Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I won't speak at women-only events

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#71

Post by papsosouid »

icebraining wrote: post #69
papsosouid wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of mythology that is widely agreed upon in feminist circles. If you expect insane conspiracy theory nonsense like "patriarchy" to actually be supported by evidence rather than accepted on faith, then you are not welcome in feminist discourse, plain and simple.

I'm rather confused by your post. I've never seen the patriarchy described as a "conspiracy", or a willful choice by men to control women, but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women. Regardless of the existence of the patriarchy as a phenomena - and there are many critics of the theor…

>but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women.

What you described is a conspiracy. Of course feminists don't describe their own conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, they want them to appear legitimate.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#72

Post by papsosouid »

jb17 wrote: post #70
papsosouid wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of mythology that is widely agreed upon in feminist circles. If you expect insane conspiracy theory nonsense like "patriarchy" to actually be supported by evidence rather than accepted on faith, then you are not welcome in feminist discourse, plain and simple.

Do you really think societal structures that privilege men are a myth? Apart from being quite obvious to anyone who is not extremely biased, there are whole academic branches that study this. I'd say calling that "mythology" puts you into conspiracy theory territory.

There have been "whole academic branches" that studied all sorts of nonsense and quackery. That doesn't validate modern feminist mythology any more than it validated phrenology. Rather than resort to weasel words, if you want to take an opposing position than take it. Show me this male created oppression machine.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#73

Post by tommorris »

theorique wrote: post #3

She nailed it: it's a waste of my time to be invisible to half the people I need to talk to. The danger with women-only events is that they become perceived as a ghetto. By opening the doors to all, the entire community has a voice, which is as it needs to be if women are to be full, mainstream members of tech communities. There's a place for "safe spaces" if people are sharing extremely personal stories (e.g. sexual…

"Become perceived as a ghetto"?

I go to plenty of mainstream tech events. But I also go to a gay geek event every month. Is that "ghettoing"? No. It's a fun night out with people who share both interests and sexual orientation.

I don't see why this is such a big deal.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#74

Post by king_jester »

papsosouid wrote: post #71
icebraining wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm rather confused by your post. I've never seen the patriarchy described as a "conspiracy", or a willful choice by men to control women, but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women. Regardless of the existence of the patriarchy as a phenomena - and there are many critics of the theor…

>but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women. What you described is a conspiracy. Of course feminists don't describe their own conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, they want them to appear legitimate.

Conspiracy usually means a deliberate attempt of a group to do something rather than something that occurs for systemic or institutional reasons.

Ultimately patriarchy as a social force and concept is totally provable has statistical and philosophical evidence that shows it exists. Every basic women's studies or feminist book goes over this to some extent.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#75

Post by king_jester »

theorique wrote: post #68
epsylon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). Yes, because there is actually a single, unified, globally agreed upon feminist status quo who tries to silence the voices of brave dissenters...

There isn't a 'single' status quo, but if you question and/or debate the existence or definition of certain articles of feminist faith such as 'patriarchy' or 'rape culture' or various statistics about the relative status of women versus men, watch out.

> debate the existence or definition of certain articles of feminist faith such as 'patriarchy' or 'rape culture'

This is not a debate in good faith. If you come to the table with no previous knowledge about anything and demand to be heard, why should people waste time with bringing you up to speed? The vast majority of the times this happens it ends up in moving the goal posts.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#76

Post by king_jester »

toble wrote: post #12
tehwalrus wrote: post #2

I've attended several gender balance events (in politics, more than tech) and been one of the 2-3% of the audience who were male. They were some of the best I've been to, and I wish more dudes would turn up and learn from them.

The few female focused technology events that I have seen promoted locally give off the vibe of a private members club. They don't say it explicitly, but hint with words like attendees are welcome to take their partners etc. It just seems strange to me because other events have nothing like that style of language.

> They don't say it explicitly, but hint with words like attendees are welcome to take their partners etc.

How is an invitation for guests to bring their partners make an event a private club?

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#77

Post by king_jester »

overgard wrote: post #38
arrrg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just guessing, but I would say maybe completely bonkers bullshit like "feminist status quo"?!

If we accept that there's such a thing as feminism, it would make sense that it would have a current status quo. The argument would be if you agree with their definition of the status quo or not.

> If we accept that there's such a thing as feminism, it would make sense that it would have a current status quo.

This doesn't make sense. Most movements that are composed of many different groups with different interests never reach a status quo. Mass movements are rare and usually are not as mass as they are made out to be. Acting like feminism is a monolith and that all feminists act or think a certain way is one of the most common stereotype out there.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#78

Post by papsosouid »

king_jester wrote: post #74
papsosouid wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women. What you described is a conspiracy. Of course feminists don't describe their own conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, they want them to appear legitimate.

Conspiracy usually means a deliberate attempt of a group to do something rather than something that occurs for systemic or institutional reasons. Ultimately patriarchy as a social force and concept is totally provable has statistical and philosophical evidence that shows it exists. Every basic women's studies or feminist book goes over this to some extent.

Institutions do not form spontaneously, and the "systems" you refer to were also created by humans. The notion that men created systems and institutions which oppress women, but it is totally not a conspiracy because they did it by accident is not well represented in feminist academia.

>totally provable has statistical and philosophical evidence that shows it exists.

Except that alternative explanations are dismissed. If the "evidence" supports many possible conclusions, then it is not proof of a single specific conclusion like "patriarchy".

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#79

Post by [deleted] »

rmc wrote: post #49
3pt14159 wrote: post #20

The reason I don't listen to women in tech presentations: 1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). 2. I'd rather learn how to build a better emberjs app. Or learn more about thorium. 3. Unlike the vast majority of problems, there are few concrete steps to be taken to correct the imbalances that do exist. Edit: I…

1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). Many people not involved with feminist groups often think feminists think the same about everything. Which shows they know nothing about actual disagreements within feminists groups. Just look up transexual issues & feminism. That's a big source of disagreement right ther…

[deleted]

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#80

Post by [deleted] »

Zikes wrote: post #59
epsylon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). Yes, because there is actually a single, unified, globally agreed upon feminist status quo who tries to silence the voices of brave dissenters...

There doesn't need to be a single, unified, globally agreed upon feminist status quo, because as soon as a dissenting opinion is voiced the extremist groups are the ones that speak the loudest and the rest of the feminist movement just stands back and watches.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN