Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1) • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#71

Post by nhangen » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:44 PM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #57

nhangen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The best place to start would be to diversify the lineups at Hacker School.

If the sentiment is that female founders are uncomfortable at conferences full of male founders, then cordoning them off isn't going to help. I don't think this conference is meant to address that particular issue, but I believe it may be a by-product of it and conferences like it.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#72

Post by rimantas » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:44 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #65

nawitus wrote: post #18

I'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.

Words have multiple meanings. Yes "to discriminate" does mean to treat one thing differently than another, to discern among various alternatives. That's not the context discrimination is being used in here. In that sense, having separate bathrooms is also "gender discrimination". Are you against that as well? In this context discrimination refers to a systemic tendency to undervalue a particular class of people for r…

having separate bathrooms is not discrimination. Having bathroom only for one gender would be.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#73

Post by rimantas » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:46 PM UTC

mtrimpe wrote: post #42

danilocampos wrote: post #28

Earlier 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.

Feminists fighting against trans women is a fairly well known phenomenon. Feminist and transphobic are hardly mutually exclusive worldviews. Edit: dug up a few pointer links: http://www.transadvocate.com/unpacking-transphobia-in-femini... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Transphobia_in_fem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgenderi... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transphobia+feminism

  > self-identified feminist

as opposed to what? Certified feminist?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#74

Post by imgabe » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:46 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #72

imgabe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words have multiple meanings. Yes "to discriminate" does mean to treat one thing differently than another, to discern among various alternatives. That's not the context discrimination is being used in here. In that sense, having separate bathrooms is also "gender discrimination". Are you against that as well? In this context discrimination refers to a systemic tendency to undervalue a particular class of people for r…

having separate bathrooms is not discrimination. Having bathroom only for one gender would be.

Again, there are two different meanings of the word discriminate. Having different bathrooms is discriminating between the genders. Treating them differently. Having bathrooms for one gender and not the other would be discriminating against that gender.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#75

Post by angersock » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:48 PM UTC

Out of curiosity, does anyone have statistics handy for the number of female-owned businesses of all types, outside of tech?

You know, unsexy things like accountancies, laundromats, daycares, restaurants and food trucks, gyms, and so forth?

I'm curious what the baseline here is.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#76

Post by rimantas » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

limedaring wrote: post #68

nawitus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you should revisit your definition of discrimination. Discrimination is treating someone unfavorably or with prejudice due to their gender. This event is for female founders and promoting them. There is nothing against men, against male founders, or the sex in general. Just because something is for one subject does not mean it's against the opposite.

Just because something is not against one subjets doest not mean that there is no discrimination.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#77

Post by ionforce » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #73

mtrimpe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminists fighting against trans women is a fairly well known phenomenon. Feminist and transphobic are hardly mutually exclusive worldviews. Edit: dug up a few pointer links: http://www.transadvocate.com/unpacking-transphobia-in-femini... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia#Transphobia_in_fem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgenderi... http://lmgtfy.com/?q=transphobia+feminism

> self-identified feminist as opposed to what? Certified feminist?

It calls into question one's worldview as a feminist if you are busy discriminating on gender expression.

It seems logically inconsistent.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#78

Post by hythloday » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:50 PM UTC

danilocampos wrote: post #28

nawitus wrote: post #18

I'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.

> 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.

Radical Feminism (one concept) is somewhat equivalent to separatist feminism, which takes it as axiomatic that women making decisions under the influence of men are not free to make decisions (they're the "all sex is rape" school). Given that, they historically[0] tended to see trans women as male invaders of a female space, which makes them de facto transphobic. Transphobia is not a typical property of feminists who happen to be radical in their views - if anything, it's the opposite (radical feminism is a second-wave school which had its peak in the 70s).

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#79

Post by bitops » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:51 PM UTC

nhangen wrote: post #47

soneca wrote: post #30

I'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.

Well, why don't we find some men and ask them why they don't seek out the advice of women founders already?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#80

Post by thenmar » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 7:51 PM UTC

soneca wrote: post #30

I'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…

Great comment. If anyone would like to learn more about feminism, I can't recommend highly enough the book "Feminism is for Everybody" by bell hooks. I find a lot of commenters here and on other sites form (strong!) opinions about feminism and sexism despite not understanding basic concepts like privilege, oppression, and intersectionality. That book is an accessible primer on those topics.