So is this some sort of response to PG's comments about women?
Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
51–60 of 295 posts
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#52I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also interesting to know whether transwomen will be allowed. Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.
I would think that gender equality would trump gender discrimination. Or are you saying that inequality is acceptable in the face of attempts to take corrective action?
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#53I dunno. I would be largely annoyed by male only anything (except restrooms). Female only whatever (except restrooms) does not sound that much better.
The harm that a FOO only conference does in directly proportional to the representation of FOOs in that industry, in terms of lost opportunities for networking. And the benefits to FOOs in terms of being able to compare experiences with other people like them that they might not be able to do otherwise is inversely proportional to their representation. It might annoy you and that's understandable, but it's still a reasonable thing to be doing despite the exclusion it causes. If half of all founders were female maybe thing would be different, and I honestly think that male only conferences for nurses or educators might be a good idea.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that. Really. That's interesting. I know... a few feminists 'round these parts who might be characterized "radical." Can't think of anyone getting their hate on against trans women. And I don't know why you would raise such a specter of exclusion with no basis.
I have never heard of such a thing in a conference context, but I have seen it come up in others. And I don't think it's helpful to label such exclusion "hate", as it typically comes from women who feel that self-identifying as female is not sufficient to qualify one to be called a woman. But it's a very complex and interesting issue, not worth bringing up here, as you note. It's brought up here to stir the pot, I se…
I referred to the RadFem2012 conference[1].
>I seriously doubt GP actually cares about transpeople at all.
That's very offending.
1. http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/23/radfem2012-excludi...
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#55Fantastic! Will this be streamed? For women not based in Bay Area (and therefore realistically women with even more limited access to female tech/entrepreneur role-models), this would be a great resource to be accessed remotely and real time, and could definitely be the catalyst for some quality Twitterverse discussion/encouragement for female tech entrepreneurs.
Yes, we are planning to stream this. Check out the conference site closer to March 1 for more details.
Great! In my experience, the most inspiring talks by female tech entrepreneurs were ones where you would have had no idea whether they were female or male based on the content of their speeches/talks (e.g. "This is how we got our first 1000 users" rather than "This is how I navigated being in an all male board room"). This conference is a great opportunity to hear the experiences and perspectives of female entrepreneurs-- I hope that its content focus is more on their achievements and strategies rather than their gender. Actionable insights like how these entrepreneurs navigated their Series A or hired their first employees give a less explicit, but (in my opinion) more resounding affirmation that women have just as much credibility to succeed and achieve in the tech space. Excited to tune in!
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#56I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also interesting to know whether transwomen will be allowed. Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.
> Our goal with this conference is to inspire women to start (or hang in there with!) a startup through the insights and experiences of those who have done it already. If you're a woman interested in learning more about startups, I encourage you to apply. How is that discriminatory? You can't argue that women are widely represented in entrepreneurship (heck, it's an even smaller percentage than in development.) Start…
It's discrimination by definition. Some may claim that certain kind of discrimination is positive (e.g. positive discrimination itself). I'm personally objected to all kinds of discrimination, "positive" or not.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#57I'm assuming some HNers are soon to arrive saying things like "why does it matter that a founder is a female?", "why make an excluding event? isn't it sexism all the same", "imagine if someone make a 'male founders conference'?" I would like to ask you to think for a moment, before raising this concerns (I am not bothering here to debate with haters, only with those who are genuinely concerned that this might sexism…
My only concern with events like this is that males could also learn from female founders advice and experiences. It just seems like a loss to forcefully segregate the audience. I would love to attend an event that featured a female only stage. It would be a refreshing change from the current conference lineup.
I'm pretty sure there's room for that as well.
Perhaps Jessica could even use this as a spring-board to putting together an all-women line-up for a future event.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, I understand your intent, I suppose, but a think a more pragmatic viewpoint could be beneficial. Sure, this conference is aimed at women, but many tech conferences are predominantly aimed at men, simply because that's the largest demographic who attend. This isn't hurting men in any appreciable way, and could encourage more equality later down the road. > Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to thei…
How are many tech conferences "predominantly" aimed at men?By not saying they're specifically for women? So now not mentioning gender is women discrimination? Nice. Go, Equalia!
> How are many tech conferences "predominantly" aimed at men? By not saying they're specifically for women?
One common argument is that conferences that are organized predominantly by men also tend to target men, even without conscious intent, because their planning, structure, and communication reflects the different ways that men are socialized in our society.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#59I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also interesting to know whether transwomen will be allowed. Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.
So, I understand your intent, I suppose, but a think a more pragmatic viewpoint could be beneficial. Sure, this conference is aimed at women, but many tech conferences are predominantly aimed at men, simply because that's the largest demographic who attend. This isn't hurting men in any appreciable way, and could encourage more equality later down the road. > Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to thei…
>So, I understand your intent, I suppose, but a think a more pragmatic viewpoint could be beneficial. Sure, this conference is aimed at women, but many tech conferences are predominantly aimed at men, simply because that's the largest demographic who attend.
I'm not necessarily against a conference aimed at women, I'm against a conference which is only for women (which this seems to be according to it's homepage). (The rules for this conference apparently are not available at this moment).
>This may be true in some rare, extreme cases, but is frankly hard to imagine. Can you cite any sources on this? My experience (though I am neither trans nor a woman) is that people involved in the feminist movement or gender-queer community try to treat a trans person as much as possible as any other person of that gender.
Sure: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/23/radfem2012-excludi...
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#60I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also interesting to know whether transwomen will be allowed. Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that.
> I'm against these
It's not a football team. It's a conference that someone else organizes. Leave it alone if you don't like it.