I was kind of wondering about something similar, while not exactly that. What if someone does do a transaction (a legitimate one) for 888888.88, does it mess up the bank's handling or total for deposits because its being handled differently?
What if that amount was fraudulently taken from a large balance account, would the bank notice or assume its part of a fraud investigation?
I think American companies do try to be respectful of local norms when it suits a goal, for example when they are trying to do business in that country. I would agree that in order to do business in another country, they would suspend their views of that society's norms. I think a business man or woman in that country would and should go along to get along to be successful.
I also think American acceptance of what American companies do abroad can be stretched beyond reason, as in a case where it is not a company accepting the existence of norms that would be controversial at home, but rather promoting them. I think that's whats happening here, as people are quick to let this case off the hook under the reasoning of cultural differences.
Yes, we shouldn't be telling other people what to do. No I don't walk up to women in strip bars and tell them anything (nor do I think anyone else should). Having been abroad, I don't attempt to convey any belief system on another culture, rather I attempt to learn while I'm there.
But this isn't about anyone's personal actions, its about an American company sanctioning something it should not have in another country, irrespective of that society's norms. It is that American company realizing that a critical mass of its consumers will be uncomfortable with what they're looking at, and heading issues like this off beforehand. Its about being smart when it comes to your global brand.
So I agree with a number of your points, but I didn't argue against them in the first place. You hit the nail on the head that the specific objection this article cites is with the "American company aspect of it". That is the problem. They set up the corporate karaoke bar, they didn't just go to one. That means that examples such as cultural parades and local clubs don't work in this case. Further this is not an American business man or woman attending an event at a Taiwanese company (where local customs would have to be respected).
Yahoo realizes this, and thus they apologized.
I think the article is fairly clinical in its analysis. It makes three points: A. this is what happened B. an American company has to understand that its brand image at home can be affected abroad when those at home will react negatively to what they're seeing C. Women are discouraged from careers in IT, this doesn't help, we would be better off with more women in IT. The only mildly baiting word is objectifying: treating something as an object, which is what goes on at strip clubs and the like (male or female). So no one went on a rampage (I don't think), or a rant, or is emotionally worked up.
However you clearly state you are reacting to what a lot of commentators are saying and the issue at large, as well as what you see as a script for people who outrage easily. I may be lumping reactions together, if I am let me know. I respect that point, and in part share that opinion. Some of the arguments being put forth either way are too simplistic, and ignore or fail to consider nuances such as the cultural differences in play.
This is an aside in my opinion, but a corporate gathering, is not so easy to leave. Its why so many financial firms face these after the fact lawsuits in the US from women who were made, or feel they were made, to attend meetings in strip clubs or put up with degrading behavior in order to survive in the workplace. I don't think that's related to this case, but it answers your point about just being able to leave.
In other to hire more women in IT, we need more women studying IT, which we don't have. Yahoo's portrayal of its corporate culture in Monday's news doesn't help that cause. That is the relationship between the two. Its not our original observation, we picked it up as a sentiment viewing the discourse on Twitter and related sources. We agree that creating a workplace environment that is not hospitable to all will affect all companies ability to attract workers.
As more being omphaloskeptic or navel gazers, its an IT blog, what's there to it if not reflective analysis of things that go on in IT?
Taken out of context it means nothing. Taken in context it means that as an American I acknowledge our actions around the world aren't always right and don't always make sense.
But this doesn't take away from the validity of the U.S. point of view in this case. Too often arguments bring in outside factors with generalized phrases: "Americans are always trying to control what happens abroad" and other such irrelevant phrases.
Put another way, if you accept that conference dancers are Taiwanese custom, you should also consider accepting that Americans would view this in a poor light, and object not that it happens in Taiwan, but that a U.S. company supports it.