Apple hiring a former Facebook ad products product manager, expanding its ads product suite, and expanding ads slots says more about how they see Facebook than the privacy changes they've made.
Ads is a services market that is growing fast and as the phone market saturates, services will become more important for Apple. This will also help reduce the margin pressure on iPhone hardware.
Because good advertising still impacts you even if you “know to ignore it”, and there’s lots of ways to advertise to people that aren’t ads in the classic sense.
I suspect that adblocker usage is also a lot lower than you expect, with a quick Google showing less than half of people worldwide using adblockers on desktop and adoption below 20% for mobile devices in the US. So there’s still a broad market to target.
I discovered recently that eventually they catch you through persistence. Like YouTube ads, I was busy in another window and couldn't skip the add without interrupting something I was doing which couldn't be interrupted. So I wound up inadvertently listening to the ad, and they said some interesting stuff that make me pan back to the ad and watch it. Eventually ads catch you at an inopportune time, which is inopportune for you, but opportune for them.
> His hiring “calls into question parts of our system of inclusion at Apple, including hiring panels, background checks, and our process to ensure our existing culture of inclusion is strong enough to withstand individuals who don’t share our inclusive values,” they write.
So they want to exclude someone for having different opinions to them, in the name of inclusivity?
I think the clown world is hiring someone who wrote:
“Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.”
It's especially ironic after an epidemic plague where 70% of health care workers are women. But I guess they're mostly useless baggage who are full of shit. Unlike this guy. See, he really understands how the world is and is just "telling it like it is". Let's trade all these useless women for shotgun shells, and hire people like this guy instead.
Brilliant, now we announce you take mental health break for a week. Let the whole company know how we care about you. What? Not accepting would be disgraceful, sorry I insist you take it and get better NOW.
"When she was in her teens, her father decided to move the family to the United States, where they suffered a financial reversal she was unwilling to talk about. Suddenly not among the moneyed class, she hustled herself through the redbrick boondocks of the University of Vermont. Citibank internship led to a Deutsche Bank job, and after a few years she was an equity derivatives trader at Deutsche, holding her own against the toff sharks of the City of London.
She had wild green eyes, with unnatural red spots in her irises when you pulled close, reminiscent of that Afghan girl from the National Geographic cover. Her personality was flinty and rough, and as leathery as her skin. She had spent years between various jobs backpacking around the rougher parts of the world. She was an imposing, broad-shouldered presence, six feet tall in bare feet, and towering over me in heels.
Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.
British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing whatever work- be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun blast in someone's back- required doing. Long story short, you wanted to tie your genetic wagon to the backing horse of her bloodline. Which is why I was less nervous than I should have been on a random Saturday in July..."
So it's a passage in a (novel? Definitely a literary piece anyway) where, in order to better sing the praise of one particular woman, she is compared to another common type in the same environment. All clearly point of view of a narrator (who might or might not be the author). If these are the parameters, we should throw in the bin almost all literature, from men and women alike.
He did not write a fiction novel. He wrote a book about his time working on ads at Facebook. He has now been hired to work on ads at Apple. Pointing this out is not "throwing away all literature".
That's not exactly accurate, because his book was obviously modeled on the 'gonzo' journalism of Hunter S. Thompson, Lester Bangs, and that sort of writer from the 70s. Those writers mixed fiction and fictional devices into their "nonfiction", consciously pushing every edge they could, with the intention of shocking the squares and thrilling the hip. To anyone familiar with that genre, it's clear that such passages are satirical excess, not meant to be taken literally, or at least mostly not, but with enough ambiguity left over to be dangerous.
What's interesting in this episode is how the culture has shifted. The exact same style that once delighted the counterculture, which at the time was what progressives all identified with, is now a transgression that gets you banned from progressive circles, which have since become elite circles culturally, with growing political power as well. All of this is a tectonic cultural shift, and it's fascinating!
There's a very interesting intermediate case at the midpoint between Hunter S. Thompson and this guy: that is the similarly gonzo The eXile which was produced by Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi during their time in Russia in the 90s. The worst passages from that publication—which were far more misogynistic than anything this guy wrote—were dredged up a few years ago, with the intention of denouncing the authors as part of MeToo. In the end, nothing much came of it, partly because one of the women being written about came forward to say that those passages were satirical and that she had always been treated well by the authors. But I think the more important difference between that case and this is that the culture has shifted significantly in the intervening 3 or 4 years. If this incident were happening now, I bet the outcome would be different. The very same gunpowder that made counterculture heroes of Thompson and his ilk, and which the eXile guys got away with by a hair, now blows up in your face, and at much smaller doses too.
Yes. We're allowed to judge people for the things they do and so, and decide we don't want to work with them. He's allowed his, and we're allowed ours. Many people are not interested with working with people that hold these world views, not when they have influence over the career progression of others.
So women should be forced to work under a known misogynist, their salary and promotions tied to a boss that thinks them inferior and has literally published a book saying so? Yeah, there are no examples of that going poorly.
Nobody forces them to work, and 'known mysogynist' is just a personal attack without merit. What actions did he take against women in general or any woman in particular to be called a misogynist?
Remember, if it's only your personal belief, if you dislike the book and the author of it you're free to look for another workplace. But not free to take actions against someone just because you don't like them.
I dont think i missed the book, i just have a different view of the situation. It's true i didnt read the book, and dont feel compelled to read it, but also dont feel offended by it or have any desire to punish the author. It's just a book, paper covered with some text.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves when they are attacked by someone, threatened or endangered by someone's actions. But it's not that type of situation. And so taking actions against the author to harm them, cause trouble or harass in any other way is not self defense at all, it's actually quite the opposite.
In addition to that, drawing conclusions from the text of the book to assume the author would mistreat female coworkers goes a bit too far. Author can be a total asshole and have totally messed up views, but if he doesnt act on them then how do you justify harassing him?
> women should be forced to work under a known misogynist
How do you know he's a misogynist? You read a small, absolutely marginal excerpt from a book that is clearly written in a literary style. In it, he draws a comparison between a particular woman, who is praised for her talent and resourcefulness, and "most Bay Area women", who are definitely not all women, in the Bay Area and much less in general. "Most Americans" is not a judgement on human beings, "most American men" is not a judgement on all men, so why should "most Bay Area women" be a judgement on all women? And this is even assuming that that remark corresponds to some deep conviction, which is a silly assumption given the style and the context.
"Pretentious, pseudo-intellectual misogynist pontificates about his theories on tech business, society, and capitalism while sneering at every other human with Olympian contempt and making unacceptable sexist comments about women for about 500 pages."
To who? Eastern European woman. How is this sexist?
> known misogynist
Men find women physically attractive.
I would be interested to know what films, books, comedians you actually find permissible for yourself to enjoy.
If you take offense to what is written here, I really don’t see how most of the media available today can be suitable. Do you ever ask yourself if you are being consistent in your standards?
I don't have to work for those directors, authors, or comedians. And if Joss Whedon is any indication, a lot of other people don't want to either but have toxic people like this forced upon them by powers-that-be.
Well I'm not interested in working with people who feel entitled to targeting someone and mobbing to destroy them based on opinions and personal beliefs. This is illegal activity imho
I actually agree that in context, the passage is every-so-slightly better. But it's still an extremely offensive thing to say! If you were a woman in the bay area, and the man responsible for your performance reviews had written that "most women in the bay area" are "useless baggage you'd trade for a box of shotgun shells", would you expect to get a fair evaluation?
There are other situations—Teen Vogue, for instance—where I think the world greatly overreacts, but this doesn't strike me as one of those cases.
You are hearing only what supports your narrative because you need to hate on something. Humans simply love to hate.
The context of the quote is comparing Bay Area women to the Eastern European woman that he is dating.
And now you bring the female healthcare workers into it too. Hey women - look what this guy is writing about you.
What you will find is that it is actually you, who is decreasing net happiness of everyone around you from your confused outrage.
The article author and the people who share the quote out of context, all think they are helping (at least I hope) but they are actually saddening the world and spreading a fiction that doesn’t exist.
It’s weird for people of Latin descent. If they’re on your side, they are people of color, if they are not, then, by magic, they are no longer. This happens to Hispanic cops as well. If they are on the other side of the progressive equation, then they’re also people of color.
How so? People can have all the opinions they want but saying things such as "women are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit." isn't okay. Please convince me how that is employable behavior?
yes, precisely, which is why i brought up the paradox of tolerance. the parent comment was trying to say that if apple really wanted an "inclusive" workspace, they needed to be inclusive to sexist guy as well. the paradox of tolerance explains why that doesn't work in practice, and why apple was right to eject him.
When the "different opinion" involves proclaiming that a whole class of your fellow workers are "soft, weak and full of $#!+" then yes, you should be resolutely excluded from positions of authority since you have willingly forfeited the kind of trust that's required for any such role. Let this guy stay in a pure engineering/IC role if he wants, but he should not be in a management position.
This is out-of-context quoting. The passage in question is actually about a woman he met and how she was not these things. The very next sentence says:
"British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing whatever work—be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun blast to someone’s back— required doing"
In other words he is comparing personalities and attitudes, not making generalisations about literally all women. But the subset of women he is generalising about are exactly the sort who are now trying to make him unemployable by quoting him out of context (i.e. being "full of shit") and demanding that Apple shield them (i.e. "cosset") by getting rid of a guy who finds other kinds of women more attractive. They also appear to be objecting to a passage that states something about the murder rate and naming of high schools in a particular area, which is presumably factual? So, they're kind of proving his point for him.
Saying things like "women soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit." is more than just a difference of opinion. You cannot hold that opinion and be a fair leader.
It's not like Apple is making money from misogynistic music or supports a regime that enforces female sterilization. As long as Apple employees to have a safe space from offensive ideas and people all is okay.
So you think women should feel okay working alongside someone who thinks they are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit?
It's not about safe spaces or offensive ideas. It's about enabling sexism and racism to freely propagate while telling minority groups that it isn't harmful despite past experience.
I was just pointing out the myopic hypocrisy of the complaint. Also, women are not a minority group, but I would say that if he's hired to do a job at a company he should be held to the same standards as any other employee. If he acts in ways that are outside the standards set by the company he should be fired. If the company rules don't allow for sexism, there will be none enabled. I think pre-screening employees based on their speech is a road to nowhere. I don't know where the racism part came from did I miss that in the article?
This was buried in the article, but James Danmore is racist now.
> notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech.
It seems that people just keep tacking on “sins” to see what sticks to people’s reputations regardless of the facts. Was there anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color?
> lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech
James Damore never said anything of the sort. He was concerned that women might feel excluded in an engineering-focused environment and be less likely to seek such a role because of the different aggregation of preferences and inclinations among women as opposed to men. He said zilch about quality or potential for success, or for that matter about any individual woman (as opposed to aggregate trends and their influence on 'big picture' stats).
His doc repeatedly said programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended. And that diversity of gender and race should not be a goal. I don't think it's a big leap.
Many years ago a big tech company opened a new office in my city and started recruiting developers at my university. They wanted to be fair and treat both sexes equally so they decided on male/female parity (at least 30% women). But on my year (computer science) there were just 3 gals vs 30 guys, but there were groups with even worse ratio. So the company hired all female students they could and then started looking outside. Even hired some girls from biology (qualifications weren't that important) because they had to fill in female positions, so then they could give offers to male programmers. Felt pretty bad, this was certainly one of such programs you mentioned
Being as generous with the interpretation as possible, I guess suggesting new programs to replace existing ones could be interpreted as "programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended", as ending one and replacing it is kind of ending. Saying "repeatedly" seems a stretch though.
Can you explain what I'm missing that lead to your beliefs?
OK, so you read that section and see it as "repeatedly said programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended"?
There is another section with programs Damore claimed would be more effective. I am confused why replacing programs equates to ending them. Unless the goal is only to have good intentions, shouldn't the effectiveness of programs matter?
He uses that to suggest the programs increase racial tensions, not to suggest that we shouldn't be trying to get more people of color involved in tech. He cites this article [0] as his reasoning.
>Was there anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color?
James Damore's point was that diversity hires make for low quality hires. People who believe that may see a PoC working in tech and automatically assume they got hired for their skin color and not skill.
Something bad is happening to companies, they become full of shit because of nothing. Isn't there a difference between expressing unpopular opinions and actually abusing or attacking people? Or thoughtcrime is becoming punishable? Someone is working hard on adding fuel to misogyny
Since when can you not judge a person on what they write in a published book?
This isn’t “crime”, nobody is claiming it’s illegal. But it’s still sexist and flat out wrong to essentially say that most women are worthless, and it’s perfectly reasonable not to want to work with or for someone who demonstrates such sexist thinking and poor judgement.
You can judge as much as you want. But organizing a mob with pitchforks to attack the author and teach them a lesson is not exactly harmless. Or your 'judging' is more like 'lynching'
Saying that a person shouldn’t be hired into a prominent position where they will likely manage women on the basis that that person has said women are worthless is nothing like lynching.
Not exactly lynching, not exactly calling, not exactly women, not exactly worthless. Likely to be abusive or hostile towards women because he did what? Any cases from the past? Or is the book title 'Mein Kampf'?
We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments. That's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
I don’t believe that you can make a comment as sweeping as “most Bay Area women... are so useless you could trade them for a jerry can of diesel” that doesn’t reflect a stance on all women.
There are 7.75 million people in the “Bay Area”, presumably about half women. The idea that you could believe nearly 4 million women with totally disparate histories - only united by currently living in the Bay Area and being women - are mostly useless without making sexist generalizations about women defies credibility in my view.
And I used the word “most” because his quote begins “most Bay Area women are soft, cosseted, and naive...” so you’ll have to ask him what he means by “most”.
Imagine the opposite. You come with a preconceived notion that your colleagues are tough, resilient, uncosseted.
It’s simply not true of Bay Area employees. They make huge sums of money and yet you must give them everything they want or they will strike, form unions etc.
They are emotionally triggered by words they misinterpret etc.
It’s better to be realistic about the people you are going to work with so as to not hurt their feelings. Is this weak? Yes. But I think what they believe in is that it’s okay to be weak and lack emotional resilience, and instead, we should restrict and censure anything and anyone that violates are emotional safety, rather than being strong and building emotional resilience, etc.
If the quote references “Bay Area” women then this is completely different to talking about women in general - which would be sexist.
Like many commenters here you are taking the quote out of context. A classic scarecrow argument.
Because if we read “Bay area women”, we then have to ask “why does he draw this conclusion about Bay Area women in particular?”.
And then it becomes obvious he is comparing them to the Eastern European women he is newly dating.
Read the full quote.
He should have included Bay Area men too but because he is comparing to his girlfriend it wouldn’t have made sense.
> trade for shotgun shells during invasion
Most Bay Area people are anti-military and easily offended and need a heap of things to be done for them to feel “safe” and mental support etc. - as is perfectly exemplified in this very drama. This is your Bay Area women he talks about.
The point he makes here is that if there was a zombie invasion survival situation (zombies associate with shotguns), it’s unlikely that the people with characteristics I described above would be much help, compared with his Easter European girlfriend who he sees as tougher. This could be said about “bay area people”.
It’s honestly funny to think about a Bay Area person fighting a zombie war because of every trivial thing triggers them into an anxiety attack.
A person who wrote that Bay Area women are "soft", "weak" "useless baggage" that "should be traded for shotgun shells" should not be entrusted with a position where he evaluates other people's job performance.
The article quotes one of those Bay Area woman in tech who finds her job and life "exhausting." A common affliction. Why are these strong Bay Area women so exhausted all the time?
Are you implying that men in tech in the Bay Area don’t find their jobs exhausting? There are posts by men from the Bay Area talking about burn out on HN every day.
Now imagine you are a woman in an industry dominated by men, a significant portion of whom make sly, lightly veiled sexist comments (like yours seems to be) all the time. Wouldn’t that make it even more exhausting than it is for the men?
Maybe they'd be less exhausted if they focused on doing their job instead of complaining about men. People with some level of capability aren't the ones worried about being considered weak or useless and whining in public about how they are exhausted as if twitter was some kind of personal pity party.
But what do I know, I live in SoCal. Which, I've observed, has more high quality women per capita than the Bay Area. I think it's because of the beaches.
I think this comment is a perfect example of why women feel the need to speak out against sexism. They wouldn’t need to “complain” if people like you would just listen.
I think many are too quick to crucify the guy after reading a few quotes. I mean, I can see how some of those comments may be construed as misogynistic, but I would need to read the whole book to understand the context, and I'll definitely not pass judgement before doing that.
I'm generally wary of cancel culture, but I don't even understand how a person could even really say such a thing i.e. 'women are useless and full of crap' let alone publish it.
Forget the bigotry ... just the lack of self awareness is pretty crazy.
I don't like the infusion of Damore however, that's a different discussion, I wish people would stop crossing streams on such an important subject, full of nuance in every direction. This guy's statements are of a different kind than Damores.
I really despise the term "inclusivity". This guy seems like a prick but I wish companies would be honest about what they are doing. "Inclusivity" means getting everyone to subscribe to a narrow corporate worldview. "Diversity" is similar, it's not about diversity of thought or experience, but rather of immutable characteristics which have no inherent value.
I was recently asked to participate in a "community diversity and inclusivity survey". Not one question was concerned with freedom of expression or diversity of thought. It seems immutable characteristics are of paramount importance, or rather cynically, perhaps just the optics of their proportions are a valuable commodity. In a corporate setting neither inclusivity or diversity are at all what they purport to be.
He is comparing Bay Area girls to a girl he was sleeping with whose family moved here from Russia when she was a teenager and who “had spent years backpacking through jobs in rougher parts of the world”.
This is the reference to “worldliness”.
Being raised in the Bay Area compared to the experience of a family descended from Russia is of course going to result in a different upbringing and personality.
I don’t think this is hard to argue with unless you are naive to history and have not spoken to those who lives through 20th century Eastern Europe.
Ironic, as the lack of “worldliness” that those refute, is the same quality that prevents them from appreciating the sentiment in the quote.
I haven't read the book, but the excerpts to me looks like someone writing some dark shit in a certain voice to entertain a certain type of reader. I see how people can think this stuff is in poor taste, but not sure I like a world where someone's "creative writing" (successful mind you) becomes grounds for dismissal from a completely unrelated job.
Under normal circumstances we might turn the flags off on this story because it's an incremental development in an interesting new phenomenon (employee activism influencing corporate decisions—is that a neutral enough way to put it?). In principle, it's on topic, as https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html makes clear. But this thread is so wretched that it deserves every stigma we've got.
All: if you're posting to this site to smite enemies, you're abusing it. That's not what HN is for, and it destroys what it is for. Please review the guidelines and use the site as intended, lest it burn to a crisp. Scorched earth, as I've been trying to tell people here for years, is not interesting—nor is it in any of our interests. This forum is only valuable to any of us to the degree that it can remain interesting and unpredictable.
Off topic, but your relentless efforts to make this site civil, even when I’m sure all of us consider ourselves to be that, makes me think about Basecamp.
A company’s internal chat should have a moderator or forbid off-topic (meaning work-related) discussions. Doing neither is naive. Basecamp was right
We've reached a point where white women can cancel a Hispanic man for speaking facts that they don't like.
The quote about East Palo Alto being a crime central hood was absolutely correct 10-15 years ago. Ask anyone who went to high school during that time. And they use that quote to fire him?
Woke people gonna woke to make themselves feel better. They are evil: deny and reject reality to make themselves feel better.
98 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadAds is a services market that is growing fast and as the phone market saturates, services will become more important for Apple. This will also help reduce the margin pressure on iPhone hardware.
I suspect that adblocker usage is also a lot lower than you expect, with a quick Google showing less than half of people worldwide using adblockers on desktop and adoption below 20% for mobile devices in the US. So there’s still a broad market to target.
So they want to exclude someone for having different opinions to them, in the name of inclusivity?
Clown world.
“Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.”
It's especially ironic after an epidemic plague where 70% of health care workers are women. But I guess they're mostly useless baggage who are full of shit. Unlike this guy. See, he really understands how the world is and is just "telling it like it is". Let's trade all these useless women for shotgun shells, and hire people like this guy instead.
"When she was in her teens, her father decided to move the family to the United States, where they suffered a financial reversal she was unwilling to talk about. Suddenly not among the moneyed class, she hustled herself through the redbrick boondocks of the University of Vermont. Citibank internship led to a Deutsche Bank job, and after a few years she was an equity derivatives trader at Deutsche, holding her own against the toff sharks of the City of London.
She had wild green eyes, with unnatural red spots in her irises when you pulled close, reminiscent of that Afghan girl from the National Geographic cover. Her personality was flinty and rough, and as leathery as her skin. She had spent years between various jobs backpacking around the rougher parts of the world. She was an imposing, broad-shouldered presence, six feet tall in bare feet, and towering over me in heels.
Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.
British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing whatever work- be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun blast in someone's back- required doing. Long story short, you wanted to tie your genetic wagon to the backing horse of her bloodline. Which is why I was less nervous than I should have been on a random Saturday in July..."
So it's a passage in a (novel? Definitely a literary piece anyway) where, in order to better sing the praise of one particular woman, she is compared to another common type in the same environment. All clearly point of view of a narrator (who might or might not be the author). If these are the parameters, we should throw in the bin almost all literature, from men and women alike.
What's interesting in this episode is how the culture has shifted. The exact same style that once delighted the counterculture, which at the time was what progressives all identified with, is now a transgression that gets you banned from progressive circles, which have since become elite circles culturally, with growing political power as well. All of this is a tectonic cultural shift, and it's fascinating!
There's a very interesting intermediate case at the midpoint between Hunter S. Thompson and this guy: that is the similarly gonzo The eXile which was produced by Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi during their time in Russia in the 90s. The worst passages from that publication—which were far more misogynistic than anything this guy wrote—were dredged up a few years ago, with the intention of denouncing the authors as part of MeToo. In the end, nothing much came of it, partly because one of the women being written about came forward to say that those passages were satirical and that she had always been treated well by the authors. But I think the more important difference between that case and this is that the culture has shifted significantly in the intervening 3 or 4 years. If this incident were happening now, I bet the outcome would be different. The very same gunpowder that made counterculture heroes of Thompson and his ilk, and which the eXile guys got away with by a hair, now blows up in your face, and at much smaller doses too.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-the-hypocrites-at-apple-who...
It's not fiction. It's an autobiography. These are his personal opinions and feelings.
Right, because women are all still all housewives and don't need to worry about bills or having jobs and the bosses they might have.
> What actions did he take against
How have you missed the whole "wrote book expressing lots of misogyny" bit?
How do you know he's a misogynist? You read a small, absolutely marginal excerpt from a book that is clearly written in a literary style. In it, he draws a comparison between a particular woman, who is praised for her talent and resourcefulness, and "most Bay Area women", who are definitely not all women, in the Bay Area and much less in general. "Most Americans" is not a judgement on human beings, "most American men" is not a judgement on all men, so why should "most Bay Area women" be a judgement on all women? And this is even assuming that that remark corresponds to some deep conviction, which is a silly assumption given the style and the context.
Here's my favorite review from Goodreads 2016:
"Pretentious, pseudo-intellectual misogynist pontificates about his theories on tech business, society, and capitalism while sneering at every other human with Olympian contempt and making unacceptable sexist comments about women for about 500 pages."
To who? Eastern European woman. How is this sexist?
> known misogynist
Men find women physically attractive.
I would be interested to know what films, books, comedians you actually find permissible for yourself to enjoy.
If you take offense to what is written here, I really don’t see how most of the media available today can be suitable. Do you ever ask yourself if you are being consistent in your standards?
There are other situations—Teen Vogue, for instance—where I think the world greatly overreacts, but this doesn't strike me as one of those cases.
The context of the quote is comparing Bay Area women to the Eastern European woman that he is dating.
And now you bring the female healthcare workers into it too. Hey women - look what this guy is writing about you.
What you will find is that it is actually you, who is decreasing net happiness of everyone around you from your confused outrage.
The article author and the people who share the quote out of context, all think they are helping (at least I hope) but they are actually saddening the world and spreading a fiction that doesn’t exist.
That’s a reasonably difference of opinion to make choices over.
I wouldn’t trust performance assessments from him.
"British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing whatever work—be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun blast to someone’s back— required doing"
In other words he is comparing personalities and attitudes, not making generalisations about literally all women. But the subset of women he is generalising about are exactly the sort who are now trying to make him unemployable by quoting him out of context (i.e. being "full of shit") and demanding that Apple shield them (i.e. "cosset") by getting rid of a guy who finds other kinds of women more attractive. They also appear to be objecting to a passage that states something about the murder rate and naming of high schools in a particular area, which is presumably factual? So, they're kind of proving his point for him.
Saying things like "women soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit." is more than just a difference of opinion. You cannot hold that opinion and be a fair leader.
It's not about safe spaces or offensive ideas. It's about enabling sexism and racism to freely propagate while telling minority groups that it isn't harmful despite past experience.
Or did you just read the short quote.
> notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech.
It seems that people just keep tacking on “sins” to see what sticks to people’s reputations regardless of the facts. Was there anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color?
https://tomdehnel.com/what-is-russell-conjugation/
James Damore never said anything of the sort. He was concerned that women might feel excluded in an engineering-focused environment and be less likely to seek such a role because of the different aggregation of preferences and inclinations among women as opposed to men. He said zilch about quality or potential for success, or for that matter about any individual woman (as opposed to aggregate trends and their influence on 'big picture' stats).
Being as generous with the interpretation as possible, I guess suggesting new programs to replace existing ones could be interpreted as "programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended", as ending one and replacing it is kind of ending. Saying "repeatedly" seems a stretch though.
Can you explain what I'm missing that lead to your beliefs?
There is another section with programs Damore claimed would be more effective. I am confused why replacing programs equates to ending them. Unless the goal is only to have good intentions, shouldn't the effectiveness of programs matter?
He uses that to suggest the programs increase racial tensions, not to suggest that we shouldn't be trying to get more people of color involved in tech. He cites this article [0] as his reasoning.
Is there something I'm missing?
[0]: http://archive.is/00yb5
James Damore's point was that diversity hires make for low quality hires. People who believe that may see a PoC working in tech and automatically assume they got hired for their skin color and not skill.
This isn’t “crime”, nobody is claiming it’s illegal. But it’s still sexist and flat out wrong to essentially say that most women are worthless, and it’s perfectly reasonable not to want to work with or for someone who demonstrates such sexist thinking and poor judgement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
He is comparing Bay Area women to Eastern European women.
There are 7.75 million people in the “Bay Area”, presumably about half women. The idea that you could believe nearly 4 million women with totally disparate histories - only united by currently living in the Bay Area and being women - are mostly useless without making sexist generalizations about women defies credibility in my view.
And I used the word “most” because his quote begins “most Bay Area women are soft, cosseted, and naive...” so you’ll have to ask him what he means by “most”.
I don't see how you could be a good team member if you come with these types of preconceived notions about the other people on the team.
It’s simply not true of Bay Area employees. They make huge sums of money and yet you must give them everything they want or they will strike, form unions etc.
They are emotionally triggered by words they misinterpret etc.
It’s better to be realistic about the people you are going to work with so as to not hurt their feelings. Is this weak? Yes. But I think what they believe in is that it’s okay to be weak and lack emotional resilience, and instead, we should restrict and censure anything and anyone that violates are emotional safety, rather than being strong and building emotional resilience, etc.
If the quote references “Bay Area” women then this is completely different to talking about women in general - which would be sexist.
Like many commenters here you are taking the quote out of context. A classic scarecrow argument.
Because if we read “Bay area women”, we then have to ask “why does he draw this conclusion about Bay Area women in particular?”.
And then it becomes obvious he is comparing them to the Eastern European women he is newly dating.
Read the full quote.
He should have included Bay Area men too but because he is comparing to his girlfriend it wouldn’t have made sense.
> trade for shotgun shells during invasion
Most Bay Area people are anti-military and easily offended and need a heap of things to be done for them to feel “safe” and mental support etc. - as is perfectly exemplified in this very drama. This is your Bay Area women he talks about.
The point he makes here is that if there was a zombie invasion survival situation (zombies associate with shotguns), it’s unlikely that the people with characteristics I described above would be much help, compared with his Easter European girlfriend who he sees as tougher. This could be said about “bay area people”.
It’s honestly funny to think about a Bay Area person fighting a zombie war because of every trivial thing triggers them into an anxiety attack.
Now imagine you are a woman in an industry dominated by men, a significant portion of whom make sly, lightly veiled sexist comments (like yours seems to be) all the time. Wouldn’t that make it even more exhausting than it is for the men?
But what do I know, I live in SoCal. Which, I've observed, has more high quality women per capita than the Bay Area. I think it's because of the beaches.
I think this comment is a perfect example of why women feel the need to speak out against sexism. They wouldn’t need to “complain” if people like you would just listen.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Forget the bigotry ... just the lack of self awareness is pretty crazy.
I don't like the infusion of Damore however, that's a different discussion, I wish people would stop crossing streams on such an important subject, full of nuance in every direction. This guy's statements are of a different kind than Damores.
He is comparing Bay Area women to the Eastern European woman he is dating.
Now find me a woman who hasn’t ever generalized about a difference between men from different backgrounds in jest.
I was recently asked to participate in a "community diversity and inclusivity survey". Not one question was concerned with freedom of expression or diversity of thought. It seems immutable characteristics are of paramount importance, or rather cynically, perhaps just the optics of their proportions are a valuable commodity. In a corporate setting neither inclusivity or diversity are at all what they purport to be.
He is comparing Bay Area girls to a girl he was sleeping with whose family moved here from Russia when she was a teenager and who “had spent years backpacking through jobs in rougher parts of the world”.
This is the reference to “worldliness”.
Being raised in the Bay Area compared to the experience of a family descended from Russia is of course going to result in a different upbringing and personality.
I don’t think this is hard to argue with unless you are naive to history and have not spoken to those who lives through 20th century Eastern Europe.
Ironic, as the lack of “worldliness” that those refute, is the same quality that prevents them from appreciating the sentiment in the quote.
All: if you're posting to this site to smite enemies, you're abusing it. That's not what HN is for, and it destroys what it is for. Please review the guidelines and use the site as intended, lest it burn to a crisp. Scorched earth, as I've been trying to tell people here for years, is not interesting—nor is it in any of our interests. This forum is only valuable to any of us to the degree that it can remain interesting and unpredictable.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
A company’s internal chat should have a moderator or forbid off-topic (meaning work-related) discussions. Doing neither is naive. Basecamp was right
The quote about East Palo Alto being a crime central hood was absolutely correct 10-15 years ago. Ask anyone who went to high school during that time. And they use that quote to fire him?
Woke people gonna woke to make themselves feel better. They are evil: deny and reject reality to make themselves feel better.