Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Led Illegal Purge of Male Employees, Lawsuit Charges (mercurynews.com)
A prominent local media executive fired from Yahoo last year has filed a lawsuit accusing CEO Marissa Mayer of leading a campaign to purge male employees. "Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo's male employees," said the suit by Scott Ard filed this week in federal district court in San Jose. From a MercuryNews article: Ard, who worked for Yahoo for 3 and a half years until January 2015, is now editor-in-chief of the Silicon Valley Business Journal. His lawsuit also claims that Yahoo illegally fired large numbers of workers ousted under a performance-rating system imposed by Mayer. That allegation was not tied to gender. Yahoo spokeswoman Carolyn Clark said Yahoo couldn't comment on pending litigation, but she defended the company's performance-review process, which she said was guided by "fairness." "Our performance-review process was developed to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular and actionable feedback from others," Clark said. "We believe this process allows our team to develop and do their best work. Our performance-review process also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out."
Cue the feminists to start pointing out that it's impossible to be sexist against white males because we all site at the top of the power hierarchy. Cue the feminists to also call this guy a whiner and tell him to suck it up.
Because if they were fair they would have lead to her own termination.
...positive discrimination coming along? Are we feeling more positive today?
Shouldn't be long now before we can just eliminate all the male population. Think of the advantages for business!
Just as the oppressed Blacks can not themselves be racist, women can not possibly be sexist.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In the UK civil service they introduced a performance management system with bands:
Must improve
Achieved
Exceeded
A certain percentage of employees must be in each band.
Most civil service middle managers are women. And what do you know... the percentage of men put into "must improve" is almost double that of women. 'Cos it's much easier for women to fuck over men than their gal pals. That's on top of the blatant discrimination against men that goes on in customer facing roles - where all the real opportunities and back office jobs are reserved for gal pals of female managers.
It's a disgrace. It's right there in the stats. Male employees have publicly asked "what's being done to address this" and get fobbed off every time. The Civil Service doesn't BADLY want to answer that question - even though, by the definitions they set up, it is rock solid evidence of discrimination.
It just goes to show. Women show an in-group preference for other women and try to push out men. Men get little or no development unless they grab whatever chances they can and move onto other jobs... fast.
She was probably just trying to curtail cost by firing the male employees.
Wasn't this reported in The Onion?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
targets are working 60 - 80 hours and H1B!
Other than the fact many of us have relatives who may still cling to a @yahoo.com E-mail address does Yahoo have any relevance in today's world? They are becoming the SCO of the web portal world.
mayer never learned that civilization and all good things are results of males trying to impress women.
-
anyway,
companies should stick to making money for investors through legal means.
companies should not be engaged in politics and social justice activism and engineering(unless that part of their business, as with some pr or lobbying firms ).
if investors and employees want to engage in any of that, do it privately with own money.
but they want to do "good"(usually for their own self interested motivations) with other peoples' money.
And start a new company that combines their core strengths of incompetency, fraud, and perpetual social injustice. They can name the company "Loss Carry Forward, Inc."
Capitalism at its best.
I need you westerners to explain something about this feminism fart of yours.
Why is it, and everything along with it, lead by white women?
White women are unarguably the most privileged class on this planet.
- Most prefer white women for dating as dating app surveys showcase.
- Most judicial systems are biased towards white women like no other race or gender on this planet.
- They are much more likely to get away with anything and everything than any other class.
- They have the biggest proportion of material wealth given to them for free/without work/without expended effort on this planet unlike any other class. Through history, most luxury resources, animal hides, bling, leathers, every-fucking-thing exploited from colonization, ended up in the rooms and on the bodies of white women.
- Is there a discussion being had among a diverse group of people? White women always get the lead.
- For some reason, white women are the "representative leadership" for minority groups that have nothing to do with them. Case in point the LGBT for some reason, albeit the LGBT is questioning their involvement.
- White women were never prosecuted for their gender alone, or their skin alone. They were never forced to wear veils, they were never forced to mutilate their clits, they were never hanged and burned for being women like homosexuals and blacks were for their sexuality and skin color respectively. The closest thing they ever got was witch burning, though that has nothing to do with gender but more individual questionable practices.
What the fuck is the point of this social justice shit if justice is being defined by the most unjust privileged class in the world - white women?
And there's the sexist. Funny how many people seem to think that the mentality of the 1950's and earlier is just so progressive these days. Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
Om, nomnomnom...
It does in fact appear the performance-review process gave actionable feedback, given that they are indeed being sued. I'd put a note in the spokesperson's file to discuss her diction at her next review, myself.
The title says it was a "male purge" but also says "That allegation was not tied to gender." Reading the article it says women were less than 20% of the chief editors and within 18 months it was 80%. The main plaintiff does not actually single out Mayer but another editor Megan Liberman. Also the summary fails to mention that this lawsuit was about Yahoo News not Yahoo overall.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
That's obviously not true, since Marissa Mayer hasn't been "transitioned out" yet.
Let's be honest here former Male Yahoo employee's. Would you still want to be working there now? I would call it a silent prayer answered that you were let go from Yahoo given all that has happened. At this point who even wants to put Yahoo as a former employer?
Clearly, the editors do not read submissions, since I submitted this story almost 12 hours before msmash posted it.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Yahoo already has a big morale problem and trouble attracting people. I'm sure this kind of gender bias will do wonders for their ability to recruit.
Crap like this is why I got out of for-profit IT companies and into the non-profit world. Human nature never changes, so there are downsides to NP work, but I'm much happier not having to be around the kind of crap this article mentions. It was pervasive in the companies I was with, as far back as the early-2000s. I'm either sticking with NP or going to run my own gig.
Hire and keep people based on merit and nothing else. The only for-profit company I can think of that even remotely resembles the way a company should be led is MailChimp. They hire right, they lead right, and they treat their employees right. FogCreek also comes to mind. There may be others...
I would never defend this kind of ideology-based purge, if that's what really happened. But even if it did happen, you really can't blame Yahoo's collapse on it. They ran out of gas a decade ago, long before Mayer and all this ugly crap. Her job was basically to steer the descent and rope in a sucker who can be convinced that Yahoo is worth a buyout. She did that better than reasonable shareholders had any right to expect. Whether she also did right by the employees is a different question.
The feminist movement is very successfully transforming our culture to one in which men are punished simply for being men.
More and more men are waking up, refusing to marry, in some cases keeping few-if-any female friends and minimizing business interaction with women as much as possible. The best way to protect one's self against a minefield is to walk through it as little as possible.
"Won't someone think of the Rich White Men!!"
POE ALERT
I will welcome them too, but only if I get sent to the sex mines.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Sexist? The poster was clearly commenting about the Jews.
And it worked out really nice for Yahoo! Let woman run the all world as they did in Yahoo and we'll have a new age of enlightenment for sure.
gorilla-thighed nincompoop shouldn't have been in charge of a burger stand, much less a corporation with employees.
POE ALERT
Was it? I couldn't tell.
"Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions
Just like every performance-rating system ever used since the device was invented? Yeah, that's bad, but courts almost always let them slide anyway. What's new here?
, to the detriment of Yahoo's male employees,"
Ahhhh. Now I think I see the problem.
Yahoo is so fooked up on sooo many levels, anything is now believable about it, especially ever since Jerry Yang handed over pro-democracy activists to the Chinese government to be disappeared --- effing jackhole, burn in Hell forever!!!! This reminds me of that story in the business section of USA Today back around 2002 or thereabouts, when all the males in an IT department of a corporation were being replaced by foreign visa workers --- the women workers were all quiet about it, until they began replacing them with foreign visa workers, then they started screaming, but the judge ruled against them for whatever treasonous and obscene reason. Since 1999, America has been a net importer of tech services, and around half or more of new IT hires today are foreign visa workers. What's that Martin Feldstein? What's that Obama? You say there's full employment today? Perhaps of foreigners in America, there is, douchetards . . . .
No, honey, it's self-righteous, privileged women like you who are the "bitches".
I was wondering how on hell could they destroy the company so quickly. After reading that: "In one year the administration went from 20% female to 80% female." everything finally made sense.
"I'm at college sitting next to this really hot chick and I hope she sees me post this and sleep with me."
"BTW, What does that rainbow sticker on her backpack mean? And she loves Melissa Etheridge. How do I get seats?"
Men are more natural leaders than women, though. It makes sense that men would be over-represented in the pool of leadership positions...a greater percentage of men seek such positions than women, and more men are likely to be naturals at leadership than women.
Please observe...this comment is not praise or criticism of men or women. Each has their natural strengths and weaknesses, with exceptions here and there on any side.
I hope you are joking. While women have had three or four decades of opportunity to do nobel prize winning research or start a billion dollar company there haven't been any. Men have a greater drive to try crazy things- that is what created the modern world and is what alleviated all the 'sufferings' you mention. Not to mention that men are currently suffering in every educational and economic metric.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Don't you mean "comeuppance"? Or am I missing something?
This is exactly what is killing Twitter. Outright bans, shadowbans, and their new Safety Center has turned Twitter into Jack Dorsey's own little echo-chamber. He and the staff of Twitter have even broken their own Mission statement by kicking people off the service they don't agree with...
Our mission: To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.
In the end, Twitter is going to crash and burn just like Yahoo for their SLW activities.
According to progressives and Democrats, I'm a homophobic, racist misogynist, and you know what? I've learned to live with it. Just as I had to learn to live with being a gay man in a homophobic society, and an immigrant in the US.
You're a gay Trump supporter?
So in your mind, injustice against one group should be solved by more injustice? Eye for an eye makes the entire world blind.
Given that 50 percent of the population is extra-terrestrial, yet most jobs and management positions are held by Earthlings - a world of new corrections is in order.
I guess Yahoo "transitioned out" all of their technical security staff...
Filing a lawsuit over getting fired from yahoo is like suing for not getting a seat on the titanic. Awful company, untalented/lazy employees, terrible management... These guys should be writing thank you cards.
Having rode the "estrogen units are now in charge" merry-go-round twice
When you see a woman put in charge of a organization like Yahoo, non-profit organization, or other like entity, if you are a testosterone based unit just leave. Soon as you see it, check out as fast as possible. Do not pass go, screw the $200 for staying, go straight to resume-land.
Have watched too many times where the upper ranks are "suddenly" being filled with females, many of whom are vastly less qualified than male counterpart. Decisions based solely upon the lead estrogen unit desire to create a 100% women lead organization. As a testosterone unit you have zero chance when that thought comes out.
Think you are going to stay and just be a good worker bee? Yeaahh...don't. Tell co-worker they are wrong? Cue the sexual harassment HR talk. Disagree with direction and guidance of a project ? Stand by for the whispers between estrogen units of "OMG...he is such a creeper." Speak your mind in disagreement with a policy, email, project meeting? Prepare for the to-the-door-security-escort because "I don't feel safe around him" charade.
And it will fly. Watch a bunch of teenager girls talk about an "unpopular" guy and see how that flows for you. Now, move that to the work-place where they affect your career, because the bitchiness doesn't go away. Especially among the "entitled" ones.
It just isn't worth it.
I'm truly happy to see that the US as a country seems to be finally waking up from the decades of ridiculous feminazi peecee-ism, and finally starting to see and act on things for how they really are again.
Yes, we get it, she was a shitty CEO. So much so that the company was actually worth less than the amount of total cash it had on hand for a while. Yahoo bad management stories aren't really "news" at this point, so much as supporting evidence. It's still a total sausage farm on the "Shittiest CEOs of the Century" list, which I think proves that boards of directors not only do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender and religion, but also on the basis of ability. They seem to be quite happy to give some arbitrary random jackass hundreds of millions of dollars to ideally do practically nothing, as at least that won't impede the company so much. And then when those people inevitably fuck up, they give them hundreds of millions of dollars more to go the fuck away. I believe our corporate batting average would be better if we just randomly assigned CEOs from the phone book. We might do better with congressional seats with that strategy, as well. Yahoo could have hired a rock at a 10th the price and performed better than they did with her. Leave her to her shame and her multi-million dollar golden parachute. We won't be hearing from her again until she publishes her book runs for president, in a few years.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There is nothing unique about this story. From reading the article, there is absolutely nothing that hasn't happened a thousand times over in other companies.
Review systems are inherently flawed at large companies. That's how people are able to hang out for years, just hiding in the woodwork. As long as you keep your head down, you can skate by for your whole career. It can take years to get someone fired, as long as they don't do anything terribly wrong. I once came into manage a team and inherited someone that never should have been hired, but there they were 5 years later and had always gotten "satisfactory" performance reviews. Usually it's because weak managers don't want to deal with problem employees. And you can't fire someone unless they have been on a performance plan. So technically they had 5 years with no problems. Nobody wanted to work with this person, they weren't given anything important to do, etc. It took over a year to get them out of there. (they refused to step up and improve). Why so long? Well, you have to wait until the annual review cycle to give someone a review. I joined in Oct, and the reviews were pretty much set for the year and I was just learning the team. So that person couldn't get a "not meeting expectations" until the NEXT year's review. Then you have to put them on a performance plan, and document everything and prove that they weren't meeting expectations. Then and only then are you allowed to fire them. You can try to encourage them to leave, but you can't fire them. If they are lucky, there are re-orgs (as there always are in big companies) and they get a new manager somewhere during this process, and the fun starts again.
The article talks about upper management changing ratings? Yeah, happens all the time for various reasons. It could have been that they had to fit people into the pre-defined bell curves. (e.g. 10% bad ratings, 80% ok or good, 10% great) As you roll up the ratings for a large organization, management has to do horse-trading and ranking of people. Top, bottom, and middle performers are safe - it's the ones on the edge of great and bad that usually get their rating changed. THEN if you throw in execs with biases, it adds layers of fun to all the built-in BS.
I have seen men and women get promoted for inexplicable reasons, and I have also seen people fired for no good reason (even despite the process I described above). And then there are the people that are just gone one day with no explanation. The corporate world sucks, and while I only know about this story what I read in the article, nothing in there sounds surprising. Even if it were true that she was doing a male purge, so what? Even in the male dominated IT world, I have seen women get fired because of the boy's club mentality. It's big business, don't try to make any sense of it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Wait, I thought discrimination on basis of sex was wrong. As in, nobody should do it and the entire idea should be erased from our culture as barbaric. The problem the whole time was that the wrong sex was being discriminated against? Why didn't we hear this 40 years ago?!?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
First there was 1/2 billion accounts compromised (later raise to a full billion), then spying on messages for the guvmint, and now this. OK so there's some of us smucks with yahoo accounts but we also have many useful yahoogroups for various non-profits and hobbyist groups. Ugh, I hate to abandon all these (probably these might go way of Geocities). There is google groups but seems like they have their share of "baggage." There was usenet....
mfwright@batnet.com
is that anything like a comeuppance?
These are allegations. Of course the guy alleging them will make them as sensational as possible.
Funny how so many guys get up in arms about "SJWs" when this guy seems to be a male version of the dreaded SJW.
Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act. As far as I can see, in a meritocracy merit is defined as the collection of qualities that enable you to get to the top. Which are probably the same qualities that enable anyone to get to the top of any organization. Which, as we can see by inspection of our top CEOs and political leaders, are entirely compatible with (and maybe identical to) selfishness, the ability to fake friendliness, skill in manipulation, callousness and cold calculation.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Don't you mean "comeuppance"? Or am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything. The GP is a woman, and can't spell.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Given that 50 percent of the population is female, yet most jobs and management positions are held by males - a correction is in order.
Given that many females still become mothers, a position that entails a huge amount of work no matter how much paid or unpaid help is available... and given that many females still like to run their own households with all the work that entails... and given how many women are emotionally disinclined to give orders and boss other people around... good luck with that.
I am all for female managers, and have seen some very good ones. I have also seen some real Medusas, but nothing worse than many male managers. It's just a question of practicality and feasibility.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Look on the bright side, at least they gave us the 18th amendment.
I for one welcome our new female overlords.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Won't take long before everyone is purged equally. (and Marissa finally reaches the top spot on her own ranking system)
Don't work there.
I wouldn't blame Yahoo failing on this alone as it was already doing that before Marissa Mayer took over as CEO. Outside of some extreme brilliance, the best I expect out of anyone would be to drag out the death spiral for a few more years. Anyone with the kind of vision or capability to save Yahoo is probably far better off starting their own company and building it into something great rather than trying to salvage an industry behemoth that's circling the drain.
Mayer did nothing to help the company, but it's hard to say that she's blundered more than anyone else who might be doing the job instead of her.
WTH? It is not illegal to adjust the balance of your workforce to meet race or gender mix quotas or to give preferential hiring treatment to oppressed minorities. In fact, it is illegal NOT to. Meyer was just complying with equal opportunity laws.
Comeuppance; deserved reward or just deserts, usually unpleasant.
I bet you'd only heard it spoken.
Meh. A female-led society will either turn out to be more-or-less the same as a male-led society, or get overwhelmed and crushed by an invading male-led society.
"Our performance-review process was developed to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular and actionable feedback from others," Clark said. "We believe this process allows our team to develop and do their best work. Our performance-review process also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out."
Mayer still has a job, therefore something here isn't true.
Do you have ESP?
Agreed! If we can just make them less athletic than us, stupider than us, and force them to start having the babies we'll be superior!
Do we know for a fact that it's because of discrimination and not, say, because men are so much more likely to choose risky ways or something else?
Did you know that married men earn much more than bachelors?
No. GP missed a session of English class.
Well to be fair, she pretty much screwed over employees of both genders
(and yes, I realise that either gender can take care of kids - my wife and I split our shifts to do so - but the negative effects of the work-from-home seemed to affect female employees more than male)
most jobs and management positions are held by males
Well sure. Shouldn't the most qualified people have those positions?
Let me tell you a story. There was a man who worked his way through college doing manual labor because that's all he was qualified for. He didn't have the personality to wait tables or be in any job that would be customer facing. He worked full time, went to school full time, and paid his own way through life. At the same school there was a woman working her way through college waiting tables. After a semester the woman gained 40lbs, put in a nose ring, and dyed her hair a weird color. Her involvement with extracurricular activities (read as: protesting anything that made anyone happy) kept her from going to class so she was forced to drop out (no doubt by a man, because women are terribly oppressed). The man, due to the nature of his job, stayed in good shape and graduated. Not with honors, no distinction, but he made it.
Today, that woman still has stupid hair, is about 350lbs, smells like old cheese, and works at a shitty diner. She has been there ever since and has not made manager (probably due to some conspiracy against her because she's such a warrior). The man is a plant manager at an oil company. Nothing glamorous, but nothing to sneeze at.
Here are their similarities today: unmarried, still working in approximately the same kind of environment that they worked in during school, neither is terribly rich. The differences? Well, she's in a trailer with a pack of kids, is slowly drinking herself to death, and makes just enough to keep herself full of snack cakes and mountain dew. He goes to work loving what he does, owns his own house, gets to travel, and leads the life he wants. I'm one of the characters in this story. The other is an old acquaintance of mine that I still see fairly regularly around town.
Women, by and large (haha, large), are not cut out to be managers. They're emotional, petty, bleeding sacks of idiocy. They're good for sex, but that's about it. Give them any sort of decision making authority and they turn into children. They can be trained to perform certain tasks (much like dogs) such as cooking and cleaning, but giving them anything difficult or complicated to do is folly.
I'm going to argue with "Men are more natural leaders than women" on the grounds of how you're sure of that. We don't know what's natural and what's nurture. Things that look entirely natural can wind up varying from culture to culture.
We've got a lot of history of men running things, and very little of women running things. We've got cultural expectations that men will lead.
So, I don't know. There's likely a difference in leadership between men and women, but I don't know what it is.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I wonder how much of that is correlation rather than causation.
The types of men that are likely to get married are probably more reliable and trustworthy than men who don't get married.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Isn't a thank-you note in order?
Like being thrown onto the fireman's trampoline . . .
Shouldn't that horse faced whinny be grazing grass instead of running a company?
Hillary didn't need the superdelegates to win; she had enough votes and delegates to win without them. It's true that the DNC rigged things, along with the mainstream media (esp. WaPo) spinning things in her favor as much as possible, but in the end, it was the Democratic voters who picked her. And unlike the GOP side where the vote was badly split among SO many candidates, allowing Trump to win with a minority of votes, the Dem side didn't have this: O'Malley, Chafffee and Webb barely got any votes at all and two of those dropped out very early on.
Basically, in this election the GOP proved that it's incompetent at getting their establishment pick selected, and the DNC proved that they're masters of it. But still, the ultimate responsibility on the Democrat side (NOT the Republican side) is with the voters themselves. *They* made the choice for Hillary.
(The same is not true on the Republican side; the voters there are not responsible, because of the first-past-the-post voting system, and the fact that Trump only got a minority of votes. The nomination of Trump really shows that FPTP voting systems should be banned everywhere, and anyone who thinks they're a good system should be summarily executed so that their stupidity does not spread.)
Your FPTP theory only applies to the initial states of IA and NH - the field winnowed pretty rapidly from that point onwards. First of all, even before IA, some of the candidates, like Perry, Walker, Jindal, Patakis and IIRC Graham dropped out. After IA, Rand Paul, Huckabee and Santorum were gone. After NH, Christie, Gilmore and Carly disappeared, and following SC, Bush was gone. So for Super Tuesday, you already had against Trump a short list of Cruz, Carson, Rubio and Kasich. Of these guys, Carson was already in free fall, something that had started since the San Bernardino killings, and wasn't taking votes from anybody. Cruz was in some quarters of the party hated even more than Trump. So that left just Rubio and Kasich, and the establishment was split b/w them. While the Conservative establishment was happy to back Rubio, the Liberal part of the establishment - Schwarzenegger, Christie Todd Whitman, et al, backed Kasich.
Point is - the only state where Trump had a 'mere' plurality was in NH. Otherwise, he won big in SC, and following that, even more so on Super-Tuesday. By the time FL was over and Rubio had dropped out, it was a 2 man race (aside from OH, and aside from Kasich's delusional belief that there was a third track in the race that was just him). And Cruz did put up a good fight, and was the only one who looked like one who could snatch it from Trump. Some, like Graham and Bush, rallied behind him, but it was farcical: Trump just had to run ads showing their past statements about him. There was no way Cruz had the establishment support, and the much anticipated evangelical support that Cruz expected just walked away to Trump, w/ endorsements by Falwell Jr and Robert Jeffreys.
Bottom line - Trump had as tough a ride as Bernie, but he did not have a fractured opposition. In fact, by the time IA came around, his opposition was already down to 12, and once Bush was gone, his real opposition was 2 - Cruz & Rubio: Carson and Kasich were really also-rans.
Repeat: Mayer for president!
How's that for "diversity and inclusion"?
By removing them from her doomed company, hinting them to pursue a career where there's still hope and opportunity?
Has Mayer ever visited the Eiffel Tower? I'm pretty sure she's been down the Yellow River. She has that look about her.
"just deserts"
"I bet you'd only heard it spoken"
Speaking of which, in which desert did you learn that expression?
Actually, this is more "sins of the father" territory.
She deliberately ruined Yahoo as well
Yes, all spoken languages include ambiguous words. It must be this way; a language of perfect precision would make it impossible to say anything succinctly, and would present weird problems. For example, I couldn't tell you that there was a heap of salt on the table...I would have to measure it to determine its exact mass and dimensions before I could talk about it.
So, "merit" is an ambiguous word, highly sensitive to context. Feel free to use extra words to add clarity any time you need.
As to your second point...yes...human traits classically considered "evil" are highly represented among the rich, powerful, and successful. This may fly in the face of popular notions about the supremacy of kindness, but apart from that I don't see why we would expect otherwise.
Why do you think hey incompetence is linked to her gender?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The question you should be putting is why does the OP think that greater competence is tied to the feminine gender.
By firing males and putting more females in, doesn't it make it more desirable for males to apply?
Hehehe, funny. So far the few poster-girl CEOs are demonstrating they can fuck up and line their own pockets with the best of them. No idea whether women are doing better out of the spot-light, but I somehow doubt it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
We all think we know "fairness" and we all think it's a good thing. Unfortunately it's not actually well-defined and written in stone. My definition of "fairness" is not the same as yours and if Marissa's definition includes getting rid of guys to re-balance the work force to her liking along gender lines, then that's perfectly "fair", right?
Are you paying your "fair share" of taxes?
Are you doing your "fair share" of work to justify your slice of pay and benefits?
Are immigrants getting a "fair" chance at your job? Are you getting a "fair" share at theirs?
Are the Wall St bankers getting a "fair" deal when they get bailed out while paying politicians huge "speaking fees"?
Hillary Clinton got off with over a hundred documented felonies, is that "fair"? A US Navy sailor will be going to prison for a year for six photos that he had in his personal possession that were of a less-classified nature - is that "fair"?
People will disagree on ALL the above, depending on their politics, their place in the economy, etc. "fairness" is simply not a well-defined thing whose definition we all agree on. There's no objective standard for it, which is why politicians LOVE to use the term; they can say it meaning one thing and know that each member of their audience is hearing something entirely different and something each one of them will fell good about.
"Fair" and "Fairness" should be political "trigger words" that cause people to immediately become suspicious and skeptical and to ask lots more questions - no matter WHO uses the words and no matter their claimed agenda
That the MRA types would take an article reporting a law suit that ALLEGES, as though it were already established fact. Because apparently being sued for something means it must already be true without having the claims tested in court. But hey, whatever you need to start foaming at the mouth over dem feminazis.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
It would be interesting to examine — If this happened —how much money they lost as they cut out these employees. Funny how companies like Apple, which haven't been entirely suckered by the Diversity/Feminist Industry, are making crazy good profits, while those which have been are foundering.
It must be true..all of it...
Bernie Sanders is a bona-fide Communist, actually — a prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Complete with nationalizing means of production.
He may be talking about making America more like Scandinavia, but the end result would've been more like Venezuela.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Hillary to "disown" and reject the Communist endorsement.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The reason you even consider Hillary comparably evil to Trump is the unprecedented media campaign against him and for her.
Merely 7% of journalists are Republicans... There has not been a day in the last 6 months, when my iPhone did not have at least one link to a bad article about him, while she is mentioned either neutrally or positively. Washington Post alone has 20 journalists digging up dirt on Trump full time. In 2008, at least, the media still feigned neutrality, hiding the skew against McCain — although, it was an obvious pretense. The public was staggeringly misinformed about both sides — far more people knew all about the cost of Palin's new clothes, for example, than about Biden's past plagiarism, an objective evidence of media's failure to inform.
This time, they don't even pretend any more...
If, despite all these partisan efforts, the worst things they can come up with is his calling some cunt a cunt in 1988 (!), you really ought to ask yourself, how much of that negative perception you have of him is artificially planted...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
White men are evil.
Feed them more soy and turn them into whimsy wimps.
They'll be more compliant and just take it then.
Marissa Mayer is an idiot who took Yahoo from bad to worse. Will be surprising if Yahoo lasts another few years at the rate it's going, so having to find another job now is better than when the rest of Yahoo becomes unemployed.
.....but she's a dirty kike too.
Worst of all worlds.
A Jewish bimbo who got promoted based on her ability to suck the bosses cock.
And they wonder why she couldn't run a charity bake sale ?
Bullshit. Most men throughout history were horribly oppressed, usually by other men and the women at the oppressors' sides.
Note that Hillary is pretty much repeating that pattern.
Yeah? tell me that when scoiety doesn't trat women better than men., such as "women and children first", or when prostate cancer (that kills more men than breast cancer does women) gets equal funding /awreness to breast cancer, or when equal numbers of women are doing the shittier jobs and society doesn't see a problem with it, like fighting on front lines or even just taking the trash out.
This is, indeed, one possible explanation.
A couple of my former-then-returned-back-to-company colleagues explained it as "didn't like it there" and "much stress", yes, you could guess their gender.
I could never imagine that kind of justifications working for me, job is a place where I go to earn money.
Which is it? Also, nice misdirection to emphasize your point. You do this a lot? A less cynical bastard than myself would have missed it.
The Great Society programs didn't create single parent families. Men didn't leave because they were chased away by the welfare cops. What actually happened was we started to fund a bunch of programs to put the breaks on bad trends and then political winds changed (the phrase "Welfare Queen" was coined and dog whistling became a thing) and those programs got yanked.
First, make no mistake that things weren't puppy dogs and kittens for blacks before the G.S.. Life was nasty/brutish/short for everyone, but _especially_ blacks. They were the underclass used as a social cushion to keep the white working class from getting uppity (similar to what India does with the Untouchables and their whole caste system).
Wanna solve those problems? More socialism. Given the lack of factory jobs and the fact that robots are cheaper than humans unless you treat 'em worse than pack mules that's your only option. But you don't really want to solve anything, do you? You want to sound like you do so you have plausible deniability and don't feel too bad about yourself.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the left has been working hard to protect _everybody's_ rights. And I wouldn't call that guy a radical extremist. I'd call him mentally ill and very likely a closet homosexual (he'd been hanging around the bar a bit too much to just be 'casing' the joint, they recognized him).
There is no pyramid. Everybody gets protected. Nobody gets left behind. Nobody thrown under the bus. And that includes Muslims.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hahaha so funny to have to point this out. Ready?
Who watches more TV? Men or Women?
Right, women.
How do you make more money, pandering to men, or women?
Right, women.
So, as a TV producer, who do you pander to, men, or women?
Of course, women.
How do you sell this bias? Say it's not biased. Who can check it? Noone.
This process is 100% invisible. Win. Win. Win. $$$
Result: Every imaginable female fantasy is bolstered, men are demeaned, and money is made.
Hence, the current cultural bias.
Feminism is really, really easy to understand when your a woman. Here's how it works:
If your a woman you're physically weaker than just about any man alive. A woman at peak fitness can barely match the strength of an average male (/. crowd not withstanding).
Now, if you've been paying attention you've seen 5000+ years of history where women were treated like absolute garbage with maybe a dozen exceptions. Then you've got about 100 years of history where a _very_small_ subset of women get treated as equals. You can spend 5 minutes on google and find horror stories in 80% of the world with pictures of women with acid burns and missing their hands because they went out dancing.
So you'll have to forgive the ditzy little things if they're just a tad fucking nervous. They've got damn good reason to be.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
'Nuff Said
Correlation?
Don't worry.
This is common male attacking due to... I wish I was the CEO.
I applied in IT many years ago before your time with Yahoo. The Chair of I.T. said that I cannot be in charge even though I new more than the IT Team.
She insisted that her lady friend stays in charge, IT Hospital Team. Same thing at colleges where the upper structure is all female.
* I've studied an analyzed Yahoo.
* Your situation is... Why is she the CEO... I want to be the CEO
The plural of your anecdote is not data.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act.
You mean besides the ability to get to the top based on skills? Why do I have a feeling you're one of those people that believes meritocracy is a MRA construct.
Om, nomnomnom...
There are areas that government agencies need to improve. One area that federal agencies get right is diversity. Agencies keep statistics on hiring, promotion, and performance bonuses. At my agency there is a good mix of both male and female senior leaders.
Anonymous down-mods that are not accompanied with an actual argument to justify the down-mod are far more obnoxious than almost anything else in a message system - they are the antithesis of a discussion.
Of course, a drive-by slap from a snowflake who is all into "fairness" and does not want any discussion of the basic idea is hardly surprising.
Performance review systems are inherently problematic. But there is a severe lack of female counterparts in tech companies. Somehow my gut feeling is that this lawsuit is baseless and its very unlikely to be true. The lack of diversity and the push to allow women in higher positions is a good thing.
The only problem is the men or women pushed to the top are often the least able to lead and this is the real problem. We need leaders who can lead. I have seen small amounts of bias in tech against males, but when you look at the other side, us males need to just take it. When you look what is done to the other side, the small amount of bias we suffer is tiny compared to what females go through. There are good leaders out there, but I have seen very few, I can count them on three fingers out of the many scores I know personally (and all 4 are men, and one is black, and they are all from different countries). Being that 99% of the people in this group are men, it should not be surprising at all that I have not met a female yet that is competent to be a leader (who I knew in a leadership position). Most of the people up there are ego maniacs who have no clue what they are doing. Gender matters not and women should be encouraged to move up. THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN!
At least he doesn't have to work at Yahoo! anymore.
The OP - which is me - didn't say that competence was tied to gender, only that gender is not fairly represented.
Given how screwed up the system is today under the last 800,000 years of male rule, my implication is having women in charge could certainly not be any worse.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain