Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Guest Kloaked

Intel partners with Feminist Frequency and others

Welp, i tried to ignore the Jim Parsons adverts, but now i guess I'll be officially moving over to AMD for my next upgrade.

 

You will regret it, trust me.

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Yes, this is correct.
 
Straight from Intel's own website.
 

Accelerating Diversity in Technology
Krzanich, who acknowledged a recent confluence of events related to women and under-represented minorities, announced the Diversity in Technology initiative.

To support this initiative, Intel has set a bold new hiring and retention goal to achieve full representation of women and under-represented minorities at Intel by 2020. Full representation means Intel’s U.S. workforce will be more representative of the talent available in America, including more balanced representation in senior leadership positions.

Intel also plans to invest $300 million to help build a pipeline of female and under-represented engineers and computer scientists; to actively support hiring and retaining more women and under-represented minorities; and to fund programs to support more positive representation within the technology and gaming industries.

"We're calling on our industry to again make the seemingly impossible possible by making a commitment to real change and clarity in our goals," said Krzanich. "Without a workforce that more closely mirrors the population, we are missing opportunities, including not understanding and designing for our own customers."

Intel plans to engage with several partners in the industry to support, enhance or create new programs for this initiative, including the International Game Developers Association*, the E-Sports League*, the National Center for Women in Technology*, the CyberSmile Foundation*, the Feminist Frequency*, and Rainbow PUSH*. The company also plans to deepen its engagement with primary education programs focused on underserved areas and expanding its collaborations with computer science and engineering programs at higher education institutions, including minority-serving institutions.

 

These partnerships include the names Rev. Jesse Jackson (well known race baiter) and Anita Sarkeesian (don't think I have to explain that one).

 

Don't know what the take-away from this is, other than they're partnering with SJW's professional victims assholes to get more diversity in the industry, even though it's already full of it?

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

Companies these days will do anything to please as many people as possible, while making as much money as possible.


My arsenal: X99 Xeon Gaming Rig, 13" 2014 Retina MacBook Pro, 128GB iPhone 6+, iPad Air 2, Nikon D3200, Knowledge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

F*CK

 

Companies these days will do anything to please as many people as possible, while making as much money as possible.

 

I know it's mostly because of this, but there are better organizations to partner with... Just not that one...

 

once again

 

F*CK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go fuck myself, see you guys later.

 

I was okay with Intel's stance on internet fast lanes because I can understand why someone would think it's a good thing, but Feminist Frequency?

 

I was having a good talk today with @Pintend and @Johners about grasping a better understanding of GamerGate. Intel, you ruined it for me. It's not their stance on the situation that bothers me, it's the rationality of agreeing and following people like Sarkeesian.

 

This industry is chock-full of diversity, but choose an organization with people who aren't two-faced arseholes Intel. Please.


The Main Rig

Main Rig: CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600X | RAM: 32GB (4x8GB) Ripjaws V DDR4-3200 | Motherboard: Gigabyte B550 AORUS ELITE | Storage: 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus, 1.2TB Fusion ioDrive2, 3x1TB HDDs | GPU: NVIDIA GTX 970 Strix (soon to be RTX 3080) | Cooling: Reeven Ouranos with Noctua NF-A15 Chromax | Case: Cooler Master NR600 | PSU: NZXT C 750W

Oculus Rift CV1: 2x Sensors


Apple Corner

MacBook Pro (Early 2015, A1502) 13": CPU: Intel Core i5-5257U | RAM: 16GB DDR3-1867 | Storage: 256GB SM0256G SSD | GPU: Intel Iris 6100 | iPhone XS Max 64GB (Space Grey) | Apple Watch Series 2 (42mm) | AirPods (2nd Generation)

Other Assorted Tech

Nintendo Switch (Gray, HAC-001) with modded Joy-Cons (Blue housings and D-Pad) | Creality Ender 3 Pro 3D Printer | PS4 Fat | PS Vita PCH-1000 (Henkaku 3.60 CFW)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Why is this bad, exactly? So what if they want to hire a less cis-white-male demographic? Is that not good?

 

Hiring based on anything other than your skills at the job is the dumbest thing ever in employment opportunities.

 

Sorry that I was born a white man and happen to also be straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, i tried to ignore the Jim Parsons adverts, but now i guess I'll be officially moving over to AMD for my next upgrade.

 

Well more like downgrade....

 

AMD cares just as little about you as Intel. Might as well get the best product. 


System: Thinkpad T460

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiring based on anything other than your skills at the job is the dumbest thing ever in employment opportunities.

 

Sorry that I was born a white man and happen to also be straight.

 

^THIS^

 

 

Why is this bad, exactly? So what if they want to hire a less cis-white-male demographic? Is that not good?

 

I'd have been fine if they were aiming for the demographic... but femfreq (*shudders*) is not the best the worst to team up with when it comes to this (imo)...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiring based on anything other than your skills at the job is the dumbest thing ever in employment opportunities.

 

Sorry that I was born a white man and happen to also be straight.

DO NOT

Apologize for something I never did nor ever have a reason to criticize you on. I do not dislike the 'typical' white collar worker, but Intel is trying to hire people not just because they had a wealthy upbringing and could support themselves, but also those who live differently and are typically going through a lot more steps and effort to end up at the same place it took another person one step to get to, while still ending up looking worse on a resume.

 

Did you not know that studies have shown that simply changing the name from something like 'John' to 'Jane' with the same exact credentials will cut the hire rate almost in half? It's not made up by 'white male-hating' people, it's a fact.

 

They're not saying 'let's hire every woman that applies,' but rather, 'lets hire more women with similar credentials as opposed to choosing men because they 'work harder' and require less medical/insurance costs on average.'


they/them

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we hire on talents and skill sets? I'd appreciate that more.

Hiring based on anything other than your skills at the job is the dumbest thing ever in employment opportunities.

 

Sorry that I was born a white man and happen to also be straight.

"b...b..b....bbut what about people who aren't qualified for the job?! we can't offend them! Because hurting someones feelings is the worst crime imaginable!"

 

DO NOT

Apologize for something I never did nor ever have a reason to criticize you on. I do not dislike the 'typical' white collar worker, but Intel is trying to hire people not just because they had a wealthy upbringing and could support themselves, but also those who live differently and are typically going through a lot more steps and effort to end up at the same place it took another person one step to get to, while still ending up looking worse on a resume.

 

Did you not know that studies have shown that simply changing the name from something like 'John' to 'Jane' with the same exact credentials will cut the hire rate almost in half? It's not made up by 'white male-hating' people, it's a fact.

 

It's also fact that women cost more to employ because women generally have higher medical expenses, what's your point? People should be hired solely on skill and ability, not race, gender, or upbringing.

 

You want equality? We'll be equal when men get paternity leave and can get away with not doing any work by flirting with everyone else at work. (not that all women do that, but I've seen it more than enough times to know it happens)


Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"b...b..b....bbut what about people who aren't qualified for the job?! we can't offend them! Because hurting someones feelings is the worst crime imaginable!"

 
 

It's also fact that women cost more to employ because women generally have higher medical expenses, what's your point? People should be hired solely on skill and ability, not race, gender, or upbringing.

 

You want equality? We'll be equal when men get paternity leave and can get away with not doing any work by flirting with everyone else at work. (not that all women do that, but I've seen it more than enough times to know it happens)

As I said above;

 

They're not saying 'let's hire every woman that applies,' but rather, 'lets hire more women with similar credentials as opposed to choosing men because they 'work harder' and require less medical/insurance costs on average.'

 

Just because they are changing their target hiring demographic deson't mean they're hiring unqualified people (purely) because it looks good.

 

EDIT - on your last sentence - I agree men should get paternaty leave, but your second reason is a pretty bad generalization. I'm sure it happens, but men definitely don't sit idly by and work 100% of the time either, so that's a bit of a stretch. In fact, many people would argue that men do more off-topic work than women do, but I won't comment on this.


they/them

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

DO NOT

Apologize for something I never did nor ever have a reason to criticize you on. I do not dislike the 'typical' white collar worker, but Intel is trying to hire people not just because they had a wealthy upbringing and could support themselves, but also those who live differently and are typically going through a lot more steps and effort to end up at the same place it took another person one step to get to, while still ending up looking worse on a resume.

 

Did you not know that studies have shown that simply changing the name from something like 'John' to 'Jane' with the same exact credentials will cut the hire rate almost in half? It's not made up by 'white male-hating' people, it's a fact.

 

You said cis-white-male as if I'm part of another species. I don't like the terminology because number one, it's highly used on Tumblr cesspools of straight white male-hating websites simply because we're straight white males, and two, it creates more divide in people. Sorry I took it that way and sorry if you didn't mean it that way. It's just like how homosexuals prefer to be called certain names and not others that which are considered derogatory.

 

I know what the studies have shown, and it's a problem. Intel doesn't have to partner with anyone to understand anything about employment opportunities for men and women of different backgrounds. They design microprocessors, yet they need to partner with a race baiter and professional victim to understand that other demographics need opportunities?

 

Again, I agree that there is an issue with jobs being in favor of certain demographics depending on the employer and other variables, but this isn't the right way to go. I think Intel of all places would be hiring people to get the job done. Why would they hire someone just because they need to fill a demographic checklist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said above;

 

They're not saying 'let's hire every woman that applies,' but rather, 'lets hire more women with similar credentials as opposed to choosing men because they 'work harder' and require less medical/insurance costs on average.'

 

Just because they are changing their target hiring demographic deson't mean they're hiring unqualified people (purely) because it looks good.

Here's a thought, test people for the position, as well as looking at credentials, also looking at someones past work experience (Actually checking references instead of just seeing whether or not they have references).

 

And what of men that may have applied before a woman, with the same credentials, who don't get the job simply because they're male? That's called sexism.

 

Here's how it should work,

 

first come first serve, most qualified and hardest working get hired. end of story. "Hiring demographics" are racist and sexist, period.


Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said cis-white-male as if I'm part of another species. I don't like the terminology because number one, it's highly used on Tumblr cesspools of straight white male-hating websites simply because we're straight white males, and two, it creates more divide in people. Sorry I took it that way and sorry if you didn't mean it that way. It's just like how homosexuals prefer to be called certain names and not others that which are considered derogatory.

 

I know what the studies have shown, and it's a problem. Intel doesn't have to partner with anyone to understand anything about employment opportunities for men and women of different backgrounds. They design microprocessors, yet they need to partner with a race baiter and professional victim to understand that other demographics need opportunities?

 

Again, I agree that there is an issue with jobs being in favor of certain demographics depending on the employer and other variables, but this isn't the right way to go. I think Intel of all places would be hiring people to get the job done. Why would they hire someone just because they need to fill a demographic checklist?

It's not an offensive term. I don't mean it like 'those disgusting freaks,' but the magority of high-ranking hirees. Are you not a cisgendered white male? 'Cis' is just an identification of gender identity / sexual orientation, it's not a percieved race or religeon. It's an identity, not a group. Believe me though, I'm far from a rainbow-toting, striaght-hating Tumblr user.

 

I agree that their choice in partnership is odd, but I'm just happy that they're trying at any level. We can pick and nag all day, but in the end, this should be a mainly positive endeavour for them.


they/them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought, test people for the position, as well as looking at credentials, also looking at someones past work experience (Actually checking references instead of just seeing whether or not they have references).

 

And what of men that may have applied before a woman, with the same credentials, who don't get the job simply because they're male? That's called sexism.

 

Here's how it should work,

 

first come first serve, most qualified and hardest working get hired. end of story. "Hiring demographics" are racist and sexist, period.

I agree; but this type of action is needed because racism and sexism are too present to shrug off. And conversely, this doesn't mean they're only hiring women now; but it means they'll pay less attention to race/identity/gender/etc when hiring, and focus more on credentials. Or, at least that's what they're saying. I agree with what you're saying 100%, but since things simply don't work that way, we've gotten to this point.


they/them

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

It's not an offensive term. I don't mean it like 'those disgusting freaks,' but the magority of high-ranking hirees. Are you not a cisgendered white male? 'Cis' is just an identification of gender identity / sexual orientation, it's not a percieved race or religeon. It's an identity, not a group. Believe me though, I'm far from a rainbow-toting, striaght-hating Tumblr user.

 

I agree that their choice in partnership is odd, but I'm just happy that they're trying at any level. We can pick and nag all day, but in the end, this should be a mainly positive endeavour for them.

 

Tumblr ruined it, sorry. My brain associates the word "cis" with the cry babies on Tumblr.

 

But again, I would think Intel of all places would be hiring people based on skills and nothing else. If not, then they can change that without these dumb partnerships. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or in this case a microprocessor scientist?) to understand how to hire people; it should be based on skills and nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree; but this type of action is needed because racism and sexism are too present to shrug off. And conversely, this doesn't mean they're only hiring women now; but it means they'll pay less attention to race/identity/gender/etc when hiring, and focus more on credentials. Or, at least that's what they're saying. I agree with what you're saying 100%, but since things simply don't work that way, we've gotten to this point.

Unless you can prove specific incidents of racism/sexism, the assumption that it is "too prevalent" is completely and totally incorrect, and in fact self canceling. By assuming that a male in charge of hiring people, is more likely to hire other males rather than females, you are in fact making a sexist assumption yourself.

 

And this doesn't mean they are "being more fair" it means they are going to set a ratio of #of-women-hired to #of-males-hired. Which is the only way they can imagine to be "fair" because my ideas of testing people, calling references, as well as checking credentials, are simply too expensive for their tastes.

 

It is entirely reasonable to assume greed on the part of a corporation, because that's what the point of a company is, make as much money as possible, with as little expense as possible.


Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you can prove specific incidents of racism/sexism, the assumption that it is "too prevalent" is completely and totally incorrect, and in fact self canceling. By assuming that a male in charge of hiring people, is more likely to hire other males rather than females, you are in fact making a sexist assumption yourself.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/study-women-who-can-do-math-still-dont-get-hired/?_r=0

https://hbr.org/2014/03/in-search-of-a-less-sexist-hiring-process/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_sexism

 

It's a well-known and well-documented fact, and it's not because women don't have competitive credentials to men. If you can't see that our hiring process is flawed, then we need to go back to square one. It's the same deal as the wage gap; this isn't an unfounded opinion. It's engrained in our society, with the whole mentality of women being the more fragile and domestic sex. And both men and women are more likely to hire men; the gender of the hiring party doesn't have as much effect as you would think, but it's of course a case-by-case scenario.


they/them

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/study-women-who-can-do-math-still-dont-get-hired/?_r=0

https://hbr.org/2014/03/in-search-of-a-less-sexist-hiring-process/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_sexism

 

It's a well-known and well-documented fact, and it's not because women don't have competitive credentials to men. If you can't see that our hiring process is flawed, then we need to go back to square one. It's the same deal as the wage gap; this isn't an unfounded opinion. It's engrained in our society, with the whole mentality of women being the more fragile and domestic sex. And both men and women are more likely to hire men; the gender of the hiring party doesn't have as much effect as you would think, but it's of course a case-by-case scenario.

I would point out that these "social roles" have a reason and a purpose. Females are indeed, generally more fragile than males (again, the keyword here is generally). These aren't "social roles" they are evolutionary ones. Anyone with a basic understanding of evolution can see that (Again, in GENERAL) each sex (because for some reason we can't technically say gender anymore) is better suited for certain tasks. These aren't just "ideas" they're physiological differences. Bone density, muscle density, body fat ratio, differences in the adrenal system, behavioral differences (tendencies towards aggression) etc.

 

While I'm not saying that in a non-physical job such as being discussed, that either gender is better suited, I would point out that there are instances where sex does play an important role. If you look up the recent move to allow women in combat (in the marines specifically) you will find one specific female marine, who was deployed long term (not on a base) who spoke out saying that it was a huge mistake, because due to the differences in her metabolism and chemical makeup, her body had significantly less endurance than her male counterparts, she ended up having to leave for medical reasons because her body literally began to shut down, and devour it's own muscle tissue instead of fat. All of this, despite having gone through the exact same basic training as every single one of her male counterparts.

 

There are differences between sexes, there are differences between races (black people have higher bone density than white people, on average, as an example). While it is true that every human is slightly different than every other human, there are still generalizations that can be made, that are accurate, and do make sense.


Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Newegg

×