Intel doubles its bounty for women and ethnic minorities Intel is so keen to increase the diversity of its workforce that it is paying double its finder's fee for women and minorities, according to reports. Intel is currently offering $4,000 (£2,560) to employees who suggest job candidates that help it achieve its diversity goals, according to the Wall Street Journal. “Intel is …
If large companies like Intel drive for politically correct staffing levels (see: not representative of either the actual training pipeline nor the population at large) where are smaller companies supposed to find individuals to meet their quotas? What are the actual targets? Are they set based on simple perpetual ratcheting or population at large ratios? What are these large companies doing to solve the pipeline disparity issues?
So many questions.
If people don't want to work for Intel then they don't want to work for Intel, not really anyone's fault, particularly, unless Intel have a rep as horrific to work for (more so than their rivals, at least)
Likewise not Intel's fault (presumably) if people of the 'correct ethnic diversity' don't have the qualifications to be accepted for available roles, either.
>unless Intel have a rep as horrific to work for
I was an accidental Intel employee for a couple of years (Intel purchased a small company and eventually shut it down). Your experience of working for Intel depends on whether you're a 'blue' or 'green' badged employee -- blue are proper employees, green subcontractors -- and what division you work for. My experience was positive, I would have probably remained there for years except that I didn't want to move and didn't need a job that badly. Their severance package is outstanding.
The big problem with a company like Intel is that it manages by remote control. The company that I worked for - Xircom - had products in two categories. One was wireless, that's what they were interested in. The other stuff was no interest so the dumped it / gave it away to competitors. The wireless work eventually got offshored, first to Russians (where it may have fallen foul of ITAR regulations) and then to some Poles. The main development work for the products we were working on (notebook chipset) was being done in Haifa, Israel. You were never quite sure how decisions were being taken or why -- but then it may be because we were used to a startup culture.
Intel is a global company so the notion of its workforce not being diverse is laughable.There may not be enough females working there in technical roles but that's probably due to a shortage of females in technical roles. We had a significant number -- hardware, firmware, management -- in our little backwater and they were just colleagues.
"Likewise not Intel's fault (presumably) if people of the 'correct ethnic diversity' don't have the qualifications to be accepted for available roles, either."
Well in the modern PC world we can't blame it on the ethnically diverse people either, so it must be either Intel's fault or the patriarchy.
I don't know what it's like in USA, but here in NZ many institutions give free tuition to any women or Maori wanting to do engineering oriented courses... and still they don't come. They do, however, flock to the Maori studies and women's studies courses - neither of which is any use for employment.
They do, however, flock to the Maori studies and women's studies courses - neither of which is any use for employment. Which pretty much says it all. There's more money/satisfaction to be made in being outraged, offended, and discriminated against than in actually performing work for pay. Reminds me of a conversation I recently had:
Outrageist: "There aren't enough women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math professions."
Me: "What was your major?"
Outrageist: "Womyn's Studies"
Me: "..."
In a normal world, I'd have asked her why she wasn't in such a major -- but I'd like to keep my job, and so freedom of speech went right down the old crapper.
meet their quotas
What quotas? Quotas would be illegal.
Anyway, when you see the sums in relation to turnover, it's obvious that these are PR exercises. Want more female black latino engineers? Get them to study engineering at university: Intel could fund some endowments. You can only employ what the market provides.
Or looked at another way: how much of the USD 1 bn that Microsoft is reportedly stumping up for a crumb of Uber is going towards increasing diversity there and how much is being trousered according to some clever post-JOBS act accounting?
What quotas? Quotas would be illegal.
Fine. Targets then. Same shit, just technically one is non-binding policy and the other is. Doesn't matter. When the word comes down that "the workforce should look like X" this is no different in practice than dictating that the workforce must look like X".
Fine. Targets then. Same shit, just technically one is non-binding policy and the other is. Doesn't matter.
It makes a huge difference. One is fluffy PR that doesn't cost much but keeps the company in the headlines for the right reasons. The other is an official policy with potentially very expensive consequences and could soon have the company in the headline for the wrong reasons.
One is subtle reverse discrimination one is overt. There are way better ways to go about this. If there is a finders fee for brains, it should not matter what those brains are wrapped in. If you want to encourage women in tech, you should work on feeding the pipeline (on one end) and addressing cultral issues in a sustainable fashion on the other.
A "boobs bounty" is just not cool.
It's about giving welfare to women and thick people.
The government doesn't care if IT works. It cares about being elected.
So if they tell big companies to "exercise corporate responsibility" (codespeak for employ useless people so we don't have to pay them welfare,) then they dream up things like this.
You may have noticed that IT projects are failing all the time, despite modern methods. Well the modern methods are red tape, dreamed up by consultancies to get government projects, and the projects fail because the government has signalled its intentions (by rewarding companies which fail,) that employing women, and thick minorities in non-jobs like Agile expert, or PMO, wins contracts, whereas succeeding in delivery, but not employing women and minorities doesn't.
This is why the people who weren't clever enough to be employed in 2002, are now working as Business Analysts, Project Managers and Programme Managers. The government creates work to suck up all the unemployed.
Yeah! Who needs competent employees as long as they are diversified!
On a more serious note, this could be good news for small companies. When the big giants focus less on competence and more on political correctness, this creates a window for small innovative companies to actually hire the best and brightest!
Ideally they can then grow to become big companies, and then start to focus less on skill again, and more on political correctness, and the cycle starts again.
Keep in mind that ethnicity and gender is just the beginning! I'm certain that the companies would not like to discriminate but instead achieve a perfectly well calibrated work force based on sexual orientation, religion, ideology, citizenship, income bracket, favourite color etc.
After all, by focusing on onoly gender and ethnicity, there's lot's of people who will be discriminated against.
No, I mean fat. Fat people are the currently accepted group to hate on. Normatives believe that fat people can just wake up one day and choose to be skinny. That anyone has the willpower, that everyone's metabolism is the same, and that fatties are all just weak.
This leads to acceptable discrimination in the workplace. Hell, it leads to acceptable discrimination everywhere. That - in my opinion - is not okay.
Look, I'm fat. I'm massively fat. I'm so massively, overwhelmingly fat that I have my own event horizon and photons that stray too near don't escape. So I think I'm a little bit qualified to talk about this.
It's perfectly acceptable - in my books - to say to a person "you're so fat we need to charge you for two seats" on an airline. When you get to be my size you take up two seats. Fucking period. In fact, if you're of that size - and believe me, the crushing self esteem issues and overwhelming depression mean that we fucking know when we're that size, thanks - means that, as a fatty, you should have bought two seats to start with and saved everyone the grief. Like it or not a goodly portion of the "being enormous" is your fault as a fat person and you need to deal with the extra monetary expense of being that large.
That said It's not okay to build your airplanes such that the armrest between those two seats doesn't move out of the way. Fat people exist. They're a significant portion of the population, and if you design your chairs, airplane seats and so forth such that they are unusable by fat people you're a goddamned asshole. If you want to be an asshole in that coffee shop you own, that's your right. But mass transportation is a whole separate issue and the damned well should be regulations to ensure that all people, regardless of size, disability, etc. can use it.
A fat person my size isn't going to be physically able to do the job of a high-speed door-to-door mail carrier that has to cover dozens of square kilometers of houses every day. That's ridiculous and fatties shouldn't apply for those jobs. Physical fitness is a requirement of that position. It's a rational requirement of that position, and it's completely and utterly ridiculous to expect an employer to buy you a scooter or some other such nonsense.
That said, there's nothing that prevents a person of any given size from being back office staff. Or a computer programmer. Or any of these other jobs that don't involve a fair amount of physical labour. So discriminating against them in hiring because you don't like how they might make the company look is complete bullshit and - in my opinion - absolutely grounds for a lawsuit.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Fat people do have to take some responsibility for being fat. That said, for most of us it isn't a choice. It's a disease that we struggle with, and it is a complicated and intricately linked mishmash of physical, psychological and neurochemical issues that allow us to get fat in the first place and then keep us fat, no matter what we try.
Some parts of society should be open to all people. No one should be excluded from cultural events, mass transportation or finding employment because of how they look, their origins gender, sexual orientation or so forth. But humans aren't good at thinking like that.
Humans are tribal. We want to identify with a group. A clique. A collection of no more than about 100-125 people. We need the ability to exclude others. We want the ability to use guilt and especially shame to establish our dominance over others. We need to prove that we are superior, they are inferior and we should be in charge/get the best mates/command the highest jobs/receive the accolades/consume the respect.
You can't hate on people of colour. You can't hate on women. You can't hate on gays or transgender or pretty much any other identifiable group. One by one they've become protected by law. One by one they've earned the right to equality, respect and dignity.
But not fat people.
Fat people are a socially acceptable target. The narrative that it is 100% their fault is an easy one. We can claim they choose that way of life. If only they'd accept good, clean, protestant ideals like suffering for their entire lives they could be just like the rest. If only they were of purer genetic stock. If only they worked harder to make more money and afford better food.
Most people in North America don't even acknowledge that mental health issues are real. So I can't quite say that we discriminate against people with those issues. We simply pretend they don't exist. They they're faking it, doing it for attention, or that they could simply will themselves healthy if they really wanted to.
Because of this, it's impossible to explain things like decision fatigue to the average North American. It's impossible to explain things like Lectin allergy, neurotransmitter imbalance, dopamine deficiency or weight issues as they pertain to ADHD, depression, anxiety or dozens of other disorders.
We can't have those conversations because we - as a culture - believe that all of that is "just bullshit". We believe mental, physical and socioeconomic issues play no role whatsoever in obesity. It's nothing but personal choice and weakness.
Because of this, no matter how much you, personally, dislike the fact that some fat people try (in vain) to achieve some semblance of equality you simply don't have to worry that it will happen in your lifetime. It won't. A few noisy people who make the news that the nation can make fun of them aren't actually changing a goddamned thing.
In order to address obesity in a rational way we have to go through generations of education, primairily on the realities of mental and psychical health issues. Stigmas around mental health need to drop away. A better understanding of neural and neuroendocrine systems needs to be fundamental to the culture as a whole.
We aren't there. We won't be there a hundred years, if ever.
Fat people are the soft, squishy, easy target for hatred and discrimination. They are legal to discriminate against in almost every way. And they will be for a very long time.
So don't worry. Your position atop the social pyramid is safe. You're superior. We're inferior. And it'll be that way for as long as you live.
See also: people with light red hair, men with small hands, women who want to stay at home and look after kids without claiming they're being discriminated against, prostitutes, white men, women who disagree with SJWs, Christians, Germans, parents.
Not to minimise your problems, but there are plenty of other groups. Trick is to spot the ones you aren't in and stand against the hate of them :)
Fat people aren't the only acceptable group to hate; they're the easiest, and the least likely to be able to achieve any sort of equality any time soon.
The interesting part is that while you have successfully listed a series of identifiable groups who have been traditionally on the receiving end of prejudices most (if not all) actually have both a number of laws and fairly strong movements that are working on equality for them. I think it's worth disassociating those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination but are winning the fight from those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination and don't stand a prayer in the near or medium term.
@Trevot_Pott
Well said, mate.
With regards to mental illness, try to be generous to people who don't understand. Most people (myself included) don't have anywhere near the grasp of chemistry needed to understand what goes on in our brain. Or the linkage between the various chemical balances and their effect on our behaviour.
Some of it is that we (humans) don't want to understand. If you mix so much sodium and so much chlorine, you get so much salt. It's entirely deterministic. If we accept that out brains operate on the same laws of chemistry as everything else in the universe, it doesn't leave any room for the free will that many of us hold dear.
Some of it is that we (humans) don't want to understand.
And that actually is a choice. And it's a choice that I don't have a lot of patience or compassion for. Ignorance is the precursor to prejudice, and prejudice presages douchebaggery.
As a fatster myself, I still can't ignore the fact that wholesale obesity seems to be a function of culture; 50 years ago your average American wasn't as fat as we are today. There are plenty of other examples of wholesale cultural dietary changes leading to increased obesity throughout history. Personally, I suspect part of the issue is less day-to-day exercise in getting to places -- we all drive rather than walking or cycling these days.
Being fat is almost entirely a choice, the very few medical exceptions notwithstanding.
I used to weigh 140 kilos. Not quite enough to have my own event horizon, but I did notice a few minor satellites orbiting me. So I took a good hard look at myself, which took a fair amount of time due to my extensive surface area, and decided things need to change.
I started eating less carbs and more protein and fats (whilst keeping an eye on total caloric intake), and did a bit of exercise. My weight is now around 85 kilos, +/- a few. I feel immeasurably better, I look better and I don't sweat nearly as fucking much.
It wasn't easy, but it's a choice, as much as being fat is a choice. It's just a matter of altering your daily habits.
Discriminating against someone based on things they can't control, such as race, sex or the kind of naughty bits that attract you? Shit behaviour.
Discriminating against someone based on things they can control, such as going into politics or choosing to stuff your face day in, day out? Well, it's not nice, but people's choices are a good indicator of what they are like, unlike things they can't control.
Trevor, I enjoy reading your articles, but your comment is just one long list of excuses. Please consider some change, for your health's sake if for nothing else.
Thanks for making my point for me, mate. You don't actually know what you are talking about. Despite this but you are so completely and absolutely convinced you do.
There were people who were absolutely positive that black people were inferior, too. And they'd argue that point up and down, considering anyone who said a single thing different to be clinically insane.
As for "just shifting my behaviour", oh, yeah mate, I'll get right the fuck on that. Thanks for telling me something I haven't heard 100,000 times before. You've really managed to open my eyes. I'll have absolutely no problems losing weight no, there's no barriers in my way. It's nothing but a choice!
Maybe one of these days you'll actually learn about the lovely genetic anomaly I have. It's spectacularly rare. Not that it would matter to you. Because it's a choice.
Maybe one day you'll learn about the ins and outs of clinical depression, which by the way, if a hell of a lot more all-encompassing than a case of "the blues". Not that it would matter to you, because clearly that's a choice too.
Choices, choices. Just will yourself to be normal!
You are a walking stereotype. You are the ignorance I abhor and in your absolute certainty the prejudice that destroys both compassion and dignity.
That is a choice. There are many things you could be, and I am appalled at what you've chosen for yourself and those others around you.
"Maybe one of these days you'll actually learn about the lovely genetic anomaly I have. It's spectacularly rare. Not that it would matter to you. Because it's a choice."
You never stated you had one beforehand. As I said in the first line of my comment, there are a few - very few - medical exceptions. If that is the case, I sincerely apologise.
Nice job on the rest of the comment, though. I haven't seen so many toys ejected from a pram with such force since the last fight with my ex.
I am 13 stone (85.5 kg according to google), I've lost about 2 stone in the last year and a half through exercise and cutting out the chocolate biscuits etc.
My wife is just under 22 stone (140 kg - thanks google!) - she does twice the amount of exercise I do, and cut her calories lower than mine - she lost about 3 stone.
We basically eat the same food and drink (she has less of everything - I am the man!). There are slight differences in diet she likes tea with a splash of milk, I prefer black coffee). I have less sleep (6 hours vs 8 hours)... but basically we have the same lifestyle.
To me, that's proof that just changing your lifestyle isn't really the whole story. She sticks well below 2k calories, and we eat a balanced diet - if it was purely calories she'd be smaller than me, not nearly a person bigger!
There was a time when I was 15 stone - that was lifestyle, and my largest - I'd just had a kid and doing zero exercise... now I've got more muscle, leaner (albeit it with a slight belly still), and I'm pretty fit.
My wife struggles with depression - I'd say it's mostly weight related - but she goes through highs and lows with it - about things not weight related, things that don't really phase me, but I get it phases her.
When I hear people saying "it's easy, I just stopped eating pies and donuts and now I'm 'normal' - you're just lazy" it winds me up so much - mostly because I can see first hand it's not that simple for the vast majority of very large people.
I've gotten annoyed at kids who've laughed at my wife, pulling faces at her... I hold my tongue when I hear in the workplace people doing fat jokes... I've had somebody in work telling me their neighbour goes running in shorts, but she's fat and jiggles everywhere - why can't she just cover herself up?? I didn't respond... but he still laughed hard at it. So you've been told!! Fat people can't exercise in public, at least in warm weather, unless they want to die from heat exhaustion. FYI - that colleague is thin, eats shit and smokes... but hey... your fat neighbour sucks for trying to exercise!!
There is absolutely a culture of hate against big people, usually without knowing anything about the person they're laughing / discriminating against. Well done Trevor for having the balls to post!! Fat people don't want a free ride, they just want to be able to live with some sort of dignity without all the bullshit that's thrown their way.
It is possible to change sex.
It is possible to change race to some extent, if you define "race" to include things like religion and language, which, in practice, almost everyone does: Jewish, Hispanic, ...
It is possible for someone with homosexual tendencies to adopt a purely heterosexual lifestyle.
It is not possible to make a hard distinction between "things you can control" and "things you can't control". In practice it's a continuum. It would probably be easier for me to become Judaeo-Spanish than for some overweight people to become thin like I am. I have a lot of sympathy for overweight people because I myself have a completely uncontrollable appetite. I just can't stop eating. Fortunately my metabolism can cope with it and I remain thin despite being too lazy to get any exercise.
What happened to giving the job to the best person qualified and able to do it?
It shouldn't matter what they look like or where they come from as long as they fit in with everyone else and can do the job to at least the standard required. Those are the two requirements that I have here for employing people. The first removes conflicts in the workplace and the second sees that the work is done to the standard our clients expect. To do otherwise is the quickest way to kill a business.
Now encourage a diverse set of people to start at the bottom, and then wait 5/10/20 years for them to gain the correct qualifications and experience, and hope they stay the course.
I really get fed up when activists of all sorts don't take the training/experience lead time into account when considering diversity. They absolutely need to look at the bottom of the stack, and be prepared to wait sufficient time for people to mature, rather than assuming it can be fixed just using quotas.
But rather than bitch and whine now about something that cannot be altered, because time as we know it cannot be reversed, the people wanting to change it should bite the bullet, and actually work to ensure that the correct mix of people are entering professions, whatever they are, today for the next 5/10/20 years, depending on the type of role and level.
Like many things, to achieve a particular goal, it is always necessary to make adequate preparations.
"What happened to giving the job to the best person qualified and able to do it?"
That's not what they're doing. They're trying to get more people to TURN UP to the damn interviews in the first place so that they DO find the best qualified person, not matter what they look like.
Do you really, really think that a company will choose someone with lower qualifications for a job? Are they that stupid?
Do you really, really think that a company will choose someone with lower qualifications for a job?
Yes.
Are they that stupid?
It's not stupid. It's cost/benefit. Optics matter. You don't need everyone to be a rock star. If they're competent "enough" then there can absolutely be greater value to the company in picking an individual with great optics over one that will deliver that extra few % of oomph.
If Intel doubles the finders fee to $4,000 they could just as well fund more education programs.
However, we have had 50 years of entitlements for people who wasted most of them. College Scholarships in particular. If you have good grades and are a minority, you'll get one for sure. The operative words are "Good Grades". If you coasted through high school with a "C" or less average you may not get a scholarship, but you still stand a better chance than a white person as the system is weighted in your favor.
The left perpetuates the myth that without quotas no one has an opportunity to work as a minority. Nothing could be further from the truth as in reality these quotas diminish your reputation. IE you just got the job because you were a minority, not because you were qualified. Happens every day. All you really need to get a job is a good work ethic and some opportunity.
Seen this hard quota thing happen in state & county facilities where the new hire can't even type or spell properly but got hired only because they are black. Everyone else has to compensate for the new hire (doing their work for them) and often a long term employee gets the boot to make room for the quota hire. The feds need to stop telling businesses and municipal governments who they must hire.
ALL hiring quotas are reverse discrimination. Get rid of them!
Simply hire the best fit qualified person to do the job. Specify what you want and select the candidate based on only that criteria.
As a candidate, Race, Creed, Sex shouldn't enter into the equation but wearing them as arrogant chips on your shoulder isn't going to help your chances in the job market.
The left perpetuates the myth that without quotas no one has an opportunity to work as a minority.
Apart from this, and I hate to admit it, I agree with you whole-heartedly. ;-)
America's two-party system does not really produce a "left" and a "right" but different coalitions of vested interests. For a European the union's demands for a "closed shop" (everyone must join the union) is as incomprehensible as the "right to work" states (unions are not welcome). Rinse and repeat for most other bits of legislation.
White males did get organized. Unfortunately, those who did so were awful people and the current "men's rights" movement is filled with unrepentant assholes. More's the pity, because there are very real issues regarding men's rights that need to be addressed.
So far, the best source of "not batshit crazy assclown-infested fuck brigade" organized men's rights folks I've been able to find is the Good Men Project.
The good men project is anti-masculinity, not pro-men. I've spent quite a bit of time in the men's rights community and the impression I get from looking at what they do, versus the impression you would get by reading what feminists media wants you believe they do, is very different. They are the true egalitarians.
@Craigness: bullshit.
Look, I'm an egalitarian. I'm both anti-feminist and anti-masculist. I believe both genders are different, but equal. I can even get into some pretty protracted debates about the actual biological differences that arise from hormonal deltas between the genders and how this appears to drive (and amplify) the natural instincts of both genders. Those instincts do, indeed appear be different. (For example, males seem to respond to and requie hierarchy far more than females.)
I believe that masculinity is worth preserving because it is who males are. Our instincts, our biology, our psychological requirements to live a satisfactory life, etc. You cannot simply will that all away because masculinity makes some people uncomfortable. Both genders have to come to terms with the fact that there are differences, and that these should be cherished and celebrated while maintaining equality between the genders.
That said, there are damned few men's rights organizations that aren't batshit crazy misogynists. Most are outright abusive towards women's groups.
I'm not saying that there aren't some extremist feminist groups out there that purposefully set about to push everyone's buttons. There absolutely are. But most men's rights organizations go after even the egalitarian feminists or egalitarian masculists.
The men's rights movement has been compromised. It is corrupt from within. It is populated by conservative angry white males who want nothing more than to preserve their positions of traditional power and to spread hate. Those guys need to be kicked in the testicles over and over and over again. They're worse than the extremist feminists because they are using a position of power to keep people oppressed rather than fighting to free their people. They're douches and I have zero respect for them.
But there are egalitarian men who are working towards positive gender relations whilst still attempting to address the very real men's rights issues that exist. Issues such as maternal preference in custody battles and cultural norms which view men as disposable (especially in military situations).
The Good Men Project is not perfect. I agree that they work a little bit too hard to downplay masculinity. But they are the best option available for men seeking to address cultural gender grievances whilst working towards equality.
I wish there were better options. There aren't. Every time someone tried to have a rational discussion about this topic extremists from both sides jump in and the hold thing goes to shit.
So The Good Men Project deserves our support. They've walked a careful line of keeping the support of the majority of the feminist movements while advancing the cause of men's rights. They have had to make some compromises to do it, but they are the best chance we have of actually seeing the very real issues of men's rights actually get addressed.
If what you want is traditional gender roles where women are subservient to dominant males, too bad. That isn't returning. Hopefully ever.
With luck, however, we can retain elements of masculinity that interoperate with our instincts and hormones in a workable fashion while achieving both an egalitarian society and addressing extant prejudices against both men and women. Isn't that the goal we as men should all be working towards?
+1 from me Trevor. I don't know a thing about mens rights movements, but what you've said there is the sanest thing I've seen on the subject since I read Dale Spender's notions re feminism and stopped fretting about men being the enemy (as in DS pointed out that men aren't the enemy, they're a part of the problem, just as women are; the overarching problem is societal attitudes and expectations)
Thank you, Esme. I hope you one day understand just how much a single positive comment can mean to someone. Especially someone with self-esteem issues who feels they're fighting an uphill battle (in this case, for equality and men's issues.)
I can't explain how much it means. I lack that skill. But she can.
Cheers!
I've listened to them, a lot, and I share Craigness's opinion. I am not even remotely conservative on these issues and I view the regressive approach with much disdain and I'm far happier with most MRAs than Good Men Project. I've seen conservatards here and there, like Janet Bloomfield, but I don't think that's an honest way to judge a movement nor is it a good reason to smear people. I've also seen the extent to which people, particularly journalists, will trip over themselves in a mad dash to smear them and will just make things up if they need to. God knows what you're even basing your opinion on.
"because they are using a position of power to keep people oppressed"
The idea that MRAs have a position of power is absolutely insane and you have to be insane to hold this position. You shouldn't be taken seriously on the topic.
Men have a position of power. Like it or not, we were born into it. the social justice warrior whackjobs don't get a hell of a lot right, but there is such a thing as privilege, and most of us refuse to acknowledge it.
I hate feminists are they have come to be portrayed by the loud (and typically extreme) portions of the movement. They are anti-men. They don't want equality, or merely to "tear down the patriarchy", they want to subjugate men. To sideline them.
Extremist feminists want to control men by striping them of what makes them men by using guilt and shame as weapons to convince every man alive to actively suppress his instincts. They won't tell you how that is supposed to be accomplished. But they demand we all do it.
Men's rights activists are the opposite side of the coin. The loudest - and best funded - groups are blatantly misogynist. They want to return to traditional gender roles. They want ot preserve not simply masculinity (which I describe as a recognition of and even celebration of our gender-based instincts) but the culture of machismo that has been so damaging to both genders.
You ask what I base this on. I base this on a long, miserable, depression-filled search fro some form of identity and community belonging. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism is massively damaging to the notion of equality. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism is want me, as a man, to be ashamed of being a man. I felt - and I feel - that mainstream feminism wants me to feel guilty for what other people did - and do - as though my gender makes me associated with (and guilty of) their crimes.
More importantly, I felt - and I feel - that there are very real issues with today's culture, laws and social norms that are highly discriminatory towards men.
So this drove me towards men's rights groups. ON the face of it, they seem like great people. They talk about the things that bother me. The social and legal ills that I fear. When there are jut men in the room (or non-threatening, submissive women) they mouth platitudes about equality and seem like great guys.
But in every single case they are, as a group, absolutely awful to actual women. They are dismissive, condescending, demanding, domineering and hostile to any women that questions or challenges them in any way.
The men's rights groups have a very thin veneer of civility that takes next to nothing to scratch through. Once triggered, they come out swinging and what they say is appalling.
Over and over and over again they dismiss the very real concerns of women's groups. They don't try to find a workable compromise or a middle ground, they demand a return to previous norms: the ones that ensured men were dominant and kept them there.
Virtually every men's rights group I've investigated - and I've looked into most of them in North America - essentially refuse to admit that society was fucked up when men were in charge of things. They refuse to admit that changes are, in fact, required if we are to achieve and then maintain a culture of gender equality.
I don't buy that I should be guilty of the sins of someone else's grandfather. But by the same token I would be a fool not to admit that the society of those times was less than ideal.
This lead me to The Good Men Project.
These guys are far down the road of "men need to compromise who and what they are". I agree with that. But I'm not sure I agree that they're too far. They aren't merely doormats or patsies for the ultrafeminist loudmouths. The Good Men Project is trying to find a workable balance between the sexes that is actually sustainable in the long run.
This will require that men change how they think about our position in society. It will require that we learn, and then teach methods and techniques of controlling our instincts in public.
It also means that we need to acknowledge that our instincts are different from those of women. It means that we need to create socially acceptable outlets and that we need to build a society that doesn't attempt to suppress masculinity in favour of some fales (and ultimately extremely dangerous) docility.
Men are hunters. We are predators. We have a natural instinct to establish hierarchies and defend our place in them. We feed on adrenaline and competition, but we also care deeply for others and are capable of the most tender acts of compassion, joy and love.
All sides of both genders need to be accepted. They need to be celebrated. They need to be understood, controlled and given release.
This is what The Good Men Project seeks to do. They aren't perfect. They aren't even - in my opinion - currently on the right track. But they are the only publicly visible group of men trying. More importantly, they're the only ones trying to achieve this "new masculinity" in conjunction with women, rather than trying to simply dictate to them what the social norms of our gender are and how we will behave.
Men's rights activists are far - far - too wrapped up in "us or them". Women's groups - at least the loud and well funded ones - absolutely are guilty of the same sin.
"Us or them" is a false, idiotic and dangerous dichotomy. We are different, but equal. The same, but with uniqueness. We are two sides of a coin and we have to share this world together.
Maybe we should focus our energy on trying to do just that, instead of trying to draw arbitrary distinctions that serve only to aggravate and inflame.
Being a man can still mean loving fighter jets and loud cars and things that go boom. It can still be about the adrenaline kick and competitiveness and a little recreational chest thumping. It doesn't need to be about "us or them". It doesn't need to be about exclusion. And it doesn't need to be about hate.
Idk if I buy into male privilege theory and the notion of a patriarchy any more. I look at the many, many guys I know, and I just fail to see it. You're absolutely killing it in the comments here btw, just that one bit stuck out (well, that and the implication in another post that extreme feminists aren't equally as self-serving as the Men's Rights groups you mentioned).
To me the idea that all men have social power seems too simplistic and not inclusive of many other factors. One that social justice types love to ignore (usually because it's a privilege they have and benefit from immensely) is class, and another is age (take aircon temperature "sexism" as an example there, or all the men that get put out to pasture in tech long before retirement age).
I don't particularly have any feelings either way towards Intel upping its bounty (or that it has one in the first place). I just wish our education system provided a better environment for nurturing intetests in STEM subjects early on, for everyone. Large class sizes and teaching to test probably play a part there.
Sorry, but male - especially white male - privileged does exist. It's the part where we can go to a job interview and not thing "am I going to not get this job because of my gender or skin colour?" It's the part where we go through customs and don't have to thing to ourselves "am I going to get locked up for bullshit reasons?" It's the part where we don't get drugs planted on us during a stop and frisk, or tased to death for looking at a cop wrong when pulled over for speeding.
White privileged isn't a club card. It's not the stonecutters with a secret door to a room filled with wonders where the Illuminati plan the future. It's the ability to live our lives without having to think a hundred times a day if about our safety (physical or sexual). It's the ability to go days, weeks or months without thinking about whether we're being discriminated against.
Our privilege is that we don't have to put up with being dismissed out of hand because we can't possibly know what we're talking about, based on nothing more than gender or colour. That's white male privilege, and unless you're completely paranoid, you live it every day.
I agree with you 100% that class plays a far bigger role in today's society than race or gender. If this were a longer conversation I'd throw many other factors in there too. That's sort of what I've been getting at in these comments: this isn't a conversation that can only be had by discussing one dimension at a time.
Those of us who have it good need to learn how good we have it. And we all need to work on treating everyone equally, and with respect and dignity. Regardless of the group to which the person belongs.
That's the multi-dimensional thing. We're all part of a lot of different groups. So maybe we should stop begin dicks to identifiable groups so that, in the fullness of time, people will stop begin dicks to us.
Obey Wheaton's law: don't be a dick.
Really, there shouldn't need to be more to it than that.
Let's not get panicky.
I'm not sure it's right to assume that competent employees are either qualified /or/ diverse. Nor is it reasonable to fear that if you're not a minority then you'll be discriminated against, somehow.
It seems more likely to me that the company perceives in itself a monoculture, and is concerned that monocultures don't fare well in the long term. In order to avoid some future technological potato famine, they may simply be looking to hedge their bets.
Also, different points of view may help them gain insight into different markets, and so on, so it's not the worst idea from that angle, either.
Rest assured, there's always a market for excellence, even if you are a white male.
'Rest assured, there's always a market for excellence, even if you are a white male.' - I'd be interested in how you would react if you were not hired and was told it wasn't because of your excellence, it was because of your skin colour/sexual orientation
Discrimination either way is bad
"where are smaller companies supposed to find individuals to meet their quotas? What are the actual targets? Are they set based on simple perpetual ratcheting or population at large ratios?"
Short answer, population at large ratio, and who knows where smaller businesses are supposed to find whoever. This practice is actually illegal, but the responsible enforcement agency does not enforce the rules as written. Long answer:
What is supposed to happen, the EEOC is (as far as I know) complaint-based, they don't regularly investigate companies or anything. If the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commssion) gets a complaint, they are supposed to make sure an employer is not discriminating in hiring, period (they aren't supposed to care what the gender or ethnic makeup of a company is). The only requirement is to be able to show that there is no discrimination in the job listing itself, no discrimination in where it's listed, and that the hiring practice itself is not discriminatory. Other than the obvious actual discrimination, the main ways to get in trouble are to, for example, list your ads only in Maxim (a men's magazine), then someone could complain that women would then have no chance to see the ad. Or, have someone show that they were not hired despite having better qualifications than the person who was hired. There's no requirement whatsoever that the population of a company has any particular makeup, just that everyone has an equal opportunity, in recognition of the fact that some jobs just don't draw everyone in equally. And in fact, if a company does hire fairly, they will not run into any problems.
That's the theory. In *PRACTICE*, some companies regularly have (illegal) race and gender-based set-asides, (illegally) will have things like Intel here where they will have higher bounties based on race or gender, and (illegally) sometimes even set different hiring requirements based on race and gender, to try to bring (insert race or gender here) up to the percentage of the population in the local area. This violates both the letter and spirit of the EEOC rules and laws, since clearly favoring one group over another violates equal employment opportunity. Of course, if a company is majority minority or women, there's no expectation that they should hire more men to match the local population. The responsible agencies look the other way, and view this as a proper way to ensure employment opportunty, instead of, you know, expecting companies to actually ensure equal employment opportunity.
" "White males did get organized. Unfortunately, those who did so were awful people and the current "men's rights" movement is filled with unrepentant assholes"
Yep, some are assholes, and the other problem has been the widespread racist view that every white male in the US can just do the secret handshake or whatever and get whatever great-paying job they want. So, if anyone even broaches this subject, someone will (racistly) complain about "entitled white males" and the discussion grinds to a dead halt. Don't get me wrong, as a white male I think these entitled white males *do* exist (wealthy, know "the right people" so they can kind of do what they want.) But the rest are in the same boat as everyone else. Of course just like any racist belief, one can see it's not true with their own eyes (why would there be any white males working at McDonals if they were all that entitled?) but facts don't get in the way of people believing it
In the current climate of there never being enough competent tech workers, surely any company that uses any criteria other than technical competence when selecting a new employee will eventually darwinate itself out of existence. I know my employer is desperate to find competent IT people, regardless of any other criteria.
There are fewer women working in IT because there are fewer studying IT at uni and fewer playing with IT at high school. If you want more in tech roles, concentrate on getting more into the market. This is the same reason for there being fewer men in teaching or nursing - less of them study for the profession at uni. If you want to balance these out, remove the social disincentives of these career choices at high school and college; quotas at hiring time will not help as the candidates are simply not there.
That's exactly the problem: companies *have* been hiring on criteria other than technical competence: men have been hired over women with the same qualifications in the past. This is about redressing the balance.
And they have been working with schools, but sadly only relatively recently - and the effects won't be seen for about another decade. Until then, what do you do? Rest on your laurels, or ensure that there are great role models to look up to?
There appears to be some misunderstanding and FUD in the comments about what's happening.
Many large tech corps are finding that their monocultures are to their disadvantage. So in Intel's case _amongst other measures_ they are _also_ offering a signing bonus for the people they consider to be lacking in presence.
This doesn't mean that they're hiring less qualified women over men! It means that nowhere near representative numbers of women are applying for the jobs in the first place. What they want is a larger pool of qualified candidates in the first place.
Quotas aren't being forced upon them, most definitely not upon small companies.
And in fact, the Norwegians found that board-level quotas do kinda work: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/women-on-board-norway-s-experience-shows-compulsory-quotas-work-a-705209.html
It's difficult for us as men (particularly those of us at the very top of the pyramid: white, male, middle-aged, straight) to even _see_ the huge hurdles that women, ethnic minorities, & LGBT people face in their daily working lives. As a female colleague said to me: "women just have to adapt to the man's world". Those who don't, don't survive, unfortunately: and we lose great talents because of it.
So companies are already using a multi-pronged approach:
- incentives to employ more minorities
- improvement of company culture
- encouraging young minorities to pursue STEM education
Now, which one of these provides the quickest initial results?
Please, I urge those of you who don't see a problem, to go and actually talk to women and other minorities in IT and ask what their working life's really like: you'll be surprised, just as I was.
We all have problems, mate. In this case, some groups have won the right to have theirs considered important, that's all. Some of us haven't. Some of us may never. And some of us are vilified, marginalized and pilloried for things other people did.
The issue isn't nearly so black and white as you're painting it, nor is affirmative action objectively "moral". It might be moral, given the context of your other beliefs (and if you are unaware, or simply don't care about other issues affecting other groups). It might not be moral,, given the context of your other beliefs (especially those who strong believers in meritocracy).
It's clear that the old ways aren't the path forward. There does absolutely exist subconscious prejudices that many individuals engage in during the hiring process, even if they attempt to guard against it. That said, the constant march to homogenize corporate culture to be as politically correct as possible and pretend everyone is exactly the same does push out individuals in other groups who can't function in that sort of environment.
People are complicated. To advance some we need to restrict others. Telling everyone how we much behave and what we must believe pushes those who aren't normative to the fringes...even if they are decent, well meaning folk who don't want to discriminate against anyone.
But that is a difficult narrative, isn't it? It doesn't fit a simplistic blame model and it doesn't make for easy villains.
I hope future generations of newly marginalized groups succeed in wining their own rights to be heard in future generations. For now, sadly, it seems we simply have to accept that finding a way to tackle pervasive subconscious prejudice against women and visible minorities will have causalities.
How unintended you view those casualties to be depends on how cynical you are.
Trevor, normally I agree with your comments; but your comments here are very naive and demonstrate the importance (in my view) of the need for people to move and spend several years in different countries and realize that the world is very diverse. Most N Americans never leave N America except on short vacations (Cuba/Mexico), and can get sucked into the view point that their world view is the only world view. In reflection this really is a first world issue and has as much impact on reality as a twitter campaign to free 300 odd captured school girls by a armed group.
Again in hindsight especially as Canada is a racist country and having experienced racial abuse in Canada (despite being white and male I was born in the wrong country apparently and had the wrong accent), I would recommend moving out of Canada for several years to a non N American country and experiencing that world view.
As for 'For now, sadly, it seems we simply have to accept that finding a way to tackle pervasive subconscious prejudice against women and visible minorities will have causalities.' would have resulted in no feminist movement etc as those groups would have just accepted the status quo and not prompted change.
As for 'For now, sadly, it seems we simply have to accept that finding a way to tackle pervasive subconscious prejudice against women and visible minorities will have causalities.' would have resulted in no feminist movement etc as those groups would have just accepted the status quo and not prompted change.
*sigh*
Look: feminism - at least in the western sphere of influence - has already won the overt battles. I don't disagree at all that feminism needed to exist as a movement, rally the troops, march int eh streets and get all uppity in everyone's face. I applaud those women (and men) who sought change and fought viciously against some very entrenched power structures, many paying a heavy price along the way. I consider them to be brave, even heroes, and they should be role models for all of humanity.
That said, that part of the war is over. Legal equality is (for the most part) won. What remains now is "hearts and minds". It's a different kind of battle, and one that will take a different kind of approach.
You are confusing history with the present; past misdeeds, events and battles with the who and how and why of today. Sadly, that's very typical of the movement.
After a time, warriors know nothing but fighting. And rebels usually become just as bad as those they sought to displace.
It's time to work on reintegrating the warriors of feminism into the rest of society, and on working the "soft skills" portion of the equality angle. That's a longer, harder, more subtle battle.
One that can't be won with the twin blades of guilt and shame.
"Many large tech corps are finding that their monocultures are to their disadvantage."
In what way? And by the way it's not a monoculture. You'll notice a large number of Asians represented at any mid to large sized tech company. Why? Because it's a numbers game. More of them are prepared to put in the effort to study STEM subjects and so ultimately there's a larger pool of Asian candidates for companies to choose from. This proves that it's got nothing to do with discrimination on the part of companies.
Dear Trevor, I read your comment about your weight and the fact that you have to buy 2 seats when travelling. I am overweight by about 3 stone and have been since I was a teenager, it has caused me severe self-esteem, confidence issues and general unhappyness. I can't imagine how it must be for you. I am sending you an electronic hug.
So far, most of the discussion has been about men and womens rights.
My question for you is:
Is it scientifically true that the American Black AVERAGE IQ is 85, against the American White AVERAGE of 100, and the East Asian AVERAGE of 105?
https://www.google.com/search?q=average+black+iq
I've already got me coat
Maybe you should research more about how black culture vilifies anyone who shows their intelligence?
How Sports is the only thing that most of them have been told is their way out of poverty? What's that perhaps 1-2% of total population and a 5-10 year lifespan max?
How the Media has glorified the "Thug Life" and presented that as the way out? Too many TV shows, Celebutards, and dealers pushing that mindset.
How ALL EDUCATORS have completely failed black and poor students by pushing them out of grade school when they can't read, write or do simple arithmetic? Hold them back until they learn the material, you'll be doing them a favor. They will be more employable and thus less poor.
How the Left has made continual excuses for these students blaming everyone but the students themselves for their poor grades? Stop the brainwashing! Don't let them drop out anymore.
How they've heard the same baloney for 40 years that young blacks believe they can't be better than they are? Change their mindsets by telling the truth and stop the apologists from lying.
How about hiring the right person for the job despite the colour of their skin or gender. This is discrimination.
I used to work for a gov't agency, they did the same thing. They wanted to be diverse so much that they hired a bunch of incompetents instead of the right person for the right job.
A few years ago, the BBC's ethnic diversity team was made up of only black people.
It amazed me that no-one thought this lacked diversity...
When a woman gets a job over a man, she is empowered, when a man get a job over a woman it is sexist.
I will (and do) hire women who have the skills for the job.
I am still not hiring pregnant people, I'm child free and I don't intend to pay (personally or through my privately owned company) for anyone else's children beyond normal taxation. But don't fret, my company is not in the UK, its in a country where they are not working hard to cripple any and all business.
Isn't it just as racist to accept a black or latino for a position over a Caucasian because of their race, than the opposite? Or just as sexist to accept a female over a male for her sex than the opposite? Congratulations Intel, we know you don't hate blacks, latinos, or women. You can now stop being racist and sexist and accept the best qualified candidates blindly.
I wouldn't care if the workforce was 100% black women or white male, so long as it was evident that was not due to racial or gender profiling, but because most/all qualified candidates happened to be that race/sex. I would care more than an underqualified minority was hired for the sake of "political correctness."
REVERSE RACISM IS STILL RACISM. Employers should be blind to gender and race.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
