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

[KdParker]

Based on diversity numbers way more qualified women and visual minorities have been ignored than men. The problem when people respond to diversity initiatives with "they should hire the best person period" is that they don't define what makes the best person, and in many cases, assume that the most qualified person is a white man.

If I own a company that makes consumer products, I want my employees to have a wide variety of perspective, world view, and cultural backgrounds, otherwise my products end up coming out designed for one section of the market. If my employees are 90% white male, the products end up being suitable for, you guessed it, white males.

Sometimes being a non-white male is a qualification, if I already have many of them in my company. Qualification for a tech job is more than programming skill. Once an applicant has met the level required for the job, other qualifications such as perspective, world view, culture, interpersonal skills become much more important. And if that doesn't sit well with you, don't worry, if the percentage of white males drops so low because of diversity initiatives, there will soon be one for them too. Right now, that doesn't seem to be a problem - qualified white males are being hired in the tech industry everywhere. And to those that aren't able to find work, well, they may want to ask themselves if they're as qualified as they think they are.

In addition to this, consider that diversity initiatives aren't just about choosing which applicant to hire. It's also about recruiting. If you have recruiting events in a bar, run ads in specific locations or websites, you may not be reaching "the best qualified person" at all.

Well said.

 

[0098386]

The sad reality is that there is, and likely will always be, narrow minded people who will judge, hire and treat people differently based on their gender and ethnicity. I don't know industry you are currently in, but are you really putting your company in the best place to succeed by actively looking for women instead of actively looking for the best candidate? How is that not gender discrimination?

Because in the industry I work in there are lots of sexist guys. I know that not all guys are like that, but from talking with female friends in the industry, from speaking with my wife (who also works in it), we look for people that may have been fired or left because they were harassed. Recently I've been hiring a trans woman as a freelancer who left her work due to uncomfortable remaks from her previous coworkers - I needed someone with her work skills and when the choice came between her or others I hired her.

I don't know how I could have phrased my original post any clearer.

 

[0098386]

So one or two bad apples and you now try to hire only women. Change the bad apple to a black person and say that again and see the reaction you will get. Change it from man to woman and see what reaction you get.

I work in the male dominated industry of aviation and have seen both male and female get fired for doing inappropriate things. One of my fellow pilots sent an email to dispatch requesting he not be paired with female pilots. Guess what he got fired. I would have to say most of the female first officers that I fly with have all been top notch. At one time we had more female pilots than male as IMO male pilots quit at a faster rate, sometimes after only a few months.

If coworkers or vendors are doing inappropriate stuff, the the proper channels should be followed to fix the issue.

Please point out where I said I hired only women. It's funny when attempts to even the playing field a little become so problematic to some people. I work in a creative industry and have found hiring more diverse people makes the company better, the experiences are more interesting. It's been great for us.

 

[0098386]

I'm not understanding what you are saying. You say half are quitting within your company, but because of other companies?!? The idea here is to not simply hire more women, but to stop whats causing them to leave in the first place, sexual harassment.

I don't see any correlation where tech jobs have more harassment compared to any other jobs where men and women work together.

No not my company - another one we worked with. I'd rather not go into details, but in both cases the harassers weren't disciplined.
You might not see it, maybe women don't feel comfortable telling you? I don't know. All I know is the experiences I've seen by both me and my partner, and that we're doing what we can to help things even in such a tiny way.

 

[cfedu]

Please point out where I said I hired only women. It's funny when attempts to even the playing field a little become so problematic to some people. I work in a creative industry and have found hiring more diverse people makes the company better, the experiences are more interesting. It's been great for us.

You said

This is why I'll actively look for women to hire because so many have had horrible experiences from male employees. It makes sense to strive for and offer a safe workplace.

Not for diversity, but to keep women safe from men!!

I don't know how I could have phrased my original post any clearer.

You could have said, "I think it is ok to discriminate against white men"

I could think of many reasons not to hire qualified women, but it would be discrimination to do so.

 

[Zombie Acorn]

I guess it depends on the exact job. If you want programmers it doesn't matter what gender they are at all, however if you are hiring someone to create advertising targeted at a certain gender then you'll want people of those gender designing the ads.

Depends on the way the workplace is set up, many developers, myself included, have quite a bit of say in the development of products.

If it's a position where you are provided a schematic and are required to execute without deviation it may not matter.

 

[0098386]

You said



Not for diversity, but to keep women safe from men!!



You could have said, "I think it is ok to discriminate against white men"

I could think of many reasons not to hire qualified women, but it would be discrimination to do so.

Actively look for women (and other diverse people) isn't the same as hiring women only. Do I need to repost it again? The industry I'm in has been horribly sexist for the longest time, by creating a company where we hire people who have bad experiences or would like to avoid them completely, there's us. We don't hire horrible people basically. There's zero tolerance on harassment and that extends to the companies we work with too.

There's an old sketch that sums this up, I wish I could find it. It depicts two people in a race, a white man with no obstacles ahead of him, and a black woman with hurdles ahead, her ankle chained. But such is the difference between something like intersectional feminism where one understands the reasons there is inequality, who expects different things due to social conditioning - opposed to egalitarianism where we say right here and now that "everyone is now equal" despite backgrounds and history not being accounted for.

But yeah we're doing great for it. But beyond this I have no expectations to change your view with the experiences of others, and neither will you change mine.

 

[cfedu]

Actively look for women (and other diverse people) isn't the same as hiring women only. Do I need to repost it again? The industry I'm in has been horribly sexist for the longest time, by creating a company where we hire people who have bad experiences or would like to avoid them completely, there's us. We don't hire horrible people basically. There's zero tolerance on harassment and that extends to the companies we work with too.

There's an old sketch that sums this up, I wish I could find it. It depicts two people in a race, a white man with no obstacles ahead of him, and a black woman with hurdles ahead, her ankle chained. But such is the difference between something like intersectional feminism where one understands the reasons there is inequality, who expects different things due to social conditioning - opposed to egalitarianism where we say right here and now that "everyone is now equal" despite backgrounds and history not being accounted for.

But yeah we're doing great for it. But beyond this I have no expectations to change your view with the experiences of others, and neither will you change mine.

You are correct, you will not change my mind that one should be able to to actively hire one gender over another. You will also convince me that women have obstacles and men do not.

Could I ask which industry you work in that's horrible sexist?

 

[mrsir2009]

You could have said, "I think it is ok to discriminate against white men"

I could think of many reasons not to hire qualified women, but it would be discrimination to do so.

Why is discrimination automatically terrible, though? If someone thinks that their company will benefit from having more women, what exactly is wrong with looking for more women to hire?

 

[randian]

If someone thinks that their company will benefit from having more women, what exactly is wrong with looking for more women to hire?

Consistency. If I can't decide I want to hire men in preference to women, you can't decide to hire women in preference to men, no matter what euphemisms you hide your preference in.

 

[cfedu]

Why is discrimination automatically terrible, though? If someone thinks that their company will benefit from having more women, what exactly is wrong with looking for more women to hire?

Difference between hiring more women and hiring almost all women. In certain occupations there will always be an imbalance do to the sexual dimorphism of humans.

Would you be ok with someone saying "This is why I'll actively look for white to hire because so many have had horrible experiences from black employees. It makes sense to strive for and offer a safe workplace."?

 

[cfedu]

Consistency. If I can't decide I want to hire men in preference to women, you can't decide to hire women in preference to men, no matter what euphemisms you hide your preference in.

Pretty much and would mean that the feminist movement has been nothing but whining ever since women got the vote.

 

[iceperson]

Why? If they want to hire men because they're men, who cares.

Hmm, that doesn't sound right at all...

http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopost.pdf

RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, protects applicants and employees from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), or national origin.

 

[Renzatic]

Hmm, that doesn't sound right at all...

Right, but the problem is that some people here (you know who you are ) automatically assume that some form of discrimination has to have taken place after hearing that a larger number of women have been hired by a company.

It's ignorance shielded by a noble idea.

 

[richpjr]

Right, but the problem is that some people here (you know who you are ) automatically assume that some form of discrimination has to have taken place after hearing that a larger number of women have been hired by a company.

It's ignorance shielded by a noble idea.

Apple went out of their way to bring up the 11k female hires as progress. Why would they need to do this if they didn't change something? As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, the industry is heavily male dominated so it is perfectly logical to give one pause about the numbers without posters being Neanderthal bigots.

 

[cfedu]

Right, but the problem is that some people here (you know who you are ) automatically assume that some form of discrimination has to have taken place after hearing that a larger number of women have been hired by a company.

It's ignorance shielded by a noble idea.

Just as we should not assume that patriarchy exists and it is the reason why fewer women go into STEM fields.

It's ignorance shielded by a sexist idea.

 

[Renzatic]

Apple went out of their way to bring up the 11k female hires as progress. Why would they need to do this if they didn't change something? As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, the industry is heavily male dominated so it is perfectly logical to give one pause about the numbers without posters being Neanderthal bigots.

Because as I've been saying, one female hire doesn't mean it came at the expense of one male hire. I mean 11,000 women isn't that large of a number on a national scale. Is it so hard to believe that Apple could've hired these women based on their own merit? Why assume otherwise?

 

[richpjr]

Because as I've been saying, one female hire doesn't mean it came at the expense of one male hire. I mean 11,000 women isn't that large of a number on a national scale. Is it so hard to believe that Apple could've hired these women based on their own merit? Why assume otherwise?

Apple is touting the large number of women recently hired. Clearly they changed something and want the world to know about it. Why assume otherwise?

 

[cfedu]

Because as I've been saying, one female hire doesn't mean it came at the expense of one male hire. I mean 11,000 women isn't that large of a number on a national scale. Is it so hard to believe that Apple could've hired these women based on their own merit? Why assume otherwise?

You have also said this

The fact is, if a company wants to hire more women during a hiring cycle, that's entirely their prerogative. It's when it continues unabated for a long period of time, to the point that being a man could be a detriment to landing a job that it becomes an issue of opposing discrimination.

and this

So? If they're equally qualified, and each have an even chance of landing the same position, why is it such a big deal to hire the woman over the man just because you want a few more women in your workforce?

And you have mentioned that you agree with affirmative action for women. So it's not about 1 female for you, you support the systemic discrimination against men. I'm not saying Apple does this, but you would support it, if they did.

 

[Renzatic]

Apple is touting the large number of women recently hired. Clearly they changed something and want the world to know about it. Why assume otherwise?

Yeah, they've changed something. They wanted to hire more women, so they hired more women.

Now the question is, if the opposite were true, and Apple hired 66% less women this year, would you also assume discrimination against women as a default?

 

[linuxcooldude]

Just as we should not assume that patriarchy exists and it is the reason why fewer women go into STEM fields.

It's ignorance shielded by a sexist idea.

I find the same reasoning. In the feminist idea, its either being repressed by men and/or saying children are still being taught traditional roles like its still the 1950's.

 

[Renzatic]

So it's not about 1 female for you, you support the systemic discrimination against men. I'm not saying Apple does this, but you would support it, if they did.

You assume that 1 job for a women means -1 job for man. I support the merit system first and foremost, and assume that just because they hired more women, doesn't mean they put the merit system aside, or took the job from a more deserving male. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[cfedu]

Yeah, they've changed something.
They wanted to hire more women, so they hired more women.

Now the question is, if the opposite were true, and Apple hired 66% less women this year, would you also assume discrimination against women as a default?

I would assume that last year they had more male applicants and therefore hired more males, that is what I assume. This assumption would be supported considering more males graduate from STEM fields. It's nice to see that you have changed your mind and you are now assuming that Apple did in fact discriminate against men this year because they wanted to hire more women. I'm still not ready to make that assumption since more information is needed. Who knows, maybe they hired the 11K women in retail, because they want to exploit the wage gap.

 

[cfedu]

You assume that 1 job for a women means -1 job for man. I support the merit system first and foremost, and assume that just because they hired more women, doesn't mean they put the merit system aside, or took the job from a more deserving male. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

I made no assumption, I was trying to point out that you mentioned 1 job when it was 11,000 jobs.

 

[Renzatic]

I would assume that last year they had more male applicants and therefore hired more males, that is what I assume. This assumption would be supported considering more males graduate from STEM fields. It's nice to see that you have changed your mind and you are now assuming that Apple did in fact discriminate against men this year because they wanted to hire more women. I'm still not ready to make that assumption since more information is needed. Who knows, maybe they hired the 11K women in retail, because they want to exploit the wage gap.

Okay, there are only so many times I can repeat myself before I realize that the MESSAGE JUST AIN'T CLICKING IN! So allow me to be a little more eloquent in my approach to this conversation for a second.

See, the real problem is you're freaking out over absolutely nothing. Apple wanted to get more women in the tech field. They hired more women. In a more sane world, we'd say "oh well", instead of spending 18 pages coddling our dickballs, wailing oh woe is me over how unfair life under a capitalosocalicryptofashicommunist reign of tyranny (cuz goddamn that sounded snappy in that book we read one time) while tears gently roll down our cheeks, pitter pattering on our hope chests.

It's Apple hiring more women. End of story. Full stop. There are no assumptions they hired more males because it all but states as much in their diversity webpage. You cannot claim discrimination against an obvious majority, because if they were being discriminated against, they wouldn't be in the majority, now would they? I explained this previously. They just hired more women.

You are not being excluded. You are not being emasculated. Society isn't out to get you. For the love of god, quit your little circle jerk pity party. It's gone from being an interesting discussion, to just kind of pathetic.

You don't want to see the truth. You want to be a victim. You CRAVE it. And I don't want to play party to it anymore.