PlayStation Boss Addresses Abortion Concerns From Staff With Jaunty Email About His Cats

from the missing-the-mark dept

In the wake of the SCOTUS draft leak of a decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, plenty of tech companies have begun scrambling to get public and internal messaging out. We recently discussed how game studio Bungie had put out a statement disagreeing with the draft ruling and committing to its own staff to give them the support it can on these matters of health. This approach is being mirrored all over the tech industry, and elsewhere, but it’s notable that Bungie is set to become a subsidiary of Sony’s in the very near future as a result of an acquisition. The reason that’s notable is because PlayStation chief Jim Ryan recently addressed his own internal staff on the SCOTUS leak and it’s… a something.

His opening wasn’t bad, though it will likely only serve to rile up both ends of the abortion rights spectrum with a call for mutual respect of opinions.

In the email, which Bloomberg has seen and Kotaku has confirmed was sent out to internally hired staff, Ryan writes that the company, its employees, and its players are a “multi-faceted and diverse” community and that they all hold “many different points of view.” He also wrote that staff and the company “owe it to each other and to PlayStation’s millions of users to respect differences of opinion among everyone in our internal and external communities. Respect does not equal agreement. But it is fundamental to who we are as a company and as a valued global brand.”

As I said with Bungie’s statement, which took a different tact, there is very little in this that anyone should be angry about. What Ryan states about his staff and their multi-faceted viewpoints is almost certainly true. And, while calls for respect and unity are somewhat tired in these times of social distress, it’s certainly not a request that reads as ridiculous.

Unlike Ryan then using the same email to take a jaunty turn towards his own cats.

Ryan wanted to share something that was “lighthearted” in an attempt to “inspire everyone to be mindful of having a balance that can help ease the stress of uncertain world events.” (Stress that a powerful president of a large company could perhaps more effectively ease by supporting his staff and their rights…)

He then spent a reported five paragraphs in the email talking about his two cats’ first birthdays, the noises they make, and his dream of one day owning a dog. Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier additionally reported via Twitter that Ryan wrote “that dogs really are man’s best friend, they know their place, and perform useful functions like biting burglars and chasing balls that you throw for them.”

Insert yourself, just for a moment, into the shoes of someone working for Ryan and who is concerned one way or the other about what is a very important social issue that’s going to undergo a monumental change. Imagine the whiplash you would feel reading the opening of the email only to then get a deep dive into Ryan’s opinions on common furry friends he has. Imagine reading an email about abortion rights that then turns to lauding dogs because they “know their place.”

And now imagine just how many times Ryan must have hit himself in the head with a hammer such that he thought pumping this bizarre email out was a good idea.

As you might expect, some staff weren’t happy with the email. Bloomberg reports that internal discussion about the email was negative, with many sharing their anger and disappointment over the tone of the letter and its lack of a stance in support of reproductive rights. One employee reportedly wrote that they had “never been so mad about a cat birthday before.” Some women at the company allegedly wrote that they felt their rights had been disrespected or even trivialized by Ryan’s email.

Maybe those female employees would be more respected if they would simply “know their place.” You know, like dogs. Or maybe their boss could simply do a better job of reading the room next time he wants to fire off an email.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: sony

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “PlayStation Boss Addresses Abortion Concerns From Staff With Jaunty Email About His Cats”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

With a morale booster like that as your boss...

‘Hey I know that a ruling that’s been on the books for decades is slated to be overturned leaving women significantly worse off, but let’s talk about my cats and how dogs are great because they know their place!’

Bloody hell does that man need someone to whack him with a rolled up newspaper with a stern ‘No, bad exec!’ any time he reaches for a communications device to share some of his ‘inspiring’ messages.

There’s not being able to read the room and then there’s trying to do a comedy act at a funeral.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I know Sony Computer Entertainment (or whatever they call themselves today) are incompetently run to the point of not having separate processes for their Japanese and American branches, and may not have processes to faciliate internarional game licence applications, but…

How the fuck do you fail the simplest of PR? I’d have forgiven the cat thing, under at least you fucking tried, but the comment about dogs brings a rather bad taste to my mouth, and I’m male AND not working for Sony Computer Entertainment America (Or PlayStation).

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re:

“This is SONY after all…”

True enough. It’s pretty telling that every time a sony executive opens their mouth and speaks what comes out is either what marketing and press relations department spent hours coaching them to say…or something utterly horrible, like what we see in the OP, their reasoning around the rootkit, or a bile-laden rant about how the internet never brought any good to anyone.

Some companies have a culture so toxic you really can’t call them anything other than purely malicious.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Sony's anti-consumer shenanigans

Most recently, found their PC games (one of which I got off we promise no DRM GOG) required me to allow the game to scan my computer and report back to Sony.

I got a refund, but it means no robot dinosaur hunting for me.

Sony doesn’t seem to think end-users are persons so it’s no surprise it doesn’t think women are persons. Or its employees, for that matter.

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s risky when ceos talk about politics 1000s of employees will have
diverse opinions on most topics. It’s great to be a ceo on a super high salary when most ordinary workers can’t afford to maintain 3 pets and have the space for them . It’s like saying I’ve got 2 bmws and a tesla isn’t it great to have options when you are a rich ceo.
will Sony have an opinion on the earnit bill and which takes away the ability for people to use encryption in messaging apps and for users of digital apps to have the right to privacy
Meanwhile other tech company’s are saying they will provide material support for women who will need to travel for medical procedures when roe vs wade is gone and abortion is illegal in red states
And of course many gaming company’s force their staff to work 80 plus hours a week to complete games and sack workers who attempt to join a union to have basic workers rights
This email just sounds so tone deaf and patronising

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Some women at the company allegedly wrote that they felt their rights had been disrespected or even trivialized by Ryan’s email.

… but imagine how they’d feel if he came down firmly on one side or the other! (Feel free to substitute “rights of the unborn” for “their rights”, if you like.)

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Then, the correct option would have been to remain silent. While an important social issue, it’s not really something that the population expects or needs the leaders of multinational corporations to be weighing in on, so unless the company is going to take an affirmative stance one way or another, then there’s no need to speak.

Lots of staff would have been angry whether the stance was “we don’t consider women to have rights” or “we don’t consider the unborn to have rights” (two extreme interpretations of either side), but I’m not sure how even that would be more insulting than “yeah, this is important to us… ooh look, cute furry things! You broads like those more than rights don’t you? “

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

I ask my usual question – if ignorance is bliss, why are people as stupid as you always so angry?

In the meantime, the real world shows that there’s plenty of life-saving needs for abortions (yes, they’re rare, but having a rare condition doesn’t mean you refuse to treat it) and evidence shows that if you want to reduce abortion the worst thing you can do is make it illegal and difficult to access. I’d also mention the actual murders committed by “pro-life” psychos, but we all know the lives of those who have actual been born don’t matter to you people.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

if you want to reduce abortion the worst thing you can do is make it illegal and difficult to access

The best thing we can do to reduce abortion is to increase access to comprehensive sex education and contraception while also making the having and raising of a child much more affordable for those who choose to have children.

Outlawing abortion will only stop safe abortions from happening. Unsafe/“back alley” abortions will still happen⁠—and when people die from those abortions (or from lack of access to safe abortions), the lawmakers and judges who thought “ripping away the bodily autonomy of pregnant people is a good idea that has no possible downsides” will have blood on their hands.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The best thing we can do to reduce abortion is to increase access to comprehensive sex education and contraception while also making the having and raising of a child much more affordable for those who choose to have children.

Ah, but that would involve the dreaded Socialism and require admitting that the heinous and super-sinful ‘sex’ thing exists, both much worse crime than checks pro-birther notes ‘murder’ apparently.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Indeed. The best way to actually decrease abortion as far as possible is to offer aid on every part of the journey – from offering education and contraception to avoid pregnancy in the first place, to proper prenatal and postnatal care, to childcare and fostering services after birth. It can’t reduce it to zero, but abortions outside of major medical need is reduced by those things…

…which are immediately decried by right-wingers as soshulismz, who will call a woman a welfare queen who deserves her and her kids to suffer as quickly as they’ll force her to have no choice other than bear the child she doesn’t want – and then abuse the child when they suffer as a result of the upbringing they were forced to endure.

mechtheist (profile) says:

Re:

“Abortion is murder” People who make this claim usually do so with this same absolute certainty. Clearly, this person believes ‘life begins at conception”, but how can he know this? It is a question that simply can NOT be answered correctly, at least not objectively. Historically, this hasn’t been an issue to most, it surely isn’t how the law sees it, the census doesn’t count fetuses, they can’t be murdered, except recent laws enacted by anti-abortion legislatures.

So how can so many be so certain of their answer to this unanswerable question? It’s only their religious belief that could supply the authority that could define life in whatever way they decide he so defines it. There is no other source of an authority that might make this definition the ‘true’ answer.

This should be a 1st Amendment, freedom or religion issue. It’s the same with the hostility to anything giving rights or acceptance of LBGQT, almost all objections are religious, but not just that they see these things as against god’s will, more fundamentally, they see it as admitting their god made ‘mistakes’, and they absolutely can’t have that without utterly undermining their belief.

Upstream (profile) says:

Worth re-reading

This has been posted on Techdirt before, and it got the award for most insightful comment of 2021 (via That One Guy), so I won’t repeat it here. Just go to the link.

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/02/funniest-most-insightful-comments-2021-techdirt/

These are some very good ideas to keep in mind whenever the topic comes up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Unfortunate

It’s unfortunate that this very real level of hypocrisy exists among self-proclaimed Christians. As the comment points out, the Bible is pretty specific about the poor, orphaned, widowed, etc.

My wife and I are Christian. We recently learned through social media of a girl seeking an abortion clinic. In an effort to “put our money where our mouth is” (so to speak), we reached out and offered to adopt instead, paying all expenses and under whatever conditions the mother wished. Unfortunately we were shunned and even scorned for offering an alternative to abortion.

I agree with the sentiment expressed in that comment however. I think far too few “Christians” are as radically selfless as we are called to be, and my wife and I certainly fall short as well. Would be nice to see a cultural shift which involved much more humble Christians and fewer people inclined to abortion as a first instinct.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Unfortunately we were shunned and even scorned for offering an alternative to abortion.

You were asking someone to carry a child for nine months⁠—a process that literally changes the skeletal structure of pregnang people⁠—and potentially risk their health so you can adopt a child that hasn’t even been born yet. What’s keeping you from adopting a child who has already been born?

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t want to shit on you because I think loving families that follow the actual teachings of the bible (& not the patriarchal culture rules) and want to help others are in short supply.
But, you have to see it from someone else’s perspective, someone who doesn’t know you. This woman didn’t say she was looking for a sign to tell her what she should do; she didn’t ask for a family to take her in, or for some kind potential parents slide into her DMs, or offer up surrogacy service. You kinda come off like you want to lease her body and buy her baby. You don’t mention the details of her story which leads me to believe she didn’t tell you, or you determined that her reasoning for abortion wasn’t sufficient enough and you think your plan is superior. Either way, you come off as rather presumptuous by not respecting the decision already made. Not what you intended right? Now exactly a bastion of altruism.
Adoption doesn’t compartmentalize that 40 weeks as just a blip that can be filed away. Pregnancy changes a person inside and out and placing a baby for adoption is often traumatic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Ok, but... why?

In the wake of the SCOTUS draft leak of a decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade, plenty of tech companies have begun scrambling to get public and internal messaging out.

Why? Why should I care what any tech company thinks about a political issue entirely unrelated to their industry? Why do businesses feel the need to publicly opine about everything?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

they’re for the people who will be affected by said political issue that work for those companies.

Perhaps I’m stupid, but I still don’t get it. What role does the company play in this? Either it affects the employee or it doesn’t, but the company won’t have any role in those decisions regardless.

It’s like if my employer published an opinion about Elon Musk buying twitter simply because its employees use twitter. Like, sure, it may affect me, but why do I care what my employer thinks about it?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

What role does the company play in this?

A company may have offices in a state where abortion will again be illegal after the fall of Roe. Ergo, a company willing to say “we’ll support you and your rights no matter what” might be the difference between employees feeling like someone powerful has their back and employees feeling like they need to find a new job.

Lisboeta says:

Human rights?

Pro-choice means having a choice. If it doesn’t fit your beliefs, you’re not obliged to have an abortion. But I hope you would concur with abortion in a medical emergency — or would you rather condemn the mother to Savita Halappanavar’s fate? What about Endometriosis: a gynecological condition affecting an estimated 2-10% of American women of childbearing age? And forcing a woman to carry to term the result of rape or incest is downright evil. Finally, methods of contraception are often less than 100% effective.

Why should women take all the blame and bear the brunt for an unwanted pregnancy? Let’s not forget that a man was also involved in this process.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

I hope you would concur with abortion in a medical emergency — or would you rather condemn the mother to Savita Halappanavar’s fate?

A growing number of Republican lawmakers would do exactly that, yes. They care not about the “vessel”, but what said “vessel” carries⁠—and only until the moment of delivery.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Another way to put it perhaps would be that they care about what’s in a woman’s body only so far as it doesn’t require anything of them.

Pushing for and passing laws that control what other people are allowed to do? Perfectly fine.

Pushing for and passing laws that might take money out of their pockets to help those other people? Absolutely not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Loud minorities

For what it’s worth, I myself am what you would call “pro-life” and know quite a few “pro-life” people and not a single one of them is for 0 abortions regardless of circumstances.

I would say that the most common stance among pro-life groups is: No abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or immediate danger to the mother. Many would also be willing to concede abortions up to the point of a detected heartbeat.

The cases which really upset the pro-life camp are laws like one recently passed in Colorado which allow abortions right up to the moment of birth. Having a daughter who was born prematurely has admittedly shaped my perceptions to identify her as a unique person, even if she couldn’t breathe or eat on her own yet.

I genuinely think some kind of middle ground could be found, where “life-ruining” pregnancies can be terminated, but not at such a late stage where the child is viable. It would leave both camps less than perfectly satisfied, but better than either extreme, I think.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I genuinely think some kind of middle ground could be found, where “life-ruining” pregnancies can be terminated, but not at such a late stage where the child is viable.

If someone needs an abortion in their third trimester, chances are good that they wanted the child. Those kinds of abortions don’t happen regularly; when they do happen, they are rarely ever about “killing a child” in the sense that the pregnant person doesn’t want to deal with raising an otherwise healthy child.

I’ve long thought that Swedish abortion laws should be the model for such laws everywhere. But we’ll never get anything like that here in the U.S. as long as anti-choice conservative Christian assholes hold power.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I see this claim of “abortion” up until birth and it’s just a ploy to demonize and question the morality of women and doctors, to evoke an almost visceral response. I call it a ploy because Roe set the point of viability, and any abortion after that for unviable life, and in only the most rare and absolutely tragic situations does a pregnancy progress until nearly 40 weeks before detecting the fetus suffers a condition incompatible with life. And no one has the right to tell the mother, parents, what they should or shouldn’t do. Not even a doctor; the doctor should present all options in a frank and compassionate but otherwise neutral way, which they are ethically compelled to do, and leave the decision to mom/parents. If you think you should have any say, that all life sustaining efforts must be availed, you are wrong and need to shut your mouth, this isn’t your business.
I mean seriously, there is way too much micromanaging of these private decisions as it is. I’ve had 2 miscarriages, both wanted pregnancies. And both times I knew super early that I was pregnant, and found out something was amiss by 7-8 weeks, but still had to get repeat blood tests, and multiple transvaginal ultrasounds. When I say amiss, I mean a progesterone level too low sustain pregnancy, and a super slow rate of cardiac activity. And I’m squeamish about blood being drawn, I get sweaty and shaky and sometimes a full blown panic attack (and you can’t take a Xanax if you’re preggers), so repeating the blood tests is especially stressful to me. Transvaginal ultrasound is not as fun as some might think; it’s one thing to get a couple peeks at your growing pea, or grape, or apricot, it’s another to see, well the lack of whatever fruit coordinated to that week. And instead of moving forward clearing the contents of my uterus so that grieve and heal and get back on my cycle, I had to wait until it was verified that an obviously unviable pregnancy had become a loss. Oh and to add insult to injury, the drugs I was prescribed to move that process along were not covered by my insurance, as if I really wanted to have any sort of conversation with the pharmacist that day. All this because I have Medicaid that dictates that an abortion is only covered for a miscarriage, not a (nonviable) pregnancy.
Now I’m sure no one really needed to hear about the details of my experience to agree that this wasn’t really any of their business (and I’m sorry if the subject was triggering to anyone, i may not always be as sensitive as I should be for such a delicate subject) and should have been at my discretion how many more checks I wanted or didn’t want to make to look for a miracle. And that should be the same for everyone, whether the they ever wanted the pregnancy or not. For whatever reason they sought the care of a Doctor. Doctor, patient. That’s it.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

“He also wrote that staff and the company “owe it to each other and to PlayStation’s millions of users to respect differences of opinion among everyone in our internal and external communities. Respect does not equal agreement. But it is fundamental to who we are as a company and as a valued global brand.””

I believe we should execute CEOs on demand, so you have to respect that belief.

Its like when they are making 3000% what the average employee they start to believe they are smarter than everyone else and didn’t just win the lottery.
Dey is dumb.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...