Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jimmy Iovine Criticized After Making Controversial Comments About Women
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, that was quite a convolution of disparate issues to make a right wing political statement. FYI- Women have been speaking out about ALL those things for a long, long time. And black people as well. Do they have to give their outrage bonafides to you every time they want to comment about something?
Nah, he's just a victim of "Blue Aisle = Boys, Pink Aisle = Girls", and anyone in Marketing is likely to make that same dumb assumption.
I'm pretty sure absolutely nobody saw anything wrong with he said until it was pointed out via the "attribute everything to malice" crowd that is on social media.
Ok, so in 5 years when Tim Cook goes on this exact same show and says "some women have trouble driving cars. We decided to help them by making a car easy enough for a woman to handle."
To me, that sounds really bad.
You're both telling me I just need to get over it and prepare for that? That there's nothing wrong with it?
I'm having a hard time with that idea.
Can I just say that it seems very unmanly, and it actually reeks of weakness, when people (usually it's other men) complain about political correctness and complain about perceived unfairness towards men. You know what I think is manly? To man up and say "yes women should have their day in the spotlight for once"
Dude , seriously, look up the dictionary for the difference between "ALL" and "SOME".
If SOME people ( and yes, women are also "people", just like men ) have trouble driving cars, why not make a car that is easy enough for them to handle ?
We are already doing that with all sorts of technologies. Wasn't the Mac sold as "the computer for the rest of us" ? Should we make computers only useable with a UNIX terminal interface, so that uber-geeks and Unix specialists won't be offended ? Why should we prevent people that are not good with technology to access technological tools by making them easier to interact with?
That sounds like "Only the strong should survive " kind of thinking.
Some reactions here are really subconscious paternalism in disguise .." Oh no ! Some guy said that some women have trouble finding music ! Quick , let's protect those fragile and irresponsable little creatures from harm by doing the thinking for them ! "
Women are not children. They are grown-up responsible adults, they come in different sizes and shapes ( both physically and mentally ), and as humans, some of them are great individuals and some of them are horrible individuals, some are intelligent and some are stupid, some can drive better than others, some suck at computing and others don't, etc.. Stop seeing women as some sort of aliens.
I am a man, and I suck 100% at sports. A little 10 year old kid can probably beat the crap out of me at tennis. I am very good at other things though.
Should I get all offended if I hear someone say "Some men are bad at sports" ?
I am good with technology. Should I get all offended if I hear someone say "Some men are bad at technology" ?
So why would you expect women to be offended at the thought that some of them are bad at technology ?
Last edited:
You're missing the point. The issue here lies with the subtext of Iovine's statement, not it's literal meaning.
If you can't get into someone's head or if you don't have serious proofs, it's better to avoid projecting subjective "subtexts" onto what people are saying. Depending on what you want to hear, you can project any kind of subtext on anything anyone can say.
Let's take your post. Isn't Iovine the son of italian immigrants ? He is kind of dark skinned too. Maybe the subtext of your post is that you shouldn't trust what people from dark skinned italian origins say. Maybe the subtext of your post is an anti-immigration one. Even a racist one.
Wait...are you actually implying that only white, blond aryan people from nordic origins should be trusted when they speak ?
If I decided now that you are some sort of white supremacist, anything you say now or in the future can be intepreted as a reinforcement of this subjective fact.
That's the power of subjective subtext
( and the limits of interpretation )
Last edited:
If you can't get into someone's head or if you don't have serious proofs, it's better to avoid projecting subjective "subtexts" onto what people are saying. Depending on what you want to hear, you can project any kind of subtext on anything anyone can say.
Let's take your post. Isn't Iovine the son of italian immigrants ? He is kind of dark skinned too. Maybe the subtext of your post is that you shouldn't trust what people from dark skinned italian origins say. Maybe the subtext of your post is an anti-immigration one. Even a racist one.
Wait...are you actually implying that only white, blond aryan people from nordic origins should be trusted when they speak ?
If I decided now that you are some sort of white supremacist, anything you say now or in the future can be intepreted as a reinforcement of this subjective fact.
That's the power of subjective subtext
You're right, but it's a matter of how many people find that subtext. If you say something and thousands of people laugh, then what you said was funny, whether you intended it to be or not. We can't base our judgements of what people say on intent. Intent matters, but it isn't everything. Enough people recognize the common sexist subtext in Iovine's comments to say that it is definitely there--whether he intended it or not is a different matter.
My point is that you can't focus entirely on the specific language like saying "some" instead of "all."
As an example, I could say "Some of Hitler's ideas were good." Now I could then tell you I was talking about his interior design choices for his office. But that's not how you or anyone else would understand that sentence. I would be wrong to complain when people take offense at my statement, because they have good reason to do so, regardless of what my intent was.
Hope I'm making my point clear and not just being confusing! Haha.
If you can't get into someone's head or if you don't have serious proofs, it's better to avoid projecting subjective "subtexts" onto what people are saying. Depending on what you want to hear, you can project any kind of subtext on anything anyone can say.
Let's take your post. Isn't Iovine the son of italian immigrants ? He is kind of dark skinned too. Maybe the subtext of your post is that you shouldn't trust what people from dark skinned italian origins say. Maybe the subtext of your post is an anti-immigration one. Even a racist one.
Wait...are you actually implying that only white, blond aryan people from nordic origins should be trusted when they speak ?
If I decided now that you are some sort of white supremacist, anything you say now or in the future can be intepreted as a reinforcement of this subjective fact.
That's the power of subjective subtext
Oh, and to use your own example, I guess the equivalent would be if someone read this article and said "well, you know, some Italians are just sexist." It would be an accurate statement, because some probably are. But the subtext of the statement is clearly a prejudiced one and you'd have to be incredibly naive or far too good for this world to think that it isn't.
He said nothing that doesnt hold true in my house.
My wife is as ignorant about technology as I am about medical issues.
Vile? I don't think what he said was vile.
Person A: Should we vote for a woman for president? Are we ready for that?
Person B: I dunno. I don't think I would. Some women get too emotional, they couldn't handle the pressure of being commander in chief.
A: Dude, that's sexist.
B: No, I said SOME women. I don't mean all.
A: But you're saying this is a problem for female candidates. It means you think it's not a problem for the male candidates. You're saying this is a new concern you're having that you didn't have in the past.
B: Hey, I didn't say anything about male candidates. You said that. Not me.
A: But, ok, see... you were bringing that up as a specifically female problem. That mens you're excluding men from the statement. You don't think men are too emotional to be president. Just women.
B: Dude, don't you know what 'some' means?
- - - -
Which person do you agree with in that conversation? I obviously think A. You clearly think B. Can you defend them? What's the next line that would convince me that B isn't being sexist? I can't come up with it.
Last edited:
Well, what about how US foreign policy destabilised North-Africa and the Middle-East, and has created an immigration catastrophe in Europe? Let me tell you, a lot of Europeans are pissed off at USA (and the US government) right now. What about how the Obama-administration willfully created ISIS through their involvement in Syria (look at Judicial Watch, Pentagon-rapport from 2012, or interview with former DIA chief)? What about TPP, TTIP etc. written in secret to completely rob the middle-class? What about the UN trying to destroy the nation states in Europe now (in Peter Sutherland's own words, the UN immigration chief)?
Oh, well. Let's talk about public bathrooms for trannies instead, or imaginary slights of racism or sexism, because that's so PC.
Last edited:
welcome to the new world we live in, where everyone spends way too much time trying to find something to be offended by
Or we can spend so much time talking about how easily some are offended.
Which is worse?
He works for Apple. Maybe some perceived those select words as un apple like ?
Max, surly you have seen your share of tabloid news reporting especially in Italy lol.... I have in the UK. Daily mail would have been all over it.
These Beats lads have made the tabloids more than any other apple exec that I can think of so far. Has any other Apple exec ever apologised?
All just a beat up.
I probably hear about or have a discussion about at least one of these things each day, I don't see how political correctness is preventing me from doing that.
The world is going PC .... Media beat up in my opinion, only cause he works for apple now. I think a recent South Park episode covered it..