Cherie Blair: Apple shouldn’t ‘ignore the power of the woman consumer’

“Apple’s far from the most diverse company on the planet — and people are starting to take notice,” Damon Beres reports for The Huffington Post.

“In a Wenesday [sic] interview with HuffPost Rise, women’s rights activist Cherie Blair criticized Apple’s very male leadership,” Beres reports. ‘It makes me want to say to him [Apple head Tim Cook] that I can’t believe he’s so shortsighted,’ Blair said.”

Beres reports, “‘Eighty percent of consumer spending is done by women,’ she went on to say. ‘To ignore their perspective is a very dangerous thing for any business.'”

Full conversation in the video above here.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple most certainly does not ignore the female perspective.

To state otherwise is either stupid or disingenuous.

SEE ALSO:
Apple’s retail chief Angela Ahrendts paid $73.4 million in cash and stock last year – January 22, 2015
Apple’s new retail chief Ahrendts granted $68 million in restricted stock – May 6, 2014
Angela Ahrendts now officially Apple’s Senior Vice President, Retail and Online Stores – May 2, 2014

30 Comments

  1. Stupid feminist. Women have plenty representation. So much so, thanks to the “activists”, that now if a product doesn’t feature a woman using it, or the manual says “he” instead of “she,” the product is bashed all over the net. So yeah, women are everywhere. No go be active for something that needs activism, for a change! Ugh stupid people!

    Sent from my iPhone

    1. If he is just as good as she, let’s change all the manuals to she, chairman to chairwoman, mankind to womankind.

      Oh, you don’t like that idea. I wonder why not.

      Yeh sure, details can go overboard, sometimes. But society is not equal. “Plenty representation” (as decided by you) is not what women have been looking for.

      1. Sean, instead of trying to be sexist to the extreme, why don’t you spend your time teaching groups of girls to not refer to themselves as “guys”? You hear that all the time too.

        Don’t try to reinvent the English language to suit your agenda. “he” and “him” when used in vague reference are not intended to specify sex, and you know it.

        In order to be offended, you have to allow yourself to be offended. Your choice. If you really think that companies are intentionally attempting to be sexist in their product manuals, you are truly just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

        1. Don’t be stupid. It’s only quite recent history that women have even had legal status as “persons”. Even in some western countries, that is only decades. It is “he” in general usage because “he” is the only one who really mattered. This is a holdover from those times.

          If you think they are neutral and don’t matter, just substitute “she” and “her” in all your speech and writing. See how you feel. My guess is ‘very uncomfortable and awkward’. And see what reactions you get.

          And yes, grown women referring to themselves as guys – or girls – is pretty idiotic too.

            1. Or per, as in some science fiction story I read long ago.

              I use “they” as a gender-neutral pronoun, as in, “The chair could push this to go through, if they wanted to.” Yeh, yeh. Not grammatically correct, but better, in my mind, that trying to claim “he” is neutral with no meaning.

              In fact, wasn’t ‘they’ often used in the olden days?

        2. Much stupidity Mike.

          “Don’t try to reinvent the English language to suit your agenda.”
          The language is changing ALL the time. Just why should someone not express an opinion on an aspect of that? And, actually, it corresponds precisely to what you are doing — wanting to make the language be how you want it to be.

          “If you really think that companies are intentionally attempting to be sexist in their product manuals…”
          He didn’t say that, or anything like that. So why go there?
          Most sexism and racism is unconscious. That doesn’t mean it’s not there.

          1. John, not to enter into a debate, but did you read what Sean wrote? It seems you did not.

            “If he is just as good as she, let’s change all the manuals to she, chairman to chairwoman, mankind to womankind.”

            Sean is proposing the changing of existing documents that have already been written. The only reason Sean offers to do such a thing would be to … what is your answer here? You think companies would change documents to be MORE sexist? I think not. Mike is spot on.

            So not only is that a colossal waste of resources to rewrite what has already been written, IT DOES NOTHING TO INCREASE RESPECT FOR WOMEN. Going overboard with reverse-sexism only breeds resentment from reasonable people of both sexes for all the thin-skinned dimwits who are offended at everything these days.

            1. Oh, gawd, Green. That “suggestion”, to change everything to “she” is MEANT to look really stupid… and hence to show that having them all “he” is equally stupid.

              Having EITHER he or she stand for everyone is equally stupid – with “he” having the greater burden of being a holdover from when (not long ago) the adult “he”s were the only ones having legal status as a person.

              re
              I was taught that “man” could be used in gender neutral way, because “woman” contains the word “man”.

              Why not apply that the other way and use woman as the gender neutral word, since woman also contains ‘man’? In other words, it is a bullshit justification.

              It is a tiny amount of time since women couldn’t even vote. Get a little historical perspective.

            2. A rectangle can refer to all squares, but a square doesn’t refer to all rectangles. Man is a general term for humans, and woman is a specific reference to the female human. So referring to all people as women would be like referring to all rectangles as squares, retarded. You apply the generic term to the group, not the specific one. If that simple logic makes your butt hurt, then go fight for women’s right to vote. Oh, they already do? Then just complain about how they didn’t used to. 96 years ago is such a tiny amount of time, not a single living woman in the US was ever denied the right to vote because of her gender. How could we possibly expect women to appreciate that they have equal rights now? Idiots now are fighting for equal pronoun representation and pretending like they’re suffragettes with a meaningful purpose.

            3. “Man is a general term for humans” because women were regarded as a secondary appendage to the man – father, husband.

              And a whole century ago, women weren’t persons. Yeh… that’s soooooo long ago and it’s ALL totally gone. There are no vestiges of that left, just like racism is totally gone.

              Jeez — it’s only a handful of years that it was a man’s legal right to fuck his wife no matter what she felt like. By being married she no longer had the right to simply say, “No. I don’t feel like it.”

            4. This is even better — your own example:

              Rectangle is to square as man is to woman.
              I.e. “woman” is a SUBSET of the group “man” in the same way that ‘square’ is a subset of the group ‘rectangle’.

              Of course, this is utterly ridiculous. Women are not a smaller group of a type of man, in the way a square is a smaller group of special rectangles.

              This illustrates wonderfully how sexism so permeates everyday thinking that you think it is an illustration of the LACK of sexism.

            5. This illustrates wonderfully how some people can see sexism in everything, even geometry. Female humans are in fact a subset of humans. Man can refer to the male subset or the whole set, as rectangles can refer to both. But it’s just analogy to help you understand there is no sexism when using masculine pronouns, as they refer to mankind, which includes women. Womankind, by its definition, explicitly excludes men.

            6. Yes, females are a subset of humans.
              And males are a subset of humans.
              The two are logically, morally and legally EQUAL.

              To use the words for one group — EITHER group — to mean both is ridiculous.

              “…as they refer to mankind, which includes women.”
              Using ‘he’ or ‘mankind’ to mean both is a holdover from when women were NOT legally equal to men and were not even regarded as equal… when society was utterly sexist. To continue its use now is thoroughly and profoundly sexist.

              It’s like calling all American citizens whites, because citizens were, at one time, white. Saying, “Oh no, ‘white’ includes ‘black’ just doesn’t cut it. Nor does trying to say ‘man’ includes ‘woman’.

      2. Most people do use “chairwoman” when it is appropriate.

        I was taught that “man” could be used in gender neutral way, because “woman” contains the word “man”. Some would say that womankind is a more elite subset of mankind because it eliminates most of the dorks, nerds, and dickweeds. Your opinion may vary.

        One has to be reasonable in order to not be offended.

      3. You’re right, you ignorant beta-male. Society is not equal. Society is biased in favor of women. Consider child custody, criminal justice, and family law cases. Consider discrimination – that’s virtually a one-way street.

        Men and women are always going to be different, and never identical. I’m sure that annoys you to no end, because as long as they are different, you can scrounge up some discrimination somewhere or another.

  2. “It makes me want to say to him [Apple head Tim Cook] that I can’t believe he’s so shortsighted,’ Blair said.”

    I wonder if she ever said that to her husband when he was stirring up problems that are destroying lives even today? Oh and she is a ‘Woman’s Rights Activist’ now is she, makes a change making herself millions from fight cases against the very laws her husband introduced I guess. A despicable hypocritical family with despicable values and no gloss is ever going to hide that from the World.

  3. The Blairs are known Bliars. They do twist and outright lie to suit their agenda. Cherie Bliar seems to be angling herself or her daughter for a powerful position at Apple.

    The Bliars are disgusting people.

    1. You are a fool. Go learn what genocide actually is by visiting Zimbabwe. Stop SJWing all over yourself. Your bogus stats about Iraqi deaths are blaming the West instead of Saddam – the usual gutless leftist weenie ploy.

      1. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html

        “The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

        We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’.

        How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they’re interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.”

  4. I can’t tell what this person is going on about. But I will point out, as usual, that the only question is:

    Q: Are you qualified?

    Having Apple help get women educated and qualified in the technology field is a great idea. There is NO reason a woman can’t do all the things in tech that I man can do.

    But, adding to the list of great ways to ruin a company, NEVER put someone unqualified into a position. It doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, brown, red or green. If they’re not qualified, DON’T hire them. It’s ridiculous to shove anyone into a spot just to use them as a ‘diversity’ statistic, aka ‘token’.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.