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…
Care to share your research data that this has to do with stigmatisation? And what exactly is "this field"? Field of those believing that the cause is stigmatisation? How about this assumption, which, I believe is also false?
Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
101–110 of 295 posts
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#102I'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.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, there are two word, discrimination and segregation. Men having a bathroom and women not (or vice versa) would be discrimination: one have bathroom, other don't. In having separate bathrooms men have a bathroom and women have a bathroom, no discrimination there.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination
This conference is about the first definition, not the third.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you trying to imply two wrongs makes a right?
I don't know about the person to whom you are replying, but in my opinion, in this case, two wrongs make a right, if you can call hosting a conference aimed at an under-represented group a "wrong". Sure, in a perfect world, we wouldn't want or need such conferences, but in this world, we should strive for the best equality we can manage and not limit ourselves by blind idealism. If in the future, women and men are eq…
I am not for or against such a conference, though ideally they're not needed - however if there's enough of a specific interest then business-minded people will try to create a conference to leverage that interest and try to make profits from that common interest - nothing wrong with that - just stating it for the point of that conferences for X,Y,Z group will always end up existing.
I think the solution is to shift the power structures that have been sustained, and are perpetuated, by most of our culture's current societal structures - and so everyone - poorer women and men, any minority, have the same chance of making their way into "power." Unfortunately I have to get back to work before I start writing a mini-essay going into more depth..
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 agree that it's largely to stir the pot in this case, but as a gender-dysphoric bisexual male I am curious where the line would be drawn. I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense. Not that I'd be able to attend either way though; even though I would very much love to.
Why? If anything, a heterosexual man would be more likely to benefit from a conference for female founders because his SO is a founder or wants to start a company.
(Not trying to start a flame war — I just can't see the difference between a bisexual man, a homosexual man and a heterosexual man in this context.)
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#106I'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.
Since you are against this conference in principle, I have a feeling you're only bringing up the trans issue to cause trouble. But, you're right, it has been an issue at some conferences. So it's worth clarifying. The Ada Initiative does not represent all women in tech, but they do help organizers with codes of conduct and other policies for female-friendly conferences. It might be good for jl and YC to consult with…
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#107I'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.
As to your main point, when there is a power asymmetry, I think it is unlikely for that asymmetry to remedy itself without explicit efforts targeted at it.
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
#109I'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.
It is in your interests to have a government that is representative and understands your difficulties as a woman in this society, that understands these biases and is highly motivated to undo them. You would also like your daughter and the daughters of others to one day look at that poster on the classroom wall with a solid block of 44 male presidents in a row and finally see a woman among them, because you know it has an impact on their psychology and dreams and perceptions of gender, even if only one woman among 44, even if it takes decades for that poster to change enough to erase its impact. You directly experience on a day to day basis how much women are limited by society simply due to their gender. It is also obvious that despite the ever increasing number of men who are sensitive to women's issues, it is fare easier for other women to share your understanding simply because they've lived it and have been pained by it. It is not just a abstract principle of equality for them.
Is it not rational, in fact extremely smart, to have a preference toward electing women into office, when all other factors are more or less equal or less important? As a preference, a factor in your choice, not the sole decider, you would of course vote for a man sensitive to women's issues over a traditionalist women, or a man with unknown sensitivity to women's issues over a woman who was significantly less competent or more disagreeable with you on other important issues.
Is this gender discrimination? Is it gender discrimination if said preference only lasted as long as the stilted status quo existed? Would you not be a naive idealist to stick to the notion that despite the deeply ingrained sexism in society, one should not take any active action against it other than not be sexist yourself?
Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's largely to stir the pot in this case, but as a gender-dysphoric bisexual male I am curious where the line would be drawn. I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense. Not that I'd be able to attend either way though; even though I would very much love to.
> I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense. Why? If anything, a heterosexual man would be more likely to benefit from a conference for female founders because his SO is a founder or wants to start a company. (Not trying to start a flame war — I just can't see the difference…
That basically means that while I don't feel like I'm in the wrong body, I do prefer (to some degree) to socially act and be treated as a woman.