Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Led Illegal Purge of Male Employees, Lawsuit Charges (mercurynews.com) 566
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Dude. There are no feminists on this web site.
Re:Cue the feminists (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
There are people who wake up every day and hate well off white men simply because they're well off white men with no effort to understand the point of how they got to be where they were.
Many if not most of those got where they are largely because were born into a household headed by another well-off white man.
Re:Cue the feminists (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you count "good parenting" or "being taught hard-work american values" or "not being a single-parent family" as the sort of unfair advantage that you would complain about as being a racist/sexist unequal-outcome phenomenon?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cue the feminists (Score:5, Interesting)
Or are you suggesting that the 1960s broke up all-american hard-working black nuclear families?
Sadly, pretty much yeah. The Great Society social programs of the 1960's (that perversely rewarded single parent households), combined with the get-tough-on-crime/War on Drugs policies of the 1980's (that began incarcerating black men at an unprecedented rate) pretty much destroyed the traditional black family.
Today, two-thirds of black kids live in single-parent households and 72% of them are born out of wedlock. Conversely, only 1 in 4 white kids live in single-parent households and only 25% of them are born out of wedlock.
Re: (Score:3)
Most well off white men I know came from poor families but are very talented in their domains. They also so happen to be my friends or family.
In my family, my parent's generation were very uneducated and poor. Some not even a high school degree. I didn't even have a TV until I was a pre-teen. But in my family at my generation, we now have a few millionaires, a few MDs who graduated top of their class, and several PHDs and Masters. Two things both sides of my family hold highly, wit and trying your best, but don't forget to relax.
This. There are quite a few well-off white men in my circle of friends now. None of us had all 3 of well-to-do family, two-parent household, and college degree. I'd say 1 of those 3 things is average - a disreputable bunch of trailer trash, hillbillies, and logging camp refuse if I ever saw one. But we made good, mostly in technical fields though there's the one CEO and the one MBA. Everyone else well-off I know is a first or second-generation immigrant.
Re:Cue the feminists (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Cue the feminists (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget the ULTIMATE evil in the world: White HETEROSEXUAL men. I shudder to think of them plotting all their evil deeds.
Re: (Score:3)
You must have missed Biljana Plavsic's war crimes trial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Feminists disagree and criticise each other all the time, just read any of the academic journals, blogs, news sites or attend any talks to see it in action. So the idea that "feminism is infallible" only exists in your mind.
No it really doesn't there. The current 3rd and 4th wave feminists aren't any different then most ideological extremists when they reach their goals. Their entire ideology today can be described as first-world-problems whining. Purge the heretics(including those in their ranks), kill the unbelievers, etc. The current state of feminism can be boiled down to: "If you don't believe in our stuff, we're going to destroy you." And then they go out and in some cases successfully do so. If they're not whining
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cue the butt-hurt misogynists to immediately start making strawman arguments about what feminists are supposedly going to do.
Oh, wait, no need to cue that. It started with the first goddamn post.
Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [huffingtonpost.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Error: division by zero. Bailing out near line 37 + 4.74i
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but what were the final vote totals?
I get it that Trump didn't have 16 other candidates all the way through the race, but he did have more than 1 almost all the way, and just 3 roughly-equal candidates in a FPTP election will necessarily result in a "split vote".
In this case, near the end it was split between Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich.
Not only that, but all the early elections count too; it's not like they go back to IA and NH and let people re-vote instead of wasting their vote on someone like Pa
Re: (Score:3)
I completely disagree about plurality. No, 45% or 35% is not enough. Only with a majority does a leader have a legitimate claim to a seat. A voting system other than FPTP can do this with multiple candidates, which is why FPTP needs to be banned.
If the election were held again with Cruz, Trump, and Kasich, and an approval or ranked voting system used, I think Kasich would probably be the winner. Trump and Cruz are too polarizing. In a democratic system, the leaders should reflect the overall will of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Yet another SJW trope that people have gotten fucking sick of: the idea that if you don't buy into the radical SJW agenda then you must be a racist, sexist, homophobe who hates women, minorities, etc.
Newsflash to my SJW friends: "I value rights like free speech and the right to dissent" != "I hate women."
I used to think the far-right was scary. But these days the left scares me even more. Trump may be a epic douchebag, but at least I don't have to worry about him trying to have me fired, persecuted and arre
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Interesting)
Hating women isn't normal.
Who around here hates women? Asking purely out of curiousity because I can't see anybody.
Several posters are women, and never get grief over that fact. Several posters mention their long term relationships to women.
It's a very rare poster indeed that posts hatred towards women, and they get modded out of existence.
Re: Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FYI: It's not an insult, it's an identifier based on extremist pro-authoritarian public posts/speech/etc. In which case, you along with several posters fit right in there. Every single time you whine and cry over words hurting your feelings, and every time someone drops a load of facts on you. Your first responses are to either try and shift it away from the topic at hand, or go running to your safe space never to mention it again.
Topping that off that your actions and words also seem to support the "no
Re: (Score:2)
And many more will vote for her simply because the Republican nominee is so ridiculously horrible.
Honestly, why couldn't the Republicans have re-nominated Romney or McCain? Either one of those guys would be far preferable to these two clowns we have running this year. I'll even take bimbo Palin as VP nominee again. She may have thought Africa was a country, but she's still better than Pence.
Re: (Score:3)
And many more will vote for her simply because the Republican nominee is so ridiculously horrible.
Honestly, why couldn't the Republicans have re-nominated Romney or McCain? Either one of those guys would be far preferable to these two clowns we have running this year. I'll even take bimbo Palin as VP nominee again. She may have thought Africa was a country, but she's still better than Pence.
Oh, please!!! Reason Romney & McCain lost was that one had run his state in the same way that he was criticizing Obama for, while the other was the most Leftist Republican one could find - most recent activity at the time being second-guessing Rumsfeld every step of the way. Trump is 'ridiculously horrible' only to the establishment GOP types who swear by things like Free Trade, Pro-Life (including rape/incest), Pro-faith (even if the faith in question is Islam), 'Conservatism' (like that's a be-all
Re: (Score:3)
There's a qualified one now, even if she isn't eye candy.
Who are you referring to? The Green candidate? The "doctor" who is anti-science? No, she's not qualified. Non-scientists can be forgiven for not understanding science (though not forgiven for putting anti-science people in science-related roles). But professional scientists who rail against science are exhibiting a world view that immediately disqualifies them from office.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are there scare quotes up there? Dr. Stein is a doctor same as Dr. Paul. She graduated Harvard Medical School and practiced internal medicine for 25 years. She was also an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
You wouldn't be exhibiting a little... sexism... with those scare quotes, would you?
"I think there's no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases â" smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication," Stein said. "Like any medication, they also should be -- what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence."
(WaPo, July 29th, 2016 [washingtonpost.com].)
Disclaimer: I'm voting for the lizard people's candidate this year, not Dr. Stein.
Re: Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Informative)
I've never seen that quote before. But as someone who is a small cog in the industry, what she said about the FDA is absolutely true.
Rising drug costs? The FDA is complicit. Drugs approved without being properly vetted? The FDA is complicit.
Vaccines are great and everything, but do we really need to require thousands of dollars in vaccines for things like chicken pox before a child can go to public school? It's great that insurance hides this cost for most, but I have seen the other side where people have fallen through the cracks in Medicaid and Obamacare. These poor, both in terms of wealth and luck, people needing to get their five year olds caught up before school needing $1200 for the first round.
It was $1200 because government required it, not because of free market. Just like Epipen. Just like so many common generic drugs the FDA pulls from the market as being "unsafe" and then a single patented brand medication takes their place at 100x to 1000x the cost.
Then there is manufacturer collusion where a common drug all of a sudden has "manufacturing" issues and it's not available from any manufacturer. Then in a month or two it's available again, but only from a single source, and yes it's still generic, but at 4x the cost.
This is mostly hidden from "consumers" because insurance. You are still paying your $4 copay. But the costs on the back end are high. Meaning less money for labor, so long lines and wait times at the pharmacy. Higher costs for the insurers mean higher premiums. So all that anger gets thrown at the pharmacy and the insurers. The guys at the top are laughing all the way to the bank.
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Informative)
I'm getting very sick of this SJW/mainstream-media narrative that Donald Trump is some sort of frothing-at-the-mouth madman who's going to start a nuclear war and start sending minorities to concentration camps on his inauguration day.
Donald Trump is a pompous blowhard asshole. But he's also a fairly left-of-center conservative who is anything but crazy or irrational. He has absolutely no interest in starting any wars or doing anything crazy or stupid while in office. War these days is bad business and Trump isn't likely to to go out of his way to oppress anyone. He's way more Ronald Reagan than Dick Cheney.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This might be true, but I doubt anyone could have saved Yahoo. I think the best thing would have been a temporary surge in the stock price so some investors might get rich, but nothing more. And this is what happened.
The sad thing is that Yahoo search still sucks compared to Google search. This, at least, I expected Marissa Mayer to fixed. Regardless, I think Yahoo would have failed anyway.
FYI: Since 2009, Yahoo search has been powered by Bing (MSFT)...
Bing/Yahoo is pretty good now for non-obscure stuff (for obscure tech stuff Google is still way better), but I'm guessing in your mind, the only thing to "fix" it compared to Google search is for Yahoo to roll back the clock to 2004 when Yahoo search was actually powered by Google.
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:5, Interesting)
As a guy who worked in customer service for 15 years and one who spent several years doing it at Yahoo I can tell you that those employee evaluations are nothing more than permission slips to fire employees when they are no longer needed instead of laying them off.
They are intentionally designed with metrics that are impossible to meet and the targets are open to interpenetration by managers, which creates an ever moving target that can't be hit.
It is just like in Office Space where the boss asks the waitress "what do you think of a person who just does the bare minimum."
Meeting expectations is never enough. No matter how good you are, when it comes time to reduce staff you will be eliminated and you have no recourse because the numbers they made up say you performed poorly.
But it's not just Yahoo who does this -- rather it's been the practice at every company I've ever worked at.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it varies in the US with state law, but this is the same thing I've always been told by HR people in the United States when I've approached them about firing low performing employees or even employees with real problems like not showing up.
I had a technician that worked for me who began making a habit of using his vacation time on an ad-hoc basis -- he would leave me a voicemail at 8:29 AM telling me he was going to take a vacation day. When he was back in the office the following day I told him
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Funny)
My wife used to work for hospice.
When she says "transitioned" she means "died."
Which is what Yahoo's going to do, shortly.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
My wife used to work for hospice.
When she says "transitioned" she means "died."
Makes sense. The people "transition" into corpses :-P
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Funny)
I had a boss that was man angry after 3 failed divorces and purged all men from managerial positions.
Ok, I have to ask: how exactly do you fail at a divorce, let alone three of them?
People have failed marriages all the time, but I've never heard of a failed divorce. I've heard of people changing their mind and deciding to stay together, but I wouldn't call that a "failed divorce".
Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair (Score:4, Funny)
She tried to get divorced three times, and each time she filed for divorce the judge pointed out to her that she wasn't actually married to any of her 36 cats.
Sounds like the UK civil service (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Income is down, so... (Score:5, Funny)
She was probably just trying to curtail cost by firing the male employees.
Wasn't this reported in The Onion?
targets are working 60 - 80 hours and H1B! (Score:2)
targets are working 60 - 80 hours and H1B!
lesson purge males = sure fail and bankruptcy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Marissa, Holmes, and Pao should combine (Score:5, Funny)
A question for westerners (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Pretty much agree with your points, although historically white women did get burnt as witches and treated badly in various ways, they've had a relatively less painful time compared to various minorities throughout history.
Truth is the social justice stuff is basically a way for big business to sell more shit to white women. In order to do so they have to mock & belittle men/the poor. This is why men are always dipshits on commercials. This is why tiny teenage girls are super-warriors on film. We've built our global economy around conspicuous consumption geared towards the whims of white women and therefore need to construct a media bubble based around boosting the esteem of the ladies.
Men of course can fuck off. Good-looking rich men are okay as they are aspired to by rich white women. Nerds, fatties, the average-looking, the average-achieving males are basically worthless. Attempts to make them consume like hungry hippos tend to fail so the only thing left is to keep pushing the tat out to the women and hope they keep on buying. Sadly this has resulted in a generation of neurotic females and depressed to shit males, but hey, at least those profits keep coming in.
Re: (Score:3)
Truth is the social justice stuff is basically a way for big business to sell more shit to white women.
There's a good reason for this: women in the US today control more money through household spending than men. Women have jobs and earn almost as much as men now, so if they're single, they of course control all their own money, but then if they're married, they also have disproportionate control of the household money (which usually comes from two earners, the wife and the husband). The only time men hav
Re:A question for westerners (Score:4, Informative)
I thought that was so could cast hot 20-something actresses in those roles and put them in tight and revealing clothing.
Re:A question for westerners (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Most of the "-isms" we love to carry on about in the U.S. stem from some notion of a group of people being underserved or underrepresented in some way. Take a look at the racism/feminism allegations being thrown around in Silicon Valley.
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.
Yes, the media-popularized form of beauty is largely "white woman", or with features similar to a white woman. There have been studies that show beautiful people are typically seen as more trustworthy, which may account for getting away with stuff.
I would have to see evidence of judicial systems biasing toward white women. I do know that in custody disputes, the law is typically on the Mother's side... But that's a gender focus, not a race focus.
- 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.
Again, would need to see evidence of this. For every Paris Hilton there's thousands of "Women of Wal-Mart". The same is true for every Nicki Minaj.
- Is there a discussion being had among a diverse group of people? White women always get the lead.
Not always. Susana Martinez is Governor of New Mexico. Woman? Yes. White? No. Michelle Obama has started a great deal of public discussions about assorted issues. Another example of an extremely influential woman is Oprah Winfrey. One of the most prominent physicists today is Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Musicians? Race and gender are all over the map, just depends on the style of music. Athletes? again, all over the map, but it depends on the sport.
- 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.
Now you are conflating foreign (from the U.S.) religious beliefs and cultural behaviors. Islamic women cover due to their faith, in certain parts of the world that faith is also the government (to a degree), so they will be punished for improper attire.
In some cultures women are mutilated as part of a right of passage. To say nothing about circumcision, some other modern cultures that will circumcise or mutilate a boy as part of his right of passage into manhood. When was the last time you heard of this happening in any first-world country?
White women did get prosecuted, for centuries. Just like women in every other patriarchal society. Women were bought and sold for their hand in marriage. Women did not have a voice in government. Women were used as a sort of parlay between kingdoms to promote peace and an alliance. Hell, women are considered unclean for 7 days a month according to the Bible.
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?
Wait, so you're telling me that all the backlash towar
Re:A question for westerners (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Not true, in the US (and I believe Western Europe too), studies show women of South East Asian descent get the most positive reaction on dating apps. White men, and SE Asian women have the advantage on dating apps.
Citation needed; I've never heard of such a thing. SE Asian women usually means Filipinos, and I have tons of them messaging me on OKC all the time. I just ignore them, because they're all gold-diggers looking for a way to emigrate to the US. I rarely see SE Asian women already living here, and
Re: (Score:3)
Not true, in the US (and I believe Western Europe too), studies show women of South East Asian descent get the most positive reaction on dating apps. White men, and SE Asian women have the advantage on dating apps.
Citation needed; I've never heard of such a thing.
Google it. There are studies done on this all the time and they always come up with the same answer.
This is the first link when I googled it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci... [dailymail.co.uk]
Male babies are still frequently mutilated in the USA, and the medical establishment still backs up this practice even though the European medical establishment gave up on this decades ago.
Are you seriously comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation? Male circumcision may be completely unnecessary (I choose to not circumcise my son), but it is a completely different animal. The complications from the procedure are less frequent than those from piercing ears, or getting tattoos.
If you think male and fema
Re: (Score:2)
So you know nothing about the last few thousand years of history
Are you somehow time traveling here to post, and then going back to live a thousand years ago? No? I see.
Re: (Score:2)
So you know nothing about the last few thousand years of history or anything about society before you were born.
It's entirely irrelevant to discuss the societal position of white women historically when we are discussing "why are white women leading feminism".
White women are not responsible for the bad or good actions of their ancestors. Everyone on this planet, regardless of race or gender should only be judged on what THEY do, not what their ancestors did.
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies... I thought that your reply was to my reply above. Got my indentation wrong.
Typo in the summary? (Score:5, Informative)
Why bother submitting stories? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you're a guy and Slashdot prioritizes submissions from women higher. I think you should sue Slashdot for gender discrimination.
I'm sure that will do wonders (Score:2)
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.
That's what all perf-reviews do. (Score:2)
"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.
Sounds about right (Score:3, Insightful)
Transitioned Out (Score:2)
I guess Yahoo "transitioned out" all of their technical security staff...
Rode this Merry-Go-Round already (Score:2, Insightful)
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. Deci
Blah Blah Shitty CEO Yadda Yadda (Score:2)
This is such a non-story.... (Score:3)
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.
what a bad time for yahoo (Score:2)
Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I for one (Score:3)
I for one welcome our new female overlords.
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If you're that paranoid, all you need to do is get a vasectomy. It can be done in a short office visit.
Re: (Score:2)
POE ALERT
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The opressed can not opress (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Only one explanation (Score:4, Informative)
You're a gay Trump supporter?
Why wouldn't he be? Whether or not Trump personally would enter into a gay marriage, he was in public talking plainly about how happy he was for (his casual acquaintance) Elton John to have married his long-time partner, and that people should be cool with it. At the same time, Hillary Clinton was voicing her support for her husband's signing of a law to prevent such things, and Barack Obama was sticking with his "marriage should be between one man and one woman" position. Trump has created more jobs jumped-on by gay people (in the entertainment, pagent, and hospitality businesses) that Hillary Clinton ever could or would. Why shouldn't a gay person support him? Are gay people supposed to like illegal immigration, higher taxes, more regulation, feckless foreign policy, and a nanny state that makes class and racial tensions WORSE instead of better? Please explain.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Only one explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
Gay people have realized that within the SJW pyramid, they are at the bottom getting crushed.
Re:Only one explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The opressed can not opress (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: The opressed can not opress (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what about opening jars?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I came here to say too. These male employees should be thankful they were forced out early! That company is a resume stain these days. All the women who stuck with it to the end are going to have a harder time getting a job with that black mark on their resumes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Won't someone think of the Rich White Men!!"
Yes, every middle-aged guy sitting in a cubicle at Yahoo making just enough to pay for a house in SV is "rich."