https://www.wired.com/story/grace-hopper-celebration-career-fair-men/
The Grace Hopper Celebration is meant to unite women in tech. This year droves of men came looking for jobs.
The Grace Hopper Celebration is meant to unite women in tech. This year droves of men came looking for jobs.
This really sounds like a failure of the organizers more than anything- first off, lumping in non-binary is a catch all that anyone will take advantage of, and second and most importantly, everyone was complaining about long lines. Long lines means lots of people. Lots of people means the event over-sold their $600-$1000 tickets.
Sounds like the event organizers were more interested in making money than helping women in tech- women would have had the same problems had it been 100% women.
Edit: I’m not bashing non binary people, I’m just saying that people will take advantage of it, that’s all.
Including non-binary people was not the problem. Relevant quote:
"AnitaB.org, the nonprofit that runs the conference, said there was “an increase in participation of self-identifying males” at this year’s event. The nonprofit says it believes allyship from men is important and noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US."
They identified as male, not non-binary, and the event allowed men to come.
So they identified as men, and the event allowed the men to come? Then I'm failing to see what the issue is?
The problem is, the event's not allowed to discriminate officially. The article is about lamenting the ability to discriminate
I'm sure so many people right now have that shit eating grin, especially after reading
The nonprofit says it believes allyship from men is important and noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US.
the article quotes a bunch of people frustrated at pushing, shoving, line cutting etc at the job fair portion that weren't visiting presentations - basically people who didn't want to listen to the speeches but wanted to throw out resumes, fuck everyone else.
IMO they could solve the problem with a stamp system for people who sat through a presentation but its kind of shitty to have to treat everyone like kids because a couple dudes can't behave themselves.
It also mentioned how some were lying about their identity, but I'm not sure how they figured that out
What are the genders of non-binary?
And while you're here, is yellow more of a blue or red?
Yellow is far closer to red than blue... it has a wavelength of ~570 nm, while red is ~615 nm and blue ~470 nm.
Edit, mistake
This is like saying that I'm closer to being a New Yorker than a Californian, because I live in North Carolina.
Sure, something is "closer", but it is completely distinct and has little to do with either.
you have to specify what genders of nonbinary are/aren’t welcome
"Genders of nonbinary"
My friend, nonbinary is a gender. This is like asking what type of bird a chicken is.
I knew it. I felt it the second I typed it that there was something wrong with the analogy and someone who knows birds more than me would come along and point it out. I posted the analogy anyway. That's on me.
Nonbinary is a category of genders much like intersex is a category of sexes. It contains everything from agender to bigender to demigenders and all sorts of others. Much like how intersex can mean anything from completely ambiguous reproductive structures to anomalies of the sex chromosomes to natural hormone imbalance starting at puberty as well as several other traits. Sometimes it’s relevant to narrow it down.
what genders of nonbinary are/aren’t welcome
Like, intergender is fine, but genderless is not...? or the other way around?
If this group organized and got on the phone to coordinate the employers to show up, they have every right to make the job fair for whoever they like I would think.
Tangentially related, but are job fairs even worth it? In my limited experience, you wait in a long line for someone to tell you to apply online. I was better off getting a list of employers who were attending, and then looking through each of their websites.
I think I figured it out... only rarely you'd get immediate interviews, but the idea is you get LinkedIn contacts to chat with later and industry insight, and something to tell recruiters/hiring managers that you did, but you dress it up in a way that shows you look for opportunity like "I met members of [industry/company] at a recruiting conference in [town]". I found industry conferences to be more useful than jobfairs in this respect, but those can be a little to a lot expensive.
Otherwise it's pretty much just being told to scan QR codes, business cards and maybe getting a couple plastic cups and pens.
All in all I say job hunting is such an awful game.
No. Mostly you run around collect business cards and then go online to apply for the jobs.. that you could have done without going to the job fair in the first place.
TBH It's a huge red flag if a recruiter wants upfront payment with no guarantee at the end of it (or even if they 'guarantee' one). If the recruiters are so desperate for someone they want to organise a job fair, they can bloody well pay for it themselves.
Also watch out for the recruiters who give you a challenge to fulfill just to be considered. It’s free work they are looking for.
My experience of going to a tech fair was:
They're basically box-ticking exercises for companies that want to work with specific organisations.
I remember when a lady tried to scam me into an MLM at a job fair I attended several years ago.
I got scammed into attending a seminar for "business women empowering business women." It was just this lady giving a talk about what a great job coach she is and then pressuring everyone into hiring her for $300 per month. She saw me as a mark and was really targeting me, I actually wrote the check for her first three months and was about to hand it to her, but saw the look in her eyes, looking at my check and realized I should just tear it up.
That's been my experience as well. Totally pointless when they just want you to apply online. What's the use of networking then?
I've been on the opposite side. A company I used to work for did a table at a job fair once. The candidates who showed up to talk to us were mostly under qualified for the entry level position we were trying to fill. And by that, I mean that people with zero knowledge, training or experience in our industry. Even one class or a little knowledge might have sufficed.
We had one guy lingering near our table who really seemed to want to work with us even though his skill set didn't fit our needs at all and we told him as much. The whole thing was a big waste of time for us, we never did another one after that.
under qualified for the entry level position we were trying to fill.
Was it really "entry level" then?
Entry level means different things in different fields. Most skilled jobs do require some knowledge about the field, but don't necessarily require previous work experience.
Thank you. This wasn't a joke where we were like "entry level; requires 5 years of experience". This job fair was at a community college... So it wouldn't have been unreasonable to think that maybe someone there had some interest and at least a minimal level of training. Like I said, a class or two.
If "one class" or "a little knowledge" is enough, then yes, assuming it's a position with advancement opportunities.
For a desirable or career type position, showing some initiative is not an unreasonable ask.
Yes. This wasn't an open "literally anyone can do it" job. It's entry level as in starting a path to a career. A certain aptitude is definitely necessary.
Let me ask you this, is a job that requires a two year degree and zero years of experience entry level? Because our requirements were even less than that.
I don't know why you're trying to convince me, its obvious its not as "entry level" as you thought, ans you cant find employees because the pay is very much "entry level".
This.
"Entry-level" is employerese for, "a professional position for which we don't want to pay a professional rate".
Guessing from your username you've encountered plenty of hiring managers looking for someone with multiple years experience in their specific niche field on exactly the software they use...for their entry level position that they want to pay less than 2x minimum wage.
The last time I was job hunting, I thought there had to be a typo so I actually responded to an ad for a CAD drafter to fill an "entry level" position that they wanted ten years of experience to fill.
I had the experience, so I figured I'd see what was going on. Surely someone along the hiring pipeline had screwed something up
Nope!
They really wanted a CAD drafter with a decade of experience for their entry level position to work for like $14/hr.
When I told them how unrealistic that was, the response was something to the effect of "When we say entry level, we mean it as entry into our company. The pay may seem low but this will give you the opportunity to quickly earn raises as you take advantage of your employment in our great organization!"
They really wanted a CAD drafter with a decade of experience for their entry level position to work for like $14/hr.
Ha! Good luck with that. You might be able to hire a kid out of high school who got to try solidworks for 30 minutes one afternoon for that much.
And you're right, I've seen it. One place I talked to had some obscure CAD software I'd never heard of, they wanted someone who could just sit down and use it with no instruction, they were 40 miles from the nearest "major" city, and they wanted to pay $13 per hour, $14 for "the right person". Nope.
It used to be once upon a time. Because companies invested in people and fully trained them themselves.
Yes I know, times have changed.
is a job that requires a two year degree and zero years of experience entry level?
Imo no, though companies use the term "entry level" VERY loosely.
Many career paths will substitute experience for a degree. But there need to be true entry level jobs to give them that experience.
It's okay if you want someone who's taken classes specific to your field, but I think it's misleading to then call the job "entry level".
Sort of. "Unskilled labor" implies a certain job sector. I'm taking about the role that is currently served by internships, temp-to-hire, apprenticeships, on the job certifications, and people who lie about their experience and then underperform while they learn the role.
I guess I'd say "no prior experience needed" rather than "unskilled labor". The work itself can be "skilled" but the job applicant isn't (yet).
No matter how "skilled" you get at retail, it will always be considered "unskilled labor". That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the company that takes on a temp worker witg no prior experience, with the possibility of full time hire if they show promise. That's "entry-level".
>hiring for entry level
>saying people are underqualified
The problem is with the companies, not the job seekers. Actually offer true entry level positions, and actually hire the people that apply.
Entry level doesn't necessarily mean literally anyone can do it. What I meant was basically first job out of college. Except you could apply while you were still in college. If that isn't entry level, I don't know what is.
Yeah those sorts of positions are usually locked to college students. So once you graduate you can no longer apply despite those being the positions you're qualified for.
If recruiters are trying to discriminate, and you have the attributes they're discriminating in favor of, getting a face-to-face with them can be a way to get your foot in the door that doesn't leave a paper trail.
Which really highlights how bad the job market is now. All the recruiters at this job fair are going to share the sentiments the organizers are expressing in this article. They're there to hire women and are pissed at all the men who showed up, so significantly less likely to hire them... but those dudes are so desperate they still gave it a shot.
Which really highlights how bad the job market is now
I think we should specify, "in tech". The greater job market is doing fine. Tech has been over hiring and over compensating for years.
I'm a woman and wasn't even at the event. No clue it was going on, and it seems like it'd be far too expensive for me to attend in the first place. If they're looking for women who are eager to work for them, they're looking in the wrong place.
That's been my experience as well. Totally pointless when they just want you to apply online. What's the use of networking then?
It depends on the job fair. My mid-tier university's career fair was as you describe. From talking to (women) classmates who attended Grace Hopper on the other hand it sounded very worth it. The lines were short (in the mid 2010s anyway) and many of the companies in attendance were scheduling next-day, single round interviews with job offers sent out by the end of the week. I have no idea if it's still like that but I can't say I'm surprised that, given how the tightly pool of entry-level jobs offering visa sponsorships has contracted, affected male students have gotten desperate and shameless enough to try it.
I like how this comment section highlights why a job fair specifically not for cis men is needed lol
And article makes it clear what is to blame
The nonprofit says it believes allyship from men is important and noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US.
lol
Yeah, this sucks. It doesn't surprise me, but it sucks. So many manchildren out there who only think about themselves.
Yeah if there’s ever a sign that a group doesn’t need representation is when they brigade someone who does.
No it does not. The problem was with men that lied about their gender.
Cullen White, AnitaB.org’s chief impact officer, said in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, that some registrants had lied about their gender identity when signing up, and men were now taking up space and time with recruiters that should go to women.
edit: the deleted comment stated that the article claimed they had problems with amab enbies
This comment section is a perfect example of how capitalists have won the class war. Such hatred for half of the population of the world that people seem to have forgotten that people need jobs to survive.
All of those are limited resources to which you have no right,” White said.
But then earlier:
The nonprofit says it believes allyship from men is important and noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US.
So... We'd like to discriminate against men and would conversely see no problem if someone else hosted male only hiring events...?
Cullen White, AnitaB.org’s chief impact officer, said in a video posted to X, formerly Twitter, that some registrants had lied about their gender identity when signing up, and men were now taking up space and time with recruiters that should go to women. “All of those are limited resources to which you have no right,” White said. AnitaB.org did not respond to a request for comment.
Who picks their gender identity? The individuals or Cullen White? If anything this underscores the insanity of identity politics. If gender is whatever an individual feels like, then this event was just thousands of women and non-binary folks, and White needs to stop being such a bigot. However I think most of us understand that this is nonsense.
Gender is indeed based on what an individual feels like. That's a perfectly reasonable way to categorize people - it's also for example what religion is based on. It's just hard to implement systems where you give different rights to different genders when there's no way to check what gender someone is besides asking them. Probably the best solution is to just treat people the same regardless of gender so nobody has an incentive to lie.
Probably the best solution is to just treat people the same regardless of gender so nobody has an incentive to lie.
I couldn't agree more.
This is an excellent take! Especially considering everyone has historically been treated fairly and there's no reason to consider the compounding effects that would've likely occurred due to generations of white men getting preferential treatment
As yes, the Ibram Kendi school of, “I NEED to be racist to correct historical racism. My racism is good though, promise.” All racists think their racism is justified. It’s not. You’re just racist :)
"an increase in participation of self-identifying males”
These aren't guys who claim transgenderism or non-binary identity, these are men.
Gender is what an individual feels like: and it's a consistent feeling regardless of their circumstances.
Nobody in good faith argued that your gender changes at the drop of a hat or whenever convenient. The transgender people I know have experienced significant suffering for decades due to a mismatch in feeling vs societal impositions.
White isn't being a bigot: you are with your terf talking points. Fuck off.
These aren’t guys who claim transgenderism or non-binary identity, these are men.
They didn't poll anyone already at the conference. There were no genital checks at the door. This is Cullen White making a prima facie observation of people who present as men and claiming they "lied about their gender identity when signing up."
It sounds like both you and White feel entitled to dictate to others their gender.
But how did they know the people lying about their identity were actually lying? That's what I was left wondering. Hopefully it's not just based on what the organizers assumed because that'd be (while admittedly funny) quite contrary to what I assume they want to advocate for.
I read the article but didn't see it clarified. Dunno if they clarified in the video
Just because gender is a complicated matter, it doesn't mean people can't be dishonest about it. Trying to invalidate transgender people for the lies of male registrants intruding on women's spaces is doubly shameful. Really, transphobic people love to put up a flimsy mocking pretense that they are a different gender to discredit trans people.
Even entertaining this argument seems like a mistake, but trans and non-binary people are a small minority. It's extremely unlikely that they would outnumber cisgender women.
It's sad to see this sort of two-faced transphobic talk taking starting to take root in Kbin and Lemmy. It's bad enough how much of this happens in other places.
I think it points out the fact that saying you are something does not mean you are that something. Anyone willing to lie (lots of people) can abuse this freedom to the detriment of the protected group. self id cannot be a thing if you want to exclude a certain group, because you have no basis to call them out, no matter what your hunch may be.
When I talk of "transphobes trying to discredit trans people", it's about your kind of talk that I'm talking. Now you want to make it about trans people and their right of self-id, because cis men are being shitty. Entirely the wrong group of people.
It's not clear from your comment. Are you also accusing the trans women at this conference of lying about their gender?
I am accusing the cisgender men at the conference of lying about their gender and I am accusing people in this thread of playing coy about the fact that is trivial for someone who 100% sees themselves as a man to tick F rather than M on a form if that will get them an advantage. Especially if they think being transgender happens on a whim.
If they are transphobic, they even get to discredit actual trans people while they take advantage of an opportunity that wasn't intended for them. It wouldn't be the first time transphobic people pretend to be trans just to cause problems.
You did read my comment, I hope. Do you truly believe there are more transgender women and non-binary people than cisgender women in tech, to the point they would outnumber them?
How do you distinguish between the people who genuinely identify as nonbinary and those who are dishonestly doing it?
identify
See the "problem" with the entire ordeal is this right there, self-identification will always be abusable by people who are willing to lie. There is no solution to that problem I can think of that doesn't piss someone off hard.
What if they're not transphobic but rather just taking advantage of the less competitive playing field cough cough
Drop the cough and dogwhistles. This is not about trans people and whatever wildly overblown fearmongering you are itching to bring up.
This is about men being smartasses.
It's actually about how there is no ability for biological women to police their own spaces anymore.
I am accusing the cisgender men at the conference of lying about their gender
Wait, this is confusing. Cisgender man would mean they identify as men. But if they were lying about their gender.... are you accusing them of secretly being women?
I don't see how you could misunderstand what I said. If that wasn't clear enough, the part right after that clarifies your question plenty. At this point I think are trying to deliberately create confusion and start an argument.
Oh yeah, and that Right-wing pfp is pretty telling too...
If gender is whatever an individual feels like, then this event was just thousands of women and non-binary folks,
The event could be "thousands of women and non-binary folks". Did all these male-presenting people identify as women or non-binary just to be able to attend this event?
What do you think identity politics is, exactly? Just a way to make changes you don't like to make you unhappy? It couldn't possibly be about people trying to make social changes so they're not constantly treated like shit. Oh no. The horror.
To the casual observer, identity politics seems to be a bunch of people competing to see who can put the most minority group names and acronyms in their social media profiles.
The event could be “thousands of women and non-binary folks”. Did all these male-presenting people identify as women or non-binary just to be able to attend this event?
According to their Chief Impact Officer, yes. Apparently they "lied about their gender identity when signing up."
What do you think identity politics is, exactly?
Performative politics centred around identity. White is perfectly happy to pretend that men can be women - until it impacts him.
How dare workers in (potentially desperate?) need of a job to look for jobs. They are men and belonging to that category automatically makes them rich and privileged. The working class should be united against common enemies, not divided because of gender. While it's obvious that women in tech are discriminated, alienating fellow victims, even if males, is not the answer to the problem.
Capital really won the class war...
I know you didn't mean it like this, but the result from this line of thinking is that we only try to put women on equal footing with men in tech when it's convenient for men because times are good. Which in turn means we never put women on equal footing because the needs of men always come first.
Put differently women have to deal with being women in tech on top of times being desperate, men only have to deal with times being desperate. Things like this are why spaces like these are necessary in the first place, and if you break them down at the first discomfort you're not a working class hero fighting the capital, you're tearing down women and setting everyone back.
Gender is absolutely not the only nor the most important discriminating factor in tech. Being a foreigner and, probably most commonly, being old is an extreme disadvantage in tech. Similarly, a woman coming from a wealthy family might be a privileged compared to a man coming from a poor background (which translates into lower access to education, resources, etc.).
Look at the video in the article, and tell me you don't notice some commonalities among the men in the queues.
I see mostly foreigners, who most likely have no network of support, and need a job to maintain a VISA before getting kicked out of the country. Are they in a better or worse position compared to a local woman? Does it even make sense to start asking these questions?
I want to challenge this vision where discriminations are only looked at through the lens of gender division. This is shortsighted because discrimination on the workplace is extremely diverse and it exists for the benefit of those same sponsors of this event.
As a teenage girl into coding, I was treated like absolute shit. If I made a mistake in my botball code, it was because I wasn’t good at coding. If a boy made a mistake in their botball code, then it was something that the other boys would help them debug. I remember it being assumed I just wouldn’t be able to figure out what structs were, so the boys running the botball code didn’t teach me. In college, any group project was an opportunity for boys to try to fuck me.
As a trans man, someone who has experienced life as both a man and woman in STEM, there are massive barriers to women. It’s invisible to you because you haven’t lived through it.
I am fully aware that those barriers exist. I am arguing (in other comments I am more explicit) about fighting against barriers, not a particular barrier.
I am also a foreigner in another country, and despite being a privileged person from many point of views (I could attend public university despite my family being poor), I have experienced some form of discrimination myself, so please don't make assumption about other people's. I am not blind to those kind of barriers, I simply have different opinions on the actions to take to improve the overall situation, with the goal of removing the concept of barrier, not any particular one (if that makes sense).
You're arguing while shifting scope which is a problem. Are you arguing about averages or individual experience?
Neither and both, depending on the context. There is no point to tell a person (who is maybe in need of a job and behind with the mortgage) "sorry, your group is privileged, fuck off". At the same time it still makes sense talking generally about solving sexism, ageism and other form of discrimination still too common in tech. Both perspectives exist, but you can slice the population in many groups, with different "average" experiences, therefore is overall shortsighted to categorize people only based on "one slice". Hence, the class analysis which is I find both more effective and more functional.
The context is important and central to the argument. I would say its critical to discuss it in any kind of valid way.
That's the because mixing the scope means you're arguing about two different things.
Talking about how females or minorities or other groups are impacted by something is measured using averages across the whole population.
How would that make sense to the argue about the individual who breaks that trend? Because it doesn't change the original point that a group experiences an event. Outliers are expected. I didn't smoke cigarettes, I'm still able to get cancer. That shouldn't mean that people who smoke shouldn't quit if they want to be healthier.
No one is saying gender is the only point of discrimination, but this specific event is focused on gender issues.
My point is that there is nothing else for issue related to other discriminations. And yet, before thinking whether those men (who showed up) maybe are also oppressed and discriminated, they have been simply labeled as "men" and therefore intruders, by definition. I would think that an oppressed community would realize the commonalities with other oppressed categories and use this to expand the struggle to them as well. Instead the rethoric behind this article makes me think that this is one of those events which is ultimately functional to the conservation of the status quo: big tech companies which sponsor the event and gain some visibility and good karma points to boost diversity while nothing really changes or is done to address the fundamental issue with discrimination (in general, not a specific one), because this is ultimately functional to the companies, which can leverage them to fight a fragmented worker's front.
Bang fucking on point. Dont trust the people who profit off inequality and a desperate workforce to make things less desperate and more equal
I've had a lot more foreign male colleagues than I have female colleagues. Where are you getting you information about who's disadvantaged?
Quantitative measuring tells you nothing. You have no visibility of the "starting condition", how many foreigners are not even accepted a job interview, how many apply, etc. Discrimination is not something that can be measure with a scale.
Not to talk about age, ageism is huge in tech. Old people are sometimes fired to be replaced (hello IBM). In my company we are at around 25% women, 20% on engineering. I still need to meet a person over 50 (in engineering), I think there are maybe 3-4 over 40 (on a total of 300).
Also, discrimination doesn't mean just not getting hired, it means contractual penalties, less salary etc., which happen in some cases with women too, of course.
That said, I am not arguing that women in tech are not discriminated, of course they are. I am saying that there are multiple vector of discrimination and that we should be able to fight against the general phenomenon, without having to choose which discrimination to keep and which to fight.
You need to do a lot of reading about intersectionality and intersectional feminism. You're right about there being multiple possible systemic disadvantages because of someone's identity (gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality, disability, etc) but the answer to that is not to sit around going NUH UH THIS GROUP HAS IT WORSE. Everyone needs uplifting, and it just so happens that this event was for women. If you think there needs to be a foreigners in tech job fair, go do one.
I respectfully disagree. If you think that organizing such events, with sponsors of that caliber is just a matter of "go do one", then we simply have different point of views. I also did not make qualitative comparisons between who gets oppressed, I am simply observing that there are so many components to discrimination in tech that focusing on only one (intentionally, even after the opportunity to expand opened up presented itself) is not synergic with the long term strategy.
It's fine to disagree, this is ultimately a subjective ideological call. I simply disliked the tone of the article overall. I would have liked some more in depth analysis of the impact (and reasons) of layoffs and maybe some interview to those people who "crashed" the event. Maybe with some sprinkle of discussion of unionization and collective fight, but I guess it was not fitting in an article about an event sponsored by the very same who laid off tens of thousands of people.
Thanks, I can read that much. That seems a conclusion of a reasoning, not a reasoning. Hence, I asked the arguments that lead to that conclusion. If everyone would discuss like that, we would have simply conversations in which people call each other names, which is not what I would like in the world.
A lot of times people arguing like that ignore the imbalance that exists and they go on to argue as if everything is equal to start with.
So, I'm a moron.
I did it my whole life until I took a stats course and it was like the first this the prof went over and I saw it was pretty obvious once it was pointed out to me but took someone having to point it out to me for me to see that mental blind spot
The paywall dropped on me before I could get to the end of the article, but a couple of observations:
“Overrun” is dehumanizing language. I’m otherwise highly sympathetic, but casting desperate people, many likely staring down deportation unless they can find a new position, as an effective horde is gross. I would like to trust that Wired provided that characterization, not the organizers.
The organizers ruined their own event, by not establishing and enforcing guardrails for attendance. This is a problem mostly of their own making. Rather than pointing, again, at desperate people, they should be accepting responsibility and planning to avoid the issue in the future.
What do you mean by equal footing? Equality in Outcomes, or Equality in Opportunities?
Having a job conference open to all genders sounds more equal then a conference excluding a gender identity.
I personally would love to get to the point where names, photos, genders, and social networks - are removed from all employment material and people are just judged on their ability to do a job.
Something like putting someone into the interview queue based on their resume and projects, then having the interview feedback re-written by a third party to remove all discriminatory indicators, then a double blind hiring committee making decisions based on the interview feedback, and neutral resumes. It's a pipe dream, but it would get us closer to a true meritocracy
Women face a huge amount of bias in the tech industry. There's nothing wrong with giving the disadvantages an advantage.
Us men are basically crying because women are getting what we've had the whole time.
Obviously what you describe would be ideal but even that doesn't even the playing field. Once hired women still face that same bias. They are less likely to be taken seriously as professionals (particularly by the higher ups who tend towards old white men) and more likely to be passed over for promotions.
I've seen it happen multiple times, especially in more corporate jobs.
I try to very specifically mention who came up with ideas even if it's my work for this reason.
Another common one is not wanting to ask simple questions in meetings as it makes them look less intelegent. While I ask every stupid question I can think of to be sure and look like I'm invested.
My advice is talk to your manager about things like that instead of helping. I know it feels like a dick move but it's not your job to help someone else with basic stuff.
Something along the lines of "I think John may require more training as I'm having to help him a lot with simple things. I'm happy to do it but my deadlines will need adjusting"
Females have a hard time in tech, not women. anyone can be a women. but historically only females were the ones disadvantaged. Transgender women are actually over represented in tech as a proportion of population.
Disadvantages groups need help to gain equal footing first. Before we can even talk about equality.
The easiest is incentives to hire minorities (gender, sexual, race, disabled, etc.) to level the playing field first.
This takes away a large part of the privilege that is at play in the tech industry.
As more of these minorities get higher in the industry the implicit biases will begin to disappear.
Many of the people who currently experience the privilege will be pissed off and view it as unfair. But in reality they're getting a taste of what other minorities already experience.
And in my experience (roughly 20 years) the more diverse a team the better the solutions and diversity in thinking you get.
So one form of discrimination was wrong, but this version is ok? No. We should learn from past mistakes, not essentially replicate them with the only difference being we flipped the men/women position.
Also, article states women make up a third of tech jobs. A third. That's a really good chunk. I think the battle for women in tech jobs is over.
You're only looking at things at a surface level. If you don’t correct the wrong, the “level playing field” is only an illusion. companies can’t easily correct why less women choose careers in tech, but they can make moves to correct the problem at their level. Extend and push for parental leave policies where the non-child barring spouse also takes time off for example. Women often see career growth plateau vs non-child barring co-workers due to this missed time. Traditionally this has meant women fall behind men.
Otherwise if you tomorrow just remove gender from Resumes, Men will still have an advantage, because they had the advantage in the past. It would take an entire generation to sort itself out assuming every inherent bias disappears and they absolutely won’t.
Maybe if you live in a world with no depth and only have a shallow understanding of anything.
The kind of discrimination that is problematic is the kind that is unjust or unfairly prejudicial. The kind where we respect people's differences and historical lack of representation is not problematic.
Inequality of outcome is proof of inequality of opportunities 99.9% of the time. IME people playing up the distinction are simply looking for any excuse to pretend inequality isn't a problem.
I'm trying to understand the requirements of the parent comment.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous.
Equality means a lot of things to a lot of people. Equality of outcome, and equality of opportunities are very distinct, and nuanced, and well-defined things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_of_outcome
Vs
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity
Trying to understand what equal footing means, is helpful for me to understand the parent posters position. I don't want to be stuck in ambiguity, when I'm genuinely trying to understand people.
And what happens once people are hired? How to you deal with unequal promotion rates or raises?
They are men and belonging to that category automatically makes them rich and privileged.
Privilege doesn't mean that things are easy or automatic, just that (in general) people with privilege don't have the same systemic negatives that those without it have. And it's very indicative of privilege for the men who went to this thing, which was built up over a number of years by a community specifically to benefit the members of that community, to just assume they had the rights of a community member without ever having contributed to that community. Something exists, and therefore they are automatically entitled to it.
I can have sympathy for people desperate for jobs, and I can understand class warfare, and yet ... once again something that women and enbys spent years and decades building up, is ruined because cishet men decided it was more 'convenient' for them to invite themselves into spaces not designed for them.
And yes, I do get frustrated with men not understanding issues of consent, in all of it's different aspects.
I can have sympathy for people desperate for jobs, and I can understand class warfare, and yet … once again something that women and enbys spent years and decades building up, is ruined because cishet men decided it was more ‘convenient’ for them to invite themselves into spaces not designed for them.
Couldn't this same logic be used by men to justify not allowing women into the tech industry in the first place? If someone of the wrong gender being around counts as "ruining" then men could say "once again something that men spent years and decades building up, is ruined because women and enbys decided it was more ‘convenient’ for them to invite themselves into spaces not designed for them." In fact I'd say something like that attitude really is what underlies a lot of tech industry sexism.
Gender-exclusive spaces often seem appealing to the favored gender, but they're really not good for anybody.
No, it couldn't. Because men excluding women from tech in the first place is wholly excluding them - there isn't another tech industry they can participate in. Men are being excluded from a single event when there are many other events doing the SAME THING that they are encouraged to attend.
Not saying I agree one way or the other, but the argument you make about the logic is not sound.
This argument is nonsense, but to humor it, there are other "industries", and tech is just a collection of companies ultimately. " go do your fair" can sound also as "go make your own company (and hire who you want)". Again, this is overall ridiculous, but at a purely rethorical level I think it works?
My point is that while privilege can be applied to a category, it doesn't make sense for a small number of individuals.
As I mentioned in another comment, look at the video, and notice how most men are clearly foreigners. Foreigners who maybe need a job to keep their visa or that anyway might not have the same network of support behind because they are just 2nd generation.
In my opinion, alienating fellow victims of a discriminatory system is at best shortsighted.
I also disagree with you deliberately labeling convenience what can very likely be necessity. I understand this aids your argument, but I find it purely based on prejudice.
I'm going to copy my reply to someone else elsewhere in this conversation:
First off, that job fair didn't just spontaneously happen. It was thought up by, organized by, and run by women and enbys in tech, specifically to help women and enbys in tech. Those sponsors didn't just miraculously happen; they were researched, approached, courted, their concerns addressed and their needs accommodated. And yes, that effort too was put in by women and enbys in tech, for other women and enbys in tech.
These are people with limited time and resources, who spent thirty years working on this, who carefully nurtured and shepherded the few resources they could gather, in order to create one single thing to help with their specific needs and challenges. That doesn't mean there aren't other groups with their own needs and challenges - foreigners who need accommodations for their visas and maybe cultural or language help, disabled people who need sign language interpreters or low-vision accommodations, people with issues like ADHD or major anxiety who need supportive environments and some guidance or handholding. There are lots of groups who can benefit from a job fair organized around their specific needs. The fact is, if you aren't part of the group the fair is intended to help, you shouldn't just show up, insert yourself into a place you were never invited, and take resources away from those who those resources were intended for.
And honestly, one of my frustrations is this: if you make a resource for ... people living on Native American reservations, or blind or deaf people, or the mentally ill, or the homeless, or whomever, the resources generated get reserved for that community and no one blinks an eye. But as soon as a resource is designed to help women, there is an immediate and constant demand to expand that resource to other groups. The women and enbys who spent years and decades creating and nuturing this thing have the right to expend their limited time and energy creating resources that matter to them.
I'm not saying that foreigners don't need help. I'm saying that out of the literally tens of thousands job fairs across the country every year, there's this one job fair that supposed to be for women and enbys. And if foreign women and enbys want to come and participate, great! But cishet men just deciding to help themselves to something that wasn't created or intended for them is just such an incredibly self-centered cishet-man thing to do that it's incredibly frustrating to those of us who have given so much of ourselves to creating and nuturing safe spaces.
I am also copying another response:
My point is that there is nothing else for issue related to other discriminations. And yet, before thinking whether those men (who showed up) maybe are also oppressed and discriminated, they have been simply labeled as "men" and therefore intruders, by definition. I would think that an oppressed community would realize the commonalities with other oppressed categories and use this to expand the struggle to them as well. Instead the rethoric behind this article makes me think that this is one of those events which is ultimately functional to the conservation of the status quo: big tech companies which sponsor the event and gain some visibility and good karma points to boost diversity while nothing really changes or is done to address the fundamental issue with discrimination (in general, not a specific one), because this is ultimately functional to the companies, which can leverage them to fight a fragmented worker's front.
people living on Native American reservations, or blind or deaf people, or the mentally ill, or the homeless, or whomever,
The difference between women in tech and the examples you made in my opinion is exactly that the examples address the whole universe of people affected by a particular discrimination or disadvantage. In the case of woman in tech, a single aspect of a more general problem is cherry picked. Again, I don't want to use moral terms, I just think in terms of objectives to pursue. I have the feeling that the objective for some of the people who are talking about "intruders" is not to improve the culture in tech to eliminate discrimination and privileges, but a simple issue of "we want to be a bigger % of the privileged". As such, I feel that the struggle is inherently reactionary, entrenching the overall dynamic of discrimination and fragmentation of the working class, simply tweaking a bit the appearance.
While it's for sure true that organizing all of this did not happen in a vacuum, I would also argue that ultimately this is also the result of a "more privileged" status quo, bigger amount of power and influence, compared to other minorities that simply can't achieve the same. Rather than using this power for the benefit of other oppressed, it seems that the idea is to just fight your own battle. I don't want to say it's wrong, I just think that this does not fit in my idea of struggle to improve the society. If I were a man who needed a job and I was labeled as intruder, non invited or something, I would have a problem tomorrow to join a union with those who labeled me, because the feeling I would get is that there is no mutual recognition of common problems and class. In turn, this means that when tomorrow there will be the need to protest against the various Apple, Microsoft, etc. Workers are going to have less power, not to mention that some of the people will think that since X% more women are hired in tech there is maybe nothing to protest in the first place.
Do you go to a fundraiser for Heart Disease and ask for money to be diverted to Diabetes?
Switch men with women.
Let's see how that reads 🤡
Class is a lot bigger factor in these things than sex...
Thus speaks a person of privilege, who doesn't really understand what "privilege" means. Class warfare does exist; that still doesn't mean you're entitled to help yourself to every community-generated resource without actually being a member of that community.
I personally agree with this, but:
In other words, I would agree if we were talking about the tech-bros with families worth 6 digits behind and huge networks they can leverage. However way more attributes are a determining factors than just gender.
First off, that job fair didn't just spontaneously happen. It was thought up by, organized by, and run by women and enbys in tech, specifically to help women and enbys in tech. Those sponsors didn't just miraculously happen; they were researched, approached, courted, their concerns addressed and their needs accommodated. And yes, that effort too was put in by women and enbys in tech, for other women and enbys in tech.
These are people with limited time and resources, who spent thirty years working on this, who carefully nurtured and shepherded the few resources they could gather, in order to create one single thing to help with their specific needs and challenges. That doesn't mean there aren't other groups with their own needs and challenges - foreigners who need accommodations for their visas and maybe cultural or language help, disabled people who need sign language interpreters or low-vision accommodations, people with issues like ADHD or major anxiety who need supportive environments and some guidance or handholding. There are lots of groups who can benefit from a job fair organized around their specific needs. The fact is, if you aren't part of the group the fair is intended to help, you shouldn't just show up, insert yourself into a place you were never invited, and take resources away from those who those resources were intended for.
And honestly, one of my frustrations is this: if you make a resource for ... people living on Native American reservations, or blind or deaf people, or the mentally ill, or the homeless, or whomever, the resources generated get reserved for that community and no one blinks an eye. But as soon as a resource is designed to help women, there is an immediate and constant demand to expand that resource to other groups. The women and enbys who spent years and decades creating and nuturing this thing have the right to expend their limited time and energy creating resources that matter to them.
I’m highly sympathetic, but this thing didn’t go wrong in an instant. The organizers watched it go off the rails, and, AFAICT, didn’t intervene to fix it, as the problem revealed itself at scale.
Hard situations require hard thinking and decisive action.
I think this is the response that summarizes why someone would have an issue with this:
A class of men used their time and resources to build an old-boys-club to help each other. This is widely regarded as a bad thing. There are actual solutions that would address the underlying issue of special interests giving certain demographics an advantage, like anonymizing applications to circumvent discrimination and ensure the most qualified applicant gets the job regardless of demographic. Instead, the approach here is to make a new old-not-boys-club to give an advantage to different demographics.
That's the issue here. The response to gender discrimination isn't to take turns, it's to eliminate unfair discrimination entirely.
I can't tell if your misunderstanding is unintentional or trolling. In the context of this conversation, the community I was referring to was the group of women and enbys who worked together for years to try to overcome some of the systemic issues facing women and enbys in tech.
Also, since you seem determined to give only brief one-liners in response, I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you.
Transgender women are overrepresented in tech. The event should be for females in order to properly address the real discrepancy at play.
My point was that I don't feel being in a community with every man in existence, and likewise I see no point to limit a community to a specific gender, especially in this day and age. "We don't know you, it's the first time I see you" is a valid reason for not considering someone a part of a community (yet) on a fair presumably meant for already established members. "You're a man, go away" just isn't.
Also, since you seem determined to give only brief one-liners in response, I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you.
Quite a bold statement after a single reply from me. Did we have some similar interaction beforehand elsewhere? I usually don't pay much attention to nicknames, so apologies if by chance it was a repeated occurrence.
Of course you don't feel like you're in community with every man, you're not a fucking marginalized gender! Some of us have to have solidarity to survive.
This is the whole point of the fucking event in the first place! Y'all have to insert yourselves into literally everything don't you? Unbelievably childish.
Yeah that was my first thought. For men to be trying to get a job here means there is real serious desperation. Don't hate the desperate people, hate the people that created this desperation
I saw a little while ago that kbin has been having some kind of issues loading images, so that might be what’s happening. I see it with no problem.
I checked and I can see the images when I look at it through your kbin instance. But it doesn't show on any of the 3 lemmy instances I checked. Problem might be with kbin not federating images to lemmy.
That’s probably it. I know Ernest was talking about doing some upgrades to kbin around now, so issues with federating might be related to that. Or just kbin throwing a hissy fit.
I've noticed lots of kbin comments and messages just don't work on lemmy. Hopefully with the 0.19 release next month? that will get fixed.
I can't see it either.
Apparently kbin has been goofy with images today.
It’s a picture of Elmo staring at you.
Modern feminists are the biggest bootlickers out there.
They sold out in 1970s, no solidarity.
Most of the problems mentioned in the article seemed to be problems with the convention organization and not the attendees.
Layoffs are what caused the long queues to begin with. Event organization and operation makes it seem closer to an average American Black Friday event than a job conference.
If we had proper public supports for people between jobs, students and immigrants looking to find a way to live and/or not get kicked out of the country, this wouldn't be a problem.
The whole job hunt feels like a rat race, it's practically common recruiter advice to apply for stuff that you don't qualify for on paper, send out as many applications as possible and take every chance you can get. So I can see how people can apply these ideas to participate in spaces where they aren't encouraged to apply.
This is compounded by the pressure put on people to even live without income for short periods of time.
I'd say I'm privileged, yet it took me a year of looking to land something in my field. I had money saved up and enough supports to keep costs at a minimum, I'm aware I'm lucky I was even able to be in this circumstance.
We need smart and capable women, trans and nb people in the workforce, and we need resources to overcome the barriers they face. I'm just saying that it's not easy, even without such barriers and also with comforts that are not afforded to many.
ITT: men who can't ever admit they might be the problem. So many excuses here it's pathetic.
edit: I love the "not all men" and "not me". As always, it's not all men. But it's enough. And the men here getting so defensive really prove the point. And before anyone gets into it, it's not really the sex or gender. It's the societal expectations and allowances that encourage men to engage in abusive shit like we see in the article here. I.e. the patriarchy and those who support it.
Can you expound on that statement?
It sounds as if the organizers were too quick to take the $650 from attendees and those willing to pay were very eager to pony up the cash in the hope of networking.
The attendees should be able to tell that they would be intruding even if the organization didn't bother to check that. Both were in the wrong.
How would they separate those intruding and those who the event was made for? Seems like a hard issue to solve
It's almost like women are disfavored in the tech industry and this is an attempt to make up for that.
Can you stop staring at your own navel for even a second, Bob?
Problem for what?
I exist, I need a job to live, I have job, I try my best not to be an asshole, I fight (and vote) for a better society, for social and civil rights.
Why exactly I - since I am a man I feel included in your statement - should be THE problem?
I try my best not to be an asshole
Maybe people are getting too in the weeds with this because muh culture war
But it is an asshole move to show up to an event meant for one group of people when the original issue is how over represented your group is. I'm a developer. The grind sucks. But I would be an asshole to show up to this.
But it is an asshole move to show up to an event meant for one group of people when the original issue is how over represented your group is. I’m a developer. The grind sucks. But I would be an asshole to show up to this.
If I was out of job, I would honestly care less about the fact that "my group" is over represented. There is no white male lobby that pays my mortgage. That said, I - as in the actual me - would not go to such event either, but that's also because I wouldn't go to any job fair atm since I don't need a job.
I would honestly care less about the fact that
Sure, that's what makes people behave like assholes. "I don't care about X" is why we have a pretty shitty world in many areas.
This is pure rhetoric, I can flip the argument:
"You care more about the gender than about my material condition."
Also, the moment I need to let prevail abstract concepts over my material condition (i.e., caring about "my group" being over represented while I am out of a job) is the moment in which the class unity is broken. Me and those women who are out of a job have so much in common that there is no reason for me to consider us part of two separate groups. That's the whole point of my argument, I advocate for worker solidarity and I absolutely feel that this attitude is overall harmful for it.
I don't agree. I can be at a disadvantage and still accept that another group has even greater disadvantages that I would continue or make worse by stepping into something they built. Its freeloading in a pretty assholish way. I'm not just some animal trying to get a nut with narrow focus that says fuck everything else. I can job search and find my own opportunities without freeloading
Let me say this: to me this seems the completed detached thought of someone who never faced material difficulties.
I can only think this if I am in a position of privilege where I can choose. I absolutely can't relate with any of this, I completely agree to disagree.
You have a job and likely an established career, to be perfectly honest your view does not mean much here. There are people struggling to get a job after going into major debt for college loans, you bet your ass they're going to grind until they get a job. Maybe put actual policy in place to prevent males from attending if that's what is desired.
I had to uproot my entire family after losing my 15 year career in an Industry I no longer could work in. I had to attend school and feed multiple mouths plus parent only to end up in an over saturated job market prone with agism. For one year i had to go back to living with my parents to attend school where I commuted 3 hours a day. So don't give me this shit about what I am or not based on clues you think you uncovered from a couple comments Scooby Doo. I know the grind more than most
And you know what I never once thought? I never once thought "hey I better go to that women's job fair."
Do you realize that there are women out of a job too? It's not just out of good vibes that people bring up issues of representation, they represent the material conditions of people. For you the percentage of women vs men in the workplace might be a meaningless number, but for those women, it's their chance of a living.
I am just saying that this burden shouldn't fall on other people in material need. It is simply extremely unfair from my point of view to imagine that a person which happens to be a man, and is in need of a job should just sit quietly and leave space for women, because generally, in the whole field, women are under represented.
Again, this is just some kind of thought process that can only come in my head if I am not risking for my house to be repossessed by the bank, or when I have enough cash to keep paying rent, or I don't have a family to support. It's a complete luxurious form of integrity that is completely detached from the real world (the one I live in, at least). This seems completely peak war between poor people, where we stop challenging the arbitrary scarcity of resources and we want to solve the problem just by creating a hierarchy by which the crumbles should be shared.
I am from a different country, maybe it's cultural, but this position is completely alienating and unrelatable for me.
You are still not thinking of the women who are also struggling to get jobs, who are poor as well. Women also struggle to pay rent or to feed their families too. You are contrasting women against struggling people as if they couldn't be in the same position.
So not only women in this field already need to fight an uphill battle against the industry's predisposition to hire men over women, now they are having to fight over opportunities that had been aimed at them to begin with. Don't you think they will also face real financial struggles because of this?
It's not a matter of caring about representation or material needs. It's an opportunity to provide material needs through representation.
I don't know where you are from, but I'm not american or european if that's what you are assuming. Yet there are still women struggling where I live. I assume the same is true all over the world.
Surely, there is a point to be made regarding our need to pressure wealthy people so that more poorer people have means to live. But how does pulling the rug under a poor woman have anything to do with that? That's not even the same discussion, that's just changing topics from the ruthlessness being displayed.
And you know what, as a man, if I were in a situation of need as well I wouldn't look favorably over people who are so intent on tripping whoever is around them to cut in line. Desperation is real for sure, but for that very reason solidarity is important.
Of course I am aware of that. Of course there are women who are in the same situation, or worse. Of course there are black women who are even in a worse place. Of course there are old black women who are in even a worse place. The fact is, there are people who need a job, and once this is the case, I don't put any responsibility on any of them if they take the spot that could be taken by someone more deserving. This is simply a decision that doesn't make sense. The responsibility is on those who decide how many jobs exist, to layoff people even with record profits (which coincidentally, are all the sponsors of this fair) and so on.
But how does pulling the rug under a poor woman have anything to do with that? That’s not even the same discussion, that’s just changing topics from the ruthlessness being displayed.
How is it trying to get a job (paying 600$+!) "pulling the rug" from anybody? This is what I don't get. Literally, anything you do, you are affecting society in a way that damages someone who has less means than you. You are buying something -> you are marginally increasing the demand and therefore the price.
It's not like I don't understand your idea, I simply don't think it makes any sense to expect such behavior to other people who are also victims of the same system. I have no interest whatsoever in fragmenting the working class creating a hierarchy of who is more victimized, this is a pointless exercises which is reactionary in nature.
if I were in a situation of need as well I wouldn’t look favorably over people who are so intent on tripping whoever is around them to cut in line
So if you apply for a job and someone else has already applied, you leave it? What does 'cutting the line' means in this context? We are talking about paying to go to a job fair meant for women, which also probably means that your chance to get recruited are much lower than a woman because companies are nowadays very interested in boosting their diversity metrics. And I think this is the case because for some people the struggle ends there: you get 40% of women in tech, there you go, now you are a good company, thanks Microsoft/Apple/etc.. This is why I think that this particular version of feminism is inherently bourgeois and reactionary.
I am just saying that this burden shouldn't fall on other people in material need.
Well, good thing it doesn't in this case.
The whole point is that everything in this field is already, by default, directed at men. That's what it's like in the US. It's the same with race. And saying we have have equality when we don't is just ignoring the way these divisions affect historically oppressed groups. Acknowledging systemic hierarchy and division between races and genders in order to fix it doesn't automatically mean you have to ignore class divisions. They're far from mutually exclusive. Why would it be impossible to acknowledge both at the same time?
It's to the point where no one else can have anything without men going "what about me and my problems?" "Well here's what I think about all these social issues that have never and will never negatively affect me." As usual, the "not all men" of every comment section of every article about a women-only-something-or-other are just making a great case for women-only-something-or-others.
everything in this field is already, by default, directed at men
This is a very broad statement. Perhaps the population of males that showed up here is not an average male population in tech but the outliers of the statistics (looking at the videos, it seems mostly foreigners)? So I think it's fairly alienating to go tell them "sorry, fuck off, everything is meant for you already", when maybe you are out of a job for months and decided to pay 600$ (!!) in the hope of getting one.
saying we have have equality
Who said this?
Why would it be impossible to acknowledge both at the same time?
It's not impossible, but this happens. A lot of focus on the relatively minor differences between oppressed people creates fragmentation that impedes those people to realize they actually share problems and interests. To make an example, you coming and saying that "everything is meant for men anyway" is alienating to a 45yr old male who has just been fired to be replaced by a 23yr old (maybe, woman). It simply conflicts with the experiences of individuals who - despite potentially being men - face other kind of discrimination and generally struggle. That man has more in common with a woman who is not promoted, compared to the boss of that woman who is sexist, instead, and should not be alienated by gaslighting him with a reality that for him does not exist (I took this example, but the same applies to a black person, a foreigner, someone who didn't study in a fancy university, someone with a disability, and so on). So I am not saying that they are mutually exclusive, I am saying that concretely some arguments, including the overall tone of the article, seem to me to damage class unity to purely focus on gender discrimination.
It’s to the point where no one else can have anything without men going “what about me and my problems?”
Sorry, but I would not like to be mixed up with arguments made by others, nor with those who are arguing a-la Jordan Peterson in this thread. I don't care of men as a category, I am a supporter of feminism, I just have an idea of feminism as an inherently anti-capitalist and progressive ideology, which is an enabler for class unity. I just don't see the kind of arguments made by this article (and by some of the commenters) going in this direction. Instead, they seem to me as part of a feminism which is reactionary and part of the system in that it doesn't challenge it. Getting angry at fellow victims just because they are men seem to me an expression of this.
Nota bene: if the kind of tech-bro with a cushy job would be attending this fair with the intention to waste the time of the recruiters or even to look for a better job, my opinion would be different.
I would be an asshole to show up to this.
That's the part I really don't get. If you're cis male looking for a job, do you really think crashing this event is going to reflect favorably on you and that you'd be more likely to land a job? People are going to look at you and think that you have good judgment and won't be a problem at all? What the heck is the thought process that makes this a good plan?
I assume most tech bros have a mental form of tinnitus going on in their brains in lieu of thoughts. Just a constant bzzzzzzzzzz
It is legally discrimination. What part of that isn't understood? Substitute women for any other group based on height, age, race, religion, or sexual preference and see that your argument doesn't hold water.
seriously this happens a lot people will go off and say word for word that a whole group of people are evil and bad when its a subset of a group. When called on it they may simply say that its not talking about the group as a whole or “not for you” if they dont genuinely believe the whole group is bad (which is wrong and discriminatory)
The issue is the discrepancy of what you say in relation to what you mean will lead others to believe in what you say but not what you mean and this harms those just trying to survive normally.
The first comment literally wasn't talking about a whole group of people, they were talking about the men in this thread leaving comments that illustrate the exact reason why this space created by and for women and non-binary people should be about and for the benefit of women and non-binary people.
It also didn't explain why, nor made the distinction you are making. So yeah, it was a blanket statement to karma farm on Lemmy...
Being an asshole is not illegal. Obeying the law doesn't mean you're a good person.
If these dudes were - as the article quotes describe - pushing, shoving, cutting in line then like I don't see why you feel you need to identify with these particular dudes.
You can absolutely wait until some guy actually is being unfairly treated before dying on this hill.
Being an asshole is not illegal. Obeying the law doesn't mean you're a good person
Oh I very much agree, and I don't think I have suggested otherwise anywhere?
Also, the pushing, shoving etc. Is a completely different matter compared to what I am interested to discuss. I have a problem believing that any single men has gone there pushing and shoving but I have no problem believing that some did, and that is being an asshole.
Anyway, as I said I can't care less about this argument, I am interested in the rest of the argument, the part in which it's not the behavior being criticized but the very fact that they were there, as males.
It's abusive to invade women's spaces as a man looking to take advantage. Stay out.
Oh look, you're all up in this thread a day late posting his horrid takes.
Well, it seems to be considered abusive to have a men’s space at all, and if there is one, women are downright encouraged to invade it.
The horrid tale is hating men for trying to get a job.
There's nothing more pathetic the a Mens Rights Activist. Shame to see so many of them here.
I don't support the actions of men in this article, but all gender roles are toxic, and there are societal expectations of men that are genuinely toxic.
Again, women have gotten the shit end of the stick for muuuuch longer. I don't want to minimize that. But saying mens rights activists are pathetic?
60% of male suicides report no off behavior from the man before commiting suicide. This suggests it isn't a mental illness causing the problem, but circumstances in their life cause them to kill themself because they truly see no other solution or way out for the predicament they're in.
How come men are twice as likely to be homeless than women?
Why isn't it socially acceptable for men to take on the "care taker roll" like a stay at home dad or a nurse?
I could go on, but I don't want to make this a rallying cry for men in a thread about a tech conference for women. I get meninsts is like a men's rights group that was created to troll feminists, but men's rights and woman's rights should both just try and be egalitarian
Yeah, that's feminism, not "men's rights". There are non-toxic sections of the Men's Movement which explicitly recognise that their aims are feminist but they're almost invisible because they got overrun by toxic men who only wanted to blame all their problems on women and reclaim their right to rape and exploit them.
This article is not perfect but it does make the point well:
Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.
If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?
This list comes across as very self-serving though. It's basically saying men's issues are only a problem for Feminism when it can be framed as also impacting women. I read the parent poster as calling for rising above a narrow single gender view of equal rights.
It’s basically saying men’s issues are only a problem for Feminism when it can be framed as also impacting women.
Well yes. Feminism is focused on the specific forms of inequality that women and folk perceived as women face.
However, the root cause of that inequality often creates issues for everyone, not just women. So feminism isn't "at odds" with mens rights, but rather, addressing the issues that women face will improve issues for men too, because of those shared root causes.
Sexism is inevitably a mirror. Treating girls and women differently inevitably has an impact on boys and men.
If you can think of a legitimate demand to improve life for boys and men which is not also a feminist issue, name it.
If you're complaining that feminists aren't backing up Men's Rights Activists when they call for the right to rape and enserf women, then I can't help you.
I agree with everything you posted, by why are the egalitarian ideals of feminism strictly a feminism thing and not a men's rights / men's movement. Or why not just label it "egalitarian". Why does the label matter in the first place? If someone's behavior is a demonstration they're a hypocrite to feminist/men's movement/egalitarian ideals, then critique the individual when it happens. Why generalize their behavior to the group as a whole?
Yeah, that’s feminism, not “men’s rights”.
No, that's men's rights. Feminism has done great things for women, and that's awesome. But feminism is by women, for women. It doesn't make any space for men's issues. That's why the men's rights movement exists.
You quoted a Jezebel article. Would you read an article I quoted from Andrew Tate? Don't insult our intelligence please.
Ok, well I’ll make the point they’re making. Since you apparently will read what I say.
What’s good for women is good for everyone. Fighting toxic masculinity and the patriarchy is ultimately beneficial to all genders.
I have to sayings I give to my students.
In times of high unemployment: "Be overqualified for the job you are applying to. If you are not, you competition will be."
In times of low unemployment: "If the recruiter picks a name out of a hat among those who applied, your chances are 1 divided by the number of applicants. Find the average number of applicants that apply to jobs you want - that is the average number of applications you have to send out before you find a job. (E.g.: Online WFH jobs with good pay sometimes get thousands of applications)."
From the title I thought this was an article about men driving vehicles into people at the job fair. I was slightly aghast that the discussion was only about whether or not it's ok to have a job fair for women in tech.
I can't wait for this to be posted on Hacker News, get 5 of the worst techbro libertarian nonsense comments, get 3 angry SJW replies to those techbros, then dang shouts at the SJWs about tone, rate limits them, then flags the article off the site.
/it me, I'm the SJW.
Purely commenting on the TikTok and not the article:
"... career fair aimed at women and non-binary tech workers..." and then there's a TikTok that says "A conference for (wo)men by women" and "the allies are totally allying"
So do only female presenting nonbinary people count?
(I know if you read the article that it says there was an increase in the number of self identifying males but how would the TikToker know that? The TikToker is just looking at the crowd and assuming that the place is overrun with men without actually checking if they're NB.)
People in the comments: Discrimination is bad! (Except when it's against a group of people I don't like)
It's a shame these people can't understand the flaw in their logic. More discrimination is not the answer.
Glad to see federal anti-discrimination law working to prevent these conference organizers from being as sexist as they wanted to be.
Companies are definitely looking for applicants there, so it would definitely be discriminatory to ban men from it. That's why it would be illegal to ban men:
"The nonprofit says it believes allyship from men is important and noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US."
People don’t like hearing about it but I worked at one of the major sponsor of a past conference and my employer openly admitted that they wanted to increase the % of women in the company. I think that is gender discrimination but i also want more women at work so i am not personally against that.
The kind of discrimination that is a problem is unjust or prejudicial. Diversifying personnel is neither unjust nor prejudicial.
Rather, this is the good kind of discrimination, where we respect the differences between people.
I tried to keep my comment as objective as possible since I was aware that people would not like to hear it. So I made no judgement on wether it's good or bad and actually shared how it's a positive thing for me personally.
when you divert your focus to a specific subset of candidates you have stopped prioritizing the best candidate. therefore that candidate has been discriminated against for not having the specific traits you wanted to prioritize. from a moral perspective it seems that we are passing on chances of getting the best candidates. so this is good for my own feelings, but can't be good for the employer.
Honestly. if I felt i was not good enough to overcome the gender discrimination I would have no qualms identifying as a woman to get the job.
Too often internal biases make men look like the "best candidate," even if a man and woman of equal skills are presented.
And the reason people don't like your "positive" reason for wanting more women in the office is because the way you worded it made you sound like a creep who just wants more women around to ogle at, rather than seeing them as equal.
we are not discussing vague problems with subjective solutions. in tech interviews you either solve the problem correctly or you don't. and the evaluation is not subjective. just like the person who said that my comments about car haters made me sound like a billionare boot licker, the creep accusations also say something about the accusers for making baseless projections. even more so with the added "ogling at them", I'm sure that came from somewhere, just not from my comment...
The best candidate? Based on what? Tell us more of thos egalitarian utopia where everything is based on measurements.
How do you objectively measure the value of an employee's culture or heritage and the effect of those things on their views and habits, and on their productivity? A workforce with diverse backgrounds is valuable in itself, in so many ways, for everyone.
While getting more women interested in natural science and tech is an important issue, the current approach in the States isn't working, and one of the major point in you-know-what is that despite the aggressive, well-intentioned push of female representation in traditional male dominated industries in fictional media(it does go too far sometimes), it does not seem to translate into the real world, ans enforcing a female only job fair also seems also well intentioned but unhelpful, because ultimately, you can't force people to like something.
It's troubling, but there doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this.
