Bill Burr - 'Women are Assholes'

Off Topic
41

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

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”.

[/quote]

I’m sure we’ve all heard the horror stories and even seen the movies about how bad the first women who broke into traditionally male jobs had it, how much harassment they had to endure etc. For men, especially in blue collar jobs, that shit is normal. Harassment, mockery, cruel pranks, that’s how we treat the guys we actually like. I’m sure the male animal has been this way since the dawn of time.

What happened to those “brave, trailblazing women” was some of their first male coworkers actually tried to treat them like “one of the guys.” Bad idea. Now we all have to walk on eggshells.

42

The biggest mistake we as men have made since the dawn of time has been allowing women to wear shoes… LOL

43

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The biggest mistake we as men have made since the dawn of time has been allowing women to wear shoes… LOL[/quote]

Ha!

I’ve always been a meritocrat, and believe that the best person should get the job. But it isn’t working out that way.

44

LMFAO @ this thread.

45

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
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. [/quote]

Amen.

Feel free to say this again and again because it’s the damn truth!

46

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
LMFAO @ this thread.[/quote]

:frowning:

Was meant to be light.

Is not light.

47

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
LMFAO @ this thread.[/quote]

:frowning:

Was meant to be light.

Is not light.[/quote]

BUT!!!

I have just the thing to ‘jazz’ this thread up a littles bits…

whaddya think Miss EmmieDearest?

48

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
LMFAO @ this thread.[/quote]

:frowning:

Was meant to be light.

Is not light.[/quote]

Or… to be PC - since big arms are to men as bewbz are to wimmenz…

no, dont thank me Miss EmmieDearest…

49

[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]

I was thinking the same thing. The only reason I didn’t post, I was thinking maybe the girls let them win in some kind of feminism thing. You know how you will sometimes let your girlfriend/wife win.

50

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[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]

I was thinking the same thing. The only reason I didn’t post, I was thinking maybe the girls let them win in some kind of feminism thing. You know how you will sometimes let your girlfriend/wife win.
[/quote]
Nope. They come to play, and have apparently been getting better against the midget boys over the years.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/sports/columnists/terry_jones/2010/01/10/12409826-sun.html
Talked to my brother last night, he knows a guy who played against them back in the day who claims to have been slashed in the face by Haley Wickenheiser.

51

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
LMFAO @ this thread.[/quote]

:frowning:

Was meant to be light.

Is not light.[/quote]

52

Welp. I was wrong

53

[quote]TheJonty wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[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]

I was thinking the same thing. The only reason I didn’t post, I was thinking maybe the girls let them win in some kind of feminism thing. You know how you will sometimes let your girlfriend/wife win.
[/quote]
Nope. They come to play, and have apparently been getting better against the midget boys over the years.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/sports/columnists/terry_jones/2010/01/10/12409826-sun.html
Talked to my brother last night, he knows a guy who played against them back in the day who claims to have been slashed in the face by Haley Wickenheiser.[/quote]

Yea, the Women’s team is getting better while the boys teams are as good as they ever were.

It would have been the boys letting the Women’s team win. You don’t destroy the confidence of the team before they go to play in the Olympics.

54

There is this idea that we won’t achieve equality until there’s parity between men and women. Like this is the goal.

Equal numbers of females in math-heavy technical fields like engineering.

Equal numbers of women at the top of the ladder. Upper management, CEOs.

Women making the same money as men.

UCLA’s Anderson School of Business just got called on the carpet for not having enough women in tenure track positions. No endowed chairs are held by women. Gender Bias Alleged at UCLA's Anderson Business School - WSJ They neglect to recognize that many women would choose more flexible part-time positions, and maybe that’s what makes them fulfilled.

There are biological and reproductive realities that mean we will NEVER reach parity. In fact, I don’t want to live in a world that would look like that. More women are drawn to people oriented/ helping professions. Even women who have the math chops to be engineers. More women want to work part-time or step back from the workplace to raise young children. More women will trade more money for flexibility, less stress and responsibility, and fewer hours because they see family as a priority. I could go on. I’m not being retrograde in terms of encouraging women, and paying them what they are worth, or teaching them how to negotiate and compete. Just saying, do we really want a world where HALF of the CEOs are women. Half of the tenured professors are women? That’s a world where nobody’s having kids, or nobody’s raising kids. Everybody working full-time and as stressed out as possible. I don’t think most women, or men really want that.

55

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
There is this idea that we won’t achieve equality until there’s parity between men and women. Like this is the goal.

Equal numbers of females in math heavy technical fields like engineering.

Equal numbers of women at the top of the ladder. Upper manement, CEOs.

Women making the same money as men.

UCLA’s Anderson School of Business just got called on the carpet for not having enough women in tenure track positions. No endowed chairs are held by women. Gender Bias Alleged at UCLA's Anderson Business School - WSJ They neglect to recognize that many women would choose more flexible part-time positions, and maybe that’s what makes them fulfilled.

There are biological and reproductive realities that mean we will NEVER reach parity. In fact, I don’t want to live in a world that would look like that. More women are drawn to people oriented/ helping professions. Even women who have the math chops to be engineers. More women want to work part-time or step back from the workplace to raise young children. More women will trade more money for flexibility, less stress and responsibility, and fewer hours because they see family as a priority. I could go on. I’m not being retrograde in terms of encouraging women, and paying them what they are worth, or teaching them how to negotiate and compete. Just saying, do we really want a world where HALF of the CEOs are women. Half of the tenured professors are women? That’s a world where nobody’s having kids, or nobody’s raising kids. Everybody working full-time and as stressed out as possible. I don’t think most women, or men really want that. [/quote]

It’s semantics. Pretty much everyone likes equality, but most would define it as equality of opportunity, while some mean equality of outcome. Due to obvious biological differences, you would only get equality of outcome if it is forced. And it is often being forced.

56

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
There is this idea that we won’t achieve equality until there’s parity between men and women. Like this is the goal.

Equal numbers of females in math-heavy technical fields like engineering.

Equal numbers of women at the top of the ladder. Upper management, CEOs.

Women making the same money as men.

UCLA’s Anderson School of Business just got called on the carpet for not having enough women in tenure track positions. No endowed chairs are held by women. Gender Bias Alleged at UCLA's Anderson Business School - WSJ They neglect to recognize that many women would choose more flexible part-time positions, and maybe that’s what makes them fulfilled.

There are biological and reproductive realities that mean we will NEVER reach parity. In fact, I don’t want to live in a world that would look like that. More women are drawn to people oriented/ helping professions. Even women who have the math chops to be engineers. More women want to work part-time or step back from the workplace to raise young children. More women will trade more money for flexibility, less stress and responsibility, and fewer hours because they see family as a priority. I could go on. I’m not being retrograde in terms of encouraging women, and paying them what they are worth, or teaching them how to negotiate and compete. Just saying, do we really want a world where HALF of the CEOs are women. Half of the tenured professors are women? That’s a world where nobody’s having kids, or nobody’s raising kids. Everybody working full-time and as stressed out as possible. I don’t think most women, or men really want that. [/quote]

It’s semantics. Pretty much everyone likes equality, but most would define it as equality of opportunity, while some mean equality of outcome. Due to obvious biological differences, you would only get equality of outcome if it is forced. And it is often being forced.
[/quote]

True. Most people here would encourage their daughters to go into engineering if they had the desire and the aptitude. And perhaps after reading posts like SteelNation’s you’d do more to help teach your daughters how to negotiate and compete. BUT Equality of outcome will never happen in terms of sheer numbers. If 50-50 is the goal, it’s a bad goal. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t like to recognize any biological differences. It’s certainly not OK to point them out.

About gender equality and pay - I apologize if this has been posted. I’ve read other very similar articles recently about how many women make choices in both field of interest/ college major, and for flexibility and fewer hours. These factors pretty much account for any “wage gap.”

57

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
LMFAO @ this thread.[/quote]

:frowning:

Was meant to be light.

Is not light.[/quote]
Well, I’m lighter…

…because my ass is gone.

58

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
LMFAO @ this thread.[/quote]

:frowning:

Was meant to be light.

Is not light.[/quote]
Well, I’m lighter…

…because my ass is gone.[/quote]

59

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

In other words, I am right, a team of 14-15 year olds didn’t beat the Canadian Women’s National team.

60

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

In other words, I am right, a team of 14-15 year olds didn’t beat the Canadian Women’s National team.[/quote]

Midget AAA teams consist of 15 year olds and younger in the province I am familiar with, and that’s where I heard it.