On a numbers basis the rules still apply: there are N members of this club. Each are paid an average of X dollars per hour. If the meeting is only an hour a week thats still N x X x 48 annually. Add in a food budget, perhaps bringing in a guest or two once and while. This quickly gets unsustainable as N grows.
The issue I take with this reframing is that it is once again Men vs. Women in this completely fabricated war in tech (and only tech). RTO is a negative for everyone involved. The division here makes it sound like, once again, women suffer more than men for an isolated reason, not considering that men suffer in a different but comparable way. Or they are quitting at a dramatically higher rate over the baseline RTO quit-rate (and "women with children" quit-rate across industries). The actual reason boils down to simple MBA spreadsheet math.
Productivity be damned, RTO makes fiscal sense when you have a 15 year lease on a building you can't get out of. I don't agree with it, but I can see why you'd want warm bodies in seats when you pay 20,000 (or more) a month for your modern-tech cube farm.
Women with children in other industries that have never had these luxuries are clearly doing something that women in tech aren't. The question I have is - what is it? Is the actual solution an economic one whereby we could once again afford to live on a single salary so someone is staying home?
Could you explain your thinking this further, please?
In your example the company is paying for accommodation whether it is used or not, it seems to be a sunk cost. The fiscal decision making should hinge purely on what gives the best ROI given that money has already been forsaken.
What you're describing seems to be more aligned to "it makes sense psychologically." A large and very visible commitment has, due to unforseeable reasons, been made partially unnecessary. Following through regardless saves face.
I think my point here is that a company-sponsored women in tech club is actually not that expensive and deliberately created to co-opt what would otherwise be a collective interest. It is certainly less expensive than giving concessions to women. That is the calculation. Imagine if women with children had organized and collectively refused RTO. Now you’re looking at either caving or finding replacements, depending on the feasibility of firing them.
> it is Men vs. Women in this completely fabricated war on tech
I agree, it isn’t men vs. women. It is various interest groups vs. management. One of those interest groups happens to be parents who take care of kids. Corporate friendly “glass ceiling” framing only came later to redirect attention away from management.
None of this is to say RTO wasn’t a burden for men either.
If we're trying to equalize traditional gender roles, how about getting more fathers home to take care of kids?
Better yet, remove gender completely and let WFH stand on it's own, which it clearly does.