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

  • agamemnonymous
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think this is the response that summarizes why someone would have an issue with this:

    A class of men used their time and resources to build an old-boys-club to help each other. This is widely regarded as a bad thing. There are actual solutions that would address the underlying issue of special interests giving certain demographics an advantage, like anonymizing applications to circumvent discrimination and ensure the most qualified applicant gets the job regardless of demographic. Instead, the approach here is to make a new old-not-boys-club to give an advantage to different demographics.

    That’s the issue here. The response to gender discrimination isn’t to take turns, it’s to eliminate unfair discrimination entirely.

      • agamemnonymous
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

          • agamemnonymous
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

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

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

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

              • agamemnonymous
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                  • agamemnonymous
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    A step in the right direction for those with well-funded advocacy groups. For those without, it’s a further step in the wrong direction. Either demographic-based discrimination by private entities is a problem or it isn’t. You don’t get to morally vindicate selective bias because it was biased in your favor this time. Eliminate the bias.