Apple Releases New Diversity Numbers, Hired Over 11,000 Women in Past Year

[citizenzen]

Nose hairs, granted. But his jokes are a stab at himself and the ages he came from. He's been nothing but good to science as a whole and to women in science. That's why he was invited and happy to speak at an event promoting women in science in South Korea.

Perhaps so.

He learned a tough lesson—that the words, "but seriously," don't magically turn whatever preceded them into a cute joke.

 

[Eraserhead]

Nose hairs, granted. But his jokes are a stab at himself and the ages he came from. He's been nothing but good to science as a whole and to women in science. That's why he was invited and happy to speak at an event promoting women in science in South Korea.

Which is why the consensus on Wikipedia is that he said something stupid, but that the reaction was totally over the top.

1) Doesn't list any tangible evidence.

Other than the MBA stuff etc...

And the transgender stuff seems pretty compelling since they were the same person before and after the sex change.

2) Deals with wage-gap stuff as if it's all due to discrimination and COMPLETELY avoids factors of personal choice on behalf of the women. ie, just because more women graduate from college doesn't mean they will earn more than men who do when they take degrees that earn less.

Why would women, on average, earn so much less then?

3) Again, opinion piece that states things as fact without any evidence. ie "women are seen as..."

How could they possible prove that?

4) This article doesn't explain or prove anything. It's short and just says the same old "poor women" narrative without backing it up. Like the other articles, this has more to do with women in parliament rather than the private sector.

Why is political representation not important?

This also reminds me that the countries in the world with the highest representation of women in STEM are countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps Iran isn't as sexist as "the West" tries to make out.

That's certainly my, albeit anecdotal, experience with Chinese women.

I have yet to see one that actually holds any water, especially since reality seems to go against their narrative.

Oh so half of the members of Congress are women, and half the judges, and half the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies?

The only valid argument is that women have the unique setback of taking time off when they have kids, although even this is a choice.

Do all societies provide equal parternity leave for men so they can also take time off?

And here's a final question for you: why is it so important to focus entirely on trying to convince women to enter the STEM fields, or politics, while perfectly fine to overlook all the other sectors that aren't so glorious?

Because we should be encouraging women to do their best and enter leading professions? Because if we don't we are losing half our talent.

And why not try to get some men into teachers/ECE position, currently around 90-95% female (depending on country)?

Yep, that lot needs to happen too.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Why would women, on average, earn so much less then?

Many reasons. For one, women are choosing professions that don't pay as much, such as social workers and teachers. Women are more concerned with personal job satisfaction and quality of life with more time for family. Work more part time vs full time. Don't negotiate very well for starting pay. Ask less then men for raises. So just like he said, its more to do with women's choices then anything else that determines how much money they make.

 

[Altis]

Why would women, on average, earn so much less then?

I wonder how much you really know about this stuff when you ask this. The "wage gap" has been beaten to death so many times by countless sources that it's embarrassing when people act like it must be discrimination.

The $0.77 gap myth comes from an average of full-time workers male vs female in the US. It factors in absolutely nothing, so it means little. It does not take into account things like occupation (a teacher makes less than an engineer, typically, for example), hours worked (average is 44.5 M vs 37.5 F per week), education required/skills, safety/risks, time off (ie. for kids), length of employment, etc.

Once you factor for all this the wage gap effectively disappears. It's been illegal to pay differently for equal work for 50 years.

What's most interesting is that in 147 of the 150 largest US cities, women under 35 (without kids) earn 8% more than their male counterparts while working fewer hours at safer jobs and in less lucrative fields.

How could they possible prove that?

They have to back up their claims. They can go on and on about the usual "women are oppressed" until they're blue in the face, but they need evidence of that. You can't just claim something as if it's true and expect to be believed with no evidence.

Why is political representation not important?

Why is it? In a democracy where 55% of the voting population is female, if what they really want is female politicians, they could vote them in. There is rightfully nothing stopping them from pursuing this path.

The thing is, people vote to elect representation of values and policy, not for genitals. You'd expect the outcome demographic to reflect the population it represents, and it's certainly heading that way. But it takes time, and there's no guarantee that it will ever happen naturally due to free will. Hence all-women-shortlists.

If women aren't opting to pursue those careers in the numbers that men do, then what?

Perhaps Iran isn't as sexist as "the West" tries to make out.

That's certainly my, albeit anecdotal, experience with Chinese women.

The competitions where they hand out women as prizes for memorizing verses in the Qur'an would illustrate otherwise, but you make a point. However, the women in those countries pursue degrees that will land them in well-paying jobs because that's what they need and it takes sacrifice to get there (not as many women attend college/university there). Women in the West pursue degrees in the Arts and Humanities, and take Gender Studies and History, because they have the luxury of being able to do so and going to post-secondary school is practically a given.

Oh so half of the members of Congress are women, and half the judges, and half the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies?

None of that validates the narrative. That there are 3/9 female supreme court judges proves that there is nothing stopping women from holding that position. Likewise, there are female members of congress (or parliament here in Canada and in the UK), and there are female CEOs. It is entirely possible to pursue and attain those positions.

What you need to prove is that an equal number of men and women are setting out to achieve those positions and the women are being unjustly dismissed and denied the opportunity. Otherwise, who's to say that women simply aren't pursuing those career choices of their own volition?

One last thing on this. Helping women get into the positions you mention helps around what... 1000 women tops?

Do all societies provide equal parternity leave for men so they can also take time off?

No, and I'm 100% for it, and I'd suspect most men would prefer to have the option. That's why I brought up that point for you.

Because we should be encouraging women to do their best and enter leading professions? Because if we don't we are losing half our talent.

We should be encouraging everyone to do their best and pursue their dreams and goals. But you only seem to care about making sure women succeed. Guess what? They are. They make up 2/3 of the college/university students, excel at all levels, have endless grants, scholarships, hiring preference, etc. There are only a handful of fields in which they are the minority (generally engineering/computers), and you want to make sure they are the majority of that too?

And what will you do if not enough are interested, no matter how hard you try? The ones who are interested will do it.

My sister is in high tech (GIS).. my sisters in law have their PHDs in mathematics and microbiology. My mother in law works in IT networking. Nothing stopped any of them from choosing those paths.

Yep, that lot needs to happen too.

Nobody has addressed it at all. The only thing that seems to matter is making sure more women are in high-paying, safe, comfortable jobs with reasonable hours. Nobody has complained that the roadworks crews, roofing, and water/sewage companies don't have enough women on their front lines.

Much of the battle seems to focus on the gender representation of the elite few at the very top -- something that nearly all women AND men are unable to attain, and those that do often make serious life sacrifices to get there.

PS. Forgive the length and complexity of the post, everyone.

 

[Eraserhead]

It does not take into account things like occupation (a teacher makes less than an engineer, typically, for example),

Which is probably sexist.

hours worked (average is 44.5 M vs 37.5 F per week),

Nope.

The European Commission defines it as the average difference between men’s and women’s hourly earnings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

education required/skills,

But women, especially young women, are just as well, if not better, educated these days...

safety/risks,

I don't think that the very small number of dangerous jobs, such as mining and logging, which are male dominated and highly paid makes much difference - although I'm sure it makes some.

time off (ie. for kids),

Which is probably sexist.

length of employment, etc.

It's true that if you switch jobs regularly you usually get paid more.

What's most interesting is that in 147 of the 150 largest US cities, women under 35 (without kids) earn 8% more than their male counterparts while working fewer hours at safer jobs and in less lucrative fields.

Source?

They have to back up their claims. They can go on and on about the usual "women are oppressed" until they're blue in the face, but they need evidence of that. You can't just claim something as if it's true and expect to be believed with no evidence.

It's like you've never spoken to a woman before...

Why is it? In a democracy where 55% of the voting population is female, if what they really want is female politicians, they could vote them in. There is rightfully nothing stopping them from pursuing this path.

Female politicians have you you know, stand for one of the largest parties, so there's plenty of room for sexism there.

The thing is, people vote to elect representation of values and policy, not for genitals. You'd expect the outcome demographic to reflect the population it represents, and it's certainly heading that way. But it takes time, and there's no guarantee that it will ever happen naturally due to free will. Hence all-women-shortlists.

Sounds sexist to me.

If women aren't opting to pursue those careers in the numbers that men do, then what?

However, the women in those countries pursue degrees that will land them in well-paying jobs because that's what they need and it takes sacrifice to get there (not as many women attend college/university there).

I'd have thought women in Iran could just get married, so I'm not clear why they have to take STEM subjects ther

None of that validates the narrative. That there are 3/9 female supreme court judges proves that there is nothing stopping women from holding that position. Likewise, there are female members of congress (or parliament here in Canada and in the UK), and there are female CEOs. It is entirely possible to pursue and attain those positions.

Yes, but there aren't as many as you'd expect given the number of women who do an MBA. And you wouldn't do an MBA otherwise.

We should be encouraging everyone to do their best and pursue their dreams and goals. But you only seem to care about making sure women succeed.

I've made it quite clear before that I think men should be taking more jobs in Nursing, Social Work, Teaching etc.

Nobody has complained that the roadworks crews, roofing, and water/sewage companies don't have enough women on their front lines.

I think they probably do actually.

 

[VulchR]

Eraserhead forgot to add that wages go down in professions that women start to join in numbers. bank tellers used ot get very high wages....

 

[cfedu]

Eraserhead forgot to add that wages go down in professions that women start to join in numbers. bank tellers used ot get very high wages....

I would agree to that is somewhat true, but as they say correlation does not equal causation. I think it has more to do with society just paying people less. Take my professional as an airline pilot, wages have gone down for all pilots and we are making less than we were 30 years ago. Unless you have a university degree in an occupation thats in demand, you very might be making less money.

 

[JAQ]

Diversity IS the new racism. Are you willing to be racist and support "Diversity" metrics based on sex or color or would it be a much better idea to gauge the character of a person and then give them a diversity ranking?

I would rather be what you call "racist" than a hateful little sociopath.

 

[Eraserhead]

Take my professional as an airline pilot, wages have gone down for all pilots and we are making less than we were 30 years ago.

Flying is a lot cheaper though.

 

[Altis]

Which is probably sexist.

If you think paying two completely different jobs different amounts is "probably sexist", then that's all we really need to know about you. Teachers and engineers are nothing alike, and female engineers outearn male teachers.

Nope.

The numbers vary state/country, but men consistently work more hours per week in full time work. You can take issue with why this might be, but it is the case.

The European Commission defines it as the average difference between men’s and women’s hourly earnings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap

From your own source:
In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers.

Honestly, read the rest of the article. The wage gap is dead, my friend. There are so many factors that to pretend it's discrimination is embarrassing.

Also, if companies could get away with paying women less, then wouldn't bother hiring men at all. None of this makes any sense.

But women, especially young women, are just as well, if not better, educated these days...

In what? They have more degrees at all levels, absolutely. But a PHD in Gender Studies won't net you what an Engineer makes.

I don't think that the very small number of dangerous jobs, such as mining and logging, which are male dominated and highly paid makes much difference - although I'm sure it makes some.

It makes a huge difference. The more dangerous, uncomfortable, and impractical a job is, the more you make. Think of every single resource industry (mining, gas, electricity, logging, oil, etc). A lot of this you get paid extra just for it being remote and you're gone for half the year at a time. It's a massive industry.

Which is probably sexist.

This says everything about you right here. Second time you've tossed this out.

It's true that if you switch jobs regularly you usually get paid more.

Not if you have large gaps in employment (ie. taking years off to have a family).

Source?

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

It took 2 seconds to search. This is just the top hit from Time. From the article...

"But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%)."

And recall that this is despite earning objectively less profitable degrees.

It's like you've never spoken to a woman before...

I state that you need evidence to back up statements, and you say I must not have spoken to a woman before. Are you implying women normally say things without evidence?

Female politicians have you you know, stand for one of the largest parties, so there's plenty of room for sexism there.

It must be from being too tired but I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Interesting enough, women tend to favor male leaders more than men themselves do. Bosses are one example: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-10-16/women-dislike-having-female-bosses-more-than-men-do

Sounds sexist to me.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a gender ideologue....

If women aren't opting to pursue those careers in the numbers that men do, then what?

How do you control for people's choices when you've given every equal opportunity? The next step is effectively communism (ie. forced outcome). In a free society and free market, people are free to choose what they want. If women are given every advantage and opportunity and still choose not to enter a certain demographic in >50% numbers, how will you force them to?

Yes, but there aren't as many as you'd expect given the number of women who do an MBA. And you wouldn't do an MBA otherwise.

Holding an MBA doesn't mean you're aiming for a CEO position any more than having a driver's license means you're attempting to be in the Grand Prix. There's a heck of a lot of risk and sacrifice to end up as CEO. You have yet to prove that it's discrimination that keeps women from those positions, especially considering that there are women in those positions.

I've made it quite clear before that I think men should be taking more jobs in Nursing, Social Work, Teaching etc.

Everything is about making sure that women make up at least 50% of the fields that they so desire. More than 50%? Perfect. The more the better. You'll never hear these same people complain when they have more than 50% (even at nearly 100%) women in fields they like, because that's Equality.

It's extremely selective where and how equality is to be desired and achieved, is it not?



I don't think you're interested in the facts, anyways, though. I think you're hooked on the narrative and you don't want to give it up. I had to.

If we're going to help women, we absolutely must stick with real issues that we can address using logic, reason, and facts.

Gender ideologues help noone... least of which women.