[bradleys]

In reply to:

---

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.

---

Apple is no more, or less, discriminatory than anyone else....But they ARE discriminatory. The fact that there is some "pool" from where board members are sourced that is clearly nothing but a boys club is discriminatory. I am gobsmacked that people here cant see that. It obviously proves that the world is still flat, the sun orbits the earth and legal equality for females was never granted

In reply to:

---

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.

---

Im assuming your logic here was missing the surrounding <sarcasm> quotes.

In reply to:

---

....such a small sample size.

---

......that just happens to be the public face of some of the largest corporations in the world.
I could swear I have been picked up by Dr Who's tardis and dumped back in the 1950's. This whole thread has certainly been a disturbing eye-opener to me. Sexism justified by statistical theory and historical precedent in a forum where I had (obviously mistakenly) assumed that the average contributors views might have at least made it to the 1990's /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[jmincey]

Bradleys, by and large I side with you on this issue. We men in patriarchal societies rig the rules of the game and then when the results are precisely what we rigged them to be, we say, "See, this is simply the way things are..."
You and I (and a few others) are instructed by the opposing side in this thread that some women actually bear children and choose to be homemakers, (imagine that!), as if this alone accounts for the monstrous statistical disparity. Or we are chided about sample size, as if in the aggregate throughout the whole of society the disparity is not just as great. And we are "educated" that women's brains are different and therefore they are not equipped to be good board members and thus lose out on merit.
Well, which is it -- are the women simply not available in the pool, or were they available after all and simply lost out on merit?
I don't mean to suggest that the foregoing characterizes the position of all of those who take a different view from mine (or from yours); but it does characterize the position of many here, alas.

[Nobody]

One subject is clear . . . jmincey should NOT be on the board of directors. He spends the whole day at work on the MacCentral members forum WASTING his company's time and money. I wonder if HIS employer knows about his NON-PRODUCTIVE and wasteful work ethics? Recycling anyone?

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

I don't mean to suggest that the foregoing characterizes the position of all of those who take a different view from mine (or from yours); but it does characterize the position of many here, alas.

---

Well, it sounds like you're talking about me. Why don't you just say it Jeff? Or is the strawman argument the soup du jour?

Before we decide to prove Godwin's law, I'll take my leave of this discussion.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

A statement of the bleeding obvious...so what are you saying?... only men can handle it?

---

No, absolutely not. I've pretty clearly kept my posts out of the whole "women are unsuitable for hard decisions" thing. There's a big difference between making an observation about a thing and editorializing about it. It's intellectually dishonest for me to try to argue the point one way or the other, because I'm raising an issue without any kind of numbers to back it up - just supposition and speculation, but I was clear to say that up front.
I brought that up to emphasize another point. I think it's obvious that only those people who are willing or able to make sacrifices are going to ask for that kind of headache. Kinda like running for President - what a thankless job, so reasonable people might ask why on Earth anyone would want it. You seem to dismiss the number of women who prioritize children over career, but I don't know if that's a wise decision. Even if only 1/2 of women in business decided to have kids, and 1/2 of them wound up choosing non-executive track positions (I think that's a very conservative estimate), we'd be talking about 25% of women who write themselves out of the CEO pool.
I think if you look at certain professions (IT workers, nurses, teachers, software engineers), you see a strong male/female imbalance. If you look at others (middle management, sales, marketing professions), the imbalance isn't as pronounced. If you look at more (executive management, truck drivers, history professors, nuclear plant workers), the imbalance returns. It's fair to speculate what causes the imbalance, and I think "family matters" could be a significant element - the observation that child-rearing is a predominantly female role is hardly sexist, and every assertion I've made about skills has been gender-neutral.
Discussing the origins of inequality in our society is a little beyond the scope of this discussion, don't you think?

[Philip Michaels]

Yes

[jts]

Jeff,
Having read the entire thread with interest (I have not replied before this), I have made some observations and would like to respond to you.
First off, I think most of the discussion your comment about probabilities and the composition Apples board brought up has been lost (on both sides) in discussing isolated examples of gender inequality and/or tackling overwhelmingly huge issues of social inequality in general. Both of which have distracted enormously from the initial assertion that you made: probabilities would mean that Apples board should have at least one woman (were it not for, your opinion, sexism). I will return to this initial comment of yours in the end of my reply. Bear with me.
Secondly, in the heated but thankfully very well-mannered debate that ensued, I think there have been many individually valid points. (As, naturally, there have been some serious blunders as well.) There are reasons why men and women have ended up, and still do, in different career paths in life. One reason certainly has been that of sexism (or racism for that matter), and while lesser than centuries or decades ago, Im sure this reason still exists. Let me reiterate: certainly sexism played a huge role in getting us where we are. Maybe even THE role. But it is not the only reason for the differences we have.
Im sure, pending any major proof to the contrary from brain research, both genders are equal in capacity (if probably somewhat different in style) when it comes to skill and knowledge. This assumption certainly is the basis for (the pursuit of) equality in society. But there are differences as well. Biological reasons for one: Men are generally more suited for heavy labour. Women are the only ones that can bear and naturally feed children. On a lighter note: Men probably make better basket ball players generally due to height. Women make better gymnastics due to size, agility and other issues. And so on. These do affect careers and career choices to some extent.
There are also cultural differences. Some of these we can attribute to decades of sexism, but probably not all. And even if we were to attribute them to centuries of sexism, much of the result has become so much the fabric of our society that separating the sexism from, well, culture is a very difficult task indeed. More women choose to stay at home than men. Some of this we can explain with biology (women need to recuperate from child birth, breast feeding etc.), but, again, not all of it. Some of it results from sexism, sure (also in the sense that in many societies it is harder for men to stay at home even in they wanted to, so the sword cuts in both directions). But we can not entirely rule out the choice factor either. The reasons may be diverse, but more women choose home making as a profession than men. (There are also other professions that draw more women than men and vice-versa.)
Last, but probably not least, as brain research has begun to suggest, and decades of male-female interaction and thus common knowledge has proven: men and women do not always learn and think alike. Jokes about male and female logic aside, studies have shown women generally having better verbal skills (resulting often in more success in school), while men generally may have an advantage in some types of mathematics. Women are often considered superior in multi-tasking, while men are often more focused in a single task. Some of this generalization Im making may be mistaken, but Im sure most of us agree that men and women are different. And, personally, I wouldnt want it any other way.
That said, we should continue to strive for gender equality. But that shouldnt be at the cost of open discussion about gender-related differences, because there certainly are some. In my opinion, we can be equal AND different. Plus, I think Apples board could very well be made up entirely of women if they were the most qualified persons around. In the end, it should be all about the merits, not statistics.
Finally, Jeff, back to your original assertion: probabilities suggesting that there should be at least one woman on the board of directors at Apple, were it not for sexism.
I simply do not think that is supported at all. First, 1 out of 7 would mean 14,3 % women on the board, which you say probabilities would guarantee (were it not for sexism). The examples and statistics about women, both generally and on the boards of competitors, have not shown numbers much higher than that. Actually, the composition of women percentage-wise in some has been lower than 14,3 %. Since partial people can not be on the board, it is not at all unlikely that 1 out of 7, in this context, might turn into 0 out of 7. Even if probabilities were in favour of one woman on the board, which I think they necessarily are not, it still wouldnt mean that the 1 would be guaranteed statistically - 0 might result anyway, regardless of any sexism.
I think that your opinion that PROBABILITIES are the proof that Apple is sexist in the board selection, is mistaken. I do not think probabilities prove anything in this case. At best, they are inconclusive.
Why boards, and executive teams, in general have so few women is another topic certainly, and an issue that I hope changes in time, but because the pool of candidates is what it is currently, we cant claim Apple is sexist. Apple is part of the same society we all are. Apple could be no less sexist had it one woman on the board. 0 or 1 can be statistically almost the same in this case. Either could be the result of sexism, or it could be the result of circumstance. (The circumstance can certainly be blamed in part on decades of sexism, but that is not Apples fault alone.)
I don't think we can exclude sexism in Apples selection process, we have no proof one way or the other, but I also dont think that the fact that they dont have women in the board means they used sexist selection methods either.
Really, looking at the gender of less than ten or less than twenty people in a single company, is no way to make statistical analysis. Certainly, when looking at a bigger picture (say number of women as executives in Fortune 500 companies), we can conclude that women are a minority - and can, and do, look for the causes and remedies, but we cant just take a few numbers at Apple and say Apple are sexist. I dont think that is supported by the statistics and other known facts discussed here, and I think this is what many people also tried to tell you. (To be fair, the statistics do not prove that Apple is non-sexist either.)
To cap it all: I dont claim Apple is not sexist. I dont know one way or the other. Im just saying the number of women on their board (or the lack thereof), doesnt prove - at least using probabilities anyway - that they are.
All the best, Janne

[jmincey]

Janne, since this thread is quite mature (by the standards of the wild and wooly world of tech forums, I just want to post confirmation that I have read your thoughtful post and I appreciate the ideas you contribute. I'm pressed for time now but want to say only that I don't believe the lack of women on Apple's board is proof (prima facie or otherwise) that Apple as a company has sexist attitudes or practices sexism. As others have noted (rightly), the sample size is too small to draw such a conclusion, (irrespective of any other consideration).
Of course, what I contend is that the sample size is not too small for the industry as a whole nor for the corporate sector altogether. And I contend also that even when we control for variables such as the interests of women, their career paths, their skill sets and propensities, (leaving aside whether the origins of these things is biological or social), there still should be more women represented than what we observe today, (assuming a gender-blind society).
In drawing some general differences between men and women, one example you cite is the common one of brawn or brute strength. Assuming that men are indeed stronger as a class than women, this would seem to argue in favor of excluding women from jobs which require brawn. However, it does no such thing. If 65 percent of men can meet the brawn requirements of a given job while only 20 percent of women can do so, then in a gender-blind selection process, there should still be at least some representation of women (provided the sample size is large enough). And this is true even if we likewise control for variables such as interests and family and so on.
As a result, such examples of gender differences, even where empirically demonstrable as generally true for these classes as a whole, are not instructive to this discussion.
But I think we are missing the larger point which is this: Would it not behoove Apple to proactively seek out a highly qualified woman for its board? Since I reject any premise that no such woman can be found, then my answer is a definite yes (to this question). Apple can have female representation on its board without diminishing the high standards and criteria of its nomination process. I'm firmly convinced of this. How about you?