Connect with us

Red Pill



Is Apple next in line to feel feminism’s wrath?

Feminism has its eyes set on dismantling the tech industry. So far they have been focusing on young, hot startups and their founder / CEO’s. Feminist groups and mass media are now upping the ante and starting to go after bigger tech companies like Apple and Google.




The tech industry is under siege.  Over the past year we have been witness to the constant media barrage of a “lack of women in tech” storyline that has forced out many male founders and CEOs, discrediting their hard work and ruining their reputation within the tech community. From Evan Spiegel of Snapchat to Tom Preston-Werner of Github, the body count of tech company leaders being taken out by the feminist, liberal left media agenda is on the rise.

So far the target has been up and coming tech stars and young startup founders, but recently we have seen an uptick in articles calling for larger tech companies to change their hiring practices or face the wrath of feminism.

Just last week Google had to plead a mea culpa and issue an apology of sorts to women for its male dominated, engineering work force, by releasing information on the gender and race imbalance at its own company.  Google is currently 70% male, and in the U.S., 60% white. By acknowledging the disparity, Google is positioning itself as wanting to change and seeking to show a willingness to balance out its employment disparities.

Of course their may be other, more natural reasons for the gender imbalance that will never be considered or accepted by feminist dogma, which always requires its pound of flesh for all the “evil” man centric talents and interests plaguing our modern world.

Just maybe, men gravitate towards STEM based careers, like computer science, because a man’s biology and brain wiring facilitates (in general) this type of work, in much the same way that a women’s biology pushes her gender, in general, towards careers such as communications and teaching.

As always, with feminists, biology and evolution be damned, the square peg has to be forced into the circular hole.  Google bought some time, but they are fully aware that the fembots are coming to get them.

Enter Apple, the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC), and Selena Larson at with her recent post titled, “How Many Women Has Apple Put On The WWDC Keynote Stage Since 2007?”

In the seven years since Apple released the iPhone and changed what it meant to own a mobile device, it has trotted out one male executive after another at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference to showcase new software, apps, and operating systems.

Conspicuously missing on stage during the excitement and announcements: Women and minorities.

Larson is now setting up her case that Apple, is in essence, conspiring to leave women out of its WWDC event, choosing not to show them on stage in order to promote the male dominated industry standard.

Bay Area-based writer Joe Kukura recently scanned through 16 hours of WWDC keynote address video. His findings: 57 men have spoken during a WWDC keynote since 2007, but just one woman. In 2009, Stephanie Morgan and her male business partner made a very brief appearance to tout their iPhone app. The other developer speakers who took the stage in 2009 were all male, and all went on solo. [Update: Turns out, one other woman has appeared at a WWDC keynote: Jen Herman from Zynga. See update at the bottom for more info.]

After reviewing the keynotes myself, I noticed women or minorities have appeared a handful of times in photos while white male executives demonstrate the capabilities of the smartphone’s camera or editing software. They just weren’t on stage themselves.

Siri, the iPhone equivalent of a personal secretary who Apple identifies as female, briefly made an appearance in 2012—though voice-command systems hardly count as representatives for gender diversity.

As with all feminists, Larson gets a little help form her white knight pal Joe Kukura, displaying a united male-female (sorry, female-male) front in tackling the misogyny that is WWDC.  The argument is simple really, women make up half the population and are big Apple customers, ergo, at the very least, half of all WWDC speakers should be women.

Women make up half the population, account for 60 percent of online purchases, and were a major factor in the iPhone’s success, preferring the small, slender phones to Android devices. And smartphones are more popular among blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. than among whites.

So why has Apple all but omitted them in WWDC keynotes?

It’s indicative of a much broader diversity problem within the technology industry—especially in roles that are highly technical, where—to put it plainly—women and minorities are vastly outnumbered by white males. But let’s be clear: Even if there are relatively few women and minorities in the upper echelons of the tech industry, Apple clearly has both the resources and the cachet to attract them as employees and speakers.

Hell, half of all Apple execs, upper management, board members and total workforce should be women according to Larson. Her hampster logic wonders why Apple can’t make this easy adjustment, after all they have a ton of cash and influence to easily “balance” things out and set a good example for all little boys to follow.

Instead, it looks like no one at Apple has even thought about it. And by overwhelmingly favoring white men as speakers at its biggest event of the year, Apple basically tells people in the audience and those watching around the world: This is what a successful technologist looks like.

Of course the small minded men at Apple have never ever thought about being more diverse or inclusive, they are after all evil.  We needed the clever and observant Selena Larson to tell these bad men (who coincidently built and run the biggest company in the world) what they did not have the foresight to understand for themselves.

Such arrogance and ego is beyond comprehension.  Here is the hard truth. The executive team at Apple, and other large successful tech companies, are fully aware that their industry and workforce is skewed toward a male demographic, not because of some grand conspiracy theory, but because men have a natural, biological aptitude and passion for STEM based subjects.

The reality is that talented and qualified women programmers would be more than welcome at Apple, Google or anywhere else, but the fact remains that most women just do not gravitate towards computer science in the same rate was men. No matter how much money you throw at the issue, biology cannot be changed and unfortunately for so many feminists biology does indeed dictate the career choices, general interests and passions for both men and women.  This does not mean men are better or women are better, it simply means that on average, men will move towards certain careers in the same way women will move towards certain careers.  Why this is so difficult or painful for feminists to understand is beyond me.

Perhaps its time for feminists to look inwards and reflect as to why they have so much hate and jealousy towards men. Is it because feminists lust after power, feel slighted for something they believe they were entitled to posses or something deeper.  The red pill adage that “men will climb to the top of the mountain and women will complain there is a mountain top and declare that where they are is the mountain top” sums up the “women in tech” debate perfectly.


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Lori Loughlin’s daughter was aboard USC official’s yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was on the yacht of USC’s Board of Trustees when her mom was accused in scheme.

The Duran



Via Fox News

Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli was spending spring break on a University of Southern California official’s yacht when her mother was accused Tuesday of involvement in a college admissions scheme, reports said.

Giannulli, 19, was on Rick Caruso’s luxury yacht Invictus in the Bahamas, a report said. Caruso is chairman of USC’s Board of Trustees.

Giannulli, who currently attends USC, was with Caruso’s daughter Gianna and several other friends, the outlet reported.

“My daughter and a group of students left for spring break prior to the government’s announcement yesterday,” Caruso told TMZ. “Once we became aware of the investigation, the young woman decided it would be in her best interests to return home.”

Loughlin’s daughter has since returned to Los Angeles to face the allegations that could result in her getting expelled from USC.

USC’s Board of Trustees will not decide the status of Giannulli and the other students involved in the case, but rather, the university’s president will make the decisions, according to TMZ.

Business deals in jeopardy?

Giannulli is a YouTube beauty vlogger and social media star, but in the midst of her mother’s charges, she may lose the lucrative brand-sponsorship deals she has landed over the years, Variety reported.

HP, having cut ties with Giannulli, said in a statement, “HP worked with Lori Loughlin and Olivia Jade in 2017 for a one-time product campaign. HP has removed the content from its properties.”

Giannulli also cut brand deals with partners including Amazon, Dolce & Gabbana, Lulus, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Sephora, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Smile Direct Club, Too Faced Cosmetics, Boohoo, and Unilever’s TRESemmé, the report said.

Giannulli’s rep declined to comment, Variety reported. Estée Lauder Companies, which owns Smashbox and Too Faced, also declined to comment, while the other brands or companies the magazine reached out to did not immediately respond to their requests for comment.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


$250M Lawsuit Against CNN Imminent; Covington High MAGA Student Suffered “Direct Attacks”

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February. 



Via Zerohedge

CNN is about to be sued for more than $250 million for spreading fake news about 16-year-old Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann.

Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video clip from the January March for Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial, in which the MAGA-hat-wearing teenager appeared to be mocking a Native American man beating a drum. Around a day later, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong – after the media had played judge, jury and executioner of Sandmann’s reputation.

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February.

Speaking with Fox News host Mark Levin in an interview set to air Sunday, Sandmann’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, said “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes. It’s broadcast into their homes.”

They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites,” continued Wood. “Totally false. Saying things like that Nicholas was part of a group that was threatening the Black Hebrew Israelites, that they thought it was going to be a lynching.”

Why didn’t they stop and just take an hour and look through the internet and find the truth and then report it?” Wood asked. “Maybe do that before you report the lies. They didn’t do it. They were vicious. It was false. CNN will be sued next week, and the dollar figure in the CNN case may be higher than it was [against] The Washington Post.”


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Rand Paul refuses to support emergency declaration, deepening problem

Rand Paul gives a principled reason for his refusal, and he cannot be faulted for that, but it leaves the borders open and unsafe.

Seraphim Hanisch



Senator Rand Paul indicated he will vote to terminate President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration on Sunday. This continues a story that seems to want no resolution.

Weeks ago, the seed to this news piece started this way:

One 35-day partial government shutdown and almost three weeks later, the debate over a statistically tiny amount of money in the US budget for the building of a border wall drags on with no solution. On February 15th, if there is no agreement that is to President Trump’s satisfaction, the government will once again descend into a partial shutdown.

And on February 15th, the President signed a continuing resolution to keep the government open through the rest of the fiscal year. This CR gave sharply limited authority of funds with regards to the border wall. This prompted the President to take it a step farther and declare a National Emergency.

This is because very few people in the US government actually desire a solution to close and secure the American-Mexican border. In fact, what we see is a government that is largely aligned against the will of its citizens.

President Trump has made repeated statements and speeches in which he outlines a fair array of facts concerning the problems experienced in the US by illegal border crossings of both people and controlled substances.

However, the issue of border security remains something that Congress only supports with words. We saw this in action both last week and the week before with the Democrat led House of Representatives voting 245-182 to terminate the National Emergency declaration. While this was to be expected in the House, on March 3rd, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a known strong supporter of President Trump, nonetheless penned an Op-Ed piece on Fox News in which he said he planned to also vote against the National Emergency in the Republican-led Senate (emphasis added):

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: “The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must.’

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power…

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding:

  • First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders,
  • and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?

As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

This statement by Rand Paul is extremely – and painfully – fair. It marks not the actions of a liberal but of someone who is trying to do things truly “by the book.” He cannot be faulted for this.

But his “Nay” is very poorly placed because it comes in the context of a Congress that is full of people far less committed to the vision of America and its sovereignty than he or the President are. One of the reasons stated for lax border security is that cutting off illegal immigration also cuts off very cheap labor for several industries. Some of those industry leaders donate lavishly to political campaigns, ergo, corruption.

Rand Paul, in trying to fight for what is right by the letter of the law, may be correct, but in the short term it appears to exacerbate the problem of the porous US-Mexico border.

President Trump is trying to do the right thing in the company of a Congress who does not want this, for various reasons. Some of it is because some Congressmen and women are petty, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer being the crabby National Grandparents in this aspect. But add to the “resist Trump because he is Trump” lobby those people who gain from illegal immigration in the short term, and those like the new socialist crop of Congressional members who are ready to change the very nature of the United States into something like their cannabis-induced dream of Sweden (which didn’t even work in Sweden!) and we see that border security is every bit the uphill climb that President Trump has shown it to be.

The government shutdown did one very good thing: It got the American focus on the border and some opinions on the matter moved – at least among the American people.

But since when did our representatives and senators really represent us, the American people?

It has been a long, long time.


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter