Summary: Arthur K. Watson (son of Thomas Sr.) showed chauvinistic and misogynistic behaviour bordering on the criminal; as a US diplomat he was never held accountable for his actions and efforts were made (going all the way up to the US President) to cover everything up
THE BIG technology companies have all pretended to value feminism, diversity (racial, gender/identity, age group, linguistics, nationality and so on) among all sorts of altruism, not to mention greenwashing and openwashing.
Basically, when one works for the PR/marketing department of a multi-billion-dollar monster one's sole goal is to embellish things, improve the image, whiten the brand (is it OK to say "whiten"?) and basically lie every time there's a major gaffe that tarnishes the firm's name (or embarrasses prominent people). IBM is no exception and IBM has spent many decades claiming to champion women's equality, the cause of feminism, equal pay and so on.
"Bear this in mind next time IBM arrogantly lectures us all (from its high horse) on women's rights."One thing that's almost impossible to find any record of (in 2020) is this incident which was so noteworthy that even the US President (at the time) talked about it.
Here's the audio which contains declassified stuff and also some context for the recording (Kissinger, Nixon etc.) followed by comparisons to Trump's "grab her by the pussy" remark. It's entitled "The head of IBM and the Stewardess Incident" and we've cut the critical parts of it, including the old and barely comprehensible chats/ramblings of Richard Nixon (homophobic by today's standards).
We still wonder if we should make and actively maintain a shame list (developer/employer) for the people who contaminate Linux the most with slop plagiarism
They've managed to trick some mainstream media into thinking they're "Tech" experts or "Social [Control] Media" gurus; nothing could be further from the truth
There are many Arch derivatives that do not rely on "viral" marketing in MElon's child porn-pushing social control media and are instead relying on real development, not slop
We approach the parts where we explain that the Application to the Court with Garrett's name on it was instead complaining about fair criticism of the combative law firm (irrelevant to any injunctions) as if it was impermissible to explain what it had done - and still does - to my wife and I
