Apple Releases New Diversity Numbers, Hired Over 11,000 Women in Past Year

[Eraserhead]

Not really, per mile it might not be that much worse than general aviation.

This data looks reasonable - http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html - and it shows that General Aviation is approximately an order of magnitude more dangerous than driving over distance, which is generally how these things are measured. I was certainly wrong about it being safer.

Now from my post above you know that flying general aviation aircraft are more dangerous than driving cars, maybe you can see why someone could take issue of a pilot flying in a dress.

But you wouldn't complain about someone wearing a suit to fly, or jeans and a T-Shirt, both of which would also be unsuitable by your argument.

If someone said, "I don't wear a helmet when I walk, so why should i wear one when I ride a bike" I would think they are retarded and not a very good role model for children.

Actually for bike helmets the statistics aren't particularly clear.

 

[Eraserhead]

I think only NAMBLA or a weird religious sect would not consider statutory rape as not being serious.

What I mean by statatory rape is when a fifteen year old has sex with their seventeen year old boyfriend and the age of consent is sixteen. Or when a sixteen year old has sex with their eighteen year old boyfriend and the age of consent is eighteen.

And that in every other way the sex is actually consensual and there is no pressure.

 

[Eraserhead]

is saying "are you almost finished" in a unenthusiastic tone (retracting consent)
consent can be withdrawn after the fact

These are ridiculous.

 

[cfedu]

But you wouldn't complain about someone wearing a suit to fly, or jeans and a T-Shirt, both of which would also be unsuitable by your argument.

It depends where and when you are flying, for a summer flight in a populated area I would say jeans and t-shirt would the bare minimum for general aviation flying. Behind the dash of an airplane there are many avionics which can catch fire, wearing jeans would provide some protected. You have to keep your legs from burning just long enough to deal with the fire is in the air, or evacuate if on the ground after a forced landing.

Your arms are not in as much danger as your legs are, so a t-shirt would be fine as long as it's cotton and not skin tight. Polyester will melt onto the skin is unsuitable, I was issues a polyester shirt form a company I worked for and refused the wear it. For best protection one would wear pants and a long sleeve shirt made from Nomex, Wool, leather, or cotton, with cotton being the least safe. As stated above I would not even consider non fire retardant artificial fabrics.

http://op-for.com/2006/04/marines_ban_polyester_clothing.html

 

[cfedu]

These are ridiculous.

Some are, some are not. That is just a list of terms I have heard used, i'm sure I missed a bunch.

 

[Altis]

The way that some of you have been grinding on this subject, leads me to think that you have a major problem with any female who isn’t a slave.

This is not the 1950’s and those days are never ever coming back, if I was you I would face the facts, because life can get very difficult for dinosaurs, who refuse to change.

Nobody here is saying that. We can strawman all the way up the yellow brick road if you'd like.

I suppose it's easier than forming a reasonable argument, though.

 

[shinji]

To think this thread started off because Apple dared to give women jobs.

Susan Kare designed the early Mac icons. Apple has a long history of hiring women.

 

[Eraserhead]

It depends where and when you are flying, for a summer flight in a populated area I would say jeans and t-shirt would the bare minimum for general aviation flying. Behind the dash of an airplane there are many avionics which can catch fire, wearing jeans would provide some protected. You have to keep your legs from burning just long enough to deal with the fire is in the air, or evacuate if on the ground after a forced landing.

Your arms are not in as much danger as your legs are, so a t-shirt would be fine as long as it's cotton and not skin tight. Polyester will melt onto the skin is unsuitable, I was issues a polyester shirt form a company I worked for and refused the wear it. For best protection one would wear pants and a long sleeve shirt made from Nomex, Wool, leather, or cotton, with cotton being the least safe. As stated above I would not even consider non fire retardant artificial fabrics.

http://op-for.com/2006/04/marines_ban_polyester_clothing.html

If the plane catching fire is a risk, then you should always wear proper fireproof clothes, and then you are right to criticise her for wearing a dress, but then you'd also criticise a man for wearing a suit which would also be unsuitable.

 

[cfedu]

If the plane catching fire is a risk, then you should always wear proper fireproof clothes, and then you are right to criticise her for wearing a dress, but then you'd also criticise a man for wearing a suit which would also be unsuitable.

Yes, if it was not suitable for the conditions. Most suits have pants and its hard to see if they are polyester from a picture though.


"
Safety experts agree that in order to decrease the chance of sustaining burns, it is better to wear long sleeves and pants than it is to wear short sleeves and short pants. In addition, natural fibres such as wool and cotton are better than synthetic fibres. Also, it is better to have enclosed low heeled shoes.

Fabrics:

• Research has shown that outer and inner garments made from natural fibres, such as wool and cotton, provide good protection as they do not flare up vigorously when brought into contact with an ignition source; they tend to self-extinguish once the ignition source has been removed; they char rather than shrink or melt; they do not transmit heat as readily as a synthetic material; and they are more resistant to destruction by radiant heat.
• Synthetic materials pose a hazard in a fire situation. Application of an ignition source will generally cause ready ignition of the material, and vigorous burning will continue when the ignition source is removed; transmitted or radiant heat will cause the material to shrink before it finally melts.
• Many synthetic fibres burn very easily and, when they burn, melt down very quickly, sticking to the skin.

Style of Clothing:

• Long sleeves and pants are preferred over short sleeves and very short skirts or shorts because generally, the more of the body that is covered the better protection that will be offered against fire, the elements, etc.
• Very long or tight skirts are not suitable for evacuating a cabin because of their restrictive nature.

Footwear:

• Shoes without laces, straps or functional buckles may be thrown off during significant impact forces when an aircraft is lurching or crashing, or they may be lost when the wearer is moving about in wreckage, walking through debris, on uneven, marshy or very soft terrain, in desert sand or in deep snow.
  
  Shoes with laces, straps or functional buckles should be encouraged rather than loafers or pumps because they enable the wearer to move about in wreckage more freely.
  
  
• Very high heeled shoes or sandals should be discouraged because they are not suitable for evacuating a cabin, moving about in wreckage, walking through debris, on uneven, marshy or very soft terrain, in desert sand, in deep snow or on ice.
  
  Enclosed low heeled shoes are encouraged because they enable the wearer to move about in wreckage more freely and protect the feet.
  

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/commerce-circulars-ac0136-1515.htm

 

[Happybunny]

Nobody here is saying that. We can strawman all the way up the yellow brick road if you'd like.

I suppose it's easier than forming a reasonable argument, though.

Be that as it may, Apple still hired 11,000 women, nothing changed.

Most of the people who ranted and had a hissy fit about it on this forum, will in the future buy the latest Apple products.

So that’s a win.

 

[Altis]

Be that as it may, Apple still hired 11,000 women, nothing changed.

Most of the people who ranted and had a hissy fit about it on this forum, will in the future buy the latest Apple products.

So that’s a win.

What makes it a "win" to hire 11,000 women?

 

[Renzatic]

What makes it a "win" to hire 11,000 women?

And the equally important opposite question, what makes it not?

 

[Altis]

And the equally important opposite question, what makes it not?

The implication is that it's a win over the alternative outcomes, and that's where identity politics seem to get real messy.

A more clear "win" might be that they hired 11,000 highly qualified people, regardless of what identity groups they are members of, since providing employment to people with the right skills is a good thing, and discrimination is bad.

 

[Renzatic]

A more clear "win" might be that they hired 11,000 highly qualified people, regardless of what identity groups they are members of, since providing employment to people with the right skills is a good thing, and discrimination is bad.

True. Though my argument has been that one isn't exclusive to the other, and we have no reason to believe that these women were hired just because they're women. The only thing we know for a fact is that Apple has hired more women this year.

 

[Altis]

True. Though my argument has been that one isn't exclusive to the other, and we have no reason to believe that these women were hired just because they're women. The only thing we know for a fact is that Apple has hired more women this year.

Actually, we do have some reason to believe that may be the case. Apple and others have been under pressure to "increase diversity" in their organization, which can lead to hiring being based on things other than merit.

I think people (myself included) are 100% for equality of opportunity, but forced equality of outcome is very, very different.

 

[Eraserhead]

Style of Clothing:

• Long sleeves and pants are preferred over short sleeves and very short skirts or shorts because generally, the more of the body that is covered the better protection that will be offered against fire, the elements, etc.
• Very long or tight skirts are not suitable for evacuating a cabin because of their restrictive nature.

Which makes it clear that her clothing was perfectly suitable.

I think people (myself included) are 100% for equality of opportunity, but forced equality of outcome is very, very different.

In order to do that you have to remove any and all barriers which stop women applying for those jobs.

 

[cfedu]

Which makes it clear that her clothing was perfectly suitable

OK,

Crotch height dress provides proper fire protection,

GA flying is safer than driving when its 35 times more dangerous hour for hour.

And statutory rape is not that serious.

You are such a good troll!

 

[Eraserhead]

Crotch height dress provides proper fire protection,

OK fair enough, she should have worn a longer dress. But I doubt the complaints made that point.

GA flying is safer than driving when its 35 times more dangerous hour for hour.

Transport safety is always measured per million kilometres rather than by hour, regardless I have agreed that GA flying is about 10x more dangerous than driving.

 

[Altis]

In order to do that you have to remove any and all barriers which stop women applying for those jobs.

And what barriers are in place currently? Women dominate all levels of education and have a hiring preference advantage in STEM upwards of 2-1. There are endless scholarships and programs exclusively for them and even "no boys allowed" days in school (because of course, boys must be the reason more girls don't pursue STEM).

 

[Eraserhead]

And what barriers are in place currently?

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/breaking-down-barriers-women-workplace
http://m.theage.com.au/it-pro/do-barriers-still-exist-for-women-in-the-workplace-20121020-27y0e.html
http://articles.economictimes.india..._women-leaders-women-and-leadership-positions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...many-barriers-for-women-in-the-workplace.html

 

[citizenzen]

And what barriers are in place currently?

Barriers like the delusions of Dr. Nosehair, that women fall in love with him, which gets in the way of getting their work done.

 

[Altis]

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/breaking-down-barriers-women-workplace
http://m.theage.com.au/it-pro/do-barriers-still-exist-for-women-in-the-workplace-20121020-27y0e.html
http://articles.economictimes.india..._women-leaders-women-and-leadership-positions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...many-barriers-for-women-in-the-workplace.html

0/4 of those links deals with the technology sector or STEM more widely, which is what we're talking about here. Even so...

1) Doesn't list any tangible evidence. Not shocking from the gender ideologues at universities.
2) Deals with wage-gap stuff as if it's all due to discrimination and COMPLETELY avoids factors of personal choice on behalf of the women. ie, just because more women graduate from college doesn't mean they will earn more than men who do when they take degrees that earn less.
3) Again, opinion piece that states things as fact without any evidence. ie "women are seen as..."
4) This article doesn't explain or prove anything. It's short and just says the same old "poor women" narrative without backing it up. Like the other articles, this has more to do with women in parliament rather than the private sector.

It is possible that some of this under-representation is a matter of choice: women wishing to have a family might accept that flexibility and seniority do not always go hand in hand.

More problematic, however, is the position of women in public life. It does not follow that the number of women in Parliament is a reflection of a healthy attitude to women: after all, Iran and Afghanistan have much higher levels of representation than here, where we have had a woman prime minister and have a woman head of state.

This also reminds me that the countries in the world with the highest representation of women in STEM are countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

There is an entire industry dedicated to showing how women are underhanded and oppressed in the West. Entire studies, organizations, university departments, charities, etc, that are all focused 100% on that narrative. So it follows naturally you'll find endless articles and "studies" claiming that to be the case. I have yet to see one that actually holds any water, especially since reality seems to go against their narrative.

The only valid argument is that women have the unique setback of taking time off when they have kids, although even this is a choice.

No offence, but you honestly could have picked far better articles to make your point; ones that relate to the topic and have some kind of backing.

And here's a final question for you: why is it so important to focus entirely on trying to convince women to enter the STEM fields, or politics, while perfectly fine to overlook all the other sectors that aren't so glorious? And why not try to get some men into teachers/ECE position, currently around 90-95% female (depending on country)?

 

[Altis]

Barriers like the delusions of Dr. Nosehair, that women fall in love with him, which gets in the way of getting their work done.

Seriously, you think Tim Hunt is the problem?

Here's a pretty detailed write-up of what happened:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...scientist_tim_hunt_the_real_story_127491.html

“It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls? Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt, an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.”

Tim Hunt has been extremely supportive of women in science. He met his wife, who is a PHD professor of immunology, in the lab. He has by all accounts been actively supportive of women in science for decades.

Tim Hunt proves just one thing: everyone (especially MSM) will destroy anyone who they suspect holds any kind of not-pro-women view. Tow the party line or face the mob.

A follow-up article revealed that the EU official also said Hunt’s remarks were well-received, contradicting his accusers’ claims of an uncomfortable silence (or even a “deathly silence,” as St. Louis told BBC Radio 4), and that one of the luncheon’s organizers, a woman from the Korean National Research Council of Science and Technology, told him “she was impressed that Sir Tim could improvise such a warm and funny speech.”

Interesting that this whole ordeal is because of ONE single woman's account of what happened, and is contradicted by everyone else and Tim Hunt's own history. And here's some background info on the self-proclaimed feminist woman who made the accusation:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-dubious-claims-career-told-update-CV.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-journalism-is-so-fair-balanced-and-accurate/

I suppose it also shows how quick they are to eat their own best allies.

Can you honestly say that the remarks of one guy makes STEM hostile to women, while the entire MSM destroys him for it?

 

[citizenzen]

Seriously, you think Tim Hunt is the problem?

He certainly needs to work on his material ... and his nosestache.

 

[Altis]

He certainly needs to work on his material ... and his nosestache.

Nose hairs, granted. But his jokes are a stab at himself and the ages he came from. He's been nothing but good to science as a whole and to women in science. That's why he was invited and happy to speak at an event promoting women in science in South Korea.