320
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Almost one in five men in IT explain why fewer females work in the profession by arguing that "women are naturally less well suited to tech roles than men."

Feel free to check the calendar. No, we have not set the DeLorean for 1985. It is still 2023, yet anyone familiar with the industry over the last 30 years may feel a sense of déjà vu when reading the findings of a report by The Fawcett Society charity and telecoms biz Virgin Media O2.

The survey of nearly 1,500 workers in tech, those who have just left the industry, and women qualified in sciences, technology, or math, also found that a "tech bro" work culture of sexism forced more than 40 percent of women in the sector to think about leaving their role at least once a week.

Additionally, the study found 72 percent of women in tech have experienced at least one form of sexism at work. This includes being paid less than male colleagues (22 percent) and having their skills and abilities questioned (20 percent). Almost a third of women in tech highlighted a gender bias in recruitment, and 14 percent said they were made to feel uncomfortable because of their gender during the application process.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No, that's often the label people throw on me. It's the condescension of thinking that word adds anything of value, and that it would be the first time anyone's heard it. It's the deviation of what I considered to be an authentic exchange into whatever ego-driven pointless parallel of mansplaining that was.

[-] June@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Excuse my ignorance but… what?

That really makes no sense at all. What word are you talking about? Intersectionality? Or woke? Because you’re wrong if you’re talking about intersectionality.

[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I am talking about intersectionality. It's become a buzz word. Case in point, you really thought you were doing something by its mere mentioning, and "teaching me" about its existence.

[-] June@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Jesus. So you have decided that because people don’t represent intersectionality well that it’s now just a dumb concept even though you, naturally, touched on it by recognizing where sexism and racism intersect….

Are you just one of those people who gets stuck on the use of a particular language and rather than address an issue you just throw the whole conversation out? Like, come on… it being used as a buzzword does not make intersectionality unimportant at all.

[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You see how the bridge based on authentic painful experiences I was trying to have with the original commenter has now turned into nonsense about this term?

Why would you ever think someone on Lemmy hasn't heard of this term before? Let's say someone hadn't, you really think the meaning behind it is something anyone over 10 wouldn't have thought of by themselves by now?

Do you think "teaching" someone about this container of a term was really the right timing in this scenario?

Person 1: painful experience

Person 2: sounds similar to mine

Person 3: Let me presume you haven't heard about this buzzword. You have now just discovered this great word thanks to meee. Nevermind that it's an obvious idea that should occur to anyone with basic empathy and intelligence, but especially to people that have experienced prejudice. You are welcome.

[-] June@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

It turned into nonsense with your eye roll. You brought it here by being overtly and intentionally patronizing.

Why would I assume people on lemmy haven’t heard the term? I mean, have you seen who’s on here? There’s plenty of reason to be unsure. And I’m wildly confused about how me pointing out how you’re engaging with intersectionality is the problem.

A lot of people learn and make connections by seeing comment threads they aren’t a part of. Me pointing out that what you did was touching on intersectionality is as much for those readers as any opportunity to make the connection for you that there might have been. People seeing these things in action and real time is a huge addition to making the connections the break past biases and prejudices. It’s moments like that where they read a thread followed by your comment and they see the similarities, but without a direct pointer to intersectionality might keep the same bias against it because, even though they understand it they don’t connect it and continue to shit on the concept as a whole and refuse to engage in conversation at all. Maybe they just send an eye roll emoji when someone brings up the term. But pointing it out directly might make the difference for them to be able to actually engage in the conversation later.

I came at it with good faith and I’m sorry I said it in a way that didn’t sit right with you, but I had no way of knowing anything that you do or don’t know on the topic. Maybe I should have phrased it differently and rather than saying ‘in case you haven’t heard the term before’ I could have simply said ‘yay for intersectionality’ and it wouldn’t have been offensive to you? Idk. I said it trying to not make any assumptions and clearly that failed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
320 points (90.4% liked)

News

23282 readers
3829 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS