Thread regarding Adidas layoffs

The mods deleting my posts here can eat a fat D I C K.

Taking the s-xual harassment training at my new employer and it is re-teaching me, and renewing my faith that the s-xual harassment and gender discrimination at adi, is not the way that all of the world works. It is extremely refreshing...

I can't stand nepotism and the class divide fuelled by things like fee-paying private schools. It's an unfair system that benefits the few. So, as a Man who hates this, it'd be hypocritical for me to rage against that and not advocate for gender equality.

In terms of the business case: adidas still has a male-heavy customer base, and is missing out on revenue because of it. A balanced leadership isn't about lowering standards; it's about maximising profits. Having more women at the top means we can better understand and tap into a huge, under-served market and help get our bonus!

Lastly, the university argument is daft. Lack of women in STEM (my education) is a symptom, not the cause. Role models matter. More female leaders in STEM lead to more female students in STEM.

So, let's ditch the excuses and focus on the real issue: we all benefit from a more balanced and fair society. Many of the men moaning about lack of promotion probably wouldn't have got into adidas in the first place if life had been fairer from the moment they left the womb.

As a woman, I am sick and tired of other woman playing the victim that needs to get rescued. Su-k it up. Do your job. Apply for potions you want to get in. Risk something. Stop whining. This is 2023 - the world is yours.

Comments like this come up when men are completely blind to the fact that there are structural reasons for women not achieving certain positions, and also when men actually think that women are always under talented (otherwise why assume that promoting women is the same as promoting under talented people?)

The point here is that women can be just as talented as men, but for many (social) reasons they are kept away from positions of leadership. Nobody is doing it on purpose (or at least I would hope most people aren't doing it on purpose), but it's a good thing if we realise that talented women deserve the same opportunities as talented men. TBH I believe that often a lot of untalented men are being promoted, as a previous comment already pointed out.

The current 'KPI' to promote the men you work out with, run with, climb with, play football with, hang out with on the weekends - means we already promote low talent.

just pick the best prepared, no matter the gender.. easy. And stop with the gender KPIs. Adiclowns

Wow! Finally someone said it.

Let me add some more “meat to the bone”. I studied in Masters in 2006. I took 3 years to complete my Masters, in that time there were 6 admissions (one per semester). About 300 of one gender and mere 40 of the other gender. Keeping the same ratio (100 per year for one gender and 15 for the other), the number between 2001 to 2011 would 1000 of one gender and 150 of one gender.

Assuming they all are ready to lead teams or be in the higher management. Also, assume there are 100 positions open.
What do you think is the right balance here? 50:50?
Choose 50 from 150 and choose 50 from 1000. How is it fair? Are we going to get talent?

My wife, btw, studied to be a teacher. Are we also pushing for a balance in Kindergartens, school, hospital nurses? What about brick laying, electricians, plumbers?

There’s a lot to unpack in your angry rant (thoughts and prayers with the keyboard you clearly destroyed while frantically bashing away).

First world countries? Men being suppressed? Undeserving women?

Imagine getting angry about a company goal to have gender balance in leadership positions.

And like the previous commenter said, a board mostly consisting of guys did a top job over the past few years, right?

I’m a man BTW, before you try tracking down another under talented woman.

Because the "one Gender" that's been in charge so far has done such a great job... LOL