PlayStation Staff Reportedly Upset Over CEO Jim Ryan's Abortion Comments - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 June 2022 / 4,627 Views
PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan in an email sent out to employees that was acquired by Bloomberg told employees to "respect differences of opinion" when it comes to abortion rights.
Ryan reportedly said that PlayStation is a "multi-faceted and diverse, holding many different points of view."
He added, "We 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."
He reportedly spent five paragraphs talking about his two cats' birthdays and about how "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."
Bloomberg who has seen an internal conversation of PlayStation employees and stated employees at "several" first-party PlayStation studios are upset with the tone of the email and some felt their rights were "disrespected" or had been "trivialized." One employee said they had "never been so mad about a cat birthday before."
The email was sent to employees following the leak of a draft from the US Supreme Court opinion that suggests it plans to overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States in 1973.
Jim Ryan's email, seen by Bloomberg News, does not take a stance on Roe v. Wade or abortion rights but does declare "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."
— Jason Schreier (@jasonschreier) May 12, 2022
Bungie in a statement last week said that the leaked draft "represents a blow to freedom in America and is a direct attack on human rights." Bungie says it is "committed to safeguarding the freedom and privacy of its employees and providing support to all employees affected by this decision."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays and tutorials. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
In a world where the most horrible thing a boss can say. "Be respectful of others opinions".
What a monster.
Except, that wasn't the part they objected to, but I guess that's a minor detail?
What is wrong with this email?? Geez wokism is a cancer!
On face value nothing is wrong. But it comes over as tone deaf. Let's face it: the supreme court decisions about Roe vs. Wade is an important issue for many people and for some it directly affects their lives. For others it is a thing about the freedom to have access to abortion, even if said persons never plan to actually use it. Freedom can be an important point for many. As his emloyees are also people that may or may not have these concerns, Jim Ryan could have assured his employees to offer them support as possible in their health care. This is what people actually want to hear from their boss. And it would still have avoided for Sony having a political opinion (which I think companies shouldn't have). Instead Ryan was going on about cats and dogs in the same email he opened with this issue, which kinda looks like trivializing the concern his employees might have regarding this decision. Instead he could've talked about cats and dogs in his next mail.
So you really think boss asking people to respect each other opinions is bad? Ok.
Didn't you read what I wrote?
I did. So?
That wasn't even the part people objected to.
The thing that is wrong that there is a difference between opposing abortion and opposing other peoples rights to an abortion. If you are against abortions just don't have one. If you are against those right you are against the freedom of people to decide whether to have children or not and are potentially against saving peoples lives by aborting a pregnancy.
We also don't accept differing opinions in Child Abuse and Killing people. If you are against my right you don't just have an opinion, you want to restrict my freedom and that means you better have a good reason for that.
And there is a thing opposing the right to abortion and opposing the right of someone thinking different from you.
That’s wrong, they’re the same thing. If you oppose the right to abortion you’re opposing the rights of women who thinks different from you. If you’re pro-choice, you’re not opposing the rights of people who oppose abortions.
So why pro-choice isn't opposing the rights of woman that think different than you?
Crazy that a perfectly sane response like his is so controversial, I respect him more for being brave enough to make a statement like this in this day and age.
Celebrating your cats' birthdays and telling your employees in detail how you do it doesn't seem 'perfectly sane' to me. Although it may be brave.
People need to grow up and stop crying when someone isn't as woke as them.
I dont see a problem with what was said.
Basically, you should never be respectful to each other, diversity of opinion is not wanted, only diversity of things you cannot possibly choose, there is only one right opinion on abortion,
Perhaps Jim should have known better than to even say anything. There is such an abundance of crybabies.
"Respect other's opinions" -> "I'm upset by what you said." ... Ironic.
More ironic is saying that their right to their opinion is being denied because they were asked to respect other opinion.
Politics can be such a mine field.
Pretending the mines aren't there (or that there aren't that many) is a good way to step on them.
PlayStation is very political since a few years ago and depending on what side you agree with they've already blown plenty of mines. So in the long run this doesn't matter one bit.
So their rights are being disrespected because the CEO asked them to respect the other peoples rights and opinions? I bet they would identify as antifas =p
Like what was said about a dog, PlayStation should know it's place as a company and perform useful functions like making money and pay taxes and keep people employed.
Abortion is none of PlayStation concern whatsoever and shouldn't even be mentioned. I mean if you are willing to go into that minefield, expect to have your statement blown up. After that reflect and wonder why the hell you went there in the first place.
But seems like this statement was made in internal communication to employees, and it is just saying respect each other.
Had he just written the first part, sure, fine. But the second half about his cats and dogs is just a big middle finger to everybody who cares about or are affected by this issue, regardless of their opinion on it. He asks people to respect others opinions, then proceeds to demonstrate that he doesn't give a flying fuck what people think about the issue.
so basically saying hes okay with free speach
This is so funny because people are really starting to become mindless "anti-woke" again just like they were "anti-sjw".
If you can't understand why it is outrageous to ask employees who are suffering from losing a fundamental right to "respect" other's opinion when the supreme court is basically saying 'lol fuck your opinion, follow my religious believe fuckos'.
To add insult to injury, after speaking about a very very sensitive subject => goes on to speak about his cats' birthdays and about the relationship between dogs and humans. This is tone deaf AF. There is a way to ask to respect each others without trivializing the issue at hand.
Acting as if the reaction of people is due to 'wokism' and not the disregard for the importance of the issue at hand through the cat birthday part is really showing how you are becoming ready for Gamergate 2.0 to happen and ripe for astroturfed manipulation once again.
abortion is not a right, it is not a fundamental right, you are harming your baby for convenience, even people like myself that want abortion to be legal recognize that (and even though a majority support abortion, about 80 percent oppose third trimester abortion, showing you what 80 percent of us think about the idea of the fetus having no rights, more than 80 percent of people disagree with the "it is a right" idea)
we're all just hoping for technology to solve this problem once and for all, no accidental pregnancies ever again
Honestly I can't believe my eyes. This is the very definition of what people call "Snowflakes".
The fact that women's rights are being relegated to a "difference of opinion" is pathetic. It's not an opinion, it's a question of people's rights. This is literally a matter of whether women have the right to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies or not.
The issue of abortion is political, like it or not. A circular argument where you assert that it's a right isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already hold that premise.
Liberal thinkers since the enlightenment have always argued for a political system where debates can be had without bloodshed. You must accept that there can be reasonable disagreement and work on cultivating some civility and mutual respect, or else, by trying to say that it can't be political, it can't be a "difference of opinion", you're forcing this issue to be decided outside politics, which is a terrible choice historically.
The thing is, it's not just about abortion, but about people's rights in general. Reasonable disagreement is fine, and if you are personally against, for example abortion, that's fine, but the moment someone begin to dictate that nobody else should be able to get an abortion either because of their beliefs, they're actively advocating for taking away women's rights for autonomy. over their own bodies.
I will, without question, defend everyone's right to express their opinions on any matter, but when someone's "opinion" is used as a reason to change laws and take away rights, I can't quite accept that as "reasonable disagreement".
This is reasonable disagreement about the law. About the rights that people do or do not have.
Your second paragraph amounts to saying "I'm happy for people to disagree with me so long as they let me decide the law". That's ridiculous and infantile and you shouldn't be surprised that politics doesn't work that way.
What would you say to someone who was like "The fact that foetal rights are being relegated to a "difference of opinion" is pathetic. It's not an opinion, it's a question of foetus' rights. This is literally a matter of whether a foetus have the right to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies or not." I don't think you'd be impressed with that argument.
No, it's not reasonable disagreement, when the positions of the two sides on abortion are "let people decide for themselves if they want an abortion" and "no you can't do that because I say so."
What you're basically saying is that you're happy with laws that restrict people's rights because you don't like them having that freedom of choice. I don't need to able to decide the law, but I will by principle be against a law or practice that would take away or restrict people's ability to choose whether they want to have a child or not.
And, you're right, I would not be impressed with that argument. You're equating a woman's ability to choose for themselves and capacity to think to that of a fetus.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I was very clear in what I wrote that a right to abortion is the very thing in dispute. Just take a moment to google circular reasoning, or look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
You'll notice that your argument (and my parody of it) are both formally structured so that the first premise is also the conclusion.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue about rights. Where do they come from? Which ones do we have? Do we have the right to assist death/euthanise? Do we have the right to honour kill? Do we have the right to marry our cousin? Do we have a right against self-criminalisation?
Some people are going to give you different answers to literally all of these questions, however outrageous some of them seem. My country (the UK) denies all of these above "rights" which exist elsewhere. The greatest liberal philosophers of all time , from Mill to Rawls to Waldron and Dworkin, all argued for the rights they believed existed and denied rights that they couldn't argue for. None of them believe abortion to be an absolute right. Read Dworkin's "Rights as Trumps", or any of the thousands of papers it has spawned, to learn that rights are almost never absolute.
Moral philosophers, legal scholars and practical ethicists write entire theses about rights and about the permissibility of abortion, and yet in your arrogance (and poor logical form) you want to claim that no-one reasonable could deny the right established in Roe vs. Wade? That nobody who disagrees deserves your respect (or Jim Ryan's), or should be allowed to participate in the political system so that the law reflects their intuitions about human rights?
Not really sure where you got the idea that I think if you disagree with me you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political system. I quite explicitly stated I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Again, disagreeing about topics, whether political, social, cultural, or otherwise is fine. So, in case it is still somehow unclear to you, I believe that every woman should have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to have an abortion or not.
If you don't, then yes, I do not respect your opinion, because it means you wish to restrict people's autonomy regarding their own bodies to the extent that you'd force them to carry a child regardless of their own wishes on the matter. Abortion is, in my eyes, an inherently personal decision, one which should only be made by the people it directly affects, obviously taking into account medical reasons.
"I will, without question, defend everyone's right to express their opinions on any matter, but when someone's "opinion" is used as a reason to change laws and take away right, I can't quite accept that"
You're saying here that they can disagree with your conception of human rights but that they should not be able to change the laws commensurate with those beliefs.
If their opinion is literally that of taking away the rights of women to decide whether to have a child or not, yes. Glad you caught up.
I don't even have an issue with him not issuing an opinion on the topic, as I think companies should not meddle in politics, as their influence is bigger than that of individuals, but individuals are affected more.
I think the issue is, that he opened with the topic and then was going on to cats and dogs, as if the topic wasn't important for many of his employees. That is kinda tone deaf. He could either kept his mouth shut on the issue overall or kept the mail more neutral after this opening. Also I think it is kinda bad assuring that he allows for opinions, as an employer should not restrict opinions of employees anyways, thank you very much.
A good way to handle it would've been aknowledging that this political issue (which is out of Sonys hands) could be cause of concern for some employees and offering support for employees which are affected. Because an employer has some responsibility for his employees. Offering support even a little to affected employees would have made for a much better outcome.
Jesus the overreaction.
Jim knows he cant pick sides with over 1000 employees working for him, he knows there is no reality where he can only hire pro choice devs or a reality where he can only hire pro life devs. He knows his staff if mostly split right down the middle and the only way they can get work done is if they accept that folks are different and get along.
Well he's not wrong, but I'm not sure what he was hoping to achieve with this email. In this day and age in a company like Sony, this sounds exactly like something that would cause an uproar, which is typically not a great way to achieve anything unless you're pushing for an agenda. Regardless of whether this makes sense or not, this seems like poor communication to me.
The PlayStation Defense Force is fully mobilized I see.
Jim Ryan has been a disgrace to the brand and community that has grown around the first party output. His email is tone deaf in the fact that he spends more time talking about his cats, than supposedly giving the example of "respecting different opinions".
Plus, supporting the attack on women's right isn't an "opinion", it's about control. The other side is providing support for having a choice.
I play fetch with my cat.
Although I do not like the policies Jim bought to the PS ecosystem like $70 games but here, on this issue I totally agree with him.
One need to respect others' opinion even if one do not agree with them or even if they are wrong.
If you can't respect others' opinion they you can't expect them to respect your opinion.
We have voting system in place and that system will decide which opinion is more accepted.
I would only agree with what he said if he truly cared about peoples right to their opinion but they're always marketing with political statements and cancel cultures.
Corporations especially the ones that are literally entertainment companies need to stay away from politics, Disney already learned the hard way.
This isn't true, as all games and the companies themselves will be involved in them. You cannot avoid politics in life. They are entertainment companies but they are creating media which deal with social issues and employ hundreds of thousands of people who will have opinion in political matters and are affected by them. Ryan himself will have his own views on social issues and as this was a internal email, it seems rather bad for us to judge his internal email on what is going on in current US legislation.
Now you could argue that he shouldn't say anything, best to ignore it right? But then some employees might wonder why. Yet also have to wonder why he said anything, to his employees, unless it's been affecting their work.
Do you have any evidence of Sony suppressing the rights of their employees to have their opinion or firing someone because they are left or right oriented?
"Abortion is a near 50/50 issue in the US."
More like 60/40: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/
Overturning Roe is more like 70/30: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/cnn-poll-abortion-roe-v-wade/index.html
This. The correction decision here was for Jim Ryan to say nothing on the topic, and encourage his managers to communicate to their teams to say nothing on the topic. Keep the politics out of the workplace, in other words. Let them say what they want as private citizens outside of the workplace, but encourage them to say nothing about it while on the clock.
It is very easy for you to be misleading with statistics. 66 percent of Americans oppose abortion in the second or third trimester despite a majority wanting it legal in the first trimester. See what happens when you ask someone more clearly about their opinions? Yes there is overwhelming support for quick abortions in the first 2 months. But not the rest of the term. And a majority of Americans find it immoral, despite believing it should be legal.
Roe v Wade guarantees abortion in those 2nd and 3rd trimesters, yet the public supported it, because they are confused about what Roe v Wade actually is, thanks to the media. Biden opposed Roe v Wade for good reason. It's made up law. We can pass laws or get a constitutional amendment supporting abortion in the first 2 months if we want to.
Actually 2/3 of Americans want restrictions on abortion.
It's not even a 50/50 issue. Both extreme viewpoints you see argued on the internet are actually deeply unpopular and the vast majority of the population falls in the middle. ANd pro-life vs pro-choice is more a debate over semantics than anything.
This seems really petty.
You need to understand that to some people freedom of speech is a right only if you speak what they want to hear.
If one truly believes in diversity and inclusion, wants its company to have it, how can they be against a boss that asks that of his team (even more when Sony have had several games with progressive topics covered in positive light, and enters argument against people that complain about Sony being political).
I am from Chile, Thank you for the explanation.
Trust me American politics shoves its way onto our TV's every night, very much unsolicited. We have to hear about your lineup of dopey presidents, and all your trends and "hashtags" get imported over here to the UK... so no explainer on Roe v. Wade needed.
So time for me to send some opinions back over there... Abortion is clearly a political issue.. Why are your political decisions being made by court judgements on constitutional rulings rather than by politicians? Secondly, why is devolving this power to the state level so terrible? The UK devolved this power on abortions and we have a unitary constitution. I note that the UK has more permissive abortion rules than almost anywhere in the USA.
It sounds to me like you just refuse to accept that this is a political decision and when you say the other side is "clearly wrong" (just imagine how a room of moral philosophers would react!) makes me sad for your country being able to reach a sensible compromise like pretty much every other developed country on earth. Jim Ryan is absolutely right that you need to respect each others opinions, as it's genuinely the only way forward. Otherwise it's just absolutism forever on this issue.
Well in the UK we have a 80-seat conservative majority, but nothing will change. There are some on either side who want to make it easier or harder to get an abortion, but there's a cross-party majority that have historically always thwarted such attempts. You won't get to this consensus with the US attitude to it, however. Trying to win a political fight with lawyers is not a stable solution.
Also, I object to the way you're eliding a freedom (or rather a state-defined positive right) into the concept of freedom, so that the negation of one falsely implies the negation of the other. That's exactly the issue at stake, as I understand it; "is abortion a right" (is allowing it necessary for freedom?).
Secondly I note that the ruling on Roe vs Wade (the right to abortions without "excessive government restriction") potentially being overturned doesn't mean that the court affirms the opposite. ie. that there is no right to an abortion.
"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. The idea obviously is that freedoms conflict. So if freedom has anything to do with rights (as you implied in your reply), then it's about drawing the lines between conflicting rights/ conflicting moral claims. There's no clear-cut "you either have freedom or you don't" BS. This probably means drawing different lines for early term and late term abortions, or different lines for different justifications. When the dust settles there's a wide range of justifiable law.
I hope this shows that there can be a wide range of reasonable and respectable positions on this issue and that people who disagree with Roe vs. Wade or with liberalised abortion law more generally should still deserve your respect.
Yea that's fair enough.
I think on that view there's still enough room for Jim Ryan to be right to encourage respect for differences.
I'm personally pro choice. But I respect our systems. Red states voted for their representatives. If people truly want choice, all they have to do is vote for pro choice candidates. Pretty simple.
you're 100 percent right, but you live somewhere where people talk reasonably about the issue
absolutely false, this will lead to the US passing pro abortion laws that reflect people's opinions, and let some states have more restrictive laws (since 80 percent oppose third trimester abortions) but won't affect your ability to get an abortion in the US as many states will be pro abortion
actually only Canada and the US have JUDGE provided abortion laws, none of the other countries do it that way
in places where abortion is supported it is just a law that supports it, not a bad court case
