Blizzard Entertainment Welcomes Jessica Martinez as Vice President Head of Culture

[EverDash]

If you are surprised that an HR hire was a woman... well let's just say it doesn't speak well to how in touch with reality you are.

lol Who said anything about being surprised?

- - - Updated - - -

"Jessica joins Blizzard after more than 14 years leading strategy, communications, operations and employee experience at the Walt Disney Company, where she served as Chief of Staff and key strategic advisor to both the Chief Security Officer and the Chief Technology & Digital Officer for Disney Parks & Resorts. Beyond spearheading fundamental organizational change including leading the security integration for the 21st Century Fox acquisition, Jessica was best known for creating a values-driven culture that connected global teams and celebrated diversity."

She seems pretty qualified to me. Do you just not understand what her job is or...?

I literally wrote "not because they're more or less qualified than other people".

Read slower?

[khazmodan]

They really need to hire more of these people because I'm sure that having super tight controls on what is said and put into the game will be great for a creative company. Also, I'm sure this will be great for hiring and retaining creative people since they love hardcore highly complicated rules of censorship.

There has to be a certain amount of civility enforced but that can be done by a few human resources people and the legal department, not a person subscribing to an ever expanding universe of rules that has gone beyond good manners to mental illness levels of censorship control.

[Varodoc]

That sounds like an extremely important and influential position, I'm happy for her!

(I hope that she identifies as "her", truly I do; if I made a mistake, I didn't intend to misgender anyone, please don't cancel me.)

[ClassicPeon]

Why was this infracted?

Everyone knows but you get banned for taking about it.

Suffice to say that this site is not politically neutral.

I think what’s a bit odd to people is why such a large part of the interviews and such are now with lgbt+ people. If representation was core they would be like what… 2% of the company? Even less?

[MoanaLisa]

Blizzard didn't "clearly have a very toxic internal culture". And since you're an operations engineer, you should know not to make assumptions about things to which you do not have first hand knowledge. You are not a Blizzard employee as far as I know. A small handful of people doing terrible things does not just umbrella blanket onto the rest who haven't.

Top Blizzard management knew about all of this and did nothing other than punish and silence those who had the courage to raise the issue. That's a bad corporate culture. People were fired for it. Top people at that.

For all the complaints about Blizzard's corporate culture, what did you expect them to do to ward off more lawsuits and try to placate California in theirs? The obvious answer is to visibly show "Hey, we're attempting to fix the stuff that allowed this to happen" and create positions to do just that.

Was Jessica hired because she was a woman? Perhaps. Is she qualified? Clearly, yes. Was she maybe the best person that ticked off all the boxes they need to tick off? Probably.

[NineSpine]

Everyone knows but you get banned for taking about it.

Suffice to say that this site is not politically neutral.

I think what’s a bit odd to people is why such a large part of the interviews and such are now with lgbt+ people. If representation was core they would be like what… 2% of the company? Even less?

First of all, more than 2% of the population is LGBT+. It's more like 7%.
Second of all, those numbers are higher in California.
Third of all, those numbers are higher with young people.
Fourth of all, those numbers are higher with people interested in video games.

So you are looking at a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset and asking why it doesn't reflect the general population. It's like asking why Muslims are not well represented in the community of Caucasian hog farmers in Alabama.

[EverDash]

You also wrote "and now we're handing positions left and right to women mainly because they're women".

Is she qualified for this job? Does she have this job just because she's a woman?

You realize all of those things can be true? You can be perfectly qualified for a position, but hired for a different reason. Or vice versa.

She was clearly hired mainly because she's a woman - and Blizzard needs the PR spin badly at this point.

She could also be supremely qualified for the job as well.

This isn't a complex concept. Happens every day.

[uuuhname]

equitable

unless they want to unionize....

[EverDash]

Isn't it interesting, though, that you are supremely confident that she was hired because she's a woman, but she only "could" have been hired because of her qualifications?

The reality is simply that she is supremely qualified for her job, and women just happen to be the more likely to apply/be in said roles. This is normal PR, but also gets more attention because of all the shit surrounding Blizzard.

Not complex at all. Though you couldn't tell that by how few people in this thread actually understand things like this.

It's not particularly interesting in the least, actually. In fact, the absolutely predictable elements of the story make it mundane, if anything.

Blizzard has hired plenty of people in that role and other similar departments, but they never made any big announcement over them because they never needed to spin PR or to prove anything. In fact, imagine if the person they hired for this position was an equally qualified 45-year old white man. Do you think they'd made a huge post bragging about it? No. And even if they did, can you imagine the backlash they would - rightfully - get across the internet? They know what they're doing. Look at the very opening lines of the statement:

"Blizzard Entertainment is excited to announce Jessica Martinez as our first Vice President, Head of Culture. This comes as part of our ongoing initiative to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace culture where people at every level can learn, grow, and bring their most creative selves to their work."


Do you think they would write that if a man was hired? Of course not. They revealed their motives right at the start. Which, if I was in charge of hiring for Blizzard, I'd do the exact same thing.

She got hired primarily because she's a woman. (Which doesn't mean she wasn't also qualified.)

[E0dyn]

Yep, by continuing to employ whites and Asians while also working against the racist assumptions that only whites and Asians could possibly be qualified to work at gaming companies they are clearly discriminating against whites and Asians.

If you are going to discriminate against whites and Asians because of the color of their skin, that is racism. I don't care what good you think you are doing. Stop discriminating against people on the basis of race.

[Adamas102]

If you are going to discriminate against whites and Asians because of the color of their skin, that is racism. I don't care what good you think you are doing. Stop discriminating against people on the basis of race.

OK. I guess the sarcasm made it difficult to figure out but my point was that it ISN'T discrimination to begin with. The only racism here is in your underlying premise that surely whites and Asians are a better fit for these jobs.

[shadowmatrix]

I remember the times where no game developer cared for "equal", and "diverse" workplace. I have also read about them recently in Staats' book about early days of World of Warcraft and Warcraft III development.

You mean back when women could get treated like shit and nobody said or did anything till it was too late, isn't that exactly what caused the current shit storm? The good old days were great, as long as they happened to someone else.

[ClassicPeon]

First of all, more than 2% of the population is LGBT+. It's more like 7%.
Second of all, those numbers are higher in California.
Third of all, those numbers are higher with young people.
Fourth of all, those numbers are higher with people interested in video games.

So you are looking at a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset and asking why it doesn't reflect the general population. It's like asking why Muslims are not well represented in the community of Caucasian hog farmers in Alabama.

Do you have any proof to this?

Mostly thats its 7%, that they are inflated in cali and that the numbers for some reason would be higher for people interested in videogames.

Interested in videogames is also a bit of a stretch when it comes to getting a developement job.

[NineSpine]

Do you have any proof to this?

Mostly thats its 7%, that they are inflated in cali and that the numbers for some reason would be higher for people interested in videogames.

Interested in videogames is also a bit of a stretch when it comes to getting a developement job.

Very few of the people you see in these videos are developers. They are usually artists and designers. Those are different fields that attract very different demographics.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/...cans-lgbt.aspx

Do you need me to justify the idea that California has a higher rate of self-identified LGBT people than say.... Alabama? I think it is fairly obvious. If the rate is 7% nationwide, it stands to reason that places which are known for having things like gay neighborhoods and progressive rights for LGBT people will have higher rates of self-identification in that regard.

Similarly, do I really need to justify that people who are interested in video games and nerd culture will in general have higher rates of self identification as LGBT than, for example, elderly people?

[ClassicPeon]

Very few of the people you see in these videos are developers. They are usually artists and designers. Those are different fields that attract very different demographics.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/...cans-lgbt.aspx

Do you need me to justify the idea that California has a higher rate of self-identified LGBT people than say.... Alabama? I think it is fairly obvious. If the rate is 7% nationwide, it stands to reason that places which are known for having things like gay neighborhoods and progressive rights for LGBT people will have higher rates of self-identification in that regard.

Similarly, do I really need to justify that people who are interested in video games and nerd culture will in general have higher rates of self identification as LGBT than, for example, elderly people?

While developers usually refers to programmers when i said game developers i meant the people working on developing the game overall. That means not HR people, support staff and such but programmers, artists and so on.

Even if we are generous and say 10% of developers are LGBT that still way, way less then what we are presented at in dev interviews, and those are only counting the people who are visibly lgtb(as the article you linked says, most lgbt simply identify as bisexual).

Also you are double dipping when you say gamers are more likely to be lgbt because they are younger since you already used the being younger as an argument.

If you frequent any social media these days you will also see many girls identifying as bisexual without actually being it. Just saying. Might be a good indicator why lgbt numbers are rising specifically within the bisexual statistic.

[Auburst]

WTF is a Culture Dept.?

Some woke shit where you do nothing or complain about non issues and get paid for it.

I remember the times where no game developer cared for "equal", and "diverse" workplace. I have also read about them recently in Staats' book about early days of World of Warcraft and Warcraft III development.

It was just sweaty nerds with lots of passion. There was no diversity departament, no culture departament, no queer departament, there were guys working their asses off and producing iconic games, like Warcraft II, Warcraft III, StarCraft, Call of Duty 2, Gothic, Neverwinter Nights...

Now, you have "diverse" and "equal" work environments, spewing vile stuff like Warcraft Rumble, Shadowlands, or any other Battlefield2042-esque soulless games.

Why can't we focus on quality again?

Based.

[NineSpine]

While developers usually refers to programmers when i said game developers i meant the people working on developing the game overall. That means not HR people, support staff and such but programmers, artists and so on.

Even if we are generous and say 10% of developers are LGBT that still way, way less then what we are presented at in dev interviews, and those are only counting the people who are visibly lgtb(as the article you linked says, most lgbt simply identify as bisexual).

Also you are double dipping when you say gamers are more likely to be lgbt because they are younger since you already used the being younger as an argument.

If you frequent any social media these days you will also see many girls identifying as bisexual without actually being it. Just saying. Might be a good indicator why lgbt numbers are rising specifically within the bisexual statistic.

I'm glad that we have you here to be the arbiter of which women are bisexual. That says it all.

[ClassicPeon]

I'm glad that we have you here to be the arbiter of which women are bisexual. That says it all.

Its easy to pull things out of context, act offended and then brush everything else off as if it didnt exist. The women i am talking about identify themselves as bisexual while self admitting that they would never have sex with a women. Its not something i am guessing too its themselves saying it. Tiktok is a strange place.

Being offended does not mean you are right.

[NineSpine]

Its easy to pull things out of context, act offended and then brush everything else off as if it didnt exist. The women i am talking about identify themselves as bisexual while self admitting that they would never have sex with a women. Its not something i am guessing too its themselves saying it. Tiktok is a strange place.

Being offended does not mean you are right.

Can you provide me the statistics on that?

[ClassicPeon]

Can you provide me the statistics on that?

I can not because its anecdotal as was pretty easy to see from my message. Its also irrelevant to the topic, it was just a sidecomment that you then turned on