sudneo

Just to note, there are reports (I am following the Guardian's blog) that IDF did not "roofknock" in at least one occasion yesterday, suggesting that maybe they stopped the practice. We have very little news from Gaza for obvious reasons though.

You can male the same argument the other way around. Why don't we stick to what's already international war, and that attacking civilians is forbidden? This seems a form of collective punishment as well.

I wish it was only Ryan Air, every other company does that nowadays. Every time I travel alone I end up switching seat a couple of times to let couples and families sit together.

Being an asshole is not illegal. Obeying the law doesn't mean you're a good person

Oh I very much agree, and I don't think I have suggested otherwise anywhere?

Also, the pushing, shoving etc. Is a completely different matter compared to what I am interested to discuss. I have a problem believing that any single men has gone there pushing and shoving but I have no problem believing that some did, and that is being an asshole.

Anyway, as I said I can't care less about this argument, I am interested in the rest of the argument, the part in which it's not the behavior being criticized but the very fact that they were there, as males.

In this particular case, I have a hard time excusing the behavior of the accused interlopers given that this is a women’s conference that has been a recurring event for quite some time and has always been a women’s conference.

A bit of a nit, but consider there has always been a percentage of men to this conference. Reading online, between 5-10%. So it's not like it's a first for men to be there.

as if they cannot be expected to regulate their behavior in a professional context

Oh no, that's not the point. My point is more along the line of "maybe they are in such conditions where they can't afford the luxury of giving up potential opportunities to respect dynamics which are on a more abstract level compared to the immediate needs". Then I would also argue that going there is a huge waste of 600$ and will give 0 chances, but that's another topic.

I can't comment on your personal experience. I can only say that I know that in certain countries, India for example, the rat race is unimaginable and some people would do anything to get out.

The other side of the coin for the foreign worker situation is that the mega-conglomerates like Google, Apple, etc. specifically hire foreign workers and H1B visa employees because they will work for less pay and minimal to no benefits unlike American college graduates that have student loans to pay off and nowhere else to go

I would hardly consider this a privilege to be honest, as it is still way better compared to companies that now specifically want to hire women to boost their diversity numbers (let's face it, mostly for purely marketing purpose). I can see your point of view, mind you, but this to me already feels like inter-class war.

In some ways, they are victims, but they also help to perpetuate many of the worst problems in the industry.

This is very common to be honest, beside the tech sector, and I agree with you. However, these in my opinion are manifestations of a bigger, higher level problem, not the problem itself. Similarly the case with women who actually accept jobs after being asked if they intend to have kids (illegal in many places, I believe). The problem here is that higher order needs prevail sometimes (or you don't have enough education/awareness to even understand that you would be part of a problem), leading to effectively workers undermining other workers (you make the good case for salary undercutting, which then becomes a cliche' talking point for any xenophobic, right wing party, right?).

All of this to say, it is a complex issue, and if anything shows that there is tons to do in the tech field which is one with super low rate of unionization, to build a common class consciousness. I simply hope that we can look at this as obstacles to overcome, not at reasons to change course.

(Not to mention the fact that some of the worst sexism I have dealt with was from Indian workers from upper castes.)

I can imagine that, although my experience (working with a UK company with many Indians) has been completely positive so far. Not to talk about people from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which I consider - in my limited experience - some of the nicest people I have ever met.

EDIT:

I want to add in any case, I have to admit that this is a far more interesting conversation compared to what the article leads to by itself. I would have loved some more in depth reflection on the different categories of workers, the competition created, the impact of layoffs, etc.

It's not a wild guess, and you are not willing to admit that simply because it's not convenient to your arguments. I explained what the basis for that guess is, I didn't flip a coin, but made a deduction. There is a margin of error, for sure, and I might be wrong, but I would take that bet. I also did not refuse to engage in anything, I considered (almost/) every point every single person made in every comment (despite the huge amount of repetition), so what are you talking about? "Pointing out" also doesn't mean anything, I explained my thoughts using that "guess" as the basis to make a difference that you were not making (i.e., between the average man and a subset of men with different properties - and privileges/power in this case). You disagreeing on this does not make it invalid, it simply means that we might have different opinions. I for once disagree with "Desperation doesn’t qualify someone to run roughshod over the boundaries of others, and to lie to do so. That is pure entitlement." as I don't interpret what happened in that way at all, for example. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is a judgment call, it is not something we can observe with a microscope and determine objectively, this whole topic is wholly influenced by culture, background, experiences etc. You failing to see that and acting in this very dogmatic way is fairly surprising.

Get out of here

Nobody is forcing you to discuss if you don't want to, but you don't get to decide jack for what others should do. If you feel like, block me or drop the conversation, as apparently this comment already shows that you have no desire to engage honestly, considering you ignored every single point I made, not viceversa.

While I do think that the situation is not as bad now (basically in any company I worked, the episodes you mentioned are unthinkable), I am fully aware that gender roles are still a thing and sexism in tech is quite widespread.

Women need more help getting jobs in the tech industry because they are more likely than their male counterparts to lose jobs to sexism, unequal expectations, sexual harassment, and hostile work environments.

I do agree with this. BUT, you can make the same argument with other oppressed categories (for example, foreigners, who have way less contractual power due to the inherent threat of losing visa), and that's a big part of my argument here. From my own observations (i.e., the video in the article and some educated guess), it's not just "men" who rushed this conference, it is men from other oppressed categories. So this leads to us start measuring who is more oppressed, which sounds like a futile if not detrimental exercise, exactly because the same dynamics that lead to women being fired due to hostile workplace lead to old people (even men) to be pushed out, or to foreigners to be paid less. Not all men are privilege by virtue of being men, because more discrimination than just gender is at play.

it would be helpful for male tech workers to acknowledge and understand their inherent advantages and refrain from interfering with opportunities aimed at helping women in the industry.

I agree with this as well, and I have absolutely no problem with events aimed to help women getting into tech. What I have a problem with is the inability to ask questions and to think of these people who wasted 600$ bucks for 0 chances of a job as anything else than males, now that the fact happened. This to me seems an intentional way of ignoring other dynamics that exist in the workplace (racism, for example), producing an overall shortsighted analysis. It seems to me detrimental to the overall improvement of the society as well because ultimately the women at that conference might have way more in common with some of those men than they have with the successful woman speaking at that same conference, and forcing the distinction you are making instead suggests otherwise, creating fragmentation among the workforce in place of union and solidarity.

That was a theory you put forward, but it’s a strawman.

This has nothing to do with a strawman. It's literally an educated guess based on the limited information available.

• Most of them look foreigners (from SE Asia specifically)
• People who would get jobs very easy wouldn't spend 600$ for a conference not meant for them just to piss off people, with realistically extremely low chances to get anything out of it.

felt entitled to lie their way into a space that isn’t meant for them, to the point where they dominated the event

I am not sure how many of those lied. Some did, and that is shitty, but the event is technically open to men too, men have always participated to that event, apparently. See for example this from 2017. So I am not even sure that lying was a determining factor.

I’ve been desperate, and I used the resources open to me. I didn’t lie to access resources I wasn’t entitled to.

You will forgive me, but your personal anecdote in a completely different context doesn't count as a solid argument.

safe places

You are talking about a conference event with hundreds of thousands of attendees, sponsored by some of the biggest, and evil, companies on the planet...apologies, but this rhetoric of a safe space sounds out of place for this particular example. Also, there is no point to use this personal moral arguments, because they are useless. "If you would understand desperation/risk of deportation/whatever then..." is not an argument for anything. I don't know what you understand or don't, let's stick to the opinions we actually support?

Because you don’t understand, your opinion and view isn’t as relevant.

This is your tautology, where you say that if A then B, and then B then C, but A is your pure assumption. Ex falso quodlibet, you can build any argument this way.

Because women never need visas? Are never foreign or desperate?

Of course, but how is this relevant. The argument there is that we are not talking about the tech-bros dominating the tech field, we are talking about a specific subgroup of the male population, the outliers, which means using the average male statistics to deliberate on this specific people misses at least partially the point.

They are free to make their own spaces

This is what really puzzles me. This kind of argument is unacceptable in any other context, because it completely ignores the necessary conditions and balance of power needed to "create your own space". It's like saying "women can create their own tech companies and hire only women there". It doesn't make sense because it would be ignoring the fact that to create a company you need network, you need resources, capital, and if you are already marginalized, you can't just do that. I would suggest that foreigners out of a job are not in the material condition to organize a hundreds of thousands-people fair with huge sponsors.

so they can feel safe.

So that they can find a job*

The fact that they spent $600 when they are theoretically desperate just makes them foolish as well as entitled.

I am not sure how you are not seeing the foolish attempt exactly as an expression of that desperation, but as an expression of entitlement.

But I really don’t expect you to understand any of that.

Why do you need to assume that it's a matter of understanding and not a matter of simply having different opinions and views?

Big fan of kagi.com. rock-solid privacy policy (seriously, I am one of those guys who read them all, this is probably the best I have seen), excellent search results and very nice features (lensed to search in specific contexts only - say, programming, up/down ranking of sites as you prefer, automatic rewriting of urls, custom bangs). The cons, is that it's a paid service. I am personally a customer since November 2022, never looked back.

This argument is nonsense, but to humor it, there are other "industries", and tech is just a collection of companies ultimately. " go do your fair" can sound also as "go make your own company (and hire who you want)". Again, this is overall ridiculous, but at a purely rethorical level I think it works?