Intel partners with Feminist Frequency and others

[frostin1990]

This is nothing compared to the $6billion investment made by intel in israel.So this is not surprising at all.

[Mattk50]

This is nothing compared to the $6billion investment made by intel in israel.So this is not surprising at all.

Was that a donation or business investment, though?

 

It'd be nice if they followed gamergate's footsteps and gave the money to feminist charities not run by misandrist con artists like TFYC.

[Nerdwall]

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.

Totally agree with you! We need to change the mentality of our society, if people were hired just based on skill there wouldn't be a wage gap or more men on higher positions...

[Kingofpants]

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

Everything about those organizations is flawed if this is how they go about it.

Sexism is preferential treatment based on gender. Hiring people based on skills is EQUALITY!

Now if your gonna hire a whole bunch of less satisfactory applicants because there women. That is sexism since men didn't get and equal chance to get those jobs.

Also Cis has nothing to do with anything since trans are very minute population wise and they are plenty of coloured men.

[Mooshi]

Be it from shenanigans in Israel to outright partnering with frauds, I'm going to let AMD retire my 2500K whenever that chip suddenly isn't good enough. By the time that day comes, AMD will have something that isn't clutching onto the 8350 legacy.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

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.

 

"It's the same deal as the wage gap; this isn't an unfounded opinion."

That's bullshit, by the way.

 

 

If businesses could get away with paying women less per hour, they would soak that right up to save money. They can't, there's too many laws and policies in place already and it's bad for business to be labeled "sexist".

Edit: Thought I'd just clarify the "they would soak that right up" bit before I move on and start replying to other people. I meant that as in they would only hire women, or at least hire mostly women.

[Silent_Xaxal]

This going to be nothing but a net negative for Intel. That money is going down the drain with little to no viable returns (Other than feeling good).

 

And heck, we already have people calling boycott, with me personally considering actively avoiding Intel with the only exceptions being a number of x86 system needs.

 

Again, no real gains, but simple pandering to a bitch and minority hustlers.

[Nineshadow]

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

This is really bad.

It's good for business to separate your business from ideologies altogether. Just stick to your core goals, that will offend the least amount of people and bring in the most amount of business.

I'm really considering going AMD for my first build since I'd just be getting an i5 anyway. Their boards don't have many good features though...

Edit: Looked up some reviews of one of their newest processors, the 8370e, it looks bad

[TheBostonTickler]

"It's the same deal as the wage gap; this isn't an unfounded opinion."

That's bullshit, by the way.

 

 

If businesses could get away with paying women less per hour, they would soak that right up to save money. They can't, there's too many laws and policies in place already and it's bad for business to be labeled "sexist".

 

Both of those videos are sponsored by ultra right-wing conservative status quo supporting institutions; using them as "proof" towards a lack of sexism in today's society is equivalent to me posting a clip of Rosanne Barr screaming that all men are sexist because they don't find her attractive, neither of them are relevant or objectively accurate.

 

The first video, produced by the "Institute for Humane Studies," is a paid mouthpiece of the Koch brothers, with the George Mason University where this program is homed receiving approximately thirty-million dollars in donations over the last couple decades; more donation money than they have ever donated to any other single entity. The "institute" works hand-in-hand with the Mercatus center, a libertarian lobbyist group which has virtually made it it's goal, among many other things, to repeal nearly every clean air initiative that has ever been passed, both nationally and in individual states.

 

The second, is by the "American Enterprise Institute," which is literally a pro-business conservative lobbyist (think tank) institution which brands itself as libertarian, meaning no matter what, they don't agree with any sort of government interference, regardless of the issue. They have frequently fought against the rights of homosexuals, for the introduction of prayer in schools--only Christian ones of course--for the censorship of art, against anything abortion or birth control related they could find, and on behalf of everyone in this forum's favorite cause, the introduction of internet fast lanes.

 

I understand that you were trying to prove a point, one I do not find to be unfounded even though I greatly differ in opinion, but to try to use these examples as objective sources was beyond reckless. I truly hope that you were not aware of how malicious the entities behind these video productions are and how their vale of objectivity  does not extend further then the name by which they brand themselves. If you are really interested in statistical, factual information, then I would suggest trying places like: PEW research statistics, non-sponsored university studies, the Bureau of Labor & Industry (crazy right), or hell, even a Google Scholar search can get you started on the right track.

[mab1]

Both of those videos are sponsored by ultra right-wing conservative status quo supporting institutions; using them as "proof" towards a lack of sexism in today's society is equivalent to me posting a clip of Rosanne Barr screaming that all men are sexist because they don't find her attractive, neither of them are relevant or objectively accurate.

 

The first video, produced by the "Institute for Humane Studies," is a paid mouthpiece of the Koch brothers, with the George Mason University where this program is homed receiving approximately thirty-million dollars in donations over the last couple decades; more donation money than they have ever donated to any other single entity. The "institute" works hand-in-hand with the Mercatus center, a libertarian lobbyist group which has virtually made it it's goal, among many other things, to repeal nearly every clean air initiative that has ever been passed, both nationally and in individual states.

 

The second, is by the "American Enterprise Institute," which is literally a pro-business conservative lobbyist (think tank) institution which brands itself as libertarian, meaning no matter what, they don't agree with any sort of government interference, regardless of the issue. They have frequently fought against the rights of homosexuals, for the introduction of prayer in schools--only Christian ones of course--for the censorship of art, against anything abortion or birth control related they could find, and on behalf of everyone in this forum's favorite cause, the introduction of internet fast lanes.

 

I understand that you were trying to prove a point, one I do not find to be unfounded even though I greatly differ in opinion, but to try to use these examples as objective sources was beyond reckless. I truly hope that you were not aware of how malicious the entities behind these video productions are and how their vale of objectivity  does not extend further then the name by which they brand themselves. If you are really interested in statistical, factual information, then I would suggest trying places like: PEW research statistics, non-sponsored university studies, the Bureau of Labor & Industry (crazy right), or hell, even a Google Scholar search can get you started on the right track.

 

So, you you claim that you don't like the political bias of the institutions and therefore everything they assert has to be wrong from the outset.

With that reasoning you'll run into trouble when they claim that the sun is the center of our Solar System.

 

Anyway, i looked at the description of the first video and discovered, that it is based on a study by the "CONSAD Research Corporation" (don't know if they are good or bad) for the "U.S. Department of Labor" (thank god, they are the good ones!). 

Is there any methodical criticism concerning this study?

[Mattk50]

Both of those videos are sponsored by ultra right-wing conservative status quo supporting institutions; using them as "proof" towards a lack of sexism in today's society is equivalent to me posting a clip of Rosanne Barr screaming that all men are sexist because they don't find her attractive, neither of them are relevant or objectively accurate.

 

The first video, produced by the "Institute for Humane Studies," is a paid mouthpiece of the Koch brothers, with the George Mason University where this program is homed receiving approximately thirty-million dollars in donations over the last couple decades; more donation money than they have ever donated to any other single entity. The "institute" works hand-in-hand with the Mercatus center, a libertarian lobbyist group which has virtually made it it's goal, among many other things, to repeal nearly every clean air initiative that has ever been passed, both nationally and in individual states.

 

The second, is by the "American Enterprise Institute," which is literally a pro-business conservative lobbyist (think tank) institution which brands itself as libertarian, meaning no matter what, they don't agree with any sort of government interference, regardless of the issue. They have frequently fought against the rights of homosexuals, for the introduction of prayer in schools--only Christian ones of course--for the censorship of art, against anything abortion or birth control related they could find, and on behalf of everyone in this forum's favorite cause, the introduction of internet fast lanes.

 

I understand that you were trying to prove a point, one I do not find to be unfounded even though I greatly differ in opinion, but to try to use these examples as objective sources was beyond reckless. I truly hope that you were not aware of how malicious the entities behind these video productions are and how their vale of objectivity  does not extend further then the name by which they brand themselves. If you are really interested in statistical, factual information, then I would suggest trying places like: PEW research statistics, non-sponsored university studies, the Bureau of Labor & Industry (crazy right), or hell, even a Google Scholar search can get you started on the right track.

 

That's a very interesting post there, i see attempting to attack the credibility of the video instead of the argument or sources contained within is more your style. Even as someone whos been described as left wing with socialist views, i find it absurd that you'd use the fact that it's a conservative institution to attempt to discredit them. Oh are we allowed to handwave away femfreq as too far left wing to be taken seriously now? Thats nice, glad you've clarified that all those breakdowns of how exactly where femfreq has cherry picked, miscited, and has broken logic weren't needed at all.

 

How about, take a few steps back in the conversation and if you actually think the content of those videos were incorrect or biased in some way, attack that instead.

 

 

God, i hate partisanship. It's like the worst parts of the GG two-sides controversy on a national scale. Just a tip: both you have two groups that are large enough, both will be wrong about some things, and right about others. In reality, you must evaluate ideas on their own merits, not political alignments.

 

[Guest]

snip

These things may be true, but to me it sounds like you're ever so lightly trying to explain how certain people shouldn't do a job, while others can, because of uncontrollable physical traits.

There is no reason to believe that women can't serve in the military because they're physically 'not built for it' (like either of us are anyway). For one woman who says she didn't belong there, there are a hundred to say they were proud to serve, as much so as the man fighting at their side.

The differences in people based on certain aspects of them are true, but we can't then say they aren't ready for certain tasks because of it. If a woman has to work a little harder than a man to bulk up enough for the army, we can't then say 'she's been evolutionarily trained to stay at home, so we shouldn't choose her over this man here.'

I guess Im having trouble figuring out what your point is. Why cite all these facts if you weren't getting at the fact that maybe men should stay the dominant role? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm genuinely wondering.

"It's the same deal as the wage gap; this isn't an unfounded opinion."

That's bullshit, by the way.

If businesses could get away with paying women less per hour, they would soak that right up to save money. They can't, there's too many laws and policies in place already and it's bad for business to be labeled "sexist".

You've got to be kidding me. These 'educational videos' are so flailingly far-right that they don't belong in a discussion where we're trying to cite fact. Please do not confuse simple-enough-sounding facts with the documented truth. Fox News does enough of that on their own.

Everything about those organizations is flawed if this is how they go about it.

Sexism is preferential treatment based on gender. Hiring people based on skills is EQUALITY!

Now if your gonna hire a whole bunch of less satisfactory applicants because there women. That is sexism since men didn't get and equal chance to get those jobs.

Also Cis has nothing to do with anything since trans are very minute population wise and they are plenty of coloured men.

Cisgender doesn't define race or ethnicity or religion; it identifies someone who is heterosexual and identifies as their biological gender. That can be anyone, male, female, black, white, blue, purple, green, whatever.

[Recon97]

Feminism.... Everywhere! It all started because of your stupid women, men and cultures. Really, many people are going to disagree but it is the truth.

[Lewellyn]

Both of those videos are sponsored by ultra right-wing conservative status quo supporting institutions; using them as "proof" towards a lack of sexism in today's society is equivalent to me posting a clip of Rosanne Barr screaming that all men are sexist because they don't find her attractive, neither of them are relevant or objectively accurate.

 

The first video, produced by the "Institute for Humane Studies," is a paid mouthpiece of the Koch brothers, with the George Mason University where this program is homed receiving approximately thirty-million dollars in donations over the last couple decades; more donation money than they have ever donated to any other single entity. The "institute" works hand-in-hand with the Mercatus center, a libertarian lobbyist group which has virtually made it it's goal, among many other things, to repeal nearly every clean air initiative that has ever been passed, both nationally and in individual states.

 

The second, is by the "American Enterprise Institute," which is literally a pro-business conservative lobbyist (think tank) institution which brands itself as libertarian, meaning no matter what, they don't agree with any sort of government interference, regardless of the issue. They have frequently fought against the rights of homosexuals, for the introduction of prayer in schools--only Christian ones of course--for the censorship of art, against anything abortion or birth control related they could find, and on behalf of everyone in this forum's favorite cause, the introduction of internet fast lanes.

 

I understand that you were trying to prove a point, one I do not find to be unfounded even though I greatly differ in opinion, but to try to use these examples as objective sources was beyond reckless. I truly hope that you were not aware of how malicious the entities behind these video productions are and how their vale of objectivity  does not extend further then the name by which they brand themselves. If you are really interested in statistical, factual information, then I would suggest trying places like: PEW research statistics, non-sponsored university studies, the Bureau of Labor & Industry (crazy right), or hell, even a Google Scholar search can get you started on the right track.

 

I knew this was going to be said. The 75c for every dollar does indeed come straight from comparing total aggregate income males vs that of females.

 

Here is some better, higher quality shit to consume.

 

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/08/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

[Lewellyn]

I don't see this affecting my purchasing of Intel's products despite not agreeing with the obvious pandering. It doesn't affect the quality of their products and content. This is coming from someone who has blocked almost all gaming media and related sites for the stupid positions they have taken. It isn't like Intel determines what news is spread to the masses and influences ideas and conception - they design processors. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to say.

 

This is all based on the notion that isn't a quota and instead it works like affirmative action (despite what the hardcore right wingers in LTT will say) and is done to diversify the workplace. The point is to take equally skilled/ qualified people and compare their demographic to your already employed. If 90% of your workplace is white male and you have a choice between hiring another white male or to hire a black male who both have equivalent skills, the choice should be the black male. A quota system is different, and IIRC what some universities have been getting in trouble with, it sets up a ratio that they target. Again, if you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to say.

[Misanthrope]

Probably a knee jerk reaction to their previous attempt to distant themselves. Intel just needs a new PR deparment. SJWs just need to fucking die

[EChondo]

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 don't know about anyone else, but when I hear "cisgendered" I take it as an insult, as if you are actively talking down to me as a person.

 

I'm a straight white male, that is what I identify as. Nothing else.

[Misanthrope]

I don't see this affecting my purchasing of Intel's products despite not agreeing with the obvious pandering. It doesn't affect the quality of their products and content. This is coming from someone who has blocked almost all gaming media and related sites for the stupid positions they have taken. It isn't like Intel determines what news is spread to the masses and influences ideas and conception - they design processors. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to say.

 

This is all based on the notion that isn't a quota and instead it works like affirmative action (despite what the hardcore right wingers in LTT will say) and is done to diversify the workplace. The point is to take equally skilled/ qualified people and compare their demographic to your already employed. If 90% of your workplace is white male and you have a choice between hiring another white male or to hire a black male who both have equivalent skills, the choice should be the black male. A quota system is different, and IIRC what some universities have been getting in trouble with, it sets up a ratio that they target. Again, if you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to say.

 

I never met 2 people with equivalent skills. That just doesn't happens, there's always objective and often even measurable differences between their skills and other relevant traits. Not to say that I oppose affirmative action, I just think that it's overplayed a bit too much instead of going for things that might give you even more of an impact like affirmative education, affirmative health care, affirmative improvements to your socioeconomical status, etc.

[Lewellyn]

I never met 2 people with equivalent skills. That just doesn't happens, there's always objective and often even measurable differences between their skills and other relevant traits. Not to say that I oppose affirmative action, I just think that it's overplayed a bit too much instead of going for things that might give you even more of an impact like affirmative education, affirmative health care, affirmative improvements to your socioeconomical status, etc.

 

It does happen. It happens a lot in admissions to universities, mainly.

[MageTank]

These things may be true, but to me it sounds like you're ever so lightly trying to explain how certain people shouldn't do a job, while others can, because of uncontrollable physical traits.

There is no reason to believe that women can't serve in the military because they're physically 'not built for it' (like either of us are anyway). For one woman who says she didn't belong there, there are a hundred to say they were proud to serve, as much so as the man fighting at their side.

The differences in people based on certain aspects of them are true, but we can't then say they aren't ready for certain tasks because of it. If a woman has to work a little harder than a man to bulk up enough for the army, we can't then say 'she's been evolutionarily trained to stay at home, so we shouldn't choose her over this man here.'

I guess Im having trouble figuring out what your point is. Why cite all these facts if you weren't getting at the fact that maybe men should stay the dominant role? I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm genuinely wondering.

You've got to be kidding me. These 'educational videos' are so flailingly far-right that they don't belong in a discussion where we're trying to cite fact. Please do not confuse simple-enough-sounding facts with the documented truth. Fox News does enough of that on their own.

Cisgender doesn't define race or ethnicity or religion; it identifies someone who is heterosexual and identifies as their biological gender. That can be anyone, male, female, black, white, blue, purple, green, whatever.

 

I am sorry,but people like you are the reason i cannot comprehend the rational mind of a transgender person. Not saying you are one yourself, as i do not know you, but the way you label people is starting to annoy me. First of all, Cisgender is not a thing. You can take the latin root word, and apply it to any word you want, it doesnt make it a real term. The term you are looking for is Gender. If i was born with a "member" between my legs, i am a male. That is my gender. Because i choose to believe what i can see, doesnt make it anything short of what it was originally described as. You cannot tell me or anyone else that "choosing to identify as what science has already labeled you" deserves a prefix added to a word. 

 

I see so many people of different races, sexual orientations, and even "genders" demanding to be treated as equal, but in the same baited breath, continue to demand special treatments, and have terminology that only their specific groups of people can use. When you set these barriers, you will never be on equal ground with the rest of the general population, no matter what you believe. "Cisgender doesn't define race or ethnicity or religion; it identifies someone who is heterosexual and identifies as their biological gender. That can be anyone, male, female, black, white, blue, purple, green, whatever."  Every single webpage dedicated to the subject do not list the sexual orientation involved with whichever gender one chooses to believe, so where exactly is it written that to be "cisgendered" one has to also be heterosexual? I am sorry, i just do not accept your words as truth or fact at this point.

 

If someone refuses their natural born gender, that is one thing in and of itself, and people have the ability to choose whatever they want in life. However, you cannot in turn, make a label for people that do not feel the same way you do, and pretend its okay. Sadly, this is a touchy subject, and i know it will most likely cause a firestorm of opposing opinions, but hopefully you are able to atleast agree that the labels are not required in our society as long as people treat each others as human beings.

 

-MageTank

[Misanthrope]

It does happen. It happens a lot in admissions to universities, mainly.

 

I disagree, but for the purposes of a university administration and limited set of information relevant to them, I see your point.

[Real_PhillBert]

I wish the feminist movement was more about equality and less about punishing men.

 

This photo is one that immediately came to mind:

[coen113]

Intel collaborating with feminists= good

Intel collaborating with these feminazis= not good

[Lewellyn]

-wall of text-

 

The terminology of "cis" gender is just a way of distinguishing through language the difference between transgender and gender of biological origination. It is the opposite of the label "trans" just as straight is the opposite of gay. 

 

"You can take the latin root word, and apply it to any word you want, it doesnt make it a real term." What makes something a 'real' term? People use the word and it can be understood. Colloquial language is a pivotal part of society.