No snark. Just an observation of fact. You don't respect women. In your view they're not only incapable of getting jobs without preferential treatment, they're even incapable of thinking for themselves. Fortunately for them there are people like you to tell them what to study, what to think, and what careers they want to pursue...
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
No snark. Just an observation of fact. You don't respect women. In your view they're not only incapable of getting jobs without preferential treatment, they're even incapable of thinking for themselves. Fortunately for them there are people like you to tell them what to study, what to think, and what careers they want to pursue...
Okay. But there's a word in that definition that doesn't apply to AA as I've been instructed numerous times by the state of California — and I suspect more broadly. And that word is "favoring".
When AA was first established, and in the early years, there was indeed language that favored hiring women and minorities. For the past few decades, the government has moved away from that definition, and adopted a policy where AA states that race, gender, age, religion, or other protected classes cannot be used to exclude a person from the job search. Current AA regulations are about removing considering those classes as a basis for hiring, and all they ask is that those contracting with the government put in a good faith effort to not exclude people who have traditionally met with discriminatory practices.
Wow. You observed that, eh?
You apparently have quite a vivid imagination ... and seem to lack the ability to keep your fantasies to yourself.
This seems to be the new trend around here. Turn the tables, and show that it's YOU who are the racist/sexist/whatever.
"...are these women qualified to even work at a tech company like Apple? I mean I could get a few, but 11,000? I kinda doubt they are."
"Way to prove why we need AA in the first place there, guy."
"No! I hate AA because it assumes women aren't qualified to get a job without government assistance. YOU ARE A TERRIBLE HUMAN BEING! FOR SHHHAAAAMMMMMEEEE!"
This is just rationalization. The best candidates make up the best team. Working as a part of a team should be taken into account as a skill the best candidate would have.
You are quoting a playbook response that suppressed individual creativity and imagination for the "society balance" that every socialist has used since Wells published Utopia.
It does not, but if gender or race is a tie breaker then it is discrimination.
Why do you assume the system still favours us?
Oh, please. You can't accuse people of playing the victim card, then throw the socialist boogyman their way when you yourself and doing almost exactly the same thing.
"We need this because we're victims."
"And by using it, you're making MEEEE the victim"
Hell, I guess we're all victims of each other. Might as well get together, roast some s'mores over an open fire, then point fingers at each other after we're done.
Logic is optional.
What matters is getting good product out and making money. Steve knew this after every social justice parasite from Berkeley showed after he cashed in on the Apple ][. After getting kicked out and into NeXT, he purged these types and kept them out of Cupertino upon his return after getting burned. With Steve gone, the social justice parasites are back.
Anything placed ahead of production for "social justice" will compromise company performance. The liberal dreamers with no product goes after money holders pitching an ideal utopia vision that somehow is better than the status quo.
Meanwhile, victim chiefs are cashing in leading self martyrdom. The sad thing is these monitory leaders make problems to victimize their own people to keep them in lower status. Learn the playbook.
Last edited:
You could be correct, but hiring for the best team could be used as a great way to introduce discrimination. If a woman who is more qualified does not get hired or a promotion, the employer can just say "we do not hire based on the best candidates we hire who us best for the team."
Only in a theoretical sense. The fact that someone was deeply considered beforehand is proof it isn't. Plus...
Apple said that during the first 6 months of last year's hiring cycle, 50% of those hired were either women, black, Latino, or Asian. By their wording, it seems the other 50% were us bog standard white males.
Now 50% seems like a lot, but you have to consider that it takes all 4 people categories to match that other 50% for that first 6 months. If we assume that all categories are equal, that means that they hired 12% women, 12% black, 12% Latino, and 12% Asian compared to that 50% white male category. Of course it won't be split that evenly, but it still gives you an idea of the disparity.
...which I'm not bothered about too much. My main issue are those who are claiming discrimination. That we're somehow victims of a system dead set against us.
We can also safely assume that percentage was even higher in our favor for the next 6 months, because otherwise Apple would be tooting their horn over it.
So we represent a demographic that still makes up the vast majority of hires on a racial basis, yet...
...we're being discriminated against?
You can't make any assumptions unless you know how many applications Apple had.
What evidence do you have that their is a system that favours us?
No one on either side if this thread can make any assumptions that anyone has been or has been discriminated against,. What I can say if that if gender is or was a factor in hiring I would call that discrimination.
You still did not answer if you support affirmative action?
Now there's a door that swings both ways.
Apple's own diversity page way back on page 1. If white males still make up the vast majority of hires, how can you claim discrimination against white males?
I'd say discrimination can't be judged on a per case basis, since you can skew individual experiences in any direction you want.
Like if a white guy gets hired over a black guy, despite the fact he's better suited for the job than the person chosen, does the black guy have a case against discrimination? Probably not, unless the company has an ongoing history of doing so.
The same applies for white people. An individual might've been passed in favor of hiring a black guy or Hispanic woman, but that isn't a case of discrimination in and of itself. Especially when considered against the fact that Apple probably hired over 20,000 other white guys over the course of last year.
Yeah, sometimes. I think everyone freaking out about it don't understand exactly what it is, and what it isn't.
...and what it isn't, is quotas.
Those don't roast well over a fire, man. They turn into really nasty raisins.
Yes, that is why I said no one can make assumptions on it without more information.
How does that show that there is or was discrimination against females. Apple could hire 100% of all female applicants and still have 90% plus of there hiring comprised of men. The missing information is how many qualified applicants did apple have? Again you have not shown how the system favours men. We need more information before assumptions can be made.
I don't think anyone is freaking out, some people just believe gender should be a tie breaker on someone being hired. Again i'm not saying Apple has done this, but if it has I would not agree with it.
Without more information on the types of positions hired for and the numbers of applications for the positions these numbers could mean nothing. If the 11K women hired were all in retail, I would say that this is a step back for women.
One of us thinks women are qualified to get the jobs they want without the need for discrimination. The other one is you...
Look at it again. Whites are underrepresented at Apple when compared to the demographics of the US. Anything short of matching representation is proof of sexism/racism according to quite a few posters in this thread...
Yeah, and my major problem is that most of this thread has been people getting angry at this practice based upon their own assumptions. I can go by Apple's numbers, and extrapolate from that to see how many of what category of people have been hired, but their hiring practices and whatnot themselves? That's a mystery to everyone.
There's a historical lack of female applicants in the tech sector, and a big push, both from women and companies to change that. This, I have no problem with. More women want to work in the tech sector, and now they're getting the chance.
Now the question of qualified applications? I'm wondering why it's even coming up. It's not anyone's place to assume the worst here, and there's no evidence to believe Apple's hiring unqualified women just to hire women. So why ask the question at all? It's one of those things that makes the people who ask it look...uncouth when it's said. Like you're expecting an answer because you hold women to a lower standard, and you demand accountability because you believe someone better had to give up their shot at the position for it to happen.
This probably isn't the case for most people, but bringing it up won't be doing anyone any favors. It's like hearing your company hired a Mexican guy, and you say "really? Can he speak English? Why didn't we just hire a guy who we know can speak English?" You're assuming far too much on far too little, and you won't come out of that looking like anything but an ***hole.
As for the system favoring men. Let me change that a bit. It doesn't favor white men specifically, but it doesn't do a thing to marginalize us, either. They're still the major applicants, and still the vast majority of hires. Just hearing that Apple has hired more women shouldn't be a concern to anyone.
In the end, a situation like that would come down to a coin flip anyway, so it's really not discrimination. It's an arbitrary decision made over two people who had a very good chance of getting the job.
I don't think it's worth the fretting. It's merely that Apple hired 11,000 women because they wanted to hire 11,000 women, and that should be the end of it.
Now, okay, I'll admit, if things do swing terribly in the opposite direction, and we're all heavily discriminated against, I'll be the first to sign up for the local Men's Right outfight, and start writing life affirming power poetry about my penis. But for now, I see no reason to worry, nor any reason to worry at any point in the future.
54% are white. We still make up the majority. The next closest majority is Asian, which makes up 18%, which is, yeah, vastly overrepresented when compared to the population, but...eh. I don't give a damn.
That is correct!!! 100% agree. What I would not agree with, is if the coin falls on heads 95 times out of 100.
If the coin fall on heads 95 times out of 100, I would say one of the candidates did not really have a very good chance of getting the job after all.
That assumes if women really want to get in the tech field. Checking on what fields of study women take in college show they don't take tech related subjects necessary to get them in those types of jobs. Most women already had a chance to get in tech, the majority simply didn't want to do it, which is the choice they made. As you said your self the majority of applicants are men, so obviously more will get hired.
How come the percentage of women taking computer science is lower than in the 1980s?
Listen, the issue is that you believe racism and discrimination are acceptable and your hiding behind the false idea that profits are being hurt.
This claiming that Steve agrees with your 'social justice' BS is acutally sad. But your arguement is weak and not based on facts.