Activision Blizzard Shareholder SOC Letter, Diablo II: Resurrected Early Access

[procne]

And yes, there is inequality. It is the experience of inequality that women have all the time. Why is it so hard to see that? Why do you expect women to just accept that and not fight back?

And where did I say I expect them to accept and not fight back? Isn't it that you guys are so entrenched in your views, and so sure of your methods, that you treat any other opinion as attacks on the women / equality, meant to retain status quo?

I want them to fight, but not this way. Not accept handouts (yes, I treat every case of request to give a position to a woman specifically as a handout), not expect special care. Why were women marginalised? Not because some bad men hate them but because they are viewed as incapable and unreliable. Getting handouts only reinforces this view. No, they should be proving they can be succesful without special treatment. Yes, it is harder for them than for the men, but to me that's the only way.

I can understand a campaign for a specific woman, when her qualifications are objectively higher than some man, and asking difficulty questions to leadership why he was hired and not her. But asking for a woman first, and qualifications second is laughable to me.

[rhorle]

But asking for a woman first, and qualifications second is laughable to me.

They are not though. We don't need to treat other views as attacks on women because you and others do it yourself. They are asking for a qualified woman to be added to the board. They are not asking for an unqualified woman to be added or to consider qualifications last in the search. Why is it that you and others keep assuming qualifications have nothing to do with it?

[Nimin]

Of course men will fight back, although I think in the long run they will benefit from equality, too, because society as a whole benefits from it.
Tbh, I find the behaviour of men in this respect to be absolutely hysterical and irrational. Looking at the big picture it makes no sense whatsoever.

And yes, there is inequality. It is the experience of inequality that women have all the time. Why is it so hard to see that? Why do you expect women to just accept that and not fight back?

What a pile of strawmen.
It's not men who are fighting back, but men and women alike who believe in merit over any vapid "representation" of appearance or genitalia.
You claim this behaviour makes no sense but fail on explaining how. There are plenty of arguments that make tons of sense and that are far from being "hysterical and irrational". That's just you covering your ears and pretending they don't because it's an easier route out.

And nobody said that women should just accept inequality and not fight back, but fighting past discrimination with present discrimination accomplishes nothing. All you did was flip the current tyrant in charge instead of working on eliminating tyranny itself. You're just the new evil.

[Eggroll]

And where did I say I expect them to accept and not fight back? Isn't it that you guys are so entrenched in your views, and so sure of your methods, that you treat any other opinion as attacks on the women / equality, meant to retain status quo?

I want them to fight, but not this way. Not accept handouts (yes, I treat every case of request to give a position to a woman specifically as a handout), not expect special care. Why were women marginalised? Not because some bad men hate them but because they are viewed as incapable and unreliable. Getting handouts only reinforces this view. No, they should be proving they can be succesful without special treatment. Yes, it is harder for them than for the men, but to me that's the only way.

I can understand a campaign for a specific woman, when her qualifications are objectively higher than some man, and asking difficulty questions to leadership why he was hired and not her. But asking for a woman first, and qualifications second is laughable to me.

Your whole comment is just more proof how provasive the problem is. Why has a specific woman be higher qualified than some men, why isn't it enough if they are equally qualified. Why is it a handout when women get the job because she's a woman when before it was completely normal when a man got the job because a man, not a woman, even when there was a equally or even better qualified woman applying?

Either you are really not getting it or you are willfully ignorant. Your whole comment tells me that you feel threatened by the very thought that women could take the same positons that men do. It's like we are still in the stone age. Western countries apparently didn't make much progress culturally in the last century.

[procne]

Your whole comment is just more proof how provasive the problem is. Why has a specific woman be higher qualified than some men, why isn't it enough if they are equally qualified.

If they are equally qualified then I really see no reason to object. Are you trying to say that when a man and a woman are equally qualified then a woman should get the job?

Why is it a handout when women get the job because she's a woman when before it was completely normal when a man got the job because a man, not a woman, even when there was a equally or even better qualified woman applying?

It's a handout when she gets the job after someone coerced the employer into hiring specifically a woman

Your whole comment tells me that you feel threatened by the very thought that women could take the same positons that men do.

Lol, you tell yourself that. Whatever makes you feel better

- - - Updated - - -

They are not though. We don't need to treat other views as attacks on women because you and others do it yourself. They are asking for a qualified woman to be added to the board. They are not asking for an unqualified woman to be added or to consider qualifications last in the search. Why is it that you and others keep assuming qualifications have nothing to do with it?

You quoted one simple sentence and managed to misunderstand it. I said "asking for a woman first, and qualifications second ". That does not mean unqualified woman, or that qualifications have nothing to do with it. Most likely they ask for a most qualified woman. But still the sex is the primary factor, and qualifications are second. A man isn't accepted even ino matter how high his qualifications are. Noone will look at qualifications as long as it's a man.

[MoanaLisa]

If we were in a thread about company looking specifically for a male director I would speak up as well. Although I doubt it would ever happen - any company looking specifically for a male would be crucified, while females are fine.

If you look at corporate boards of directors generally they are very heavily weighted to being older males. In a country where half the population are female that's not an accident. It comes back to how people are recruited for management and board positions (board positions are not the fill-out-an-application sort of deal anyway...you become a member of a board of directors because you are invited or negotiated in the case of buyouts and takeovers). If you only look at certain groups when filling positions then you end up like this.

For public companies, females make up about 22% of board members across 26 countries. If one looks at private (non-stock) companies it's more like 7%. The percentage for public companies has been rising in recent years but women are still very under-represented.

[rhorle]

Most likely they ask for a most qualified woman. But still the sex is the primary factor, and qualifications are second. A man isn't accepted even ino matter how high his qualifications are. Noone will look at qualifications as long as it's a man.

Most likely? Your own words keep trying to imply the woman won't be qualified. I don't need to misunderstand anything if it is what you are actually doing. They are asking for a qualified person that also is a woman. The sex and the qualifications are both primary factors. Because they never said they want a woman at all costs. You and others keep trying to attach "not qaulified to "Increase board diversity and equity by adding a woman director".

[procne]

For public companies, females make up about 22% of board members across 26 countries. If one looks at private (non-stock) companies it's more like 7%. The percentage for public companies has been rising in recent years but women are still very under-represented.

In my country there are a lot of women in boards of public (government) companies. They are often wives / daughters / cousins / friends of politicians of ruling party. With no qualifications or education in their field. Passive, mediocre but loyal.
It's not really an argument, merely an anecdote showing that raw numbers don't always tell everything.

If you look at corporate boards of directors generally they are very heavily weighted to being older males. In a country where half the population are female that's not an accident.

It's not, but there are way more explanations for that, other than mysogyny and bigotry. I would strongly go for investigating each case separately, to find out if there's discrimination issue, rather than the simple "you have too many males in the board, hire a woman"

It comes back to how people are recruited for management and board positions (board positions are not the fill-out-an-application sort of deal anyway...you become a member of a board of directors because you are invited or negotiated in the case of buyouts and takeovers). If you only look at certain groups when filling positions then you end up like this.

I'm pretty sure that if you force them to hire a woman they will instead find a passive one they can easily control.
This topic is much deeper than some numbers. Looking at the numbers alone will (or has already) lead to tokenizing.
I mean, it's their company, and they get to choose how to run it. If they are bigots and don't want to hire a woman but are forced to - who will they pick? Will they let her do some real work, give real power? They will hire her with a simple goal in mind - to fill the quota. And if such woman really wanted to do some good work or change something then she'd spend most of the time fighting with the rest of the board.

I'm afraid that in such situation the only choice would be for women to look for companies where that isn't the problem, make their own companies and/or wait till the old men die

- - - Updated - - -

Most likely? Your own words keep trying to imply the woman won't be qualified. I don't need to misunderstand anything if it is what you are actually doing. They are asking for a qualified person that also is a woman. The sex and the qualifications are both primary factors. Because they never said they want a woman at all costs.

They said:

Increase board diversity and equity by adding a woman director – preferably one with a history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities - by the end of 2021

That pretty much sounds like "a woman at all costs"
I read it as
1. Must have: woman
2. Good to have: preferably history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities

Not only "woman director" appears first, but the only other qualifications mentioned are tagged with word "preferably"
Also, "most likely" because the qualifications they want might not exactly be what the job requires. I'm pretty sure they would be more happy if *any* woman was hired , rather than a man, no matter how qualified. And that's not me questioning woman's qualifications but criticisng the request.

You and others keep trying to attach "not qaulified to "Increase board diversity and equity by adding a woman director".

And you keep twisting my words and constantly trying to find ways to convince yourself that this random person on the internet you have no idea about is a woman hater

[rhorle]

That pretty much sounds like "a woman at all costs"

No. Again you keep adding things that are not there in order push that it will be unqualified. They said they want a woman director added, preferably one with a history of advocacy. Which means even if they don't have a history of advocacy it is still fitting with what they want. None of that is asking for an unqualified woman or a woman at all costs.

It is simply asking for a woman preferably with a history of advocacy. You and others keep equating anything to do with women as asking for unqualified people. I don't have to keep twisting your words to say that. Because that is the argument you keep making by adding things that are not there.

[mbit]

If you look at corporate boards of directors generally they are very heavily weighted to being older males. In a country where half the population are female that's not an accident. It comes back to how people are recruited for management and board positions (board positions are not the fill-out-an-application sort of deal anyway...you become a member of a board of directors because you are invited or negotiated in the case of buyouts and takeovers). If you only look at certain groups when filling positions then you end up like this.

For public companies, females make up about 22% of board members across 26 countries. If one looks at private (non-stock) companies it's more like 7%. The percentage for public companies has been rising in recent years but women are still very under-represented.

or maybe women are just smarter about work/life balance and dont get as easily baited into giving up their private life to live for the company which is what top leadership roles amount to. This of course leads also to discrimination for those who want to -once you know you cant get women to reliable nolive the job like men you rather find another male sucker but this doesn't conclude in discrimination being the cause of the skewing. It overall still concludes in women simply being less easily baited to live for the company.

[rrayy]

It's not "discrimination in the opposite direction", you're twisting it into something it's not. It's filling a position with the candidate that you need. When you draft a QB you aren't discriminating against the running backs. They still have value and are needed on the team, but you need a balanced team. What's on your resume isn't the only thing that is taken into consideration. It never has been. If it's deemed that a diverse workforce is beneficial to the workforce and the company as a whole then it's something to take into consideration when hiring people. No one is saying that men, or white people, or anyone else is undeserving of a job. If they were suggesting that all white men needed to be fired or that no white men should be on the board then THAT would be discrimination.

Not even remotely the same. Football positions are sepcialties, not genders. They are literally demanding that Blizzard create a position and fill it with a woman despite men being just as qualified for it. That is textbook discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course men will fight back, although I think in the long run they will benefit from equality, too, because society as a whole benefits from it.
Tbh, I find the behaviour of men in this respect to be absolutely hysterical and irrational. Looking at the big picture it makes no sense whatsoever.

And yes, there is inequality. It is the experience of inequality that women have all the time. Why is it so hard to see that? Why do you expect women to just accept that and not fight back?

There is nothing wrong with equality. What you want is forced equality by use of blatant discrimination in the opposite direction. They shouldb e vchosen by their qualifications, not the gender. The hypocrisy here is mind boggling.

- - - Updated - - -

When a company has a history of predominantly hiring and promoting men, how is hiring a woman discrimination?

Hiring a person based solely on their gender is discrimination regardless company history which is what this group wants. They want a woman director and don't really care about her qualifications, just prefer her to be qualified. But I guess discrimination is OK in your world as long as it is against men. Got it.

[Daronokk]

Of course men will fight back, although I think in the long run they will benefit from equality, too, because society as a whole benefits from it.
Tbh, I find the behaviour of men in this respect to be absolutely hysterical and irrational. Looking at the big picture it makes no sense whatsoever.

And yes, there is inequality. It is the experience of inequality that women have all the time. Why is it so hard to see that? Why do you expect women to just accept that and not fight back?

Sound logic you have there. Fight inequality with inequality, fight discrimination with discrimination.

Surely that fixes things.

[Diaphin]

Hiring a person based solely on their gender is discrimination regardless company history which is what this group wants. They want a woman director and don't really care about her qualifications, just prefer her to be qualified. But I guess discrimination is OK in your world as long as it is against men. Got it.

Care to prove that? You make a claim, no prove that they don't care about her qualifications. Because according to what we can read, they actually look for a woman director who has additional leadership qualifications which they haven't looked for in a man so far.

[rrayy]

Care to prove that? You make a claim, no prove that they don't care about her qualifications. Because according to what we can read, they actually look for a woman director who has additional leadership qualifications which they haven't looked for in a man so far.

Read what they wrote. They said hire a woman PREFERABLY with qualifications, That means hire a woman and qualifications are optional. A qualified one is just a bonus to them.

The hypocrisy in this thread is staggering.

[Diaphin]

[QUOTE=rrayy;53349646]Read what they wrote. They said hire a woman PREFERABLY with qualifications, That means hire a woman and qualifications are optional. A qualified one is just a bonus to them. [quote]

Preferably with experiences in advocacy. So they try to fill any spot, not a specific one, for director inside the company with a woman. Considering the fact that they have to do equity reviews, the chances are actually high that there are even inside the company more qualified women who were passed off for less qualified men, so in the worst case they just fix former fuck ups in promotions. Due to the fact that the company has to do equity reviews, we have to suspect multiple men in leading positions not being hired based on merrit, combined with them trying to purge the incels, there should be tons of open positions, so statistically it would be unlikely for them to not find a qualified woman for any of them. The optional but prefered qualifications are a history of advocacy.


So you are basically lying. The question is, why? Just failure to read and comprehend the text? Malicious intend? Dissatifaction that women will statistically proven only date chads and that a great chunk of the male population will never find love due to their facial bone structure?

The hypocrisy in this thread is staggering.

Yeah, MMO-C should finally ban some of the most creepy incels and probably also some of the most stupid people. Like, I've seen people here who are so stupid that I'm on the brink on supporting eugenics because of my frustration with them. I'm exaggerating a bit here...I hope at least, because damn are many of the people frustrating.

Infracted.

[rhorle]

Read what they wrote. They said hire a woman PREFERABLY with qualifications, That means hire a woman and qualifications are optional. A qualified one is just a bonus to them. The hypocrisy in this thread is staggering.

Actually read what they wrote and you will see they are not asking for one preferably with qualifications for a board seat. But one preferably with experience in advocacy. You and others keep adding "unqualified" in because you need a way to justify the hate you keep posting. It doesn't actually exist in the statement but that hasn't stopped it from being said by you and others. Weird right?

Increase board diversity and equity by adding a woman director – preferably one with a history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities - by the end of 2021, committing to gender-balance on the board by 2025, and reserving at least one board seat for a nominee selected by current employees as their representative.

[rrayy]

Read what they wrote. They said hire a woman PREFERABLY with qualifications, That means hire a woman and qualifications are optional. A qualified one is just a bonus to them.

Preferably with experiences in advocacy. So they try to fill any spot, not a specific one, for director inside the company with a woman. Considering the fact that they have to do equity reviews, the chances are actually high that there are even inside the company more qualified women who were passed off for less qualified men, so in the worst case they just fix former fuck ups in promotions. Due to the fact that the company has to do equity reviews, we have to suspect multiple men in leading positions not being hired based on merrit, combined with them trying to purge the incels, there should be tons of open positions, so statistically it would be unlikely for them to not find a qualified woman for any of them. The optional but prefered qualifications are a history of advocacy.


So you are basically lying. The question is, why? Just failure to read and comprehend the text? Malicious intend? Dissatifaction that women will statistically proven only date chads and that a great chunk of the male population will never find love due to their facial bone structure?



Yeah, MMO-C should finally ban some of the most creepy incels and probably also some of the most stupid people. Like, I've seen people here who are so stupid that I'm on the brink on supporting eugenics because of my frustration with them. I'm exaggerating a bit here...I hope at least, because damn are many of the people frustrating.

The only one lying is you. You are the one trying to spin this groups request which hire a woman solely becuase she is one and if she happens to be qualfied, great. You are the pot calling the kettle black here.

- - - Updated - - -

So they are looking for a director who actually possesses additional qualifications compared to current male directors in an environment which currently faces a lawsuit due to discrimination and who have to establish equity reviews which in itself indicates that they feel like they historically may have hired lesser qualified men over more qualified women.

No they are looking for a director who is a woman. Qualifications are optional I

Ity amaes me how far people will spin to defend the blatant discrimination this group is demandinig. Hypocrisy indeed.

[rhorle]

No they are looking for a director who is a woman. Qualifications are optional

You say people are lying and it amazes you how things will be spun yet you are the one lying and spinning things to fit your narrative. They did not ask for a woman with no qualifications to be added to the board. Qualifications were never stated to be optional. The only optional thing stated was that they want a history of advocacy. You keep adding in "not qualified". Why?

[procne]

No. Again you keep adding things that are not there in order push that it will be unqualified.

What. The. Flying. Fuck.
It's like the third time you are try to put those words in my mouth, when I did not say that.
I did not say that they are asking for unqualified person.

They said they want a woman director added, preferably one with a history of advocacy. Which means even if they don't have a history of advocacy it is still fitting with what they want.

Yes, which is a woman. That's what they want. Nowhere did they, or me, said they are asking for unqualified woman.

None of that is asking for an unqualified woman or a woman at all costs.

Why you keep adding "unqualified" word. YOU keep adding it, and then tell me I am doing it.
They are not asking for unqualified woman. They are asking for a woman. The more qualified she is the better. But it has to be a woman.

It is simply asking for a woman preferably with a history of advocacy. You and others keep equating anything to do with women as asking for unqualified people. I don't have to keep twisting your words to say that. Because that is the argument you keep making by adding things that are not there.

You kinda have to. I actually checked the last few pages and you are basically the only person using the word "unqualified", by putting it into someone else's mouth. And not only to me apparently.

I guess you really need this bad strawman mysogynist to fight and in your mind you will do everything to paint someone that. So that you can feel better.

Not going to fill that role for you anymore.

[rhorle]

It's like the third time you are try to put those words in my mouth, when I did not say that. I did not say that they are asking for unqualified person.

But asking for a woman first, and qualifications second is laughable to me.

That pretty much sounds like "a woman at all costs"

Most likely they ask for a most qualified woman.

I'm pretty sure that if you force them to hire a woman they will instead find a passive one they can easily control.

You don't have to say not qualified to imply it. Which is what you keep doing. You keep implying it and then getting upset when you are taken at what you post. You deny you are doing it but contradict that denial with the other things you post.