My response to Paul Elam’s article: “Dear #MeToo, I’d like to introduce you to #MikePenceRules.”

This article is a brief response to Paul Elam’s post entitled #metoo, Meet the #mikepencerules. I’ve chosen to contrast his ideas with the ideas expressed in a pro-#metoo article entitled “The State of the Gender Divide: Lessons from trying to make content for men during Weinstein and #MeToo” written by a Anna Hope Levinson, who is a writer at ostensibly pro-male Mel Magazine, and another Medium article by an anonymous poster about real-world action being taken by employers that seem to bolster Elam’s arguments.

All articles are linked at the end.

My goal in commenting on the Mel piece is not to validate the grievances of its rather unhappy female author. It’s to show you how this woman’s own description of events at her company suggests that Paul Elam is on to something in his article. My purpose in including the anonymous article is to show that Elam, as the saying goes, is not just whistling dixie.

Elam’s core idea is that the SJW witch hunt against accused sexual harassers has become so ferociously anti-male that managers in male-dominated industries are necessarily going to think long and hard about the consequences of bringing females (who are capable of launching devastating complaints) on staff and, when they have no choice but to hire females, are now quietly devising ways to select candidates who are as red-pill in their outlook as women can possibly be.

Let me start off by saying that I don’t bother reading Mel Magazine because, in spite of ostensibly being a publication for men, it’s loaded with the same kind of blue-pill drivel you can find anywhere else in the mainstream media. The publication’s gynocentric focus is on full display in this article, which makes use of hackneyed terms such as “toxic masculinity” and, predictably, casts the whole discussion around harassment in feminist, neo-Marxist jargon as a dialogue between oppressors and oppressed. I chose this particular article because it demonstrates perfectly the impact of inviting purveyors of misandry and victim culture into an otherwise sane and functional workplace.

In his article, Paul Elam gave voice to the idea that in the post #metoo world where there is incredible pressure on companies to #believesurvivors, even in the complete absence of evidence, and meet out swift, draconian punishment to any man accused of any kind of gendered transgression, the consequences of having mixed gender workplaces are potentially catastrophic. Elam believes that forward thinking managers are going to try to mitigate the problem of sexual harassment complaints not by doubling down on draconian harassment policies in which they themselves could easily become entrapped, but rather by eliminating the possibility of potential complaints by cutting off the source, namely female employees.

After reading about how polarized the atmosphere became in the offices of Mel Magazine after the rise of #metoo, it’s hard to see how he’s wrong. I cite as my first example the way in which the author of the article projected the negative experiences she claims to have had with her former boss in a different city onto her new boss at Mel.

Those Tuesdays when I left work early for therapy? That’s when I was fortunate enough to be getting specialized treatment for my PTSD from the aforementioned abusive relationship with a former boss. How I left New York City? That was in large part to escape him. Those first few weeks at MEL when I was dangerously unfocused? Being in a room alone with Josh made me so nervous I once ran to the bathroom to puke.

Whether her former boss really is as bad as all that, or whether the writer is a histrionic, self-pitying drama-queen, I won’t venture to guess. My point is this; in the post-#metoo ethos of “believe the the accuser and fire the accused,” isn’t it rather dangerous for a manager to be alone anywhere with a trauma-addled woman who imagines sexual abusers around every corner and behind every tree? And wouldn’t it also be dangerous for a manager to allow any male member of his or her staff to be alone with such a woman, given the damage that could arise from any allegations she might make, regardless of whether there is any truth in them? At just about any well known company, all it takes is a single tweet about sexual harassment in the office to bring condemnation and scorn from all corners of the internet. So, instead of a paranoid self-styled “survivor” who feels the urge to puke every time she’s alone with her male boss, why not just hire a male writer who any other male on staff can be alone with without fear that he’ll project past traumas onto present personages and without concern that he’ll make accusations that could ruin careers, cause expensive disruptions, lead to ruinous lawsuits and possibly do irreparable damage to the company? I suspect that more than a few managers, both male and female, are asking this question.

Fear of twitter activism or formal complaints is only one reason why managers might become more reluctant to hire women, particularly drama-queens like the author of the Mel article. Another reason is concern over the negative impact on workplace relations. Imagine what effect having a such a messed-up women around must have on employee morale. In my case, knowing that every word I said, every inflection in my speech and every gesture I made was being scrutinized and combed through for any hint of offense by her and other women with similar axes to grind would give me every incentive I needed to look for a way out. Low or average performers may have little or no choice but to tolerate working in such an environment for lack of other employment opportunities. But top performers, particularly in tech, have plenty of options. When companies start losing their best male employees and/or hiring prospects to competitors who offer less hostile work environments, they’ll have to look long and hard at the costs of hiring women at all, particularly particular the kind of women who see it as their feminist duty to make men uncomfortable (or, as the Mel article put it, to “do penance”).

Of course, there are risks to companies which are seen to be hiring a lower percentage of women than is deemed correct by the gender equity police. As Paul Elam points out, this could lead to human rights complaints and even lawsuits. So, instead of refusing to hire women outright, what smart managers will do is to carefully vet the resumes of female applicants and audit the social media channels of potential female hires and develop interview questions designed to tacitly identify and eliminate #metoo sympathizers from contention. The really smart managers will do this with male candidates too, since male #metoo sympathizers and empty virtue-signalers function as pernicious enablers of victim culture. If they are prudent, managers will undertake this vetting process in ways that do not hint at their true purpose in order to avoid the inevitable condemnation that being discovered would invite. While hiring only red-pill women would not eliminate the risk of frivolous harassment claims (since in practice any woman in the workplace represents a risk in this regard) it would serve to reduce the odds considerably.

But even with the odds of harassment complaints reduced, there are other problems associated with women in the workplace, not the least of which is the problem of the so-called “waterworks.” When a man is backed into a corner with no escape, he backs down or fights his way to victory. When a woman is backed into a corner with no escape she has an option enjoyed by absolutely zero men; she can cry. Predictably often, in the presence of men, this tactic succeeds in getting her what she wants.

The author of the Mel article is no stranger to this tactic. She writes:

By the end of my conversation with Josh, it was clear there was no way I was going to write a piece. “The men on our staff are going to need to get it together,” I told him through tears.

Through tears. Of course, through tears. Because tears are a woman’s weapon of last resort. When she doesn’t get her way, she cries like a child and expects the men around her to cave in and make comforting her their highest priority. Because if they don’t, they’re evil misogynist bullies and that’s just not acceptable because what could ever possibly be more important than her feelings?

Personally, I wonder if the men on staff at Mel Magazine were reluctant to “get it together” because getting it together meant agreeing to be cast as villains in her wacko personal psychodrama and made to “do penance” for their complicity with the patriarchy as oppressors of women. No widespread support among men for that? Go figure! I wonder how many of the men on staff quietly noticed how everything got easier for her when tears started to flow. I wonder how this affected their perceptions regarding the fortitude of women in general and the fairness of any debates involving matters female employees might choose to cry over.

How much do you want to bet that during the meetings in which they were browbeaten by angry women and asked to hold themselves accountable for the wrongdoing of Harvey Weinstein, the men at Mel Magazine weren’t wishing to God they worked in a male-only environment in which they could air their fair and reasonable concerns about being the targets of a witch hunt without being labeled misogynists who should shut up and listen? How much do you want to bet that the managers regretted hiring female staffers at all, let alone women so thoroughly steeped in misandry and victim culture that the most trifling misdeeds (if they are even misdeeds at all) by men in the workplace gets elevated to the level of a federal offense.

I suggest that the problem in the workplace of Mel Magazine was not toxic masculinity, as the author believes. The problem was rampant misandry, enabled and amplified by pathetic blue-pill male virtue-signalers who uncritically frame their comments in the Marxist-inspired jargon of feminism, and the deeply entrenched mindset of victim culture.

I assure you, I am not alone in this view. In fact, in the words of another writer on, this is no longer even an outlier opinion. This writer, who for reasons that need no explanation is posting anonymously, has received lots of feedback from all over his field (tech) from managers who are quietly but resolutely reducing or even eliminating their female workers. According to him, one of his contacts wrote:

We are considering dropping our female staffers in the non-support teams. This way we can eliminate the risk and from the outside, it looks like we just have a 90/10 split which is low but not unreasonable for a tech company” (paraphrased)

If this is for real (and I believe it is), if the sentiment is widespread (I believe it is too) and if the trend picks up steam (I believe it will), then, as one commenter on the anonymous article posted:

It looks like the #metoo movement is in the process of setting back workplace equality about 100 years. It’s too bad.

It really is too bad, but it should surprise no one that this is the true outcome. The goal of modern feminism, far from the achievement of equality, is to give women power without accountability and this is no more obvious anywhere than in the hashtag activism that has sprouted up all over the internet. The whole point of campaigns like #believesurvivors and #metoo is to shame and silence anyone who doesn’t tow the feminist line and to make the public debate as one-sided as possible. This tactic is starting to backfire as more and more women are becoming horrified at what they fear the true results will look like and are speaking out against the excesses of #metoo. The cost of #metoo to wokplace equality will become apparent as more and more managers (both male and female) with the power to hire or not hire women, start doing the math and looking long and hard at drastic options of a kind they might not have even considered before #metoo was born.

Like what you read? Give Devon Ironside a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.