Men Overran a Job Fair for Women in Tech
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
You didn't mention in which context you are suggesting I am changing scope, so I am not sure what am I supposed to discuss.
Talking about how females or minorities or other groups are impacted by something is measured using averages across the whole population.
Yes?
I didn't negate any general trend using any particular experience. The only particular experience I mentioned is my own, with the sole purpose of responding to:
It’s invisible to you because you haven’t lived through it.
Which suggested that I don't acknowledge the existence of certain barriers because I did not live through it (assuming a lot about my personal life). This is completely irrelevant to the overall argument I am trying to develop anyway, as I am not arguing that women don't have barriers in tech, I am fully aware they do (even if at the individual level some might not). I am simply stating that since there are multiple levels of discrimination in tech, and people might be victim of many of those (classism, ageism, sexism, racism, homo-transphobia, etc.), workers - and in particular victims of discrimination (but also the "privileged" ones) - should acknowledge each other situations (in other words, develop a class consciousness) and join the struggle against the overall system that generates discrimination, not create fragmentation between them because of the specific discrimination(s) they suffer. To me, this rhetoric since to push for a kind of "feminism of the regime", in which the status quo stays effectively the same, but the oppressor substantially are untouched, with a new coat of paint for supporting diversity.
That said, the population who attended this job fair is not a random sample of the "tech worker" population, therefore even in this case it might not make sense to use broad categories (like male and female) alone. For once, if you spend 600-1200$ for a job fair, chances are you are in dire need of a job. This probably means that at least a good chunk of those men are indeed outliers, so judging by broad categories (such as male=privileged in tech) might be especially wrong. This is my personal guess, and also why I would have liked for the article to interview some of them and understand why they were there.
I am simply stating that since there are multiple levels of discrimination in tech, and people might be victim of many of those (classism, ageism, sexism, racism, homo-transphobia, etc.), workers - and in particular victims of discrimination (but also the “privileged” ones) - should acknowledge each other situations
That sounds like you're saying the job fair should have just been a job fair for everybody. Which would defeat the problem solving that these groups have worked towards solving simply because what? Guys are left out? Is society just suppose to ignore all solutions now if it doesn't apply to the entire population? How is that reasonable
Actually I am more referring to the analysis that is being done on the outcome of the fair than to the fair itself. I have no problem with the fact that the event was targeting women. Rather than asking why would some men join this event? Which men joined the event? etc., we stopped at "men steal places meant for women". No depth in the analysis, no expansion of perspective, just alienation of some workers.
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.
This is such a stupid and horrible take. Do you even work in tech?
Yes.
If you can also argument your position, I would be grateful.
Well I think the person's position was that your take is stupid and horrible.
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.
Yeah they are called stupid morons.
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:
I think part of the problem is that everyone- regardless of race, sex, gender or orientation has MASSIVE debt, in part due to the greed of the housing and rentals market, student loans, and unpayable medical bills- on top of caring for families and children. While people in a 1:1 conversation would definitely acknowledge cons for minority groups, this situation is more like a sinking ship with everyone fighting over the same few rickety lifeboats. Everyone else is just a faceless competitor as debt sharks get closer and closer.
I still don't understand why we don't write laws preventing CEOs from making disgusting amounts of money and why we don't have laws against multibillionares hoarding vast amounts of cash that should be getting invested into the very job fairs and infrastructure people are squabbling over.
It's an unfortunate situation any way you look at it. And it's a bummer that people are missing the forest for the trees in this thread :/
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.
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.
No I don't mean that because I'm not an incel.
Transgender women are actually over represented in tech as a proportion of population.
That's great.
people use the word incel pretty liberally these days. can you think of something a bit more original?
Spoken like a true incel
So your advocating for Equality in Outcomes?
Disadvantages groups need help to gain equal footing first. Before we can even talk about equality.
What does equal footing look like / mean to you?
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.
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.
There are two competing lenses we can view this kind of thing through, and both are valid. First, there's the macro lens in which groups like women are significantly underrepresented, and most reasonable people believe that to be a problem we've created that we need to solve. It's not that women are bad at this job. It's that women have been pushed not to participate for reasons we think are bad. Through that lens, an obvious solution is to bias things in favor of women for some period of time to get to a steady state where the system won't automatically fall back into gender-bias as soon as we take our thumb off the scale. That's a reasonable theory, and pursuing it does a lot of good.
But there's a second lens in which individual people with names are trying to participate in the labor market. The fact that men have had a built-in advantage does not imply that any man looking for a job would only be able to get one by leveraging an unfair advantage. If we think talent and hard work are equally distributed through the population, then temporarily biasing things away from men is, to the man currently trying to find a job, exactly as discriminatory as anything that prior generations have faced. The fact that there's a societal good being pursued doesn't make that harm go away either. It is unfair, and we should recognize that. We may decide we have to do it anyway, but I'm not a fan of the idea that "let's mistreat them like other people were mistreated" is inherently a good thing.
That second lens is called egocentrism.
It's just Maslow's Hierarchy. The person who doesn't have a job should be egocentric, at least in this narrow area of focus. If your position is that people should prioritize abstract societal benefits over their own security and well-being, I'm not sure what to tell you other than to prepare for a life of people disappointing you.
That sounds good. But what does equal footing look like in hiring process?
You've described a steady end state, and I agree that's a good end state.
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?
Women are excluded from tech?
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?
Hey that sounds like discrimination durrr dur durrr.
Foreigners from misogynist coutries by chance?
How is this relevant? What does that tell you about particular individuals also?
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.
Ah yes, my favorite community, a gender.
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.
Lynching people based on their race is bad. I think we can all agree on that.
Once we make lynching illegal. Should there be a grace period, where people of the marginalized race are allowed to lynch people of the dominant race?
If lynching is bad, it should be bad for everybody, all the time.
I don't see why discrimination based on gender has a different criteria.
This is the dumbest shit I've ever read and if you can't see the miles of difference between a women-only job fair and lynching black people I don't know what to tell you.
An actual example would be segregation of schools by race. White students had the better schools and education. So when segregation became illegal, it would be like a period where black students organized their own resources for catching up, their own space and time, etc. Now imagine they had just enough books/teachers for engaging those students. And then white students showed up and began using the books, asking for their own tutoring from the teachers, etc - leaving less for the students who were at a disadvantage to begin with. Then the white kids start crying when they are told they aren't welcome in this space dedicated to leveling the field of knowledge.
In summary: Jesus fucking christ a job fair is not like lynching, you fucking wacko.
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
Your comment isn’t loading for me
Yours is trying to load something? It's literally just an empty comment for me.
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 saw it and I still downvoted it because it contributes nothing to the conversation.
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.
lemmy.world had some issues with pictures too.
Modern feminists are the biggest bootlickers out there.
They sold out in 1970s, no solidarity.
![[WIRED] Men Overran a Job Fair for Women in Tech](https://radiation.party/pictrs/image/2e3d4ef8-193b-4052-aca8-0aed7afc4af4.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=196)
