Marshall Faulk, 2 others suspended from NFL Network.

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, yungmack said:

I'm older than a lot of people around here but I'll still bet there are many who remember that even into the 1960s, a woman couldn't open a bank account without the approval of her father or husband, couldn't have a credit card, couldn't enter into a contract without her husband or father's approval, were openly kept out of many professions quite legally and, when allowed into a profession, were kept in certain non-competitive sub-categories. If they entered the military, they were largely restricted to secretarial or nursing jobs. No way were they going to drive a truck, fly a plane or pull a trigger. And no way were they ever going to get high rank. The same thing was largely true in medicine, the law, university professorships.

 

I spent a lot of my adult life in entertainment as a writer, producer, manager, etc. There were almost no women among session musicians, TV bands, etc. I never worked with a woman producer in music. There were almost no women in the Writers Guild or the Directors Guild. Of all the music, television and movie execs and agents, if there were women in those positions up to the mid to late 70s, they must have been invisible because I never met one. So when you fear that women are creating an "unfair to men" situation, remember that they weren't the first one's to do it.

Human history has been a long and slow evolutionary social process, usually dictated by necessity and scarcity of resources.  Men came to dominate certain social structures through that natural evolutionary process for the same reasons women came to dominate others, both largely exclusionary, first because size and strength differences in a dangerous primitive world, then had those behaviors reinforced genetically through 200,000 years of selective breeding.

 

And we aren't all that far out of the mud, and the progress we've made in terms of equal rights is almost entirely the result of economic growth and technological advancement.  The concept of rights themselves has only existed for a flash of light against the entire tapestry of human history.

 

Men never sought to subjugate women.  It was simply a process that occurred naturally, and we've grown out of as we're still trying to shake that last bit of clay off our feet.

 

Trying now to erect a system that subjugates men would not be that, however.  It would be a deliberate act which is non-evolutionary and is preventable.

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Women in the workplace are nothing but trouble.  I work in an engineering office comprised mostly of men, over the last 5 years more women have been introduced into the office.  What was once a great place to work, has kind of turned into a funeral home, it sucks.  It was much better when it was 100% men.  The women can't seem to get along with one another, and all the men are deathly afraid to say the wrong thing.

 

My job is mentally demanding, and the levity the office lost has hurt the work experience for sure.

My wife is a women in the workplace. She used to work with people who looked down on her for that. Now most of those old boys would love it if she would offer them a job. But that won’t be happening...

[T-Bomb]

Just now, Augie said:

My wife is a women in the workplace. She used to work with people who looked down on her for that. Now most of those old boys would love it if she would offer them a job. But that won’t be happening...

 

Women in the workplace who think they have power are even worse.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

18 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Afaik, there is a statute of limitations on sexual harrassment in every state.  They will never see a day in jail.  A civil case is a different matter, but such a thing involves a lot more than "he said, she said" testimonies from the accuser and the accused.  

 

....a good friend of mine had his wife claim she was molested by a priest in her early years and LONG before those molestations rose to the forefront.....it was dismissed many years ago because of the stale dated nature of the molestation but at the same time a priest could never commit such an act...little did we know...there has to be a statute of limitations but then again, scurrilous lawyers will try to cash in....sadly, it could taint current and legitimate cases that should bear consequences...they ARE out there I'm sure......

Edited December 12, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Women in the workplace who think they have power are even worse.

She is the boss, she has power. Keep the job you have, you may not like it out there....

[T-Bomb]

Just now, Augie said:

She is the boss, she has power. Keep the job you have, you may not like it out there....

 

It's rare females are ever the boss in my field, but I'll keep that in mind lol.

[ColoradoBills]

2 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

It's rare females are ever the boss in my field, but I'll keep that in mind lol.

 

Our company was recently bought out by a multi national corporation.

The new site Engineering Manager is a 50 year old female.

She is in charge of 60+ Engineers and Technicians.

 

I've worked for this company for over 30 years and it's my first female manager.

 

Just saying.

[GoBills808]

13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Human history has been a long and slow evolutionary social process, usually dictated by necessity and scarcity of resources.  Men came to dominate certain social structures through that natural evolutionary process for the same reasons women came to dominate others, both largely exclusionary, first because size and strength differences in a dangerous primitive world, then had those behaviors reinforced genetically through 200,000 years of selective breeding.

 

And we aren't all that far out of the mud, and the progress we've made in terms of equal rights is almost entirely the result of economic growth and technological advancement.  The concept of rights themselves has only existed for a flash of light against the entire tapestry of human history.

 

Men never sought to subjugate women.  It was simply a process that occurred naturally, and we've grown out of as we're still trying to shake that last bit of clay off our feet.

 

Trying now to erect a system that subjugates men would not be that, however.  It would be a deliberate act which is non-evolutionary and is preventable.

Ehh. Tough to argue one's an 'evolutionary' act and the other isn't. And nobody's arguing for the subjugation of men.

[Capco]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Ehh. Tough to argue one's an 'evolutionary' act and the other isn't. And nobody's arguing for the subjugation of men.

 

Some men are afraid of losing their status as the "superior" sex and dread the thought of a truly equal world.  They equate the loss of their privileges to "subjugation" lol.  

[T-Bomb]

1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Our company was recently bought out by a multi national corporation.

The new site Engineering Manager is a 50 year old female.

She is in charge of 60+ Engineers and Technicians.

 

I've worked for this company for over 30 years and it's my first female manager.

 

Just saying.

 

In my company, the Engineering manager has to have a clue about machine design, so it's doubtful that would ever happen.  If they don't have machine design exp in sales or eng manager, then it's time to look for another job, regardless if it is a man or woman in the position.

 

IMO, the office sucks with women, it was much better without, and I'm not some 60 year old "good 'ol boy" either.

[Mike in Horseheads]

TMZ Sports‏Verified account @TMZ_Sports 29s29 seconds ago

Jose Canseco: I've Been Molested By Women, Never Complained'

 

 

HAHAHAHAHA

[Worstcaseontario]

Fookin feminists

[ColoradoBills]

2 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

In my company, the Engineering manager has to have a clue about machine design, so it's doubtful that would ever happen.  If they don't have machine design exp in sales or eng manager, then it's time to look for another job, regardless if it is a man or woman in the position.

 

IMO, the office sucks with women, it was much better without, and I'm not some 60 year old "good 'ol boy" either.

 

For over 30 years all 3 manufacturing sites had a Engineering Manager who knew about machine designs.

Our field was/is so specialized we built our own CNC or PLC driven machines.

 

The new corporation hired the female manager (who knows nothing about this) and 2 managers under her who "take care of those details".

The quote is her words.

 

Once again.................

[T-Bomb]

6 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

For over 30 years all 3 manufacturing sites had a Engineering Manager who knew about machine designs.

Our field was/is so specialized we built our own CNC or PLC driven machines.

 

The new corporation hired the female manager (who knows nothing about this) and 2 managers under her who "take care of those details".

The quote is her words.

 

Once again.................

 

Ouch...

 

My first eng job out of University was for a female eng manager, it was a joke, office dynamics sucked, I lasted 6 months before I quit.

 

If what happened to you happens to me, I'll be quitting lol.  I have about 20 years to go, and I see a clear line of manager succession that looks promising, so we'll see...

 

I'm not interested in a company that forces office diversity for the sake of political correctness.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

True to an extent but I think you fail to realize just how strongly hormones can exert their will over what your "thoughts" are at any given time and to a large extent your logic and reasoning.

 

You realize that same reasoning can be used to justify all sorts of anti-social behavior, right?

The reason we're supposed to be "homo sapiens" is because we're, well, sapient.  Part of that means choosing which "head" will be in charge of our actions.  Not our desires or our thoughts, our actions.

[Gugny]

50 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Women in the workplace are nothing but trouble.  I work in an engineering office comprised mostly of men, over the last 5 years more women have been introduced into the office.  What was once a great place to work, has kind of turned into a funeral home, it sucks.  It was much better when it was 100% men.  The women can't seem to get along with one another, and all the men are deathly afraid to say the wrong thing.

 

My job is mentally demanding, and the levity the office lost has hurt the work experience for sure.

 

Theeeere ya go.

[ColoradoBills]

2 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Ouch...

 

My first eng job out of University was for a female eng manager, it was a joke, office dynamics sucked, I lasted 6 months before I quit.

 

If what happened to you happens to me, I'll be quitting lol.  I have about 20 years to go, and I see a clear line of manager succession that looks promising, so we'll see...

 

I'm not interested in a company that forces office diversity for the sake of political correctness.

 

She just let another 10 of us from Engineering go/early retirement.  I was one of them this time.

It's the reason I'm on this board more.  I got a great 1 1/5 year paid severance and benefits.

IF/WHEN I go back to work in that field it will be for a smaller company I can tell you that.

Before this NEW company took over we never had even a layoff.

 

Sorry to the other posters...........I got off on a tangent.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

26 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

In my company, the Engineering manager has to have a clue about machine design, so it's doubtful that would ever happen.  If they don't have machine design exp in sales or eng manager, then it's time to look for another job, regardless if it is a man or woman in the position.

 

IMO, the office sucks with women, it was much better without, and I'm not some 60 year old "good 'ol boy" either.

 

Exhibit A of why Affirmative Action still needs to be a Thing.  There are female engineers, y'know?

 

1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

She just let another 10 of us from Engineering go/early retirement.  I was one of them this time.

It's the reason I'm on this board more.  I got a great 1 1/5 year paid severance and benefits.

IF/WHEN I go back to work in that field it will be for a smaller company I can tell you that.

Before this NEW company took over we never had even a layoff.

 

Sorry to the other posters...........I got off on a tangent.

 

Sorry your company went down this road... unfortunately it's all too common with big companies taking over small ones.  They buy it for some specific product in its pipeline and gut what made it work to produce that cool product.

Sucks.

[T-Bomb]

1 minute ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

She just let another 10 of us from Engineering go/early retirement.  I was one of them this time.

It's the reason I'm on this board more.  I got a great 1 1/5 year paid severance and benefits.

IF/WHEN I go back to work in that field it will be for a smaller company I can tell you that.

Before this NEW company took over we never had even a layoff.

 

Sorry to the other posters...........I got off on a tangent.

 

Small companies is where it is at.  Mine has been sold a couple of times, getting more corporate each iteration.  Early retirement just may be in my future as well.

 

Good luck!

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Exhibit A of why Affirmative Action still needs to be a Thing.  There are female engineers, y'know?

 

I'm sure they do exist, and I'm sure plenty out there are smarter and better than I, but when the issue is forced, that's when it's total BS.  We live in an era where it's predominately forced to satisfy PC requirements.

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Exhibit A of why Affirmative Action still needs to be a Thing.  There are female engineers, y'know?

 

 

Sorry your company went down this road... unfortunately it's all too common with big companies taking over small ones.  They buy it for some specific product in its pipeline and gut what made it work to produce that cool product.

Sucks.

 

1 minute ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Small companies is where it is at.  Mine has been sold a couple of times, getting more corporate each iteration.  Early retirement just may be in my future as well.

 

Good luck!

 

Thanks guys................I had a 33 year great run, no complaints about that.  My long run is rare now a days.

I got a part time work-at-home/travel-a-bit gig I'm hoping for with a contractor I worked with.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Ehh. Tough to argue one's an 'evolutionary' act and the other isn't. And nobody's arguing for the subjugation of men.

No it isn't.  One was necessitated by the real physical limitations of primitive man.  The other is a choice built on politics.

 

And any argument which grants special rights to one sex at the expense of the other subjugates that sex to the other.

Edited December 13, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Small companies is where it is at.  Mine has been sold a couple of times, getting more corporate each iteration.  Early retirement just may be in my future as well.

 

Good luck!

 

I'm sure they do exist, and I'm sure plenty out there are smarter and better than I, but when the issue is forced, that's when it's total BS.  We live in an era where it's predominately forced to satisfy PC requirements.

 

Same could be said for the software side of the IT industry...although I haven't met very many female programmers...

[GoBills808]

22 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No it isn't.  One was necessitated by the real physical limitations of primitive man.  The other is a choice built on politics.

 

And any argument which grants special rights to one sex at the expense of the other subjugates that sex to the other.

I'm less sure of your first proposition. It's convenient to label what's past as necessary due to evolution and what's present as elective due to political influence, but IMO characterizing male/female dynamics (and really the entire scope of our species' interactive existence) as such makes far too many assumptions regarding the concept of evolution as it pertains to both physical and societal norms. But that's a broader topic.

 

And the argument here isn't granting special rights to one sex versus the other as I read it, it's more a matter of (as we were discussing earlier) allowing that logically, the historical context of male to female sexual advances inform perception of claims of harassment made against men today. Similar to how judges will grant admissibility of prior convictions if their prejudicial effect does not outweigh their probative value. Whether that's the case in our current climate, I suppose, is similarly up for debate.

[TakeYouToTasker]

34 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'm less sure of your first proposition. It's convenient to label what's past as necessary due to evolution and what's present as elective due to political influence, but IMO characterizing male/female dynamics (and really the entire scope of our species' interactive existence) as such makes far too many assumptions regarding the concept of evolution as it pertains to both physical and societal norms. But that's a broader topic.

 

And the argument here isn't granting special rights to one sex versus the other as I read it, it's more a matter of (as we were discussing earlier) allowing that logically, the historical context of male to female sexual advances inform perception of claims of harassment made against men today. Similar to how judges will grant admissibility of prior convictions if their prejudicial effect does not outweigh their probative value. Whether that's the case in our current climate, I suppose, is similarly up for debate.

A legal hierarchy built on Post Modernism?

 

Good grief.

[Rob's House]

4 hours ago, Capco said:

Holy crap.  There is so much testosterone pulsating through this thread and it's almost as if it's making people stupid.

 

Do you guys know how absolutely imbecilic you sound talking about your "T"?  If someone was chilling with my group of friends and said that, we'd laugh them out of town.  

 

This thread is dripping with examples of why the accussed don't come forward right away, and the worst part is that you guys don't even realize it.  

 

The best way to fix the "problem" of accusers coming out years down the road is to bring down as many of these sexual predators as possible in the public's eye and thereby create a culture where coming forward is acceptable rather than immediately showered with skepticism and doubt.

 

Those who say "innocent until proven guilty" must not understand that it's not as if Matt Lauer was fired immediately after one accuser came forward.  There was an investigation, a "process" (thanks McD), and that process played out behind closed doors until there was sufficient belief to proceed with the termination.  That's probably what will happen with these NFLN guys.  

 

It's not like there is this wave of thousands of innocent men having their lives destroyed by this orchestrated effort from a group of hateful women.  Some men's lives are getting destroyed, but so far all I'm seeing are men who had it a long time coming.  

The fact that anyone who's ever clumsily tried to get with a girl who wasn't interested is now being lumped in with sexual predators is precisely the problem.

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

The fact that anyone who's ever clumsily tried to get with a girl who wasn't interested is now being lumped in with sexual predators is precisely the problem.

 

Oh really?  And where are all these examples of innocent men having their lives destroyed again?

[Rob's House]

8 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Oh really?  And where are all these examples of innocent men having their lives destroyed again?

We're not just talking about the handful of celebrities you see on Access Hollywood. It's also not just about ruining lives. These things seep into the culture and if taken too far make it worse.

 

A little fun flirtation or office romance isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's actually a great thing that makes life fun for men and women as long as people recognize and respect each other's boundaries. Once again the easily offended moral crusading puritans need to take another step towards sucking all the fun out of life.

 

As with everything these days we take a very reasonable position (i.e. people shouldn't be subjected to persistent or overtly inappropriate unwanted sexual advances) and take it beyond all rational thought to a place of absolute insanity.

 

And there are plenty of people who have lost their livelihoods and/or freedom over false allegations of sexual misconduct. But I guess they don't matter because they're not on TV.

[Capco]

4 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

We're not just talking about the handful of celebrities you see on Access Hollywood. It's also not just about ruining lives. These things seep into the culture and if taken too far make it worse.

 

A little fun flirtation or office romance isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's actually a great thing that makes life fun for men and women as long as people recognize and respect each other's boundaries. Once again the easily offended moral crusading puritans need to take another step towards sucking all the fun out of life.

 

As with everything these days we take a very reasonable position (i.e. people shouldn't be subjected to persistent or overtly inappropriate unwanted sexual advances) and take it beyond all rational thought to a place of absolute insanity.

 

And there are plenty of people who have lost their livelihoods and/or freedom over false allegations of sexual misconduct. But I guess they don't matter because they're not on TV.

 

I understand your concerns, but I don't think you need to be concerned.  That's my point really.  

 

Anyone who gets falsely accused absolutely does matter.  It does happen, but the alternative of not taking every accusation at face value initially will result in more sexual misconduct and less justice for the actual victims.  In no way, shape, or form do I condone such behavior from false accusers.  

 

We need to tell our boys how to treat women respectfully, and we need to tell our girls to do the exact same to men.  Part of that includes telling girls about the very serious repercussions of a false sexual allegation.  "These are the lines that you're not supposed to cross."

 

This is a slow process.  It won't happen overnight and there will be bumps along the way.  But in the end it will be for the better.  

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

https://nypost.com/2017/12/13/nfl-network-nightmare-exec-asked-if-i-planned-to-get-knocked-up/

 

 

[GoBills808]

14 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

A legal hierarchy built on Post Modernism?

 

Good grief.

Dare I say things evolve? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Dare I say things evolve? 

Post Modernism is hardly evolution, but rather is regressive, reporting back to failed dogma's of the early 20th century, and undoing all human progress chartered by the enlightenment.

 

You, for instance, would use it to create a hardened caste system, and to try sons for the crimes of their fathers.  We've been there already as a species.  That's not evolution.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[GoBills808]

That's exactly what I'd do. I'd also outlaw good cheer and mandate kicking puppies.

[TakeYouToTasker]

22 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

That's exactly what I'd do. I'd also outlaw good cheer and mandate kicking puppies.

You're joking, but you've already told me that's exactly what you'd do.

 

You'd revamp law to adhere to Critical X Theory. That necessitates the formation of a rigid legal caste system, and allowing into evidence historical observations about different groups of people.

[GoBills808]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

You're joking, but you've already told me that's exactly what you'd do.

 

You'd revamp law to adhere to Critical X Theory. That necessitates the formation of a rigid legal caste system, and allowing into evidence historical observations about different groups of people.

...which judges do already when considering sentencing, in addition to persistent offender laws in the US affirmed constitutional en banc. This isn't a difficult concept. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

...which judges do already when considering sentencing, in addition to persistent offender laws in the US affirmed constitutional en banc. This isn't a difficult concept. 

No, judges do not currently sentence based on their feelings surrounding group identities.

[GoBills808]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, judges do not currently sentence based on their feelings surrounding group identities.

Prior convictions and past histories. What we were talking about earlier.

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Prior convictions and past histories. What we were talking about earlier.

Prior convictions and past histories of the individual being sentenced, not the prior histories and convictions of people unrelated. 

 

IE.  You have served time for larceny in the past, and you're being sentenced for larceny again.  You punishment shall be greater the second time, because your first punishment clearly wasn't a deterrent.

 

NOT:  You are black, and black people are more likely to commit crime, so you are guilty.

 

The first is reasonable, the second is a gross miscarriage of justice.

 

Of course you aren't talking about black people, as they are awarded a meritorious place is the legal intersectional caste system you're looking to create through their racial history.  The people you're looking to harm are straight, cis gendered, white men.

Edited December 13, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Prior convictions and past histories of the individual being sentenced, not the prior histories and convictions of people unrelated. 

 

IE.  You have served time for larceny in the past, and you're being sentenced for larceny again.  You punishment shall be greater the second time, because your first punishment clearly wasn't a deterrent.

 

NOT:  You are black, and black people are more likely to commit crime, so you are guilty.

 

The first is reasonable, the second is a gross miscarriage of justice.

Obviously, I agree. Similarly obviously, I was extrapolating for effect which has since taken a pretty wide turn.

 

You don't believe the historical context of male/female interaction should be considered when viewing these sexual assault allegations, and I tend to think otherwise. IIRC that's where we started.

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Obviously, I agree. Similarly obviously, I was extrapolating for effect which has since taken a pretty wide turn.

 

You don't believe the historical context of male/female interaction should be considered when viewing these sexual assault allegations, and I tend to think otherwise. IIRC that's where we started.

No, I do not, because justice isn't prejudiced, and I oppose legal caste systems. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

18 hours ago, T-Bomb said:

I'm sure they do exist (female engineers), and I'm sure plenty out there are smarter and better than I, but when the issue is forced, that's when it's total BS.  We live in an era where it's predominately forced to satisfy PC requirements.

 

Let me put it out there: in principle, I'm against affirmative action or any policy that promotes forced equalization of numbers. 

In practice, then we have this:
 

18 hours ago, T-Bomb said:

IMO, the office sucks with women, it was much better without, and I'm not some 60 year old "good 'ol boy" either.

 

...which is kind of like a big 'ol flag printed "if I'm hiring, not giving no wimmens no fair shake less I'm forced to it", don'tcha think? 

 

Paradox: fair-minded people who recognize there are smart, maybe smarter - good, maybe better - potential employees who are different than them in some way (sex, skin color, what-have-you), and are happy to recognize that - as long as they aren't asked to be sharing a cubby farm or a job site with 'em. 

 

Which brings us to: in practice, sometimes change has to be pushed, or things just won't...change.

 

You got a better idea, I'm all for it. 

3 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

https://nypost.com/2017/12/13/nfl-network-nightmare-exec-asked-if-i-planned-to-get-knocked-up/

 

But it's a level playing field now, dontcha know.   Them wimmins just bitchin' cuz they want to subjugate them mens.  Soyboys.

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, judges do not currently sentence based on their feelings surrounding group identities.

 

Course they don't.  What's his name down in Alabama, "Judge" Roy Moore?