A hysterical woman who works for a hysterical organisation called the Daily Mail – only the second most sold daily newspaper in the United Kingdom of PommieBastardLand, whodathunkit – who goes by the name of Erica Tempesta (great name, that), has written a hysterical article about a recently unearthed 1940s guide to women in the workplace, written for male supervisors.

It must be said that the woman’s reaction to the advice that male bosses were given about how to treat women back in the day says more about her and our current modren (sic[k]) age than it does about punctilious courtesy and good manners from 80 years ago.

It goes without saying that virtually NO women read this blog – I think they find me far too offensive – but if any of you are, in fact, females of the species, take a look at these helpful hints and pointers for bosses in the 1940s who had to deal with extra estrogen in the workplace, and tell me whether or not you feel offended:

I’m looking at this as a man who has (unfortunately) had to work alongside women for many years, and all I can say here is:

That’s common bloody sense, chaps.

Honestly, I think this Erica Tempesta female must be of the thin-lipped bespectacled variety, the kind who takes her own lunch to work and gets egregiously offended about nothing whatsoever. Boy, she must be a hoot to take out on a date, eh, chaps?

All I can say to that list of advice and tips up there is that it is basic good behaviour and etiquette, of the kind that fathers used to teach their sons back in the days when men were expected to look, act, and behave like gentlemen. And that implied a certain code of conduct toward women that seems positively archaic by today’s standards.

Now, back in the 1950s it was common for men to leer at women in the workplace, make comments about how “that tart Jane in Accounting really does have a smashing pair of knockers”, and generally act in a rather more forward manner than is tolerated these days. There is room for debate about whether or not this was desirable; feminists and their male enablers would shriek that all such conduct was absolutely abhorrent and wrong, while more sensible types would say that things were considerably less crazy back then, and it was also far less common for women to be in the workplace.

The latter was certainly no bad thing. It is a well-known and fundamental truth of the Manosphere that women ruin everything.

(Note: this is a rhetorical statement, and as rhetoric goes, it is highly effective. However, for the linguistic purists, politically correct tightwads, adenoidal nincompoops, and snarky Gammas out there – and there is considerable overlap between these groups – it is worth noting that, technically, women simply ruin any male pursuit, profession, or field of endeavour into which they insert their unwanted selves.)

You can see this staple of Manospherian wisdom explicated here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and – of course – these two links here just for good measure.

Putting women in office spaces was a huge mistake. It was unavoidable during the First and Second World Wars, because there was simply no getting past the fact that a very large part of the prime working-age male population was… shall we say, indisposed at the time.

But it was a big mistake to keep women as part of the workforce.

This is objectively true, whether we like it or not. The more power that women have been given over time, the worse things have gotten for Western civilisation. Scripture, history, common sense, and a basic understanding of human nature all dictate that giving women power inevitably corrupts a society.

Now, that is no excuse for treating women like unthinking cattle. They are nothing of the sort. The greatest and most important role that a woman will ever take on is that of a wife and mother, and she cannot do that when she is overworked, stressed out by deadlines, constantly dealing with both overtly dominant and subtly bitchy female colleagues, and trying to manage a household on top of all of that.

And her children certainly do not benefit from being in daycare throughout their youngest and most important formative years.

The codes of conduct and guides of the past were all about reinforcing basic sense and civility – the kinds of qualities that young men at the time were not only expected but required to display on a regular basis. But there was an agreement implied by that code of conduct as well, and it demanded that women also agree to act like women.

Both sides of that equation have become unbalanced in the modren (sic) age. Men, in a word, aren’t.

And consequently, women aren’t either.

Putting women in the workforce, and feeding them propaganda for fifty years about how a woman can do everything that a man can, has left both sexes miserable, exhausted, irritated, and over-medicated.

All of these things can be objectively shown. For instance, it is well known that real median incomes for Americans have largely stagnated for the past forty years. And how do you suppose that happened? Immigration and cheap labour are part of the answer, to be sure – but so is the mass introduction of women into the workforce.

This is fairly simple economics. If you significantly increase the supply of labour without a significant increase in demand for jobs, you usually end up with a significant drop in wages. The result was fairly inevitable to see; as women moved into the workforce, men moved out, because working alongside women is inherently detrimental to male camaraderie, bonding, and privacy, and because many of the older blokes could take early retirement.

As for the over-medicated part – it has been well known and well understood for some time now that the American woman is perhaps the most prolific consumer of antidepressants and mood enhancers anywhere in the entire world. (Note: that is in terms of prescriptions, not actual drug consumption – but it’s likely safe to argue that the second has a reasonable correlation with the first.)

This sad state of affairs was not, and is not, accidental.

This is the result of decades of deliberate social engineering designed to give women more power and more economic advantages.

Now, that is justifiable and tolerable, up to a point; as Christians, we are commanded to love, honour, and respect our women. The Good Book literally tells husbands not to be harsh with their wives, which is eminently sensible advice as far as I am concerned. It is to be noted that the list of suggestions to male bosses up top is directly in line with what is Biblical, and therefore correct and true.

What is not tolerable is to put women in a position to rule over men. With very few exceptions, this has led repeatedly to disaster. The Western world has ignored this basic lesson to its very great cost for fifty years now, and the correction, when – not if – it comes, will be absolutely brutal for both men and women.