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

[peterdevries]

I think you're also missing the point.

If a company is factoring in a person's race and/or sex when going through resumes, then there is already something wrong with the way that company is handling its hiring practices. Any decent business would vet potential candidates by the credentials within their resumes and impressions made during interviews, not their gender or race.

I'm not missing the point at all. The point is that in most companies there IS something wrong with the hiring practices. Not out of some malicious objective setting or purposefully, but often out of a focus on the current company structure, old selection practices based on names, specific universities or schools and places of birth. Many companies miss many brilliant people because -without doing it really purposefully- they focus on specific resume patterns that exclude certain groups.

That is what this is about. It is not about adding additional races and genders to any company to make it represent society. It is about making sure that all have a similar chance, where they previous didn't.

 

[jkcerda]

So?

So I dint think you can hire 11k women in one year w/o discriminating men in the process

 

[Renzatic]

So I dint think you can hire 11k women in one year w/o discriminating men in the process

But would you say the same thing if they hired 11k men?

 

[cfedu]

By this point, it's less like you're trying to prove a point, and more like you're trying to be right.

The DOJ has expanded the definition of rape to include men and women both in 2012. The DOJ is the last word on the subject. Plain and simple. Dead stop. Any other definitions don't carry any weight in any legal capacity whatsoever.

Don't be indignant for the sake of being indignant. You have what you claim to want.

Ok Troll, the DOJ definition one last time

“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.”

http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2014/04/04/fbi-clarifies-definition-of-rape-noh/

Some reading from a feminist who believes in equal rights.

 

[jkcerda]

But would you say the same thing if they hired 11k men?

If they hired the men under a "diversity" program them YES

 

[Renzatic]

Ok Troll, the DOJ definition one last time

“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.”

And I've explained that penetration is a prerequisite for rape, and that definition has to be specific. You don't want to create a situation where coping a feel of a boob or butt cheek lands you in prison for 10 years, and gets you a permeant spot on the sexual offender registry, do you?

I could tie a woman to a bed, and only give her an upper body massage, and that wouldn't be considered rape. It'd still be a criminal act, of course, but it wouldn't be rape because there's no real physical violation involved (it's just creepy as hell). Rape is a very specific thing that carries an incredibly heavy penalty. You want to define the crime in narrow and simple terms, which this does, lest you create a situation where EVERY transgression could be construed as an act of rape.

You can be forced or coerced into penetrating a vagina or anus. The law considers that. And of course oral penetration works both ways. You have the legal protection you claim you lack.

 

[jkcerda]

And I've explained that penetration is a prerequisite for rape, and that definition has to be specific. You don't want to create a situation where coping a feel of a boob or butt cheek lands you in prison for 10 years, and gets you a permeant spot on the sexual offender registry, do you?

I could tie a woman to a bed, and only give her an upper body massage, and that wouldn't be considered rape. It'd still be a criminal act, of course, but it wouldn't be rape because there's no real physical violation involved (it's just creepy as hell). Rape is a very specific thing that carries an incredibly heavy penalty. You want to define the crime in narrow and simple terms, which this does, lest you create a situation where EVERY transgression could be construed as an act of rape.

You can be forced or coerced into penetrating a vagina or anus. The law considers that. And of course oral penetration works both ways. You have the legal protection you claim you lack.

Thanks for the tips. Does the law cover sheep?

 

[Renzatic]

If they hired the men under a "diversity" program them YES

So the mere existence of a "diversity" program means all hired positions are automatically suspect?

You're creating a no-win situation here. Without a "diversity" program, you might have companies continuing the status quo, meaning, possibly, less women earning a position they're perfectly qualified and capable of handling. But with a diversity program, those positions should automatically be considered unearned and stolen from someone more capable as a default.

Thanks for the tips. Does the law cover sheep?

Sheep don't care none. You're still good.

 

[cfedu]

And I've explained that penetration is a prerequisite for rape, and that definition has to be specific. You don't want to create a situation where coping a feel of a boob or butt cheek lands you in prison for 10 years, and gets you a permeant spot on the sexual offender registry, do you?

I could tie a woman to a bed, and only give her an upper body massage, and that wouldn't be considered rape. It'd still be a criminal act, of course, but it wouldn't be rape because there's no real physical violation involved (it's just creepy as hell). Rape is a very specific thing that carries an incredibly heavy penalty. You want to define the crime in narrow and simple terms, which this does, lest you create a situation where EVERY transgression could be construed as an act of rape.

You can be forced or coerced into penetrating a vagina or anus. The law considers that. And of course oral penetration works both ways. You have the legal protection you claim you lack.

Never said there was not legal protection, the DOJ definition does not provide legal protection for anyone as it is not a law.
The rape laws of each state are what protects people. The only reason I bring up the DOJ definition is that is minimizes male rape victims as it it hides what is really happening in society. If men who are raped know that there are others and that it is very common, almost just as common as male on female rape it would help them. If male rape victims had as much support as female victims, maybe it would help reduce the dramatic effect that male rape survivors have. With the high male suicide rate there should be more resources and information available.

There would be other benefits of having better statistics since almost just as many men are raped by women every year, maybe there should be a unified approach to tackle rape without a gender bias.

You have heard the saying that victims become the abusers, maybe is a male victims gets help, it can prevent man from becoming a rapist, there are so many positives from better information.

 

[jkcerda]

So the mere existence of a "diversity" program means all hired positions are automatically suspect?

You're creating a no-win situation here. Without a "diversity" program, you might have companies continuing the status quo, meaning, possibly, less women earning a position they're perfectly qualified and capable of handling. But with a diversity program, those positions should automatically be considered unearned and stolen from someone more capable as a default.



Sheep don't care none. You're still good.

When you hire 11 k in one year YES
Good , I was getting worried for a minute

 

[richpjr]

So?

So it almost assuredly means that some white men that were more qualified than some of those women did not get hired because they were white men.

 

[jkcerda]

So it almost assuredly means that some white men that were more qualified than some of those women did not get hired because they were white men.

Why does the color make a difference?

 

[Renzatic]

There would be other benefits of having better statistics since almost just as many men are rapped by women every year, maybe there should be a unified approach to tackle rape without a gender bias.

I will give you this. Female rape is definitely a more visible, well documented crime, with far better victim support. Though I will argue with you that male rape is just as common, not due to any gender biases, but because male rape generally goes unreported, and is barely even thought about outside of prisons. We simply don't know how common it is.

 

[Renzatic]

So it almost assuredly means that some white men that were more qualified than some of those women did not get hired because they were white men.

I say this is an ignorant default to assume. You can't prove it, you can only believe it, and the assumption itself is a bit ass backwards.

And despite the fact that 11k women were hired this year, women still only make up 30% of Apple's entire workforce, per their diversity website.

 

[cfedu]

I will give you this. Female rape is definitely a more visible, well documented crime, with far better victim support. Though I will argue with you that male rape is just as common, not due to any gender biases, but because male rape generally goes unreported, and is barely even thought about outside of prisons. We simply don't know how common it is.

But we do know, Have you heard of the 1/5 women have been raped survey? Well in that same survey the CDC found that Female on male rape was at the same amount as male on female rape in the previous 12 months. The CDC survey that the 1/5 statistics comes from also says the women rape men at about the same rate as male rape females. (if made to penetrate is considered rape)

With prison rape included, way more men are victims of rape.

 

[zin]

Wrong it's black and white.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-one-in-five-american-women-have-been-raped/

"The CDC’s Lenard cautioned against equating the two categories, as the “made to penetrate” category is a relatively new category that is still not fully understood. Women, she also noted, are less likely to report experiences of sexual violence than men."


“The difference between ‘rape’ and ‘being made to penetrate’ is that in the definition of rape the victim is penetrated; ‘made to penetrate’ by definition refers to cases where the victim penetrated someone else,” she said. “We do not recommend equating or making direct comparisons of rape to MTP given that we view them as distinct types of sexual violence with potentially different sequelae.”

Doesn't matter what the CDC says. The DoJ already changed the definition.

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I see no contradiction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics definition and the Department of Justice definition. It doesn't state the gender of the offender. It merely states that the "offender" initiated the act of "penetration". It doesn't say that the act of penetration must be initiated by the man.

The Department of Justice even states men are included as victims in cases you cite.

For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men.

Maybe you are reading it wrong? I see nothing in both definitions that excludes penetration initiated by the woman without the consent of the man (the "victim", as the definition states).

 

[cfedu]

Doesn't matter what the CDC says. The DoJ already changed the definition.

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I see no contradiction with the Bureau of Justice Statistics definition and the Department of Justice definition. It doesn't state the gender of the offender. It merely states that the "offender" initiated the act of "penetration". It doesn't say that the act of penetration must be initiated by the man.

The Department of Justice even states men are included as victims in cases you cite.



Maybe you are reading it wrong? I see nothing in both definitions that excludes penetration initiated by the woman without the consent of the man.

“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.”


A woman can not rape a man unles she penetrates his anus with a finger, penis or objec, or his mouth with a sex organ. Since a woman does not have a penis the can not rape a man through vaginal sex with the DOJ definition. I guess if she penetrated his mouth with her clitoris that could also be rape.

"Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender"

The offender is being penetrated in this case and is therefore not raped by DOJ definition. It is rape by law and a women would get convicted of rape in this case, but the event would not be included in rape statistics but rather put in sexual assault category.



Men are included if they get raped in the anus by a woman or man. They are included when they are raped as per the definition but the definition states that they have to be penetrated. During conventional sexual intercourse as man is not usually penetrated. Before this new definition prison rape was not considered rape.

 

[haravikk]

It's the quality of the people that matters. Not race or sex.

This; diversity is fine, but what's most important is why these people were hired, if they're being hired only because they're women, or from an ethnic minority, then they shouldn't have been hired, that's not discrimination, in fact it's true equality.

Put another way; it's fine for a company to hire mostly white men, if those men happen to have the best qualifications for the job. While it points to a larger issue (i.e- why is that the case?), as long as a company isn't passing up qualified women or non-white men then that's not the company's fault.

While things are definitely changing, there's far from equal representation in software development courses, so it's only natural that that same male-biased mix carries forward into the workplace. It means that if there is a problem, then it lies with why women aren't taking those courses, but that could be a result of cultural or social factors, or it could just be something that women genuinely aren't as interested by.

I dunno, I guess I'm just sick of these meaningless diversity figures when they don't really tell us anything. The last thing I want is for any of those 11,000 women to be hired just to make Apple's diversity figures look good.

 

[Fzang]

Perhaps you could say that hiring people with widely diverse backgrounds would lead to a more diverse and thus "better" workplace by some metric. Maybe the individuals aren't more qualified per se, but on a larger scale you need to sacrifice individual qualifications for a better workplace environment overall. The sum is greater than its parts. There's a human element to it. We aren't just robots carrying out tasks.

 

[nick42983]

Racial diversity has nothing to do with innovation, if anything it causes balkanization and strife when multiculturalism is promoted over assimilation. Japan is one of the most homogenous countries on the planet and yet became an economic powerhouse a generation after being devastated in World War II. Let's not dance around the subject though, "diversity" means less white people, specifically white, heterosexual men. It's blatantly prejudicial and downright evil to bypass qualified people from this group in favor of preferred minorities with the right skin tone.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Racial diversity has nothing to do with innovation, if anything it causes balkanization and strife when multiculturalism is promoted over assimilation. Japan is one of the most homogenous countries on the planet and yet became an economic powerhouse a generation after being devastated in World War II. Let's not dance around the subject though, "diversity" means less white people, specifically white, heterosexual men. It's blatantly prejudicial and downright evil to bypass qualified people from this group in favor of preferred minorities with the right skin tone.

Precisely.

And how many small businesses are there which consist predominantly of one race and one gender? Plenty. Most, probably. Does that make them any the worse? No, of course not.

Look at music. Every single masterpiece was written by one person. Almost all of them were white men. Do we sigh and say, "If only they had been written by a committee of multiple races and genders, they would have been so much better!"? No, because it would be wrong. In fact, in this instance, a homogenous culture is the best way to produce excellence, not a diverse one.

Diversity has now become a byword for discrimination.

 

[0098386]

Very worrying that the top voted comments on this article are ones against diversity, ones trying to find problems with it.

I work in the games industry and recently there has been a huge push against diversity from a (small but angry) group of people. The thing is, and this might even apply to Apple, diversity is great. Half of my company are women, half of the contractors I hire are women. It's crazy that we have to phrase it that way and not "well half are men", which is telling of the problem. In creative fields, I find, that a wider range of inputs from people of different experiences and backgrounds are more incredibly beneficial. Years ago I hired a woman who admittedly never played games, she was just applying for marketing. But whilst we were talking I thought she'd be very good to have in design, to be able to help our designs hit a wider audience. And it worked.

I've always said in interviews that one of the most difficult challenges our automated industrial future will have is to mimic human creativity. We're already on our way to automating so many previously human-led jobs with machines. But ideas, art, creativity, are very human. So yeah that's why I think it's better to get experiences.

I really like that Apple's high ups include creative people because it's people like Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs that absolutely turned Apple around and into what it is today. And yet I see a lot of people here complain about boring types like Tim Cook.

Edit: I'd love to see a totally equal world. But the thing is it wasn't equal before, so we can't just instantly press on the "treat everyone the same" button. That's why I support feminism (understand the previous problems and why there is inequality) over egalitarianism. And why with my little game studio I'll try my part to improve things. Ie, pay women more than men, but also offer paternity leave.

 

[Tamagotchi]

Of which 90% were probably in non-technical jobs.

 

[iKrivetko]

Look at music. Every single masterpiece was written by one person. Almost all of them were white men. Do we sigh and say, "If only they had been written by a committee of multiple races and genders, they would have been so much better!"? No, because it would be wrong. In fact, in this instance, a homogenous culture is the best way to produce excellence, not a diverse one.

Well, music is quite a poor example. A lot of good stuff was written by black people, and even more was influenced by black music. Ironically, racism, segregation and slavery ultimately brought us some of the best music in the world.

 

[Wahlstrm]

If you think 11K women has taken the job from a more deserving man is a problem then just put that in perspective to the billions of jobs around the globe that went straight to men since the beginning of time..

A lot of jobs have been given to useless men just because they knew the right people, usually other men..