Support NeoGAF

[Cyberpunkd]

They arnt in those fields because they choose not to be.

Rubbish take, as your whole post. You seem to be conceptually unable to look wide and see how the environment influences the choices of people. Example - how many kindergarten teachers and nannies are men?

Questions for your 'hiring':

Do you highlight diversity in your recruitment materials?
Do you highlight maternity leave, flexible working hours, life/work balance?
Does your TA team have any women?

You and many people in this thread do not understand that the 'default' situation favors men, plan and simple. The reason Blizzard found themselves a frat-boys hellhole was exactly because the above was not present - people in top management were frat boys themselves and worked in the company for 20-30 years. So exactly as you are unable to understand they also never occurred how some behaviors are not only not welcomed, but downright wrong. But hey - 'just jokes among boys, amirite!'?

For your sake I hope you will not have a C-Level that would like to push diversity initiatives, since you will be lost completely. And if they don't you will have difficulty to attract top talent since many young people growing up in the 2000s have attitudes towards women that go against what people are posting here. Yes, they are OK with having more women on the team!

 

[ethomaz]

Rubbish take, as your whole post. You seem to be conceptually unable to look wide and see how the environment influences the choices of people. Example - how many kindergarten teachers and nannies are men?

Questions for your 'hiring':

Do you highlight diversity in your recruitment materials?
Do you highlight maternity leave, flexible working hours, life/work balance?
Does your TA team have any women?

You and many people in this thread do not understand that the 'default' situation favors men, plan and simple. The reason Blizzard found themselves a frat-boys hellhole was exactly because the above was not present - people in top management were frat boys themselves and worked in the company for 20-30 years. So exactly as you are unable to understand they also never occurred how some behaviors are not only not welcomed, but downright wrong. But hey - 'just jokes among boys, amirite!'?

For your sake I hope you will not have a C-Level that would like to push diversity initiatives, since you will be lost completely. And if they don't you will have difficulty to attract top talent since many young people growing up in the 2000s have attitudes towards women that go against what people are posting here. Yes, they are OK with having more women on the team!

The law were created exactly why most companies doesn’t understand the problem… sadly.

I could just laugh when I read “they choose not to be there” as if it has opportunity for them be there lol

This thread proves the law is needed at least temporary… it is not suppose to last forever but just until the culture changes… of course it can take several decades.

 

[Kataploom]

Have been seeing women complaining about this "inclusion" lately... like... feeling totally humilliated by being treated like disabled people just for their sex... companies doind this shit don't care about having an actual inclusive team at all and the only women that likes it are probably the ones that wouldn't get there by merits so having them on board is probably not benefitial anyway...

How can they play pretend for so long? Maybe because in reality many women value more their life-work balance than man and therefore they optout those opportunities anyway? IDK, I just think it's dumb and that Activision/Microsoft deal is probably just a bait for reducing Kotik bad press

 

[crozier]

Oops, too political.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I know I shouldn't be surprised because... California...lol... but a law that forces companies to have a certain minimum number of women on the board of directors?

What a fucking shit show. It's basically forcing companies to hire unqualified women onto their leadership board. So essentially forcing ineptitude onto the board that is steering the ship for all the massive companies that control the salaries and livelihoods of thousands of people worldwide.

Yeah, that's gonna end well... /s

I have hope that at some point in the near to distant future, generations after us will sit down in morbid curiosity to watch a Netflix documentary about how the disaster that was wokeism fucked human civilization and set us back decades in terms of progress. And they'll think to themselves, "man, I'm glad the world finally came to its collective senses, after that shit show!"

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

You do know sexism is sexism regadless of which gender it is directed towards? It's not reverse sexism when its directed towards men, its still sexism, exactly the same.

A push to hiring woman is not sexism towards men beloved.

 

[synce]

My favorite thing about this situation is the hypocricy lost on these idiots. Refusing to hire a man even if he's more qualified than a woman is the definition of sexism, yet it's exactly what this law does. How about we just treat people as people?

 

[iHaunter]

This is why 343 can't do shit properly. They're so focused on woke culture that they're not hiring the right people for the job. How is this not sexis btw?

 

[NinersAllDay]

That law is stupid.

As is most laws in CA. Why anyone does business there confounds me.

 

[yurinka]

A push to hiring woman is not sexism towards men beloved.

Yes, it is because they are discriminating people because of their gender.

What they should do instead is to hire and promote the best available candidate for each position independently if male or female, not giving a fuck if they even have 100% males or 100% females. The moment you give someone more or less chances of getting hired or promoted because of their gender (or create them any issue because of their gender) you're being sexist.

When a game company posts a open job position for certain roles the candidates are in a insane percent of a certain profile (I mean, over 95% of the candidates for a game programmer position are going to be male, and at least in Europe almost of all them are white), so almost always the one they end hiring is someone of that profile. But because it's he best available candidate, not because the company doesn't want to hire people with other profiles (women, people of color, etc).

If women prefer to have another kind of careers, if in that country there isn't a bigger population of people of certain skin colors, or if due to economic/sociopolytican reasons in that country people of other skin colors choose or can't afford to study and learn game development isn't something that the company can fix and to 'force' them to fill quotas won't help.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

Yes, it is because they are discriminating people because of their gender.

What they should do instead is to hire and promote the best available candidate for each position independently if male or female, not giving a fuck if they even have 100% males or 100% females. The moment you give someone more or less chances of getting hired or promoted because of their gender (or create them any issue because of their gender) you're being sexist.

lol no, but I'm not expecting understanding of complex issues on diversity here. but anyway this a gaming site. What games you playing right now?

 

[Majukun]

I see people things it is a bad rule.

But if there is no rule you can be sure no woman should be in that board even if she has better achievements, talent and skills over all others man in the board.

If everything was equal it should indeed be a stupid rule but it is not… so it is a rule create to be temporarily and to try to change the long term culture that exists in boards with only man even if the woman proved to be more competent.

And to be fair I believe boards that takes decisions should be diversified to have all sides and options to be discussed… just like a popular Jury should be diversified.

Just my take.

I get what you are saying, but I doubt this kind of forced hiring have as much benefit on the "culture" as people would like to think they do.

 

[JackSparr0w]

lol no, but I'm not expecting understanding of complex issues on diversity here. but anyway this a gaming site. What games you playing right now?

There is nothing complex about it. You're either sexist by promoting one gender over the other or you're not.

 

[cireza]

I really wonder how talented women managed to be successful in this industry 30 years ago. People like Rieko Kodama or Yoko Shimomura to name a couple. Certainly not because laws were enforcing their jobs.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

a California law that requires the company to have at least three women on its board of directors

Wow, stupidity reached a whole new level.

 

[-Minsc-]

I gave up reading 1/3 the way through the OP. Need not spend any more time being distracted.

 

[CuNi]

I see people things it is a bad rule.

But if there is no rule you can be sure no woman should be in that board even if she has better achievements, talent and skills over all others man in the board.

If everything was equal it should indeed be a stupid rule but it is not… so it is a rule create to be temporarily and to try to change the long term culture that exists in boards with only man even if the woman proved to be more competent.

And to be fair I believe boards that takes decisions should be diversified to have all sides and options to be discussed… just like a popular Jury should be diversified.

Just my take.

I see people think it's a good rule.
Funnily, it's exactly those rules that create a greater rift between the genders.
This creates the image that many females in leadership positions are only there because of quotes and not because of talent, which undermines their authorities, even IF they have been chosen because of talent and not because of quota.
And a manager without respect of his employees is as good as a wet sack of trash on the side road, because it will result in a toxic workplace for both the manager and his subordinates.
The subordinates will constantly show a lack of respect and challenge the authority of the manager and the manager will constantly have to fight to be respected which will them burn out just trying to do that instead of having the time and energy to actually push the projects he is entrusted with forward in any profitable way.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

As is most laws in CA. Why anyone does business there confounds me.

Because that state is a thriving environment constantly producing world's best tech companies?

 

[Lunarorbit]

Oh yeah, we were totally just about to hire this woman before the sale. She's from Canada. You don't know her. No, it's not Jade Raymond.

 

[Reallink]

She come from IBM, no?

I worked there for around 10 years and they heavy support woman equality and diversity.
That is a result of the change in the company policies that happened in 1995.

The executives had to give opportunity to woman so in the overall performance results have a key item like “reach x% of woman in determined roles”. From there the number of woman in high position increased over 500%.

The reason these law were created are because of the results of companies like IBM that focused in policies like that by themselves to become an internal culture.

Not all companies are like that… in fact most keep that narrative that “womens are not in high position because lacks talent” lol

If Lisa Su had worked in a company with different culture then there is high chances she probably didn’t even have the opportunity to show her talents… and that is exactly the issue.

It is a nice place to work BTW.

1995 you say, wonder where all those displaced by diversity went to work.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Having to hire 3 women is a silly rule. Laws like that are generally the downfall of many companies today and why we don’t always get the best products possible. Instead of hiring the absolute best people for the job, they are looking to fill in checkboxes and worry about diversity.

 

[SeraphJan]

They need feminist influence in every tech company

 

[ethomaz]

1995 you say, wonder where all those displaced by diversity went to work.

Sorry but what INTC shares have to do with what I said?

 

[NikuNashi]

A push to hiring woman is not sexism towards men beloved.

Hiring anyone based on a gender choice rather than skill / experience is sexism.

 

[Trimesh]

I'm surprised they feel it necessary to mandate things like this at all. Surely all the claimed benefits of "diversity" would ensure that those oldthink based companies that insist on hiring people based on obsolete criteria like competence would just fade away and that the "57 gender" enhanced companies would all thrive!

Of it could be that they don't actually even believe their own bullshit.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Yes, that's why the company had so much trouble, if only they had one more stunning and brave woman to show them the way!

Anyway, women are taking over anyway (University, management, arts, justice, humanities, anything health related, political sci., etc. all very much taken over by women on merits alone, all open the doors to immense wealth).

Now, in the younger generation (sub 35 if my memory serves me well) the women already earn more than their male counterpart, because they did their dues... and the guys, well not in the same manner. So, it's only a question of time, forced diversity and inclusion or no, it's very likely to happen sooner or later.

The question is why do they hire on something else than relevant skills and experience?

 

[ethomaz]

The question is why do they hire on something else than relevant skills and experience?

Because boards are hired by buddies and not skills and experience.

 

[kingfey]

The question is why do they hire on something else than relevant skills and experience?

boards are stupid. You dont need regular experience. Just fame, and management skills. Its mostly rich people, or those who own alot of the company stocks.
Most of the time, the board consist of family members.

 

[ethomaz]

boards are stupid. You dont need regular experience. Just fame, and management skills. Its mostly rich people, or those who own alot of the company stocks.
Most of the time, the board consist of family members.

Or close buddies.
Skill and experience is probably the last thing they look at.

But I understand why people here keep saying it should be skill&merit&experience… it indeed should in a utopian perfect world.

But right now we need these law to at least amenize and maybe in the future reach that perfect world.