[muscless]

Yahoo reported a quarterly loss and falling revenue. The company is a good example of what happens when you fail to innovate and employ sexist employment policies in the workplace.

Quote:

Gregory Anderson, who was employed in Yahoo’s media division until he was fired in November 2014, filed a lawsuit against the tech giant, alleging the company’s performance management system was arbitrary and unfair. Yahoo used a numeric ranking system to evaluate employees’ quarterly performance and often fired those with the lowest scores, according to the suit. The complaint also says female managers at the company discriminated against men in their hiring and firing practices.

...a female employee in the Media Org received the same 1.8 “Occasionally Misses” Employee Score as a male, after which the male was immediately terminated and the same female assumed the terminated male employee’s position. Moreover, this female employee was allowed to appeal her rating whereas the terminated male was denied an opportunity to appeal.”

...when Savitt began at Yahoo the top managers reporting to her in the Media Org, including the chief editors of the 12 magazines (many of which were formerly called “verticals”), were less than 20% female. Three years later those top managers were more than 80% female. At the time that this percentage of female managers reporting to Savitt increased so dramatically, the number of female reporters and presenters in the industry generally declined by 10 percentage points.

http://archive.is/MYZE6#selection-1281.0-1281.35

[All or Nothing]

(04-21-2016 08:16 PM)muscless Wrote:  

Yahoo reported a quarterly loss and falling revenue. The company is a good example of what happens when you fail to innovate and employ sexist employment policies in the workplace.

Yahoo takes on Marissa Mayer in 2012. Progressives laud how forward thinking Yahoo is for taking on a woman. Four years later, the company is being broken down and spun off into bits in pieces to a bunch of different companies.

Theranos is started by Elizabeth Holmes in 2003. Again, progressives laud the entrepreneurial spirit of Elizabeth and see this as the start of new phase in America where women are on top in the business world. Fast forward to 2016 and the company is caught making up data and is essentially a scam.

Call me a sexist, but seeing these women run tech companies crash and burn due to poor leadership leads me to be a pretty big sceptic of women's ability to lead a business.

[samsamsam]

When shareholders lose enough money they will start to clamp down on this BS. Look at Sony Pictures they shitcanned their CEO because of shit like Ghostbusters.

[kinjutsu]

(04-21-2016 09:16 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

When shareholders lose enough money they will start to clamp down on this BS. Look at Sony Pictures they shitcanned their CEO because of shit like Ghostbusters.

I actually cannot wait to watch ghostbuster crash and burn horribly.
It will teach movie studios that gender swap remakes of classics WILL fail.

[Kaii]

I say let them burn. They want to hire just because someone has a vagina, well, tough shit assholes.

[Mr. D]

(04-22-2016 07:39 AM)Kaii Wrote:  

I say let them burn. They want to hire just because someone has a vagina, well, tough shit assholes.

Good thing stuff like this doesn't happen in a brothel.

[Thersites]

(04-22-2016 07:50 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:39 AM)Kaii Wrote:  

I say let them burn. They want to hire just because someone has a vagina, well, tough shit assholes.

Good thing stuff like this doesn't happen in a brothel.

Brothel has higher standards of employment.

[sixsix]

Do these companies really care?

How many of the media corporations, or at least many of their popular platforms and outlets, are a means of their owners to generate money instead of being a way to obtain and control power via the promotion of information and narratives in their interest and the censorship of information going against their interests?

I always assumed like everyone else that media companies, like other companies, are in business to make money. By now most people on this forum know that to be false to some degree. Often business decisions are made that don't make sense like pushing and pushing the progressive agenda and completely neglecting the silent majority of the audience: When series and movies that appeal to normal people do appear they are instant successes but we see few of those.

We've seen from the declassified Operation Mockingbird that the conspiracy nuts were right fifty years ago: Behind-the-scenes agencies influenced vast amounts of journalists and publications to achieve their political goals. Today, leaked documents show the collusion between respectable publications with political campaigns and between technology conglomerates with our intelligence agencies.

CNN or FOX would become by far the biggest player if they started reporting on the reality of the mass invasion of Europe. Didn't they use to love to fearmonger for ratings? People are being assaulted and raped every day and entire cities are being transformed. Talk about the crimes on Wall Street. Ratings would skyrocket. But they don't and the only reason is that the same people that control the media have something to gain from not telling them.

A bit of a rant, but the point is that while seeing these companies bleed money is better than make money, it's not a real victory. They're not primarily after money but after power and social manipulation. And they are succeeding in that goal. What does a couple of billion here and there matter for the financiers when they are successfully get to decide what the masses see and don't see?

Strategy: Pillage the people in the financial sector and distract them with total control of the media.

Or in the words of our beloved Hillary Clinton:

"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?"

[Saweeep]

I know a lot of business people. Lots.

I can't think of a single woman I know with a reasonably successful business that doesn't also have an even more successful husband who is invariably calling the shots behind the scenes.

No doubt they do exist, but they are much rarer than we are led to believe.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Female small business nous seems to largely be limited to I like (x) so I'll open up a store that sells (x) and then I'll be around (x) all day long. What could go wrong?

Female corporate advancement seems presently to be largely based on a sort of vacuum that currently exists because companies feel pressured to equalise male/female participation rates in managerial positions. It would explain why such airheads are being dumped in positions of high power.

I suppose the elites think that if they can force most of the larger companies to do this at the same time then the shitty outcomes it causes will average out across the board and therefore be less distinguishable. A falling tide lowering all boats as it were. Once the vacuum for female managers bottoms out (and assuming the Western world survives it) then you would inevitably see an improvement in quality over time but we are all going to be worse off in any case.