"[B]arbarian" O'Reilly: "[I]n a lot of places, women have formed cabals to terrorize the men"
On the February 28 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly told co-host Lis Wiehl that "women were treated better than men" at ABC News and CBS News because "[t]hey had a little cabal; and they intimidated the men in the organization and said, 'If you look at me cross-eyed, I'm gonna bring you up to Human Resources and destroy your life.' " O'Reilly added that "every man in the place was terrified of them." He later stated that, "in a lot of places, women have formed cabals to terrorize the men because they take advantage of, 'Oh, we're downtrodden. You're kicking us in the teeth.' " He then discussed how, in every country he'd "ever been to, women are treated worse [than] in the United States. ... Guys are gonna put their hands on you in that society in Italy, in Spain." O'Reilly concluded: "So, all of this whining about American women -- 'We don't have this; we don't have that' -- to me, I'm not real sympathetic. But I am a barbarian." As Media Matters for America has noted, O'Reilly has a history of making derogatory remarks to Wiehl, such as asking her to protest outside CBS studios in a bikini. In 2004, he settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by his former producer, Andrea Mackris; and, Fox News Network also reportedly settled a sex discrimination lawsuit in 2006.
Additionally, O'Reilly argued that employers should not be required to cover female employees' birth control prescriptions even if the employer covers male employees' Viagra prescriptions because birth control pills are not used to treat "a medical condition." O'Reilly contended: "There's still a distinction between a physical condition that doesn't allow you to perform. ... [T]here's a difference between a medical condition that debilitates a guy in this area and you and women having birth control. Buy your own. I don't wanna pay for your birth control. I'm sorry, I don't." In response to Wiehl's objections, O'Reilly mocked: "Give me, take me, buy me, I want. I -- I want. I want."
In fact, oral contraceptives, in addition for use in preventing pregnancy, are also used to treat numerous medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, adenomyosis, irregular menstrual cycles, acne, and severe menstrual cramping, among other conditions.
As Media Matters noted, O'Reilly has also falsely claimed that it "is never the case" that a "mother's life is in danger" during the course of a pregnancy, when, in fact, there are several potential pregnancy complications that can threaten the life of a pregnant woman.
Later in the February 28 show, discussing workplace discrimination, a female caller said she was "angry with" O'Reilly because she said she had "no idea" that he was "so sexist and so discriminatory." O'Reilly dismissed the caller's concerns as coming from "an angry woman." When Wiehl offered to send the caller a copy of her new book, The 51% Minority: How Women Still Are Not Equal and What You Can do About it (Random House, February 2007), O'Reilly told Wiehl, "But you just make her more angry," and joked that because of Wiehl's book, "[s]ome guy's gonna get popped." O'Reilly later suggested that women were mentally and physically unfit for combat: "If it were me, I wouldn't have any women in combat. That's how much of a barbarian I am. I wouldn't put any of them on the frontline for physical reasons, all right -- and for camaraderie and a lot of other different reasons: psychological, emotional, all kinds of stuff."
In October 2004, O'Reilly settled a sexual harassment suit brought by Mackris. As The Washington Post reported, the lawsuit "charged that he spoke to Mackris about sexual fantasies, masturbation and vibrators while sometimes seeming to pleasure himself." According to the Post, "O'Reilly and his attorney, Ronald Green, never denied that the Fox commentator had used such language, but said he never broke the law and questioned whether Mackris was truly offended or was taking words and phrases out of context." The lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount of money.
In August 2006, Fox News Network reportedly settled a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] sex discrimination suit. According to Bloomberg News, the lawsuit, which was brought by four female employees, alleged that "Fox News Vice President Joe Chillemi used obscene terms to describe women and their body parts." Bloomberg also noted that the "EEOC complaint said Fox News failed to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act by retaliating against one of the four employees, Kim Weiler, who complained that women were assigned to freelance positions with fewer benefits, less advancement potential and lower job security than others."
Further, as Media Matters has noted, O'Reilly has previously made degrading comments to Wiehl. For instance, on the November 3, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly called for "a full-body search" on Wiehl. On October 26, 2005, O'Reilly claimed that he was "outraged" about a recent CBS poll on border control and asked Wiehl to protest the network while wearing a bikini. When she resisted, he asked her: "Don't you love your country?" and "Don't you want fairness in the media?" In another instance on June 21, 2004, O'Reilly referred to Wiehl as "eye candy" and told her, "You're here because you're good-looking, so I got somebody to look over."
From the February 28 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: I didn't whine about it and call up my senator and say, "Hey, I'm 10 times better than this one that's making more money than me," bop, bop, bop. And the other thing is that, in a lot of the situations that I was in, particularly at the network news -- and I worked for ABC News and CBS News before I came to Fox News -- women were treated better than men. They were treated better than men.
They had a little cabal; and they intimidated the men in the organization and said, "If you look at me cross-eyed, I'm gonna bring you up to Human Resources and destroy your life," and every man in the place was terrified of them. And that actually happened.
So, when I'm reading Lis' book -- and I recommend the book because it will stimulate discussion with your wife, your girlfriend, whoever, and you know, you can learn from it. The book again is The 51% Minority. I'm not sympathetic to Lis' argument at all. I think that Lis has put forth this argument based upon facts. It is true that women make less and that, you know, women have a bigger burden because they have children at home and -- that's all true. But I say the government is not gonna change that and that, in a lot of places, women have formed cabals to terrorize the men because they take advantage of, "Oh, we're downtrodden. You're kicking us in the teeth."
And if you go around the world -- and this is my final argument -- every country that I've ever been to, women are treated worse [than] in the United States. I mean, if you go to Japan, for example, you go to China, anywhere in the Orient, you go to Australia, it's outrageous. You go in the Muslim countries, Lis Wiehl gets executed for writing this book. Lis Wiehl's --
WIEHL: I'm never coming back from there.
O'REILLY: Lis Wiehl is beheaded right now in Saudi Arabia for writing this book. Even if you go to Europe -- if you go to Italy and you're a good-looking woman like Lis is, you're gonna have to be black and blue all day long, if you know what I'm talking about. Guys are gonna put their hands on you in that society in Italy, in Spain, all right.
So, all of this whining about American women -- "We don't have this; we don't have that" -- to me, I'm not real sympathetic. But I am a barbarian.
[...]
WIEHL: But birth control, I mean, that will create a medical condition if you don't have birth control.
O'REILLY: But it's not a medical condition.
WIEHL: Oh come on, Bill.
O'REILLY: Buy your own. Buy your own.
WIEHL: If -- and -- all -- if an employer doesn't cover Viagra, then I'm fine with that. But if they cover Viagra, then they should cover --
O'REILLY: There's still a distinction between a physical condition that doesn't allow you to perform.
WIEHL: I am sorry. I want our listeners --
O'REILLY: Oh, "I want." Here we go.
WIEHL: I want our -- no, this is what I'm --
O'REILLY: Give me, take me, buy me, I want. I -- I want. I want.
WIEHL: If you let me finish. I want our listeners to weigh in on this because I think they will say that you are absolutely off the mark.
O'REILLY: Look, again, I'm not promoting the government paying for Viagra. But I'm saying there's a difference between a medical condition that debilitates a guy in this area and you and women having birth control. Buy your own. I don't wanna pay for your birth control. I'm sorry, I don't.
[...]
CALLER: I'm very angry with you. I had no idea that you were so sexist and so discriminatory.
O'REILLY: About what?
CALLER: A woman -- a woman nowhere at any time because she's being discriminated against at her work should have to quit her job and move to a different job.
O'REILLY: I had to do it.
CALLER: That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say.
O'REILLY: I had to do it.
CALLER: You didn't have to do it, you chose.
O'REILLY: Sure, I did.
CALLER: You chose.
O'REILLY: I absolutely had to do it. I was being discriminated against, because I was a single guy who was much better than the old-timers who were there, and I didn't get paid nearly what they got, and there was a little cabal in the place and I had to go. Now, let me ask you something, [caller]. Do you want the government to right these wrongs? [Caller]?
CALLER: Yes, the government should right these wrongs. This is America. It's the land of equality.
O'REILLY: OK. I know it's America, but the government usually doesn't intrude on the marketplace.
CALLER: Bill, anytime anyone calls you, you just continue to talk through them. You don't wanna hear what they have to say, and I'm really angry with you today.
O'REILLY: You're an angry woman, [caller].
CALLER: I have never -- I have never called you before today. I'm not an angry woman.
O'REILLY: You're an angry -- you're an angry woman. I don't know why you're angry at me. I'm putting forth a point of view that you don't like, but I'm also putting forward the point of view that is valid. Now, your point of view's valid too. We just -- we just disagree on the issue, so you're never gonna listen again. I mean, what does that tell you?
WIEHL: [Caller], I hope you still listen. But, look, stay on the line, and I wanna send you a copy of 51% Minority, OK?
O'REILLY: But you just make her more angry.
WIEHL: No, she's gonna feel empowered.
O'REILLY: Some guy's gonna get popped.
[...]
O'REILLY: Well, that's because it's almost like being a baseball player. There are no women baseball players because, physically, men are stronger than women. And when you do combat, as you well know, strength is very important on a number of different levels.
If it were me, I wouldn't have any women in combat. That's how much of a barbarian I am. I wouldn't put any of them on the frontline for physical reasons, all right -- and for camaraderie and a lot of other different reasons: psychological, emotional, all kinds of stuff.
I'd have women in the armed services, absolutely, but they'd be in support roles, not on the frontlines -- but that's just me. But there are women in combat right this second.
















Wow! Where are these "cabals..." they sound hawt!
Viagra, vital medical necessity; Birth control, luxury item.
Only in O'Reillyland, where the "real" men live.
What a jackass.
CALLER: I'm very angry with you. I had no idea that you were so sexist and so discriminatory.
I just have three words for you, Caller: L,O,L. Just be glad he didn't offer to buy you some falafel to make up for it.
O'REILLY: But you just make her more angry.
God forbid a woman read a book, amirite?
Viagra = MUST ME HAVE FOR SURVIVE!!! Birth control = A TOY- NO ME HAVE BUY!!
Poor BillO'Lielly,On having to leave a job"O'REILLY: I absolutely had to do it. I was being discriminated against, because I was a single guy who was much better than the old-timers who were there, and I didn't get paid nearly what they got, and there was a little cabal in the place and I had to go. Now, let me ask you something, [caller]. Do you want the government to right these wrongs? [Caller]?"
Wonder if he quit or was asked to leave. My gut feeling is that it was the latter. He was more than likely hitting on all the women in the “cabal" and got canned.
hmmm. oh why would Billo be so scared of women? Is Mackris still haunting you Billy boy?...lol...
Exactly this is a thinly vieled WWWAAAAAHHHHHH, by O'falafel because he didnt get away with his sexual harassment. He got caught now he is pretending that those who act like he did are somehow the victims. WWAHAHHHAAAAAHHHH. He is so pathetic
"...and every man in the place was terrified of them."
EVERY man was afraid of that cabal of women? Sounds like a bunch of thug women who needed a good ass-kicking... except I would like to know why isn't that cabal of women being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Why isn't Patrick Fitzgerald working on something important, like this, for a change?
But, to be fair, and before resorting to either violence or the liberal courts, let's consider what are the other possibile explanations. Maybe all the men who worked at ABC News and CBS News were just weak, insecure men? Then that would mean Bill O'Reilly was a weak, insecure man, too, because he said every man was terrified.
Or maybe all the men there were sexually predatory or bullying? Hmmmm... That last one sounds like Bill O'Reilly... but only since he's been at FOX News.
Maybe this is it... Women are terrifying to weak, insecure men. ABC and CBC men were weak, insecure men. And FOX News made a REAL MAN out of Bill O'Reilly.
Let's call Patrick Fitzgerald anyway... and while we're at it, someone call Dick Cheney so we'll know the story gets out correctly.
Uppity broads. Got their little cabals running around accusing all the men of sexual harrassment. Look at 'em wrong, and you'll be lookin' for another job, awright? And you can't just get away from it. You can't get away. It's everywhere. They do it everywhere, allright? One little after-hours phone call, and they're all "ewwww, leave me alone. I'll sue". Okay? Can't even take a little humor from a co-worker in a supervisory position. A little "parody" communication in a social situation. Allright? Sure, I mean, say one word about a falafel, or loofah, or make an innocent suggestion of helping them with their hygeine, and next THING YOU KNOW, IT'S COSTING YOU 10 MIL! ALLRIGHT? OH YEAH, THEY'RE REAL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST! THE STINKIN' VIBRATOR WASN'T EVEN ANYWHERE NEAR HER! ALLRIGHT? H*LL, IT WAS UP MY OWN RECTUM, AND SHE GET'S 10 MIL?!? WHERE'S THE G*DD4MN UNFAIRNESS THERE, LADY?!? i'M ASKIN' YOU, WHERE'S THE UNFAIRNESS THERE?!? SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHU.......
Uh-oh! MMFA mentioned the Mackris case again! That practically guarantees a mention on the factor. There is probably a fine of sorts if O'Reilly mentions the Mackris case at all or tries to directly address any aspect of it, so he just resolves to call MMFA a "smear site" everytime MMFA mentions the case.
O'Reilly is a truly disgusting individual.
From what I gather here, Bill thinks that women should just shut up and be thankful that America is not like Asia or the Middle East.
In many ways, America USED TO BE like those regions of the world. But now that we've come so far as a nation when it comes to empowering women, chauvinistic pigs like Bill O have decreed that women are now officially equal enough.
I think Jim Carrey said it best in "Liar Liar":
"Where would Tina Turner be right now if she'd rolled over and said, 'Hit me again, Ike, and put some stank on it!'? Rollin' on the river, that's where she'd be. But she's beyond Thunderdome, because she decided to send a message? [yells] Wake up, sisters! There is nooooooo such thing as a weaker sex!"
"O'Reilly is a truly disgusting individual."
Yea... but why should that surprise anyone? He's PROUD of it!
O'REILLY: "But I am a barbarian."
And he's lying: I'm positive that men in Italy and Spain would NOT get away with that. Of course, I've only lived in Germany, but I'd know. If there was that big a difference in the treatment of women, we'd all have been beating up on Spain and Italy... But that's besides the point. Even if it WAS that way, no reason to follow that example.
Bill O'Reilly admits he's scared of women.
It's the lesbians, Bill. They're taking over. They will outlaw and enslave all men and we'll have to work in the salt mines.
I can't imagine why a woman would [i]ever[/i] threaten to report O'Reilly to Human Resources. That would be a silly thing to do, anyways. We all know Bill O'Reilly is not human.
Nice catch, Sasami- Billdo got off on a technicality.Which is better than a loofah.
So let me get this straight there was a cabal of Old Timer women at a network news organization that both denied him both pay increases and advancement despite his demonstrated superiority and threatened him with sexual harassment suites. Aside from the fact that I don’t think there are enough women in senior positions at any network news department to even form a cabal, much less simultaneously wield the threat of sexual harassment as a weapon. This is the classic case of O’Reilly projecting the worst attributes of the people and policies that he advocates onto his opponents. The sad thing is that women have always tangibly and demonstrably been victims of the harassment and discrimination that O’Reilly has concocted (Likely as a rationalization of his inability to achieve that which his ego perceived he was entitling to). Then let’s just assume that O’Reilly’s perception of the rest of the world is accurate. That the United States is the shining example of absolute perfect equality for women. He would have to agree that it was not always that way. If it was not was always that way, was it the “Stay the course”, “This is the way we do things here”, crowd who was responsible for this state of enlightenment or the “Hate America”, “Blame America First” crowd as Bill would call them who is responsible. Can Bill at least use this admission of progress to point out that expecting better than the status quo does not equate to hating America.
Thanks Bill
I'm so glad that we balding, overweight, pasty faced, old farts have you in our corner.
No longer will we have to share our God given rights with the unwashed masses and the women.
Man, between the "gay cabal" and the "women's cabals", how are we straight men ever expected to get ahead in the world?
I guess if we really work hard, maybe one day a straight man can actually lead our country as President.
*sigh*, a man can dream, can't he?
We straight white guys have a cabal. It's called "Congress." We let a few of "them" in to keep "them" off our trail.
What a disgusting being this guy is. Sometimes I can twist my mind in a certain, painful way and sort of understand his, well, for lack of a better word, logic, but this is just too freakin' weird. Viagra is a necessity and birth control is just fluff? Oh, I just made the Limbaugh connection! Now it's all so clear, just like a white out blizzard in the middle of the night!
"But I am a barbarian." There's a period at the end of that sentence. Shouldn't it be a comma, followed by a-hole, homophobe, racist, dope, etc.?
Those Aren't Organized Cabals, O'Leilly
You're witnessing women circling the wagons to defend against you and your Falaffel.
O'Reilly is correct. At one of the manufacturing plants ownd by my employer the ladies in a manufacturing department refer to them selves as Women Of E...., WOE. If you don't believe they mean to intimidate the male population and management you are sadly mistaken. BTW, all the women in W.O.E. are degreed engineers and managers. I know for a fact they are compensated pursuant their position and experience
O'Reilley is correct? About what? That cabals of women are harrassing men? Uh, huh. How exactly are women inmidating you at your workplace? By exising? By getting compensated a fair wage for the skills, education, and experience?
Something is sounding very pathetic....
How do women threaten you?
Do tell.
Monstermash, they refer to themselves as women, and have college degrees and management positions.
If you can't read the posts, read the writing on the wall; Incompetent and lazy white guys don't have it as good as they used to,
Speaking as a straight white guy who is occasionally lazy and incompetent, I am concerned.
Therefore, BilldO is correct.
Just SHUT-UP BO!
Gawd is he married to a woman?
"But I say the government is not gonna change that and that, in a lot of places, women have formed cabals to terrorize the men because they take advantage of..."
- Bill O'Reilly
Yeah! Like calling men "faggots" as a form of political debate!
"Yeah! Like calling men "faggots" as a form of political debate!" FabTemp
I can only assume that you are speaking of Ann Coulter?
A problem with your intended attack on women, is that Ann Coulter is not a woman. "It" is some sort of A-sexual creature that crawls out of the dark into the bright light of the media so it can hiss and spit venomous words at the world.
Maybe you can concentrate on the article about Bill O'Reilly, and not resort to attacking women?
Did you mean I attacked women by considering Ann Coulter to be one of us? I have always regarded a person's gender to be that with which they identify themselves, regardless of biology, prominent Adam's apples or vile degree of bottom-feeding.
I just figured that Coulter - as the woman I and, surely, Bill O'Reilly consider her to be - was included in this cabal of terrorizing men. You don't think O'Reilly would agree?
Reading your post again, it still sounds like you are using Ann Coulter's remark as an example to support Bill O'Reilly's position about women forming cabals to terrorize men. It sounded like you were in agreement with him, even though Ann's remarks are not related to this article. Because Ann Coulter, a woman, made the vile remark you spoke of, it sounded like you were saying, yeah women are capable of what O'Reilly is talking about.Of course I agree she a woman, but she's also not a cabal of women which is what the article is about. (I was just being flip about her being an A-sexual creature.... because her actions are so abhorrent, it's is disturbing to think of her as being an example of the female gender.) And yes, I suppose O'Reilly might include her in his cabal of women terrorizing men....though I don't think that Ann Coulter needs any "cabal" to help her. So what does your reference to Ann's name calling have to do with to do with this article, which is about O'Reilly's fixation on cabals of women intimidating men in the workplace, women wanting insurance coverage for birth control, etc.?
Because I was being sarcastic, Graydogs. This is a story about - of all people - Bill O'Reilly complaining about some reign of terror held by "cabals" of women by threat of SEXUAL HARASSMENT claims.
I was treating this complaint of O'Reilly's with all the seriousness I felt it deserved.
My sarcastic point was that Ann Coulter is the embodiment of all manner of stereotypes Neanderthals like O'Reilly claim to despise in modern women: "shrewish", "bullying", aggressive. Would O'Reilly include Coulter in these "cabals" terrorizing men like Coulter just attempted to do to John Edwards with a slur against his masculinity? Would any number of couch arm pounding Neanderthals who make up O'Reily's audience include her in that "cabal" of mean ol' bully women?
Of course they wouldn't. That was the sarcasm fodder in my post.
How you could have missed that though, baffles me. It was clear from my comment at least that I did not agree with Coulter's comment. What in the world would make you think I agreed with O'Reilly's if I'm obviously making fun of Coulter?
Fabtemp.....so WHY didn't you make that all clear in the first place, instead of inserting a one liner with no relationship to the article?
Your comment was vague, and for those that knew what it was about, and who said it, it actually supported O'Reilly's view that women can terroirze me. There was far more to the article than that anyway. It was about women forming cabals in the workplace and medical coverage for birth control, not about Ann Coulter and how O'Reily feels about her.
It wasn't sarcasm from my point of vview, and I read it over and over. You didn't give your point of view, you just dropped in mention of something (a WOMAN) said....which basically sounded like "Yeah! Here is what one woman said about a man, so I agree with O'Reilly's point of view".
There is no point in going on about what you meant, or didn't mean. Had you said in the first comment, what you just said now, it would have been clear.
I later saw some coments made by you in the the Ann Coulter article section, so maybe she was on your mind. But she really has nothing to do with O'Reilly and this article, and the ref. to her vulgar comments didn't work for sarcasim.
Oops.....supported O'Reilly's view that women can terroirze MEN.
I *got* the sarcasm. Just saying.
If it were just for his politics alone, I could honestly argue (not fight) with O'Reilly. Unfortunately, he's also a callous man who enjoys demeaning women. That type of man does not belong on a TV show during prime time teaching young men and teens "proper behavior" against women. Yes, against. There is nothing about this man that brings an honest, enablig discourse between men and women; all he brings to this table is priggishness and pigginess. That's sure not what I ever wanted my young men watching and beginning to form discussions with those issues as their backgrounds.
Perhaps I'm wrong (although I hope I'm not), but I was under the impression that no one took O'Reilly seriously anymore?
It is easy to see why Bill O'Reilly's ratings are so high and all his books are runaway bestsellers. We have devolved into a feminized society where men are generally browbeaten into castrated submission. It is refreshing to hear Bill O'Reilly in the mass media...a man who still has his balls and refuses to break 'em for anybody.