Women

I can't believe Cloud is fucking dead.

Are you asking because you're not sure whether you should be outraged?

13 currently, 11 when the webcomic began.
But Larisa (pigtail) has already sold her soul to the Devil to save Sandra (ponytail) from dying.
She has no regrets about signing the contract.
She has a genetic disorder which will cripple and kill her within a few years.
And the Devil was so impressed by her deviousness that she's guaranteed an executive position in the Succubus branch, spending Eternity seducing and debasing men.

Don't worry. Cloud will be good as new (physically) by the next strip he appear in.

Wait, is all that stuff about pacts with the devil and the kids dying really part of the comic?

Is there anything in a woman's life that actually is harder than a man's that doesn't revolve around their reproductive health?

Apparently yes?

Attached: A001F40E-6639-4283-964A-0900B30386DE.png (980x363, 59K)

Is the pyro still dying quicker than the rest of them?

...

Attached: morn.jpg (480x480, 19K)

All
Even

>Odo and Quark team up episodes

Attached: 1563916331826.jpg (1280x1440, 264K)

>she's guaranteed an executive position in the Succubus branch, spending Eternity seducing and debasing men.
loli succubus

Remember, you asked the question.

Attached: WorkForManAndWoman.png (500x2958, 1.34M)

She'll be an adult when she die. 20 something.

wow that sucks bro

Yes, that's the idea, she sucks bros.

And why should I believe some random sjw cuck over millions of anecdotes as well as statistical evidence showing otherwise?

but not as a loli... :(

>And why should I believe some random sjw cuck over millions of anecdotes as well as statistical evidence showing otherwise?

Citation needed.

Can it, Morn!

Attached: lookingforparmach2.jpg (475x364, 45K)

that sounds like a moron who wanted validation and was just happy to be told the manager would handle things
I see no proof gender entered into the equation
He could very well be pissed about the poor service he had been getting from her ever since he started being a costumer too

>some random sjw cuck
How do you know?
> as well as statistical evidence showing otherwise?
What are the stats for the assumption the person you are in contact with is competent, categorised by gender and how did you knew about it already?

Also, it's kind of hard to measure accurately, I would be interested by the methodology. Does it actually repertoriate the cases where the assumption is lower than the actual competence?

>She has a genetic disorder which will cripple and kill her within a few years.
>And the Devil was so impressed by her deviousness
Isn't that the exact opposite of deviousness? Even less time spent on Earth away from Hell with her soul getting tortured for eternity faster. This just seems like a really shitty deal and an even shittier idea to trust the devil of all fucking people to give you a good spot in Hell.

>that sounds like a moron who wanted validation and was just happy to be told the manager would handle things
It objectively doesn't. That is a baseless assumption.

>I see no proof gender entered into the equation
the assumed gender is the only thing that change.

>He could very well be pissed about the poor service he had been getting from her ever since he started being a costumer too
Except the trend kept going for every client and those are new clients every times.

i worked as an intern in an all female office, the boss had a fight with some of the lawyers (the ones doing 90% of the work) and would take everyone else out for lunch, the got into yelling matched, actually broke shit and she would bring her 8 year old non son (some kid she kinapped because she is a lesbian) because he didnt go to school and he wouldnt let anyone work, she gave an entire office to her gay friend who did nothing but browse gay chatrooms all day (i checked) and would play really loud music even when clients came in
she literally came out of her fucking office with burning wood because she was casting a fucking spell and said wood burned her hand and fell to the floor and ruined the floor

>It objectively doesn't
it objectively does, at no point does the client mention gender you are just assuming he was happy about the gender changing when its explicitly stated he is her boss not her coworker, you are at best assuming at worst projecting ill intent when there is a more clear answer
>the assumed gender is the only thing that change.
HE
IS
HER
SUPERVISOR
>Except the trend kept going for every client and those are new clients every times.
maybe she was bad to every client?

And why should I believe some random incel fuck over millions of anecdotes as well as statistical evidence showing otherwise?

>i worked as an intern in an all female office,
That's not really the best baseline for a "male/female working" comparison.

Also, this kind of BS you are describing can happens in (asdly) all workplace, not just all female ones. 95% of the time, it's because the person in charge has poor leadership qualities/suck at their job and take the workplace for a figurative sucking contest of their dick with the job getting done being at best a necessity to get their cock sucked, at worst seen as optional.

the same reason you belived some random guy with a twitter account

>That's not really the best baseline for a "male/female working" comparison.
im male
and i dont have any stories of personal abuse to tell (outside the gay guy, fuck that guy) because i fucked off from there after a couple months
The real scary shit is the fucked up stuff that poor 8 year old was exposed to but thats not relevant to this thread
>this kind of BS you are describing can happens in (asdly) all workplace
i know but some user posted anecdotal evidence so i posted anecdotal evidence, also i like telling people about it

>it objectively does,
Nope, nothing in it objectively indicate he is a moron seeking validation.
>t no point does the client mention gender
clientS. And there is no need for them to mention gender to determine it is about gender. You can exclusively favor a gender over the other without needing to mention the gender once.
>you are just assuming he was happy about the gender changing
Because that's the only variable that change.
> when its explicitly stated he is her boss
1. read better, he is her co-worker. He simply has seniority and hence is her supervisor,
2. The clients have no way of knowing that. Supervisors is not a title explicitely given to clients

>HE
>IS
>HER
>SUPERVISOR
So you can actually read. thank you for recognising he is not her boss and that the client do not know that.

>maybe she was bad to every client?
Except the clients she dealt with when she impersonated him had no issue and it was her most efficient week. Again, read better. And it's an employment service, for people seeking jobs. Those are almost new clients.

>and i don't have any stories of personal abuse
I was talking figuratively. I meant pandering to the boss, being a sycophant. Not literally sucking his dick/licking her puss.

>i know but some user posted anecdotal evidence
It would be anecdotal if it was just one case. But it resulted in a solid trends with several clients. That cease to be anecdotal at that point.

If it had been just one client, then yes, you would have made a point.

Still better than trusting the cruel piece of shit who gave you the disorder to begin with, no?

I thought this comic was about a girl and her pet racoon. When did it become another smut peddler?

>an anecdotal cool story
I'd compliment you on how cool that story is, but that be tautology.

It lose its anecdotal nature by developing a consistent trend. it would be anecdotal if it was just one client.

you can complain the sample is too small, though.

>nothing in it objectively indicate he is a moron seeking validation.
the most logical conclussion is that he was happy to talk to a supervisor, what more can i say?
>clientS. And there is no need for them to mention gender to determine it is about gender
seeing as they could exchange identities they where not adressing clients in audio or video format so there is no reason to assume gender ever mattered, unless you are claiming people can tell each other genders by text alone
>Because that's the only variable that change.
no, he is her superviosor, they are not equal
>He simply has seniority
being a supervisor is not only having seniority, it means he supervises her work
and one is not simply a supervisor, one is a supervisor, the importance of beiing one is somethiing clients decide not me or you
>The clients have no way of knowing that
thats an obcene assumption, have you ever asked to speak to a supervisor when requesting service over phone?
>Except the clients she dealt with when she impersonated him had no issue and it was her most efficient week
how long have they been costumers?
if someone who has been giving me great service for years has a bad week i wouldnt complain

It's a single story with no evidence from a single source, it's anecdotal. The sample size is effectively 0 because this is just some rando who might be biased or even simply making it up. It has that "and then everyone clapped" feel to it. The very notion than not just one or two but every fucker who communicated with their firm was a misogynist is simply ridiculous. One liar and one incompetent dumbass are far more believable than an unending slue of woman-haters, Occam's razor.

1 there are several other factors he is not taking into account, he is not her coworker, he is her supervisor
2 thy are not using new clients, so for every instance of every client recorded you must take into account the history of proffessional relationship they have
3 also take into account personal bias, he starts writing she is performing badly at her job and taking into account his boss statement over it but assumes it must not be her fault
then when dealing with clients under her identity also assumes their motives
it could very well be that he is being too sensitive or outright reading things that arent there or being defensive since he is expecting to be mistreated and in that line of thought he could be treating the clients wrong to get a bad reaction
i would gladly read the transcripts of the mails from that week and the previous month

>the most logical conclussion is that he was happy to talk to a supervisor, what more can i say?
That's not the most logical conclusion. The most logical conclusion is that he was happy to talk with a man, as being a supervisor or a trainee is something business don't usually communicate. As they keep getting new clients, the client had no way of knowing.
>seeing as they could exchange identities they where not adressing clients in audio or video format so there is no reason to assume gender ever mattered
the names could be seen.
>, unless you are claiming people can tell each other genders by text alone
Read better, the names cold be seen.

>no, he is her superviosor, they are not equal
The only administrative difference is that he his his senior. But being a supervisor is not something a business communicate to their clients (mostly because they don't want their client to know they are being handled by a rookie)

>no, he is her supervisor, they are not equal
Something the Client doesn't know. hence it's the only variable that explained the change of attitude, as the service remained the same.

> it means he supervises her work
Up until the trainee find their footing, which she already had. and again, this is not something the Client know about.

>the importance of being one is something clients decide not me or you
Business don't communicate if they are being handled by supervisors or trainees. so gender is the only thing they know about.

>thats an obcene assumption, have you ever asked to speak to a supervisor when requesting service over phone?
No, I ask to talk to their superior.

>how long have they been costumers?
According to the story, they have a fast rolls of client, they handle them and then pass them over. it does not look like long standing client-business relationship.

>if someone who has been giving me great service for years has a bad week i wouldn't complain
Except those keep being new clients. Read better.

I can find it believable that some fields do have drastically different treatment of certain people depending on their gender. There are just some professions that are still behind the times in their thought process. It's a shame that some anons are like "lol sjws" and dismissing it. Stuff like that do happen in a lot of places.

Conversely, anything with a lot of male clients tipping in a service of some kind will favor women over men. I was working at a casino and doing some keno running for guests. A female coworker went to break and had me take over doing running for her customer. The guy tipped me to leave him alone. Fortunately he changed his mind and asked me to come back but the girls always made a killing when it came to tips, especially the cute ones. It got to a point where the not as attractive women complained and all tips were pooled and shared. Naturally that worked out for the best for me.

>It's a single story with no evidence from a single source, it's anecdotal.
It cease to be anecdotal when the experiment is repeated, which is the case, here.

>The sample size is effectively 0
That's false. It's apparently several clients a day, for two weeks. that might range from a number of 28 to 70.

>t has that "and then everyone clapped" feel to it.
It objectively doesn't.

>The very notion than not just one or two but every fucker who communicated with their firm was a misogynist is simply ridiculous.
This strong trend is exactly why you can not consider it anecdotal. And you are making a big mistake, there: you take the thesis as the hypothesis. You assume the conclusion is false and then use it a s a proof that it is false. That's not how it work.

>One liar and one incompetent dumbass are far more believable than an unending slue of woman-haters, Occam's razor.
Occam's razor do not work on believability.

>As they keep getting new clients, the client had no way of knowing.
over a week?
>the names could be seen.
and you dont think being reduced to a name written in text takes away 99% of the influence someones gender can have on you?
also if thats the case just change the name, or dont show a name at all, label them operator1,2,etc
>The only administrative difference is that he his his senior. But being a supervisor is not something a business communicate to their clients (mostly because they don't want their client to know they are being handled by a rookie)
you are assuming that, there is no reason a business wouldnt communicate someone is a supervisor, especially with clients they have a working relationship with, those would know everyone working there by title and name
>No, I ask to talk to their superior.
a supervisor is a superior
>According to the story, they have a fast rolls of client, they handle them and then pass them over. it does not look like long standing client-business relationship.
if thats the case it makes even more sense they would be happy speaking to a supervisor just because its a fucking supervisor, yes people are that petty,

>1 there are several other factors he is not taking into account, he is not her coworker, he is her supervisor
The Client do not know that, so it does not explain the change in attitude.
>2 thy are not using new clients
They apparently are. it's an employment agency, so the clients tend to roll over. It is stated she does her job right, so if it as the same clients, she would only need to prove her competencies once. Not every time.
>3 also take into account personal bias, he starts writing she is performing badly at her job
Speaking of bias, he say she does her job right, but slower. Also, he didn't notice at first he was communicating with the wrong mailbox.
> but assumes it must not be her fault
he assumed he was better at his job than her.
>then when dealing with clients under her identity also assumes their motives
He doesn't up until he notice he is using the wrong mailbox. And the only thing that change is the name.

>over a week?
Two.
>and you dont think being reduced to a name written in text takes away 99% of the influence someones gender can have on you?
It indicate the gender of the person you are talking to. it's all you need to do. And the fact that it takes that little is precisely what that account show us.
>also if that's the case just change the name, or don't show a name at all, label them operator1,2,etc
It is indeed a solution, but that is beside the point. The point is that the gender of a woman does make things more difficult. Not all jobs allow you to conceal it.
>there is no reason a business wouldnt communicate someone is a supervisor
Business usually don't want their client to know if they are handled by trainees or supervisor. Beside, in his communication, he never indicated he was a supervisor. All he ever said was that he was mark.
>a supervisor is a superior
I don't say supervisor. and technically, they are on the same administrative level up until the trainee is considered trained. After that, there is no longer that hierarchy, except for seniority
>if thats the case it makes even more sense they would be happy speaking to a supervisor
Again, the client don't know he is a supervisor.

>The point is that the gender of a woman does make things more difficult
you have not proven that

>Again, the client don't know he is a supervisor.
you dont know that

>you have not proven that
That observation he made tend to back that claim. I will not say it is conclusive, but it is not anecdotal. similar experiment should be done on a larger scale.

>you don't know that
He specifically say he only communicated his name, saying he was taking over. He never mentioned he was a supervisor.
Also:
medium.com/@nickyknacks/working-while-female-59a5de3ad266#.kwx02neqx
>Nothing changed, except that our clients read me as male and Marty as female.
>nothing changed

The OG tweets, if you want to:
twitter.com/SchneidRemarks/status/839910253680553988

i think if anything they should both use a male handle and then both switch to a female handle and compare results if they truly want to know if one is better than the other or is about gender
also not tell anyone he is a supervisor since his workplace doesnt give a shit clearly as seen for them exchnging accounts
this wouldnt even be workplace discrimination anyways, the only thing it could prove is that costumers preffer men over women, which i sencirely dobut since most costumer service jobs are occupyed by women
I remain unconvinced, it seems to me there are too many factors not being taken into account for this to prove anything

>also not tell anyone he is a supervisor
It's quite clear they never did. that is not something you communicate to the client.

How can someone as moronic as you write and read? Is someone doing it for you?

>this wouldnt even be workplace discrimination anyways
The point wasn't to showcase workplace discrimination, but show an example of one of the difficulty a woman can meet because of her gender.
>which i sencirely dobut since most costumer service jobs are occupyed by women
According to
medium.com/@nickyknacks/working-while-female-59a5de3ad266#.kwx02neqx
The job is about rewriting the resume of clients, Which is more than just hotline service
> it seems to me there are too many factors not being taken into account
Except that's the opposite of the truth, the only variable, the only factor is the gender. that's it and nothing else. What else is there?

Like it or not, you can't deny it.