Ruth Graham, a contributor for the “What Women Really Think” column at Slate, thinks it’s time to ban men from the workplace.

In a recent article, Graham argues that “the experiment of having men in the workplace has failed.”

She puts forward an ill-researched theorem on the merits of letting every single man go from the workplace — with zero regard for the consequences. She states:

American men entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers as they returned from World War II, and employers welcomed these men as a matter of patriotic duty. Many men proved to be diligent, competent professionals over the ensuing decades. Sadly, however, many did not. The cascade of recent revelations of male workers abusing co-workers, threatening subordinates, and masturbating into potted plants leaves only one conclusion: The long experiment of having men in the workplace has failed.

I’m inclined to believe that Graham is aware that men had jobs prior to World War II, but that may be giving her undue credit as her theory hinges on men being unemployed until very recently. Nonetheless, she continues.

Let’s start by asking an important question: Is it even natural for men to be in the workplace in the first place? It is well known, for example, that men are not good with money. It feels uncomfortable to assume that male irresponsibility with money is a biological trait. But with their higher salaries and disproportionate representation in business schools and and boardrooms, men have been given every opportunity to succeed in the corporate world by now. Many industries have essentially operated decades long affirmative action programs for men.

Two things here. First, her blanket statement that “men are not good with money” is based on exactly zero factual evidence. She does concede that it feels uncomfortable to assume this, but goes on to say it anyway. Graham also argues that, since more men have attended business school in the past few decades, they’ve benefited from affirmative action. I’d be willing to bet my bottom dollar that Ruth Graham believes in affirmative action for other demographics but we’ll save that argument for another day.

And for her final sweeping generalization, she cites “constant sexual harassment” as a reason to fire all men.

Many male workers are also simply too emotional to thrive in the modern workplace. They struggle with anger, jealousy, and pride; they are easily distractible and prone to tantrums. And have I mentioned the “constant sexual harassment” issue yet? … While certain exceptional men are able to control their weak natures and rise to the challenge of behaving appropriately in the workplace, it’s time to do what’s right and end this grand experiment before anyone else gets hurt.

This is the real kicker. I must be working in a parallel universe because I’ve had exactly zero contact with overly emotional male coworkers in my life before. If Ruth Graham is going to utilize grossly generalized stereotypes to back her theory up, arguing that men are too emotional is definitely not the way to go.

And lastly, for somebody who’s into political correctness and being overly accommodating to absolutely every demographic possible, it’s typically not advisable to assert a sweeping statement like men aren’t “able to control their weak natures.”

I mean, really. Men make up 50 percent of the population. To say that billions of people in this world are weak and should be tossed out of the workforce is not only moronic but highly offensive. It mystifies me that somebody — who spends most of their time arguing for gender neutral normalization — would turn around and highlight gender differences, only widening the male/female disparagement further.