Pinterest diversity stats: Also pale and male (but not as much as Twitter) Pinterest is generally used to store images of polka dot knickers, cute animals and bags of artisan pear drops. What might come as a shock to its users is that Pinterest is actually run by the same “stale, pale and male” clique often seen at the rudder of other big Silicon Valley. The latest tech firm to release its diversity …
"Would someone please post the "proper" heterogeneous mix"
Oh, that's easy: The "proper" mix in the "perfect" (read: politically correct) company is one whose board is entirely devoid of white males, regardless of what the race and gender mix actually is. As long as there are no white males.
After all, I'd love to see the gender and race makeup of the boards of, say, Huawei or Samsung or Aramco. I'd wager they consist mostly of Chinese, Korean, or Saudi Arabian males respectively. But notice how we're not seeing demands for more "diversity" on these companies' boards? Notice how it's only companies whose boards do consist mainly of white males who are being targeted? Nobody's harassing Samsung or Huawei or Mitsubishi or Foxconn or Aramco about the diversity of their boards. That's because they don't have any white males on them, so they're already politically correct.
Of course, I'll probably be accused of being a racist sexist bigot for pointing this out, but those who do so won't actually offer any reasoned argument as to why they think my perception of this is wrong.
I think the reason many tech firms are so big on LGBT rights is that they can show the world their commitment to Vibrant Diversity, without any requirement to actually hire black or Hispanic people. Tech firms like Asian workers, but they might as well be white as far as the Vibrant Diversity thing goes.
"Tech firms like Asian workers, but they might as well be white as far as the Vibrant Diversity thing goes."
Following failed experiments with bleach, they found that simply playing with the colour temperature of the lighting did the trick. Luckily it turned out that all accountants are colour blind, so the trick didn't affect the positive effects on the P&L.
How about The Reg post their own staffing make up stats? Trotting these stats out repeatedly seems somewhat pointless to be honest, but if you're going to keep posting articles about how many women are in XYZ company or industry, you should eat a slice of your own cake and show us your own stats!
And, if we fail to achieve that level of transparency, at the very least there should be an investigative article from Mrs Orr (unless she's already left?) on which of the last bastions of male domination is responsible for funding this nonsense:
Happy weekend Reggers and 'Tards
:-)
I would have thought the main reason for employing anyone is their ability to do the job to the standard required. The second reason has to be, will they fit in with the other employees so there is no tension in the workplace other than work induces tensions.
If a big headed green male martian midget fits those requirements, hire him. Likewise anyone else until you have enough staff to run the company efficiently. Trying to meet some abstract diversity targets is just stupidity.
Oh for crying out loud. The ENTIRE SECTOR is mostly white and Asian males. It has nothing to do with discriminatory hiring practices and everything to do with the fact that most people who go into the tech sector in the first place are white and Asian males. Seriously, walking into any US university CompSci class and take a quick look at the demographics. They haven't really changed much since the infancy of CompSci, except there actually might be a few women in there now.
Can we please stop implying that tech companies are somehow sexist just because there aren't many woman with the interest and education needed to work in tech positions? That's society's fault, not Twitter's or Pintrest's or Yahoo's.
Anybody remember that little book by Joel Spolsky? Gee, what is someone supposed to do? Hire slowly and fire quickly?
Of course this is about discrimination, it's about discriminating against those who can't get the job done. A business is a business, not a social program. The reason that males are so dominant in the tech sector is for one reason: the male brain is hardwired for solving problems. That's just the way things are.
When a company forgets that it's a business and becomes a social program, then it goes down the tubes. Even Microsoft realizes this, and at some point it will get someone smart in charge, or it will be dead. When a company is small, it is really evident who does work and who doesn't. Some people won't work in small companies precisely because of this. Me, I prefer small companies precisely because of this.
There are also sectors where males aren't dominant, but nobody ever mentions that. It's always shame on the people who get the work done, dump on the worker. I welcome the robotic overlords. At least there's a hope with them that they'll run things with logic.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
