Eddie Vedder's Reaction to KC Chiefs Kicker Harrison Butker Benedictine College Speech in LV Night 2

benjs

dmaradona10 said:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex.  (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation.
You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.

https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers

Still ignoring real stats about the gender pay gap and referring back to the fact that there's a law as proof of equality?

Get real.

Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
The Gender Wage Gap Endures in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Glorified KC

I'm a lifelong Chiefs fan, so I've seen a lot of viewpoints from the fanbase.  Not surprisingly many are "defending" Butker and calling those who have a problem with his speech the "Woke Mob." My initial feelings were similar to Ed's, but I've backed off of the maliciousness I felt.  It was disappointing as a fan to hear him express those opinions to female college graduates.  The speech was all pre-calculated and he had to have known the blowback he was going to face.  If not, he's a complete idiot.  He's free to express his views using his platform, but it does come at a cost like most polarizing statements.  If he wasn't prepared for the possibility of this affecting his football career then he's in for a rude awakening.  It may not be this year, but if he struggles and the Chiefs release him I'll be anxious to see if he gets picked up by another team. 

gimmesometruth27

Glorified KC said:

I'm a lifelong Chiefs fan, so I've seen a lot of viewpoints from the fanbase.  Not surprisingly many are "defending" Butker and calling those who have a problem with his speech the "Woke Mob." My initial feelings were similar to Ed's, but I've backed off of the maliciousness I felt.  It was disappointing as a fan to hear him express those opinions to female college graduates.  The speech was all pre-calculated and he had to have known the blowback he was going to face.  If not, he's a complete idiot.  He's free to express his views using his platform, but it does come at a cost like most polarizing statements.  If he wasn't prepared for the possibility of this affecting his football career then he's in for a rude awakening.  It may not be this year, but if he struggles and the Chiefs release him I'll be anxious to see if he gets picked up by another team. 

he would get picked up at the end of his contract because he is pretty good at his job. but like you said, if he struggles and gets waived, he will probably wash out.

i live in st louis and was a big kurt warner fan. he was uber religious to the point where it was kind of annoying. every interview every question was god this and jesus that. couldn't have won without jesus, etc. he never used his faith to attack or belittle anyone though. i think he is a very decent person and knows that if he publicly stated his beliefs on issues that are politically sensitive it would hurt him. butker and his ilk do not seem to have that kind of self awareness though. 

dmaradona10

benjs said:

dmaradona10 said:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex.  (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation.
You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.

https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers

Still ignoring real stats about the gender pay gap and referring back to the fact that there's a law as proof of equality?

Get real.

Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
The Gender Wage Gap Endures in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Missing the total hours worked and time off taken for various reasons, plus ignoring the law and illegality of not paying a person equal pay for equal work.  This is what it all comes down to.  Also, women strive for more positions of power. They desire no "equality" with physical laborious jobs.  First responders, electricians, construction workers in the ninetieth percentile are men.  Gee, I wonder why. 

Glorified KC

gimmesometruth27 said:

Glorified KC said:

I'm a lifelong Chiefs fan, so I've seen a lot of viewpoints from the fanbase.  Not surprisingly many are "defending" Butker and calling those who have a problem with his speech the "Woke Mob." My initial feelings were similar to Ed's, but I've backed off of the maliciousness I felt.  It was disappointing as a fan to hear him express those opinions to female college graduates.  The speech was all pre-calculated and he had to have known the blowback he was going to face.  If not, he's a complete idiot.  He's free to express his views using his platform, but it does come at a cost like most polarizing statements.  If he wasn't prepared for the possibility of this affecting his football career then he's in for a rude awakening.  It may not be this year, but if he struggles and the Chiefs release him I'll be anxious to see if he gets picked up by another team. 

he would get picked up at the end of his contract because he is pretty good at his job. but like you said, if he struggles and gets waived, he will probably wash out.

i live in st louis and was a big kurt warner fan. he was uber religious to the point where it was kind of annoying. every interview every question was god this and jesus that. couldn't have won without jesus, etc. he never used his faith to attack or belittle anyone though. i think he is a very decent person and knows that if he publicly stated his beliefs on issues that are politically sensitive it would hurt him. butker and his ilk do not seem to have that kind of self awareness though. 

I think Butker is of the same ilk as Warner in that he knew this response was likely.  I've read the transcript of his speech and it is very well thought out.  He had to have spent a lot of time putting it together and to understand what bed he was making for himself.

Halifax2TheMax

dmaradona10 said:

benjs said:

dmaradona10 said:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex.  (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation.
You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.

https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers

Still ignoring real stats about the gender pay gap and referring back to the fact that there's a law as proof of equality?

Get real.

Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
The Gender Wage Gap Endures in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Missing the total hours worked and time off taken for various reasons, plus ignoring the law and illegality of not paying a person equal pay for equal work.  This is what it all comes down to.  Also, women strive for more positions of power. They desire no "equality" with physical laborious jobs.  First responders, electricians, construction workers in the ninetieth percentile are men.  Gee, I wonder why. 

I'm sure you would be all for increased funding for the EEOC so that they could take a pro-active role in enforcing the law through auditing and inspection rather than a reactive role by waiting for a complaint to be filed? Much like the IRS can proactively audit certain classes of businesses, cash transactions, or certain income earners with a higher-than-average percent of tax cheats? Or the uber wealthy who are found not to pay their taxes? Right, you'd be all for an active EEOC, right? Unless you believe employers shouldn't be held accountable to the law or that the burden falls on the aggrieved employee?

Interestingly enough, the EEOC budget has increased over the years but its staffing has fallen. Kind of difficult to process and investigate claims without the staff available to do so. Maybe its because women earn the same as men and there's no issue? Hell, just eliminate the EEOC, who needs it?

dmaradona10

Also, and last statement.  If women wanted true equality they would join the Selective Service as every male is legally required to do when the turn 18.  Women in the Ukraine do not have to fight in the war against Russia, however, men 18-67 are legally required to fight in a war.  How come feminists are not pushing for women to be part of the Selective Service in the U.S.?  The answer is obvious, they only are selective when it comes to true "equality." 

brianlux

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

I worry about some young women (teens to 20s or thereabouts) I see these days.  Those who dress for seduction.  I see this more and more.  And a lot of the time, the young woman is with some guy who hangs his arm on her like she's a coat rack or a trophy.  Sure, any guy will tell you a fit, attractive 16, 18, 22, whatever, year old girl wearing in a skimpy lacy little thing is going to look hot.  Most any guy who says, "Nah, that's not true," is a liar.  

Well, ok so look beyond that.  What does that say about how that young lady sees herself and how she wants to be seen?  Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to be a puritan and I don't think there should be "a law against" wearing this or that.  It's what a person projects and what someone prioritizes that I'm talking about.

Here's  another scenario.  I know a you woman who started dating the man who is now her husband.  Someone else I know (the girls mom) was concerned and asked the guy, "So what attracted you to my daughter?  Is it because she is beautiful?"  He said, "Well actually, the first thing that attracted me to her is that she is smart and kind.  The fact that she is beautiful just makes it even better."  This young woman is savvy enough to know what counts the most, and projects qualities like being smart and kind.  And her guy is smart enough to appreciate those qualities.  And they have one of the best relationships of any young couple I know.

So which of these scenarios is the predominant one these days?  I'm not sure, but I don't know that I would find the answer to that would be very encouraging. 

Honestly there are certainly some over the top outifts...but I also don't think it is a girls responsibility to dress the way anyone else wants.  We should probably try and teach young men to respect and not always sexualize women, especially in schools and the workplace.  My daughter is a dancer and very comfortable in many outifts.  I also know she scored a 36 on her ACT and will likely be an engineer.  

I only worry if the girls/women are dressing FOR other people.  As long as it's for themselves, very few issues

Well said, CIncy.

Halifax2TheMax

dmaradona10 said:

Also, and last statement.  If women wanted true equality they would join the Selective Service as every male is legally required to do when the turn 18.  Women in the Ukraine do not have to fight in the war against Russia, however, men 18-67 are legally required to fight in a war.  How come feminists are not pushing for women to be part of the Selective Service in the U.S.?  The answer is obvious, they only are selective when it comes to true "equality." 

You don’t “join” the selective service. You “register.” It’s a legal requirement for males when they turn 18 or become a citizen before age 26. If you care so much about women “joining” the selective service, lobby your congressional representation to include women in this requirement. I’d fully support it. Women do serve in the military and while not in front line combat rolls, they have served in combat. I’m willing to wager that men and women in similar roles and same rank are paid the same whereas the same can’t be said of corporate America, despite the laws and regulations you’ve mentioned. 

Sometimes the government, military in this case, is ahead of the curve and most times its behind societal aspirations.

seanwon

dmaradona10 said:

benjs said:

dmaradona10 said:

The Equal Pay Act of 1963: Protects against wage discrimination based on sex.  (Over 60 years ago). Since then there have been countless laws and government regulation oversite of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. Women outnumbered men in the workplace for the first time in 2009.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act: Backed up the equal rights act of 1963, and made things easier form women to sue companies who break the law by discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation.
You live in La La Land and need a reality check if you think the "patriarchy" or all those "evil white men" are conspiring against you. They are not, stop blaming the faults in your lives on imagined outside enemies. Get real.

https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet/federal-laws-prohibiting-job-discrimination-questions-and-answers

Still ignoring real stats about the gender pay gap and referring back to the fact that there's a law as proof of equality?

Get real.

Gender gains and gaps in the US, ahead of Women's History Month | Pew Research Center
The Gender Wage Gap Endures in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Missing the total hours worked and time off taken for various reasons, plus ignoring the law and illegality of not paying a person equal pay for equal work.  This is what it all comes down to.  Also, women strive for more positions of power. They desire no "equality" with physical laborious jobs.  First responders, electricians, construction workers in the ninetieth percentile are men.  Gee, I wonder why. 

dmaradona10 said:

Also, and last statement.  If women wanted true equality they would join the Selective Service as every male is legally required to do when the turn 18.  Women in the Ukraine do not have to fight in the war against Russia, however, men 18-67 are legally required to fight in a war.  How come feminists are not pushing for women to be part of the Selective Service in the U.S.?  The answer is obvious, they only are selective when it comes to true "equality." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8oZ6LcUQJQ