[HN Gopher] Apple employees petition demanding investigation int...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Apple employees petition demanding investigation into misogynistic
       hire
        
       Author : champagnepapi
       Score  : 29 points
       Date   : 2021-05-12 20:48 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
        
       | fortran77 wrote:
       | Unlike his critics, I read his book. I enjoyed it. I'd hire him.
        
       | jollybean wrote:
       | I'm generally wary of cancel culture, but I don't even understand
       | how a person could even really say such a thing i.e. 'women are
       | useless and full of crap' _let alone publish it_.
       | 
       | Forget the bigotry ... just the lack of self awareness is pretty
       | crazy.
       | 
       | I don't like the infusion of Damore however, that's a different
       | discussion, I wish people would stop crossing streams on such an
       | important subject, full of nuance in every direction. This guy's
       | statements are of a different kind than Damores.
        
       | rasputnik6502 wrote:
       | Something bad is happening to companies, they become full of shit
       | because of nothing. Isn't there a difference between expressing
       | unpopular opinions and actually abusing or attacking people? Or
       | thoughtcrime is becoming punishable? Someone is working hard on
       | adding fuel to misogyny
        
         | SirSourdough wrote:
         | Since when can you not judge a person on what they write in a
         | published book?
         | 
         | This isn't "crime", nobody is claiming it's illegal. But it's
         | still sexist and flat out wrong to essentially say that most
         | women are worthless, and it's perfectly reasonable not to want
         | to work with or for someone who demonstrates such sexist
         | thinking and poor judgement.
        
       | sanity31415 wrote:
       | > His hiring "calls into question parts of our system of
       | inclusion at Apple, including hiring panels, background checks,
       | and our process to ensure our existing culture of inclusion is
       | strong enough to withstand individuals who don't share our
       | inclusive values," they write.
       | 
       | So they want to exclude someone for having different opinions to
       | them, in the name of inclusivity?
       | 
       | Clown world.
        
         | zoeysaurusrex wrote:
         | Who is "they"? Don't be shy.
         | 
         | Saying things like "women soft and weak, cosseted and naive
         | despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of
         | shit." is more than just a difference of opinion. You cannot
         | hold that opinion and be a fair leader.
        
         | MyHypatia wrote:
         | I think the clown world is hiring someone who wrote:
         | 
         | "Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and
         | naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full
         | of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism,
         | and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is,
         | come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they'd become
         | precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box of
         | shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel."
         | 
         | It's especially ironic after an epidemic plague where 70% of
         | health care workers are women. But I guess they're mostly
         | useless baggage who are full of shit. Unlike this guy. See, he
         | really understands how the world is and is just "telling it
         | like it is". Let's trade all these useless women for shotgun
         | shells, and hire people like this guy instead.
        
           | CheezeIt wrote:
           | Yet I see companies like Cisco announcing mental health days
           | for their utterly broken employees.
        
           | kbelder wrote:
           | Yeah, he should have included Bay Area men in that
           | assessment.
        
           | Udik wrote:
           | This is a wider excerpt:
           | 
           | "When she was in her teens, her father decided to move the
           | family to the United States, where they suffered a financial
           | reversal she was unwilling to talk about. Suddenly not among
           | the moneyed class, she hustled herself through the redbrick
           | boondocks of the University of Vermont. Citibank internship
           | led to a Deutsche Bank job, and after a few years she was an
           | equity derivatives trader at Deutsche, holding her own
           | against the toff sharks of the City of London.
           | 
           | She had wild geen eyes, with unnatural red spots in her
           | irises when you pulled close, reminiscent of that Afghan girl
           | from the National Geographic cover. Her personality was
           | flinty and rough, and as leathery as her skin. She had spent
           | years between various jobs backpacking around the rougher
           | parts of the world. She was an imposing, broad-shouldered
           | presence, six feet tall in bare feet, and towering over me in
           | heels.
           | 
           | Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and
           | naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full
           | of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism,
           | and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is,
           | come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they'd become
           | precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box
           | of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.
           | 
           | British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who
           | would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing
           | whatever work- be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a
           | shotgun blast in someone's back- required doing. Long story
           | short, you wanted to tie your genetic wagon to the backing
           | horse of her bloodline. Which is why I was less nervous than
           | I should have been on a random Saturday in July..."
           | 
           | So it's a passage in a (novel? Definitely a literary piece
           | anyway) where, in order to better sing the praise of one
           | particular woman, she is compared to another common type in
           | the same environment. All clearly point of view of a narrator
           | (who might or might not be the author). If these are the
           | parameters, we should throw in the bin almost all literature,
           | from men and women alike.
        
             | MyHypatia wrote:
             | He did not write a fiction novel. He wrote a book about his
             | time working on ads at Facebook. He has now been hired to
             | work on ads at Apple. Pointing this out is not "throwing
             | away all literature".
        
             | tomnipotent wrote:
             | > So it's a passage in a (novel? Definitely a literary
             | piece anyway)
             | 
             | It's not fiction. It's an autobiography. These are his
             | personal opinions and feelings.
        
               | rasputnik6502 wrote:
               | Since when personal feelings and opinions should be
               | prosecuted? And who is so entitled to give themselves
               | such right?
        
               | tomnipotent wrote:
               | Yes. We're allowed to judge people for the things they do
               | and so, and decide we don't want to work with them. He's
               | allowed his, and we're allowed ours. Many people are not
               | interested with working with people that hold these world
               | views, not when they have influence over the career
               | progression of others.
        
               | Udik wrote:
               | The question is not whether it's allowed or not, it is.
               | The question is whether it's stupid or not, and I think
               | it is, terribly so.
        
               | tomnipotent wrote:
               | So women should be forced to work under a known
               | misogynist, their salary and promotions tied to a boss
               | that thinks them inferior and has _literally_ published a
               | book saying so? Yeah, there are no examples of that going
               | poorly.
        
               | rasputnik6502 wrote:
               | Nobody forces them to work, and 'known mysogynist' is
               | just a personal attack without merit. What actions did he
               | take against women in general or any woman in particular
               | to be called a misogynist? Remember, if it's only your
               | personal belief, if you dislike the book and the author
               | of it you're free to look for another workplace. But not
               | free to take actions against someone just because you
               | don't like them.
        
               | Udik wrote:
               | > women should be forced to work under a known misogynist
               | 
               | How do you know he's a misogynist? You read a small,
               | absolutely marginal excerpt from a book that is clearly
               | written in a literary style. In it, he draws a comparison
               | between a particular woman, who is praised for her talent
               | and resourcefulness, and "most Bay Area women", who are
               | definitely _not_ all women, in the Bay Area and much less
               | in general.  "Most Americans" is not a judgement on human
               | beings, "most American men" is not a judgement on all
               | men, so why should "most Bay Area women" be a judgement
               | on all women? And this is even assuming that that remark
               | corresponds to some deep conviction, which is a silly
               | assumption given the style and the context.
        
               | rasputnik6502 wrote:
               | Well I'm not interested in working with people who feel
               | entitled to targeting someone and mobbing to destroy them
               | based on opinions and personal beliefs. This is illegal
               | activity imho
        
         | mc32 wrote:
         | It's weird for people of Latin descent. If they're on your
         | side, they are people of color, if they are not, then, by
         | magic, they are no longer. This happens to Hispanic cops as
         | well. If they are on the other side of the progressive
         | equation, then they're also people of color.
        
         | zem wrote:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
        
           | zoeysaurusrex wrote:
           | How so? People can have all the opinions they want but saying
           | things such as "women are soft and weak, cosseted and naive
           | despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of
           | shit." isn't okay. Please convince me how that is employable
           | behavior?
        
           | olliej wrote:
           | Yup
        
         | olliej wrote:
         | Different opinions in this case is that women and PoC are
         | inferior.
         | 
         | That's a reasonably difference of opinion to make choices over.
         | 
         | I wouldn't trust performance assessments from him.
        
         | zozbot234 wrote:
         | When the "different opinion" involves proclaiming that a whole
         | class of your fellow workers are "soft, weak and full of $#!+"
         | then yes, you _should_ be resolutely excluded from positions of
         | authority since you have willingly forfeited the kind of trust
         | that 's required for any such role. Let this guy stay in a pure
         | engineering/IC role if he wants, but he should not be in a
         | management position.
        
           | [deleted]
        
       | mgamache wrote:
       | It's not like Apple is making money from misogynistic music or
       | supports a regime that enforces female sterilization. As long as
       | Apple employees to have a safe space from offensive ideas and
       | people all is okay.
        
         | zoeysaurusrex wrote:
         | So you think women should feel okay working alongside someone
         | who thinks they are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite
         | their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit?
         | 
         | It's not about safe spaces or offensive ideas. It's about
         | enabling sexism and racism to freely propagate while telling
         | minority groups that it isn't harmful despite past experience.
        
           | mgamache wrote:
           | I was just pointing out the myopic hypocrisy of the
           | complaint. Also, women are not a minority group, but I would
           | say that if he's hired to do a job at a company he should be
           | held to the same standards as any other employee. If he acts
           | in ways that are outside the standards set by the company he
           | should be fired. If the company rules don't allow for sexism,
           | there will be none enabled. I think pre-screening employees
           | based on their speech is a road to nowhere. I don't know
           | where the racism part came from did I miss that in the
           | article?
        
             | zozbot234 wrote:
             | Women are a minority of workers at most tech firms.
        
       | legostormtroopr wrote:
       | This was buried in the article, but James Danmore is racist now.
       | 
       | > notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because
       | women and people of color lack the innate qualities needed to
       | succeed in tech.
       | 
       | It seems that people just keep tacking on "sins" to see what
       | sticks to people's reputations regardless of the facts. Was there
       | anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color?
        
         | zozbot234 wrote:
         | > lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech
         | 
         | James Damore never said anything of the sort. He was concerned
         | that women might feel excluded in an engineering-focused
         | environment and be less likely to seek such a role because of
         | the different aggregation of _preferences_ and _inclinations_
         | among women as opposed to men. He said zilch about quality or
         | potential for success, or for that matter about any individual
         | woman (as opposed to aggregate trends and their influence on
         | 'big picture' stats).
        
         | mgamache wrote:
         | 'notorious' is a Russell Conjugation unless it The Notorious
         | B.I.G.
         | 
         | https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/
        
       | MyHypatia wrote:
       | A person who wrote that Bay Area women are "soft", "weak"
       | "useless baggage" that "should be traded for shotgun shells"
       | should not be entrusted with a position where he evaluates other
       | people's job performance.
        
         | SamReidHughes wrote:
         | The article quotes one of those Bay Area woman in tech who
         | finds her job and life "exhausting." A common affliction. Why
         | are these strong Bay Area women so exhausted all the time?
        
       | Calvin02 wrote:
       | Apple hiring a former Facebook ad products product manager,
       | expanding its ads product suite, and expanding ads slots says
       | more about how they see Facebook than the privacy changes they've
       | made.
       | 
       | Ads is a services market that is growing fast and as the phone
       | market saturates, services will become more important for Apple.
       | This will also help reduce the margin pressure on iPhone
       | hardware.
        
         | Traubenfuchs wrote:
         | How can anything ad related still be growing if most people
         | either trained their brain to ignore/close ads instantly or use
         | adblockers?
        
           | SirSourdough wrote:
           | Because good advertising still impacts you even if you "know
           | to ignore it", and there's lots of ways to advertise to
           | people that aren't ads in the classic sense.
           | 
           | I suspect that adblocker usage is also a lot lower than you
           | expect, with a quick Google showing less than half of people
           | worldwide using adblockers on desktop and adoption below 20%
           | for mobile devices in the US. So there's still a broad market
           | to target.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-05-12 23:02 UTC)