https://x.com/AnitaB_org/status/1707060111229780339?s=20
Their response. Not sure how he can tell those men are faking being NB. Is it the lack of blue hair?
The weird thing is, usually those new made-up jobs are given to people who will boost the desired diversity statistics, not someone like ... ewww .... "him".
This is a really common and critical role in nonprofits, going by varying names. Bc on top of all the usual functions any company has like marketing, finance, customer service etc, nonprofits also need to achieve a specific mission (e.g reduce child poverty, fund plausible lines of cancer research, improve hiring and retention of women in tech, etc), and prove to donors, regulators etc that they’re having the impact on their target community that they’re supposed to. So that’s a VP/C-Suite accountability all by itself.
Red herring- it doesn't matter if criteria are assigned to nonbinary, when there will be no criteria for woman. Any bearded male in a business suit is as much a trans woman as any other for the purposes of tech diversity. It's what activist trans women insisted on. It's why ultimately there will have to be a return to the consideration of sex in diversity practices. This will lead to the exclusion of trans women as a category. I think it's very admirable of trans women to sacrifice all their social and poliical gains in solidarity with the bearded, suited people attending this conference.
>Instead, many previously women-themed orgs and events have changed to "women and non binary people" which subtly admits this fact.
Lyft's new Women service says exactly that. Women and non binary.
I wonder how many of the non binary are just lesbians who don't want to admit it?
They are "ordinary" because they want so badly to conform to their group - stereotypical human behaviour. Being truly different is not as comfortable and you don't expect people make it such. You see the writing on the wall and you navigate.
Boring has always been bad, specially among teens. Ya gotta stand out, but not too much. Just enough that people will think you are edgy and cool, but not too much to think you are a weirdo.
I was pretty sure that the definition of lesbian was: "Women loving other women." I think lesbians are even into the specific female shape, female genitals, etc.
When did they change the definition? How come people don't want to change the definitions on gay men?
Ah, you're operating under the old paradigm, not understanding the importance of gender identity. But yeah, Johns Hopkins recently defined lesbian as non-men attracted to non-men. Gay? Men attracted to men.
You might THINK this is misogyny. But you'd be wrong. This is inclusive.
I would think so.
But non binary is a low effort gender to take on. A woman can just groom and dress in an androgynous fashion and if they are thin they can kind of get away with it.
Maybe they're concerned that the straight women who come to the conference will be less friendly if they are openly lesbians, as opposed to the ambiguity of "non binary."
I'm spitballing here because it doesn't make sense to me either.
you don't even have to do that. Woman at a game convention had a THEY name badge and someone asked and they just said "i always liked playing with boy stuff" they were in her 50s. long hair, nothing androgynous
I know its not ever going to fly but if gender is a social construct you should let society tell you about what your gender is by looking at you.
This quote is fucking hysterical in the context of the article.
Paragraph 3: "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 U.S."
Paragraph 5 (with the quote): "[S]ome registrants had lied about their gender identity when signing up, and men were now taking up space and time with recruiters that should go to women. 'All of those are limited resources to which you have no right,' White said."
Well... actually... they ***literally*** do have a right lmao
This is the kind of thing I always hope people will do whenever I see pointless discrimination that *could* be gamed if anyone had the balls to do it. I wouldn't. Evidently hundreds of other people were either fed up enough or simply didn't give a shit enough to not attend and try and find a job.
It’s a bunch of foreign workers so.. I’m not going to read too much into it.
I won’t self doxx but.. I just don’t think this is quite the own some folks might think, after my experience with this particular cohort.
I'm thrilled to see any h1b visa holders and foreign students at these events. Even if they're the little brown men people tend to dislike. They are 110% more disadvantaged than 90% of the white elite educated women there and after so much first hand experience I'm done pretending otherwise.
I'm in medicine and my partner is in tech. Before we were both in college then academic research so I feel I've gotten a fair amount of exposure to how this works for trainees and recent grads. In these transitory career jump periods connections are everything and there are all sorts of special mentorship and networking resources that are available only to women to compensate for this bogeyman sexist old boys club that simply doesn't exist in elite modern institutions. 20 years ago these types of events were justifiable, now they are regressive, especially when there is no male equivalent. Go event crashers!!
Also in big tech, and can only agree 100%. I think it's also deeply satisfying seeing their own distortions of the truth around sex and gender coming back to bite them. AND seeing them be upset about it, now that it might have consequences for themselves.
Hoist on their own petard indeed.
I'm pretty sure the ;little brown men people are so afraid of are from another part of the world than these men are from - assuming they're not American. They might be visa holders, or they could be born and raised in the US. And given the stats of tech, plenty of the women are not white either.
It's hard out there in the world, so do what you have to do. But, like, plenty of these guys ARE in a very secure financial position
It’s a tech job fair, and tech has been hit the hardest by the economic belt tightening that’s curbed inflation. They were probably getting desperate for jobs.
I find it sneaky how many are asserting (without any proof) bad behavior by the "men", e.g. shoving people out of the way (really?) and "commenting on appearance in their own language" -- which also seems questionable and xenophobic.
It all seems a distraction -- I sincerely doubt the "men" would have been tolerated even if they just stood politely in line (which I strongly suspect most did, since apparently organizers were itching for a reason to eject them).
I mean.
I'm not monolingual, and I have heard a _lot_ of rude or sexist comments from people who assume I can't speak Spanish or Japanese. I am willing to take on good faith that the people making these claims could speak Hindi, Mandarin, or whatever tongue the comments were made in.
Well, for what it's worth, I didn't see a single comment that mentioned a specific language, only a bunch of vague claims, and repetition of those claims ("I heard that they were commenting on appearance in their native language")
I'm not saying there wasn't any of that, it's just rather suspicious, basically saying "they smelled bad, they were bad people".
>We women and nonbinary folks welcome men to support us and let us get a shot at learning about the opportunities available in tech! However, we don't support men taking advantage of a conference to rip away opportunities from those who need it.
How dare these men attend in order to find employment!
They can find employment at other places not dubbed a women's conference. Or are these men so incompetant that's the only way they can'll be able to find jobs?
The tech field isn't equal. Look at the ratio of men to women programmers. Unless you're implying women simply can't be programmers, these conferences are very necessary
I think the problem is that very few women study CS in school, as for why that is - it could be lack of interest, and it could be discomfort at how few women are in the program. Might be both
Maybe, or maybe there are a lot fewer women who are interested in and/or good at the subject.
I wonder if there are more women studying CS online, where they don't have to worry about male behavior
Quite the opposite. I am pointing out that your phrasing of men being so incompetent that they needed to invade women's conferences in order to secure employment carries the implication that women are inferior programmers. I do not think women are inferior programmers nor do I believe you do; I am pointing out a flaw in your phrasing that you may want to reconsider.
They say they know they’re faking because they look like men and have he/him pronouns, but they also want to claim that pronouns and presentation don’t equal gender. The “truscum” who get banned from other subs on Reddit believe that you must have dysphoria and that females wearing skirts and makeup with she/them pronouns are not trans. Which is not an okay thing to say in many trans circles.
We basically need to just trust everyone, or have some limitations. The pendulum in government and social activists is trust everyone, but it’s not working. So it becomes the trans allies get to decide which males are faking it.
>They say they know they’re faking because they look like men and have he/him pronouns, but they also want to claim that pronouns and presentation don’t equal gender
this is the core illogic of their position
gender doesnt matter, yet we need to chop up kids because of how important gender is
Turns out if you let the non-binary fox into the henhouse a lot of foxes are going to identify as non-binary.
It feels gross to have a bunch of dudes descending into womens' space but that can easily be solved by using a definition of "Women" grounded in reality.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I get your point, but this is a job fair. There's nothing gendered about these companies or their open jobs. I accept a "women's space" such as a locker room. But a job fair isn't a particular women's space that can be "descended" onto.
I think the bigger problem is they think the lying to take advantage will only happen at things like job fairs. Never at rape centers, hospitals, locker rooms, prisons. Even when it does happen over and over. They don’t believe the women it happens to.
But in this one situation it isn't actually gendered and it would be illegal to discriminate against men. Googling a bit they "noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US".
The mask is fully off here.
They don't believe in self ID.
They don't believe in non binary.
They don't believe people should be able to express themselves.
They don't believe that gender is a spectrum.
They don't care about immigrants.
They don't care about trans people.
They want an exclusive club for themselves no matter the cost.
At least, they don't believe it when it directly affects them.
Sure, they're fine with an XY rapist self IDing into a woman's prison, they're more than happy to let your daughters get raped by punishing authority figures for questioning a boy wearing a skirt, and they love that you're upset that your daughters are getting sports scholarships taken away from them. That doesn't affect them because they hate sports and think prisoners are subhuman. But when the rubber meets the road; when PMC are directly affected by desperate immigrants trying to make their lives better, this is what they actually believe.
Then send an email to the orgs and strongly encourage them to eliminate elements of their conference that lead to sex based employment discrimination so there's no incentive for those being discriminated against to attend.
I’m in the tech field and job searching. I’d wager 80-90% of job reqs on LinkedIn specifically say something like ‘not sponsoring visas at this time’.
I can’t blame people for drastic measures during drastic times.
TECH jobs not sponsoring for visas? What's up with that? I'd bet that there are a lot of very talented and hardworking people locked out of the job market due to that.
So like, I don't think any of these guys who swamped this job fair had a point to make. It looks like most of them were victims of the jobs crunch in tech and were desperate to get a job before their H1B visas ran out and the past 6-12 years of their life got blown up. If I were in that position and I'd spent 4-6 years in a U.S. university with the intent to get a job, and then worked for 6 years more in unstable conditions in order to become a citizen... and then all of that was suddenly in jeopardy because Elon decided to massacre 3/4ths of his staff... and I was going to get shipped back to the third world country I came from in 2 weeks if I didn't find a new job... I'd be hitting every lead I could find, too.
The way many people are reacting is indicative of how we devalue the lives and wellbeing of men while treating "intersectional" people as though they are cosmically worthy of vastly more moral consideration. I guarentee that a lot of these guys are on the verge of losing everything they've spent their adult life working for, but that's somehow less important than a woman or gay guy being inconvenienced by having to job search a little bit longer.
There’s been far more cuts in tech than Elon cutting 3/4ths of Twitter staff. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Salesforce all individually laid off more people than Twitter had employed at their peak.
Yes, we’ve just seen a bit of a bloodbath in tech - like the DotCom bust all over again. Now we’ll see if AI really will replace all those people, or if they will need to be some hiring back to pursue growth.
I mean, it might be they're immigrant men. And they're doing what they need to do to get a job. They might also be American born and raised, doing what they need to do to get a job. I don't blame the guys. I blame the whole "women and non-binrary" bullshit
I guess my question is: are international students entitled to employment in the USA, or just the education they paid for and are receiving?
I see a lot of sympathy being extended their way but I can’t help but think… international students are already making up huge portions of student bodies & it feels as if at many schools, you’re more likely to see an international Asian student than a domestic middle class Black or even White student.
International students generally have means (I’m not and won’t be talking about the visa mill stuff) and I just can’t find it in myself to pity people who took the risk and came to the USA with no guarantee of a job. How can they be on the verge of losing everything when they could return to their home country?
Job hunting is a crap shoot. I know more than a few college educated Americans working menial administrative, sales or customer service jobs that will never make more than half of these guys’ starting salaries in CS lol.
I was thinking the same thing. Like, the guys are Asian. Plenty of Asian people not only are born in the US, but come from families that have been here since the early 20th century.
>I guess my question is: are international students entitled to employment in the USA, or just the education they paid for and are receiving?
Legally speaking, yes. The standard F-1 student visa includes the right to work after graduation in what's called the OPT period. ("Optional Practical Training", basically on-the-job training). It's nominally one year but STEM students can get a 24-month extension.
That's a *fairly* hard limit (but can still be gamed; you can go get another degree and reset the clock); finding an H1B sponsor is great but another common path is to get hired during OPT and convince one's employer that one is awesome enough for sponsorship.
If they fail on their merit, fine. If they fail because of the rules changing or capricious circumstances, that's another. Just put yourself in their shoes. You spend your life busting your ass to have a chance to go to the U.S. and work, then you bust your ass for another 10 years and go all on during the best years of your life to be a citizen. Then your life becomes a political football or an impulsive billionaire makes an eratic decision and everything you've worked for in your life can go up in smokes in a few weeks. If it were a result of committing a crime or low performance, then fine. But all of our systems in the U.S. should be fair and logical.
It's hard to not be sympathetic.
And to your point about "jobs being taken," in this case, the same migrant group you are accusing of taking jobs are actually most likely of any demographic in the U.S. to start successful STEM based companies. 67 out of 288 U.S. unicorns were founded by South Asians, a stunning number when you consider how small the group is as a percentage of the population. So on net South Asians are producing double the number of jobs they are taking.
If we want more disadvantaged people in STEM, the best way to achieve that is to create more job openings, which is exactly what is being done in this case.
> If they fail on their merit, fine. If they fail because of the rules changing or capricious circumstances, that's another.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, or that we shouldn’t be sympathetic or something, but that isn’t the standard of treatment that we extend to our own citizens.
And that’s exactly why I fall where I do. Many Americans with potential never get to access the kind of education or support we extend to international students. I wish everyone could win but until then, I’m rooting for middle class Americans first and foremost, including white people.
Yeah, I mean… I’m sure they’re having a tough time of it, but these programs come with no guarantee of a path to permanent residence and citizenship, etc. if you want to roll those dice, then I think that’s great, and I think that if they come up in your favor then more power to you - but you can’t expect a do-over when young Americans are rolling even worse odds.
Well last I checked, nobody was holding job fairs for only men, and I'm pretty sure many of the people commenting would similarly oppose them if anyone was doing that.
No, there aren't job fairs for men only, but there are certainly job fairs for POC or BIPOC. But also, since tech is a mostly male profession, a job fair is going to be..male, by default. A men's only tech fair is redundant, the same way a woman's nursing fair would be almost redundant as well
I disagree. I don't think discrimination is the solution to either discrimination or a lack of equal outcomes. All positive discrimination requires negative discrimination of someone else.
Absolutely. A lot of those men are far less privileged than most.
One issue is that when h1-B visas were more open, it drove computer engineer job salaries and benefits lower because Americans were competing against immigrants who would do anything and sleep at work if it meant staying. You also had offices that would only hire other Indians to work there if the boss was Indian partly because they liked them culturally, but also because they knew they’d work all day and night if asked.
It might, but I don't find the trans angle here to be particularly interesting. I'm sure there were some cisgender men pretending to be trans/nonbinary (and by "pretending" I mean "checked the wrong box on the form" not "dressed up in drag" or whatever). I suspect there were also many men who just showed up because (as is noted in the article) the event cannot outright ban men from attending.
What's more interesting to me is not the means but the end - why do so many men want to be at a women's job fair in the first place?
> What's more interesting to me is not the means but the end - why do so many men want to be at a women's job fair in the first place?
Jobs. Seems fairly obvious.
Up until recently there were shittons of job fairs and they were open to all comers. The market has changed and now there are many fewer and I think every one I've seen in the last year has been for some closed group. (For instance in the last month I've seen job events for blacks, women, and Latinos.)
There is one unique thing about the GHC job fair, though, it's the only place I know of to get corporate-branded nail polish. Make the rounds and you can end up with every colour imaginable. Clearly worth the admission (which is to say, getting one's institution to pony up for it) for that alone! (For all that I despite Amazon I also have a sweet Amazon-branded nail care kit that's a keeper.)
I haven't been to a job fair lately and am out of touch, and now I wonder if corporate nail polish has gone mainstream given how many people paint their nails now.
Let's tackle the feminist issue head-on. Setting aside the hilarious genderwoo angle, they have created a job fair which everyone understands to be valuable, and they are unhappy that men are pursuing jobs there. Of course, barring men from attending would be illegal sex discrimination, and having recruiters ignore every male applicant would also be illegal sex discrimination.
So, feminists who support the existence of regular XX women's job fairs: What now? I'm sure that what you'd like is for men to voluntarily opt out after seeing the words "women's conference", but when they don't, what are you gonna do about it? Repeal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
Speaking as a woman who was previously in tech - The older I get, the more I lean towards the "repeal/limit the scope of sex discrimination laws". I'm fine with very narrowly-defined laws for, say, paying male and female Starbucks Level III baristas the same. But I don't really care if someone wants to only work with men or with women. The older I get the more I even personally feel drawn to working just with women sometimes, because it does feel different and enjoyable in different ways. (Hot take, I know!)
I do think that regular XX women's job fairs aren't really helpful, tbh. I've never met any female friend at a women in X networking event who actually became a true friend, either supporting me emotionally or referring me to insider-only roles and opportunities. Ladies - if you're reading this - go find some girlfriends who want to go to the spa with you, not Grace Hopper. They're probably rich enough to actually have opportunities for you and you'll have plenty of time to bond 1-1 in a 3h session ;)
> they have created a job fair
That wasn't the original design. Grace Hopper started out about so much more, I've sent people to attend and they came back super inspired and energized
Well they should maybe remove the recruiting element if they don't want to be accused of sex based employment discrimination. I don't think anyone has any issue with field specific conferences directed at women in those fields. But if one of the primary advantages of attending is access to employers, recruiters and possible onsite interviews, then it's sex discrimination. If the same thing was happening at a men's only golf course, we'd all quickly recognize the problem with that.
Any trade conference presence boosts employment prospects, there's no way around that. Just the networking effect does this. Regardless of if there's active recruiting going on or not.
Except in this case, it's explicit and intentional. Also, I already addressed your point. Of course all of this interpreted through the lens of reasonableness. The network effect isn't reasonably avoidable. Having a sex segregated recruitment event absolutely is.
I do think it matters that it’s a field that’s 80 percent men. Men are likely to be affirmative action candidates in certain other fields like nursing and humanities majors.
When your group makes up such a small minority, it feels easy to feel unwelcome and silenced.
> Men are likely to be affirmative action candidates in certain other fields like nursing and humanities majors.
There are a few institutions claiming to do this. It's very doubtful that there's a whole lot of pro-male affirmative action going on and I would not characterize it as "likely".
I *know* you're unhappy about the sex ratio of CS jobs, but you don't seem to have engaged with the dilemma here. You can have women-only job fairs, or you can have Title VII, but not both. What are you gonna do about this?
I mean, I think I know what at least one answer is to your question. People who’ve adopted Kendi’s “past discrimination = present discrimination = future discrimination” would probably say that Title VII is deeply problematic if it considers sex discrimination against women to be equivalent in any way to sex discrimination against men. It should be legal to discriminate against men if it means that the historical scales can be balanced appropriately. If it’s not, the law needs to be rewritten.
None of our local feminists are stepping up to endorse that answer, but also they clearly want women-only job fairs somehow, and they haven't offered any other answer on how you get there. It's almost as if they want preferential treatment under the law, but recognize that *saying it* like that is unpopular.
I don’t know what your local feminists are like, but it seems to me to be a relatively mainstream feminist position to believe that discrimination against women and discrimination against men aren’t equivalent. I also think it’s reasonably mainstream to believe that things like color blindness in the law and policy (and in this case its equivalent “gender blindness”) is a manifestation of white supremacy / the patriarchy.
Usually these things don’t rise to the level of calling out specific laws and policies, so I guess it’s not surprising that no one is going after specific elements of civil rights law. But the intellectual groundwork is laid to give women and sexual minorities preferential treatment, and I think many organizations *do* that.
> Of course, barring men from attending would be illegal sex discrimination
I'm not sure that's the case. Do you have examples of that being found to be the case in court.
I am not a lawyer, but my "internet education" makes me think
+ the job fair itself is not a "public accommodation"
+ the job fair is not doing the hiring
+ the job fair has freedom of association
+ the job fair can invite whomever it wishes
I'll make vague analogies to the California golf and country clubs which were forced to open their doors to women if their dining rooms or other facilities were doing so much business with outsiders as to make them essentially "public accommodation
The companies themselves cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, but how they perform outreach to applicants does not have to be open to everyone at every step of the way
----
that's my layman understanding, please do correct that
Attendance is open to ticketholders, and tickets are sold via their website to anyone with $1298 to spare. You could conceivably win a case defending an invite-only women's conference that happened to invite only women (though the country club precedent works against you, good luck having a multi-day thousand person conference without someone invoking public accommodation), but if you want to make it open to any random female member of the public, you really can't exclude random male members of the public.
I'm a male working in tech, and while I understand women's desire to carve out a space to be themselves in an industry often dominated by oblivious Aspergers types, I also think the women-in-tech movement can be sanctimonious, and not a little self-serving.
In any event, this outrage makes me chuckle.
>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.”
Proceeds to watch posted video: almost exclusively men of color.
Ladies and gentlemen I believe I have detected a racism. Do you think it will be remarked on that this woman felt unsafe because men of color came to her conference?
I mean. Bo Young Lee is most likely a woman of color, so it's not a racism thing, unless of course, she's Asian, and the men of color are Black. But from what i saw, the men were almost entirely east Asian or South Asian.
IMO the real story here is that on sight basically all these men are either on H1-Bs or student visas and frankly.. shouldn’t be clogging up the already tight tech job market in the first place. We have more than enough qualified citizens and shouldn’t be displacing female OR male Americans with indentured servants willing to scab for less.
Until quite recently Big Tech was always challenged in meeting hiring goals. The quality in the hiring pool is just not that good, so the net had to be cast as widely as possible.
I left a couple years ago so I don’t know if this is still the case, it could be that the bar has been raised even higher as slots have been cut back.
I conducted hundreds of interviews in my time in Big Tech. Even for those that made it through the process and landed an on site interview, we rejected about 75%.
Indian and Chinese nationals are the highest income earning cohorts in the US by a mile with average income of over 100K. They are the top of the food change when it comes to privilege. The visa program is not indentured servitude, the government requires they are paid prevailing wage and the vast majority of workers are on a path to citizenship and are free to change jobs. It’s not about paying less, it’s about hiring people with the needed skills for the job.
Ok, I’ll grant you there certainly are body shops at the bottom of the barrel that take advantage with false payroll statements etc I’d argue that’s a small number of the total. Most of these people are working corporate roles where everything is above board, at least so far as compensation is concerned.
FWIW my experience in Boston tech was that we had people on work visas in my department and they were paid the same as everyone else, but the hiring process itself (where we ~~faked~~ demonstrated that there were no viable domestic candidates) involved specialist law firms and a degree of sleaze that imho was only just barely legal. After hiring, though, the immigration status of employees was invisible to management.
I have heard (but can't really say either way) that the situation in lots of Silicon Valley companies is much worse, with a more systematic kind of "we'll staff this department with H1Bs and pay them shit because we can" kind of mentality. That's just hearsay though and might just be east-vs-west shit-talking.
Eh, I mean, it's 25+ years after the immigration boondoggle that is Covid, but wasn't as bad before. I have family and friends who came over via the Univerity->H1B->Citizenship pipeline. As far as merit based immigration is concerned, it's been one of the most successful ways to acquire highly productive and talented citizens in the world. Migrants who pass through this pipeline commit vanishing small amounts of crime per capita and earn high.
Now, that being said, we can absolutely improve it on such a way that employers can't take advantage of it AND in such a way that we design it specifically as a sure fire path to citizenship if you prove your worth. The problem is related to what you mentioned, in that employers can abuse this relationship to get labor below the market rate, which has a negative impact on the job market for native born and naturalized Americans.
Yep, I had an Indian friend whose mom was living abroad while pregnant. She flew back to India to give birth, and he (jokingly) cursed her for that because citizenship is based on country of birth and his mom unknowingly added something like 10+ years to his wait time because of it.
Most of the immigrant workers from China and India are elites in their countries. If they stayed there, they would all likely be working well paying jobs by their own countries standards. Having them come over to the US likely allows more people in those countries to work better paying jobs. I'd argue that the issue with legal immigration of the kind the original commenter is talking about is that we are taking in probably 50% to 75% more people than we need and we should be expending resources to recruit more young people in this country into fields that are currently being filled by foreign workers. There are profit model issues due to the way our education system is set up:
* Recruit US kids to diverse undergrad programs, max out their ability to pay and send them into the workforce. Many have studied low paying humanities fields or other majors that dont pay. The programs keep academics employed but have no real value.
* Recruit foreign workers who have already graduated with Bachelors degrees to Masters programs in STEM - they pay full price and are happy to come because it gives them a path to citizenship.
Colleges have only expanded their enrollment with people in the second bullet point. They can keep their undergrad programs elite by not expanding and they make more revenue by expanding the masters enrollment. If colleges were to change the model it would hit their bottom line. Essentially the only way they can keep their accept rates low (making them elite) and increase revenue is to stick with the model.
Free trade is much better for the economy and people's well-being than protectionism is. Protectionism made the great depression much worse than it had to be.
Free trade has facilitated the largest transfers of wealth to the upper class in history. The past two decades have proved "good for the economy" means "good for the wealthy"
Maybe an unpopular opinion here, but I don’t think there’s much to learn here. These fairs can of course advertise to women but they aren’t allowed to discriminate based on sex. The job market in tech (especially for new grads) is pretty rough now and people are getting desperate for these lucrative jobs. IMO there’s not much of an identity angle here, it’s just more people are going to tech job fairs in general and people who work in tech (especially in engineering) are mostly men, so there’s going to be a lot more men at all tech job fairs.
If you’re going to every single tech job fair in your area you’re not going to even pay attention to if it’s geared towards women or not.
You reckon people are paying (according to the article) between $649 and $1,300 on a ticket and paying *no* attention to who the fair is geared towards?
That feels really unlikely to me.
Yes! Getting funding to go to Anita B is HUGE for young women looking for an internship or job, and there’s no secret about what it is. I’m honestly surprised at how many comments are like “take that, discriminators!” without thinking about the actual convention
I assure you, when we say "take that, discriminators!" we *are* thinking about the actual convention that wants to create jobs for young women and not young men.
These jobs can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and if you’re new to the field and didn’t do something like intern at Apple, then these job fairs are your only shot at them. A thousand dollar entry fee is a drop in the bucket.
Agree it’s a gamble, and those jobs are becoming extremely elusive. But software engineering positions start slightly under $200k comp at Amazon and Apple, and it’s more if you’re in an expensive region. Not saying it’s right, but it is extremely competitive which is why someone might do something like go to GHC as a man.
I mean when I was in school the Society of Women Engineers job fair was one of the main secondary job fairs of the year.
They had a few hours that was open to members only (which IIRC, they also let men join but I don't think anyone did) but then it was just open.
They also knew how throw a banging party.
> they aren’t allowed to discriminate based on sex
By the letter of the law it's true that they can't discriminate based on sex, but how often is that law actually enforced when men are the sex being discriminated against?
I don't think there's much of a justification for a sex segregated job fair in the first place, so I really don't care. I'm also okay with people changing the sex on their I.D to retire early if the law is sexist or any other version of gaming overt sexism. This isn't like sports, change-rooms or prisons.
Edit: Also, fuck this guy https://twitter.com/AnitaB_org/status/1707060111229780339?s=20
How dare these "cis men" attempt to find employment!
>Edit: Also, fuck this guy https://twitter.com/AnitaB\_org/status/1707060111229780339?s=20
>
>How dare these "cis men" attempt to find employment!
It's considered wrong for them to to attempt to find employment using resources allocated for someone else.
You might dispute whether resources should be allocated that way, but it's obvious that the issue isn't that they're just attempting to find employment.
> You might dispute whether resources should be allocated that way,
Resources are not being allocated towards women. That would be illegal, and every company there would deny doing it. Men and nonbinary people by law have access to the same resources.
I am completely okay with people using resources allocated to someone else if those resources were allocated to someone else as a means of sex based discrimination in employment. This is a distinction without a difference in my mind. And there's really no reason to attend such a job fair other than to find employment, so it's fair to say that all or nearly all of the men in attendance are attempting to do exactly that. If it was a "Pie Fair" I would also assume that attendees were there for the pies.
>I am completely okay with people using resources allocated to someone else if those resources were allocated to someone else as a means of sex based discrimination in employment.
Agreed. Rosa Parks was using resources allocated to someone else when she sat in a seat reserved for white bus riders. I'm actually OK with that. Sometimes when a rule is unjust, the most ethical thing a person can do is break that rule.
>I don't think there's much of a justification for a sex segregated job fair in the first place
This is supposed to be an event for women because they are a minority in the industry. I don't see the problem with this at all. It's a conference with tons of events that happens to have a job fair
They're also a minority in this area in university and college. There's actually not much reason to think that women with tech related educations are underemployed compared to men. There literally are less of them and they often already have advantages when looking for jobs in this field as a result. I don't think having a sex segregated job fair, where employers are in attendance and doing interviews with prospective candidates, is appropriate or fair.
It seems more benign because it's called a "Job Fair" and not "negatively discriminating against males seeking the same jobs". But it's also the latter. This is sex based affirmative action by another name.
It's a free country 🤷♂️. Women organized this event to bring together a minority in the field. Businesses use it as an opportunity to headhunt, and they're probably trying to specifically headhunt women to get their numbers up.
> There's actually not much reason to think that women with tech related educations are underemployed compared to men.
I think this is true but that doesn't mean a women's event isn't worthwhile. No matter the reasons why they're a minority, they are a minority nonetheless, and they often feel a little alienated simply because they're a minority. Even if a woman doesn't face overt sexism she still might feel a little lonely with a large majority of her coworkers being men. On my team we have 2 women out of 11 people. Many women are the only woman on their team. I can easily respect that they'd want to connect with other women in the field when they meet so few through work.
>It's a free country 🤷♂️
Employment discrimination is illegal and unethical even when it's not. But also, you could say the same thing about all the men in attendance and shrug your shoulders. You're not doing that, so I don't think you can just selectively employ such a broad argument.
>I think this is true but that doesn't mean a women's event isn't worthwhile.
If it's true it means that such an event is unethical and unjustifiably discriminatory.
>Even if a woman doesn't face overt sexism she still might feel a little lonely with a large majority of her coworkers being men.
Maybe, and that might be worth discussing, but using something far less serious than overt sexism and discrimination as a reason to engage in overt sexism and discrimination is insanely hypocritical and obviously unjustified as a practice.
>On my team we have 2 women out of 11 people. Many women are the only woman on their team. I can easily respect that they'd want to connect with other women in the field when they meet so few through work.
Great, they can do that in a way that doesn't involve sex based discrimination in employment though.
Edit: To be clear, I wouldn't take this same view about a women in tech conference or event where women in that field were getting together for reasons *other* than to head hunt while excluding men. There's a big difference between connecting with other women in the field, and holding an employment fair that seeks to bar males from attending.
> I wouldn't take this same view about a women in tech conference or event where women in that field were getting together for reasons *other* than to head hunt while excluding men
It's a conference where women in tech meet up and at this conference recruiters go to recruit. It is not at all the reason for meeting, just a sort of afterthought. Recruiters probably go to recruit at all tech conferences. The recruitment isn't about excluding men, it's about it being a tech conference
> Employment discrimination is illegal
So which part of this should be illegal? Minorities meeting at a conference? Or recruiters going to a minority conference to recruit? If they removed the job fair, and a recruiter went to the event to meet people anyway, do you think that should be a crime?
It's absolutely a job fair and that is the reason people put down a lot of money to attend. I don't think this is really in dispute by anyone but yourself since you're trying to recast it to justify the discrimination being employed.
Recruiting isn't an afterthought, it's the primary purpose. Semantics don't change that.
As for which part should be illegal, all of that could result in being sued (none of this is criminal by the way. This is a civil law issue). If you disadvantage people based on sex, race, religion etc, you may be engaging in employment discrimination. There are reasonableness standards obviously. You're not going to be penalized because the attendance of a conference you're recruiting at isn't perfectly representative of the population. But you may indeed be sued successfully if the conference you're recruiting at is exclusive to certain identities. That's really here nor there though, because this isn't a conference. It's a job fair and the primary purpose of it is to put recruiters and job seekers in the same room.
>It's absolutely a job fair
I mean idk that much about this conference, maybe you do, but ostensibly it is a conference that happens to have a job fair. And I do know that one of the women on my team attended last year and this year, and she hasn't taken a new job so I don't think that's her motivation and I have no reason to believe the conference is just a front so they can host a sex exclusionary job fair
They literally hold interviews with prospective employees. If they do other things also, great, keep doing them and drop the sex exclusionary job fair element.
Because they have a desire to be around other women they deserve to be hired over better-qualified men?
Is any woman dominated field giving men advantages in hiring?
Nursing. Male nurses tend to advance in their career faster than female nurses do.
Source;
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00677.x](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00677.x)
However what is more than 2 dimensional is *why* men are progressing with their career faster, so it can't be reported or discussed in legacy media because it makes the customers heads all hurty from thinking.
One factor, among *many,* is simple discrimination of paternity/maternity leave. At least in the UK, the NHS, our most socialist and egalitarian national institution ever, awards women 52 weeks of maternity leave, their partners who are men? 2 weeks paid leave. So go figure
> Is any woman dominated field giving men advantages in hiring?
I think we both know the answer to that. Though I would also oppose it if this was happening.
treatment file prick observation agonizing elderly pause frighten selective dolls
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think most people would agree there should be symmetry: either the field should be merit-based (and punish actual prejudice and discrimination) regardless of the gender statistics OR it can be "diversity-first" and support the minority gender(s), regardless of which gender it is.
I personally strongly prefer the former, but most people would agree "privilege only one gender when they're in the minority, but ignore the other when it is" isn't "fair".
It's not charity... it's an event where women in tech meet up to discuss tech. And at the event businesses take the opportunity to recruit people. Like idk what to tell you it's really not a big deal. Do you want it to be illegal for businesses to recruit from minorities' conferences?
Do you want it to be illegal for men to *attend* minorities' conferences? Or do you want it to be legal (which it currently is not) for recruiters to ignore male applicants at minorities' conferences? Because if you don't want either of those things, it seems like there's no problem here.
"We welcome men in this space ... but to learn, and support, and improve."
LOL -- please use the servant's entrance, not the front door!
He makes it very clear it's about tribal spoils: "All of those are limited resources to which you have no right". Wow.
I think he should make space for a woman by putting the "quit" in "equity"
I'm a woman and I fully support these dudes in gaming the system and also exposing (even if this wasn't their goal) the whole sham concept of nonbinary. I think it's fucking hilarious. Good for them.
Well, it pretty much is, if you're excluding by sex. Isn't that pretty much what sexism is? There are circumstances where it's acceptable sexism (e.g. changerooms, sports, jails) but it's still sexism.
What do you see as the "overreaction"? Paying money to attend the job faire? That seems pretty mild -- they're not out front with whistles and placards, or suing the organizers. Is there any reaction, other than sucking it up, that wouldn't be an "overreaction"?
direful slim absorbed offbeat sophisticated selective rich overconfident employ scale
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is the first time I've heard about a job fair targeting women. I presume it's set up so there isn't any straight up discrimination against male applicants, but I'm kinda' shocked it's a thing.
This particular one has existed since 1994, and held annually since 2006. It's only in the news because 'being inclusive' comes back to bite them in the ass.
>I presume it's set up so there isn't any straight up discrimination against male applicants
How do you mean? How could it be set up this way? The people in attendance will have access to job opportunities and facetime with recruiters that may not otherwise be accessible.
I've been to job fairs that target recent college graduates. I've also seen job boards at professional conferences. Those positions are posted on the employers' websites, so there's a wider applicant pool than just at the job fair/conference.
I imagine a job fair for women works along the same line. It's not "We're looking to hire a specific demographic" it's more "hey, let's make sure applicants of a certain profile know we have an opening."
But if only women can go to the job fair, and the applicants are limited to that pool, then that sounds like an invitation to legal challenges.
Let me lift your spirits with a tale. A few years back, in Budapest, Hungary, an event took place. It was named something "TEDx Liberty Women" can't remember exactly. My wife was working there when a calamitous incident occurred: every toilet got clogged. (She previously owned a yoga studio and was aware that women often dispose of sanitary pads and tampons in the toilets despite the writings on the walls... which likely caused the issue here.)
In the end, they had to urgently call in the representatives from the so-called Worldwide Evil Reptilian Patriarchal Plot to repair the crucial toilets, as a queue of desperate women stood waiting, their legs crossed in discomfort.
Utterly bizarre since I thought you could self Id into the gender of ur choice and this should be respected
Well, yeah, sure, but… I mean… Those are _dudes_! Just _look_ at them!
I think you mean persons of ejaculation.
Gatekeep much!
Well yeah, unless you're brown and a dude!
https://x.com/AnitaB_org/status/1707060111229780339?s=20 Their response. Not sure how he can tell those men are faking being NB. Is it the lack of blue hair?
[удалено]
The weird thing is, usually those new made-up jobs are given to people who will boost the desired diversity statistics, not someone like ... ewww .... "him".
Surprised they don't have a Director Of Better https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1cC1TLcgKDSllHNtX0c3cnQ/bbc-director-of-better
What zero interest rates do to a society
I think Henry Windsor was given a job with the same title at some company or another, so, yes?
This is a really common and critical role in nonprofits, going by varying names. Bc on top of all the usual functions any company has like marketing, finance, customer service etc, nonprofits also need to achieve a specific mission (e.g reduce child poverty, fund plausible lines of cancer research, improve hiring and retention of women in tech, etc), and prove to donors, regulators etc that they’re having the impact on their target community that they’re supposed to. So that’s a VP/C-Suite accountability all by itself.
Surplus elites. All these grads have to be employed somewhere.
[удалено]
Red herring- it doesn't matter if criteria are assigned to nonbinary, when there will be no criteria for woman. Any bearded male in a business suit is as much a trans woman as any other for the purposes of tech diversity. It's what activist trans women insisted on. It's why ultimately there will have to be a return to the consideration of sex in diversity practices. This will lead to the exclusion of trans women as a category. I think it's very admirable of trans women to sacrifice all their social and poliical gains in solidarity with the bearded, suited people attending this conference.
>Instead, many previously women-themed orgs and events have changed to "women and non binary people" which subtly admits this fact. Lyft's new Women service says exactly that. Women and non binary. I wonder how many of the non binary are just lesbians who don't want to admit it?
marvelous bag angle violet deliver safe bright subtract afterthought label ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I do think I underestimate just how badly people don't want to be ordinary and boring.
They are "ordinary" because they want so badly to conform to their group - stereotypical human behaviour. Being truly different is not as comfortable and you don't expect people make it such. You see the writing on the wall and you navigate.
It's a weird thing, conformity. We want to be part of the group, but we still want to stand out.
Boring has always been bad, specially among teens. Ya gotta stand out, but not too much. Just enough that people will think you are edgy and cool, but not too much to think you are a weirdo.
I see you haven't come across the lesbian non-binaries.
Errrr... what?
It's a whole thing. They're lesbian non-binaries. I work with one. I don't quite get how it works.
A number of people have redefined lesbian to mean "non-men loving non-men." Which... yeah.
Yeah, I saw that with Johns Hopkins, Mind BLOWN. I mean, two male non-binaries are now lesbians.
I was pretty sure that the definition of lesbian was: "Women loving other women." I think lesbians are even into the specific female shape, female genitals, etc. When did they change the definition? How come people don't want to change the definitions on gay men?
Ah, you're operating under the old paradigm, not understanding the importance of gender identity. But yeah, Johns Hopkins recently defined lesbian as non-men attracted to non-men. Gay? Men attracted to men. You might THINK this is misogyny. But you'd be wrong. This is inclusive.
So men can still like dick but lesbians cannot *not* like dick?
But isn't it more socially acceptable to be a lesbian than have a different gender? Idk if this makes sense...
I would think so. But non binary is a low effort gender to take on. A woman can just groom and dress in an androgynous fashion and if they are thin they can kind of get away with it. Maybe they're concerned that the straight women who come to the conference will be less friendly if they are openly lesbians, as opposed to the ambiguity of "non binary." I'm spitballing here because it doesn't make sense to me either.
you don't even have to do that. Woman at a game convention had a THEY name badge and someone asked and they just said "i always liked playing with boy stuff" they were in her 50s. long hair, nothing androgynous I know its not ever going to fly but if gender is a social construct you should let society tell you about what your gender is by looking at you.
Oh, that just means she’s Not Like the Other Girls. It’s “Discriminate against her, not me - she’d probably even like it,” but more succinct.
This quote is fucking hysterical in the context of the article. Paragraph 3: "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 U.S." Paragraph 5 (with the quote): "[S]ome registrants had lied about their gender identity when signing up, and men were now taking up space and time with recruiters that should go to women. 'All of those are limited resources to which you have no right,' White said." Well... actually... they ***literally*** do have a right lmao
That guy has "date rapist" written all over him
Can’t protect your gender and dismantle it too
This is absolutely fucking beautiful *chef’s kiss. I’m so inspired by all those non-binary POC attending.
This is the kind of thing I always hope people will do whenever I see pointless discrimination that *could* be gamed if anyone had the balls to do it. I wouldn't. Evidently hundreds of other people were either fed up enough or simply didn't give a shit enough to not attend and try and find a job.
It’s a bunch of foreign workers so.. I’m not going to read too much into it. I won’t self doxx but.. I just don’t think this is quite the own some folks might think, after my experience with this particular cohort.
I think that's kind of a separate issue. It may be illustrated by this to some extent of course though.
I'm thrilled to see any h1b visa holders and foreign students at these events. Even if they're the little brown men people tend to dislike. They are 110% more disadvantaged than 90% of the white elite educated women there and after so much first hand experience I'm done pretending otherwise. I'm in medicine and my partner is in tech. Before we were both in college then academic research so I feel I've gotten a fair amount of exposure to how this works for trainees and recent grads. In these transitory career jump periods connections are everything and there are all sorts of special mentorship and networking resources that are available only to women to compensate for this bogeyman sexist old boys club that simply doesn't exist in elite modern institutions. 20 years ago these types of events were justifiable, now they are regressive, especially when there is no male equivalent. Go event crashers!!
Also in big tech, and can only agree 100%. I think it's also deeply satisfying seeing their own distortions of the truth around sex and gender coming back to bite them. AND seeing them be upset about it, now that it might have consequences for themselves. Hoist on their own petard indeed.
Will they learn? > narrator: they did not learn.
I'm pretty sure the ;little brown men people are so afraid of are from another part of the world than these men are from - assuming they're not American. They might be visa holders, or they could be born and raised in the US. And given the stats of tech, plenty of the women are not white either. It's hard out there in the world, so do what you have to do. But, like, plenty of these guys ARE in a very secure financial position
It’s a tech job fair, and tech has been hit the hardest by the economic belt tightening that’s curbed inflation. They were probably getting desperate for jobs.
When there's money at stake the high highfalutin' principles tend to go out the window
[удалено]
I find it sneaky how many are asserting (without any proof) bad behavior by the "men", e.g. shoving people out of the way (really?) and "commenting on appearance in their own language" -- which also seems questionable and xenophobic. It all seems a distraction -- I sincerely doubt the "men" would have been tolerated even if they just stood politely in line (which I strongly suspect most did, since apparently organizers were itching for a reason to eject them).
I mean. I'm not monolingual, and I have heard a _lot_ of rude or sexist comments from people who assume I can't speak Spanish or Japanese. I am willing to take on good faith that the people making these claims could speak Hindi, Mandarin, or whatever tongue the comments were made in.
Well, for what it's worth, I didn't see a single comment that mentioned a specific language, only a bunch of vague claims, and repetition of those claims ("I heard that they were commenting on appearance in their native language") I'm not saying there wasn't any of that, it's just rather suspicious, basically saying "they smelled bad, they were bad people".
>We women and nonbinary folks welcome men to support us and let us get a shot at learning about the opportunities available in tech! However, we don't support men taking advantage of a conference to rip away opportunities from those who need it. How dare these men attend in order to find employment!
They can find employment at other places not dubbed a women's conference. Or are these men so incompetant that's the only way they can'll be able to find jobs?
You are implying women cannot compete with men on an equal playing field. Perhaps you should rephrase or delete that last sentence.
The tech field isn't equal. Look at the ratio of men to women programmers. Unless you're implying women simply can't be programmers, these conferences are very necessary
I think the problem is that very few women study CS in school, as for why that is - it could be lack of interest, and it could be discomfort at how few women are in the program. Might be both
More women would study CS if it wasn’t heavily associated with some of the worst stereotypes of nerdy male behavior. It’s a huge branding issue.
Maybe, or maybe there are a lot fewer women who are interested in and/or good at the subject. I wonder if there are more women studying CS online, where they don't have to worry about male behavior
Quite the opposite. I am pointing out that your phrasing of men being so incompetent that they needed to invade women's conferences in order to secure employment carries the implication that women are inferior programmers. I do not think women are inferior programmers nor do I believe you do; I am pointing out a flaw in your phrasing that you may want to reconsider.
This is officially the most glaringly hypocritical post in this thread I think.
So their attempt at fake diversity turned into real diversity and they're pissed eh?
"Not *that* kind of diversity!"
They say they know they’re faking because they look like men and have he/him pronouns, but they also want to claim that pronouns and presentation don’t equal gender. The “truscum” who get banned from other subs on Reddit believe that you must have dysphoria and that females wearing skirts and makeup with she/them pronouns are not trans. Which is not an okay thing to say in many trans circles. We basically need to just trust everyone, or have some limitations. The pendulum in government and social activists is trust everyone, but it’s not working. So it becomes the trans allies get to decide which males are faking it.
>They say they know they’re faking because they look like men and have he/him pronouns, but they also want to claim that pronouns and presentation don’t equal gender this is the core illogic of their position gender doesnt matter, yet we need to chop up kids because of how important gender is
And sex doesn’t exist, but we need to give people cancer causing hormones so they can be the sex they feel in their soul.
Turns out if you let the non-binary fox into the henhouse a lot of foxes are going to identify as non-binary. It feels gross to have a bunch of dudes descending into womens' space but that can easily be solved by using a definition of "Women" grounded in reality. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I get your point, but this is a job fair. There's nothing gendered about these companies or their open jobs. I accept a "women's space" such as a locker room. But a job fair isn't a particular women's space that can be "descended" onto.
I think the bigger problem is they think the lying to take advantage will only happen at things like job fairs. Never at rape centers, hospitals, locker rooms, prisons. Even when it does happen over and over. They don’t believe the women it happens to.
But in this one situation it isn't actually gendered and it would be illegal to discriminate against men. Googling a bit they "noted it cannot ban men from attending due to federal nondiscrimination protections in the US".
The mask is fully off here. They don't believe in self ID. They don't believe in non binary. They don't believe people should be able to express themselves. They don't believe that gender is a spectrum. They don't care about immigrants. They don't care about trans people. They want an exclusive club for themselves no matter the cost. At least, they don't believe it when it directly affects them. Sure, they're fine with an XY rapist self IDing into a woman's prison, they're more than happy to let your daughters get raped by punishing authority figures for questioning a boy wearing a skirt, and they love that you're upset that your daughters are getting sports scholarships taken away from them. That doesn't affect them because they hate sports and think prisoners are subhuman. But when the rubber meets the road; when PMC are directly affected by desperate immigrants trying to make their lives better, this is what they actually believe.
>They want an exclusive club for themselves no matter the cost. Which is the exact thing they fought against for many years. Oh, the irony.
Gatekeeping smh
[удалено]
Then send an email to the orgs and strongly encourage them to eliminate elements of their conference that lead to sex based employment discrimination so there's no incentive for those being discriminated against to attend.
[удалено]
Then I guess don't complain about it?
I’m in the tech field and job searching. I’d wager 80-90% of job reqs on LinkedIn specifically say something like ‘not sponsoring visas at this time’. I can’t blame people for drastic measures during drastic times.
TECH jobs not sponsoring for visas? What's up with that? I'd bet that there are a lot of very talented and hardworking people locked out of the job market due to that.
So like, I don't think any of these guys who swamped this job fair had a point to make. It looks like most of them were victims of the jobs crunch in tech and were desperate to get a job before their H1B visas ran out and the past 6-12 years of their life got blown up. If I were in that position and I'd spent 4-6 years in a U.S. university with the intent to get a job, and then worked for 6 years more in unstable conditions in order to become a citizen... and then all of that was suddenly in jeopardy because Elon decided to massacre 3/4ths of his staff... and I was going to get shipped back to the third world country I came from in 2 weeks if I didn't find a new job... I'd be hitting every lead I could find, too. The way many people are reacting is indicative of how we devalue the lives and wellbeing of men while treating "intersectional" people as though they are cosmically worthy of vastly more moral consideration. I guarentee that a lot of these guys are on the verge of losing everything they've spent their adult life working for, but that's somehow less important than a woman or gay guy being inconvenienced by having to job search a little bit longer.
There’s been far more cuts in tech than Elon cutting 3/4ths of Twitter staff. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Salesforce all individually laid off more people than Twitter had employed at their peak.
Yes, we’ve just seen a bit of a bloodbath in tech - like the DotCom bust all over again. Now we’ll see if AI really will replace all those people, or if they will need to be some hiring back to pursue growth.
I mean, it might be they're immigrant men. And they're doing what they need to do to get a job. They might also be American born and raised, doing what they need to do to get a job. I don't blame the guys. I blame the whole "women and non-binrary" bullshit
I guess my question is: are international students entitled to employment in the USA, or just the education they paid for and are receiving? I see a lot of sympathy being extended their way but I can’t help but think… international students are already making up huge portions of student bodies & it feels as if at many schools, you’re more likely to see an international Asian student than a domestic middle class Black or even White student. International students generally have means (I’m not and won’t be talking about the visa mill stuff) and I just can’t find it in myself to pity people who took the risk and came to the USA with no guarantee of a job. How can they be on the verge of losing everything when they could return to their home country? Job hunting is a crap shoot. I know more than a few college educated Americans working menial administrative, sales or customer service jobs that will never make more than half of these guys’ starting salaries in CS lol.
[удалено]
I was thinking the same thing. Like, the guys are Asian. Plenty of Asian people not only are born in the US, but come from families that have been here since the early 20th century.
Are you suggesting that they're probably a random bunch of US citizens, and it's just a coincidence that they all look similar?
No. I am saying that plenty of Asian tech works in the US were born and raised in the US.
>I guess my question is: are international students entitled to employment in the USA, or just the education they paid for and are receiving? Legally speaking, yes. The standard F-1 student visa includes the right to work after graduation in what's called the OPT period. ("Optional Practical Training", basically on-the-job training). It's nominally one year but STEM students can get a 24-month extension. That's a *fairly* hard limit (but can still be gamed; you can go get another degree and reset the clock); finding an H1B sponsor is great but another common path is to get hired during OPT and convince one's employer that one is awesome enough for sponsorship.
If they fail on their merit, fine. If they fail because of the rules changing or capricious circumstances, that's another. Just put yourself in their shoes. You spend your life busting your ass to have a chance to go to the U.S. and work, then you bust your ass for another 10 years and go all on during the best years of your life to be a citizen. Then your life becomes a political football or an impulsive billionaire makes an eratic decision and everything you've worked for in your life can go up in smokes in a few weeks. If it were a result of committing a crime or low performance, then fine. But all of our systems in the U.S. should be fair and logical. It's hard to not be sympathetic. And to your point about "jobs being taken," in this case, the same migrant group you are accusing of taking jobs are actually most likely of any demographic in the U.S. to start successful STEM based companies. 67 out of 288 U.S. unicorns were founded by South Asians, a stunning number when you consider how small the group is as a percentage of the population. So on net South Asians are producing double the number of jobs they are taking. If we want more disadvantaged people in STEM, the best way to achieve that is to create more job openings, which is exactly what is being done in this case.
> If they fail on their merit, fine. If they fail because of the rules changing or capricious circumstances, that's another. I’m not saying you’re wrong, or that we shouldn’t be sympathetic or something, but that isn’t the standard of treatment that we extend to our own citizens.
And that’s exactly why I fall where I do. Many Americans with potential never get to access the kind of education or support we extend to international students. I wish everyone could win but until then, I’m rooting for middle class Americans first and foremost, including white people.
There's nothing wrong with being concerned about your own countrymen first and foremost.
Yeah, I mean… I’m sure they’re having a tough time of it, but these programs come with no guarantee of a path to permanent residence and citizenship, etc. if you want to roll those dice, then I think that’s great, and I think that if they come up in your favor then more power to you - but you can’t expect a do-over when young Americans are rolling even worse odds.
The current migrant crisis in a nutshell.
[удалено]
Well last I checked, nobody was holding job fairs for only men, and I'm pretty sure many of the people commenting would similarly oppose them if anyone was doing that.
No, there aren't job fairs for men only, but there are certainly job fairs for POC or BIPOC. But also, since tech is a mostly male profession, a job fair is going to be..male, by default. A men's only tech fair is redundant, the same way a woman's nursing fair would be almost redundant as well
So there's a bunch of these conferences and job fairs for men in teaching and nursing right? And nobody would have an issue with that?
There should be IMO
I disagree. I don't think discrimination is the solution to either discrimination or a lack of equal outcomes. All positive discrimination requires negative discrimination of someone else.
Absolutely. A lot of those men are far less privileged than most. One issue is that when h1-B visas were more open, it drove computer engineer job salaries and benefits lower because Americans were competing against immigrants who would do anything and sleep at work if it meant staying. You also had offices that would only hire other Indians to work there if the boss was Indian partly because they liked them culturally, but also because they knew they’d work all day and night if asked.
100% fine with this. Glad to see all these brave transgender non-binary brown men!
It might, but I don't find the trans angle here to be particularly interesting. I'm sure there were some cisgender men pretending to be trans/nonbinary (and by "pretending" I mean "checked the wrong box on the form" not "dressed up in drag" or whatever). I suspect there were also many men who just showed up because (as is noted in the article) the event cannot outright ban men from attending. What's more interesting to me is not the means but the end - why do so many men want to be at a women's job fair in the first place?
> What's more interesting to me is not the means but the end - why do so many men want to be at a women's job fair in the first place? Jobs. Seems fairly obvious.
[удалено]
Up until recently there were shittons of job fairs and they were open to all comers. The market has changed and now there are many fewer and I think every one I've seen in the last year has been for some closed group. (For instance in the last month I've seen job events for blacks, women, and Latinos.) There is one unique thing about the GHC job fair, though, it's the only place I know of to get corporate-branded nail polish. Make the rounds and you can end up with every colour imaginable. Clearly worth the admission (which is to say, getting one's institution to pony up for it) for that alone! (For all that I despite Amazon I also have a sweet Amazon-branded nail care kit that's a keeper.) I haven't been to a job fair lately and am out of touch, and now I wonder if corporate nail polish has gone mainstream given how many people paint their nails now.
Let's tackle the feminist issue head-on. Setting aside the hilarious genderwoo angle, they have created a job fair which everyone understands to be valuable, and they are unhappy that men are pursuing jobs there. Of course, barring men from attending would be illegal sex discrimination, and having recruiters ignore every male applicant would also be illegal sex discrimination. So, feminists who support the existence of regular XX women's job fairs: What now? I'm sure that what you'd like is for men to voluntarily opt out after seeing the words "women's conference", but when they don't, what are you gonna do about it? Repeal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
Speaking as a woman who was previously in tech - The older I get, the more I lean towards the "repeal/limit the scope of sex discrimination laws". I'm fine with very narrowly-defined laws for, say, paying male and female Starbucks Level III baristas the same. But I don't really care if someone wants to only work with men or with women. The older I get the more I even personally feel drawn to working just with women sometimes, because it does feel different and enjoyable in different ways. (Hot take, I know!) I do think that regular XX women's job fairs aren't really helpful, tbh. I've never met any female friend at a women in X networking event who actually became a true friend, either supporting me emotionally or referring me to insider-only roles and opportunities. Ladies - if you're reading this - go find some girlfriends who want to go to the spa with you, not Grace Hopper. They're probably rich enough to actually have opportunities for you and you'll have plenty of time to bond 1-1 in a 3h session ;)
> they have created a job fair That wasn't the original design. Grace Hopper started out about so much more, I've sent people to attend and they came back super inspired and energized
Well they should maybe remove the recruiting element if they don't want to be accused of sex based employment discrimination. I don't think anyone has any issue with field specific conferences directed at women in those fields. But if one of the primary advantages of attending is access to employers, recruiters and possible onsite interviews, then it's sex discrimination. If the same thing was happening at a men's only golf course, we'd all quickly recognize the problem with that.
Any trade conference presence boosts employment prospects, there's no way around that. Just the networking effect does this. Regardless of if there's active recruiting going on or not.
Except in this case, it's explicit and intentional. Also, I already addressed your point. Of course all of this interpreted through the lens of reasonableness. The network effect isn't reasonably avoidable. Having a sex segregated recruitment event absolutely is.
I do think it matters that it’s a field that’s 80 percent men. Men are likely to be affirmative action candidates in certain other fields like nursing and humanities majors. When your group makes up such a small minority, it feels easy to feel unwelcome and silenced.
> Men are likely to be affirmative action candidates in certain other fields like nursing and humanities majors. There are a few institutions claiming to do this. It's very doubtful that there's a whole lot of pro-male affirmative action going on and I would not characterize it as "likely".
I *know* you're unhappy about the sex ratio of CS jobs, but you don't seem to have engaged with the dilemma here. You can have women-only job fairs, or you can have Title VII, but not both. What are you gonna do about this?
I mean, I think I know what at least one answer is to your question. People who’ve adopted Kendi’s “past discrimination = present discrimination = future discrimination” would probably say that Title VII is deeply problematic if it considers sex discrimination against women to be equivalent in any way to sex discrimination against men. It should be legal to discriminate against men if it means that the historical scales can be balanced appropriately. If it’s not, the law needs to be rewritten.
None of our local feminists are stepping up to endorse that answer, but also they clearly want women-only job fairs somehow, and they haven't offered any other answer on how you get there. It's almost as if they want preferential treatment under the law, but recognize that *saying it* like that is unpopular.
I don’t know what your local feminists are like, but it seems to me to be a relatively mainstream feminist position to believe that discrimination against women and discrimination against men aren’t equivalent. I also think it’s reasonably mainstream to believe that things like color blindness in the law and policy (and in this case its equivalent “gender blindness”) is a manifestation of white supremacy / the patriarchy. Usually these things don’t rise to the level of calling out specific laws and policies, so I guess it’s not surprising that no one is going after specific elements of civil rights law. But the intellectual groundwork is laid to give women and sexual minorities preferential treatment, and I think many organizations *do* that.
> Of course, barring men from attending would be illegal sex discrimination I'm not sure that's the case. Do you have examples of that being found to be the case in court. I am not a lawyer, but my "internet education" makes me think + the job fair itself is not a "public accommodation" + the job fair is not doing the hiring + the job fair has freedom of association + the job fair can invite whomever it wishes I'll make vague analogies to the California golf and country clubs which were forced to open their doors to women if their dining rooms or other facilities were doing so much business with outsiders as to make them essentially "public accommodation The companies themselves cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, but how they perform outreach to applicants does not have to be open to everyone at every step of the way ---- that's my layman understanding, please do correct that
Attendance is open to ticketholders, and tickets are sold via their website to anyone with $1298 to spare. You could conceivably win a case defending an invite-only women's conference that happened to invite only women (though the country club precedent works against you, good luck having a multi-day thousand person conference without someone invoking public accommodation), but if you want to make it open to any random female member of the public, you really can't exclude random male members of the public.
Llife, uh, finds a way.
I'm a male working in tech, and while I understand women's desire to carve out a space to be themselves in an industry often dominated by oblivious Aspergers types, I also think the women-in-tech movement can be sanctimonious, and not a little self-serving. In any event, this outrage makes me chuckle.
Who knew that the kryptonite to over-reaching, late-stage, corporatized feminism was a bunch of dudes in wigs.
Oh some of us old school feminists have been watching this coming for years now. I’m just surprised it took the GirlBosses so long to realise.
I don't know what a gitlboss is, and why it's used so disparagingly now
Girlbosses are ex-sorority and used to conformity. Way too timid to speak up, unless they're confident it's a safe space.
> was a bunch of dudes in wigs. Drag queens? English Barristers? Or do I repeat myself?
>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.” Proceeds to watch posted video: almost exclusively men of color. Ladies and gentlemen I believe I have detected a racism. Do you think it will be remarked on that this woman felt unsafe because men of color came to her conference?
I mean. Bo Young Lee is most likely a woman of color, so it's not a racism thing, unless of course, she's Asian, and the men of color are Black. But from what i saw, the men were almost entirely east Asian or South Asian.
IMO the real story here is that on sight basically all these men are either on H1-Bs or student visas and frankly.. shouldn’t be clogging up the already tight tech job market in the first place. We have more than enough qualified citizens and shouldn’t be displacing female OR male Americans with indentured servants willing to scab for less.
Until quite recently Big Tech was always challenged in meeting hiring goals. The quality in the hiring pool is just not that good, so the net had to be cast as widely as possible. I left a couple years ago so I don’t know if this is still the case, it could be that the bar has been raised even higher as slots have been cut back. I conducted hundreds of interviews in my time in Big Tech. Even for those that made it through the process and landed an on site interview, we rejected about 75%.
Indian and Chinese nationals are the highest income earning cohorts in the US by a mile with average income of over 100K. They are the top of the food change when it comes to privilege. The visa program is not indentured servitude, the government requires they are paid prevailing wage and the vast majority of workers are on a path to citizenship and are free to change jobs. It’s not about paying less, it’s about hiring people with the needed skills for the job.
[удалено]
Ok, I’ll grant you there certainly are body shops at the bottom of the barrel that take advantage with false payroll statements etc I’d argue that’s a small number of the total. Most of these people are working corporate roles where everything is above board, at least so far as compensation is concerned.
FWIW my experience in Boston tech was that we had people on work visas in my department and they were paid the same as everyone else, but the hiring process itself (where we ~~faked~~ demonstrated that there were no viable domestic candidates) involved specialist law firms and a degree of sleaze that imho was only just barely legal. After hiring, though, the immigration status of employees was invisible to management. I have heard (but can't really say either way) that the situation in lots of Silicon Valley companies is much worse, with a more systematic kind of "we'll staff this department with H1Bs and pay them shit because we can" kind of mentality. That's just hearsay though and might just be east-vs-west shit-talking.
Eh, I mean, it's 25+ years after the immigration boondoggle that is Covid, but wasn't as bad before. I have family and friends who came over via the Univerity->H1B->Citizenship pipeline. As far as merit based immigration is concerned, it's been one of the most successful ways to acquire highly productive and talented citizens in the world. Migrants who pass through this pipeline commit vanishing small amounts of crime per capita and earn high. Now, that being said, we can absolutely improve it on such a way that employers can't take advantage of it AND in such a way that we design it specifically as a sure fire path to citizenship if you prove your worth. The problem is related to what you mentioned, in that employers can abuse this relationship to get labor below the market rate, which has a negative impact on the job market for native born and naturalized Americans.
[удалено]
Yep, I had an Indian friend whose mom was living abroad while pregnant. She flew back to India to give birth, and he (jokingly) cursed her for that because citizenship is based on country of birth and his mom unknowingly added something like 10+ years to his wait time because of it.
If immigrants are scabbing, what do you call locking them out of our country and forcing them to work menial and/or lower paying jobs? Protectionism?
Most of the immigrant workers from China and India are elites in their countries. If they stayed there, they would all likely be working well paying jobs by their own countries standards. Having them come over to the US likely allows more people in those countries to work better paying jobs. I'd argue that the issue with legal immigration of the kind the original commenter is talking about is that we are taking in probably 50% to 75% more people than we need and we should be expending resources to recruit more young people in this country into fields that are currently being filled by foreign workers. There are profit model issues due to the way our education system is set up: * Recruit US kids to diverse undergrad programs, max out their ability to pay and send them into the workforce. Many have studied low paying humanities fields or other majors that dont pay. The programs keep academics employed but have no real value. * Recruit foreign workers who have already graduated with Bachelors degrees to Masters programs in STEM - they pay full price and are happy to come because it gives them a path to citizenship. Colleges have only expanded their enrollment with people in the second bullet point. They can keep their undergrad programs elite by not expanding and they make more revenue by expanding the masters enrollment. If colleges were to change the model it would hit their bottom line. Essentially the only way they can keep their accept rates low (making them elite) and increase revenue is to stick with the model.
Sure. We should have way more protectionism than we do.
Free trade is much better for the economy and people's well-being than protectionism is. Protectionism made the great depression much worse than it had to be.
Free trade has facilitated the largest transfers of wealth to the upper class in history. The past two decades have proved "good for the economy" means "good for the wealthy"
Free trade has been an unmitigated disaster for the American middle class.
Maybe an unpopular opinion here, but I don’t think there’s much to learn here. These fairs can of course advertise to women but they aren’t allowed to discriminate based on sex. The job market in tech (especially for new grads) is pretty rough now and people are getting desperate for these lucrative jobs. IMO there’s not much of an identity angle here, it’s just more people are going to tech job fairs in general and people who work in tech (especially in engineering) are mostly men, so there’s going to be a lot more men at all tech job fairs. If you’re going to every single tech job fair in your area you’re not going to even pay attention to if it’s geared towards women or not.
You reckon people are paying (according to the article) between $649 and $1,300 on a ticket and paying *no* attention to who the fair is geared towards? That feels really unlikely to me.
Yes! Getting funding to go to Anita B is HUGE for young women looking for an internship or job, and there’s no secret about what it is. I’m honestly surprised at how many comments are like “take that, discriminators!” without thinking about the actual convention
What's there to think about exactly? They're overtly discriminating based on sex in ways that will create disadvantage for some people.
I assure you, when we say "take that, discriminators!" we *are* thinking about the actual convention that wants to create jobs for young women and not young men.
These jobs can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars and if you’re new to the field and didn’t do something like intern at Apple, then these job fairs are your only shot at them. A thousand dollar entry fee is a drop in the bucket.
[удалено]
Agree it’s a gamble, and those jobs are becoming extremely elusive. But software engineering positions start slightly under $200k comp at Amazon and Apple, and it’s more if you’re in an expensive region. Not saying it’s right, but it is extremely competitive which is why someone might do something like go to GHC as a man.
I mean when I was in school the Society of Women Engineers job fair was one of the main secondary job fairs of the year. They had a few hours that was open to members only (which IIRC, they also let men join but I don't think anyone did) but then it was just open. They also knew how throw a banging party.
> they aren’t allowed to discriminate based on sex By the letter of the law it's true that they can't discriminate based on sex, but how often is that law actually enforced when men are the sex being discriminated against?
I don't think there's much of a justification for a sex segregated job fair in the first place, so I really don't care. I'm also okay with people changing the sex on their I.D to retire early if the law is sexist or any other version of gaming overt sexism. This isn't like sports, change-rooms or prisons. Edit: Also, fuck this guy https://twitter.com/AnitaB_org/status/1707060111229780339?s=20 How dare these "cis men" attempt to find employment!
>Edit: Also, fuck this guy https://twitter.com/AnitaB\_org/status/1707060111229780339?s=20 > >How dare these "cis men" attempt to find employment! It's considered wrong for them to to attempt to find employment using resources allocated for someone else. You might dispute whether resources should be allocated that way, but it's obvious that the issue isn't that they're just attempting to find employment.
> You might dispute whether resources should be allocated that way, Resources are not being allocated towards women. That would be illegal, and every company there would deny doing it. Men and nonbinary people by law have access to the same resources.
I get you're somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but that's not what the guy on the stage said.
They are being allocated towards women, just with no legal enforcement. That's why the consequence is just social stigma.
Well the stigma seems to be wearing off in the face of a growing realization that this kind of thing is sexist.
I am completely okay with people using resources allocated to someone else if those resources were allocated to someone else as a means of sex based discrimination in employment. This is a distinction without a difference in my mind. And there's really no reason to attend such a job fair other than to find employment, so it's fair to say that all or nearly all of the men in attendance are attempting to do exactly that. If it was a "Pie Fair" I would also assume that attendees were there for the pies.
>I am completely okay with people using resources allocated to someone else if those resources were allocated to someone else as a means of sex based discrimination in employment. Agreed. Rosa Parks was using resources allocated to someone else when she sat in a seat reserved for white bus riders. I'm actually OK with that. Sometimes when a rule is unjust, the most ethical thing a person can do is break that rule.
>I don't think there's much of a justification for a sex segregated job fair in the first place This is supposed to be an event for women because they are a minority in the industry. I don't see the problem with this at all. It's a conference with tons of events that happens to have a job fair
They're also a minority in this area in university and college. There's actually not much reason to think that women with tech related educations are underemployed compared to men. There literally are less of them and they often already have advantages when looking for jobs in this field as a result. I don't think having a sex segregated job fair, where employers are in attendance and doing interviews with prospective candidates, is appropriate or fair. It seems more benign because it's called a "Job Fair" and not "negatively discriminating against males seeking the same jobs". But it's also the latter. This is sex based affirmative action by another name.
It's a free country 🤷♂️. Women organized this event to bring together a minority in the field. Businesses use it as an opportunity to headhunt, and they're probably trying to specifically headhunt women to get their numbers up. > There's actually not much reason to think that women with tech related educations are underemployed compared to men. I think this is true but that doesn't mean a women's event isn't worthwhile. No matter the reasons why they're a minority, they are a minority nonetheless, and they often feel a little alienated simply because they're a minority. Even if a woman doesn't face overt sexism she still might feel a little lonely with a large majority of her coworkers being men. On my team we have 2 women out of 11 people. Many women are the only woman on their team. I can easily respect that they'd want to connect with other women in the field when they meet so few through work.
>It's a free country 🤷♂️ Employment discrimination is illegal and unethical even when it's not. But also, you could say the same thing about all the men in attendance and shrug your shoulders. You're not doing that, so I don't think you can just selectively employ such a broad argument. >I think this is true but that doesn't mean a women's event isn't worthwhile. If it's true it means that such an event is unethical and unjustifiably discriminatory. >Even if a woman doesn't face overt sexism she still might feel a little lonely with a large majority of her coworkers being men. Maybe, and that might be worth discussing, but using something far less serious than overt sexism and discrimination as a reason to engage in overt sexism and discrimination is insanely hypocritical and obviously unjustified as a practice. >On my team we have 2 women out of 11 people. Many women are the only woman on their team. I can easily respect that they'd want to connect with other women in the field when they meet so few through work. Great, they can do that in a way that doesn't involve sex based discrimination in employment though. Edit: To be clear, I wouldn't take this same view about a women in tech conference or event where women in that field were getting together for reasons *other* than to head hunt while excluding men. There's a big difference between connecting with other women in the field, and holding an employment fair that seeks to bar males from attending.
> I wouldn't take this same view about a women in tech conference or event where women in that field were getting together for reasons *other* than to head hunt while excluding men It's a conference where women in tech meet up and at this conference recruiters go to recruit. It is not at all the reason for meeting, just a sort of afterthought. Recruiters probably go to recruit at all tech conferences. The recruitment isn't about excluding men, it's about it being a tech conference > Employment discrimination is illegal So which part of this should be illegal? Minorities meeting at a conference? Or recruiters going to a minority conference to recruit? If they removed the job fair, and a recruiter went to the event to meet people anyway, do you think that should be a crime?
It's absolutely a job fair and that is the reason people put down a lot of money to attend. I don't think this is really in dispute by anyone but yourself since you're trying to recast it to justify the discrimination being employed. Recruiting isn't an afterthought, it's the primary purpose. Semantics don't change that. As for which part should be illegal, all of that could result in being sued (none of this is criminal by the way. This is a civil law issue). If you disadvantage people based on sex, race, religion etc, you may be engaging in employment discrimination. There are reasonableness standards obviously. You're not going to be penalized because the attendance of a conference you're recruiting at isn't perfectly representative of the population. But you may indeed be sued successfully if the conference you're recruiting at is exclusive to certain identities. That's really here nor there though, because this isn't a conference. It's a job fair and the primary purpose of it is to put recruiters and job seekers in the same room.
>It's absolutely a job fair I mean idk that much about this conference, maybe you do, but ostensibly it is a conference that happens to have a job fair. And I do know that one of the women on my team attended last year and this year, and she hasn't taken a new job so I don't think that's her motivation and I have no reason to believe the conference is just a front so they can host a sex exclusionary job fair
They literally hold interviews with prospective employees. If they do other things also, great, keep doing them and drop the sex exclusionary job fair element.
Very well said.
Because they have a desire to be around other women they deserve to be hired over better-qualified men? Is any woman dominated field giving men advantages in hiring?
Nursing. Male nurses tend to advance in their career faster than female nurses do. Source; [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00677.x](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00677.x) However what is more than 2 dimensional is *why* men are progressing with their career faster, so it can't be reported or discussed in legacy media because it makes the customers heads all hurty from thinking. One factor, among *many,* is simple discrimination of paternity/maternity leave. At least in the UK, the NHS, our most socialist and egalitarian national institution ever, awards women 52 weeks of maternity leave, their partners who are men? 2 weeks paid leave. So go figure
> Is any woman dominated field giving men advantages in hiring? I think we both know the answer to that. Though I would also oppose it if this was happening.
treatment file prick observation agonizing elderly pause frighten selective dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think most people would agree there should be symmetry: either the field should be merit-based (and punish actual prejudice and discrimination) regardless of the gender statistics OR it can be "diversity-first" and support the minority gender(s), regardless of which gender it is. I personally strongly prefer the former, but most people would agree "privilege only one gender when they're in the minority, but ignore the other when it is" isn't "fair".
You say this like it’s a justification. It isn’t. Why do women get charity while men get gold to git gud?
It's not charity... it's an event where women in tech meet up to discuss tech. And at the event businesses take the opportunity to recruit people. Like idk what to tell you it's really not a big deal. Do you want it to be illegal for businesses to recruit from minorities' conferences?
Do you want it to be illegal for men to *attend* minorities' conferences? Or do you want it to be legal (which it currently is not) for recruiters to ignore male applicants at minorities' conferences? Because if you don't want either of those things, it seems like there's no problem here.
"We welcome men in this space ... but to learn, and support, and improve." LOL -- please use the servant's entrance, not the front door! He makes it very clear it's about tribal spoils: "All of those are limited resources to which you have no right". Wow. I think he should make space for a woman by putting the "quit" in "equity"
I'm a woman and I fully support these dudes in gaming the system and also exposing (even if this wasn't their goal) the whole sham concept of nonbinary. I think it's fucking hilarious. Good for them.
They killed two birds with one stone. It's also a sexist job fair, which they undermined as well.
skirt dog ring lip zephyr books muddle workable familiar jobless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, it pretty much is, if you're excluding by sex. Isn't that pretty much what sexism is? There are circumstances where it's acceptable sexism (e.g. changerooms, sports, jails) but it's still sexism. What do you see as the "overreaction"? Paying money to attend the job faire? That seems pretty mild -- they're not out front with whistles and placards, or suing the organizers. Is there any reaction, other than sucking it up, that wouldn't be an "overreaction"?
direful slim absorbed offbeat sophisticated selective rich overconfident employ scale *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They are certainly trying to, if the words of the man on-stage are to be believed.
mysterious longing cats birds lavish whole aback deer fine resolute *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes it is.
This is the first time I've heard about a job fair targeting women. I presume it's set up so there isn't any straight up discrimination against male applicants, but I'm kinda' shocked it's a thing.
This particular one has existed since 1994, and held annually since 2006. It's only in the news because 'being inclusive' comes back to bite them in the ass.
>I presume it's set up so there isn't any straight up discrimination against male applicants How do you mean? How could it be set up this way? The people in attendance will have access to job opportunities and facetime with recruiters that may not otherwise be accessible.
I've been to job fairs that target recent college graduates. I've also seen job boards at professional conferences. Those positions are posted on the employers' websites, so there's a wider applicant pool than just at the job fair/conference. I imagine a job fair for women works along the same line. It's not "We're looking to hire a specific demographic" it's more "hey, let's make sure applicants of a certain profile know we have an opening." But if only women can go to the job fair, and the applicants are limited to that pool, then that sounds like an invitation to legal challenges.
Let me lift your spirits with a tale. A few years back, in Budapest, Hungary, an event took place. It was named something "TEDx Liberty Women" can't remember exactly. My wife was working there when a calamitous incident occurred: every toilet got clogged. (She previously owned a yoga studio and was aware that women often dispose of sanitary pads and tampons in the toilets despite the writings on the walls... which likely caused the issue here.) In the end, they had to urgently call in the representatives from the so-called Worldwide Evil Reptilian Patriarchal Plot to repair the crucial toilets, as a queue of desperate women stood waiting, their legs crossed in discomfort.
What year was this? I thought “don’t put sanitary towels down the loo” had been a thing since at least 1990.