[Nobody]

While I generally agree with your argument, it may not be true at this level in the computer manufacturing and software design industry. I'd want to take a peek at how many females are graduating from IT departments relevant to Apple's business. Also, Apple is the land of techno-geek, not just techno-speak. Remember how the original Apple I got started, Jobs and Wozniak met at a computer hobby group. How many women do you think were there? Before that, lots of these guys were probably playing D&D in their basements, how many women were in that?
I will say this, there have been several women at Apple at high levels. Which makes me question why none of them have been voted to Board status. Another argument for elevating at least one woman to the Board is that she may have unique insight into half of Apple's potential market that all other Board members lack. That itself is a qualification worth considering.

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

...how many women would want to work with [Jobs]. I remember Ellen Hancock not being all that happy with him... Steve has a powerful charm and wrath, both of which play key roles in how he leads. There just may not be that many who'd want that position.

---

So do you suggest that only men can be tough enough to bear up with Jobs as a manager? How do you define "tough" in the first place? As a board member, a woman would not report to Jobs anyway, but rather Jobs would report to HER. And as for the executive VP level, do you suppose the men don't mind working under Jobs' mercurial moods and temperament?
For my part, I see no reason to believe that women would (1) be less able or (2) be less willing to work over or under Jobs than men would.
Steve Jobs has nine executive direct reports, all of them white, and only one of which is a woman, and she is only the legal counsel. So for the day to day operations of Apple, all executive officers are white males. Now some suggest these numbers are the result of the available pool from which to draw. And that's true enough -- again, because of sexism and racism. But while this would explain why minorities have less representation on corporate boards and the executive level than their numbers in the general population, it does NOT explain why they have NO representation at all.
If you combine Apple's board and executive team, you have 17 individuals (including Jobs), ALL of whom are white and sixteen of whom are male. A company needs to be proactive in order to ensure that it does not inadvertently discriminate or lock out women and people of color. This does not mean that in so doing a company must lower its standards. All the criteria of merit should remain intact. Instead it means only that a company should make a concerted effort to examine a wider pool of candidates and to ensure that it does not exclude people merely on account of demographic profile.
"...while women may not be less equipped than men, they're surely differently equipped."
How? Are women less intelligent? Are they less knowledgeable about management, finance, marketing, sales, the law, governance? Are women less able to monitor the performance of a CEO? Are they less able to engage in deliberations or to perform analysis? If not, then why do you bring up this point? Women have breasts -- there's one difference for you. Some women are more maternal than men. So what? That doesn't mean they are maternal 24 hours a day or that they cannot function well in the board room. Why would being maternal be at odds with functioning well as a corporate officer?
How many men serving on corporate boards in America are alcoholics? How many are abusive to their wives? It doesn't seem to me that these characteristics disqualify them from serving on boards.

In reply to:

---

Employers should have no consideration for the demographics of their employees. While diversity is a beautiful thing, it must take a back seat to job seekers' rights to fair evaluation and employment.

---

These two things are not at odds. The idea that if a company sticks to its high standards, only white men will be chosen is rubbish.
"While I don't assume these women are tokens, I also don't assume they're not."
I don't think Dell, IBM, HP, etc., would deliberately nominate lesser people to their board of directors. Moreover, I don't think they would HAVE TO do that merely to get the presence of women on their boards.
"And whether or not they're tokens doesn't mean they're not qualified."
Yes, it does. That's what being a token means.

[jmincey]

"I'd want to take a peek at how many females are graduating from IT departments relevant to Apple's business."
Boy, this keeps coming up. Okay, Michael, just for you, I will say for the third time now... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Corporate boards govern the long-term strategic direction of a company. As a result, they require many different disciplines and expertise to serve a company well -- no matter what industry the company is in. These include, but are not limited to finance, law, government, management, administration, manufacturing, etc.
Sure, it would behoove Apple to have at least one or perhaps two of its paltry seven board members with a grounding in the technical disciplines, though even then this doesn't mean the board members should be coders themselves but only that they should have a fluency in the technical issues. But no corporate board (nor a company's VP executives) consists exclusively of those with direct expertise in the company's products -- nor should this be the case.
Consider General Mills. Do you think its entire board should be composed of food, grain, or agriculture experts? Should the board of General Motors consist only of automotive engineers?

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

Thats probably the difference between our perspective....I think the massive imbalance in the "feedstock" is anything but irrelevant....Its the crux of the problem.

---

Wait, so you're saying that there is a cultural, society-wide gender disparity in the pool and that's why Apple therefore is guilty? If you acknowledge that fact, it weakens the argument that Apple is discriminatory.

In reply to:

---

As someone else has already quoted:
Apple: 0 of 7
Microsoft: 2 of 10
IBM: 2 of 12
HP: 2 of 10
Sun: 1 of 9
Dell: 1 of 10
What can you say....sample size, schmample size......

---

Sample size is significant, probably the most significant aspect of why the claim of Apple being discriminatory is NOT supported by statistics.
For example, let's take Sun (this actually works even better with Dell). They have 9 board members, one of which is a woman. In order to make the sample size the same, we need to take away two. Now, since we're being fair, we'll take away men and women according to your 50/50 ratio. That leaves us with 7 men. Boy howdy.
Statistics make fine evidence when backing up a specific claim of discrimination, but to say that they dictate discrimination when there is no accompanying evidence is absurd, particularly in this case when there is such a small sample size.

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

...so you're saying that there is a cultural, society-wide gender disparity in the pool and that's why Apple therefore is guilty? If you acknowledge that fact, it weakens the argument that Apple is discriminatory.

---

Derik, though you direct this to another, allow me to answer until the person whom you ask is able to do so. While this disparity (which itself originates in sexism and racism) would explain why minorities have less representation on corporate boards and the executive level than their numbers in the general population, it does NOT explain why they have NO representation at all. Fair enough?
Also, when you include Apple's full executive team (of VPs), the number expands to 17, only one of which is a woman, and she is not involved in the daily operations of the company. There the sample size argument doesn't hold water.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

Law of probability... okay...
"Microsoft: 2 of 10
IBM: 2 of 12
HP: 2 of 10
Sun: 1 of 9
Dell: 1 of 10"
From your numbers, I see a (.20 .17 .20 .11 .10)/5 = 15.6% average probability of any given member of a board being female. That means about 70% chance that Apple would have a female board member, given random probability. That's not a very high percent... while probability is that they'd have a female member based on the other boards, it's around 1 sigma of deviation, so entirely believable that probability would lead them not to have one.
Of course, I sure hope Apple doesn't pick board members based on random probability, and there may be factors other than discrimination that could lead to board members not being female (ie. Most Silicon Valley residents are male.) From your statistics about college enrollment, one can hope that the situation will change over the next decade or two, but I don't think it's outrageous that a 70/30 probability fell the 30% direction.

---

You're using ACTUAL statistical theory to show that probability doesn't dictate that there should be at least one woman on the board? You sir, are obviously too good for this board.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

While this disparity (which itself originates in sexism and racism)

---

I wouldn't go along with the parenthetical here, but it has no bearing, so let's just ignore it.

In reply to:

---

would explain why minorities have less representation on corporate boards and the executive level than their numbers in the general population, it does NOT explain why they have NO representation at all. Fair enough?

---

Actually, statistically speaking, it makes the possibility that this happened without any genuine discimination a lot stronger.

In reply to:

---

Also, when you include Apple's full executive team (of VPs), the number expands to 17, only one of which is a woman, and she is not involved in the daily operations of the company. There the sample size argument doesn't hold water.

---

Ooooh. A sample size of 17? Well, geez, that's a whole other kettle of fish. Suddenly that must be a significant sample size. </sarcasm>
Show me a statistical analysis such as booga did with complete market data (his was very cursory with very incomplete data), then I might consider your argument. Using bits and pieces of data such as you are without any actual analysis is not an argument. It's an interesting observation that would require actual research to determine the actual significance.

[bastion]

In reply to:

---

And one woman is serving on the US Supreme Court (out of a total of nine).

---

One? Is it O'Connor or Ginsburg that's in drag?

In reply to:

---

I'll say again that if Apple nominates board members on the basis of merit alone, then even with a sample size as small as seven, at least ONE woman would be present among the others.

---

The fundamental flaw here, which people keep pointing out, is that you've taken a mathematical discipline regarding the likelihood of events and surmised that since a certain event is likely then it must happen. To indicate that the only reason a likely scenario does not come to fruition is sexism is at best ignorant.

[jmincey]

Okay, let's widen this to include the whole executive team and board of directors:
Executive Team
Microsoft: 11 of 109
IBM: 2 of 20
HP: 4 of 12
Sun 1 of 17
Dell: ?
Board of Directors
Microsoft: 2 of 10
IBM: 2 of 12
HP: 2 of 10
Sun: 1 of 9
Dell: 1 of 10
Now these numbers are pretty bad (for women); but what strikes me here is that Apple is distinguished by having NO women represented (except as legal counsel). (I was unable to locate information on Dell, and clearly Microsoft's layer of "vice presidents" reflects a different idea about corporate organization than what is commonly practiced in the industry.)

[jmincey]

"One? Is it O'Connor or Ginsburg that's in drag?"
Oops -- I forgot about Ruth Ginsburg. Thanks for the correction. Make that TWO of nine on the US Supreme Court.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

The fundamental flaw here, which people keep pointing out, is that you've taken a mathematical discipline regarding the likelihood of events and surmised that since a certain event is likely then it must happen. To indicate that the only reason a likely scenario does not come to fruition is sexism is at best ignorant.

---

Bingo, and I'm not even sure that statistical theory backs up the claim either.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

but what strikes me here is that Apple is distinguished by having NO women represented (except as legal counsel).

---

I still see no statistical significance (especially since one of your examples, Sun, perfectly matches the numbers you gave for Apple earlier, 1/17). Jeff, you have an inuition based upon a small amount of data here. It's a fine way to justify initiating a study, but hardly an indictment.
Let's take my softball team as an example. All the players (around 15 I think) are male. My place of work is probably 1/4 women (at least in my area, and I'm being generous). The team we played last night had two female players. Is that proof of discrimination on our part? (Here's a hint, we all lament the lack of women on our team, so no.)

[jmincey]

To Derik and Bastion, among others. Let's not fall in the sample size trap. Let's look at the industry overall then. You don't deny, do you, that (1) sexism exists and (2) it has existed throughout history in varying degrees and (3) that this has unjustly denied to women the rights which men have long enjoyed?
If you don't deny this, then the only thing for us to discuss in this congenial debate is how deep the tentacles of sexism extend in its applications or manifestations.
Throughout much of the 20th century, women were not allowed to have their own credit (without a man's signature). Women were not allowed to own property. Women were denied the opportunity to attend higher education and they were denied the right to vote.
Many of these absurd legislative restrictions have since been lifted, but it will take time for the culture to catch up. A stroke of the pen is one thing; actual practice in society is another. For decades, even the most educated, experienced, and capable women have been denied executive positions at companies -- indeed, for the longest time they have been denied managerial positions at all. I guess many of you forget that from a historical perspective it wasn't all that long ago when women in the workplace altogether was frowned upon, (except during WWII) or except in a very few designated roles (of nurse, teacher, secretary).
It just wasn't that long ago that if you saw women in a corporation, they were taking dictation and getting coffee -- and this wasn't about the lack of a good pool either. This was about keeping women "in their place."
Fortunately we have come a long way since then, but we have a long way yet to go. Wages -- even for comparable positions (and controlling for variables of education and experience) -- still favor men by a wide margin. So we can observe that prospective board members are usually drawn from the pool of available CEOs, (and that this ipso facto excludes most women), but we must then ask the question as to what pool are prospective CEO's drawn from? VPs? And what pool are VPs drawn from? Managers?
How far down do we have to drill before we can find women in numbers which correspond roughly to their population, even allowing for those who choose to be homemakers? Why do we see women in no greater numbers in the executive and VP ranks than we do in the board room, whether in Apple Computer or elsewhere?
Anyone care to guess why? Lack of educated women? Lack of experienced or skilled women? No. Here's a hint -- it begins with an S.

[samrod]

In reply to:

---

So do you suggest that only men can be tough enough to bear up with Jobs as a manager? How do you define "tough" in the first place?

---

I didn't use the word "tough" you did. But no, I don't mean they're not tough enough.

In reply to:

---

As a board member, a woman would not report to Jobs anyway, but rather Jobs would report to HER

---

Exactly. That's the point. He'd be reporting to a woman. It's not that he's sexist as much as maybe, slightly flirtatious. I think he'd like to have some influence over the board. And he uses different techniques with men and women.

In reply to:

---

For my part, I see no reason to believe that women would (1) be less able or (2) be less willing to work over or under Jobs than men would.

---

Read "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs".

In reply to:

---

But while this would explain why minorities have less representation on corporate boards and the executive level than their numbers in the general population, it does NOT explain why they have NO representation at all.

---

0% is just another percentage like any other number. There's no reason to put more emphasis on 0% than 5 or 10%.

In reply to:

---

If you combine Apple's board and executive team, you have 17 individuals (including Jobs), ALL of whom are white and sixteen of whom are male.

---

Avi Tavenian is white? Ok, I'm only giving you that because political correctness has made a mess of racial and ethnic terminology. Otherwise I think he's Armenian or Arab.

In reply to:

---

Are women less intelligent? Are they less knowledgeable about management, finance, marketing, sales, the law, governance? Are women less able to monitor the performance of a CEO? Are they less able to engage in deliberations or to perform analysis? If not, then why do you bring up this point?[/quote
There are different strengths and weaknesses in various areas of male and female minds. Areas dealing with social interaction, 2D/3D visualization, problem solving, pattern recognition, memory and so forth. This is only a general rule, which means it obviously don't apply to all men and women, but the vast majority. For example, women tend to have better memory while men tend to have better 3D visualization.
The classic test is to have 10 men and 10 women sketch a bicycle on a blank sheet of paper without any reference or even warning about the test. The men will likely draw a technically correct yet ugly bike, but the women may draw a nicer looking one that may or may not be correct.
"Yes, it does. That's what being a token means."
Unless they're qualified tokens /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif