Perimeter defense.
The fact that Bill Gates, to avoid trouble, is selecting the women who work in his team is causing a stir, excluding those who have worked as escorts, who have made money on OnlyFans, or who have been strippers or porn actresses. Ultimately, this is the goal of a questionnaire that serves to select women who will work closely with Gates.
Let me be clear, the questionnaire has a double purpose.
The first is, evidently, to prevent Gates (a very rich man) from falling prey to women who can blackmail him by boasting of harassment or assaults for sexual purposes. Someone has noticed, using a little 'statistics, that false accusations of this type to very rich men always come from women with a fairly libertine background, so use the statistic against false accusations of molestation or rape.
But, you say, women could lie.
Very true. But in that case the American law is very harsh: you lied during the job selections, therefore you are a liar, therefore your accusations are false, and if anything you have to pay huge damages to the company.
It is therefore a weapon with two prongs: if you tell the truth they won't hire you, if you tell the lie they skin you in case you try to be clever.
So far, all obvious: these women are selected to work in the same office as Gates, therefore in close contact, so it is better to be safe. They have too many chances to make false accusations.
Since the current doctrine is that the woman is always right, and that the accused male should be annihilated both in private life and in economic and family life, obviously for Gates it is an existential threat, and as such he will equip himself with perimeter defense systems, and beyond.
Actually, there is nothing unusual about this request. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does charity work, and nobody wants a porn actress as secretary to the President of FAO, for one thing. So the problem arises, but to protect the image of the foundation.
Valentina Nappi as office secretary of the Franciscan order, let's face it, would change its image. All political and social entities that have an ethical image to maintain must protect themselves in some way: there is no probability that Lexington Steele will go to work for Queen Camilla of England, for one thing.
But the reading of this selection does not seem to take into account the needs of the Foundation's imagination. Indeed, you choose the most #metoo.
Ok, let's do it, but now we need to listen to the two bells. According to Gates' ex-wife, their divorce (as requested by her) was due to the fact that Gates would go to various parties on Epstein's island, however he had done nothing wrong (there are no cases pending against him so he's innocent).
Although he is innocent to this day, his reputation and family life have fallen apart.
Now, it is absolutely clear that a man of that wealth has learned his lesson, and that he has wondered (it is any manager's best practice) how to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
The widespread nature and malice of the attack make it a perimeter security problem. In order to attack him, it is clear that a woman must be able to spend enough time with him, in a situation where there are no records of the time spent together.
Consequently, securing the perimeter is the best course of action to defend against false allegations of rape aimed at extorting money.
And that's what he's doing.
After all, you don't need to be Bill GAtes to get there. If we mention Italy, you will remember Brizzi. Brizzi was accused by a television program, on the strength of the "testimony" of three actresses (of which only one actually exists) of having raped a young woman to whom he was giving lessons.
The prosecution did not pass the investigating judge. It means, in fact, that not only weren't there the conditions to convict him, but not even those to start a trial. When two of the three witnesses don't seem to have a name, and the third doesn't know how to substantiate a shred of evidence or clue, the judge can't do anything else.
Being rejected by the investigating judge in this way means that they were bullshit.
Still, he had family problems, lost his contract with the producer, and more.
Do you think he'll ever teach a woman again now? Will he ever have a woman as a secretary, aide, number two, three, four again?
I doubt it.
You might think that this kind of perimeter defense is an American problem, a problem of excesses, something that only happens in the US or to very rich people.
No. In recent years, the habit of taking videos of males in the gym, guilty of passing through there, of accusing them of being "gymn creeps", maniacs from gym.
With a lot of videos, which then regularly became vital ruining the life of the poor man. So you're in the gym and suddenly you become evil, just because when you train with music in your ears you're staring into space.
The paroxysm grew to the point where a LITERALLY BLIND man was expelled from the gymnasium because, according to the usual, "he stared maniacally".
But you can find it here:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0c9tKlDa4Nw
Since he is an influencer who teaches "positivity" to other blind people (he does a lot of sport, apparently) the thing hangs on his side, but the fact that he is blind makes us understand the level he has reached.
And again, you'll think: but this is an American thing. No. Because gyms are beginning to equip themselves. And how?
Perimeter security.
The gym that I attend is already equipped with a "lady fitness" area, i.e. a segregation area for women only. In this way, the gym got out of the way.
https://www.fitnessgym-hilden.de/leistungen/
Does the solution work? Yes. Do I keep going there? Absolutely. Is it sexist? Absolutely.
I feel at ease?
Obvious. Knowing that no one is going to point a finger at me in front of 10 million users just to have fifteen minutes of fame makes me feel better. Because when I train I use headphones to listen to music, and while you make movements that are all the same, your gaze is often pointing into space. Emptiness that isn't empty though, because people pass in front of you.
Now, you will say "but that is Germany, not Italy". Google responds very kindly with a row of links, where I find things like this:
An easy parting to accept. (WHOEVER wrote this slogan is a genius). Because it's very easy for a man to accept nowadays.
Because I repeat, the idea of ending up on tiktok because the usual attention whore wants to have her 15 minutes of fame, honestly, I don't like at all.
How easy it is to accept segregation of the sexes today.
So the question is: how long will we have to wait for the whole of the West to live with the same rules as an Islamic country? To have separate work areas, separate offices, separate schools, separate company canteens?
Honestly, that would be an “easy to accept” sacrifice, for one simple reason.
I'm a man. In Islamic countries, it's not people like me who feel bad.
A breakup REALLY easy to accept.