T Nation

Bill Burr - 'Women are Assholes'

While it’s very unlikely that a man I work with would have to usher me onto a lifeboat or throw himself to a rabid dog, if one of my mentally ill clients got aggressive I’d be glad if male coworkers were around. So thank you all for your (assumed) bravery, and for being the ones who go investigate scary noises in the night.

I wrote this to a small group of close girlfriends this morning, then watched the attached video, which made me laugh in light of my having specifically wished my boyfriend was around to go see what the thumping was. Thought I’d share and let you all reflect on what assholes women are. :slight_smile:

LMAO

Woman are definitely assholes sometimes. But they have vaginas so men tolerate them. They know this.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
LMAO

Woman are definitely assholes sometimes. But they have vaginas so men tolerate them. They know this.[/quote]

Men suck, too, in their own way, but have those awesome strong arms we want, so it all makes for a fine balance and an entertaining journey.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Except men don’t even get paid more for the same job lol

Bill Burr is awesome.

[quote]csulli wrote:
Except men don’t even get paid more for the same job lol[/quote]

Bro, it’s like the most quoted stat ever, it has to be true!

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Except men don’t even get paid more for the same job lol[/quote]

Bro, it’s like the most quoted stat ever, it has to be true![/quote]

It was YOUR teammate who brought it up!

However, data seems to show that while it is considerably less than often cited, there is an unexplained disparity in income even when controlling for factors like industry, experience, education, and parental status.

But not when you control for bargaining ability.

A man and a woman both start with a company on the same date. They both are offered $60K starting salary. The woman accepts it, the man says he can’t take the job for less than $63,000. If each gets %3 raises over the next 7 years, the initial $3,000 differential grows to $4,700. If the man goes in a couple times over the course of 7 years and bargains for more, the gap increases substantially.

Men are less likely than women to accept an initial offer and more likely to counter-offer subsequent raises.

http://www.wihe.com/printBlog.jsp?id=390

Women may also request non-monetary compensation like more days off, unpaid time, flex time, etc.

Anecdotally, I’ve had nearly 40 people work for me over the course of 10 years, a mix of men and women. Every dollar I paid my employees was a dollar out of my pocket. If I could have paid the women 79 cents on the dollar or whatever the latest number was, I would’ve hired nothing but women. I would’ve fired all the guys and laughed all the way to the bank. It would have meant tons more money in my pocket.

But that’s not how the real world works, regardless of what comes out of academia.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Except men don’t even get paid more for the same job lol[/quote]

Bro, it’s like the most quoted stat ever, it has to be true![/quote]

It was YOUR teammate who brought it up!

However, data seems to show that while it is considerably less than often cited, there is an unexplained disparity in income even when controlling for factors like industry, experience, education, and parental status.
[/quote]
Men on average probably sell themselves more aggressively.

Anecdotally, in my own work experience, most self-confident people who talked their way into jobs they were not competent to do and managed to stay in them for some length of time were men. If the ratio of males to females occupying positions they are too damn stupid to do properly is greater than the ratio of males to females in the workforce, then that right there will boost the average pay level for men relative to women, even though most men are not benefitting.

EDIT I guess that would not necessarily work out within each individual job title, because the men referred to above would usually be evaluated as weaker performers even though multi-year survivors. The above would be more relevant to relative gender pay levels when comparing men vs. women in an industry or company and lumping multiple levels of a particular career track together.

[quote]mbdix wrote:


[/quote]

.

“Women are just constantly patting themselves on the back about how difficult their lives are and no one corrects them on it because they want to fuck them.”

Hilarious.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Anecdotally, I’ve had nearly 40 people work for me over the course of 10 years, a mix of men and women. Every dollar I paid my employees was a dollar out of my pocket. If I could have paid the women 79 cents on the dollar or whatever the latest number was, I would’ve hired nothing but women. I would’ve fired all the guys and laughed all the way to the bank. It would have meant tons more money in my pocket.

But that’s not how the real world works, regardless of what comes out of academia.[/quote]

The disparity is much smaller than that. That’s (approximately) the number that’s generally tossed around, but it’s not controlled for parental status, etc, which is where real stuff comes into play.

It makes sense that men are more likely to advocate and negotiate for themselves. I know some very successful women and it’s uncomfortable for the majority of them to feel that they’re pushing. The more masculine of the group are bewildered by this - makes for some interesting discussions.

As that number decreases (79 cents on the dollar, 84 cents on the dollar, 91 cents on the dollar) it starts looking less and less like discrimination and more like 1) men advocate more aggressively on their own behalf, 2) men change jobs more frequently within their field; job changes come with raises 3) women may be more likely to accept non-cash compensation, and 4) men are more likely to put up with a shitty work situation if the money is there.

I’ve not read anything supporting my point number 4, but experience in my limited circle tells me this is true.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
As that number decreases (79 cents on the dollar, 84 cents on the dollar, 91 cents on the dollar) it starts looking less and less like discrimination and more like 1) men advocate more aggressively on their own behalf, 2) men change jobs more frequently within their field; job changes come with raises 3) women may be more likely to accept non-cash compensation, and 4) men are more likely to put up with a shitty work situation if the money is there.

I’ve not read anything supporting my point number 4, but experience in my limited circle tells me this is true.[/quote]

Number four is true in what I’ve seen. I am willing to put up with loads of s–t because I am getting paid, whereas I’ve seen several women leave as soon as s–t starts piling up. And I don’t mean good s–t.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
“Women are just constantly patting themselves on the back about how difficult their lives are and no one corrects them on it because they want to fuck them.”

Hilarious.[/quote]

Women had it very rough, especially back in the 1950’s. Barefoot and pregnant. Cooking meals. Spending time with the kids, other family members, and other women. Like prison life, if you will.

Meanwhile men were living the life. Employed in back breaking occupations like mining and steel work. Or better yet, they spent 12 hours standing around their own shops. Every day was like a giant party. Meanwhile back at home their women were suffering while they spent time with their own children and prepared meals.

Terrible.

Why should employers invest the same amount of money into women when the only reason they are doing so is because they now have some “PC quota” to meet? Bonus points if it’s a MINORITY woman. “but woman can do ANYTHING a man can do”. Bullshit.

With my trade, there is now a quota of women they have to accept into the apprenticeship. It doesn’t matter how good they score on the aptitude test. It doesn’t matter if they are physically capable of doing the work. If you have a vagina, your in. I’ve watched this trend gain momentum over the last 15 years or so and the impact it’s had.

I have yet to meet a female journeyman electrician who can do HALF the work a man can do. They aren’t strong enough to lift pipe by themselves. They aren’t strong enough to tighten the mechanical connections on the rods and strut that have support the stress of having 500MCM cable pulled through pipe. They flirt with guys and talk on the phone all day. When asked to do something difficult, which we ALL have to do sometimes, they complain, pull the “he’s making me do that cuz I’m a woman” card and get out of the work. If they hear any off color remarks, dirty jokes (it’s a CONSTRUCTION site, for fucks sake!) or even curse words, I’ve seen them get good men fired. For shit that wasn’t even directed at them. Or for shit that was overheard from a different room or when she was just walking by. Cuz she got “offended”. Now the “evil, sexist man” has to get fired, or transferred jobs so she can be “comfortable” and “feel safe”. It’s fucking bullshit. They’re barely qualified to sweep the floor on most job sites, and half the time they do a shitty job at that. I’ve met woman electricians who can’t cut a piece of pipe with a hacksaw, but they make the same money as I do…

These situations have REAL costs to contractors, companies, customers and families who are impacted by it. Production matters in a job that is bid for XXX number of dollars. If a worker isn’t pulling his share, he is fired. If it’s a woman, you can’t fire them because she’ll reach into her bag of PC/victim tricks and sue you or get good men fired.

That isn’t to say that women aren’t qualified for other non-physical jobs. I’m sure they are. And if they get paid less than men who’s fault is that? They didn’t have to take the job at that salary… I’ve said it in other threads that companies will fuck you every chance they get. Their goal is PROFIT. The more work they can get you to do for the least amount of money is what’s best for them. If a woman takes a position for less than she feels she is worth, how is that “MEN’S” fault? She should have negotiated better. If you want to play with the big dogs, you have to piss on the big trees. In the real world, not everyone gets a trophy. But that’s what women want. They want everything to be “equal” while at the same time expect their maternity leave, “hold my job for a year so I can spend time with my newborn”, “I have menstrual cramps today, so I can’t come in/do my job/<>”. They don’t want a LEVEL playing field, they want to waltz in and get handed shit with out paying their dues, putting in the hours (they have kids to take care of, so they CAN’T stay) and doing what has to be done to further a career.

All men know this. That’s why we don’t respect a woman automatically until she’s proven herself. But even then, we know that this new employee with a vagina COULD someday cost us our career if we accidentally say the wrong thing or inadvertently piss her off. What options are at the disposal of a pissed off female employee? All she has to do is lie and say you sexually harassed her. What options are there for a pissed of male employee? NONE. You just have to deal with that bitch and hope she doesn’t get you fired.

And women WONDER why they make less per hour? LMMFAO

1 Like

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
However, data seems to show that while it is considerably less than often cited, there is an unexplained disparity in income even when controlling for factors like industry, experience, education, and parental status.
[/quote]
Actually I’ve seen the exact opposite. When you control for as many statistically significant factors as possible women actually got paid slightly more for the same job.