The problem is that's a subjective report. I know many women for whom less than fawning approval from men is deemed hostile. Computer geeks are notorious for treating women exactly like they treat men, which is to say cold and aloof much of the time, and for many women that would indeed feel hostile and isolating. It is not actual hostility.
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 New Diversity Numbers, Hired Over 11,000 Women in Past Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People wouldn't be thinking that were it not for people like Tim Cook who make box checking a conspicuous display of self-proclaimed virtue.
That's true but it's hard to avoid this since 2 in 3 Americans are white thus it's natural there's more of them everywhere. This is exactly why you have to look at these numbers in perspective to get a sense on what's going on and what they actually mean.
Does anyone think that those tech companies I've mentioned in my first post in all of which Asians are over represented heavily are this way because those companies are racist or very pro-Asian? It's quite the opposite it proves that talent is what matters the most not your race or gender.
I don't mind Asians having all these positions to them as long as they are the best candidates I don't mind that majority of basketball players are black as long as they put up a good game etc.
Unfortunately attempts are being made to fix what's not broken and that's never a good thing.
Because women's opinions only matter if they reflect your world view. How enlightened of you...
When we start to look at what college classes women take, it shows they don't participate very much in hard sciences like: computer science, engineering, physics & mathematics. So that shows the opposite of what your saying. It has less to do with discrimination and more to do with women's choices. Most women gear their careers toward professions that deal with people: Social workers, psychologists, health care, teachers ect.
Yeah, and if he wants to hire more women and minorities, that's his prerogative. Chances are better than good that your ability to get a job is still just as safe as they've always been.
See, the whole reverse discrimination and merit argument bothers me, because it assumes too much and ignores even more. It assumes that the status quo has always been fair and good, and that any attempts to change it are bigotry in and of themselves. As if the fact that white men hold more positions in job X or Y because they're the best suited, and any move to change that automatically means you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, handle what should be the meritless leftovers, to do so.
Because 11,000 women hired? Well, that's a bunch of chicks in a tech company! Kinda weird, ain't it? Can they do the job? Probably not, because if they could, there'd be 11,000 women hired already, am I right? So the only logical conclusion is that they can't, and the only reason these women have these 11,000 jobs is because we feel enough guilt and pity to give them one. But in the meantime, I'm merited, and I'm now suffering, and I don't have a job because of a bunch of white liberals feeling far too much white guilt!
...and yes. That's the only reason I don't have a job. It's because of those people! I am more entitled to that position than they are because I worked hard. That's the way it's always been. I'm sure everyone's screaming and crying about how hard it is to get a job, but you know what? If you worked harder instead of playing the victim card, you'd have one. Hell, we've got a black president now. I bet he didn't whine about his race even once!
So instead of whining for a handout, and expecting a job because of what you've got between your legs, or what color you are, do what I do and work hard for it, and quit whining! I never whine, but this is really unfair to me!
BLLALLALALARLLRLARLRLARLAR!
Interestingly enough, the majority of jobs in human resources are held by women, especially in Europe and the US at around 70% So your saying women are discriminating other women?
There are some positions that are traditionally filled more by women than men. The question is, are they doing this of their own volition, because that's where most women's interests lie, or because they're taking the usual available options?
Would you have said the 50 years ago when women and minorities were discriminated against. I guess there has never been discrimination, as it was the owners prerogative. Did this not affect their ability to get a job in the field they were trained to work in.
So, I guess the feminist movement was always about whining, all women had to do was work harder!!!
This is where the line on the great political divide is drawn.
You could probably break it all down into two schools of thought. One who believes racism and discrimination is all but over, and what we're seeing now are the after effects, people wanting to ride past tragedy for modern gain. And another who thinks that, while things are considerably better, they're nowhere near perfect yet.
It all comes down to how we view the actions of what we classify as other groups of people. Black and white people. Men and women. So on and so on. They view others through a lens of their own actions. I've never had to deal with police brutality, and the only reason I can see you are is because you're asking for it. I've had to work hard for my job, and the only reason you're not enjoying the same perks I am is because you haven't worked hard enough. Everyone sees everyone else as victims of their own actions. It's their own fault X happens to Y.
...until it happens to them. And then everyone gets whiny. This thread is pretty much proof of it. It all consists of a ton of people with a ton of he said she said anecdotal evidence that Affirmative Action has cost a friend of a friend of their brother their job because they wanted to hire more XYZ, and it's REALLY NOT FAIR! So many people willing to cast judgement, then want pity when things don't align in their favor. And when it comes from a group who's historically enjoyed a lofty position, it comes across as being incredibly whiny. Doubly so when it probably hasn't had any real effect on you.
Let's look at things from a levelheaded perspective. When your gloriously qualified, incredibly intelligent friends lost their position to a woman, was it actually because of AA, or did you just find it a convenient target everyone to project their anger at their friend losing the position to someone else? Can you prove it, or is it just something you think?
Without going into mentioning why, I'm just going to say that's completely untrue.
With all that you have not answered the question. You have already mentioned that you are ok with men being discriminated against.
Something is either discriminatory or not, just because it is short term does not make it any less wrong than the discrimination of the past.
When I hear feminist say that most CEO and board member are male, is there any proof of discrimination? How do you know that the males candidates were not the most qualified ones? If there is no proof of this discrimination can I call feminist whiners?
So the simple question is. Do you support affirmative action using the below definition?
affirmative action
- an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.
I'm interested in knowing your source. From the 2010 US census the white population is between 2/3 to 3/4 depending if you include white latinos or not.
The company in question is very publicly hiring women specifically because they're women. What is there to prove?
As for women being offended by the thoughtcrime of noticing and commenting on what's happening, so what? They should stop savoring the fruit while cursing the vine.
And that's entirely up to the discretion of the company. Just because they want to hire more women doesn't equate to men being discriminated against. The fact some people believe this is utterly ridiculous to me, especially when 70% of the company is still male. And the though they're just grabbing women off the street to fill a quota, rather than checking on qualifications...hell, that's just ignorance.
Why is it ridiculous? It happens all the time. I agree, if companies don't hire the best qualified people they are making a mistake. So did Apple not hire the most qualified candidates previously or are they not hiring the most qualified candidates now?
That's the best you can do? A baseless, snarky aside?
I guess that little bit of evidence left you no choice. Snark is all you had left.
As I said before, they used to hire the best individuals, now they hire the best team. The former matters less than the latter.
Can you source where you got that definition from?
Because in all of my looking into AA, all of my training in AA, and all of the application of AA in hiring that I've done while working for the state of California, doesn't match that definition.
Okay. How many men did they hire over this last year? According to Apple's diversity website, their recent hiring splurge has increased the number of women in the company by 1%. This leads one to believe they've still hired a goodly number of men, despite all this apparent discrimination going on.
So why is the question of qualifications suddenly so important?
Now I can agree with you all insofar that diversity for the sake of diversity isn't necessarily an answer in and of itself. But the way some of you are going about protesting it doesn't reflect well upon you personally.
"11,000 women? Holy crap! That's a lot! OLOL ARE THE QUALIFIED? They must not be, because DOOD! 11,000 women!"
It's not the protest, so much as the stated reasoning behind it, that for a woman to get a job, a more deserving man has to lose it, because there's literally no other way for that many women to get a job other than by the good graces of Affirmative Action.
The consideration isn't discrimination, especially when you considering how many men already work there, and how many were hired over the last year.
Last edited:
Employers have a specific number of employees they need to do the job, and no more. With a fixed pool of slots you would have to, say, hire 50% of the female applicants but only 20% of the male applicants to accomplish "hiring more women." That would be clear evidence of discrimination if women weren't the beneficiaries of it.
read my ninja edit above...
The consideration isn't discrimination, especially when you considering how many men already work there, and how many were hired over the last year.
Now if Apple were to only hire women from here on out to close that gender gap, you'd have a point. But for now, the whole argument strikes me as nothing more than Chicken Little stuff.
First one from a Google search of "affirmative action definition " . I think it's from the Oxford dictionary. The only reason I put in a definition was to make clear what I was talking about. I know there are many different definitions, but this one worked best for the point I was making.
Okay, explain this to me.
1. Apple still hired and continues to employ more while males than any other demographic over the last year. How does the hiring of these separate groups automatically lead to cases of discrimination against an entire group of people who are still being hired more heavily than the others?
2. How do you know that for every woman/latino/black/asian hired, a white male had to lose his job? How do you know those new hires weren't brought in due to heavier recruitment efforts in their direction?
Why assume the absolute worst, and make ourselves out to be victims of an unjust system that apparently still heavily favors us?
Being inclusive of one previously excluded doesn't absolutely require another to be excluded to take that one's place.