444
Men Overran a Job Fair for Women in Tech
(www.wired.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
444 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68639 readers
3037 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I genuinely think this has nothing to do with integrity.
This is not an issue, it's absolutely normal, because I am aware of my material difficulties, while I am not aware of other people's one to the same extent. I can't decide not to buy a house because by doing so I increase the demand, which increases prices and makes it harder for poor people to afford housing. You are putting the burden to address a systemic issue on another victim.
I am not saying this is the only thing that matters, but I am saying it matters, and I think it's completely unfair to think that people shouldn't take care of themselves. I turn my eye to the mechanisms that create the scarcity that put me and a woman to fight for resources, not on either one of them.
Again, I think we have simply too different of a perception of what means a difficult time. Sorry, but this argument to me sounds as complete madness.
So not only I am forced to sell my labor to survive, which is the only chance I have, but when I do I am anyway hurting others. So what are my options? Suicide? Any job I am going to take, whether it comes though this fair or not, I am taking it potentially from an under represented category, be it a woman, an old person, black folks, LGBTQ+ community, etc. So I should just stop working?
I will say more, if you carry on your line of reasoning further, any of the people working in tech is US are participating in a system that in a bigger scale hurts people from third world countries (thinking for example of labor exploitation) and pollutes the planet. So what should people do?
The working class should build solidarity, should develop a consciousness that allow them to fight united against the system that creates arbitrary scarcity of resources, not self-police and create a hierarchy to split the crumbles among themselves.
Come on, this is a huge stretch. I want to meet one person who decided not to buy a house to facilitate housing for others. This has nothing to do with choosing to have kids or not, that is a choice that is not determined by your material necessities.
You deliberately ignored the premises of that reasoning. Following your logic, any job I take, by default, is a job potentially taken away from someone who needs it the most. ANY. I don't belong to that vulnerable category, therefore me taking any job will reinforce the current inbalance. So what should I do?
Oh, perfect. According to my sensibility, people in need (emphasis on need) of a job would make the right call if they would attempt to candidate for any job they can possibly get. The scarcity of jobs available is not their fault, nor is the discrimination of women in the workplace. They also by definition do not hold any position of power and as such I can't in good faith categorize them as oppressors.
No, but I don't care for men to be invited to this particular fair either. I am discussing the analysis the followed the fact that some men decided to show up (i.e., the article and the way it describes the fact) anyway.
Also excluding and blaming fellow proletarians because they are the wrong gender doesn't.
We are fairly evolved and plenty of people don't have kids, it's not a material necessity, as in, you don't risk to die if you don't. You do if you don't eat and don't have a shelter, and to get those, you need a job or to commit crimes. This is all besides the point, the point is that nobody in the society acts like that because it is simply impossible living like that. It doesn't matter if it's buying a house, renting or occupying one. The moment you, from a "privileged" category get a roof on your head, you contributed to raise the overall estate prices, reduce the available apartments for rent etc. The only choice you have is to stay homeless, if you really don't want to affect anybody (obviously, I am bringing it to the extreme to make a point). Generally people don't act like this, you don't keep your house in shitty condition to keep the value of the building low so that others can move in, and expecting this kind of "ethical consumerism" from victims of a system is - in my opinion - in itself oppressive.
Now, coming to the rest, you say that you are just talking about the fair. But your logic is broader than that, it is about not cutting the line, not taking someone else's job. Then what I am saying is that whatever job I take, as a white male, I am going to reinforce the unbalance already present between man and women. As such, I am contributing to the problem, whereas if I don't take a job, that can potentially go to a woman, therefore contributing to solve the problem. Obviously this is extreme but the logic is the same. If your logic only applies to this particular fair, then fine, this means that tomorrow, in any other place, I shouldn't give a damn about who else I am contending the job with? This to me feels simply strange and inconsequential, either I act based on the moral principle, which is not confined to the fair, or I don't. But maybe you see it differently.
Either way, I am going off for the day, so I will wrap it here. I think we simply have different sensibilities in finding that balance that you mentioned, which might derive from different cultural backgrounds and personal histories. I do not see a point of convergence.
Yes, all of your comments do.
Any specific part? Or you just wanted to do the snarky comment without committing to an actual discussion?
This is your assumption. You are assuming that the men going to the event are average men, which on average are more likely to be employed in tech. I don't think that's true in this case, I think it's mostly desperate people, possibly also from marginalized groups. Looking at the video I see mostly foreigners, possibly in need of a visa to not be kicked out of the country. Keep in mind they paid 600 bucks for a super tiny chance (imagine what are the chances that recruiters at that event will not ignore them because they went there to recruit women).
Also, reading a bit online it seems that there is always been a percentage of men attending that event.
I will not address the last paragraph, your suggestion of what "this proves" is completely arbitrary and prejudicial, I won't say what that proves, instead.
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.
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.
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.
This is very lofty talk for someone fully willing to take away opportunities intentionally aimed at someone else who needs it.
Don't you think snatching that opportunity is going to cause fragmentation? Do you think women or minorities stop having material struggles as long as you don't think of them as a distinct group? That's not how it works. If it was, then before feminism, working class women would have equal material conditions to working class men, and that is absolutely not how it went.
And yeah, there are people who are even more disadvantaged, which also results in worse material conditions. The solution is not to stop thinking about it.
For all your talk about working class, what you propose is nothing that helps the working class in a systemic or immediate way, it's just "looking out for #1" and then pointing fingers at the system if anyone judges you for it. I guess your logic is that if you are working class and you help yourself you are helping the working class? Funny, but that's not it.
You know exactly what "cutting the line" means here. There are other job fairs and recruitment opportunities where these guys could go to. However less likely they may be to be hired, whoever does is taking away an opportunity that a woman needed. However insincere the companies may be at doing this, however this may not be enough to create a better society where everyone can have a decent life, these women need jobs regardless. You know, material conditions, the thing you were saying was much more important.
Taking that opportunity (which specifically, I think is also very little) is someone who also needs it. You can create this hierarchy even among the women at that very fair, in fact.
I think not, if framed under the right perspective.
Absolutely I don't. And I am not claiming that the problem is solved by "meritocracy" or by just stopping thinking about this. I am suggesting that it is not responsibility of the victims to self-police and sort themselves in order of priority.
That's not what I am suggesting. I am personally just thinking in very pragmatic terms. Realistically the struggle of the working class requires strong unions and harsh battles. How are you going to build a union when I - a male - see you -a woman (but you can pick any other category) - as something else as myself, as belonging to another group? To me building strong unions requires a mutual recognition of class belonging, and this is what I think helps in a systemic way. Nothing systemic is also going to change if X% more women would be hired by Microsoft/Apple etc., with the difference that if you reach that situation having alienated and fragmented workers, that's also where you stop.
I have no idea why they chose to attend. What I know is that you don't spend 600-1200$ for the hell of it if you need a job.
And how is this different from any other job? I mean, ultimately you can apply this logic to any job you are going to take. Realistically, any company that will hire you is going to have a small % of women, so any job you are taking, you are taking it from a woman (or a black person, etc.). I really fail to understand how your logic works outside the specific context of the job fair. Are you saying that besides this job fair, then no concerns anymore should exist about under represented categories?
Of course, but it's a matter of deciding the strategy to reach that objective. From my point of view, for the reasons above, I disagree with this particular one.
Absolutely nothing about taking jobs aimed at women helps or even relates to this.
What, you recognize a woman as your equal in class struggles so you kick her in the shins and shoves her off the way? Whoa, the class solidarity truly brings tears to may eyes.
It's like you are intermittently switching into a whole different discussion. However much you may talk of worker class solidarity and I partially agree, these guys aren't showing any solidarity.
Because we are talking about positions indicated to women, who already have a hard enough time getting tech jobs. Who also need them to live. I get what you are saying but here you flipped back to "I need a job, sucks to be them", not a drop of solidarity to be found. This is different because the whole point of that one fair is being different, if you want to chase jobs for whoever makes it, you can look for them in other places. It's not like this is the single opportunity anyone will ever get.
This isn't difficult to understand. It just seems like you cannot for a moment think of what your life would be like if you were one of said women, rather than one of the men rushing to take the job by any means necessary, anyone around them be damned.
Sorry, we are going in circle, and I feel there is no point for me to rehash my thoughts for the N-th time. Either I am no expressing myself well enough, the language barrier is impeding mutual understanding or something else.
I fundamentally disagree with some of the premises of your arguments ("taking" - like one could choose - jobs aimed at women, etc.). I will close it here.
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.
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.
Who said this?
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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:
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.
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?
Because the assholes got to "men's rights" "men's movement" en masse, and you'll spend your whole life critiquing individuals and find communities full of those individuals when you see those words.
Great Parks and Rec episode