Thirty-Six Stratagems - Stratagem 30:
Make the host and guest exchange roles.
Defeat the enemy from within by infiltrating the enemy’s camp under the guise of cooperation, surrender, or peace treaties. Usurp leadership in a situation where you are normally subordinate. Pretend to be a guest to be accepted, and when her guard is relaxed, strike directly at the source of her strength.
NOTE: The following is NOT legal advice (the application of information to an individual’s specific circumstances). This site does not provide legal services or legal advice. You should always consult an attorney to interpret and apply this information to your particular situation.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) is the federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating against any person on the basis of the person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It applies to practically all conditions of employment, including hiring and firing, compensation and benefits, training, job assignments, and any other terms and conditions of employment. It not only prohibits behaviors that are intentionally discriminatory, but also behaviors that have the effect of being discriminatory.
By way of example, let us now primarily concern ourselves with sexual harassment as a particular type of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. More specifically, our interest is with conduct characterized as creating a “hostile work environment.” The elements of a hostile work environment are verbal or physical conduct that is, objectively and subjectively, sufficiently severe or pervasive to have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Objectively means that a reasonable person would find the conduct such, while subjectively means that you do (in other words, you do not welcome such conduct).
We’re certainly aware that this aspect of Title VII is routinely used and abused by feminists. But how can we use this to our advantage?
First, be aware that Title VII applies to men; the harasser need not be your supervisor, but may also be your coworker or other employees; the harasser may be of the same or different sex as you; and you do not have to suffer financial damage or be discharged. Your working environment can become hostile not only by overt sexual conduct but also by any conduct that is deprives you of opportunities because of your sex.
Of course, one route to take is to file harassment claims alleging that our female co-workers are creating a hostile work environment for men. Yeah, right; that always works. But there is another way...
Significantly, not only is discrimination prohibited, but any retaliation for filing, pursuing, or participating in a complaint, is also prohibited. Participation can be nothing more than offering a statement (supportive of the complaint or not) to the EEOC office investigating the complaint. Often, although the initial complaint is ultimately dismissed, subsequent retaliatory actions are found sufficient to warrant damages. A weak discrimination claim can indeed become a strong retaliation claim.
What does this mean?
It means that if a female employee lodges a complaint, and you come forward with support as a feminist pseudo-sympathizer, you can gain power.
How do you gain power?
Recall that you are protected against retaliation based on your participation in the complaint. A small participation allows you to gain the enormous power of the complaint. If you are retaliated against, you may be able to establish an independent claim for yourself.
If you offer critical supporting statements, your continued support or timely withdrawal of your support becomes a very potent weapon against the female complainant.
In addition, by providing support for a woman’s claim of discrimination, you arm yourself against others that may hold organizational power over you. This is particularly true of those male feminist colluders who have become nothing more than a thorn in you side. Remember that to a feminist, all men are irrelevant, even those who bow at the alter. Feminists have no pity for such a male. Don’t you either.
But most importantly, you will effectively dress yourself in sheep’s clothing. You will steal government provided power typically reserved solely for women. You will, in a feminist dominated environment, elevate yourself to their special, protected status. You will become trusted in the female hive-mind.
Carnage is sure to ensue...
2 comments:
Another classical example of the gross misuse of Dowry Act (498A) is the case of television celebrity, Suhaib Ilyasi. India's Most Wanted television host was in controversy after the dispute over his daughter Aaliya's custody rose soon after Ilyasi's wife Anju committed suicide on January 10, 2000 in Delhi. While his mother–in-law, Rukma Singh wanted custody of the child on the ground that she had the right under Muslim law, Ilyasi had taken the plea that his marriage with Anju was not solemnized as per the Muslim law but had been a civil affair. His sister-in-law Rashmi Singh came from Canada after six months of her sister's death and filed a complaint with the police against Ilyasi, alleging that he used to torture his wife Anju for dowry.
The case took bizarre turn when Anju's brother Prashant Singh and father Prof K P Singh took a diametrically opposite stand and described the allegations against Ilyasi as ``rubbish.'' Prashant told Express Newsline:`whatever my mother and sister Rashmi are stating against Suhaib Ilyasi is a lot of rubbish. There is no truth in their statement or in the charges filed by the police against Suhaib. If you are holding Suhaib responsible for Anju's suicide, then my mother and sister are also to blame, as they unduly interfered in their family matters.
K P Singh, a retired IIT professor, agreed with Prashant. “My wife and daughter are breaking up my family”. Both Anju's father and brother allege that Rukma and Rashmi have given statements against Suhaib as `they wanted custody of baby Aaliya. When Ilyasi delayed that, they put him in trouble.'
Anju's mother Rukma Singh had changed her earlier statement given in January, 2000, in which she had stated that she did not suspect any foul play by Suhaib Ilyasi. However when Ilyasi refused to give custody of his daughter, she change her statement and alleged dowry harassment against Ilyasi.
It has been alleged for long that Dowry Act (498a) in India is being consistently misused by clever women for extortion and blackmailing. The NCRB records suggest that during 2005-2006, 94% of the 498A, 304B cases filed by women or by her relatives were primarily to settle scores.
Section 498A in itself is, however, not meant to deal specifically with dowry -- it is commonly considered to be a 'dowry law' because domestic violence against a wife related to dowry demands is considered to be within the scope of 'cruelty' envisaged by the Section.
always an angle going on from all angles
Post a Comment