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

[dec.]

So in the mind of a conservative "God" co-invented the iPhone. That's an instant classic, thanks Mr Frost

Edit: next up - "God" is punishing Tim Cook for being gay by co-creating the Apple Watch

 

[bradl]

Why is it intrinsically better to be more diverse?

It isn't. This is the big liberal lie of the modern age. Merit is all that matters.

Tim Cook is just one more sucker whose mind is blinded by false guilt.

Steve Jobs was a white dude who created and nurtured Apple, and without him, we wouldn't have had the iPhone. Sure, there was a whole team working on it, but he was the crucial ingredient (along with God).

Tim Cook has created a culture which is anathema to such single-minded vision. By encouraging diversity, he is actively attacking the roots of creativity which are essential to provoke a revolutionary leap in technology.

so you prefer segregation? yes, or no? Keep themselves to themselves when it comes to work as well?

BL.

 

[steve333]

I'm biting my tongue

 

[oneMadRssn]

Why is it intrinsically better to be more diverse?

It isn't. This is the big liberal lie of the modern age. Merit is all that matters.

Tim Cook is just one more sucker whose mind is blinded by false guilt.

Steve Jobs was a white dude who created and nurtured Apple, and without him, we wouldn't have had the iPhone. Sure, there was a whole team working on it, but he was the crucial ingredient (along with God).

Tim Cook has created a culture which is anathema to such single-minded vision. By encouraging diversity, he is actively attacking the roots of creativity which are essential to provoke a revolutionary leap in technology.

Well you mentioned god, so you would think that a homogeneous group of white men is preferable. Also mentioning god tells me that your mind is so closed off that any viewpoint other than your own won't even be considered.

I don't worry about it though. Because when religious zealots are the minority, there won't be any affirmative action or diversity program so save them - they aren't worth saving.

 

[cfedu]

so you prefer segregation? yes, or no? Keep themselves to themselves when it comes to work as well?

BL.

I don't think he is talking about segregation. If a company has all female, all wjite, or all black staff, I would not care as long as they were all the best candidates. Men and women are different, there will always be an imbalance in certain fields of work. The imbalance does benifit men but that is no reason to discriminate against them, no one forces women to chose careers that pay less.

 

[mfvisuals]

Well you mentioned god, so you would think that a homogeneous group of white men is preferable. Also mentioning god tells me that your mind is so closed off that any viewpoint other than your own won't even be considered.

I don't worry about it though. Because when religious zealots are the minority, there won't be any affirmative action or diversity program so save them - they aren't worth saving.

Only a liberal would think that saying "Merit is all that matters." is equivalent to "...a homogeneous group of white men is preferable." You've made a potentially faulty assumption and an obviously faulty generalization.

Case in point, I believe in a God, but I don't think a "homogeneous group of white men" is preferable.

But considering that you don't think somebody is worth saving because of their religious beliefs, I'm guessing your a bit of a zealot yourself. The unstable liberal variety, that is.

Diversity can be a good thing, but not at the cost of overlooking merit and hindering technological progress.

 

[MarkNY]

Nice to know Apple is discriminating against white and Asian males.

 

[Badrottie]

I am deaf or hearing impaired I don't see any information about Apple hiring for disability people....I am very disappointed.

 

[Nausicaa]

I love how in this kind of discussion, people always discuss how the "most qualified" candidate should always get the job. As if it's always, or even the majority of the time, so obvious who that is. Especially at a company like Apple, there is going to be more than one qualified candidate. It's not like there is a perfectly objective numerical value you can assign. Ultimately, the choice of who to hire will be among many more or less equal candidates, and the hiring decision will always be based on some subjective preference for some aspect of their resume, experience, or identity/personality.

Also, the confidence with which people assert that women never get discriminated against based on their gender if they are "qualified" would be hilarious if it weren't so pervasive.

 

[CelestialToys]

I am proud to be a straight white male that understands and accepts that quite often the most meritorious candidate for an employment vacancy doesn't share my demographic.

It's such a shame that there are obviously still many who haven't caught up. Your children and grandchildren will be totally left behind if you continue to rely on white patriarchal privilege.

 

[Daku93]

Isn't giving out these numbers racist, too? At least in a certain way you are grouping the people again by skin color, religion or whatever. Shouldn't they just say: "We are hiring people from all over the world, based on their talent, regardless of their gender, religion, race, skin color"

 

[MarkNY]

I am proud to be a straight white male that understands and accepts that quite often the most meritorious candidate for an employment vacancy doesn't share my demographic.

It's such a shame that there are obviously still many who haven't caught up. Your children and grandchildren will be totally left behind if you continue to rely on white patriarchal privilege.

Lovely that you think Steve Jobs was a bigot.

 

[CelestialToys]

Lovely that you think Steve Jobs was a bigot.

Not quite sure how you jumped to that incredibly misjudged assumption.

 

[MarkNY]

Not quite sure how you jumped to that incredibly misjudged assumption.

Either Steve Jobs regime attempted to do what was in the best interest of Apple and hire the most qualified for open positions or he did not. You are certainly implying that he did not whether you realize it or not.

 

[CelestialToys]

Either Steve Jobs regime attempted to do what was in the best interest of Apple and hire the most qualified for open positions or he did not. You are certainly implying that he did not whether you realize it or not.

I really don't think you understood what I said in my original post.

 

[cfedu]

I am proud to be a straight white male that understands and accepts that quite often the most meritorious candidate for an employment vacancy doesn't share my demographic.

It's such a shame that there are obviously still many who haven't caught up. Your children and grandchildren will be totally left behind if you continue to rely on white patriarchal privilege.

What privilege are you talking about?
The privilege that male genitals are not protected under law like female genitals.
The privilege that female on male rape is not in the definition of rape by the DOJ
The privilege where family courts are biased against men,
The privilege to pay child support for children that are not yours
The privilege where some people think its wrong for men to defend themselves when hit by a woman
The privilege where male rape victims have to pay their rapist child support
The privilege to go to wars and die
The privilege where most scholarships are for women and minorities even though more women attend university than men.
The privilege that men have to be taught not to rape when just as many women rape men.

 

[Renzatic]

I love how in this kind of discussion, people always discuss how the "most qualified" candidate should always get the job. As if it's always, or even the majority of the time, so obvious who that is. Especially at a company like Apple, there is going to be more than one qualified candidate. It's not like there is a perfectly objective numerical value you can assign. Ultimately, the choice of who to hire will be among many more or less equal candidates, and the hiring decision will always be based on some subjective preference for some aspect of their resume, experience, or identity/personality.

I'm thinking the same thing. I doubt very seriously that Apple's hiring unqualified women off the street just so they can pat themselves on the back, and call themselves culturally progressive. The women they do hire are likely just as qualified as the men jockeying for the same position. There's no reason to assume otherwise based upon the limited information available to us.

The fact some people immediately jump to the conclusion that a more qualified candidate lost a deserved position just because they hired a few more women is pretty telling of their mindset.

 

[zin]

What privilege are you talking about?
The privilege that male genitals are not protected under law like female genitals.
The privilege that female on male rape is not in the definition of rape by the DOJ
The privilege where family courts are biased against men,
The privilege to pay child support for children that are not yours
The privilege where some people think its wrong for men to defend themselves when hit by a woman
The privilege where male rape victims have to pay their rapist child support
The privilege to go to wars and die
The privilege where most scholarships are for women and minorities even though more women attend university than men.
The privilege that men have to be taught not to rape when just as many women rape men.

The definition of rape was changed in 2012 by the DoJ.

 

[cfedu]

I'm thinking the same thing. I doubt very seriously that Apple's hiring unqualified women off the street just so they can pat themselves on the back, and call themselves culturally progressive. The women they do hire are likely just as qualified as the men jockeying for the same position. There's no reason to assume otherwise based upon the limited information available to us.

The fact some people immediately jump to the conclusion that a more qualified candidate lost a deserved position just because they hired a few more women is pretty telling of their mindset.

There is a difference between qualified and most qualified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ngly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/

"Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men."

The definition of rape was changed in 2012 by the DoJ.

Which does to include a woman forcing a man to penetrate a woman. If a man is tied up, and 50 women force him to penetrate them and it's not rape as per the 2012 DOJ definition of rape.

The new definition is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

 

[jkcerda]

I'm thinking the same thing. I doubt very seriously that Apple's hiring unqualified women off the street just so they can pat themselves on the back, and call themselves culturally progressive. The women they do hire are likely just as qualified as the men jockeying for the same position. There's no reason to assume otherwise based upon the limited information available to us.

The fact some people immediately jump to the conclusion that a more qualified candidate lost a deserved position just because they hired a few more women is pretty telling of their mindset.

Same qualifications but the bagina saved the day

 

[Renzatic]

Same qualifications but the bagina saved the day

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?

 

[Renzatic]

There is a difference between qualified and most qualified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ngly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/

"Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men."

They're now hiring more women than men, possibly. But there are still considerably more men than women in STEM positions, last I checked.

Now if it's merely a temporary trend to try and "even the playing field" so to speak, I don't have a problem with it. If it continues for the foreseeable future, then yeah, it could start to be considered discriminatory.

Which does to include a woman forcing a man to penetrate a woman. If a man is tied up, and 50 women force him to penetrate them and it's not rape as per the 2012 DOJ definition of rape.

The official definition is...

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

...which could be used equally for women and men.

Source

 

[cfedu]

They're now hiring more women than men, possibly. But there are still considerably more men than women in STEM positions, last I checked.

Now if it's merely a temporary trend to try and "even the playing field" so to speak, I don't have a problem with it. If it continues for the foreseeable future, then yeah, it could start to be considered discriminatory.




The official definition is...

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

...which could be used equally for women and men.

Source

It can't be used unless they penetrate his anus or mouth. The CDC also does not put men who are made to penetrate in the rape category, that is why the statistics show that more females are raped then men.

http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

 

[cfedu]

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?

Would you be Ok with a company using gender as a tie breaker and choosing men over women to break that tie. I would not, I would call that discrimination.

 

[jkcerda]

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?

You mean besides the obvious discrimination?