Okay, the way you previously put it had me believing you were referring to Apple's hiring practice. My mistake.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases Employee Diversity Report, 7 out of 10 Workers Are Male, 55% White
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Okay, the way you previously put it had me believing you were referring to Apple's hiring practice. My mistake.
I don't think they could account for such a large difference (70% male) either, but they could account for a certain amount of difference if they were to exist. You can only assume that they don't exist. It's hard to make any argument that they think exactly the same, especially comparing the different primitive instincts of the husband to the wife.
Natural talent is undeniable. People are born with different brains and bodies. Some are classified as mentally disabled and may be disadvantaged or advantaged at certain things. Genetics account for many physical differences that would affect how well someone performs certain tasks. The most obvious imbalance is that women tend to be smaller than men and less muscular, making them less suitable for construction work. I would not be surprised if men were biologically less patient (I would guess because of hormones) and therefore less suitable as kindergarden teachers. Eastern Asians have a lower average height than other racial groups, etc.
Last edited:
I agree for the most part (though testosterone level disparities might mean 52/48 is the closest we could get), which is why I think the increasing gap between women and men in high school GPA/college graduation is a sign that, while the world is tilted towards men at "the top" (CEOs, etc.), it is very much tilted towards women "at the base" (secondary/tertiary school support). It will be interesting to see if the current trend in education attainment helps alleviate the disparity at the top, but I worry about where that will leave men in a few decades.
Natural talent is very much a real thing. Look at athletes. Look at musicians. Sure, the best ones put in the most hours, but what you don't see are the people who put in the hours but simply don't make it to the top... because they don't have as much natural talent. And no, you're right, male-female biological differences aren't large enough to account for the current executive disparity (more variation within the groups than between them) but such a difference does exist, even it is is small. Male brains (more gray matter and larger brains as a whole) and female brains (more white matter) are different. Even if the end result (intelligence) is the same, how they go about it is different. The differences have to show up somewhere (even if it is only the consistently-found-yet-not-very-applicable difference in verbal (female) or spatial (men) reasoning ability).
Last edited:
I really don't care about diversity in the work place. To be honest I think it's silly. Hire the best person for the job regardless on if they are male/female/asian/black etc etc. I say this as a female in IT that is in the minority here.
But it's unrealistic to expect such a one sided employment of any race, in diverse areas. That doesn't happen naturally.
You could blame some things for that, but not the corporations hiring them. Now I don't know why, but I know only one black person studying computer science. Blame the schools or society, but Apple doesn't have anything to do with that.
Quit trying to make things "fair" don't hire someone because of their color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. hire them because they know their $#!^.
If 90% were white and male, but they were the right person for the job then so be it! I don't see the problem. Reverse discrimination in this country has taken away our American culture, even to the point where high schools can have "Asian Club" or "African American Club" but try to start a "Anglo Club" and you are labeled a "Racist".
If 90% were white and male, but they were the right person for the job then so be it! I don't see the problem. Reverse discrimination in this country has taken away our American culture, even to the point where high schools can have "Asian Club" or "African American Club" but try to start a "Anglo Club" and you are labeled a "Racist".
I actually already talked about it in detail in another post. If you're really interested, I think it's on page six of this forum. If you're not, you'll likely just forget you ever asked. Either option is fine.
Quote and comment
I forget who said the following quote, but it is a well respected business man, and the reply from his boss.
"Do you want me to hire the best man for the job? Or the minority?"
"Yes."
In essence, this quote is about the advantage of having a lot of different people with different perspectives and cultural heritage, something I am all for.
I am an egalitarian, and strongly believe in treating everyone the same, no matter gender, race, sexual preference, etc. I don't however believe that it is right to make a conscious effort to hire people of a specific group. You don't make discrimination right by trying to make up for it. You just fix it by not discriminating. In making a conscious effort to hire the kind of people that they don't have many of, aren't they discriminating against the groups they do have many of?
If anyone disagrees, I would encourage you not to get angry with me. I'm not trying to be controversial, this is just my point of view.
If the low number of women is a result of discrimination, then there was a problem. The fix is not to go on a women hiring spree. It's to just not discriminate in the future. This is how I feel about all cases of discrimination.
Anyone wants to comment on this, do quote me. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, and would be unlikely to read it if I don't get a quote notification.
Thanks for reading.
I forget who said the following quote, but it is a well respected business man, and the reply from his boss.
"Do you want me to hire the best man for the job? Or the minority?"
"Yes."
In essence, this quote is about the advantage of having a lot of different people with different perspectives and cultural heritage, something I am all for.
I am an egalitarian, and strongly believe in treating everyone the same, no matter gender, race, sexual preference, etc. I don't however believe that it is right to make a conscious effort to hire people of a specific group. You don't make discrimination right by trying to make up for it. You just fix it by not discriminating. In making a conscious effort to hire the kind of people that they don't have many of, aren't they discriminating against the groups they do have many of?
If anyone disagrees, I would encourage you not to get angry with me. I'm not trying to be controversial, this is just my point of view.
If the low number of women is a result of discrimination, then there was a problem. The fix is not to go on a women hiring spree. It's to just not discriminate in the future. This is how I feel about all cases of discrimination.
Anyone wants to comment on this, do quote me. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, and would be unlikely to read it if I don't get a quote notification.
Thanks for reading.
Yeah that's a good point. I think the outliers of super powerful men hide the reverse side of men who are not in those positions. Men generally make more money because there is still a lot of older people from a different time, but looking at younger people, women make more money then men and are better educated. I think women tend to have more structured lives that limit their upside, but also limit their downside. When you compare them to men, you have some young men starting billion dollar companies, and some going on killing sprees. Men have generally been left to sink or swim on their own. If you were to graph it on a histogram, women's life outcomes would have a very narrow range and skinny tails (less billionaires, but also less homelessness, criminality, suicide, etc.) and men would have have much fatter tails. I don't think these things are unrelated. Who knows what the future looks like.
even to the point where high schools can have "Asian Club" or "African American Club" but try to start a "Anglo Club" and you are labeled a "Racist".
I agree with what you said before, but to be fair, Asian Club and African American Club are supposed to be cultural or national things, not racial. My high school had no English Club, but that's only because it had very few English students (not referring to the subject). We did have a Christian Club.
All this forced "diversity" is just a bunch of B.S.
If you honestly hire the best person for the job, regardless of race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc., good for you. That's all that matters.
Who cares if Apple's employees are 55% white or 70% male?
The STEM fields are heavily dominated by males in college, so it makes perfect sense that the majority of STEM jobs are filled with males.
If you honestly hire the best person for the job, regardless of race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc., good for you. That's all that matters.
Who cares if Apple's employees are 55% white or 70% male?
The STEM fields are heavily dominated by males in college, so it makes perfect sense that the majority of STEM jobs are filled with males.
Disclaimer: White male here.
I believe the idea and goal of diversity in well paying jobs is a just and noble one.
But HR departments of companies like Apple are not the front lines of that battle. Socially conscious companies need to put their diversity efforts into grassroots and community efforts to get and keep minorities in primary and secondary education, and promote higher standards in their academic performance, so that they can have better higher education opportunities, and have a better grasp on what those opportunities will afford them. Then the diverse applicants who show up at the interview will stand on equal footing, and provide justification for their being hired. The pipeline needs to be fed. You can't pull qualified diverse applicants out of a supply that is lacking, and expect the system to improve.
Perhaps Apple could better spend $3.2 billion on community outreach, instead of investing in a new employee who gained his fame glorifying street violence via his music...
I believe the idea and goal of diversity in well paying jobs is a just and noble one.
But HR departments of companies like Apple are not the front lines of that battle. Socially conscious companies need to put their diversity efforts into grassroots and community efforts to get and keep minorities in primary and secondary education, and promote higher standards in their academic performance, so that they can have better higher education opportunities, and have a better grasp on what those opportunities will afford them. Then the diverse applicants who show up at the interview will stand on equal footing, and provide justification for their being hired. The pipeline needs to be fed. You can't pull qualified diverse applicants out of a supply that is lacking, and expect the system to improve.
Perhaps Apple could better spend $3.2 billion on community outreach, instead of investing in a new employee who gained his fame glorifying street violence via his music...
Still waiting for the source that says Apple uses a quota? Should I come back around post 799,934,333,634?
Apple might encourage more diverse people to apply, but quota? Source or doesn't exist.
Apple might encourage more diverse people to apply, but quota? Source or doesn't exist.
You are being illogical again. You previously stated that it would be good if women were the majority, now you mention equality?
Male feminists boggle the mind.
Some angry poster earlier mentioned a quota, and I ignored him. Furthermore, I'm done here. It's wasting too much of my time. I like tech better than politics.
Not the case. Your surveying abilities seem to be lacking, but it's okay, we understand.
Equal representation would be 49/51, which would make women a slight majority mathematically.
I actually already talked about it in detail in another post. If you're really interested, I think it's on page six of this forum. If you're not, you'll likely just forget you ever asked. Either option is fine.
I read your response. It was as irrational as all your other posts.
I think hiring quotas are the wrong way to go, and it is illegal to discriminate based on race or gender. If they genuinely think females or racial minorities are underrepresented, they should consider how to attract more of those applicants.
You are being paranoid, and on their end that would be illegal.
It's still not a race though. Native american is the dumbest made up name of all as anyone born in the us us a native american. People born here are native north american's.
Well, it's not trying to stereotype an entire group of people and ignore all the various cultural differences among the people of the region. It's just a generic classification of a region of people with similar traits. Much the same way people from Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. are considered "asian", or people from Germany, Sweden, England, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. are "caucasian". People from Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, etc. are "hispanic".
They're not meant to imply any connotations, positive or negative. They're just culturlal/haplotypical umbrella terms.
Well yeah, it's a racial topic on the internet. It's got nowhere to go but down.
Gosh, you really are irrational. 49 does not equal 51. You constantly prove my points for me.