The Grace Hopper Celebration is meant to unite women in tech. This year droves of men came looking for jobs.
The beauty of new age gender being non-falsifiable
I’m happy to see so many Redditors have migrated to lemm.ee judging by these comments. Idk why—you could have just stayed on Reddit, but okay.
Organizers expressed frustration. Past iterations of the conference have “always felt safe and loving and embracing,” said Bo Young Lee, president of advisory at AnitaB.org, in a LinkedIn post. “And this year, I must admit, I didn’t feel this way.”
“This group was really accepting until all these unacceptable people showed up”
This is such a brain dead take. The conference exists to support a group that has been and is actively discriminated against and harassed in the tech industry. All the men crashing the event care not at all about the conference, its mission, and its participants - they’re just desperate to find a job. And while I absolutely sympathize with people suffering unemployment, it’s really shitty (and sadly so typical and indicative of the problem) to flood a space designed for women and non-binary people, completely disregarding them in the race to get ahead.
The conference should have been for females, not women. Transgender women are over represented in tech and the real numerical discrepancy is with the number of females in tech.
Since I am not a woman, transgender or otherwise, I won’t comment on the differences or similarities of their experiences. That said, excluding transgender women from a woman-oriented space does not seem helpful or thoughtful to me, just transphobic.
Also, distinguishing between women and females is not something I’m familiar with and don’t feel good about it. It’s certainly self-evident that afab women and transgender women have on average different lives experiences especially during their formative years in which an interest in tech and CS is likely to be either cultivated or discouraged. Nonetheless, given the significant prejudice against transgender people, I imagine few women would begrudge them participation in this community.
Dude, have you worked in tech? At all? It’s already horrendously overrun with men who step outside their space and make everyone’s day worse. I don’t begrudge women for being frustrated that it’s happening at the Grace Hopper conference.
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.
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.
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.
It’s abusive to checks notes apply for a job?
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.
The organization says it welcomes men’s allyship and participation though
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.
Great Parks and Rec episode
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?
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…
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Because it is structural.
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.
Did you read any of the quoted article?
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.
Amazing the way everything can be twisted to be all men’s fault.
Get a fucking grip.
I’m not the one claiming all problems are due to the patriarchy.
Oh honey, you’re not the patriarchy. Just one of its useful idiots.
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
When a woman shows up to a men’s event she is brave and courageous. When a man shows up to a women’s event, he is intruding.
Hmm…
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?
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…?
Glad to see federal anti-discrimination law working to prevent these conference organizers from being as sexist as they wanted to be.
If companies were looking for applicants there, it is clear discrimination.
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.”
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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”.
So to you, “entry level” is literally just unskilled labor and nothing else?
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”.
It used to be once upon a time. Because companies invested in people and fully trained them themselves.
Yes I know, times have changed.
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.
>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.
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 remember when a lady tried to scam me into an MLM at a job fair I attended several years ago.
removed by mod
That’s been my experience as well. Totally pointless when they just want you to apply online. What’s the use of networking then?
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 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.
My experience of going to a tech fair was:
- Great discussion with sourcing recruiter of Big Name Company, who loves CV and experience
- Get Business Card and told to apply online
- Apply online
- Ghosted/immediately rejected.
They’re basically box-ticking exercises for companies that want to work with specific organisations.
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.
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.
Likely scalding hot takes from me but here goes:
The entire gender debate is idiotic, policing based on what someone feels like is just stupid to the absolute maximum and will create more problems than it solves (imo it doesn’t even solve any problems, just creates a facade politicians can hide behind). Discriminate based on sex instead if you must, at least that has an objective property that can be checked if needed.
While I’m at the hot takes:
- Qutoas for anything are stupid and harm the minority they were made for more than they help (The “they were a quota hire” issue)
- Generalizing any group (examples: all feminism is xy, all men are xy, all conservatives are xy) just sabotages whatever you are advocating for because people on the fence about the topic which are part of the group you just generalized will now be sure to absolutely loathe you and reject your arguments even if they are true
- Feminism did a lot of harm people are not acknowledging, it is a good thing and was needed but to pretend there never was a downside is a bit silly (mostly wages just freezing in place due to the workforce almost doubling and the repercussions that carries). Ignoring the collateral damage done is extremely harmful and won’t help anyone long term.
- The debate about nonbinary people has reached a level where an increasing number of people can’t take it seriously anymore, each time the acronym list of LGBT gets longer more people either check out of supporting it or turn actively hostile to it because they think it’s going off the rails. Find a model that fits all people instead of tacking on more exceptions and special cases and the entire thing would have a lot more support imo.
With the ability to self identify I don’t understand how an article like this can be written. How are you able to determine who is female, male or one of the many other genders without asking each person? How is it possible to say the conference was overrun by men? Wouldn’t you have to infer their gender by their appearance which is inherently insensitive and problematic?
Ignoring gender, are job fairs overrun by job seekers now? Is it that bad?
They are all for gender equality, except when…
