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

  • sudneo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    Problem for what?

    I exist, I need a job to live, I have job, I try my best not to be an asshole, I fight (and vote) for a better society, for social and civil rights.

    Why exactly I - since I am a man I feel included in your statement - should be THE problem?

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I try my best not to be an asshole

      Maybe people are getting too in the weeds with this because muh culture war

      But it is an asshole move to show up to an event meant for one group of people when the original issue is how over represented your group is. I’m a developer. The grind sucks. But I would be an asshole to show up to this.

      • sudneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        But it is an asshole move to show up to an event meant for one group of people when the original issue is how over represented your group is. I’m a developer. The grind sucks. But I would be an asshole to show up to this.

        If I was out of job, I would honestly care less about the fact that “my group” is over represented. There is no white male lobby that pays my mortgage. That said, I - as in the actual me - would not go to such event either, but that’s also because I wouldn’t go to any job fair atm since I don’t need a job.

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would honestly care less about the fact that

          Sure, that’s what makes people behave like assholes. “I don’t care about X” is why we have a pretty shitty world in many areas.

          • sudneo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is pure rhetoric, I can flip the argument:

            “You care more about the gender than about my material condition.”

            Also, the moment I need to let prevail abstract concepts over my material condition (i.e., caring about “my group” being over represented while I am out of a job) is the moment in which the class unity is broken. Me and those women who are out of a job have so much in common that there is no reason for me to consider us part of two separate groups. That’s the whole point of my argument, I advocate for worker solidarity and I absolutely feel that this attitude is overall harmful for it.

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              31
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t agree. I can be at a disadvantage and still accept that another group has even greater disadvantages that I would continue or make worse by stepping into something they built. Its freeloading in a pretty assholish way. I’m not just some animal trying to get a nut with narrow focus that says fuck everything else. I can job search and find my own opportunities without freeloading

              • sudneo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                Let me say this: to me this seems the completed detached thought of someone who never faced material difficulties.

                I can only think this if I am in a position of privilege where I can choose. I absolutely can’t relate with any of this, I completely agree to disagree.

                • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That would only make sense coming from a position where you assume people have no sense of integrity.

                  First issue is assuming your material difficulties is some how superior to others.

                  Second assuming the only thing that matters when facing material difficulties is how to advantage only yourself.

                  Lots of people in life are capable of enduring difficult times while also sacrificing or placing themselves behind others. I don’t see how you don’t understand that. I can promise you I have faced and continue to face many difficulties which all have taught me life lessons. One of the most important lessons is that overcoming those times by hurting others is not a position I enjoy.

                  • sudneo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    people have no sense of integrity.

                    I genuinely think this has nothing to do with integrity.

                    First issue is assuming your material difficulties is some how superior to others.

                    This is not an issue, it’s absolutely normal, because I am aware of my material difficulties, while I am not aware of other people’s one to the same extent. I can’t decide not to buy a house because by doing so I increase the demand, which increases prices and makes it harder for poor people to afford housing. You are putting the burden to address a systemic issue on another victim.

                    Second assuming the only thing that matters when facing material difficulties is how to advantage only yourself.

                    I am not saying this is the only thing that matters, but I am saying it matters, and I think it’s completely unfair to think that people shouldn’t take care of themselves. I turn my eye to the mechanisms that create the scarcity that put me and a woman to fight for resources, not on either one of them.

                    Lots of people in life are capable of enduring difficult times while also sacrificing or placing themselves behind others. I don’t see how you don’t understand that.

                    Again, I think we have simply too different of a perception of what means a difficult time. Sorry, but this argument to me sounds as complete madness.

                    One of the most important lessons is that overcoming those times by hurting others is not a position I enjoy.

                    So not only I am forced to sell my labor to survive, which is the only chance I have, but when I do I am anyway hurting others. So what are my options? Suicide? Any job I am going to take, whether it comes though this fair or not, I am taking it potentially from an under represented category, be it a woman, an old person, black folks, LGBTQ+ community, etc. So I should just stop working?

                    I will say more, if you carry on your line of reasoning further, any of the people working in tech is US are participating in a system that in a bigger scale hurts people from third world countries (thinking for example of labor exploitation) and pollutes the planet. So what should people do?

                    The working class should build solidarity, should develop a consciousness that allow them to fight united against the system that creates arbitrary scarcity of resources, not self-police and create a hierarchy to split the crumbles among themselves.

                • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  this seems the completed detached thought of someone who never faced material difficulties.

                  Yes, all of your comments do.

                  • sudneo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Any specific part? Or you just wanted to do the snarky comment without committing to an actual discussion?

                  • sudneo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Women are in the exact same position you are in, with the added disadvantage of being women

                    This is your assumption. You are assuming that the men going to the event are average men, which on average are more likely to be employed in tech. I don’t think that’s true in this case, I think it’s mostly desperate people, possibly also from marginalized groups. Looking at the video I see mostly foreigners, possibly in need of a visa to not be kicked out of the country. Keep in mind they paid 600 bucks for a super tiny chance (imagine what are the chances that recruiters at that event will not ignore them because they went there to recruit women).

                    Also, reading a bit online it seems that there is always been a percentage of men attending that event.

                    I will not address the last paragraph, your suggestion of what “this proves” is completely arbitrary and prejudicial, I won’t say what that proves, instead.

          • cricket97@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            You have a job and likely an established career, to be perfectly honest your view does not mean much here. There are people struggling to get a job after going into major debt for college loans, you bet your ass they’re going to grind until they get a job. Maybe put actual policy in place to prevent males from attending if that’s what is desired.

            • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I had to uproot my entire family after losing my 15 year career in an Industry I no longer could work in. I had to attend school and feed multiple mouths plus parent only to end up in an over saturated job market prone with agism. For one year i had to go back to living with my parents to attend school where I commuted 3 hours a day. So don’t give me this shit about what I am or not based on clues you think you uncovered from a couple comments Scooby Doo. I know the grind more than most

              And you know what I never once thought? I never once thought “hey I better go to that women’s job fair.”

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you realize that there are women out of a job too? It’s not just out of good vibes that people bring up issues of representation, they represent the material conditions of people. For you the percentage of women vs men in the workplace might be a meaningless number, but for those women, it’s their chance of a living.

          • sudneo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am just saying that this burden shouldn’t fall on other people in material need. It is simply extremely unfair from my point of view to imagine that a person which happens to be a man, and is in need of a job should just sit quietly and leave space for women, because generally, in the whole field, women are under represented.

            Again, this is just some kind of thought process that can only come in my head if I am not risking for my house to be repossessed by the bank, or when I have enough cash to keep paying rent, or I don’t have a family to support. It’s a complete luxurious form of integrity that is completely detached from the real world (the one I live in, at least). This seems completely peak war between poor people, where we stop challenging the arbitrary scarcity of resources and we want to solve the problem just by creating a hierarchy by which the crumbles should be shared.

            I am from a different country, maybe it’s cultural, but this position is completely alienating and unrelatable for me.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are still not thinking of the women who are also struggling to get jobs, who are poor as well. Women also struggle to pay rent or to feed their families too. You are contrasting women against struggling people as if they couldn’t be in the same position.

              So not only women in this field already need to fight an uphill battle against the industry’s predisposition to hire men over women, now they are having to fight over opportunities that had been aimed at them to begin with. Don’t you think they will also face real financial struggles because of this?

              It’s not a matter of caring about representation or material needs. It’s an opportunity to provide material needs through representation.

              I don’t know where you are from, but I’m not american or european if that’s what you are assuming. Yet there are still women struggling where I live. I assume the same is true all over the world.

              Surely, there is a point to be made regarding our need to pressure wealthy people so that more poorer people have means to live. But how does pulling the rug under a poor woman have anything to do with that? That’s not even the same discussion, that’s just changing topics from the ruthlessness being displayed.

              And you know what, as a man, if I were in a situation of need as well I wouldn’t look favorably over people who are so intent on tripping whoever is around them to cut in line. Desperation is real for sure, but for that very reason solidarity is important.

              • sudneo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Of course I am aware of that. Of course there are women who are in the same situation, or worse. Of course there are black women who are even in a worse place. Of course there are old black women who are in even a worse place. The fact is, there are people who need a job, and once this is the case, I don’t put any responsibility on any of them if they take the spot that could be taken by someone more deserving. This is simply a decision that doesn’t make sense. The responsibility is on those who decide how many jobs exist, to layoff people even with record profits (which coincidentally, are all the sponsors of this fair) and so on.

                But how does pulling the rug under a poor woman have anything to do with that? That’s not even the same discussion, that’s just changing topics from the ruthlessness being displayed.

                How is it trying to get a job (paying 600$+!) “pulling the rug” from anybody? This is what I don’t get. Literally, anything you do, you are affecting society in a way that damages someone who has less means than you. You are buying something -> you are marginally increasing the demand and therefore the price.

                It’s not like I don’t understand your idea, I simply don’t think it makes any sense to expect such behavior to other people who are also victims of the same system. I have no interest whatsoever in fragmenting the working class creating a hierarchy of who is more victimized, this is a pointless exercises which is reactionary in nature.

                if I were in a situation of need as well I wouldn’t look favorably over people who are so intent on tripping whoever is around them to cut in line

                So if you apply for a job and someone else has already applied, you leave it? What does ‘cutting the line’ means in this context? We are talking about paying to go to a job fair meant for women, which also probably means that your chance to get recruited are much lower than a woman because companies are nowadays very interested in boosting their diversity metrics. And I think this is the case because for some people the struggle ends there: you get 40% of women in tech, there you go, now you are a good company, thanks Microsoft/Apple/etc… This is why I think that this particular version of feminism is inherently bourgeois and reactionary.

                • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I have no interest whatsoever in fragmenting the working class creating a hierarchy of who is more victimized

                  This is very lofty talk for someone fully willing to take away opportunities intentionally aimed at someone else who needs it.

                  Don’t you think snatching that opportunity is going to cause fragmentation? Do you think women or minorities stop having material struggles as long as you don’t think of them as a distinct group? That’s not how it works. If it was, then before feminism, working class women would have equal material conditions to working class men, and that is absolutely not how it went.

                  And yeah, there are people who are even more disadvantaged, which also results in worse material conditions. The solution is not to stop thinking about it.

                  For all your talk about working class, what you propose is nothing that helps the working class in a systemic or immediate way, it’s just “looking out for #1” and then pointing fingers at the system if anyone judges you for it. I guess your logic is that if you are working class and you help yourself you are helping the working class? Funny, but that’s not it.

                  You know exactly what “cutting the line” means here. There are other job fairs and recruitment opportunities where these guys could go to. However less likely they may be to be hired, whoever does is taking away an opportunity that a woman needed. However insincere the companies may be at doing this, however this may not be enough to create a better society where everyone can have a decent life, these women need jobs regardless. You know, material conditions, the thing you were saying was much more important.

                  • sudneo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This is very lofty talk for someone fully willing to take away opportunities intentionally aimed at someone else who needs it.

                    Taking that opportunity (which specifically, I think is also very little) is someone who also needs it. You can create this hierarchy even among the women at that very fair, in fact.

                    Don’t you think snatching that opportunity is going to cause fragmentation?

                    I think not, if framed under the right perspective.

                    Do you think women or minorities stop having material struggles as long as you don’t think of them as a distinct group? That’s not how it works. If it was, then before feminism, working class women would have equal material conditions to working class men, and that is absolutely not how it went.

                    Absolutely I don’t. And I am not claiming that the problem is solved by “meritocracy” or by just stopping thinking about this. I am suggesting that it is not responsibility of the victims to self-police and sort themselves in order of priority.

                    I guess your logic is that if you are working class and you help yourself you are helping the working class? Funny, but that’s not it.

                    That’s not what I am suggesting. I am personally just thinking in very pragmatic terms. Realistically the struggle of the working class requires strong unions and harsh battles. How are you going to build a union when I - a male - see you -a woman (but you can pick any other category) - as something else as myself, as belonging to another group? To me building strong unions requires a mutual recognition of class belonging, and this is what I think helps in a systemic way. Nothing systemic is also going to change if X% more women would be hired by Microsoft/Apple etc., with the difference that if you reach that situation having alienated and fragmented workers, that’s also where you stop.

                    There are other job fairs and recruitment opportunities where these guys could go to.

                    I have no idea why they chose to attend. What I know is that you don’t spend 600-1200$ for the hell of it if you need a job.

                    whoever does is taking away an opportunity that a woman needed

                    And how is this different from any other job? I mean, ultimately you can apply this logic to any job you are going to take. Realistically, any company that will hire you is going to have a small % of women, so any job you are taking, you are taking it from a woman (or a black person, etc.). I really fail to understand how your logic works outside the specific context of the job fair. Are you saying that besides this job fair, then no concerns anymore should exist about under represented categories?

                    these women need jobs regardless. You know, material conditions, the thing you were saying was much more important.

                    Of course, but it’s a matter of deciding the strategy to reach that objective. From my point of view, for the reasons above, I disagree with this particular one.

            • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              I am just saying that this burden shouldn’t fall on other people in material need.

              Well, good thing it doesn’t in this case.

              The whole point is that everything in this field is already, by default, directed at men. That’s what it’s like in the US. It’s the same with race. And saying we have have equality when we don’t is just ignoring the way these divisions affect historically oppressed groups. Acknowledging systemic hierarchy and division between races and genders in order to fix it doesn’t automatically mean you have to ignore class divisions. They’re far from mutually exclusive. Why would it be impossible to acknowledge both at the same time?

              It’s to the point where no one else can have anything without men going “what about me and my problems?” “Well here’s what I think about all these social issues that have never and will never negatively affect me.” As usual, the “not all men” of every comment section of every article about a women-only-something-or-other are just making a great case for women-only-something-or-others.

              • sudneo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                everything in this field is already, by default, directed at men

                This is a very broad statement. Perhaps the population of males that showed up here is not an average male population in tech but the outliers of the statistics (looking at the videos, it seems mostly foreigners)? So I think it’s fairly alienating to go tell them “sorry, fuck off, everything is meant for you already”, when maybe you are out of a job for months and decided to pay 600$ (!!) in the hope of getting one.

                saying we have have equality

                Who said this?

                Why would it be impossible to acknowledge both at the same time?

                It’s not impossible, but this happens. A lot of focus on the relatively minor differences between oppressed people creates fragmentation that impedes those people to realize they actually share problems and interests. To make an example, you coming and saying that “everything is meant for men anyway” is alienating to a 45yr old male who has just been fired to be replaced by a 23yr old (maybe, woman). It simply conflicts with the experiences of individuals who - despite potentially being men - face other kind of discrimination and generally struggle. That man has more in common with a woman who is not promoted, compared to the boss of that woman who is sexist, instead, and should not be alienated by gaslighting him with a reality that for him does not exist (I took this example, but the same applies to a black person, a foreigner, someone who didn’t study in a fancy university, someone with a disability, and so on). So I am not saying that they are mutually exclusive, I am saying that concretely some arguments, including the overall tone of the article, seem to me to damage class unity to purely focus on gender discrimination.

                It’s to the point where no one else can have anything without men going “what about me and my problems?”

                Sorry, but I would not like to be mixed up with arguments made by others, nor with those who are arguing a-la Jordan Peterson in this thread. I don’t care of men as a category, I am a supporter of feminism, I just have an idea of feminism as an inherently anti-capitalist and progressive ideology, which is an enabler for class unity. I just don’t see the kind of arguments made by this article (and by some of the commenters) going in this direction. Instead, they seem to me as part of a feminism which is reactionary and part of the system in that it doesn’t challenge it. Getting angry at fellow victims just because they are men seem to me an expression of this.

                Nota bene: if the kind of tech-bro with a cushy job would be attending this fair with the intention to waste the time of the recruiters or even to look for a better job, my opinion would be different.

                • medgremlin@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  As a woman who used to work in tech, I would like to point out that you are missing some very key details here. The expectations placed on women in tech are much stricter, much more demeaning, and much more harsh than those placed on men. I had an employer while I was a contractor decide not to renew my contract because I “didn’t smile enough” and “wasn’t friendly enough”, and this was not an expectation placed on my male coworkers. The contracting agency I was working through tried to argue in my defense, but the employer was allowed to discontinue my contract at any time for any reason. Unfortunately, the contracting agency didn’t have any other positions open for me, so I was just out of a job.

                  In just about every tech job I’ve had, it was made explicitly clear to me that behaving and interacting with others in the same manner as my male coworkers was not acceptable. I was hired with the implicit understanding that, in addition to providing my labor and expertise, I was required to present myself as feminine, demure, and almost submissive to any men I worked with, even if I was their supervisor.

                  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. This job fair was not allowed to officially exclude men, so 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.

                  • sudneo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • steltek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I would be an asshole to show up to this.

        That’s the part I really don’t get. If you’re cis male looking for a job, do you really think crashing this event is going to reflect favorably on you and that you’d be more likely to land a job? People are going to look at you and think that you have good judgment and won’t be a problem at all? What the heck is the thought process that makes this a good plan?

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I assume most tech bros have a mental form of tinnitus going on in their brains in lieu of thoughts. Just a constant bzzzzzzzzzz

      • Dude123@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is legally discrimination. What part of that isn’t understood? Substitute women for any other group based on height, age, race, religion, or sexual preference and see that your argument doesn’t hold water.

    • Nindelofocho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      seriously this happens a lot people will go off and say word for word that a whole group of people are evil and bad when its a subset of a group. When called on it they may simply say that its not talking about the group as a whole or “not for you” if they dont genuinely believe the whole group is bad (which is wrong and discriminatory)

      The issue is the discrepancy of what you say in relation to what you mean will lead others to believe in what you say but not what you mean and this harms those just trying to survive normally.

      • Thinker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        The first comment literally wasn’t talking about a whole group of people, they were talking about the men in this thread leaving comments that illustrate the exact reason why this space created by and for women and non-binary people should be about and for the benefit of women and non-binary people.

        • sudneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It also didn’t explain why, nor made the distinction you are making. So yeah, it was a blanket statement to karma farm on Lemmy…

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      If these dudes were - as the article quotes describe - pushing, shoving, cutting in line then like I don’t see why you feel you need to identify with these particular dudes.

      You can absolutely wait until some guy actually is being unfairly treated before dying on this hill.

      • sudneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.