Discrimination against (and abuse/marginalization/humiliation of) men has long been considered socially acceptable, and I'd go so far as to say that it has even been encouraged. Men will destroy other men to obtain the favor of women and many women use this behavioral tendency to control men. It's been going on since before almost everyone reading Slashdot was born. Here's one article on the subject; it's an excellent read which I will only excerpt a tiny part of.

"White Feather" Feminism: The Recalcitrant Progeny of Radical Suffragist and Conservative Pro-War Britain

"It was in this atmosphere that Admiral Charles Penrose Fitzgerald organized a group of thirty women to help “convince” the men of Britain to join in the fight against the German enemy. It was the tactical objective of this group to shame civilian men into joining the armed services. This aim was to be accomplished by public humiliation -- the women handing out white feathers to any man who did not wear a uniform. “The Order of the White Feather” and their recruiting methods quickly spread across Britain. Women of all backgrounds contributed their influence to the war effort (Gullace, "White Feathers" 178). The zeal and the scope of this gendered phenomenon was paralleled only by the contemporaneous movement for suffrage -- a movement which, right before the war, had reached a radical pitch. It is in the radical nature of “The White Feather Brigade” -- the confrontational method which was employed by these women toward men -- that a tactical tie is evidenced between the pro-suffrage and pro-enlistment movements. It is in the motives and movements of Emmeline Pankhurst that an ideological connection is discovered between the feminine pro-war demonstration of the “White Feather Girls” and the Suffragists."

> "Call him a bunch of nasty names! Bring up the behavior of shitty truly oppressive countries as if they have any relevance to issues in Western societies! Pull up in a dump truck full of logical fallacies and pull the lever!!! PROBLEM SOLVED."

Whether I am insane or not, you're clearly lacking any remotely logical arguments. Do you wish to continue "debating" by pounding the table and screaming?

Isn't it interesting that the bullying forces of third-wave "Tumblr feminism" have brought this type of behavior about? The ridiculous push to forcibly stuff more women into "tech" by whatever means necessary is no different than the highly restrictive (and largely eliminated for at least two decades) gender roles these people claim to be attempting to destroy. What they're doing is not liberating women. It's simply redefining what women's forced gender roles "should" be and stripping women of their agency in the process. The Tumblr feminists are the ones that need to "shut up and listen" to the women that are saying "this is what I want to do with my life." Who are they to force a different path upon them?

We live in a society where moral crusaders demand that women be liberated from their chains by wearing a different set of chains.

The irony. It burns.

An opinionated article on Slate is not a scientifically valid source. This article is what some refer to as "feelz over reals."

I would, if I had such a burden to bear. I'm sufficiently closer to the "sane" point on that spectrum ;-) though my wallet is not so fat for it.

I don't think any sane and relatively decent person actually wants to be a CEO of a large corporation, or at least not for very long. The personal sacrifices are high and the way you have to act towards other people can be difficult to live with.

When people can discuss "toxic femininity" without fear of vigilantes getting them fired, you can come back and tell us about the wonders of equality. Until then, men are the more oppressed sex, as evidenced by the fact that it's socially acceptable to talk shit about them but it's not okay to behave that way towards women.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
http://www.parenting.com/artic...
Also, a documentary that examines and discusses the subject in depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The article uses a bone stock FX-9590 against very heavily overclocked (around 150% of factory maximum specs) and water-cooled Intel setups, plus saddles the AMD chip with high RAM latencies even compared to the Intel chips using the same frequency of DDR3 RAM. I'm aware that the 9590 is essentially an FX-8370 that binned very well and got a clock boost from the factory because of it, but AMD has had these chips up to 8.7 GHz and HardOCP tested it at bone stock with poorly configured RAM. They could have at least given the AMD chip some overclocking, fancy cooling, and the same RAM latency figures. That would have been more apples-to-apples.

Here's a review that tested all the chips at stock settings with more typical RAM configurations. It's also the article from which the price-to-performance bar chart was derived (compared against Newegg retail prices) and is representative of what a typical system builder who is not taking the risks involved in overclocking can expect from the hardware. Here are a few more benchmarks of x264 which is what I cared about when buying a desktop CPU.

Until the stock performance numbers divided by the price come out higher on the Intel side, the AMD is the better value if you don't want to heavily overclock your chip and void your warranty. Intel has always had faster CPUs available than AMD, but they have always carried a significantly higher price tag. I'd prefer to have that money to buy something else like an SSD or more RAM. For other people, low power consumption or higher maximum performance may matter far more to them than the price tag, and I don't begrudge their choice to get Intel chips because that's what meets their needs.

A $2 screen guard protects your $200 phone investment. The guard isn't an investment, it's a cheap and disposable item whose only purpose is to minimize damage to the much more expensive product it's attached to. Of course a $200 lavish dinner is not an investment; if you've got $200 to blow on one meal, your threshold for what is a disposable item and what is not is higher than that of an average person.

An "investment" in colloquial usage within the context of retail goods is obtaining something that you need to remain working for a significant period of time. If something is relatively very cheap, the financial barrier to replacing it is low, thus if it breaks you just go get another one. If something is relatively expensive (let's say a $1200 computer which you had to save money for three months to afford) then you can't replace it easily if it breaks, so you purchase carefully and with greater importance placed on long term reliability. That's the only reason the purchase of a consumer good that will only ever depreciate in market value is called "an investment." Contrary to your assertions that "price based definition makes no sense, does not fit reality, and is totally stupid," it does in fact make perfect sense, is based entirely in reality, and is quite correct.

That 220W CPU beats most of Intel's high-end consumer grade offerings in everything but finding prime numbers and pi digits once you start dividing the real-world performance numbers by the cost of the chip. If you absolutely need to get maximum performance from a single die (in which case you're probably looking at server processors anyway), the massive price premium of Intel chips may be worth it, but the 220W AMD chip is a much better deal. I constantly read arguments stating that Intel is better than AMD because of their superior processes and lower power consumption. While impressive and certainly helpful if you're looking for a low-wattage CPU for a laptop or tablet (I chose a ULV i3 for my laptop), on a desktop I just want to process some video and crank some data through 7-Zip, and AMD's offering costs way less while offering the same effective performance. https://nctritech.files.wordpr...

I would like to sign up to your mailing list for more information on this subject.

Anything that's over $1000 is an investment. Hell, anything over $100 is probably an investment. My phone was $199; I consider it to be an investment, and I've had it for almost two years. $200 laser printer? Investment. Now the $45 Raspberry Pi? That's not an investment, that's a toy, and it is priced accordingly.

A good engineer would offer to build them one that goes to 12.