Affirmative Distraction
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
A typical demand of the feminists has been that job applicants ought to be judged only on the basis of ability, and without any objection to the gender of the applicant.  This suggests a regrettable naivety on the part of the feminists.  Ability isn't the only relevant consideration.  A job applicant should also be judged on the basis of her likely effect.  That is, it isn't enough to know that a woman can do the job.  So can a man.  A hiring manager should also consider whether or not the presence of a woman in the group will be disruptive.
Most men recognize instantly that women in their department will be disruptive.  Women pretend that it isn't so.  Predictably, when they force their way into a male environment the first thing women do is distract the men.  This doesn't improve productivity.  To their great surprise, the women are then dissatisfied with the behavior and attitudes of the men.  This, of course, is a surprise only to the women.  They immediately begin to complain, further disrupting the situation.
Today, U.S. businesses are spending millions of dollars as a direct consequence of women's complaints.  They wouldn't have to spend this money at all, were it not for the women.  For example, mandated sensitivity and diversity "training" (brainwashing) is entirely a consequence of sexual integration of the workplace, and was never necessary before the women arrived on the scene.  Sexual humor and pin-ups in the workplace were not an issue until women began to complain about them.  Sexual harassment law suits were unknown before the females defined themselves as attractive targets.  In financial terms, the sexual integration of the workplace has been, and will remain, a net loss.  This is because, in general, a woman won't do the job better than a man.  Therefore, she won't provide any additional benefit as a consequence of her gender to offset the additional costs that accrue as a consequence of her gender.
I'm not saying that sexually integrated workplaces ought to be prohibited by law, although they're a stupid idea.  However, neither should they be required by law.  I'm not saying that women should be prevented from seeking jobs.  Neither should I be required to work with a woman if I don't want to.¹  The agenda that has dictated universal sexual integration is, at least, a repudiation of the diversity that feminists allegedly pursue.  Instead, they must stop dictating employment policies for everyone else and acknowledge that each company should follow the hiring practices that are best suited to it's particular circumstances.  Some companies can then hire men only.  Some can hire women only.  Some can hire both.  Then each of us can apply for work in the kind of environment he prefers.  If, as the feminists never tire of proclaiming, a woman can do twice the work of a man for half the cost, then the marketplace will do its thing and plenty of employers will hire these highly cost-effective women.  Those companies will then prevail.  Of course, the feminists might be wrong.  If the male companies win out, then the ladies can always go back to the kitchen and the bedroom, where I'm sure they'll be welcomed with open arms.

"...  but in the view we take of the question of waiver of the fraud by failure to exercise due diligence to rescind, ... "...  If they proposed to rescind, their duty was to assert that right promptly, unconditionally, and unevasively, otherwise the affirmation of the contract, notwithstanding the fraud, would follow.  Richardson v. Lowe, 149 Fed Rep 625, 627-8. "Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority ....  And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations of his authority.  See e.g., Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409, United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70; and see generally, The Floyd Acceptance, 7 Wall 666."  Federal Corp Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384. "Where a party desires to rescind upon the grounds of mistake or fraud he must upon the discovery of the facts, at once announce his purpose, and adhere to it.  If he be silent, ...  he will be held to have waived the objection, and will be conclusively bound by the contract, as if the mistake or fraud had not occurred.  He is not permitted to play fast and loose.  Delay and vacillation are fatal to the right which had been subsisted."  Grymes v. Saunders, 93 U.S. 55, 62.  Also see Shappiro v. Goldberg, 192 U.S. 232.

"If the fraud be discovered while the contract is wholly executory, the party defrauded has the option of going on with it or not, as he chooses.  If he executes it, the loss happens from such voluntary execution, and he cannot recover for loss which he deliberately elected to incur."  Simon v. Goodyear Metallic Rubber Shoe Co., 105 Fed 573, 579.

[Some relevant definitions from Black's Law Dictionary are presented at the bottom of page 3.]

Frontiersman  435 South White Road  San Jose, California  95127  Produced at Mere Keep

Smitten With Embarrassment Dept.  (rarely used)
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
In the June issue of this newsletter, I printed an article, Where Are We Going?, by John H. Webster.  The article contained the phrase "labor and emigration laws".  It should have been "labor and immigration laws".  Drat!

If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter.  When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.