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."

Comments

Cue the feminists

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cue the feminists

[BarbaraHudson]

Dude. There are no feminists on this web site.

Actually there are - both male and female. However, achieving equality isn't in the SJW's agenda, and the definition of feminist has been transformed into something ugly and repulsive to many of both sexes.

Re:Cue the feminists

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. There are no feminists on this web site.

LIke hell.

I bet some of them are even female.

The others are pussified sitzpinklers who wonder why all the HAWT women go for masculine MEN.

Re:Cue the feminists

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism falls within that as Al Qaeda falls within Islam and Westboro Baptist Church falls within Christianity.

On this note, there is no such thing as a bad or a good feminist. There are just feminists who are too lazy or unwilling to self-regulate their collective, and other feminists.
To automatically vocally denounce a feminist for acting radically or unbecoming of the ideal, is to only pull No True Scotsman arguments for the purpose of shedding the responsibility to self-regulate your movement.
The idea that feminism is infallible is precisely what makes it such a hated and crappy movement, and it's also what produces egoistic and narcissistic tendency within the movement. And to state that feminist definition has been "twisted" just so the precious label can remain infallible and pure, is precisely the kind of mentality which only further blemishes feminism.
The crux of the matter is, anyone who labels themselves a feminist is not fighting for equal rights, because people who fight for equal rights aren't in need of worthless labels or worthless label defending.
They are out there in the field doing shit, rather than playing Internet warrior from a chair scouring through Twitter for their next male (and even female as of late) target to "shame" and defame because they have different opinions.

Internet feminists are just plain garbage.

Re:Cue the feminists

[epyT-R]

Well, the feminism that is defining policy in government and large institutions is increasingly coming into line with that 'fanatic element,' largely thanks to it running unchecked through academia like diarrhea through diseased intestines.

Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair

[JoeyRox]

Because if they were fair they would have lead to her own termination.

Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair

[mi]

The story of Yahoo!'s downfall can be repeated on a much grander scale, if we elect a woman simply because she is a woman .

Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair

[ScentCone]

the misogyny is strong with this one

The most obvious thing that's wrong with Team SJW is that they do things like calling the pointing out of facts "misogyny." Finally, enough people are getting sick of that Orwellian bit of PC nonsense, and millions of people are preparing to vote for someone they don't particularly like, just so they can deny a vote the kind of person who practices and preaches that sort of deliberate BS in pursuit of political power.

No, pointing out that it's foolish to vote for a corrupt, incompetent, career-long liar who has only evaded prison because of her political connections because she is a woman is NOT misogyny. But calling someone who makes that observation a misogynist is an example of the juvenile, delusional mindset and behavior that has millions and millions of people taking steps to show how sick they are of it. Let me guess, you consider that half of your fellow citizens to be irredeemably deplorable, right? Yeah, figured.

The opressed can not opress

[mi]

Just as the oppressed Blacks can not themselves be racist, women can not possibly be sexist.

Re:The opressed can not opress

[ooloorie]

Of course, at some point, people simply stop caring. 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.

Re:The opressed can not opress

[Urist McSlashdot]

The problem is that when I look in a dictionary, it says that racism is prejudice or discrimination based on race, and that sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender. And that's how lots of people use those words. The Bustle article you linked to even says, "Sure, men might experience discrimination, bullying or even disparagement of their gender," which is literally sexism.

But you, and others like you, have added "institutional or systemic" to the definitions. And then you tell other people that they're wrong if they use those words without that implicit addition.

What I call racism you call prejudice based on race (which is the dictionary definition of racism). And what you call racism I call systemic racism. I've met plenty of people who will readily acknowledge that systemic racism and sexism exist and are important problems. They'll also readily acknowledge that white men in America cannot be victims of systemic sexism and racism (although the patriarchal system is detrimental to men in various ways, but that's another discussion). They just use slightly different language than you do.

Trying to impose a new definition on words that are thoroughly entrenched in our language makes you come across as an asshat and makes people stop listening. Maybe this whole conversation would go better if you didn't tell an enormous swath of the country that their consensus definitions are wrong and just resigned yourself to putting the word "systemic" in front.

Re:The opressed can not opress

[Solandri]

That is self-contradictory. If discrimination against an individual male can be justified because of the average traits of males as a whole can legitimately warrant that discrimination, then discrimination against any individual can be justified because of the average traits of the larger group he/she belongs to.

The whole point of anti-stereotype and anti-discrimination statutes is to prohibit using average traits of the group an individual belongs to as justification for sanctions against that individual. The assumption being that while the stereotype may be true of the group on average, it may not be true of a particular individual who belongs to that group, and it is wrong to pre-assume that individual exhibits those traits and thus must be sanctioned for it.

In other words, you cannot pick and choose which groups get protection from discrimination and stereotyping. Either all are protected, or none are. Either applying the average traits of a group to all individual members of that group is OK, or it is wrong.

lesson purge males = sure fail and bankruptcy

[sittingnut]

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.

A question for westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:A question for westerners

[DNS-and-BIND]

White female teacher has sex with 15 year old student. Gets a slap on the wrist.

White male teacher has sex with 15 year old student. Gets life ruined, sex offender, and a lengthy prison sentence during which his life will be in danger every day.

Re:A question for westerners

[Anonymous Coward]

This, and we can add paternity bs in France and Germany, alimony and guardianship which is geared towards white women (but since news articles finally started going out for the past few years about the horrid ways some women mistreat their children, things have been geared to treat alimony and guardianship over children more objectively),
and not a single case or news article about unequal pay geared against men of all races in the fashion industry (until BBC and whoever they took the article from finally revealed that unequal pay is not inherently a female problem),
and much more.
Even female criminals get unequal sentences for the same crimes to their male counterparts, albeit this is mostly a problem in countries with non-European judicial systems where there is no precedent like in the American system and everything is defined.

Sounds about right

[sgt_doom]

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 . . . .

Re:Patriarchal Society gets a 'Come-up-ins'...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Rode this Merry-Go-Round already

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Meh.

[dskoll]

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.

Re:Only one explanation

[Rockoon]

Its because a muslim walked into a gay night club and killed lots of homosexuals, and the response from the left was to push their gun control agenda while saying "dont call them radical extremists."

Gay people have realized that within the SJW pyramid, they are at the bottom getting crushed.

Re:Only one explanation

[ScentCone]

So you're saying that the "alt-right" you find so disturbing IS the Republican party, but the hardcore lefties who literally attack Trump supporters in the street, say they hate him as they burn down parts of their own cities, screech that the First Amendment's protections shouldn't apply to non-liberals, and who think that (for example) Julian Assange should be shot for endangering Hillary Clinton's campaign ... those are all people who ARE the Democrat party, right? People who align with Hillary Clinton but who actually call for police to be killed and for the tearing down of any privately owned businesses ... that's what Democrats stand for, and thus why you should vote for Clinton, right? Because you like those ideas?

Or is there a chance that you're being a totally disingenuous hypocrite in using one fraction of one group to define the whole, but carefully avoiding that exact same standard when it comes to the person you like?