The Grace Hopper Celebration is meant to unite women in tech. This year droves of men came looking for jobs.

  • sudneo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally agree with this, but:

    • this is hardly a community event. Being a woman (or a man) doesn’t make you a member of a community by default (being a member in my opinion requires deliberate participation) plus this is a job fair sponsored by some of the biggest companies in US.
    • what if you don’t have a community? For example, a foreigner? Is it OK to alienate these people (an even weaker minority)?

    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.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, a level playing field is one where no one has an unfair advantage, not one where all the various unfair advantages balance out.

            • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not if there’s already an unfair advantage that has been introduced and can’t be shifted.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s what leveling the playing field is, removing the unfair advantages. Like anonymizing applications.

                As stated elsewhere, there are other hurdles besides gender Identity which obstruct applicants. Equality of opportunity by selectively advantaging demographics immediately devolves into absurdity. You have to accurately quantify the exact degree of historical disadvantage and precise proportionate counter-advantage for every demographic, normalized by demographic, and accurately combined to address intersectionality. Every attempt at which obviously creating ripples of advantage and disadvantage to infinitesimally complicate the calculus, not to mention how you even quantify any of these values accurately in the first place.

                And you must do all of this, because otherwise you’re just making a new tier of privilege to join in on oppressing the minorities who slip through the cracks and don’t have advocacy groups to devote time and money to give them a helping hand.

                Or, like I said, you could focus on stripping away existing advantages instead of starting new ones, so your efforts benefit everyone disadvantaged.

                • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Anonymously applying doesn’t remove the unfair advantage. It barely scratches the surface. No one group can strip away advantage, so you’re left giving relatively small advantage to underprivileged demographics.

                  This is like someone who was born into money complaining about not getting welfare.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s more like acknowledging that under such a system of selective advantages, many underprivileged demographics slip through the cracks because they’re not one of the vogue disadvantaged demographics. You’re left with towering historic advantages, surrounded by a hierarchy of new trendy advantages, rising in proportion to the power of their advocacy groups. That’s not a level playing field, it’s a city skyline.