Yahoo sued over male discrimination

Reddit View
February 3, 2016

Hey folks, thought you'd be interested in something that came across the front page of reddit:

TLDR: Yahoo's been laying off males as fast as they can kick them out. In three years alone management has gone from less than 20% female to over 80% female.

Body: As the title states, yahoo's being sued over male discrimination. They've been systematically laying off men (the CEO decided to ban the word "layoff", choosing "remixing" instead), for a few years now. As it stands, three years earlier, the manager tier consisted of less than 20% female, and in three years alone that's shifted to over 80%. Plenty of solid comments from the blue pill folks in the subreddits.

Here's one that I pulled out for you guys from news:

"Because they are told it's true in college and anyone that questions it is a sexist who hates women. Also most people don't question statistics (especially ones that challenge the Feminist narrative) in general. It's like the "1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in college" statistic. That comes from a non-scientific poll conducted at Women's centers from colleges that voluntarily responded in the mid-90s (1994-1995 school year I think). So among women who happened to visit Women's Centers at certain colleges who happened to respond to a voluntarily poll reported that 1 in 4 of them experienced sexual assault. More than 20 years ago. Add on to it that one of the the questions that triggered the "was sexually assaulted" lever was asking whether or not a boyfriend ever did anything in the bedroom that you didn't want to happen and made you feel uncomfortable... so if your boyfriend ever slaps your ass while in bed or something of the like and you didn't enjoy it, you were "sexually assaulted". My statistics class in college did a whole thing on it (this was a decade ago) and the professor had to publicly apologize for it. All he did was show how unscientific and unrealistic the statistic was, and used it to show the class how easily oft-repeated statistics can be incredibly misleading. Consider that women who are in the Women's centers are probably more likely to have experienced trauma. Consider the misleading, vague questioning. The voluntary sample (as opposed to random). And the fact that the women who participated in the polling are now in their 40s. Why is it still repeated as unquestioned fact that 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in college? If it's a Feminist statistic you don't question it. And if you do, you're a sexist. They'd rather fear-monger than tell the facts as they are because the fear-mongering helps get their message out and perpetuate support for their groups."

Obviously, that's not a representative sample, but I like seeing the pushback against the feminist bullshit outside of TRP.

Conclusion: feminism is about shifting power, not equality.

Post Information
Title Yahoo sued over male discrimination
Author Disc26
Upvotes 752
Comments 194
Date 03 February 2016 05:38 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pillthe blue pillfeministfeminism

[–]Themooseconnection318 points319 points  (21 children) | Copy

Upper management love female middle managers. Why?

Because they do as they're told, are terrible at negotiating wages, treat anyone under them brutally and make the company look "diverse" even though they are in a worthless position.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock92 points93 points  (11 children) | Copy

and /u/Harry_Teak

Patrice goes into detail why they put women and betas in middle management. He also explains why he intentionally never went big.

[–]Rathadin42 points43 points  (2 children) | Copy

I only discovered Patrice about two years ago. God what a great influence for men.

[–]Venomroach18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy

The black Phillip show is Gospel.

[–]Steve_Wiener29 points30 points  (4 children) | Copy

do you know about where in that hour long clip he says that? because i'm not going to listen to it for an entire hour

[–]hiphoprising7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

i listened in and out but it starts around 44 or so. Doesn't really go into it as much as OP made it sound but hey, this is TRP, any opportunity to post Patrice O'Neal (or Bill Burr) is fully taken advantage of.

In short, he says that in order to move up the ladder you've gotta be willing to do favors. It's not about hard work, being the best etc.. its about doing favors for the people that can make things happen for you.

[–]full_package7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

That's my problem with Patrice shows. Love them, but the content is rarely worth an hour of sitting on my ass. And the context jumps too much to half-listen while doing something else.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's why you listen to it in your car, especially in traffic.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

Great listen. He summarizes everything that's wrong with today. It's more relevant today than when he talked about it then.

The world has really become this huge grab for power and people are doing it in any way possible even if it means disrespecting others or the other extreme by sucking their dicks to the point of obvious brown nosing.

The corporate ladder is such. Hollywood works that way. Politics works that way.

If you are not capable of being downright dominant without pissing people off to the point where they put the majority against you then you will just be an average dude who will be taking orders from the top 10%.

This is if your wanting to push your way to the top 10%. Problem is not a lot of people are capable of doing this. It's just not in them to do it.

However the top 10% will tell people that they are capable of it. Because this is how they control you.

The best way to control somebody is to make them feel like they have control.

So in these cases the reasons why you see people like women and betas in management positions is because they are the brown noses of today and/or are the people working their ass of to get ahead.

It's not that working your ass off is "bad". I don't want to paint that as a negative picture. I just want to point out the grab for power is the illusion that they have you chasing endlessly for.

Think of the worker bees believing that they are queen bees. This is why we see such a movement today for people to stop shaming others into believing that they are special the way they are.

While I am in belief that people are the way they are and should accept the way they are but to go to that extreme in saying that you shouldn't improve because you are beautiful the way you are is damaging to people altogether.

That you should be handed something because you exist is the way this is heading.

However i see why it's done. We don't want people to get out and think for themselves. We want to have the illusion that you are powerful as you are. As long as you think like me. That you are special and are entitled to power. But people only have as much power as they are believed to be having.

To me this is what slows our growth as humans more than anything.

The PC culture will fail and will be given a hard dose of the truth when it collapses. I'm just happy that I am able to see it and understand it.

[–]CornyHoosier1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

While I am in belief that people are the way they are and should accept the way they are but to go to that extreme in saying that you shouldn't improve because you are beautiful the way you are is damaging to people altogether.

Excellently said.

I know I'm not going to be in the top few percentage of American's; but I can make myself the best I can be at what I am capable of. Knowing yourself and knowing what your capable of are two very important things that everyone need to learn but most don't.

[–]1Snivellious19 points20 points  (3 children) | Copy

If I needed a 'heavy' to close down or streamline a department, I'd look for the hardest-charging businesswoman I could find. She'll be ruthless and unimaginative, and if I get lucky she'll drive a bunch of people to quit before I have to pay severance!

[–]RandomWon4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

I work in business sales at Time Warner Cable. As you may know charter is taking over time warner cable. I believe that what you described is happening there now. We just had a female VP come in and start making all kinds of changes that are more restrictive and don't actually make more money for the company.

[–]1Snivellious3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah... it's like a cross between "hostile work environment" and "constructive dismissal".

People assume that since markets are efficient, no one will be rewarded for doing destructive, counter-productive things to their employees. It's not true. They just do those things when there's an incentive to make employees unhappy, like when they're trying to cut staff.

If I were you, I'd be looking at new jobs. New restrictions without a good reason either means they're trying to avoid severance pay, or it means they're incompetent and will probably be downsizing after they fuck things up. And frankly, I'm particularly suspicious of things going down the tube if you switch to a female manager and then things get shitty.

[–]rpscrote1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well in a free market you'd just axe people who sucked. In the USSA you have to play games and do bullshit to get them to quit so you dont have to pay unemployment, so you dont have to do severance, so you can avoid wrongful termination lawsuits and on and on and on. US job market is very inefficient

[–]RealRational5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ime women are actually really good at middle management. As long as they aren't involved in producing value, achieving results or any kind of decision making they're great!

They are very apt at maintaining the status quo and, when directed to do so, and monitored publicly, very good at maintaining harmony among the employees. Which is the definition of management, really just what secretaries were in the 60's. Leadership is the new term for decision making positions reliant on critical thinking.

Women capable of moving above that level are exceedingly rare. To the point of being statistically irrelevant. But let me tell you, if you happen across one, offer your discipline to help keep her focused and enough resources that it isn't even a concern and they really can achieve a lot. Those anomalies really have some fire in their belly!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And now they're going down the shitter from the purchase of tumblr. Older girls thinking they can monetize the idiotic ramblings of younger girls. Lawls.

[–]evergonitenitenigga3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

YOOOO you hit the nail right on the head. they are essentially glorified messengers by the higher ups. for the most part, they don't have an actual input to whatever that needs to get done.

[–]Harry_Teak449 points450 points  (105 children) | Copy

If any of you lads own Yahoo! stock I'd suggest selling. 80% female management=100% doomed.

[–]sexmachine9000 190 points190 points [recovered] | Copy

lol thats actually true; here is a compiled list of the studies that prove including women in boardrooms causes a decline in the business

EDIT: LOL the link is wordpress because it compiles the links to the 5 other studies; the studies are from credible sources type them in google scholar to confirm. I'm not an idiot to consider a wordpress link as a proper source.

[–]I_HaveAHat159 points160 points  (13 children) | Copy

Facts and scientific studies are sexist and misogynistic

[–]dolominute32 points33 points  (7 children) | Copy

*Unless they're fudged and/or fit the narrative. Then they're obvious, empowering evidence of patriarchy and the benefits of overcoming it.

[–]xxmindtrickxx6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy

Am I misunderstanding the article?

Edit: Basically what I'm saying is that study doesn't literally imply its woman, its the implementation of the mandate.

Most devaluing comes from a mandate forcing woman to be on the board. Since boards are originally elected to improve value. These firms had to higher woman who were less experienced. Which devalued them. There were already boards who met the quota that created no issue.

Basically what I'm learning is that forcing to put people of less "quality and experience" on a board causes value to drop. This would be the case for any mandate.

I would like to see a similar study for affirmative action and see if the same result would occur and draw conclusions from that. Since that is essentially a similar effect.

My company is a fortune 500 company that internally imposed mandates like these in the late 80s (not due to law due to their own studies that they'd see growth as a result) and were able to educate/hire/promote woman and people of color to adapt their model and they consider it today to be a reason they took a much larger share of the markets in the last 30+ years.

Yahoo's case seems to be outrageously quick in comparison. 3 years and there's an 60% change.

[–]dolominute2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I was being snarky there, but yeah, I'm sure the mandate creates more of a problem than the actual percentage.

That being said, I think it's safe to say that women tend to (tend to, not have to, for all you lurkers who think everyone here's a rampant sexist) lack the qualities that make for good leaders. Men are generally more aggressive and can butt out better but less aggressive leaders, so from that angle it's a good idea to "help" women and less aggressive men out a bit (I put help in quotes because every leader should earn their position). But I still think that a merit based leadership position is still likely to be mostly men, so any sort of quota, whether it be long term or short term, is likely to be a bad idea. People should determine what it is that makes a good leader, look for those qualities in people of all genders, and adjust for any unfairness in the process, not the results. That likely means pulling from a large talent pool, so a certain amount of diversity is to be expected/good. I doubt the benefit of racial/gender diversity in and of itself (diversity of ideas is what's important, and a majority group is likely to have at least as many diverse opinions because of its size as there are different minority groups), and I suspect that diversity quotas helped your company get out of networking mode and hunt harder for demonstrable talent, but I don't know enough to make any final judgement on that issue.

On a side note, I think if "radical" people actually wanted real, radical change that was guaranteed to be fair, they'd figure out a way to have people work remotely under pseudonyms/voice alteration software and do a truly anonymous, double blind study to conclusively determine what benefits male leadership has vs female leadership. The numbers I see in quotas vary significantly and smell suspiciously similar to shit.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

It's not a 60% change. 20% to 80% is a 300% increase.

[–]xxmindtrickxx-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

Not if you're already doing the math in percentages.

20 board members to 80 board members is a 300% increase.

20% to 80% is a 60% change.

[–]aDrunkenWhaler-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

60% change in what exactly? Sorry buddy, but if this is how you analyze ratios and percentages chances are your 500 fortune company is a studio apartment with a couple of desks and stacks of files spread all around.

[–]xxmindtrickxx-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

If it's not completely obvious by the context clues, then maybe read the article...

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah? Well you're a poop head.

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's true. Reality is not nice to women. Unfortunately, it's still reality.

[–]ab2097090 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I for one won't stand for it! There's more to truth than factz

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor28 points29 points  (1 child) | Copy

This is always good for a chuckle.

The money shot: "if I were to do it again, I'd definitely employ men. In fact, I'd probably employ only men."

[–]RedMoonAscendant8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

I know a woman who spent her entire career blaming her failures on the men in charge. She finally found a company that was mostly women, and definitely woman-controlled. She's more miserable and unhappy there than any of the previous jobs.

No, she doesn't see the causation. She's a dumb woman.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock19 points20 points  (1 child) | Copy

Supposedly switching to 40% women is only a "cosmetic change", but with every woman added to the board, there's a 2.25 % reduction in stock price, lol. Women ruin everything.

edit: /u/sexmachine9000

Archive each paper to protect against censorship, then post it here in the science section

Title: Women Leaders Ruin Stock Prices (Science)

sidenote: look for some good quotes. I found lower 'gender diversity' (less women) = better performance in one of the abstracts. Look at the conclusions and N#. Make that post great. Make that format sexy.

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

By "cosmetic change", they mean the company will be buying more cosmetics.

[–]Ojisan111 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

There's also this story (an old one, but a good one) about the woman who started a her dream "all-female company" and ended up having to shut it down because of catfights, jealousy, etc, no work got done, and it had devolved into unmanageable chaos after only a year.

It's been posted to TRP before, there's a good archived thread about it: Women in the workplace - an allfemale distaster : TheRedPill

[–]Elodrian6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

One immediate problem that jumps out at me is that three of the five studies supporting the conclusion are based on Norway's introduction of gender quotas, and a fourth is based on quotas in the US. Decline of a company mandated to place otherwise unqualified people (if they were capable of landing the job based on merit, they'd have done so already) in leadership positions to fill quotas shouldn't surprise anyone, and doesn't prove the more general conclusion that the presence of members of the protected class cause a decline. I think the studies demonstrate that government-enforced quotas are bad for business, not necessarily that women are bad for business.

Bear in mind: just because an argument is faulty doesn't automatically make the conclusion incorrect. Maybe they're right. I don't think these studies adequately prove the point, however.

My personal opinion (for which I provide no rigorous substantiation!) is that government meddling with the inner workings of a business will impair the performance of that business. That meddling could take the form of imposed quotas. It could take the form of byzantine micromanaging taxation schemes. It could take the form of onerous regulations.

To prove the "Women in leadership damages company performance" hypothesis, you would need to examine the results of women being added to boards organically on the basis of merit, without top-down coersion from government.

[–][deleted] 40 points41 points  (4 children) | Copy

This has been known for a while, Yahoo is literally a sinking ship because of all the women in it.

[–]1Snivellious16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

In fairness, Yahoo was a sinking ship before that also. They just decided to choose "building up gender imbalance" over "building up a profitable core business".

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy

Just like the Titanic...

Except the men are bailing with all the lifeboats (getting the fuck out of that company for google or apple or something I would imagine)

[–]Schrodingersdawg9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

Well in this case the women are saying they can save the ship by lighting it on fire and telling the men to GTFO

[–]libglip0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Maybe they plan to cut it up for scrap -- before it completely sinks.

They'll have to hurry.

[–][deleted] 60 points60 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Rommel050260 points61 points  (13 children) | Copy

It would be a Nobel Prize winning paper if it showed a positive correlation, and a career ending disaster if it showed a negative correlation.

[–]1Snivellious27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is why these studies aren't done. There's only one answer you're allowed to get, and if you get something else your entire conclusion has to be a list of reasons your study sucked and you must be wrong.

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy

There's no nobel prize in bullshit. What category would it even qualify for? Peace?

[–]Polaris3824 points5 points  (8 children) | Copy

Oh I dont about Economics?

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

A.) Economics is not a real Nobel Prize.

B.) This is nowhere near the level of work actually being awarded "Nobel" prizes in Economics.

[–]Elodrian-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

There is no Nobel Prize in Economics.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

There is no Nobel Prize in Economics.

Paul Krugman is getting a kick out of this reply.

[–]moltoimpressionato3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

Sure there is. As that article makes clear, it counts in every way that, well, counts.

[–]Elodrian2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I just like reminding economists that their award comes with an asterisk compared to every other recognized discipline.

[–]putinbusch-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Hahaha. Kinda like social studies.

[–]ComradeCynic1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Correct. It is a prize given "in memory of Nobel" by the Swedish central bank, the Riksbank.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

The peace prize is the bullshit prize. War is the motherfucking answer.

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's been done. There's no effect.

There is a sizable effect of women in C-level positions on profitability, and by extension stock performance.

AKA women make perfectly good drones, just like BP men. Just don't put them in leadership positions.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

There is one in the thread that is actually 6 studies compiled and the rule of thumb is about 2.25% decrease in value for every female board member.

[–]skulk2fade35 points36 points  (13 children) | Copy

Yahoo stock is going down the toilet and since the new CEO started she has been spending like crazy.

[–]1Snivellious11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

Buying into Alibaba was sharp, at least. It'll preserve some value after everything else goes down the tubes. On the other hand, Mayer tried to sell that and the investors forced her not to.

I'm predicting they'll basically just become a shitty VC firm, hoping to buy into something that can save them.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy

Don't worry I'm sure she thinks Yahoo is the next Lehman Brothers and is considered 'too big to fail' by the government /s

[–]Rommel050222 points23 points  (4 children) | Copy

Lehman was left to fail by the govt. Bear Stearns was saved.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Oh right forgot it was goldman sachs and like AIG and stuff that got saved.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Bear Stearns was the first to go Bankrupt, Lehman Brothers BEGGED the government to save them. The government said they couldn't, and that's what basically caused the financial crisis of 2008. The government saw what that did to the markets, so they changed the law to save everyone else afterwards.

AIG, Goldman, BoA, Countrywide... the government forced them to merge and saved every single one.

[–]Rommel05020 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Thx, but I lived it. I worked at Lehman for fifteen years almost right to the end ...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Bear Stearns

I'm not denying that you worked there lol, I'm saying the it Bear Stearns that died first, and then Lehman brothers. And the government took action AFTER Lehman went down.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy

Name me one service yahoo has that hasn't been overtaken by other competitors. Yahoo ended the day they backed away from buying google

[–]KungPaoEllenTheFist 4 points4 points [recovered] | Copy

Fantasy football is the only thing they do that is worth a shit. And their competitors are catching up quick.

[–]InterNetting4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy

ESPN or I'm not in the league

[–]KungPaoEllenTheFist 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

It has been a few years since I used them. Do they collect dues and handle payouts yet? If so, I will probably change my leagues over next year.

[–]Sour_Badger0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yes they do. It's third party IIRC.

[–][deleted] 46 points46 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]1Snivellious2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Buying Yahoo stock is hoping to hold Alibaba stock, though. Mayer already tried to sell the Alibaba stake once, and would probably try it again if the shareholder revolt hadn't scared her away.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (2 children) | Copy

They're run in China which is detrimental when you actually want to get the money.

[–]nutty_bi19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, you buy BABA, the ADR trading in the US.

[–]Luckyluke231 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

there are ways to get around that man. It's the way the company is structured.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana20 points21 points  (10 children) | Copy

[–]2renzy7734 points35 points  (0 children) | Copy

Milo delivers again with that article:

How does one go about finding a CEO? If you’re Wal-Mart, you designate your heir like a Viking chief, picking the strongest of your children. If you’re Yahoo!, however, you put “Affirmative Action Hire” or “Easy, Breezy, Covergirl” in your third-rate search engine and hope for the best. What dubious specimen does the search engine spit out? One Marissa Mayer.

That guy has a savage wit!

[–]Luckyluke2313 points14 points  (7 children) | Copy

what got me, is it's the MOST VISITED site befind google and facebook.

shit, who still goes to yahoo? ( other than fantasy football so it was prob that propping it up)

[–]true_detective_sf 18 points18 points [recovered] | Copy

400 million people still use Yahoo Mail.

The finance product is popular, too.

[–]Polaris3821 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yep, just had an accounting Professor (who works in the industry as well) talking about how much he prefers Yahoo over Google and the I guess its not totally dead yet in that regard.

[–]flat6turbo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

i still use yahoo mail, but only because i've had an address for literally 20 years. i use it less and less, and mainly for throwaway accounts.

[–]1Snivellious7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's either a homepage or an email client for lots of people. If I remember, Yahoo Mail pushes hard to make you pick Yahoo as a homepage, and drops you there after you sign out. Easy numbers inflation.

I'd love to see their visitation stats for people under 30, I'll bet that's dismal.

[–]Fuck_shadow_bans1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I go for their movies section and I have a yahoo email account that i use for bullshit and signing up for services.

[–]dainethemain1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

i'm in a few organizations that still use Yahoo Groups.

it's terrible in almost every way.

[–]Luckyluke231 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

tell them to use slack. it's 100% better.

yahoo would really downsize it's business and trim the fat

[–]Harry_Teak1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm glad that Reddit is a text medium. I wouldn't be able to reply to you via voice right now since my jaw is currently on the floor after reading that.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy

I mean, it's fucking Yahoo. Yahoo is doomed. Who the fuck invested their money in Yahoo anytime recently? If they did, they're morons. I'll give you a free pass if you invested when the internet was a new thing, but any investments in Yahoo post-2002 we're not made wisely. I'm amazed they're still around, in fact.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy

Some of the best opportunities to make money are on shitty stocks. Simple day trading is for peasants, the futures market is where you can really fuck shit up.

[–]jmottram081 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

shitty stocks generally mean companies that haven't done well yet, not ones that haven't been relevant in a decade.

A bet on yahoo at this point is a bet against google.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

YHOO is huge in the finance market. And if I recall, it's also what Bing is based on. Bing has something like 1/5 of Internet search traffic.

YHOO is still very relevant in some circles, just not compared to the competitor that overtook them, because Google is, well, Google.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Onlookers don't take stock advice here.

[–]Redpillc0re8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

I did not, but i am just about to short it hard , thanks for the tip.

[–]InAStateTRP11 points12 points  (12 children) | Copy

Serious question:

Does anyone know of successful groups of women outside of music and sport?

I'm looking for a group of only women outside of sport (segregated) and music (culturally subjective) who have pioneered in any area.

[–]Duke_LFG47 points48 points  (1 child) | Copy

Cam Sex. C'mon, give them some credit.

[–]InAStateTRP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Usually they establish themselves as individuals and then temporarily combine their brands for say a lesbian shoot.

I want to give a group of women credit for pioneering work but need help thinking of examples.

[–]TunkaTun4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Acting, chef, talk shows, news, government positions, that's all I can think of.

[–]Gawernator3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Admiral Grace Hopper

Grace Brewster Murray Hopper (December 9, 1906 – January 1, 1992), née Grace Brewster Murray, was an American computer scientist and United States Navy Rear Admiral.[1] She was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer in 1944,[2] invented the first compiler for a computer programming language,[3][4][5][6][7] and was one of those who popularized the idea of machine-independent programming languages which led to the development of COBOL, one of the first high-level programming languages. She is credited with popularizing the term "debugging" for fixing computer glitches (in one instance, removing a moth from a computer[8]). Owing to her accomplishments and her naval rank, she is sometimes referred to as "Amazing Grace".[9][10] The U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70) is named for her, as is the Cray XE6 "Hopper" supercomputer at NERSC.

[–]InAStateTRP2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

All due credit to her. All of us can name some exceptional women in history.

However my question was centred around groups of women.

[–]Gawernator1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Hmm good point. Maybe WW2 female factory workers. Otherwise I dunno. The world was built by men

[–]PlanB_pedofile4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

Martha Stewart, Jenny Craig, Chefs, product makers, mostly marketing or self branded people.

Other than Marie Curie and her research into radioactive materials, most women are successful in being a brand or doing woman things like humanitarian aid, ect.

[–]Harry_Teak2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Martha Stewart, Jenny Craig, Chefs, product makers, mostly marketing or self branded people.

Anyone can make a buck repackaging a woman's ego and selling it back to her.

[–]InAStateTRP0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Perhaps I wasn't clear. A group or team of women, rather than an individual.

[–]CornyHoosier5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I sold off some Yahoo stock when they hired their CEO. I didn't do it because she was a woman, but because she was making some completely unnecessary changes and not dealing with the core struggles of her company.

I often buy up stock of tech companies who are usually listed lower than what the normally value (made a TON of money off WebMD a couple years ago). However, I only maintain the investment when the company works on solving problems. When Yahoo's CEO came in she made changes like: not allowing people to work from home or re-decorated their offices. How the fuck are either of those things going to make you money?

I've seen plenty of competent female leadership. However, if you're hiring a group of people based on what they are and not the intelligence they bring to the table ... you're going to get a lot of people who are bad for your business.

I think a lot of us have seen the article on the "All Female" company from awhile ago. They didn't fail from being women ... they failed because they refused to hire people (men) who had knowledge of what the company needed.

[–]Harry_Teak6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

they failed because they refused to hire people (men) who had knowledge of what the company needed.

As I recall, that article mentioned specifically how the internal office politics generated by an all-female staff made that workplace unworkable regardless. It became one big fashion competition and slow-mo catfight. Without a common enemy, the women quickly started tearing one another apart.

[–]LittleSpoonMe1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm shorting the hell out of yahoo right now...

[–]nuesuh0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Exactly, was just writing the same thing when i saw your comment.

Yahoo is a sinking ship.

[–]Luckyluke230 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

from a business standpoint, the only thing they do well is fantasy sports.

they should just off shoot the fantasy and close down the rest, then open a " paid" subscription to get the" better " information + ad's on there sight they should do fine.

[–]thereddespair0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I heard yesterday that yahoo only exist still because some people still had emails there and they didnt want to lose them.

Top of my head, I cant think of anything that I can get by going there.

Theyre probably on lifevest provided by women right now.

[–]tclearinghouse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Writing is on the wall, stock is alredy down 35% over last year. No coincidence I'm sure

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (7 children) | Copy

Yahoo is a walking relic. Shareholders still invested in Marissa Mayer's fee fee company deserve to lose all their money.

[–]RPsage27 points28 points  (6 children) | Copy

Not true, I made some good money from yahoo 2-3 years ago off her projection "to turn the company around."

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

By shorting?

[–]Luckyluke2313 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy

you shorted the fuck out of it?

[–]RPsage9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

Bought at around 25 sold at 45.

[–]Luckyluke23-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

nice little return for you there.

[–]Snufek64 points65 points  (1 child) | Copy

So... when is Yahoo going bankrupt?

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points  (0 children) | Copy

Without Alibaba like 2 years ago.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (2 children) | Copy

Fun fact: Yahoo owns Tumblr.

Also Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo, blows through cash like only a woman could:

It's just amazing, really. I wonder who she thinks is going to bail her out when the company eventually tanks.

[–]flat6turbo19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

duh, she will leave the company and get a huge golden parachute payout for doing it. sound familiar?

heads i win, tails you lose.

[–]nia_kills0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Thats a lot of money, but at least other people are making it from her..

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (5 children) | Copy

Ever since silicon valley companies started coming under fire for employing too many males and Asians, they've been scrambling to artificially "remix" the companies. I'm not sure what the detractors are trying to say. Either it's a big conspiracy and qualified women and minorities are applying but getting the "good ol' boy" treatment, or there just aren't enough women and minority candidates (who are qualified). I suspect there aren't an alarming number of underrepresented applicants to begin with.

Firstly it's the bay area and anyone who's lived there can attest to the fact that it's full of ultra liberals who'd sooner dump a hot pour-over from blue bottle on their face than be a bigot. Secondly, their motivation is purely driven by profit. If you can produce code and drive new products, they don't care who you are or how you smell.

The distribution of an industry doesn't have to match the distribution of the population, and no one would expect it to. Well, SJWs do I guess if it suits some political agenda, but for the life of me I can't understand what that is.

[–]flat6turbo47 points48 points  (2 children) | Copy

most asian males are extremely fucking cynical about any kind of social justice, for this very reason. the one high $ industry where they can get ahead without any of the bullshit oldboy networks or straight up racist discrimination, and it's being fucking ruined by retards, feminists and other hangers-on.

and when was the last time SJWs or anyone on the left gave a shit about asian males in general? never.

[–]Schrodingersdawg21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy

This tbh.

At least everything at the most extreme of the right wing doesn't hurt us like SJWs do.

Literally everything the SJWs do is to lower the quality of life for Asian and white men. Apparently Asian women are super discriminated against due to being a minority and female but Asian men effectively count as white. The most racist people I've ever met weren't white rich fraternity brothers, it was the girls, and the more SJW they got, the more racist they were.

Terrorist immigrants, fake rape cases and college campus hysteria, wage gap, consent laws, affirmative action, criticism = racism/sexism, social justice seeks to overthrow the current order of meritocracy in 2016 the same way Bolshevism wanted overthrow capitalism in 1916

[–]xfLyFPS7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Open the communist manifesto.

Replace "proletariat" with women and "bourgeoisie" with men.

Enjoy your feminist manifesto.

Not only are SJWs racist against whites and asians, they're racist against blacks as well. Letting blacks into colleges merely because of quotas will make their lifes harder, not easier. If they were a shit learner in high school they will slack off in college as well and they'll drop out.

Or maybe you Americans make exceptions with grading as well? If so, then they will find that the engineering job they got because of a quota will be too difficult for them and they're going to be incompetent because they got a free pass in college. I don't want some guy who's only a doctor because of a quota operating on my spine, I want somebody who paid attention to anatomy in college.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think you're right. Women in particular if they write the right qualifications down on their resume are going to get an interview 100% of the time. However, interviews are where they ask the hard questions and most of the time they probably can't answer the questions satisfactorily.

I'd LOVE to see the numbers to show the percentage of men who get interviews vs the percentage of women who get interviews though... I'd be willing to be like 80% of women get an interview (because tits) while 20% of men do.

[–]moltoimpressionato5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

their motivation is purely driven by profit. If you can produce code and drive new products, they don't care who you are or how you smell.

Exactly, and it's all the more maddening that this is what everyone else wants out of these same companies, too, including the SJWs. Everybody wants to keep tapping away on reliable, sexy smartphones, etc., sold to them for next to nothing by companies that are as efficient and profitable as possible, including all the crusaders who are calling out Silicon Valley for not being inclusive or socially pious enough, and for being too mercenary and aggressive.

It's such typical revolutionary shortsightedness: let's dismantle all the old social, economic and political systems because we don't like the look of them, but be damned if we're going to give up all the good things that those systems used to produce.

[–]maxrp 29 points29 points [recovered] | Copy

thanks for posting this OP.

I've read and watch Marrissa's moves and shes added nothing and ruined any thing good about yahoo. She pretends to be busy and sacked any motivated people. Shes toxic.

She lied to get in the job. Her husband helped her get in.

The company only went up with Alibaba - a previous investment by a man. All her investments have been tosh...Tumber wtf.

and now i read shes replacing all the men...probably they tried to warn of the wrong direction...she didn't like to hear it and fired them.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well if there's nobody to tell you you're wrong anymore, after you fall on your butt you can blame everyone who told you you were doing the right thing.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheRedPilsner26 points27 points  (1 child) | Copy

the CEO decided to ban the word "layoff", choosing "remixing" instead

Is she a CEO, or an electronic dance music DJ?

[–]Shnook825 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

"Why the sad face, man?"

"I was remixed from my job today."

[–]IronMeltsinmyHands74 points75 points  (4 children) | Copy

I've been telling you niggas, feminism is about women making men into women, and women into men.

[–]sweetleef72 points73 points  (1 child) | Copy

feminism is about women making men into women, and women into men.

In theory. But since being a man involves all that unpleasant stuff like work, sacrifice, logic, skill, risk, and competition, in reality it's about women remaining women while taking the products of men by force.

[–]KorianHUN15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

feminism is about women making men into women slaves, and women into men unquestionable masters and every other women into slaves too.

Modern feminism reminds me of socialism in europe when everyone was promised equality while some privileged "socialists" lived the life of kings and if you dared to say anything you were labelled the enemy of the state and executed.
Buzzwords, namecalling and terror, tools of communism in 20th century feminism in 21st century.

[–]marplaneit1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You forgot the "We are only social construction" followed by "I will ignore all the science factions even in they are thrown at my face"

[–]menial_optimist45 points46 points  (3 children) | Copy

When facts are involved, liberals, feminists & SJWs are utterly destroyed. These people poke their heads out into the world, see that its scary, and then live the rest of their lives constructing fuzzy little fantasyworlds to spin around in endlessly. They constantly need validation and reinforcement for their deluded beliefs. They browse huffpost regularly and feel as if they are on some sort of moral crusade that the non-believers just can't understand.

It completely sickens me that this is what mainstream culture is now. I refuse to be associated with it whatsoever, and will at any moment when required viciously oppose it because in the end you could call it 1000 different names but it's really just tyranny.

You don't have to have chains around your ankles to be living under tyranny.

[–]NPK56672 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

I oppose the liberal bullshit daily, and at 26 with most of my comrades being flaming liberals, im constantly rebuking them and putting them in their place.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Keep fighting the good fight. I'm in the same boat.

[–]batfish5513 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy

I read a post somewhere where the author was picking apart some professional victim's blog post about some recent rape study and the numbers 'showed' horrible rates.

He pulled up actual questions from the 'study'. Among other things, "Unwanted Hugs" counted as sexual assault. Uh-huh.

[–]Diabolical_Nuke4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Wasn't there "Unwanted Touching" up to and including accidentally brushing a girl when you walk by included as well?

[–]ThrowyMcGruder13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

I like seeing the pushback against the feminist bullshit outside of TRP.

Funnily enough, I heard straight-up truth from the mouth a seven year-old girl not so long ago.

She's a friend of a friend's kid (single mother to make it more odd) and she was watching TV with me when some of the usual "girl power, women are the best" kind of shit came on an ad and she said:

"Why do they always say women are better than men and that they do the hardest work?"

I just said, "Meh. Women like to hear it."

She said, "I don't think it's true. Women tend to make the dinner and do the papers and men tend to get the firewood and fix everything! It's like a balance. If anything I think men do the harder work."

I chuckled and shrugged and she said, "So they just tell lies to keep women happy?"

I said, "Something like that."

She thought about it for a second and said, "Well that's stupid."

[–]magikmausi23 points24 points  (4 children) | Copy

I'll be honest: women make good employees.

Terrible leaders. But good employees.

Also reminder: Yahoo is a "media company". Media companies tend to be dominated by women.

[–]White_Phillip14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

Only if it's an office job. If it requires any physical labor, they're absolute shit.

[–]NPK56674 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah for the most part. I hate all the drama that builds up over time with my female employees though.

[–]PlanB_pedofile0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

they are good at doing what they are told

[–]ktchong9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

In three years alone (i.e., 2012-2015) management has gone from less than 20% female to over 80% female.

I tell you what the problem is: Marissa Mayer.

Marissa Mayer, a woman who has been more concerned with pushing the feminist agenda over restoring Yahoo! to profitability, was appointed President and CEO or Yahoo! in 2012. She has been running the company into the ground since then:

Marissa Mayer is called "Evita" for good reasons - she has been wasting the company's money lavishly to boost her ego:

She should go to prison for embezzlement, but she won't because she is a woman.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (9 children) | Copy

I remember when Yahoo was decent. I still own an account which I use for trolling/more anonymous™ activities. Instead at Google they hire people for skill. Seriously, google it. You don't even need a degree, just show that you have the highly skill they are looking for.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (8 children) | Copy

Yeah, if you've written a protocol that the internet runs on you can get away with no degree. Like a one in a thousand thought leader type stuff

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy

deleted What is this?

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan23 points24 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah it's almost like it's a meritocracy... which leftists SJW's absolutely loathe because it means they cant shove their feminazi racist diversity bullshit to get some unqualified cunt in so she can get dudes to do all her work for her.

[–]Mithra90091 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think they may loathe it because the tech industry is filled with the guys SJWs typically have the most control over--betas however the betas meritocratic business style is a wallblock against their power's influence. It's the same "hate" that a dog experiences when the meat it wants is behind a glass window. So close yet so far.

[–]1Snivellious2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Google usually won't take degree-less people the age of college grads, but if you have some interesting projects or successful jobs under your belt they stop giving a damn. After you beat the interviews, you're probably qualified regardless of education.

[–]IronAppeal 6 points6 points [recovered] | Copy

Google doesn't care if you have a degree. In fact, their chairman and director of hiring has said:

“When you look at people who don’t go to school and make their way in the world, those are exceptional human beings. And we should do everything we can to find those people,”

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Anyone who has read the 48 laws of power would say exactly the same thing.

[–]redfallhammer1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Exactly. The people that do well in their field of choice, without a degree, do well because they have a passion for it. People that have a passion for their craft will always do better than those only in it for a meal ticket.

[–]flat6turbo1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

LOL half the people in technology have no degree or unrelated degrees. only one person on my team of 6 has a CS degree, and he doesn't even do development, he's a sysadmin (or, devops, as the cool kids call it these days).

if you can't get hired, you just fucking suck. the only prerequisite is competence. it's the only high paying industry that works this way, in my opinion.

[–]alritealritealrite6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Your boyfriend slapping your ass during sex is sexual assault? How? You consensually agreed to let him stick his dick in your vagina but hold the phone! Don't slap my ass!

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

Awhile back, Yahoo made me an offer. It was a good offer, so I asked about project details, nodded and smiled as this person talked about their strategy, then said "no thanks", and shorted the fuck out of their stock.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

My major is cs - out of curiosity, can you elaborate a little more? I'm interested to hear what flags turned you away. A friend of mine was hired by yahoo about a year ago straight out of the university and his starting salary is pretty impressive. It always sounded a little too good and the impression that something didn't seem right stayed with me. I'm wondering if there's something in your experience that might fill that gap.

[–]TRP VanguardWhisper1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

My major is cs - out of curiosity, can you elaborate a little more? I'm interested to hear what flags turned you away

The rule here is "don't board a sinking ship".

Large companies don't have a granular enough view to fire/punish underperforming individuals. So who gets laid off? The most recent hires on underperforming teams, that's who.

And poorly managed teams always underperform, either because lack of leadership is a roadblock to progress, because what passes for "leadership" is a roadblock to progress, or because the mission parameters are impossible in the first place.

Engineers, technical leadership, and middle management in these cases are always going to suffer. Oh, the executives that made the bad decisions suffer in the end. But the people trying to support those bad decisions suffer throughout the process.

Never board a sinking ship.

[–]StarDestinyGuy4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

About time stuff like that starts happening. Between cases like this, and cases of college men suing for being suspended on a false rape allegation, it'll be interesting to see where the next few years take us.

[–]MeatCurtainRod3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

And this is what happens when companies get forced into equal outcome and NOT equal opportunity. Equal outcome is complete bullshit.

[–]DistantWinter4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

From Slashdot today:

Yahoo chief executive Marissa Mayer has announced plans to cut the company's workforce by 15% and close five foreign offices by the end of 2016 after announcing a $4.4bn loss. Yahoo shares have fallen 33% over the past year, including a 17% drop in the last three months. Its shares fell again in after-hours trading after Mayer announced her plan. Yahoo expects its workforce to be down to 9,000 and have fewer than 1,000 contractors by end of 2016. About a third of Yahoo's workforce has left either voluntarily or involuntarily over the last year. And the cuts may just be starting: one activist investor (SpringOwl) says the total number of employees should be closer to 3,000 for a company with its revenue.

The company took a risk hiring her as the ship was already sinking. She's simply has the power to swing a big hammer and will run this company into the ground then bail.

Brings back memories of Carly Fiorina when she boarded HP at C level. While revenue increased due to outside acquisition and patients the earnings from the core of the company were non existent. She was compensated greatly for her run and still pointed the finger for failure to all others on the board calling them immature. Taking no responsibility and having no agency.

I feel Marissa will do the same and I hope the person or people filing this lawsuit win big.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yahoo had such a huge step up being one of the first big search engines. Now when I think of it I think of that company Fingerhut that sold shit like baseball cap washers you put in the dishwasher.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

In the most recent "study" that was paid for by the department of justice it asks this question: "Have you ever been under the influence of alcohol or drugs or been unconscious when sex occurred?

Only one of those criteria is considered rape. Yet, if you answered yes to the other two then you are included as being raped.

Males who answered this same survey reported an even higher rate of being raped.

Not that anyone ever paid attention to that.

[–]OilyB3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

[–]fearl3ss4 points5 points  (13 children) | Copy

I hate this lawsuit. Companies should be able to discriminate however they please. Hire and fire at will. If they want to staff all women, let them.

It sounds like this guy was a huge waste of money. Doing journalist research for Yahoo Autos? Good god. It's so amazing how far Yahoo is from being a coherent and relevant product.

Yahoo needs to do what Jack Dorsey is doing at Twitter. Fucking firing people. And don't replace them with women. Cut down on your stupid shitty services and make something that means something.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy

Personally, I love the lawsuit. We have laws that say you can't discriminate based on the color of your skin, your gender or your sexual orientation or religion.

The only way you can get these laws revoked or repealed would be to use them in ways the SJW's that wrote them and champion for them never intended. So the moment you see these lawsuits against companies for firing people because they are white and/or male you'll see these laws removed from the books.

It always bugged me that if I started a company and it got big I'd be forced to hire women, minorities and whatever to meet some bullshit quota. What if I wanted to start Patriarchy Inc. and only wanted to hire men? That would get the SJW cunts banging on my door.

[–]fearl3ss0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

The only way you can get these laws revoked or repealed would be to use them in ways the SJW's that wrote them and champion for them never intended. So the moment you see these lawsuits against companies for firing people because they are white and/or male you'll see these laws removed from the books.

Is that the only way? Fight bullshit with more bullshit?

That's not a tactic I can support.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

It'd not be my first choice of tactics but when you run out of options you use the tools available to you.

[–]putinbusch0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You use whatever tactics you can to win the war. It doesn't matter how dirty you get if you come out on top. Cause then you write the history.

[–]no_face-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

There is an unspoken Hayden Ryder on all equality laws

[–]zopiro1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

They indeed should be able to do whatever they wish. However, time and experience has shown us all that any attempt to promote cirurgical changes, such as a forced shift in power from men to women, will result in stupendous failures.

[–]acartoontiger4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

googled a new word to expand vocabulary... not a word :(

[–]zopiro3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I meant surgical. Not native english speaker. Cheers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

The lawsuit is one way of fighting back against suites in the c suite. What you are saying you can fire me for what ever reason an not face consequences. Fuck the c suite I'm not their biatch. I'll fight back: law suit if I have a good case, go to their competition (my talent is worth money and I'm a mercenary), or in extreme no win situations put a bullet in their brain pan if necessary (yes I do have the skill set from a previous profession, google 19Delta).

The c-suite love beta biatches because you can run them hard and not reward them. I expect to be rewarded. When they are no longer "needed" you get rid of them. Rolling over is what they want you to do. I applaud their law suit.

[–]fearl3ss1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Not only would I absolutely fire you, I aggressively try to filter out leeches like you.

A company takes a risk to hire you and pay you, and you're the type of loose canon psycho fuck to strike back when your worthlessness is revealed and you're removed from the payroll.

I run a company, and I take on the risk while whiners like you get paid (and ask for more and more and more.) The self-importance and arrogance of certain employees. Yes, you are my biatch. Start your own company, or accept this check from daddy and shut the fuck up.

[–]teearrpee0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Actually both sides take on risk. An employee may end up in a dead end job, dead end company, a workplace with a toxic culture, no opportunities to kick ass. Sounds like your company may be one to avoid. If your employees are not kicking ass, and you're not reaping the benefits, you're doing it wrong.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Negative I'm not nor will I ever be your biatch. I would actively recruit your employees to join the SEIU. People like you are not worth doing business with or working for.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Conclusion: feminism is about shifting power, not equality.

Which fails when you end up destroying the host. Yahoo is permafucked.

[–]yGTWgtNrco0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

3 Kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[–]DoItLive2470 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It is going up for sale, but who would want to buy it?

[–]LarryLove0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

[–]strat_op0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Even more interesting Yahoo also serves as an example of poor business resulting from female (=Marissa Mayer) indecisiveness. The only valueable asset Yahoo owns are the Alibaba shares which are to be sold for years now. Due to Marissa Mayer postponing the sale Yahoo lost billions of dollars as the Alibaba stock fell almost 25% over the last twelve months.

[–]frys1800 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ever since 2012 there's been more In-your-face Ads that are analogous to a spam site. How the fuck they let that pass through quality control is beyond me. The more ads you have the more deterred visitors will be. Especially if they're invasive.

[–]1mr_nate_0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well, now we know why Yahoo is essentially irrelevant now.

[–]bigcitytruth0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

And the thing about Yahoo is, the more females they have in upper management, the more the company tanks. Yahoo is bleeding mone and going down the shitter. They just had a huge round of layoffs. The stockholders are angry and pretty much want to revolt.

[–]CornyHoosier0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well if pay-scale estimates are to be believed, you can pay women less than men for the same work. Why wouldn't companies hire all women?

[–]VIICHYVALOIS0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

For all the guys saying 'get your money out of yahoo', this is true, but for everyone, Yahoo could be an excellent stock to short.

There is absolutely no way Mayer remains in charge past 2016. Also, the properties we know as "Yahoo" will very likely be sold by Q3.

[–]pillowhard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

How the fuck is that post BP?

[–]Screenp2-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

yahoo.. what the hell is that.

Seems they already solved the problem

[–]leftenant_t-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

That explains why Yahoo is shit.

[–]schwb-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's why Yahoo! is shitty.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter