Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Sep 2016 21:29 UTC
Apple

Mic.com has obtained a long list of e-mails from primarily female Apple employees (but also a few male employees), detailing a sexist culture inside the company that nobody seems to want to address. The 50 pages of e-mails were handed to Mic by an Apple employee, and obviously, all people involved have been anonymised.

"With such love for a company that does so much good, it is with a heavy heart that I declare my resignation from Apple," a former employee wrote in an email obtained by Mic. "Despite all attempts to seek justice within this corporation, the cries of several minority employees about the toxic and oppressive environment have gone unanswered. I have witnessed the complete and utter disenfranchising of the voices of men and women of color and the fault lies not only in the direct management staff but in the response of those tasked with protecting employee rights. I write this letter hoping to highlight the areas that these departments have failed to properly support employees and as such have hence left Apple, Inc. culpable for various EEOC and ethical violations."

According to Claire*, "several people" who have quit, citing a "white, male, Christian, misogynist, sexist environment," were not given exit interviews. "Their departure is being written up as a positive attrition," she told Mic.

This obviously - but sadly - doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Silicon Valley is an inherently toxic environment dominated by white males, and despite all the talk from Tim Cook and various company bloggers, Apple is not the special diversity flowerchild farting rainbows and puking unicorn dust it claims to be. I mean, this is a company who considers having a Canadian speaking on stage during an event as "diversity".

From these emails, a picture emerges of a company culture actively trying to get women to leave, actively preventing them from getting into mid-level and top-level leadership positions. From everything I've ever heard about Silicon Valley culture - this is par for the course, no matter the company.

Thread beginning with comment 634541
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[16]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Sun 18th Sep 2016 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[15]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

" never argued that the figures did not grow. I argued that the growth is too small to make the whole issue significant.

9% is not insignificant.
"
OK, one last attempt. The figures of the "hate crimes" are so small that an increase by 9%, by 14%, by 42%, or even by 900% won't actually indicate any sort of "toxic" climate. UK is just not a country with a "toxic" climate. Look elsewhere.

See, the level of humidity in my location changed over a couple of days by 60%. Does it mean that my location changed climate zone? No, because this figure, although statistically significant in its context and directly related to the definition of climate zone, does not necessarily mean that the climate zone change occured.

Now, if there was indeed "toxic" climate coming to the UK, the rate of "hate crimes" would increase over time. The 9% figure that you chose to poke in my face as an evidence that BREXIT vote outcome formed "toxic" environment in UK would not be a product of decrease by 29% percent since June, but rather an increase.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[17]: Comment by ddc_
by Vanders on Sun 18th Sep 2016 11:22 in reply to "RE[16]: Comment by ddc_"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, one last attempt. The figures of the "hate crimes" are so small that an increase by 9%, by 14%, by 42%, or even by 900% won't actually indicate any sort of "toxic" climate. UK is just not a country with a "toxic" climate. Look elsewhere.

They indicate a rise. That rise is statistically significant.

Oh and "Other places are shit" is not a defence.

See, the level of humidity in my location changed over a couple of days by 60%. Does it mean that my location changed climate zone?

No it means there was increase in humidity. The number went up. Much like the number of recorded hate crimes went up. There was an increase, see?

The 9% figure that you chose to poke in my face as an evidence that BREXIT vote outcome formed "toxic" environment in UK would not be a product of decrease by 29% percent since June, but rather an increase.

Those pesky facts, poking in your face eh? The 9% figure is evidence of an increase of 9%. Because the number went up. It increased.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[18]: Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Sun 18th Sep 2016 12:45 in reply to "RE[17]: Comment by ddc_"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Oh and "Other places are shit" is not a defence.

Very nice of you to note. Unfortunately mistargetted: I never used it as a defence. I used it as advice for applying what you pretend to be your willingness to right the wrong.

"See, the level of humidity in my location changed over a couple of days by 60%. Does it mean that my location changed climate zone?

No it means there was increase in humidity. The number went up. Much like the number of recorded hate crimes went up. There was an increase, see?
"

Exactly! That is exactly the point I am trying to make. There was an increase. The statistics on "hate crimes" meaningfully changed. In context of "hate crime" prevention, "hate crime" victimology and maybe even police procedures that makes some sense (little or lot of, I don't know and I am not interested in).

But this increase on its own does not prove that another related figure changed: the "toxity" of the social environment in UK.

I am not interested at all in "hate crimes," because I am not a believer and was not indoctrinated. What I am interested in is whether there is a meaningful change in foreigners' security and overall ability to make a worthwhile living in UK. As demonstrated by impact of this particular (very real and statistically significant) change in "hate crimes", neither old nor new level is statistically significant. That is all this argument is about. It was never about significance of "hate crime" rate change in its own context, because its own context is just irrelevant to the discussion: we were not dicussing criminology of hatred in UK, we were discussing social environment in UK. And I demonstrated that the change in "hate crimes" rate (again, very real and statistically significant in its narrow domain) is absolutely insignificant in overall picture of the topic we discussed.

Now, You failed to produce a meaningful argument and retorted to stating the same statement over and over, even after I proved it to be irrelevant to the topic of discussuion. So, please, either bring your evidence that the increase in "hate crimes" rate did bring significant change to the social environment, or stop insulting my intelligence by implying that I am too stupid to understand that by this point you jsut could not avoid understanding what I am talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 2