To those saying that "this is discrimination is it is morally wrong" (and I don't think this event constitutes discrimination, but here goes):
1. Should we then do away with gender segregated sports teams?
2. Should other minorities (e.g. LBGTQ groups) no longer have support groups that focus on issues relevant to them?
Having groups that cater to certain minorities feels to me both necessary and useful. We are not all identical. You probably don't want to live in a world without exceptional and different people in it; it would be boring.
That means there are times when some of those people who are like-minded want to get together and support each other. In some cases, that means other groups need to be discouraged (because that minority would otherwise be overwhelmed, drowned out in a sea of majority voices).
Why are so many voices in our industry constantly fighting events like this?
When will "enough be enough"? When will we have no more need for these separate groups? Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on their best abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on their sex or race. That is wrong.
There are much more women than men who attend college now. Women score better than men in reading and other subjects. The wage gap IS a myth. More money is focused on women's health issues.
Do you see that any area where women don't already represent at least 50% of the workforce, there will be loud voices decrying sexism at this?
On the other hand, there are 0 efforts on raising standards for boys, or trying to get them into X field. Nothing. As seen in history, once a group starts to gain power and privileges, it will continue in that direction no matter the actual circumstances.
"Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on their best abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on their sex or race."
I call bulltwang. Please provide evidence of this supposed systematic selection of 'minority' candidates, because I'm sure as heck not seeing it where I am.
You assert that the wage gap is myth. Please also provide evidence for this statement, because everything I've read suggests that it remains a problem across the board - and for the record we're talking about IT specifically here, and we're not talking about the wage gap, we're talking about the abysmally low rates of entry into this sector by half the population as defined by gender identification.
It's all well and good to say "NO ENOUGH IS ENOUGH MERITOCRACY NAO PLZ", but who decides what is meritorious? The entrenched majority? This is why that term was coined in derision.
I say, enough will be enough when there's no longer a problem (c.f. uptake of science/engineering/tech by women). Until then, we have a problem, and we need to do things to fix that problem.
To give some perspective to you, I come from the humanities field and have switched to IT. In the humanities field (from college majors to actual employment), men are underrepresented. Women hold majority positions in many places (and in related fields, HR, communications etc.).
Even still, when looking at job applications many times will be a blurb such as: "Qualified female candidates are especially encouraged to apply."
The issue I have with all of this, is that there is a sole focus on bringing in women into science and engineering, which is of course a GOOD thing.
However, there is zero effort to increase reading rates for boys, and to push boys and men into the communications and humanities fields, ZERO. Boys lag behind girls in many places when it comes to education, and nothing is done about that.
I've actually worked at a place where this was verbally justified. I am not lying when I heard a female senior management official state: "Women are better communicators than men, so it is only natural that they be placed in greater leadership and communication roles."
Why is there ZERO effort in getting men out of dangerous positions, such as mining and logging and hundreds of other fields and instead actually focus on THEIR education? Men die at a much, much higher rate than women in the workforce, but this is ignored.
So that is coming from my perspective.
If you are insulated in the IT field and that is what you have experienced, then I cannot blame you for thinking "Wow, there are so few women in this field! We need more!"
However, please note there are many fields where women are the majority of undergraduate and graduate students.
When you in fact compare individual jobs to one another there is no wage gap. Plus we have laws (at least here in the US, not sure where you are) that if you find out you are getting paid less because of your sex, you can bring this to court.
And for the record, yes I love meritocracy. I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Educate more women in the sciences, educate more men in communications/humanities/social work/education and get them out of dangerous positions. That is fair.
I totally agree with you that there are many problems here. I have also seen the research on male literacy and numeracy rates, and agree with you that there's a problem there that needs to be tackled.
That does not invalidate this problem.
And back to my original point: even if the problem of women in tech were solved, I still don't see the beef with having events held for particular subgroups of people. There's no cost here. Nobody is disadvantaged if we have a Geek Girls night, or a Gay Coder Hackathon, or the Left Handed Sysadmin Support Group.
Equality of opportunity is one thing, forcing everybody into the same cookie-cutter mould and insisting we all do the same things with the same people? Ick.
1. Should we then do away with gender segregated sports teams? 2. Should other minorities (e.g. LBGTQ groups) no longer have support groups that focus on issues relevant to them?
Having groups that cater to certain minorities feels to me both necessary and useful. We are not all identical. You probably don't want to live in a world without exceptional and different people in it; it would be boring.
That means there are times when some of those people who are like-minded want to get together and support each other. In some cases, that means other groups need to be discouraged (because that minority would otherwise be overwhelmed, drowned out in a sea of majority voices).
Why are so many voices in our industry constantly fighting events like this?