Nice! I hope this inspires more women to kick ass in the technology scene.
Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
91–100 of 295 posts
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You will find irrational extremists on either side of every political issue. In the case of gender relations, you have the religious right and MRA wackos on one extreme and the mysandric, transphobic "RadFem" fruitcakes on the other.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#93Earlier 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.
Sexism is a reality in the tech industry. Something has to be done. I agree with the intention, 100% -- I am much less sure about the means. Self-segregation is only reinforcing a us-vs-them attitude. Sexism starts with a cultural attitude that ignore the issue of micro-iniquity: it starts as a mental construction based on conscious or unconscious value wrongly bestowed to the members of some broad cultural category: it's this fallacy that needs to be removed. Self-ghettoisation is, at best, a remedial plaster on a wound, at worst it makes things worse. Not to mention that us girls often partake in broad categorisations, prejudices and stereotypes, sometimes against our own 'kind' (see the women attitude described in http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.full...)
Today the problem is women, tomorrow (and, well, today too) black people, LGBT... is it really the shortest way towards the elimination of unfair handicaps and perceptions, to tackle one 'category' at a time?
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#94Earlier 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.
Well, why don't we find some men and ask them why they don't seek out the advice of women founders already?
I'm pretty sure most men seek advice from their peer group and/or founders they know. Because there are fewer female founders, there are probably fewer dispersed among the peer groups.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
So only treating the sick is discrimination against healthy people?
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Whether it is logically inconsistent depends on how you define several terms. Of course everyone is going to choose definitions that make their points of view self-consistent... so that obstacle needs to be cleared first. You very quickly fall down a relativist hole.
The best way out of that hole is to describe things literally, with as little interpretation as possible.
For example, if you interview a hypothetical person Alex, and Alex claims to be a feminist, then you could write: "Alex, a self-described feminist, ..." but should perhaps avoid writing "Alex, a feminist, ..."
The first only relies on you, the audience, and Alex agreeing on the very basics of the English language. The second implies some sort of agreement between you and Alex on what it is to be a feminist; basically you are injecting your assessment of Alex's beliefs. In the first, the audience may disagree with Alex, but they should have very little room to disagree with you. In the second, the audience disagreeing with Alex pulls you into the fray as well.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#97I'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…
You wrote that issue is stigmatization. But by creating separate group we make stigmatization worse.
This field already has lowest possible entry bar. IT sucks and not all people want to work here. Get over it.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you trying to imply two wrongs makes a right?
You think this conference is wrong? Why?
I haven't read anything about the conference, other than from the title, it seems to be geared towards women. That's fine - just hoping men aren't ban from it, and wouldn't be ridiculed or outcast if they did attend.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#99I'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…
The only problem is when the people who are throwing the sexist event go on to claim they are against sexism. The logical position is to say that it is indeed sexist but that it is necessary, but they lose their standing to complain about a Founder's Club - Men Only event.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#100I'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…
I cannot imagine mustering any offense toward a group of people for spending their own money to organize a conference about a topic that interests them. None.
Good for them for doing something they're passionate about.
There is of course a genuine (world-wide) problem they're trying to solve. As Paul Graham himself has written:
> I also think girls are less likely to become nerds than boys of equal intelligence, possibly because they’re more sensitive to social pressures. In my school, at least, girls made more of an effort to conform than boys.
If this conference could encourage girls to take risks (socially and financially) rather than go with the flow, that would be huge and extremely positive.
In a society that is far more sensitive to girls' needs than boys' needs, however, I do fear that conferences like this further marginalize disadvantaged boys (of all races). The overwhelming majority of boys do not go on to start startups, nor do the overwhelming majority of boys think they have a realistic shot. We all do a great job of completely ignoring those boys' needs, assuring ourselves that "nearly every senator and billionaire tech founder is a man, so boys will end up doing just fine".
It might be time for people to start catering conferences toward this growing, ignored group of young people.
Of course, that is NOT YC's responsibility. Just because they want to work on one issue doesn't mean they're morally obligated to work on another.
I hope this conference goes well for everyone involved.