You're a careermaxxed executive at a mid/large burgerland company.
You're headhunting for a mid-senior management position. You could go with Bob. Bob’s a competent wageslave in his late 30s or early 40s who's been with the firm for ten years. He earned a degree at some random public university before climbing the ranks of junior and middle management like every other docile, careermaxxing betabuxx. A hardworking normie with plenty of experience and insider knowledge. But Bob is boring. He still wears these off-the-rack baggy suits with one of those cheap “buy one get ten free” shirts from Jos. A Bank. People generally get along with Bob, but you could easily find twenty other people just like Bob, and after a week or two, no one would miss him if he left.
So you hire Stacy instead, a freshly minted Wharton MBA in her mid-20s with a very impressive CV: debating champion, political science undergrad at Yale, followed by a stint at McKinsey. Stacy is warm and engaging and commands the attention of everyone in every room she walks into. She knows how to dress and present herself and leave an impression. The problem with Stacy is that she has significantly less experience than is usually expected for the role she’s applying for, but she seems intelligent and a fast learner. She would be a fresh face in a company whose managerial ranks are overwhelmingly filled with middle-aged white men, so you gave her a chance.
If you hire Stacy and she succeeds, well, you win. You are transformational. Innovative. A thought leader. An influential mentor who is helping a confident young woman break the glass ceiling. Even though Stacy grew up in upper-middle-class suburbia, went to Phillips Andover, and was given better educational opportunities than 99% of her fellow Americans, you are somehow now considered an ally in the fight for social justice. Because for some reason, "social justice" nowadays means having eleven Chads and one Stacy on a corporate board instead of having twelve Chads.
If you hire Stacy and she performs poorly for whatever reason, well, you still win. It is unfortunate that she turned out not to be a good fit for the role she found herself in, but the important thing is that you gave her the opportunity to prove herself. But it's not your fault that she wasn't up to the task.
See, you can't possibly lose if you hire Stacy. Hiring Stacy is a win-win scenario for upper management.
Replace Stacy with Brad. Brad has the exact same characteristics that Stacy does; he is also a charismatic, ambitious young Ivy League graduate who jumped straight into investment banking or management consulting before going to business school.
If you hire Brad and he does well, you win, I guess. I mean, you're in a leadership role. It's kind of part of your job description to hire decent employees; so it's expected that you make good hiring decisions.
But if Brad fucks up, well then, you lose. Bigly. Someone is going to ask you why on God's green earth you thought it would be a good idea to hire some smarmy little brat for a mid-senior management role. "Why didn't you just go with boring but competent Bob?", they'll ask. "Why did you hire someone with such little experience?" And then you'll get grilled for choosing a candidate who didn't even last three months before he burned out, maybe even lose part of your bonus.
This applies not only to the corporate world but probably also to the public sector. So this is why I have a great deal of respect for any careermaxxing incel or low-tier normie who now finds himself in a position of responsibility. He has had to overcome all sorts of intrinsic and structural biases that Chads and Stacies did not.
You're headhunting for a mid-senior management position. You could go with Bob. Bob’s a competent wageslave in his late 30s or early 40s who's been with the firm for ten years. He earned a degree at some random public university before climbing the ranks of junior and middle management like every other docile, careermaxxing betabuxx. A hardworking normie with plenty of experience and insider knowledge. But Bob is boring. He still wears these off-the-rack baggy suits with one of those cheap “buy one get ten free” shirts from Jos. A Bank. People generally get along with Bob, but you could easily find twenty other people just like Bob, and after a week or two, no one would miss him if he left.
So you hire Stacy instead, a freshly minted Wharton MBA in her mid-20s with a very impressive CV: debating champion, political science undergrad at Yale, followed by a stint at McKinsey. Stacy is warm and engaging and commands the attention of everyone in every room she walks into. She knows how to dress and present herself and leave an impression. The problem with Stacy is that she has significantly less experience than is usually expected for the role she’s applying for, but she seems intelligent and a fast learner. She would be a fresh face in a company whose managerial ranks are overwhelmingly filled with middle-aged white men, so you gave her a chance.
If you hire Stacy and she succeeds, well, you win. You are transformational. Innovative. A thought leader. An influential mentor who is helping a confident young woman break the glass ceiling. Even though Stacy grew up in upper-middle-class suburbia, went to Phillips Andover, and was given better educational opportunities than 99% of her fellow Americans, you are somehow now considered an ally in the fight for social justice. Because for some reason, "social justice" nowadays means having eleven Chads and one Stacy on a corporate board instead of having twelve Chads.
If you hire Stacy and she performs poorly for whatever reason, well, you still win. It is unfortunate that she turned out not to be a good fit for the role she found herself in, but the important thing is that you gave her the opportunity to prove herself. But it's not your fault that she wasn't up to the task.
See, you can't possibly lose if you hire Stacy. Hiring Stacy is a win-win scenario for upper management.
Replace Stacy with Brad. Brad has the exact same characteristics that Stacy does; he is also a charismatic, ambitious young Ivy League graduate who jumped straight into investment banking or management consulting before going to business school.
If you hire Brad and he does well, you win, I guess. I mean, you're in a leadership role. It's kind of part of your job description to hire decent employees; so it's expected that you make good hiring decisions.
But if Brad fucks up, well then, you lose. Bigly. Someone is going to ask you why on God's green earth you thought it would be a good idea to hire some smarmy little brat for a mid-senior management role. "Why didn't you just go with boring but competent Bob?", they'll ask. "Why did you hire someone with such little experience?" And then you'll get grilled for choosing a candidate who didn't even last three months before he burned out, maybe even lose part of your bonus.
This applies not only to the corporate world but probably also to the public sector. So this is why I have a great deal of respect for any careermaxxing incel or low-tier normie who now finds himself in a position of responsibility. He has had to overcome all sorts of intrinsic and structural biases that Chads and Stacies did not.
Last edited:
“. I guarantee if there was a job posting like that where you have a submissive sex toy secretary, there would be HUGE amounts of applications of willing stacies. This would probably destroy only fans as being an actual job and would help incels cope with corporatemaxxing. Sadly though foids rule HR and feminist overlord ceos exist so it’s just a fun dream
