I don't get what's so special about this woman. Sure she might be better than Eddy Cue on stage but that's not saying much.
That she's a woman, that she is dark skin black, that she immigrated from Ghana, that she worked hard, and had to overcome a lot of adversity to get where she's at.
Plenty of white males work hard and overcome adversity. But that doesn't satisfy forced diversity goals. With the completely unprofessional movement to forcibly diversify company executive positions, how can we ever look at a person like this and believe they got this job because they were the best person for the job?
I have ZERO knowledge or information on this woman save for one instance...she got to speak at an Apple event. The person I saw speak did not sound like an executive. She sounded like some dope they grabbed out of a shopping mall and shove out on stage. So with that being my only basis for evaluation, and the fact that I know Apple is forcing diversity into as many token positions as possible...I can't take her seriously at all.
I'm not speaking from some malicious position. I'm just calling it as it is. She is a black African immigrant woman, holding a top executive position at a US company. She got that job because either 1) out of every imaginable candidate she was the right one to head up Apple Music, or 2) because she's a black African immigrant woman and that ticks a ton of diversity boxes in one shot for Apple.
Which do you think is more likely in today's climate? Which do you think is more likely after having heard her speak?
For the life of me I cannot comprehend the asinine notion of there being only one best person for a job. What a person is capable of does not appear on a piece of paper, nor in their past history. What works well in one company doesn't mean will work at another.
Speaking of dopey sounding people. One just got elected as president of the United States of America, so there goes that notion as well.
I don't get what's so special about this woman. Sure she might be better than Eddy Cue on stage but that's not saying much.
That she's a woman, that she is dark skin black, that she immigrated from Ghana, that she worked hard, and had to overcome a lot of adversity to get where she's at.
Plenty of white males work hard and overcome adversity. But that doesn't satisfy forced diversity goals. With the completely unprofessional movement to forcibly diversify company executive positions, how can we ever look at a person like this and believe they got this job because they were the best person for the job?
I have ZERO knowledge or information on this woman save for one instance...she got to speak at an Apple event. The person I saw speak did not sound like an executive. She sounded like some dope they grabbed out of a shopping mall and shove out on stage. So with that being my only basis for evaluation, and the fact that I know Apple is forcing diversity into as many token positions as possible...I can't take her seriously at all.
I'm not speaking from some malicious position. I'm just calling it as it is. She is a black African immigrant woman, holding a top executive position at a US company. She got that job because either 1) out of every imaginable candidate she was the right one to head up Apple Music, or 2) because she's a black African immigrant woman and that ticks a ton of diversity boxes in one shot for Apple.
Which do you think is more likely in today's climate? Which do you think is more likely after having heard her speak?
I hold the same views but don't kid yourself, white people are a lot more privilege than minorities. "Best for the job" isn't always the choice. Unfortunately race comes into play here.
The problem with your opinion is that she's a good business woman and was already a high level at Beats before Apple acquired them. Apple didn't "hire" her for her diversity. She came with Beats. Unless you want to argue that Apple spent 3 billion to hire this woman.
I don't get what's so special about this woman. Sure she might be better than Eddy Cue on stage but that's not saying much.
That she's a woman, that she is dark skin black, that she immigrated from Ghana, that she worked hard, and had to overcome a lot of adversity to get where she's at.
I have ZERO knowledge or information on this woman save for one instance...she got to speak at an Apple event. The person I saw speak did not sound like an executive. She sounded like some dope they grabbed out of a shopping mall and shove out on stage. So with that being my only basis for evaluation, and the fact that I know Apple is forcing diversity into as many token positions as possible...I can't take her seriously at all.
And there you have it - bigotry in a nutshell. Based on ZERO information you present this kind of ignorant drivel? Your preconception of what an executive should 'sound like' is clearly modelled on a stereo type and I would hazard a guess the definition of which would include the words 'white' and 'male'. Steve Jobs was the archetype of a non executive type executive, so lets try and think a little different here, shall we?. 'She sounded like a dope they grabbed from a shopping mall'... really? I don't even know what that means and I have been to a few shopping malls. Are you talking about a 'class of person'?, a 'color of person'?, or have you managed to divide people into 'shopping mall' and 'non shopping mall' types?
Please, step outside of your current self and upgrade your views. Start by taking any person presented to you as an executive (specially from a company like Apple), seriously.
Good! Bring it on, Apple - we need more people like her and Tim!
from the article:"The message echoes an Apple initiative to celebrate diversity among its employees by creating an all-inclusive workplace. According to a recent EEO-1 filing, the company has a long way to go for its upper echelons reach an equilibrium between white males and underrepresented minorities —at least by government measures —but progress is being made."
If race doesn't matter then why do we (the govt.) track it so much? Why do we need to have more women and minorities in the upper echelons? I think it serves everyone better if they hire/promote the best, talented, & stop reverse discrimination. Plenty of folx have not gotten the wonderful education, health care, etc... that others have. I find that those that can look past ethnicity, orientation, etc, work hard and share their talents with others are most often rewarded for the hard work - you have the right to compete and have equality but as far as I know there isn't any promise of being 'fair'. Those that believe in the fantasy of fairness just don't get it - there is always gonna be a bias.
"If its not one thing its another."
- Rosannaroseannadanna
I don't get it. I don't know/care who she is, as I'm sure most do. I'm ok with not being with the majority of thoughts and opinions on here, but dang man, I thought Apple was a Technology company. I guess Apple is deciding to go with fame,fashion,and designer names and brands rather than innovating, and tech. I remember the days when Apple was the counter culture. Oh well. At least they make wonderful phones and tablets.
Apple is STILL the counterculture because women and minorities are STILL treated as second class citizens in the USA. What counterculture do you demand Apple feed into? The white male tech geek culture? They are largely running the country's corporations today and aren't in any way oppressed or unknown. In fact, with the "geek is chic" nonsense, geeks and nerds are considered desirable and pretty much praised today, which is a 180° turnaround from when I was labeled as a geek in middle school back in the late 80s.
If your preferred counterculture is "intellectuals" then Apple is STILL with it because the antiintellectualism in the USA makes Apple and Apple customers out to be "rich, spoiled college kids", which is utter bollocks.
I don't get what's so special about this woman. Sure she might be better than Eddy Cue on stage but that's not saying much.
That she's a woman, that she is dark skin black, that she immigrated from Ghana, that she worked hard, and had to overcome a lot of adversity to get where she's at.
Exactly!
See how we have to spell it out for the privileged white boys who cannot see outside their own context? That's why institutionalized racism is invisible to the people with power (or at least those not suffering from racism).
I don't get what's so special about this woman. Sure she might be better than Eddy Cue on stage but that's not saying much.
That she's a woman, that she is dark skin black, that she immigrated from Ghana, that she worked hard, and had to overcome a lot of adversity to get where she's at.
Plenty of white males work hard and overcome adversity. But that doesn't satisfy forced diversity goals. With the completely unprofessional movement to forcibly diversify company executive positions, how can we ever look at a person like this and believe they got this job because they were the best person for the job?
I have ZERO knowledge or information on this woman save for one instance...she got to speak at an Apple event. The person I saw speak did not sound like an executive. She sounded like some dope they grabbed out of a shopping mall and shove out on stage. So with that being my only basis for evaluation, and the fact that I know Apple is forcing diversity into as many token positions as possible...I can't take her seriously at all.
I'm not speaking from some malicious position. I'm just calling it as it is. She is a black African immigrant woman, holding a top executive position at a US company. She got that job because either 1) out of every imaginable candidate she was the right one to head up Apple Music, or 2) because she's a black African immigrant woman and that ticks a ton of diversity boxes in one shot for Apple.
Which do you think is more likely in today's climate? Which do you think is more likely after having heard her speak?
After "hearing you speak", I've come to the conclusion that you're a white male that has zero understanding of his own privilege and who somehow still doesn't understand what institutionalized racism is.
Yes, there are plenty of white males who overcame adversity to accomplish things, but those white males started with an advantage from day one. They started without the extra handicap of being perceived as lesser/less valuable by way of people judging them for their gender, their skin tone, their dialect/accent, or their place of origin.
This woman struggled in a way you may never understand because you never had the same institutional racism and sexism stacked against you.
damn_its_hot said: Why do we need to have more women and minorities in the upper echelons? I think it serves everyone better if they hire/promote the best, talented, & stop reverse discrimination - there is always gonna be a bias.
You answered your on question. If in fact people only hired/promoted those who were the best, talented, without respect to race or sex, and not passed on or passed over those who were the best, talented because of their race or sex, it would server everybody better and there would be no need for 'reverse discrimination'.
Because there's 'always gonna be a bias' there will always need to be an emphasis on diversity. There are certainly many instances where the best and the talented are passed over to satisfy diversity numbers. That's not fair either, and does a disservice. But those numbers likely pale in comparison to people who aren't considered because of racial and sexual bias.
Yes, there's 'alway gonna be a bias'. And it will only and always get worse if we don't actively fight it.
Given the context of the article, I agree completely. Were this a fashion piece about who's whom at some gala, meant to appeal to a more superficial atmosphere, there are 'better' choices.
That's not what this is about, and the above pic shows another side of St. John. Not the confident, bold persona we saw at WWDC 2016, but possibly something of the 13yo girl from Ghana, who had some real obstacles to overcome to get where she is today.
Interesting thing, photographs. Apart from forensic evidence, they're often open to interpretation, allowing us to take what we will from them, often something different than anyone else. While there's differing opinions as to the appropriateness of this photo, the reality is— she is still the same person. The photo doesn't make the woman more or less attractive; it's our individual perspective and interpretation of it. I see a glimpse of a different facet of her, and she's no less beautiful for it.
Which do you think is more likely in today's climate? Which do you think is more likely after having heard her speak?
Well, you're choice is obvious. You say you're not speaking from a malicious position. I no nothing of you save this one instance of your post. From that I conclude you sound like a racial bigot attempting to pass off your biases as objectivity. I'm just calling as it is.
You decry the alleged unprofessional action of forced diversification yet make absolutely no mention of the hundreds of years of sexism and racial inequality that's kept women and minorities out of business entirely, let alone upper management levels, or even any management level, at all. Apparently, that's professional conduct to you. I can say that because I'm allowed to profile you based on the instance of the one post I've read.
As to St. John's speaking abilities, I posit that she is quite capable of using your approved 'white-speak' in a board meeting—that years ago she'd never be permitted to attend—or any other venue as needed. In the instance of WWDC, she spoke in a more approachable, friendly manner than say—Tim. Nothing about WWDC required formal diction and perfect elocution. And her presentation was an obvious hit, very well received.
While I don't believe establishing quotas will ensure only the best and brightest and most qualified will get top positions, it's impossible not to know that currently and for many decades past, the reason there were no women or minorities and are few in management of major companies was not because there were none qualified. Of course I discount those who were denied the same education opportunities, precluding most to become qualified.
You are the embodiment of your user name. Well, at least the inability to adapt part.
I don't get it. I don't know/care who she is, as I'm sure most do. I'm ok with not being with the majority of thoughts and opinions on here, but dang man, I thought Apple was a Technology company. I guess Apple is deciding to go with fame,fashion,and designer names and brands rather than innovating, and tech. I remember the days when Apple was the counter culture. Oh well. At least they make wonderful phones and tablets.
Diversity and opportunity for all is "counter culture" today.
I don't get what's so special about this woman. Sure she might be better than Eddy Cue on stage but that's not saying much.
That she's a woman, that she is dark skin black, that she immigrated from Ghana, that she worked hard, and had to overcome a lot of adversity to get where she's at.
Plenty of white males work hard and overcome adversity. But that doesn't satisfy forced diversity goals. With the completely unprofessional movement to forcibly diversify company executive positions, how can we ever look at a person like this and believe they got this job because they were the best person for the job?
I have ZERO knowledge or information on this woman save for one instance...she got to speak at an Apple event. The person I saw speak did not sound like an executive. She sounded like some dope they grabbed out of a shopping mall and shove out on stage. So with that being my only basis for evaluation, and the fact that I know Apple is forcing diversity into as many token positions as possible...I can't take her seriously at all.
I'm not speaking from some malicious position. I'm just calling it as it is. She is a black African immigrant woman, holding a top executive position at a US company. She got that job because either 1) out of every imaginable candidate she was the right one to head up Apple Music, or 2) because she's a black African immigrant woman and that ticks a ton of diversity boxes in one shot for Apple.
Which do you think is more likely in today's climate? Which do you think is more likely after having heard her speak?
Try looking at it as a long history of "forced non-diversity" if you don't get it. Unless you have experience working at Apple's selection of executive candidates then your opinion is based on bias and nothing else.
Comments
Speaking of dopey sounding people. One just got elected as president of the United States of America, so there goes that notion as well.
The problem with your opinion is that she's a good business woman and was already a high level at Beats before Apple acquired them. Apple didn't "hire" her for her diversity. She came with Beats. Unless you want to argue that Apple spent 3 billion to hire this woman.
Please, step outside of your current self and upgrade your views. Start by taking any person presented to you as an executive (specially from a company like Apple), seriously.
If your preferred counterculture is "intellectuals" then Apple is STILL with it because the antiintellectualism in the USA makes Apple and Apple customers out to be "rich, spoiled college kids", which is utter bollocks.
See how we have to spell it out for the privileged white boys who cannot see outside their own context? That's why institutionalized racism is invisible to the people with power (or at least those not suffering from racism).
After "hearing you speak", I've come to the conclusion that you're a white male that has zero understanding of his own privilege and who somehow still doesn't understand what institutionalized racism is.
Yes, there are plenty of white males who overcame adversity to accomplish things, but those white males started with an advantage from day one. They started without the extra handicap of being perceived as lesser/less valuable by way of people judging them for their gender, their skin tone, their dialect/accent, or their place of origin.
This woman struggled in a way you may never understand because you never had the same institutional racism and sexism stacked against you.
Because there's 'always gonna be a bias' there will always need to be an emphasis on diversity. There are certainly many instances where the best and the talented are passed over to satisfy diversity numbers. That's not fair either, and does a disservice. But those numbers likely pale in comparison to people who aren't considered because of racial and sexual bias.
Yes, there's 'alway gonna be a bias'. And it will only and always get worse if we don't actively fight it.
That's not what this is about, and the above pic shows another side of St. John. Not the confident, bold persona we saw at WWDC 2016, but possibly something of the 13yo girl from Ghana, who had some real obstacles to overcome to get where she is today.
Interesting thing, photographs. Apart from forensic evidence, they're often open to interpretation, allowing us to take what we will from them, often something different than anyone else. While there's differing opinions as to the appropriateness of this photo, the reality is— she is still the same person. The photo doesn't make the woman more or less attractive; it's our individual perspective and interpretation of it. I see a glimpse of a different facet of her, and she's no less beautiful for it.
Well, you're choice is obvious. You say you're not speaking from a malicious position. I no nothing of you save this one instance of your post. From that I conclude you sound like a racial bigot attempting to pass off your biases as objectivity. I'm just calling as it is.
You decry the alleged unprofessional action of forced diversification yet make absolutely no mention of the hundreds of years of sexism and racial inequality that's kept women and minorities out of business entirely, let alone upper management levels, or even any management level, at all. Apparently, that's professional conduct to you. I can say that because I'm allowed to profile you based on the instance of the one post I've read.
As to St. John's speaking abilities, I posit that she is quite capable of using your approved 'white-speak' in a board meeting—that years ago she'd never be permitted to attend—or any other venue as needed. In the instance of WWDC, she spoke in a more approachable, friendly manner than say—Tim. Nothing about WWDC required formal diction and perfect elocution. And her presentation was an obvious hit, very well received.
While I don't believe establishing quotas will ensure only the best and brightest and most qualified will get top positions, it's impossible not to know that currently and for many decades past, the reason there were no women or minorities and are few in management of major companies was not because there were none qualified. Of course I discount those who were denied the same education opportunities, precluding most to become qualified.
You are the embodiment of your user name. Well, at least the inability to adapt part.
Try looking at it as a long history of "forced non-diversity" if you don't get it. Unless you have experience working at Apple's selection of executive candidates then your opinion is based on bias and nothing else.