my company says we can’t have a women-only event

by Alison Green on March 5, 2025

A reader writes:

I’m facing an issue similar to one you’ve addressed before, but with the current political climate around DEI initiatives, I’m concerned your advice might have shifted.

I’m a woman in leadership at a U.S.-based company. We’ve been planning a company-sponsored off-site event for women in IT, inviting anyone who identifies as a woman. The agenda and speakers were carefully selected to foster career growth and camaraderie for women who work in tech.

Initially, the company was supportive, but now Legal says with current political goings-on there’s too much risk to limiting attendance to only women. To move forward, we would need to open the event to all employees in the department. In my view, companies have less legal responsibility to care about DEI after recent federal actions, but the fundamentals haven’t changed. Some men would be sour, but women in tech remain marginalized and the event is worthwhile. Still, given Legal’s position, we have to pivot.

Our options seem to be rebranding the event to make it open to all IT employees while still focusing on topics that resonate with women, or canceling it altogether. I’m struggling with how to preserve the event’s real value without losing its core purpose. I’m also struggling with how to approach this with the women organizing, I stand with them but this isn’t the hill I wish to die on today.

I’d really appreciate any advice or insights you might have.

You can still put on an event that focuses on women in IT without limiting who’s invited. Make it clear that everyone is welcome, but the topics will center around ways to recruit and support women in IT, a traditionally male-dominated field. Anyone can support and work on those goals. In fact, having male allies and discussing specific things they can do in support of those goals is a good thing.

If your legal team won’t even let you do that, then you have a much bigger problem — but it sounds like they’re just saying the invitations can’t be women-only, which is fine and doesn’t need to impede you at all.

And so people know: the Trump executive order on DEI defines prohibited conduct as discrimination or preferences based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin — which was already illegal, and has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most of the rest of the executive orders only apply to the federal government itself and/or to federal contractors, not to other workplaces. It is still legal for private employers to address barriers and work to provide a level playing field for employees and candidates. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the main federal work anti-discrimination law, remains in effect and can only be rescinded by Congress.

You may also like:
{ 161 comments }

{ 161 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    A reminder: We’ve had a recent increase in trolling here, and you can help me by NOT RESPONDING to it. If you engage, you are ensuring that troll will reappear. Instead, please flag the comment for me (just reply with a link, which will send your comment to moderation so I’ll see it). Do not engage at all. Thank you.

    Reply ↓
  2. Justin*

    They even clarified this week saying, like, “yes you can still do a Black ERG you just can’t say “no white people.””

    It’s all silly tantrum behavior but these things are still possible.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not much else to say*

      It seems to me that Alison has read which way the political winds have blown and is at best pulling her punches where she once would have unabashedly stood for inclusion.

      Once she was anti-musket, now she is making her leave with him and his chaos.

      I suppose I cannot blame her but it is still very disappointing.

      Reply ↓
      2. MK*

        One thing I have always appreciated about Alison is that her advice is fundamentally pragmatic and focused on what the person asking can realistically do to accomplish their goal. What good would it do to OP if she went on a rant about the unfairness of it all and how the current US administration is a nightmare. Also, what about the response is “not standing from inclusion”?

        Reply ↓
        1. Heya*

          Agreed. Alison always focuses on practical advice for the LW first, without going into rabbit holes or rants (she leaves that to the commenters!). This is no exception, and her point about including male allies is a good one. I don’t see anywhere that she is approving the actions of the Trump administration. She is acknowledging the new political reality that the LW and many others are currently stuck with.

          Reply ↓
      4. Lydia*

        That is not at all what is happening here. Additionally, she has always advocated for people to do what is safest for them.

        Reply ↓
      7. Justin*

        If Alison advocated for something that lost people their jobs that would be malpractice.

        I am actually a writer and speaker about racism (and I’m Black) and I have always tried to tell people what to do to be practical, without saying to be weak-willed.

        You are completely wrong.

        Reply ↓
      8. MigraineMonth*

        Alison unabashedly stands for inclusion, *and* the law says (and has said since 1964, though enforcement has been very uneven), that you cannot bar entry to an event based on an individual’s gender or race.

        You can emphasize outreach to female candidates in your recruitment. You can have an ERG for your female employees and (as long as you aren’t Federal) you can offer them special opportunities. You can host events that focus on elevating their profiles and addressing issues that they face.

        You cannot bar men or nonbinary folks from attending those events. You usually don’t want to; the people who voluntarily put themselves in the minority to attend a group focused on other people are frequently good ally material. (If they are disruptive or harassing people, you can kick them out for that.)

        Reply ↓
      9. Jasmine Clark*

        I don’t think there’s any reason to be disappointed in Alison’s response. She does stand for inclusion, and in this response, she explained why it’s important for men to be included in this event: Men need to understand how they can play a role in fighting against sexism. Alison’s response was good.

        Reply ↓
    2. Falling Diphthong*

      I was involved in a “Women in (Field Where We Are a Small Minority)” one of these a few years back through a college, and to be aligned with the federal funding and etc at that time, no new orders needed, it was open to everyone. You had to be willing to be a man at an event that was mostly women–something women in this field experienced all the time, in its inverse–but no one was barred. The event was a lot of women (students and professionals in the field) and a few men (students).

      Reply ↓
      1. Anonym*

        I used to work adjacent to DEI programs at a very large financial institution, and the policy (going back at least 15 years) was always to make the content of the event very clear, but everyone is welcome. You never know who wants to learn as an ally, or because they identify in a way that’s not obvious to you, or have people in their life that might benefit because they’ve learned about the subject. Some events were hosted by and only invited employee groups, but anyone could join those groups as well. It always seemed both well thought out and inclusive to me.

        Reply ↓
      2. Tech Rose*

        This has been the case for both universities I’ve attended (one private, one public) – all clubs must be open to everyone, and they take it very seriously. I heard that one club (supporting a minority demographic at the school) had a complaint filed against them for discrimination after they kicked a disruptive person (who was not a member of their target demographic) out of their Discord server, so now the club documents any rule-breaking and disruption extremely carefully to avoid that situation.

        Reply ↓
      3. kt*

        Yep, samesies, in mathematics. The events for women I put together between 10 and 5 years ago also were aimed at supporting women in mathematics, and we said men were welcome, and some came. They were willing to be men at events that were mostly women, and it was educational for them which is great.

        As with any group, you need to be thoughtful about the objectives of the event and how you manage to that objective.

        Reply ↓
      4. Ana Gram*

        Same here. I’m on the steering committee for a women in my field group and everyone is welcome at our events. Men rarely appear. The few who do seem to be very genuine, which is nice.

        Reply ↓
      5. Ace in the Hole*

        Exactly. Frankly, even if an event/group is open to all genders you’re very unlikely to be overwhelmed by men at a feminine-coded event. They tend to just not show up.

        Reply ↓
    3. Also-ADHD*

      Most companies I’ve worked for or consulted with that have a strong DEI component don’t exclude people anyway. Now, with the hostility brewing, maybe this will start to cause other complications, where people “act out” but most people who come to DEI events are either the focus group or allies. (Meaning men supporting a Female Leaders in IT event isn’t bad–as long as you don’t make them the keynotes etc. But they can come and listen!)

      The only time I imagine you’d want to “close” something is for traumatic or triggering issues, and those usually aren’t workplace events anyway. Generally ERGs are members of the group in question, but opening them also has some broader benefits: People don’t have to decide if they are neurodivergent enough, LGBTQ enough, Latino enough, etc. which can be an issue if you limit audience.

      Reply ↓
  3. Bella*

    At my workplace (university) we recently ran a hybrid alumni event that was focussed on women making their voices heard in the workplace: we said that everyone was invited but that priority for coming in-person would be given to those who identified as women, and that the whole thing would be focussed around how women might make their voices heard. TBH seeing the number of men who signed up anyway for a women-focussed event because they genuinely wanted to support their female colleagues was pretty damn cool (and who then were good at keeping to their lane, not talking over the female participants, etc), so I agree with Alison – I definitely wouldn’t sniff at finding opportunities to work with male allies, particularly in the current climate.

    Reply ↓
    1. JohnnyBravo*

      I also think even ignoring the current climate especially for a work event doing an “it’s about X but all are welcome provided they follow a code of conduct” is just a better and more equitable way to do it.

      also just like these kinds of events especially if some of the attendees are people in the organization with power, can give you an unofficial leg up by getting informal face time and being in the same “circles” as higher ups. if it was wrong to exclude women and minorities from those kinds of unofficial opportunities (and it was) i find it hard to justify excluding men and white people from similar ones

      Reply ↓
    2. bamcheeks*

      who then were good at keeping to their lane, not talking over the female participants

      This is great, but I do think this is a “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” situation: even if you have well meaning men / allies attending, it’s good to have some people prepared to do some firm and assertive chairing to make sure they don’t disproportionately take up airtime.

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        Very true. It also helps to have a clear code of conduct outlined so you have something to point to if someone from outside the group of focus does try to disrupt the event or harass the other participants. (No, we didn’t kick them out because they were male, we kicked them out because they used a “Women in Tech” conference to try hitting on all the female participants against the code of conduct.)

        Reply ↓
  4. It turned out fine*

    We had an event at my company that was geared for women and a man attended and it was no problem at all. It was actually great to have a different perspective. The important thing is that everyone is respectful of everyone and no one takes up all the place. If it had been mostly men attending, then it might have been a very different feeling. In that case, it might be interesting, if possible, to do some breakout sessions by gender or even gender and mixed sessions having everyone the opportunity to experience both.

    Reply ↓
    1. The Prettiest Curse*

      I have seen event descriptions that say “women in tech or STEM and their allies are welcome to attend.”

      It might be less of an issue for this event since it’s internal, but I’d also recommend having and enforcing an attendee Code of Conduct which makes it clear that aggressive questioning, heckling etc. will result in immediate ejection from the event.

      Reply ↓
      1. amoeba*

        This is how it’s done here (both for the women ERG and also for LGBTQ+ – I’m a member of the latter even though I’m cis het, as I’m interested in the topics and trying to be a good ally!)
        It generally works fine, the topics are clearly geared at the target group but anybody else who’s interested is free to attend. Of course, it only works as long as people attend in good faith and not for trolling, but I guess that would then give you the right to kick them out!

        Reply ↓
        1. commensally*

          It’s also important for groups like that to welcome “allies” because it lets people attend and connect to support without officially outing themselves to their employers (important in the current climate for other reasons!)

          (And yes, this applies to women-identifying people too).

          Reply ↓
      2. Slow Gin Lizz*

        This could unfortunately be necessary even though it’s internal. A formal code of conduct might not be necessary, but you should at least get clear guidelines from legal ahead of the event as to how to deal with any poor behavior, should it arise.

        Reply ↓
      3. No Tribble At All*

        Yes, agree. I was once on an internal DEI committee that had someone admit he joined specifically to “make sure women didn’t get unfair opportunities.” Don’t mind me, one of three women in my forty-person department :(

        Reply ↓
        2. MigraineMonth*

          As one of the two women in my department, I wish I could gift him the opportunities I’ve received: the opportunity to be condescended and mansplained to, the opportunity to be mistaken for a somebody’s wife at the department potluck, the opportunity to rewrite every email so as not to come off too brusque…

          Reply ↓
      4. Temperance*

        I’ve been to so many of these events where a man shows up and feels the need to talk, and talk, and talk and center himself, or “provide perspective”. It’s obnoxious and only getting worse.

        Reply ↓
        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          Well, yeah, that is absolutely a possibility, but that’s why some of us mentioned having a code of conduct or similar. Some of the mtgs/events I attend outright say that mtg/event guidelines require that you listen respectfully and don’t monopolize the conversation (worded much more diplomatically than I can come up with at the moment). These kinds of guidelines are useful not only to remind participants not to be long-winded and self-centered but also to empower organizers/moderators to shut those people down and redirect the conversation when necessary.

          Reply ↓
        2. Falling Diphthong*

          I’ve been to them where there was a dude, and he was a normal person.

          I would make a sharp distinction here between real life and online spaces. Online exaggerates everything, and works for trolling in a way that real life, under your own name and face and professional reputation, doesn’t.

          Reply ↓
        3. Lydia*

          Where I live, there’s a small, literature focused sci-fi convention that is regularly attended by a notorious writer who likes to talk at length on the panels he’s on about how he’s pro-woman because he writes books with “strong female characters”. He is obnoxious and immensely disliked, and yet he’s always at the convention, always invited to panel, and always makes it about himself. Unfortunately for him, people are getting braver about speaking up when he tries to become the Good Guy in the Room.

          Reply ↓
      5. But Of Course*

        It probably needs to be more aggressive than a Code of Conduct. We had three men who attended a non-work, non-gender-restricted Zoom event as newcomers and talked about the need for their industry to be more welcoming of women. They also used the direct message function of the chat to harass, in extremely gross terms, the other newcomer, a woman who was unconnected with them. We assume their goal was to drive her out and drive out any other new attendees after they were accepted as members.

        We now restrict the chat function, which is unfortunate, as it had been used as a tool to get directly-solicited feedback on soeakers. (No prizes if you can guess what organization I’m referring to.)

        Reply ↓
        1. Pink hat*

          Can organizations not solve that problem by making the event facially open to everyone, but in practice discouraging cishet men from attending by for example discussing menstrual cycles or menstrual products at length?

          Reply ↓
          1. Ace in the Hole*

            As a woman in a very male-dominated field, I’d be furious if I showed up for a professional event and they talked about menstruation “at length.” Or, frankly, at all.

            I don’t have any hangups about periods, but discussions of bodily functions do not belong at a work event unless it’s an ACTUAL barrier to women in the field. And I sure as heck don’t feel like wasting my time on a completely irrelevant topic instead of something actually related to my career.

            Solve the problem with proper moderation, rules for behavior, and enforcement of those rules.

            Reply ↓
    2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      “The important thing is that everyone is respectful of everyone and no one takes up all the place. If it had been mostly men attending, then it might have been a very different feeling.”

      Sometimes Alison asks a question aimed at a specific or minority group, and uses unambiguous language to express “looking for input from [members of specific group] here — others can participate but not centre themselves”.

      We’ve had many centuries of hearing how men think women should do stuff, how women feel about stuff, and what they should be allowed to do. There must be a way to say “if you are not part of this group then you are welcome to attend as spectator/audience/student but should not expect to participate/contribute ahead of attendees who do identify with the target group”. Or “if you know you are not in the target group, please indicate your interest when you speak”, which is where we notice whether father-of-girls-and-manager-of-women Steve is speaking or gender-studies-professor Daniel.

      We are socialised to overestimate how much a woman has spoken and underestimate how much a man has spoken. “Balanced” conversations are typically measured as 2 minutes or more of men talking for each 1 minute of women talking.

      Reply ↓
    3. just curious*

      Can I ask (and I swear this is a sincere question, not being sarcastic) what was the great different perspective the male attendee offered, at an event for women?

      Reply ↓
      1. Potato Potato*

        I’m not who you were asking. But I’m a non-binary trans man in a STEM field. I still attend events geared at women (especially mentorship events where I can pass on knowledge), and I’ve been told occasionally that my voice is valuable there.

        Besides all the trans and queer stuff (which isn’t what you’re asking), I think it’s sometimes useful to have somebody confirm that certain things don’t happen to men. And then to offer support if the women involved want to speak up about it.

        When I say “certain things”, I don’t mean obvious ones like how nobody comments if a man wears the same outfit twice in a row. I mean more like “John says he’s crouching to look over your shoulder because you’re short, but that’s nonsense because I’m the same height and he doesn’t do it to me.” It’s easy to get in your own head about stuff like that, so this is useful

        Reply ↓
        1. just curious*

          Thanks for this! That example in your last paragraph is a good one, although I will say in my experience I’ve not had men in my workplace contribute to the conversation in that way.

          I think I was mostly curious because the “male perspective” is often the predominant perspective, so I would think that the most constructive thing that a man could do at a woman-centered event like this is to listen. So this is an interesting insight!

          Reply ↓
          1. Potato Potato*

            That’s fair. And for the most part, I think you’re right. Usually, the most constructive thing for men to do at women’s groups is listen (and the same goes for allies of other kinds). But not every time

            Reply ↓
            1. Slow Gin Lizz*

              I personally find trans people’s experiences very interesting, because y’all are in an extremely small group of humans who have experienced life as both men and women and therefore have a unique perspective on gender issues that the rest of us will never have. And boy, how do I wish we really could all have the experience of living as the opposite gender for awhile!

              Anyway, not to be all “hey trans people, please do all this heavy lifting in your already more difficult than cis people’s lives” or anything, but I do really appreciate your sharing your experiences, Potato.

              Reply ↓
  5. Potato Potato*

    As a trans non-binary person, I want to point out that opening it to everyone helps us too! There’s a lot of us that could benefit from a “woman in IT” event who don’t identify as women.

    I’m still active in girls in STEM mentorship groups even though I don’t identify as a woman- those groups helped me a lot when I was younger, and I like giving back. Luckily they don’t mind that I have a beard now

    Reply ↓
    2. Boof*

      Yeah I think there’s a lot of benefit to being clear what the /focus/ of an event is and making sure that focus is maintained (ie, if there’s some kind of problem with non-focus participants dominating the agenda, figure out how to limit that and keep the spotlight on the intended topic, just like any other thing it’s important to stick to an agenda and know how to handle it if things wander off track)
      I really don’t see a benefit to making a work event /exclusive/ though. For those who need some sort of safe space to work out something, that’s probably something overstepping what work should be trying to do, and best done privately.

      Reply ↓
    3. Beth*

      Thank you SO much for your elegantly made point, and for your lifelong work for genuine inclusion. I wish I’d had access to mentors like you when I was a young person!!

      Reply ↓
    4. Emily Byrd Starr*

      Good point: if you look like a woman, you’ll be treated like a woman at work (for better or worse) even if you don’t identify as one.

      Reply ↓
      1. Mothwing*

        Even if you don’t look like a woman! Neuroscientist Ben Barres, famously, told stories about how he would do papers or give lectures after transitioning, and would be told that his work was much better than “his sister’s” work–in other words, his own work published back when he still identified as a woman.

        Additionally, a lot of people who are or seem to be men get kicked out of “the boys’ club” for not being sufficiently “masculine”–whether because they’re actually trans or gender nonconforming in some direction, or gay, or just don’t Man Correctly by others’ perception. Misogyny is a weapon wielded against everyone, not just women or people perceived as women. Male privilege is a thing but it has very narrow membership.

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          No one has ever threatened to “take away my woman card” for my hobbies, skills or profession.

          (Cis, straight and feminine women do have privilege as well! It just seems significantly harder to lose than by wearing the wrong color shirt, enjoying baking or being a nurse.)

          Reply ↓
    5. Also-ADHD*

      This is why it’s good to open your ERGs as a best practice. People shouldn’t have to decide if they’re LGBTQ enough, Latino enough, woman enough, etc. and identities are complex and multifaceted anyway.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nightengale*

        on the other hand, our disability BRG is definitely in danger of being taken over by non-disabled parents. That also happened to a friend of mine at another hospital. It would be really great to have a space to talk about being a disabled employee that is run by and for disabled employees.

        Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          Non-disabled parents of children with disabilities, do you mean? I wonder if that could be split off into a separate support group.

          Reply ↓
        2. AlsoADHD*

          The key is to have a strong enough charter to keep events and content and operations focused on the audience at hand, rather than excluding people tough to be honest.

          Reply ↓
  6. Amber Rose*

    Sounds like Legal needs to brush up on their knowledge of… the law.

    I’m being a bit facetious here but I also think it’s really normal to have all kinds of people at events targeted at women. My husband was offered a ticket to the women in [my industry] event happening this month. He isn’t going because he feels a bit uncomfortable, and I’m not going because I can’t take the days off just yet, but maybe next year we’ll both go.

    Reply ↓
    1. Jules the 3rd*

      Legal is concerned about the likelihood of getting sued, not the likelihood of losing a suit. It’s all about optics right now.

      Reply ↓
      1. Justin*

        For a lot of companies, DEI was unfortunately always about optics, hence the quick fold.

        But this isn’t hard, as Alison says, don’t bar anyone from attending and it’s done.

        Reply ↓
          1. Ally McBeal*

            Honestly I’ll be so happy if big corporations and cops stop coming to Pride. Their support was almost always surface-level at best (looking at you, Target) and sponsoring a float or a party doesn’t make up for the way the LGBTQIA+ community is treated (customers or employees alike). Pride started with a riot, a rebellion, a revolution… and we can’t dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools.

            Reply ↓
      2. PGF*

        Especially since there’s a big difference between an event targeted at women and an event that only women can attend. Even before The Current Climate, I could see the latter being a headache.

        Reply ↓
        1. Phony Genius*

          Does anybody know if, under the letter of the law, a women-only event in a private workplace that receives no government funds would be legal?

          Reply ↓
          1. Turquoisecow*

            I wonder if legal would have a problem with a work baby or bridal shower, given those are often attended by women only.

            Reply ↓
              1. FishOutofWater*

                And at my previous office, men were some of the most enthusiastic participants (and often organizers!) of these events.

                Reply ↓
          2. Unreasonable Doubt*

            It is absolutely illegal. And since your question was nested under the top comment about “brushing up on the law,” let me also respond to Amber Rose: Legal’s advice and position on this particular issue – not having a work-sponsored event that specifically excludes people BASED ON THEIR GENDER IDENTITY – is completely, 100% correct. No brushing up required.

            It’s actually really harmful to initiatives that are supposed to help marginalized people when have organizers literally violate the law by discriminating against “majority” or “privileged” people based solely on their protected characteristic.

            Reply ↓
            1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

              For sure, what’s often (erroneously) called “reverse” discrimination is often litigated because folks don’t understand that the protected characteristic is “race,” not “non-white,” or “sex,” not “female.”

              Reply ↓
              1. JM60*

                I’ve never liked the term “reverse” discrimination partly because if there is merit, then it’s just discrimination. (That, and often people who claim they’re the victim of reverse discrimination are often complaining that they’re no longer being treated better than the minority in question.)

                There’s nothing about the word “discrimination” that inherently means that it’s targeting someone who is an underprivileged minority, nor even that the difference in treatment is even morally wrong. I think people have linked the word “discrimination” with “discrimination” against an underprivileged minority because when someone is being illegally discriminated against, they’re usually an underprivileged minority with regard to the legally protected characteristic in question.

                Reply ↓
          3. Statler von Waldorf*

            I can’t speak for the US, but in Canada it would not be.

            It doesn’t even matter if attendance was unpaid. Based on the ruling in Simpson v. Consumers’ Association of Canada [1999], work-related social events constitute the workplace, and thus this would trigger the gender discrimination sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

            Reply ↓
    2. Snow Globe*

      I don’t think Legal is necessarily wrong, if they are indeed objecting only to the invitations being women-only, and not to the subject matter. It sounds like this is an off-site event, which potentially means the company providing food/accommodations/time off, so I can see how it could get sticky if this is viewed as a benefit only for women.

      Reply ↓
    3. Statler von Waldorf*

      I strongly disagree. I don’t think Legal doesn’t need to brush up on anything. They are completely correct in my jurisdiction, and I can cite case law to prove it. If you have case law of your own that supports your position, I’d be interested in seeing it.

      To be clear, It’s legal to have an event that is targeted at women. What is not legal in my jurisdiction is prohibiting a man from attending a workplace event due to his gender.

      Reply ↓
    4. Miles Long List*

      I’m in-house counsel focusing on employment law. Legal was correct to say that it would be risky (ahem, illegal) for groups/events to be restricted by protected class, like sex. Title VII prohibits that kind of discrimination in employment. It helps me to think about the reverse situation, “What if an event was limited to male attendees?” It also helps to think about the benefits of employment involved that excluded employees wouldn’t receive – networking opportunities, meals, potential paid time, swag, and so on.

      The executive orders didn’t create this issue. However, they did shine the spotlight on anything DEI related. The SCOTUS Ames case is going to bring even more attention to DEI. What is challenging for me is that we want to keep being inclusive and supporting our employees in legal ways, but we also don’t want to attract the attention of bad actors. People can sue companies on very shaky legal grounds and those suits, however frivolous, cost companies manpower, money, and sometimes reputation. It’s frustrating… like walking a tightrope.

      Reply ↓
      1. JM60*

        Legal was correct to say that it would be risky (ahem, illegal) for groups/events to be restricted by protected class, like sex.

        I’m not a lawyer, but I think most people are confused on this topic because when someone talks about “protected classes” they incorrectly think of protected demographics of people, rather than prohibited reasons for treating people differently.

        It’s my understanding that the meaning of non-discrimination laws, such as racial non-discrimination laws, is closer to “You can’t treat people differently because of their race”, than it is to “People of color get these protections.” The protections apply to everyone, regardless of the race, but it tends to help people of color more than people of European descent because the former are far more likely to be discriminated against due to their race.

        Reply ↓
  7. RagingADHD*

    From what I’m seeing, the corporate rescinding or rebranding of DEI-related initiatives has less to do with what is actually legal or illegal, and more to do with trying to avoid public reputational attacks or hostile shareholder proxy proposals. The legal department is usually involved in crafting these strategies because managing reputational risk and corporate responses to proxy proposals is part of the legal dept’s function. But not because having a DEI department, or holding events / sponsoring groups is literally against the law.

    Reply ↓
  8. Wednesday Wishing*

    Your subject matter doesn’t have to change, and neither does your target audience. Just the people who are allowed to attend.
    I used to own a company that did events geared to teaching women handyman skills. The name even had the word women in it and was targeted directly to them. However we never excluded any men who wanted to sign up- they were always welcome and that worked just fine.

    Reply ↓
  9. Judge Judy and Executioner*

    The only good thing about the lack of women in tech is the short bathroom line at conventions. It’s the only place I’ve seen the line for the men’s room longer, which was 3-4 times longer. I would try to count how many women were in each session with me.

    I like Alison’s idea of opening the invite to everyone, but I doubt that more than a couple of men will attend, if any. Hopefully, the legal department will agree since that seems to be their primary concern. Working with the legal team was my least favorite part of being an ERG leader. Once they got involved, the positive impact of the ERG was minimized.

    Reply ↓
    1. Slow Gin Lizz*

      I love going to Indigo Girls concerts where they commandeer multiple men’s bathrooms and turn them into ladies’ rooms. Those event organizers know their audience!

      Reply ↓
      2. Tiny Clay Insects*

        Similar things happen at roller derby tournaments, though usually it’s just making the bathrooms all gender neutral. it’s great.

        Reply ↓
      4. Ally McBeal*

        Have you seen the Tig Notaro special featuring an Indigo Girls song? That bit alone makes it one of my favorite comedy specials of all time, but the rest of the special is also obviously great.

        Reply ↓
      5. Tired prof*

        I saw this for the first time at a Society of Women Engineers conference (to which I had brought students, both male and female, in roughly a 1:2 ratio).

        Reply ↓
    2. Noriarty*

      My workplace has several ERGs (for example women in the workplace, Black employees, LGBT), and they have traditionally been led by in-group volunteers, hosted events focusing on topics relevant to the in-group, and the invitation usually says something like in-group members and all allies. We’ve done it like that for years, attendees are often 70-90 % in-group members but a handful of allies as well, and it’s not caused issues as far as I know.

      Reply ↓
    3. Sparky*

      I personally prefer when events de-gender existing gendered restrooms — a Python conference I had just labeled which one had urinals and which didn’t and that worked well. Keeps things from being too unbalanced (and in practice the bathroom without urinals is still usually not too crowded).

      Reply ↓
  10. Sylvia Fisher*

    I work at a public university and the long-standing rule is that any university-sponsored event has to be open to all students. That is–it’s fine to have an event on “Women in Engineering,” but you can’t exclude men or other gender identities at the door. This is good, actually! Sometimes (e.g.) men will attend with good intentions and sometimes to be disruptive, but even when that happens I think there is something that they learn about what it actually feels like to be the minority voice in the room.

    Reply ↓
    1. Potato Potato*

      I have a college friend who used to attend a bunch of student groups for women, even though “he” looked out of place. After a few years of this, she came out as a trans woman.

      Reply ↓
      1. Justin*

        Similarly, I have two sons, and, at least so far, one is much lighter skinned than the other. You might mistake him for white.

        Reply ↓
      2. Red*

        Yep, keeping these open to allies is a great way of making sure that closeted people aren’t excluded from these events. Another commenter has also rightly pointed out that there’s people who aren’t women who would also benefit from these events (e.g. non-binary people, especially those mistaken for women).

        Reply ↓
    2. CTT*

      Also, sometimes the topics on discussion are just interesting! I’m on the board of a female attorney group and although we usually get all women at our CLEs, sometimes a topic or a speaker has a wider interest and we’ll have some men attending. They might feel weird being the minority, but they’re there to learn and the org gets some additional registration fees. It’s a win-win.

      Reply ↓
  11. CL*

    I’m attending a Women in Technology job fair tomorrow and the website specifically says men are welcome. Given the current job market, I’m very curious what the job seeker demographics will be.

    Reply ↓
  12. Ann O'Nemity*

    I used to work an a nonprofit with the mission of growing the tech talent workforce. We helped companies with these kinds of “Women in Tech” events and most of them were actually open to everyone. Opening the event to all employees while keeping a strong focus on women’s experiences has advantages! It can foster greater awareness and allyship, helping men understand the challenges women face in tech. It also increases leadership buy-in. Additionally, ensuring inclusion can benefit those who don’t strictly identify as women but still experience similar barriers. And of course, this approach mitigates recent legal panic about DEI.

    There are cases where limiting attendance to women makes more sense. Some companies create women-only spaces when there is a known culture problem—such as documented bias or harassment—and leadership is actively working to rebuild trust. In these cases, extra care is taken to ensure women feel safe sharing their experiences.

    Reply ↓
    1. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Allowing all to attend also can help ward off those annoying “but whyyyyyyy are you being so exclusionary?????” complaints. But I do love the idea that opening the event to everyone helps ally men see what they can do to be strong allies and see what challenges the women face every day.

      Reply ↓
    2. bamcheeks*

      Also, it is super fun to piss off the trolling, “so can *I* attend a Women in Blahology meeting or …?” comments by giving them a confident, “Yes!!”

      Reply ↓
  13. Sharon*

    It seems the greatest risk here isn’t legal but commercial – if your company trades with the government and also promotes DEI initiatives, you might find yourself no longer on their call list. The current administration is bullying both public and private sectors to make DEI practices be seen as a weakness rather than the strengths they actually are. I hope many organisations stand up for their values and against the bullies. I’m not sure how many actually will.

    Reply ↓
    1. Justin*

      The ones that care will find a way to still care even if language changes. My company, for example, took out the “dei” words but we continue to serve underserved communities.

      The ones that were always just doing lip service already gave up. True colors being shown.

      Reply ↓
      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Yeah, there are some that just can’t because they are subject to bullying and need to be careful what they do in order to survive.* But all the large companies who gave up DEI as soon as they were given the opportunity? Eff them.

        * I mean, I’m not saying this is the *right* move, mind you. And it’s possible (probable? I dunno) that continuing DEI will serve them better in the long run as more and more of us stay away from the non-DEI companies and try to support the DEI places. I’m just saying that some companies may not have a choice in the matter, at least not at this time.

        Reply ↓
    2. Unreasonable Doubt*

      Excluding people/employees from a work-sponsored event based solely on their gender identity (or any other protected characteristic) is 100% illegal, and has been illegal since the laws went into effect that protected those characteristics in the first place (Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, etc.) The greatest risk IS legal, and characterizing THIS example as just “companies are just cowards about DEI due to the Trump administration” is incorrect. A company that excluded “men” (or male-identifying people) from a work event would be just as wrong and liable as one who excluded “women.”

      The law is color-blind.

      Reply ↓
      1. Oh please*

        The law may be color-blind but the consequences and impacts of the law are not. As you’d know if you thought for more than two seconds.

        Reply ↓
        1. metadata minion*

          I mean, sure, but it’s still illegal to discriminate against men. It happens less, but that doesn’t mean companies should do it.

          Reply ↓
  14. Elizabeth West*

    The last sentence of Alison’s advice needs to be on a t-shirt and trumpeted everywhere, repeatedly. Executive orders are not laws. Private companies are not obligated to comply with his nonsense. Mine already told us they are not changing jack shit. \0/

    As for this event, I’m in agreement that a varied perspective can be helpful, and it doesn’t hurt men to learn more about women’s career issues since most of the focus has traditionally been on them.

    Reply ↓
    1. Justin*

      Fully co-signed.

      We’re changing precisely what language we have to so they leave us alone. But our programs will run all the same. And if different folks choose to participate and are qualified (via our applications etc), so be it.

      Reply ↓
  15. HannahS*

    This is not on the same scale at all, but when I was in undergrad, the student union tried to stop me from starting a Jewish students’ interest group for my area of study because “the groups have to be for everyone.” After an utterly infuriating back-and-forth, I added a statement like “This group is for any student interested in learning about Jewish ethics, practice, and culture as it pertains to [field]’ and they then had no choice but to let it go ahead.

    Now, I remain salty fifteen years later because the union at that school was (and remains) quite openly antisemitic BUT it is true that our organization was open to anyone who wanted to learn more about Judaism; we just figured no non-Jews would come to our events (and we were right.)

    If all you have to do to comply is say, “This event focuses on recruiting and supporting women in tech; all employees are welcome” then that’s not really a loss. If you get some non-female coworkers who are interested in learning how to support their female coworkers, then that’s actually a win. Yes, there’s a loss of a woman-only space, and as a woman, I get that. But I think there’s a lot to be gained from the event.

    Reply ↓
    1. Boof*

      As a woman, I’m really not interested in enforcing or policing a gender exclusive space. I’m a little repelled by it actually. I know some people want a place they feel “safe” but I think feeling “unsafe” around other people because of a protected characteristic is something best addressed privately, and a huge overstep for a workplace to be trying to manage.

      Reply ↓
      1. Potato Potato*

        This! Also, the same gatekeeping that comes with making a space exclusive makes it feel less safe for people in the margins. For example, in women-only spaces, trans and butch women often feel watched.

        Reply ↓
      2. HannahS*

        I don’t really know why you’ve put “safe” in scare quotes.

        I don’t have as strong an opinion on it as you do, because when I entered my field, the balance had shifted to 60/40 female/male in medicine, and women are not a significant minority in me specialy and subspecialty. I don’t know how I’d feel if I worked in a field that was, say, 90/10.

        I’m sympathetic to the desire for groups for people who share an identity, but I think there’s an important distinction between groups where the goal is support (where you want the space to be people who share your experience) and groups that have clear political and organizational goals (where you really want allies.)

        I feel like my mothers-only work group is incredibly helpful and supportive, and I would acutely feel the loss of it if we were made to open it to people who don’t have kids or to our male colleagues (and yes our trans/non-binary colleagues are welcome if they want but so far none have kids.) But it’s literally just a group chat where we give advice and commiseration. If we were trying to organize policy changes or improve the culture of our field, it would be in our interest to case a wider net.

        Reply ↓
        1. Alpacas Are Not Dairy Animals*

          I think the scare quotes are appropriate. Spaces designed to be exclusive to women can end up phenomenally unsafe (think sorority hazing) so promoting the idea that women=safe by default is dangerous.

          Reply ↓
        2. Boof*

          The quotes are because I am referring to when the term seems to be used around a subjective/emotional perception of safety as opposed to usual types of physical safety and general freedom from a hostile environment that are supposed to be standard workplace norms (and frankly, ideally everywhere all the time norms) and wouldn’t rely on excluding someone.

          Reply ↓
          1. Boof*

            *excluding someone because of protected characteristics – excluding someone for hostile/dangerous/etc behaviors is of course totally different.

            Reply ↓
      3. XX*

        It also reinforces the preexisting gender roles and stereotypes. I get it for an event/field that is generally dominated by men, so you offer one session just for non-men (that’s how my local adult education program does it for woodworking classes). But your default regardless of topic should be that everyone is welcome.

        My dad once attended a regular workplace get-together about balancing home and work. It’s especially important in his field because the work is very time-demanding and you sometimes have to drop everything to go on a work trip or pull an all-nighter. He’s late in his career but has raised three kids over 30 years so he has a lot of experience with this issue. Turns out he was the only man who attended and all the women there were treating it more like a vent session and really didn’t like him being there. He felt so unwelcome that he gave up trying to socialize with the younger employees altogether, as this was one of the only shared non-work things he had with them.

        Reply ↓
        1. Boof*

          That’s a great example about why men should be included – yes work life balance tends to be a focus on women’s events / because socially the historical expectation was women would do the domestic work / and if we want to change that it’s super helpful for men to pay attention and figure out how to do a share too! Not just “no one does domestic work except paid domestic workers” or something – that probably isn’t the one true answer @-@

          Reply ↓
    2. Joielle*

      I’ve used the language “women and allies are welcome to attend” – which includes everyone but makes it clear that we’re not interested in disruptors.

      Women-only spaces are definitely valuable, but I think the only practical way to do it is more informal gatherings. More like “some awesome women are getting together over dinner,” not a publicized event. You have to be intentional about inviting people who are new and represent diverse perspectives so you don’t end up with the same clique every time, but it can work.

      Reply ↓
  16. about that*

    The way I see it, more men should take an interest in women’s concerns in the workplace. Being exposed to an event that’s aimed at supporting women who have been marginalized in their careers would be a good thing for men, I think.

    Treating men and women as separate civilizations that have nothing to say to each other outside of strictly transactional encounters denies the essential humanity that unites us. Men can learn from this event, too.

    Reply ↓
    2. Samwise*

      Women only events have the advantage of giving women and women-identified people a safer space in which to talk and learn. If men attend, that very important benefit is lost. Even if the men are sympathetic and there to learn. Their very presence can change the feel of the event for at least some of the women and women-identified people.

      From my own experience, when men attend events targeted at women, the facilitator/instructor has to be really good at managing who speaks, when, and for how long.

      Reply ↓
  17. Czhorat*

    I hope the event can take place and keep its focus on women, even if male allies are invited.

    I’m less active in industry events and organizations than I once was, but I was not only a frequent visitor of women in the industry events, I was a founding member of the trade organization’s “diversity council”. Was there something awkward about the initial diversity council members including as many white, cisgender, heterosexual men as it did? Yes there was. Did we all step down from leadership positions in favor of people who were actual members of marginalized groups? Of course we did.

    Was there value in the industry seeing everyone taking stands for diversity? I’d like to think so.

    So not only do I hope the event goes on, but that it keeps its spirit and that whatever non-women show up show up with open minds and a willingness to listen and learn. I hope they know when to speak up in support and when to be quiet and listen.

    I hope we don’t let fear of the political climate kill diversity initiatives.

    Reply ↓
  18. fhqwhgads*

    Something I’ve seen happen recently is non-profits concerned about having their 503c status revoked by the current administration. Orgs are re-wording public facing language. They’re not actually stopping any of their DEI efforts. Nothing is changing internally. But they gave gobs of lawyers suggesting ways they can sound less like they’re doing it to avoid the federal wrath.
    It’s shitty.

    Reply ↓
    1. Justin*

      Yes that’s what we’re doing. We changed our wording. And we are explicit no one is excluded from programs we run.

      But we’re still running those programs. If different groups sometimes join, so be it.

      Reply ↓
    2. Ann O'Nemity*

      Same game, different name.

      Funny enough, I watched pre-existing programs get rebranded as “DEI” or shuffled under the DEI umbrella back in 2020 when it was popular to do so. Now, those same programs changing names again, sometimes back to their pre-2020 name! Through it all, the work hasn’t changed. Same mission, same focus.

      Reply ↓
      1. Phony Genius*

        Sort of like how some politicians wanted to get rid of Obamacare but keep the ACA. (For non-US readers, they’re the same thing. Obamacare was just its nickname.)

        Reply ↓
  19. Sparkles McFadden*

    Every event should be open to everyone. Most men will self-select out of an event featuring a panel of all female speakers discussing issues particular to women in whatever field. I think that’s a shame because men attending events featuring female experts in any field and learning from them is a great thing. In addition, hearing about the issues women face is a also a good thing. If I tell my male boss “You need to show up at this meeting because this dude just keeps rolling his eyes and asking to speak to someone who knows what he’s doing” my boss will think I’m just not doing my job well. If that same boss listens to a panel of women talking about this exact topic, he’ll say “Does that actually happen to you?” eventhough I’ve told him about it multiple times and he’s been present while it’s happened. (Yes, this is a real example.)

    But really, maybe two guys will show up so just open it up to everyone.

    Reply ↓
  20. NotChatGpt*

    One part of the answer on this one depends on how much your company depends on federal funds, and how much it is that you will be noticed.

    At a government contractor, we are starting to get the “we can’t tell you what to do, but it would be a shame if something happened to your contract” conversations. These chilling effects aren’t legal, but in the climate today, fighting them is untenable in the judgment of some management.

    Reply ↓
  21. Dido*

    I don’t understand the issue here. What’s the problem with holding the exact same event, but not making it exclusionary? Most men probably wouldn’t even go, but those who do will learn something valuable about the challenges their female coworkers face

    Reply ↓
  22. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

    If you feel like putting on an event like this will not fly at your organization in the current climate, another option might be to find an existing women-in-X-field event put on by an outside organization and sponsor it or buy some tickets for people (of all genders) in your organization to attend.

    Reply ↓
  23. Fight the Power*

    The legal landscape for situations like this preceded the most recent executive orders. Many organizations have been reviewing policies around race and gender-based resource groups, affinity groups, workshops, etc. since the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Supreme Court decision in 2023. Most have concluded that it is okay to focus on a topic (like women in STEM) as long as attendance does not exclude anyone on the basis of a protected characteristic. Your energy would be better spent being outraged at the way the most recent EOs impact any organization that receives public funding–social services, education, and the arts just to name a few. This loss of funding is an existential threat that could result in some organizations ceasing to exist, and loss of federal money ultimately trickles down to states and localities, even if they were not directly funded by the Feds.

    Reply ↓
  24. Busy Middle Manager*

    I would ask myself/put on paper specifics like a goal, issues to be discussed, and think long and hard if these are issues that only impact one group. I work in an adjacent field and also follow IT and we’re both the same – outsourcing, lack of hiring, skeleton crews, too much work, wanting you to know too many computer programs, WFH or not. Nothing that’s specific to one group. If you try to do an event that’s only one group or another, do you just not cover those topics?

    I’d also think hard about whether the speakers will be backwards looking or forward looking. In 2012 I was at a conference and there were some about-to-retire women who had “back in my day” and “only woman in the room” stories. They were dated, even 13 years ago. While interesting, I am not sure they were useful for people in the workforce now. If the conference is forward looking, you’re going to be more skilled focused and then there is not reason to exclude anyone

    Reply ↓
    1. Potato Potato*

      This! Also, if it’s skills-focused, it’s useful to be open about what level you’re expecting attendees to be at, so that people can self-select. It can be disheartening sometimes to go to a workshop at an identity-focused event and realize that once again that the organizers have assumed that marginalized people are all beginners.

      I understand the need for beginner workshops! They’re valuable, especially in technical fields. I just want to be able to avoid them, which is hard to do when the workshop is named something vaguely clever.

      Reply ↓
  25. No clever username*

    I just held a (private) event last night that was aimed at women but open to men. I made a point of saying to the men present, “you are welcome as an ally, but I’d like you to leave this event with one action item you can take to continue your allyship.” And then I suggested they tell their female coworkers their salaries, lol. I am assuming that wouldn’t go over well at a company sponsored event but I would try to include some sort of message like this directed at allies?

    Reply ↓
  26. Samwise*

    I said this in a reply to another comment, reposting it here so folks who don’t read replies will see it:

    Women only events have the advantage of giving women and women-identified people a safer space in which to talk and learn. If men attend, that very important benefit is lost. Even if the men are sympathetic and there to learn. Their very presence can change the feel of the event for at least some of the women and women-identified people.

    From my own experience, when men attend events targeted at women, the facilitator/instructor has to be really good at managing who speaks, when, and for how long.

    Reply ↓
    1. Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate*

      Women-only (or men-only!) events are certainly different from ones open to all, but they make you legally liable so…

      Reply ↓
    2. Cat lady*

      I understand this perspective, *and* my company’s women’s ERG has tried to do networking/career advice events. The turnout has been almost entirely women even though men are a majority in the field and company. The result is that the same small group of women are networking only with each other, and aren’t actually making connections with the majority of their colleagues. For those types of events, it’s actually really beneficial to have men attend. It can give women face time and networking connections with their peers of all genders. We’ve been struggling to convince men to show up so that we can networking with them too.

      Reply ↓
    3. JJ*

      Hmm. Are you expecting the facilitator to somehow cut off male-presenting people from talking just because of their appearance? That sounds off to me. Women can be very hostile to these kinds of events too, but would they not be cut off?
      A facilitator should help manage the discussion to allow everyone to speak and be heard, but I do not think they should be policing who has more right to an opinion.

      Reply ↓
  27. Eldritch Office Worker*

    We’ve been told we have to scrub all of our public facing (and then internal) DEI language or we could be risking our nonprofit status. It’s getting real.

    Reply ↓
  28. Samwise*

    Several commenters have said “Most men probably wouldn’t even go, but those who do will learn something valuable about the challenges their female coworkers face”

    Sometimes it is just so damn tiring to have to teach guys instead of spending the meeting/event time on interacting with other women, or working on the “next steps” kind of stuff rather than the basics.

    There are lots of ways for men to learn about challenges women/women-identified people face in the workplace. Watch the news, read online, read books, look around your workplace and pay attention to how women and women-identified people are treated. Start there, guys. Do it on your own. If it’s important, you will find the time. Don’t make a woman have to do the work that you could do yourself.

    Reply ↓
    1. Potato Potato*

      I see where you’re coming from. Ideally in this case, the men would be listening to the panel rather than taking up airtime asking for explanations, and the learning would happen without explicit teaching on the part of women. I think this ideal case is where commenters are coming from.

      Of course, we know (and several other commenters have said) that in practice, it might not work out this way. You need some extra planning for disruptions and a strong ability to cut people off when they’re derailing. But it’s possible and I’ve seen inclusion work well (not just in gendered events, but queer/trans/disabled ones too)

      Reply ↓
    2. Saturday*

      I don’t think the idea is that women would be focused on teaching the men. The women would be proceeding with their event and wouldn’t be required to do anything special because a few men are there.

      Reply ↓
    3. Jasmine Clark*

      “There are lots of ways for men to learn about challenges women/women-identified people face in the workplace. Watch the news, read online, read books, look around your workplace and pay attention to how women and women-identified people are treated.”

      These are all good suggestions, but nothing beats actually talking to women and hearing directly from them. Having actual conversations with people is the best way to learn about their experiences, not just observing and reading. You say it’s “tiring” to have to teach guys, but that’s the best way for them to learn, because it involves conversation and not just one-sided observation like all the things you suggested.

      Reply ↓
  29. Dinwar*

    I’m having visions of Chris Trager. “I just assumed….Oh no. I’m part of the problem.”

    More seriously, this is why non-electronic communication methods, such as meeting at the coffee pot/water cooler, are so important. Regardless of one’s political perspective, it cannot be denied that the subject matter experts in how women are treated in your company are the women in your company! It’s perfectly reasonable to go up to certain people and say “I would really like you in particular to participate in this meeting.” I do that all the time for various business purposes–maybe it’s a subject mater expert who’s opinion I really need, or it’s a junior staff that would benefit from sitting in on the meeting, or someone with a similar project that can offer lessons learned. People miss things in emails, or misunderstand the importance, or forget, all the time.

    Reply ↓
  30. Gateworlder*

    You can still do it a woman only event. Open it to all but cater the agenda to what you had in mind for a woman only event.

    Reply ↓
    1. Pink hat*

      Just keep the men out by putting activities on the agenda like child care, feminine hygiene, and gender-coded activities like sewing. Then reveal the real agenda at the end and talk about what you want to talk about.

      Reply ↓
  31. Emily Byrd Starr*

    So, the president’s executive order is just inclusion masquerading as exclusion, or is that the other way around?

    Reply ↓
  32. Machine*

    I think the company’s legal is correct that can’t advertise discrimination against men in tech, and having a networking event and event with only
    Women is highly problematic. Suppose this leader connected with a women looking to get Into tech, and had a nice conversation and strongly recommended her to a hiring manager for an open position. Then she got the job it’s discrimination to deny men face time with such a key employe. Having an event about getting people who are skeptical of tech into tech is fine, limiting though is discrimination. Not all men who could bee good at tech are tech and could use some encouragement. Same with women. Your companies legal is correct, it is discrimination and you have to open it. You also have to be careful about what is presented as to not discriminate against men. It is entirely possible. I would title the event exploring tech for those who aren’t to use a gendered term tech bros. Or techies. Discrimination can come in many forms including trying to get women hired over men in tech. Your companies legal department is a good resource to avoid a lawsuit, along with avoiding unintentional discrimination.

    Reply ↓
    1. K*

      So let me get this straight: you think the planned women in tech event is in fact for people who aren’t in tech, because women surely can’t be in tech, and should be relabeled as being for beginners?

      That’s some straightforward sexism of the type this event was meant to combat.

      Reply ↓
  33. Cat lady*

    Looks like my comment got eaten. I totally see the value of closed spaces, *and* it’s worth thinking about what the goals of the event are. My company’s women’s ERG does networking/career development events. Its a male dominated field and company. Very few men attend these events. Sure, it’s a safe space, but the real result is that women who attend only get to network with a small group of other women. The events aren’t effective networking for the women’s ERG members, because they only capture a small section of the company. Likewise, most of the technical leadership is male. That’s not great, but if the goal is career development, it’s valuable for women to get face time and advice from those men. The group has been struggling to get men to attend. Especially in a place where women are a minority, a closed space ERG sometimes feels like it turns into a social club or group therapy, without being able to affect change. Companies can tick the box of being inclusive, the “ladies” get their venue to complain to each other, and the men continue as before. In some cases, having men involved really improves the impact that those groups can have on actually changing policy, norms, etc. Our ERG has really struggled to convince men to show up. Of course, if the goals of the event is something different and more about specific experiences, that calculus might be different.

    Reply ↓
  34. EMP*

    This was the stance of my 500-ish employee tech company 10 years ago too. We could have an ERG focused on supporting women in the work place, but we couldn’t restrict company events by gender (in either direction). They were very clear about this. In practice, only women went to our occasional lunches anyway.

    Reply ↓
  36. Peanut Hamper*

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen an event focused on women or POC (or any marginalized group) in the work place that was restricted to only those people it was focused on. Everybody was welcome to attend, but the focus would always be on that particular group. It’s never been an issue, until now, because of fragile people of a certain stripe. It’s ensaddening.

    But the number of times I’ve had to respond to people on social media to the effect that “not everything out there is about or for you” has increased exponentially lately. I, like a lot of people, are tired. But that’s what they want — for us to get tired and go away. I refuse. Remember how a chorus works — a voice can always drop out to get rest as long as the other voices are there to fill the gap.

    Reply ↓
  37. Jasmine Clark*

    “but the topics will center around ways to recruit and support women in IT, a traditionally male-dominated field. Anyone can support and work on those goals. In fact, having male allies and discussing specific things they can do in support of those goals is a good thing.”

    Yes!! Inviting men to this event is good. Men play an important role in fighting against sexism, and having men at this event will help them become more aware of the sexism that so many women in male-dominated industries face. They’ll also learn about ways they can make a change.

    Reply ↓
  38. Worldwalker*

    We have seen numerous cases over the years where companies had actually or effectively (the golfing weekend) men-only events. And we have condemned them, rightly so. I don’t see any difference with women-only events. We can’t fight discrimination with different discrimination. Either everyone can attend any event, or not. And I’m never going to argue for “not.”

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS