There are a number of places where women do not belong, or collectively lower the standards. Of competence, efficiency, and/or safety. The best example I can think of is an oil rig. Women do not belong there. Is it not just so convenient that they do not really want to work there?
But there are plenty of men's spaces where women do want to be. They are never as dangerous or as dirty as an oil rig. But women view them as somehow advantageous for themselves. We will come back to this, but first, current events demand that we talk about the game.
I really do not care how women dress. But to pretend that they do not dress provocatively, intentionally, in certain spaces is ridiculous. It is a game for them; a sly power game. It works like this: If a man approaches a woman, and she finds him attractive, well, then she is pleased that her provocative outfit did the trick. If another man approaches her, and she finds him unattractive, then regardless of what she is wearing, he is creepy and he makes her uncomfortable. And she will noisily call out his misadventure and mal-intent.
I first noticed the weaponization of the term uncomfortable ten or twelve years back. The problem with the label uncomfortable is that it can be applied to almost anything or any action however benign. Left-handed men make me uncomfortable. It is a very feminine complaint, and because it is personally subjective, one cannot argue against it. This makes it highly effective against men and anything they may do or not do. This has only gotten worse.
But it goes well beyond outfits. This game is the general attitude that women possess towards men today. Men can be forgiven for tiring of it. Some blame feminism; I personally have no idea where this came from. But I do not believe it predates the Second World War. There was a time when the sexes treated each other better. There was a respect and etiquette to the relationship dance. This seems to have eroded since mid-century. Today, like etiquette more generally, it seems completely lost.
Respect and etiquette have been replaced with hookup culture and the ever-present game. The whole dance is more transactional, less serious, and yes, ripe for gaming. Too many women take relationship advice from Alex Cooper.
But the game is terribly unfair for men. And so many of them no longer want to play. Women can do as they please and act as they please. But surely men should be able to escape; at least occasionally. In order to stop the nonsense, let's bring back some men-only spaces.
Someone should open a men-only gym or even a chain of men-only gyms. Not all gyms need be men-only, but men should have the option of not participating in the female game.
Of course, women would immediately pressure the gym to open membership to women. Somehow men-only spaces seem to threaten women and women's rights. And too many men accept this precept. I urge resistance. When you are talking about a men-only gym, the only reason women want to be there is to play the game.
Let's consider a few other scenarios where women have installed themselves.
Women reporters on NFL game sidelines and in men's lockers rooms. They have nothing to add and no one wants them there; they just want to be there. And that alone is not a good enough reason for them to be there. No, it is not.
Women in the boardrooms and C-Suites. I realize this is debatable, but consider their collective record. It is underwhelming. But again, they want to be there, and too many men relent.
Women do not need to be members of all men's athletic clubs. Why cannot Augusta National remain a men-only club?
Should women really be police officers? Regardless of the answer, the question should probably be discussed. Here I mean, cops on the street. I see no problem if a woman wants to join the FBI. And here, allow me a question: Why are so many female cops butch lesbians? There is something going on there that I do not understand.
Taxi drivers, long haul truckers, airline pilots, fine, women can do all of that. But do women belong on trading floors? I tend to doubt it.
Why do the boy scouts need girls? Do the girl scouts need boys? The idea is ridiculous. Men have lost their spines; again, stop the nonsense.
So are we conflating the women's relationship game with women's equality? First, I would say it is less about women's equality, and more about women's ability to perform at a level comparable with men. Can women be as effective as men as a beat cop? The idea is absurd. Is it merit or is it mere inclusion? What ties all this together is women's need to be everywhere men are. It is really not need; it is desire.
To answer the question posed in the subtitle: No, women do not belong everywhere. Other cultures understand this. And it goes without saying that men do not belong everywhere. This is obvious to all, except maybe women's sports teams and the pandering idiots in charge of school restrooms.
Let's return to the game. One might ask, what about the predatory Andrew Tate and his ilk in the so-called manosphere? I have previously discussed these charlatans. They play their own games. And I think the game players, of both sexes, are most likely to meet each other. Or more accurately, collide with each other. Likely as not, in the gym. Where they all get exactly what they deserve.
Of course, Alex Cooper and Andrew Tate deserve each other. But the fallout is the Cornell Seven. Or what Megyn Kelly rightfully calls the Cornell Eight. Because Jane Doe was just playing her game, as the men were playing their own. They too deserve each other. The societal collision was inevitable. There will be more.
What would I have done in his position? I would have banned women entirely from fraternity houses. Under my direction, women could attend outdoor parties, but no women would be allowed inside the houses. It is not safe and they might feel uncomfortable. Couldn't have that.
So the games will continue.
Let's end with an example of the game played at a high level. Not for amateurs; do not try this at home.
Think about this poor bastard. For the entire flight, even after his denial, even after the witness confirmation, the crew and his fellow passengers would have wondered about his harassing tendencies. His creepiness. It's no win. My advice is: Do not play.
The most important takeaway from this whole piece: Women have nothing to lose playing the game. Regardless of their situational affectation and mien, be it feigned anger, sternness, fear, disgust, or something else entirely, for them it is a casual and whimsical distraction. This is why I call it a game. On the other hand, depending on the situation, the men can lose an unpredictable amount.
But it is ungentlemanly to not offer to assist a lady, right? Do not allow that old fashioned attitude to get you in trouble. Today, you must wait for her to ask for assistance. And even then, be very leery. This is the world we live in.
One other question about the game: Who is most likely to play? Here I am going to use the admittedly crass One through Ten scale of attractiveness. Maybe this is not perfect, maybe it is not nice, but in order to discuss this, we all need to be generally on the same page. Remember, the game is about attractiveness.
It is not the One through Five crowd who play the game. These ladies are delighted to have your attention. And it is not the Tens. The Tens know, that you know, that they are out of your league. So there is no reason for them to be anything other than sincere and gracious. That has been my experience without exception. I suppose it could be fake, but these ladies have nothing to prove.
So it is the Six through Nine crowd that you must be leery of. The women who believe that they can and should be doing better than you. If bag guy above had been flying first class, this would not have been a problem. Most women under fifty are in the Six through Nine group. Watch out for them.
One other note on this question. This is a young woman's game. The women over fifty are of a different generation, and well, just better behaved. Either that, or experience has taught them to value good manners and polite interactions.
Of course there are exceptions, but as general rules, these are pretty good. My One through Ten categories may be slightly off, but the principle is correct. As always, your mileage may vary.
Finally, if you view this piece as sexist, that is not my intention. But if you find it so, I am okay with that as well. Like racist, antisemitic, homophobic, etc., I could not care less what you call me. Why not just go find something, anything, you are good at? And leave the rest of us, both men and women, in peace.