Dec 052012
 

On Monday, the second season of Hotel Impossible premiered.  All of you who have been reading my blog for a while may remember this TV show from how it demonstrated just how filthy hotel rooms can get due to women.  The most recent episode was a metaphor and a microcosm of women in the economy, and the damage women cause to it.

On Monday’s episode the host, Anthony Melchiorri, goes to the hotel in Puerto Rico that’s in serious trouble.  He meets with the owner, a man, and the general manager, a woman.  He finds out that the owner has decades of experience in the hotel business which confuses Melchiorri to no end because his hotel shouldn’t be in trouble.  He also finds out the owner and the general manager are married.  Later, Melchiorri meets with the owner’s son who informs him that he was the general manager for a couple of years but gave up due to interference from the current general manager (his stepmother).  Since the owner’s son gave up on being the general manager, the current general manager ran the hotel almost into the ground.

Melchiorri has to get the owner to fire his wife which he eventually does.  The owner’s wife throws a tantrum about it as you would expect.  Melchiorri and the owner have to interview and hire a new general man.  The candidate they select is a man who during the duration of the rest of the episode did a good job getting things back into shape.  At the end of the episode there was a blurb about how the new general manager has quit.  Likely, that was due to interference by the owner’s wife.

This episode of Hotel Impossible is a real good case study in feminine destruction of the economy.  The owner over decades learns a business and builds a business like many men do.  He marries a woman who completely wrecks it in the space of a few years like many women do.  (She could be a metaphor for wives wrecking men or women wrecking the workplace.)  He gets forced into a position where he has to grow a new backbone to deal with the problem, his wife.  (This is a bit atypical, but it does happen.)  He has to call him other men to fix the problems his wife caused (Melchiorri and the new general manager).  When women get confronted with the results of their actions, they turn to emotional abuse just like the owner’s wife did.  (If this was in the US proper, I’m sure she would have turned to divorce and/or law suits as well.)  The son decides to go his own way (from the perspective of this microcosm) just like many men are currently doing.  Melchiorri and the owner also have a conversation about how hotels are built on systems (like any business) which his wife was against.  Systems are something men are always building.  (This includes technology since all technology can be characterized as a system.)  In the end, women are still causing trouble.

Everything that happened on this episode is a good metaphor for how women are wrecking the modern economy.

  7 Responses to “A Microcosm Of Women And The Economy”

  1. Now if only I could get the manosphere to say the same thing about women destroying the environment due to their rapid consumption and endless greed.

    Environmentalism: Part of Men’s RIghts!

    • You will find that near impossible I think. Whilst you may be right about the environmental damage, the fact is that the feminists use things such public transport to continue sprouting their garbage, hence the lack of MRA support for public transport or other environmental controls.

      For example, those women that drive a car are confronted with the fact that they need men directly (their husbands, the mechanic, etc.) to keep the car going. But when you use a train, you rarely see all the men that are required to keep the train going. Hence all these articles from feminists about how they don’t need a man.

      I’m sure there are others who could explain this better than I can, english is not my first language.

      • Something else would be the fact that everything in this area of discussion is blamed on Men anyway, real or not. For instance, if a husband drives 50 miles to work and back to support a wife and two daughters, HE is causing whatever footprint they dream up, even though if he were merely supporting himself he could probably live close enough to walk to work.

        But I’m actually against environmentalism, so this is about as far as I think about arguing from its standpoints.

        • Something else would be the fact that everything in this area of discussion is blamed on Men anyway, real or not. For instance, if a husband drives 50 miles to work and back to support a wife and two daughters, HE is causing whatever footprint they dream up, even though if he were merely supporting himself he could probably live close enough to walk to work.

          This is true. In all of my working life, the men with the longest commutes are always married men. When a man is single, he will pick housing that more reasonably balances cost, distance to work, etc. As soon as a wife gets involved, she wants the shitty McMansion in the exurbs. The long commute isn’t just bad for the environment due to the gas used. Married men have to drive more so they have more wear and tear on their cars so they won’t last as long as the cars of single men leading to more replacement cars for the married men which is bad for the environment.

          It’s not just cars either. The shitty McMansions in the exurbs that wives want are bad for the environment too. It paves over vast amounts of good land (especially good land for farming) since McMansions are so spread out. Not only does this lead the more and more roads, but larger areas of nothing but grass that gets watered and treated with chemicals all the time. One thing that I have noticed about exurbs is that they have hardly any sidewalks. (Even traditional suburbs have significantly more sidewalks than exurbs.) Everything is so spread out that even going several houses down requires driving which is even worse for the environment on top of everything else. Shitty McMansions also require more maintenance and upkeep which is also bad for the environment. The exurbs are built to cater to women. Men, if they had a choice, would live in a truly rural setting, a suburb, or an urban area, all of which is better for the environment than exurbs.

      • Tired Guy wrote:
        You will find that near impossible I think. Whilst you may be right about the environmental damage, the fact is that the feminists use things such public transport to continue sprouting their garbage, hence the lack of MRA support for public transport or other environmental controls.

        I haven’t noticed that women as a group (including feminists) making any greater use of public transport than men do. They usually sweep their dependence on men out of their conscious awareness by considering them part of the furniture. The guy from triple-A who changes her flat tire? Just another drone. The networking guru who makes sure her laptop is properly configured? Ditto.

        Hence all these articles from feminists about how they don’t need a man.

        Delusional, magical thinking on their part. Some of it is due to the common human tendency of familiarity breeding contempt but I also believe that it stems from a built-in tendency of women. They’re hardwired to expect men to provide for and protect them so they aren’t all that grateful when it actually happens.

    • Now if only I could get the manosphere to say the same thing about women destroying the environment due to their rapid consumption and endless greed.

      That has already happened. Paul Elam wrote an article on that subject last month.

      • A couple people have asked me why I dont have a blog lately, basically my answer these days is because Paul Elam already said it.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

%d bloggers like this: