Slate Magazine’s Ruth Graham Calls For Men To Be Removed From The Workforce

in Culture by
   

Ruth Graham is a contributor for Slate and also a Granite Stater which is the only nice thing I can say about her after reading her recent piece entitled, “It’s Time to Admit That Allowing Men Into the Workforce Was a Mistake.” I don’t know if Ruth meant this as satire or a bad joke but it’s standard fare from the man-hating, white-hating, anti-American Left and it deserves a rebuttal.

She begins by saying, “American men entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers as they returned from World War II, and employers welcomed these men as a matter of patriotic duty.” Maybe we should ban all men from serving in the military as well. Maybe it should just be women like Ruth who go fight our wars. Ruth and her ilk would no doubt recoil in horror at such an idea. She wants to ban men from the workforce but when it comes to laying down lives in the defense of our nation and interests, she would be more than happy to leave that duty to us men.

Ruth asks, “Is it even natural for men to be in the workplace in the first place?” I suppose that depends entirely on what kind of work she’s talking about. When it comes to the trades, garbage disposal, janitorial work, and so on, I doubt she’d have much of a problem with it. But she isn’t interested in talking about the menial work. All Ruth talks about are CEOs. “Companies run by female CEOs perform better at the stock market,” she says. Ruth complains about men being disproportionately represented in board rooms and business schools. Men, she says, are “responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis, defrauding investors, destroying hardworking people’s retirement funds, and triggering worldwide economic crashes.”

I don’t know if Ruth is deliberately ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of men are not CEOs and are not successful and eek out a living doing labor women wouldn’t dream of doing themselves, or maybe she’s stupid. I’d like to believe she isn’t as dishonest as she appears to be so I’m just going to give her the benefit of the doubt and go with stupidity.

Despite the title of the article, Ruth doesn’t really make a case for men being banned from the workforce; she instead makes the case for banning them from leadership positions. It’s fine by her if we pick up the trash and die on the construction sites, she just wants to be in charge. And why? Sexual harassment. That’s right, men shouldn’t be in charge of anything because thirty percent of women supposedly experience sexual harassment at work. In Ruth’s mind, all men must be punished because some of them are incorrigible pigs. At the end of the day, this has less to do with men being incompetent and more to do with Ruth wanting revenge.

And if men were more open to reporting sexual harassment against them in the workplace, there’d be just as many women who are guilty as men. The difference is that we don’t let it bother us and often it’s flattering. Get over yourself, Ruth. People have desires and like sex because it’s awesome. It is natural for men to be attracted to women and vice versa. We talk about it all the time, it’s all over TV and movies and music, our entire culture is inculcated by sex, and you’re surprised when it comes up at work? Give me a break!

She says, “Many male workers are also simply too emotional to thrive in the modern workplace. They struggle with anger, jealousy, and pride; they are easily distractible and prone to tantrums.” If this criticism were unique to men then maybe she’d have a point, but these traits are far from unique to men. Is Ruth really claiming that women aren’t as emotional as men? That they’re less petty than men? Is she really making a case that women don’t struggle with anger, jealousy, and pride? Really? Pride and jealousy are unique to men, these are personality defects that women transcend? Women don’t throw temper tantrums?

At this point, I’ve become convinced that Ruth is most certainly not a liar, she is most definitely a moron.

She finishes her exercise in imbecility by saying, “While certain exceptional men are able to control their weak natures and rise to the challenge of behaving appropriately in the workplace, it’s time to do what’s right and end this grand experiment before anyone else gets hurt.”

See that? As long as men stay home and only women work then no one will ever get hurt ever again! Slate has really outdone itself this time by publishing this fantasyland tier trash from a woman who doesn’t seem to have done a days worth of real work in her whole uppity life. But, maybe there’s some merit to this idea of banning men from the workforce. Let’s play this out and see where it goes…

Ruth and her poor victimized cohorts who are so much more highly evolved and able to control their emotions will, from now on, be the only people in the workforce. They can cling to the back of the garbage truck in the dead of winter. They can work the construction jobs and clip wires and do the steel work and construction work and the carpentry as well. They can be killed in droves in workplace incidents, and they can deal with the numerous injuries men have been incurring all these years.

While they’re struggling to lift upwards of seventy-five pounds or more at a time and driving the big rigs and cranes and digging ditches and working in the sewers, we men will sit at home and do whatever we want. We’ll raise the kids, we’ll clean the houses, we’ll do the dishes, we’ll cook the food, and we will enjoy our additional free time. And we’ll do a damn fine job at all of it too. Maybe it’s about time women got off their lazy asses and did something for us for a change. After ten thousand years of men doing all the grunt work, it’s about time we got a break.

The more I think about this the more I like it. Women will do all the hardest work, and men will sit at home and reap the benefits. Perhaps the feminist end game isn’t so bad after all, eh? Give Ruth and her allies a year of this new arrangement, and they’ll be screaming for the return of the patriarchy! They’ll call us sexists for not doing our part in the workplace. They’ll be demanding us men to save them from their own stupidity. If they even last a year.

Ruth Graham is a moron and her plan is asinine. It will never happen and if it did she and every other stupid woman like her would hate it. Maybe we should give it a shot. Maybe we should give them everything they ask for. After some time of being run over by bulldozers and forced to work outdoors in dreadful conditions, being sexually harassed will look like a walk in the park for these idiots.

Everyone needs to know their place in this world and sometimes the best way to figure that out is by stepping into a role you’re not meant for. Ruth needs to shovel some asphalt and hang some drywall for a few days, during which time she needs to do some hard thinking about her beliefs and where they would put her if followed to their logical conclusion.

  • Sexist bitch. Imagine the outcry if it was the other way round.

  • Who’s gonna move her desk or handle deliveries?

  • yeah. the only way morons like Ms Graham could ever secure real jobs would be if at least half the competition was removed 🙂

  • Truly a nut job.

  • EdG

    It gets nuttier every day, but remember, this divisive nonsense we see and read about everywhere is financed and planned by people much higher up than the “useful idiots” in the media and the hirelings in government who are selling out the West and, ultimately, themselves. It’s obvious their getting desperate because they’re not getting the reactions they’re hoping for. Stay calm.

  • How would they pay their alimony and child support payments to their ex-wives?

  • Yeah. That should work out fine…

  • The same kind of people that went after blacks simply find other targets for their authoritarian personalities.

Latest from Culture

Go to Top

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox. 

Send this to a friend