Bill Burr - 'Women are Assholes'

More pure gold from Mr. Angry Chicken in here.

I would throw out that even in non-physical arenas, the whole “women in non-traditional roles” bullshit is bad.

I still remember when I was in school, because there were so few females in electrical engineering, and even fewer in power systems, every girl basically got a free pass, never mind the fact that some of them had no idea what was going on.

And unfortunately some of those women have jobs now. At my old job there was a women who wasn’t very good at her job, yet was bragging during a round of cut-backs/layoffs that there was no way she would be let go because she is a women in a non-traditional role and helps the company meet its diversity goals.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
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[/quote]

This

In a previous upper-level management position with a fortune 500 company, I was told that they were bringing in a female, to run part of my area of responsibilities. (I was at the time in control of an area of the operation that called for 3 upper-level management personnel to manage it) So, I was pleased that I would be getting some help. I was then notified by the Division Manager that if that person failed I would be held accountable for it. She was a black female.

We ended up working out a business relationship that worked for us both. I ran the business operation part, and she stayed in the office 95% of the time working on paper work. She would get a praise in meetings about how the paper work side of her operation was top notch. When there would be meetings with high level management (district, regional) the Division manager would come into our office pull us both outside, tell the female that she had some personal business to take care of and I would answer any questions about the operation in her absence. She would leave, and after the meeting I would have a late lunch on my desk. I didn’t ever hold it against her, it wasn’t her fault. I actually liked her. Gave her a nickname even. “Bubbles”

[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]

I’m sure there’s validity to all these points but a big one I haven’t seen mentioned yet is women often leave the workforce to have kids then come back in part time status for a few years before returning to full time. If you get 25-50% of the female workforce doing this you are going to have a substantial pay disparity.

I think I recall reading that initial pay for men and women right out of college is about the same. It’s what happens during professional careers that creates the disparity and I doubt what is happening is sexism.

As someone who hires people I’m much more interested in hiring men. I want someone who is motivated, even down right stressed over the need to provide for a family. Some one who is working for personal fulfillment might suddenly decide they’ve got to go to grad school or they need to quit because they’ve always dreamed of doing a bicycle tour of Europe or working just isn’t worth their time when they’d rather be doing some personal bobbie.

Having said that, the last two people I hired were girls. One was just simply too good to pass up on but i know I’m going to lose her because she has grad school written all over her face. The other one I hired because she was the most qualified for the position. Maybe she will stay for a long time but from what I can discern of her life, she doesn’t really need to work so it won’t shock me if I only have her for a few years.

Btw, I’ve fought with my boss a lot over the last couple of years about pay. I’m down right sick of it and decided I want to distance myself from that as much as possible so I let him make the offer to the “most qualified” gal. She accepted a ridiculously low offer. A guy with the same amount of experience who is stressed with the need to provide for a family would never accept that offer.

[quote]on edge wrote:
I’m sure there’s validity to all these points but a big one I haven’t seen mentioned yet is women often leave the workforce to have kids then come back in part time status for a few years before returning to full time. If you get 25-50% of the female workforce doing this you are going to have a substantial pay disparity.
[/quote]

It’s obvious you hate women.

It gets better guys:

That’s right, the Navy will be allowing women into the NSW ranks within the next couple years. I am not a SEAL, but the ones I work with are absolutely pissed (and rightly so, IMO). More than a couple of them have already stated their intention to drop their pin when the first female SEAL reports to a team.

Here’s my take: if you keep the exact same physical standard across the board, and keep politics out of it, then more power to any chick who can make it through. That would be one tough chick, and should have no issue getting the job done.

Here’s the problem: this has already been politicized, and it will only get worse. The Navy has reportedly already picked the first female, she is a Naval Academy grad (c/o 2013 IIRC), former lacrosse player. She won’t be able to report to BUD/S until 2016, so what is she doing in the meantime? She has been assigned to a command where she has minimal responsibilities (as an officer!) and has plenty of time to PT and prep for BUD/S in another 2 years. Seriously? There’s not a guy in the Navy who was given 2 years to prep for BUD/S, SWCC, or any other selection course.

NAVSPECWARCOM commissioned a study on the pros and cons of women in NSW, written by a female no less. It actually had some very valid points. Among them, based off of male BUD/S student data going back about 50 years and using female NCAA and world-class athlete data (since there have obviously been no female BUD/S students yet), she found a woman at BUD/S is three times as likely to get injured as a man. Three times! And while BUD/S is harder than life in the teams because it is compressed to a year, the same activities are done in training as were done at BUD/S. So she will still be at a higher risk of getting injured versus a man, and now you just lost what could be a critical member of your platoon.

An even bigger issue is culture. Within the SEAL teams and boat teams, our culture is different from that of regular military, and even moreso from that of civilians. We are crude and rude with each other, because these are your brothers and that’s just how it is. Now throw a chick into that mix, and 40-some-odd dudes have to change their behaviors for her? An entire community of SOF operators (because it is going SOCOM wide) has to change their behaviors because someone chose to fix an issue that wasn’t broken? And the people driving this don’t see why those at ground level have an issue with it?

One of the most poignant points made by the author of the study I mentioned was this: By opening BUD/S and SWCC to females, are we opening opportunities for women, or are we trying to make female SEALs? Because those are two very different things. By opening opportunities, you can (and absolutely should) keep the same standard and any woman who makes it through gets in. By proving we can make female SEALs, you lower the standard and forgive them when they quit and put them back into training - this negatively effects mission readiness, and those females will never have the respect or trust of the men they are attempting to join. Anecdotally (because I have never been to BUD/S, I am relying on the experiences of the guys I work with), men of certain ethnic backgrounds are given this second type of treatment - they can quit in BUD/S, but are put right back into training as if it didn’t happen.

I retire this year, and while I am glad to go because I am seeing some very bad changes already being implemented (blocks of training being dumbed down to save money - guys break a vehicle during a driving course? Fine, we just won’t drive that vehicle anymore), morbid curiosity makes me want to stick around long enough to see how fucked up it is really going to get before adults take over again.

Right now my boss is a woman and I am working mostly with womens (all unattractive to me) At first I tought “why not” but now I dislike it on a very deep level. This specie is a waste of time.

The thing they love the most is to complain to the superior about somebody else when given the opportunity. Of course they will never bring up any of their issue directly with the person…like a man.

Nah it´s not that bad, I should stop complaining.

Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.

I agree with Dr. Pangloss on the pay disparity. I’ve negotiated for 20+% increases every time I’ve changed jobs (twice so far). My wife has toned down her professional aspirations considerably since having our children, but even before then she took what was offered to her without a counter when she switched companies.

I did the math: If I was still working at my first company, assuming a generous 3% annual increase each year, I’d be making half of what I’m making now. If I’d made the same moves but accepted the initial offer, I’d be making around 82%.

I will say, all 4 of the women I’ve worked closely with have been competent at their jobs. There aren’t a lot of women in engineering though, so I don’t have much of a sample.

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]
Which part? Pretty sure I remember hearing about the Canadian women’s team playing high school kids as I was growing up, though they may have been midget age (16-17, I think?). No idea who won those games though.

Also remember an old story about one of the best female wrestlers in the world losing to high school boys training at her club. Hell, I remember training with her once, can’t remember if I won but I remember not really knowing what I was doing.

[quote]TheJonty wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]
Which part? Pretty sure I remember hearing about the Canadian women’s team playing high school kids as I was growing up, though they may have been midget age (16-17, I think?). No idea who won those games though.

Also remember an old story about one of the best female wrestlers in the world losing to high school boys training at her club. Hell, I remember training with her once, can’t remember if I won but I remember not really knowing what I was doing.[/quote]

One of my buddies in high school lost to a girl in a wrestling match (I think she actually pinned him, can’t really remember though). The following year, she wrestled down a weight class against one of our state qualifiers. He beat her in a pretty close match; he was never at risk of losing, but he didn’t win by major decision either and never got close to pinning her.

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]

What part isn’t true? Have you seen a Canadian AAA team? We’re not talking about an American HS team.

[quote]TheJonty wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]
Which part? Pretty sure I remember hearing about the Canadian women’s team playing high school kids as I was growing up, though they may have been midget age (16-17, I think?). No idea who won those games though.

Also remember an old story about one of the best female wrestlers in the world losing to high school boys training at her club. Hell, I remember training with her once, can’t remember if I won but I remember not really knowing what I was doing.[/quote]

It might have been midget. I know the guys won the games.

[quote]Steel Nation wrote:

[quote]TheJonty wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]
Which part? Pretty sure I remember hearing about the Canadian women’s team playing high school kids as I was growing up, though they may have been midget age (16-17, I think?). No idea who won those games though.

Also remember an old story about one of the best female wrestlers in the world losing to high school boys training at her club. Hell, I remember training with her once, can’t remember if I won but I remember not really knowing what I was doing.[/quote]

One of my buddies in high school lost to a girl in a wrestling match (I think she actually pinned him, can’t really remember though). The following year, she wrestled down a weight class against one of our state qualifiers. He beat her in a pretty close match; he was never at risk of losing, but he didn’t win by major decision either and never got close to pinning her.
[/quote]
I wrestled for a few years out of the same club as a few female Olympians and world medalists. Some of those chicks were scary talented, and a couple were just plain scary. By that time I was too big to really train with any of them, but one of my best friends, bit of a smaller guy, received this advice before a match in practice against one of the nationally competitive girls: “She’s bigger than you, stronger than you, and faster than you, so you need to be quicker.” Pretty sure he got tooled.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]

What part isn’t true? Have you seen a Canadian AAA team? We’re not talking about an American HS team.
[/quote]
I used to watch some of the Mac’s Midget AAA tournament every year. That is some very good hockey.

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]

What part isn’t true? Have you seen a Canadian AAA team? We’re not talking about an American HS team.
[/quote]

If the team was 17-18 year olds I would have no problem believing the story. I could even grudgingly go along with a team of 16-17 year olds but there’s no way in hell a regional all-star team of 14 & 15 year old boys beat the olympic gold medal woman’s team.

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:
Wow.

There are some women out there who put some guys to shame, but when you select the best from both groups there is no comparison in physical ability.

I remember having friends in Bantam (under 15 years of age) AAA hockey who played against the Canadian Women’s Gold Medal team and destroyed them. They weren’t a championship team, either. A team of 14 and 15 year old boys beat the best women’s hockey team in the world.
[/quote]

Sorry, this story is not true.[/quote]

What part isn’t true? Have you seen a Canadian AAA team? We’re not talking about an American HS team.
[/quote]

If the team was 17-18 year olds I would have no problem believing the story. I could even grudgingly go along with a team of 16-17 year olds but there’s no way in hell a regional all-star team of 14 & 15 year old boys beat the olympic gold medal woman’s team.[/quote]

‘So much faster, so much stronger’

The Canadian women’s team will play more than 30 games this fall against the AAA midget teams, beginning Thursday with the opening day of Icebreaker Tournament against the Calgary Flames, Strathmore Bisons and South East Athletic Club Tigers at Calgary’s Markin MacPhail Centre, the national team’s training facility.

“The boys are so much faster, so much stonger,” Agosta-Marciano said. "Everything is a step quicker.

"They really do push us to be the best we can be. We’re thankful that they play against us.

"They really do prepare us to play the best of the best at the Olympics.

“We’ve already been together for a month and things are going to go by really quickly here.”

Midget age in Alberta is 15-17.

This really fucking pisses me off. A political agenda is going to get these women’s shipmates killed. Not to mention decimate the esprit d’corps of the Teams and SPECWAR as a whole.

[quote]boatguy wrote:
It gets better guys:

That’s right, the Navy will be allowing women into the NSW ranks within the next couple years. I am not a SEAL, but the ones I work with are absolutely pissed (and rightly so, IMO). More than a couple of them have already stated their intention to drop their pin when the first female SEAL reports to a team.

Here’s my take: if you keep the exact same physical standard across the board, and keep politics out of it, then more power to any chick who can make it through. That would be one tough chick, and should have no issue getting the job done.

Here’s the problem: this has already been politicized, and it will only get worse. The Navy has reportedly already picked the first female, she is a Naval Academy grad (c/o 2013 IIRC), former lacrosse player. She won’t be able to report to BUD/S until 2016, so what is she doing in the meantime? She has been assigned to a command where she has minimal responsibilities (as an officer!) and has plenty of time to PT and prep for BUD/S in another 2 years. Seriously? There’s not a guy in the Navy who was given 2 years to prep for BUD/S, SWCC, or any other selection course.

NAVSPECWARCOM commissioned a study on the pros and cons of women in NSW, written by a female no less. It actually had some very valid points. Among them, based off of male BUD/S student data going back about 50 years and using female NCAA and world-class athlete data (since there have obviously been no female BUD/S students yet), she found a woman at BUD/S is three times as likely to get injured as a man. Three times! And while BUD/S is harder than life in the teams because it is compressed to a year, the same activities are done in training as were done at BUD/S. So she will still be at a higher risk of getting injured versus a man, and now you just lost what could be a critical member of your platoon.

An even bigger issue is culture. Within the SEAL teams and boat teams, our culture is different from that of regular military, and even moreso from that of civilians. We are crude and rude with each other, because these are your brothers and that’s just how it is. Now throw a chick into that mix, and 40-some-odd dudes have to change their behaviors for her? An entire community of SOF operators (because it is going SOCOM wide) has to change their behaviors because someone chose to fix an issue that wasn’t broken? And the people driving this don’t see why those at ground level have an issue with it?

One of the most poignant points made by the author of the study I mentioned was this: By opening BUD/S and SWCC to females, are we opening opportunities for women, or are we trying to make female SEALs? Because those are two very different things. By opening opportunities, you can (and absolutely should) keep the same standard and any woman who makes it through gets in. By proving we can make female SEALs, you lower the standard and forgive them when they quit and put them back into training - this negatively effects mission readiness, and those females will never have the respect or trust of the men they are attempting to join. Anecdotally (because I have never been to BUD/S, I am relying on the experiences of the guys I work with), men of certain ethnic backgrounds are given this second type of treatment - they can quit in BUD/S, but are put right back into training as if it didn’t happen.

I retire this year, and while I am glad to go because I am seeing some very bad changes already being implemented (blocks of training being dumbed down to save money - guys break a vehicle during a driving course? Fine, we just won’t drive that vehicle anymore), morbid curiosity makes me want to stick around long enough to see how fucked up it is really going to get before adults take over again.[/quote]

That’s very depressing. The push to integrate fire departments happened more than twenty years ago, and there are lots of good female firefighters. However, I’ve been personally trying to get on a paid department for +10 years now, and have seen the physical fitness requirements greatly dumbed down or dropped entirely. The result is departments hire people who are not capable of doing the job.

It always starts the same “we just want a fair chance.” Ok, give them a fair chance and 90% fail, so the bar gets lowered. Which raises the burden on the men who are left. It also isn’t fair to the women who are qualified.