Support NeoGAF

[Jon Neu]

I didn't share my opinion when talking about corporations

Yes, you are doing it all the time, just disguising it with "studies" and "data" for trying to give the false impression that you are objective. But your agenda is pretty clear.

Companies don't fuck around and do things because it is cute.

No, they do "cute" things because is good to their image. And the voracity of todays public for identity politics and Political Correctness makes the perceived advocacy for "diversity" as something really good for your business image.

That's why Google fired Damore, because he criticized that and had the potential to destroy the image of Google as a company that "cares" with his different opinions. That's why they fired him so easily, because that brings back the notion that they really "care".

 

[Dunki]

Yes, you are doing it all the time, just disguising it with "studies" and "data" for trying to give the false impression that you are objective. But your agenda is pretty clear.



No, they do "cute" things because is good to their image. And the voracity of todays public for identity politics and Political Correctness makes the perceived advocacy for "diversity" as something really good for your business image.

That's why Google fired Damore, because he criticized that and had the potential to destroy the image of Google as a company that "cares" with his different opinions. That's why they fired him so easily, because that brings back the notion that they really "care".

Totally agree. Damore was fired after it was made public and some people caused a shitstorm. This document was months before published in the company and there was no backlash at all.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Because historicly women have been pushed away from STEM fields. So now that we as a culture realize that women can do these jobs, it's smart to get as many as possible into the STEM jobs if they want to do that work.

Nobody pushed them away in the modern age - what happened 100-200 years ago has no relation to the modern times.
Now If a person wants to do that he can do that. Pass exams, do the job. We've been in modern european society at least for 100 years.
Though originally STEM fields were not that fancy as it is now with all this technology.

And also. Most HR departments consist of women - why do they choose men more? Shouldn't they help their fellow women?

I believe that the true reason is that STEM is considered quite prestigious or trendy so a lot of feminist want more women there. Just like that case with grid girls.

"Woman should have a free choice - You objectify yourself, you can't do that - because modern age"
"Woman should have a free choice - You should go to STEM - because modern age"

Sometimes I think the true goal is - "If there are 7 female CEO and 93 male, we should reach equality to lets fire 43 male CEOs and replace with women" (and nobody tries to found a new company. Just like with comics - instead of creating new characters let's just switch genders). We should strive towards competency not towards quotas.

P.S. By the way men are always expected to do the physical labor, defend, fight and so on. And nobody bats an eye.

 

[SatansReverence]

Some academics suggest that there is no causation between more women on the board and greater profitability. They argue that there well may be reverse causation as bigger, higher-profile stocks that, by definition, have already done well, are the ones that are more likely to appoint women to the board. Hence, more women on the board could well be a signal that the company is already doing well, rather than a sign of better things to come.

“The Research Institute results did find that large-cap companies, which tend to be historical strong performers, are more likely to appoint women to their boards.

However, even in an isolated comparison of the large-cap companies the outperformance of companies with women in the board held up. This indicated that the causation between greater gender diversity and improved profitability goes beyond simply pre-existing strength of the company.”

So, companies that are successful and diverse are not sacrificing something just for the sake of diversity. In other words: they’re not winning all the games and then saying, “Maybe we should round this place out.”

Companies don't fuck around and do things because it is cute.

Outside of your super specific hot take, all that says is that upwards trends remained.

They didn't improve, they didn't slow down. Just kept on keeping on.

What does that say? There wasn't any meaningful difference. Unfortunately for you, that disproves your theory that diversity is a good thing. It is merely a thing thing.

 

[Mahadev]

Take off your politics goggles:

There is a market need for diversity in the never ending quest to gain competitive advantage and better ones self. How do companies know? Correlation studies, outcome studies, consumer surveys, hard data on women CEOs etc. Companies continuously publish their findings and struggles online. It's studied in depth. This is the basics of what I am talking about regardless of the origins of diversity, this study, or the political climate.

You wanna pin it all to leftists telling everyone what to do, and pressuring companies, prove that women aren't interested via biological or freedom, etc. But there is a market drive. If societal representation is only 30%, then leading companies like Google will compete for that %.

Now the social situation is that there's untapped potential, and I happen to believe that's true if we continue to reach out and avoid situations like with the Dallas Mavericks. And note, I didnt imply equal representation.

You take them off, I don't have any goggles on. Aside from the gender-studies' and satellite fields' pseudo-scientific "data" I just proved are bullshit in the OP (the documentary is doing a great job at proving that, watch it please) there aren't any actual scientific data that prove people are happier, humanity is better off, hell, even corporations benefit with this forced "diversity".

And for the record, I really don't consider "leftists" most of the people following this modern amalgamation of identity politics with authoritarianism, in fact they're quite rightwing. Clinton supporters* for example are neoliberals whether they like it or not.

*actual ones though, not the people that were forced by the DNC and the fucked up two party system to vote for Clinton because there was no other option

 

[Vicetrailia]

You guys still aren't hearing me.

When these companies are looking at diversity, they're looking at it to gain competitive edge any effective way possible. Diversity has a lot of benefits such as improved reputation and risk management (not getting sued/horror stories), the effectiveness of H-1B's and more.

So I'm talking about business performance cases for diversity. Ya'll think that they don't exist, but companies use information to justify the investment, in order to not be out-competed. Diversity is an investment, and simply isn't "Oh yeah hahaha those SJW's are mad though!", or the government telling everyone what to do (I mean it was but less so now).

So what are some business cases? The mckinsey study, the global gender diversity study, the tufts university study on racial diversity, the credit-suiss, page, and tons of diversity studies that are out there (like the one from Donald fan). All of this and more gives companies growth goggles, aka justification to improve. If they don't the lack of investment can hurt their ability to compete at the fortune 500 level. Any company has enough information to justify building diversity. Leaders lead, and this is what I mean by companies not playing around.

So why does Google have its girlfirst program? Why does Intel recruit at HBCU's? Why are there diversity training programs and employment targets, and why are companies improving their work cultures? It's all business at the end of it. This matters more than SJW's or biological interests. You can say "correlation doesn't equal causation", or "that's not scientific/hard/irrefutable evidence that businesses benefit" per individual study, but it's more than enough reason to invest in diversity should a company choose to.

This is where Damore fucked up to me, he didn't attack it right. I would have attacked way differently. No biological interests. I would have gone after the money and diversity fatigue from that perspective.

 

[SatansReverence]

@ssolitare

Reading through the study in the article you linked states that essentially forcing diversity was a bad thing for the company. But when there wasn't any "discrimination" (term used extremely loosely mind you) there was an upward trend. Also noted that when there was "discrimination" (again, used loosely) then there was some stagnation.

What this can be boiled down to, is if there is someone who is good for a position, hire them regardless of gender. Don't just hire because a candidate is a man, don't just hire because the candidate is a women, hire based on the candidates ability.

This is where the argument equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome comes into play.

 

[Vicetrailia]

@ssolitare

Reading through the study in the article you linked states that essentially forcing diversity was a bad thing for the company. But when there wasn't any "discrimination" (term used extremely loosely mind you) there was an upward trend. Also noted that when there was "discrimination" (again, used loosely) then there was some stagnation.

Ugh, not quite, this study suggests that they aren't sure if board member quotas or having 1 female CEO will make an impact, it could even make a negative one. But they do see a positive impact in an increased pipeline of women C-Level managers, rather than only throwing people at the top. It also shows that lowering discrimination (such as over valueing men's careers) makes a strong impact.

So what does this mean for your strategy? You pull qualified women, and make their work life better. Your diversity programs should bear some fruit, rather than having quotas.

 

[mckmas8808]

No, it's not a fact at all. Is just wishful thinking.

You hire based on the capabilities of someone to do their work, not on their genitalia or the color of their skin.



No, is not smart to get as many women possible in a forceful and artificial manner.

Let women decide and stop trying to make the fact that there is not as much women in STEM or there isn't as much women CEO's some kind of problem that must be fixed. It's not a problem at all, because women are deciding what they want to do, and despite what feminism says, they are not interested in the same fields as men.

So your problem in both of your quotes to me is that you don't think there's enough people of color or women that are qualified to do these jobs. I tend to believe that there are enough POC and women that can do these jobs and want to do them.

 

[Dunki]

So your problem in both of your quotes to me is that you don't think there's enough people of color or women that are qualified to do these jobs. I tend to believe that there are enough POC and women that can do these jobs and want to do them.

But this is the problem. Even they try has hard as they can they not not find more women for these jobs. They are wasting tons of money to get women into these stem jobs even though they actually do not want to.

 

[subsmoke]

I don't think gender equality has anything to do with it. It's more about the standard of living in a given country. White women living in the West are privileged enough be able to major in something worthless like gender studies, while women in other parts of the world don't waste the opportunity if they get a chance to go to college because they know it may be their only chance to pull themselves out of poverty.

 

[Vicetrailia]

But this is the problem. Even they try has hard as they can they not not find more women for these jobs. They are wasting tons of money to get women into these stem jobs even though they actually do not want to.

That's not true so far. They are finding women, and there are still ways to get better at it. Companies like Google haven't hit it's stride yet. In the long game if it's not fruitful, we will find out.

 

[Dunki]

That's not true so far. They are finding women, and are becoming better at it. There are still ways to get better at it, we haven't even hit our stride. In the long game if it's not fruitful we will find out though.

They do not become better they are getting more agressive. Like when there is nothing left in your toothpaste tube and you try to get the last bit out of it.

 

[subsmoke]

That's not true so far. They are finding women, and are becoming better at it. In the long game if it's not fruitful we will find out.

No, Dunki is right. Companies like Apple are trying to unnaturally force gender parity through diversity programs and it isn't working well since women are still a minority in STEM careers. Personally I think we just need to let people do what they want and quit trying to force women into abandoning their traditional roles. If a woman decides that's what she wants, fine, but let it happen or not happen on its own.

 

[mckmas8808]

No, Dunki is right. Companies like Apple are trying to unnaturally force gender parity through diversity programs and it isn't working well since women are still a minority in STEM careers. Personally I think we just need to let people do what they want and quit trying to force women into abandoning their traditional roles. If a woman decides that's what she wants, fine, but let it happen or not happen on its own.

Why are some of you guys against diversity in the workplace though? Like what's the point in being upset when a company spends money to reach out to women to work for them? Surely you realize that there are "some" women that want to be coders, engineers, etc but are being looked over in some middle schools and high schools from taking those courses that could set them up for a career in STEM jobs.

No way you guys believe that all high school guidance counselors are promptly assessing girls and putting them into classes that could lead them into STEM fields.

 

[Vicetrailia]

They do not become better they are getting more agressive. Like when there is nothing left in your toothpaste tube and you try to get the last bit out of it.

Lol, but that's isn't true at least in the U.S.

No, Dunki is right. Companies like Apple are trying to unnaturally force gender parity through diversity programs and it isn't working well since women are still a minority in STEM careers. Personally I think we just need to let people do what they want and quit trying to force women into abandoning their traditional roles. If a woman decides that's what she wants, fine, but let it happen or not happen on its own.

Say that you're right. Women being in the minority in stem careers is something that Apple can deal with. They'll fight over the qualified scraps, and continue their programs until they don't need them.

But it just so happens that if government and companies reach out more, thet will recruit more diversity. We're not at a limit now, we're trending up.

 

[Dunki]

Lol, but that's isn't true at least in the U.S.



Say that you're right. Women being in the minority in stem careers is something that Apple can deal with. They'll fight over the qualified scraps, and continue their programs until they don't need them.

But it just so happens that if government and companies reach out more, thet will recruit more diversity. We're not at a limit now, we're trending up.

Not in countries like Norway. They have reached peaked equallity and numbers are falling more and more in these jobs. And the gov there does reach out as much as they can. Also I do not think that 3%is any form of trending up. For this what being done in the name of diversity these 3% are laughable imo.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not in countries like Norway. They have reached peaked equallity and numbers are falling more and more in these jobs. And the gov there does reach out as much as they can. Also I do not think that 3%is any form of trending up. For this what being done in the name of diversity these 3% are laughable imo.

What is being done in the name of diversity?

 

[mr2xxx]

But this is the problem. Even they try has hard as they can they not not find more women for these jobs. They are wasting tons of money to get women into these stem jobs even though they actually do not want to.

What Is tons of money?

 

[bigedole]

I don't think anyone is actually against diversity, I think there's just this unspoken (maybe not so much) fear that companies are hiring less qualified candidates in the name of diversity and that seems really silly. I work for Intel, who are one of the bigger tech companies that also have a pretty outspoken diversity initiative. My team specifically is quite varied ethnically, though there is only one female in our group of 12. I can say that I've not come across anyone yet that I felt was inadequate or just simply a diversity hire or what have you. I'm certainly not going to say that hasn't happened, just hasn't been my personal experience. I don't feel like there's anything wrong with any company reaching out and advertising that they'd like to interview more female/black/alaskan/ethiopian candidates, as long as the most qualified person gets the job. I obviously have no insight into that process.