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
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.
Of course, but how is this relevant. The argument there is that we are not talking about the tech-bros dominating the tech field, we are talking about a specific subgroup of the male population, the outliers, which means using the average male statistics to deliberate on this specific people misses at least partially the point.
This is what really puzzles me. This kind of argument is unacceptable in any other context, because it completely ignores the necessary conditions and balance of power needed to "create your own space". It's like saying "women can create their own tech companies and hire only women there". It doesn't make sense because it would be ignoring the fact that to create a company you need network, you need resources, capital, and if you are already marginalized, you can't just do that. I would suggest that foreigners out of a job are not in the material condition to organize a hundreds of thousands-people fair with huge sponsors.
So that they can find a job*
I am not sure how you are not seeing the foolish attempt exactly as an expression of that desperation, but as an expression of entitlement.
Why do you need to assume that it's a matter of understanding and not a matter of simply having different opinions and views?
This has nothing to do with a strawman. It's literally an educated guess based on the limited information available.
I am not sure how many of those lied. Some did, and that is shitty, but the event is technically open to men too, men have always participated to that event, apparently. See for example this from 2017. So I am not even sure that lying was a determining factor.
You will forgive me, but your personal anecdote in a completely different context doesn't count as a solid argument.
You are talking about a conference event with hundreds of thousands of attendees, sponsored by some of the biggest, and evil, companies on the planet...apologies, but this rhetoric of a safe space sounds out of place for this particular example. Also, there is no point to use this personal moral arguments, because they are useless. "If you would understand desperation/risk of deportation/whatever then..." is not an argument for anything. I don't know what you understand or don't, let's stick to the opinions we actually support?
This is your tautology, where you say that if A then B, and then B then C, but A is your pure assumption. Ex falso quodlibet, you can build any argument this way.
It's not a wild guess, and you are not willing to admit that simply because it's not convenient to your arguments. I explained what the basis for that guess is, I didn't flip a coin, but made a deduction. There is a margin of error, for sure, and I might be wrong, but I would take that bet. I also did not refuse to engage in anything, I considered (almost/) every point every single person made in every comment (despite the huge amount of repetition), so what are you talking about? "Pointing out" also doesn't mean anything, I explained my thoughts using that "guess" as the basis to make a difference that you were not making (i.e., between the average man and a subset of men with different properties - and privileges/power in this case). You disagreeing on this does not make it invalid, it simply means that we might have different opinions. I for once disagree with "Desperation doesn’t qualify someone to run roughshod over the boundaries of others, and to lie to do so. That is pure entitlement." as I don't interpret what happened in that way at all, for example. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is a judgment call, it is not something we can observe with a microscope and determine objectively, this whole topic is wholly influenced by culture, background, experiences etc. You failing to see that and acting in this very dogmatic way is fairly surprising.
Nobody is forcing you to discuss if you don't want to, but you don't get to decide jack for what others should do. If you feel like, block me or drop the conversation, as apparently this comment already shows that you have no desire to engage honestly, considering you ignored every single point I made, not viceversa.