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

91–100 of 136 posts

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

#91

Post by rmc »

papsosouid wrote: post #53
rmc wrote: post #49

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). 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…

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.

So, because some ideas are widely accepted in feminists theories (the patriarchy) must mean that there is nothing that feminists disagree about?!

That's like saying that because there is a significant amount of shared ideas in US politics (e.g.: "US Independence was a good thing"), that US politics is now some sort of group think where dissent is not allowed and everyone thinks the same!

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

#92

Post by hnal943 »

king_jester wrote: post #77
overgard wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're confusing "status quo" with "consensus".

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

#93

Post by papsosouid »

rmc wrote: post #91
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.

So, because some ideas are widely accepted in feminists theories (the patriarchy) must mean that there is nothing that feminists disagree about?! That's like saying that because there is a significant amount of shared ideas in US politics (e.g.: "US Independence was a good thing"), that US politics is now some sort of group think where dissent is not allowed and everyone thinks the same!

>must mean that there is nothing that feminists disagree about?!

Nobody made that claim, that is my point. Responding to strawmen is not productive, respond to the actual conversation.

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

#94

Post by papsosouid »

king_jester wrote: post #82
papsosouid wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. It seems like you are saying that is there is indeed a real conspiracy of institutions created and/or controlled by men, in which c…

>It seems like you are saying that is there is indeed a real conspiracy of institutions created and/or controlled by men, in which case I totally agree.

It seems like you are deliberately choosing to respond with non-sequiturs and strawmen because you don't want to have an honest conversation.

>I've yet to see convincing alternative explanations. All of the evidence points to existence of patriarchy as a social institution.

Just as creationists view all evidence as pointing to the existence of god. If you start with a conclusion, and twist everything to suit that end, you can't reasonably expect people who didn't start with the same bias to agree with your conclusions.

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

#96

Post by king_jester »

theorique wrote: post #90
king_jester wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm certainly not suggesting that a person go in completely uninformed, nor that he use misguided or misogynist arguments. But it's completely suitable to refute statistics or conclusions if one has done the appropriate reading - both feminist texts and texts criticizing feminism - and come to different conclusions.

I totally agree. However trying to argue that patriarchy or rape culture doesn't exist would imply that someone doesn't have a even a basic understanding of written feminist works as they go over this in various criticism very often.

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

#97

Post by mcguire »

raganwald wrote: post #13

I spoke at SpainJS. It was a small conference, and unsurprisingly, most of the audience were from Spain. I obviously was not reaching "everyone," but so what? I reached 300 people, and the politics of why a conference was put together to appeal to Spaniards (is that a word?) is of no consequence to me. If I were a politician I'd attend Church pancake breakfasts and lunch with the Greek Business Chamber. Humans clump…

I'm guessing you weren't trying to convince people to learn to speak Spanish.

Edit: Spaniard is indeed a lovely word: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Spaniard.

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

#98

Post by robot_friend »

newnewnew wrote: post #83
Zikes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And they wield a ton of power. Ask the programmer that was fired for saying "dongle" within earshot of Adria Richards. Chances are your HR bureaucracy is radically feminist.

More like radically covering-their-ass-ist. HR departments are paid to prevent potential lawsuits and it's cheaper/less risky to fire someone at the first hint of controversy than it is to face the chance of a lawsuit, no matter how small.

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

#99

Post by throwwiffle »

I disagree with this. Only speaking at women-only events is a bad thing, but refusing to speak at women-only events is just as bad. It seems like women act more passive around men (at least in engineering). If there are only women in an audience, they might be encouraged to speak their mind more and feel less awkward about it.

Here is an example of women being passive in engineering: An engineering club at my college had 30% to 50% women at almost every meeting. Most of the time, the women didn't do anything for the club's project - they stood nearby, talked, and sometimes cut foam or got something for a guy. This was in a machine shop.

If they had put themselves forward and tried to get involved, they would have learned a lot and had more respect from the guys in the process . As it is, I'm afraid their behavior only reinforced the stereotype of "women engineering majors aren't serious" and left them with fewer practical skills than the guys.

---

I don't know how effective having a women-only audience and speaker would be at reversing situations like this. If the talk was on "be more assertive" and "here are the potential problems you might face", it might be helpful. men-are-evil and similar lines are not.

In the example given, having women-only clubs might help more - if the focus is primarily on building things, learning new tools, or completing some major project. It would increase womens' confidence and their assertiveness, as well as giving them an opportunitity to learn stuff a lot of the guys in the regular engineering club already know - without feeling awkward/stupid/embarassed.

Regardless, though, any women-only group opens up the door to women who might be uncomfortable speaking out and asking questions otherwise.

Edit: fixing some italics :/

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

#100

Post by 3pt14159 »

theorique wrote: post #25
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…

The reason I don't listen to women in tech presentations I assume you mean "I don't listen to 'women in tech' presentations", rather than, "I don't listen to women, in tech presentations". The former is a political stance, the latter is excluding an entire sex for unknown reason, even if they are talking of emberjs or thorium.

Obviously I don't mean that I don't listen to women.

I mean women-in-tech presentations.

Post reply on HN