) should behave identically which can’t be true. Hence such generalization becomes wrong in the first place. This itself is ‘sexist’ thinking that ignores that every individual can behave in his/her own way irrespective of gender. So, the researchers who claimed to fight against ‘sexism’ were sexists themselves.

Since the second point corroborates the first one, we understand both are wrong and was derived from a ‘sexist’ mindset.

We find even more problematic in the second part of the sentence that Prof Atwater used.

3.      Women are making a mountain out of a molehill is largely untrue

Question is when most women themselves didn’t recognize many behaviours as sexual-harassment (as the point one clarified), then if some women are responding to those situations as sexual-harassment, isn’t that creating ‘mountain out of a molehill’ or can’t we classify those women as ‘overly sensitive’? If yes, then the research finding that women are NOT creating a mountain out of a molehill is largely untrue is wrong. Women, in general, are indeed creating a mountain out of a molehill in MeToo cases and that makes our case for the third LOL moment.

4.      “Women are more lenient in defining harassment”

When it is established in earlier point (point #3) that contrary to what the researcher wanted to establish, some women are indeed creating “mountains out of a molehill” or over reacting or being overly sensitive then it can’t be taken easily that they are lenient in defining harassment. Both of these statements can’t be true at the same time.

Now if we think that the researchers have meant, that ‘most’ women (or women in general) are more lenient in defining sexual harassment (and some are not). Now, this statement may seem very logical in this context, however, this also fails to explain the #MeToo phenomenon properly.

If we check all real-life #MeToo complaints, we will find that most of them (an overwhelming majority) was based on frivolous anecdotes and imaginary stories devoid of any substance. For example, Bollywood’s flop actress Tanushree Dutta’s complaint of sexual harassment against another Bollywood actor Nana Patekar is still rocking many lives and is still based on imaginary stories that are never substantiated with any evidence. Still, it is a valid #MeToo complaint that many feminists still quote as an example. We will arrive at a similar conclusion to the majority of #MeToo complaints if we study each of those. Now if the finding, “most women (or women in general) are more lenient in defining sexual harassment” was true, then we wouldn’t have seen such overwhelmingly opposite results in real life (of course we have feminist nut cases who send dick pics to women as true stories of #Metoo).

So, the point is, if women were really lenient (in general) then why are they (in general) reporting those frivolous incidents as sexual harassment? If not, then how is that in most metoo cases the complaint itself becomes self-contradictory or frivolous? Also, another question is who decides what is sexual harassment, why should we accept feminist definition when that doesn’t even corroborate women’s responses in general?

When the research itself has shown that most women did not recognize certain acts like sexual harassment, then why are those still considered as sexual harassment? So, the researchers have taken the larger set (superset) of all perceptions and bucketed all of those behaviours a ‘wrong’ based on their convenience. Since this was a study on women’s feelings, the same feelings were not respected by the researchers selectively when it contradicted their own ‘feminist’ feelings.

So, we find that all these points are contradicting each other and only highlighting the feminist perspective of opportunity seekers’ definition of sexual misconduct makes a case for the fourth factor to make you laugh.

5.      Contradiction in Reporting of Sexual Harassment claims

The study says, “63% women reported of having been harassed”. The report also claims in the same paragraph that “only 20% of women who have been harassed, report the incident”. Problem with this data is that, if the researchers based both of these conclusions based on their study sample, then 63% of all women reporting sexual misconduct doesn’t make the number 20% of the overall number. The numbers just don’t add up.

However, if the first data (63%) is based on the population of the sample taken, and the second one is not, then the whole conclusion becomes vague. So, then either 63% of women reporting sexual violence is their imagination or 20% of ever harassed women reporting the incident is their feminist imagination.

Now you may also think that the researchers meant that – only 20% of all sexual harassment complaints were ever reported and they probably didn’t find the right words or expressions to say that. Now, that kind of basic error is not expected from the researchers of Harvard Business Review (HBR) and is a ROFL moment for all. Feminist standard of intellectual ability is exposed here.

If we just ignore the ROFL moment for some time and carefully consider the above statement, then in simple terms that means that all women who ever reported sexual harassment complaints did that after being harassed on an average for five times. But in the criminal justice system, this finding has got no value.

For instance, if I am being violated in any manner (say abused, beaten up etc.) and I don’t report that incidence or raise complaints against that or do nothing substantial to stop the abuse, it simply means I don’t need justice or maybe there was nothing wrong committed to me (because I could have done something equally bad and I deserved that treatment). When the crime is defined in a gender-biased way (in sexual harassment claims only a woman can be a victim and man can be the perpetrator as per the feminist defined rules), this is valid even more. Since in these cases only a man is considered as the perpetrator and only a woman is considered as a victim, a woman not reporting such a crime means she was not a victim in the first place, simple (LOL feminists). In fact, in most such cases if we look, the men may turn out to be the real victims of #MeToo sexual harassment instead.

6.      Employees who display sexism shows negative behaviour

Researchers claimed that training on prevention of sexism and improving an individual’s character can improve the situation. Their ‘data’ showed that and made us have a good laugh. When the subject of the study was to prevent sexual harassment ONLY against the women employees, this conclusion wrongly assumed that women can’t engage in sexist attitude and will have a better character compared to men. So, when it is clear that women can also have sexism and negative behaviour, men automatically should have been considered as victims of sexual harassment in workplaces BY women. However, these so-called researchers failed to recognize that.

Now let’s try to evaluate this point purely based on real-life #MeToo incidents we have seen in India. In Indian #MeToo movement, only feminist males were accused and no ‘sexist’ males like MRAs or MGTOWs were accused. This was further noted that all feminist females just reversed their actions when the accusation was against their near and dear ones (Mallika Dua the daughter of #MeToo accused Vinod Dua was the biggest example). Male feminist Chetan Bhagat who was keeping fast for his wife and was trying to show his respect for females was also trying to harass his female followers on Facebook at the same time. Another feminist nutcase of a feminist website (Vice) who took interview of Indian MRAs to expose and mock MRM was sending dick pics to random females and inviting them in his hotel room when he was alone.

In fact, this #MeToo campaign was the only feminist campaign I have seen so far that has made only feminists cry and only MRAs laugh.

So, the observation of the researchers that (men) who show sexist behaviour also displays negative behaviour towards women is purely a feminist myth devoid of any substance. As MRAs we are branded sexists, but we are not harassing women in offices. It also proves that this feminist myth can’t be supported by any data and the claim of HBR paper is false. (Lol factor #6)

1.      People with courage are less likely to harass women

This is the funniest conclusion of this HBR research. As we have seen many such courageous men who unnecessary intervene in every gendered matter with their biased feminist views, were the ones who harassed women the most.

A courageous man who took MRA interviews to expose MRM on behalf of the feminist channel Vice was sending dick pics to random women and inviting them in his hotel room where he stayed alone. Sending dick pics to women is a very courageous act and there can’t be any doubt about that. However, that courage was to harass women. Chetan Bhagat was courageously going against the Indian ‘patriarchal’ social norms and keeping fast for his wife, while he was also harassing his women followers online.

We have also seen what happened to courageous ‘Gillette’ for their ‘overly courageous’ January 2019 ad shaming men for their ‘toxic’ masculinity. They had to go back on their promise of correcting ‘toxicity’ in masculinity and saving woke feminism in no time with an $8 bn write-off. Looks like the feminist definition of good behaviour is also very feeble. 😊

Conclusion

In August 2019, British media Metro took my interview on #MeToo and their article told me how feminists were trying to back up the #MeToo movement and were trying to portray the consequences as ‘unfortunate’ and finding fault with men. That article too tried to prove that women were not making mountains out of molehill like this HBR ‘study’ did.

As I have proved in this article about the HBR study, in short, it seems that the HBR researchers might be all high on drugs when they ‘found’ those eye-opening feminist truths through their (trash) research. Notably, the value of Harvard Business Review (HBR) itself comes to question for publishing such trash in their September-October 2019 publication. If HBR is not getting good quality articles on gender, TMF would like to offer them real value-adding articles that will enhance their brand value. (LMAO)

***

Home