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

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#171

Post by nawitus » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:50 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.

Definitions of words are a) subjective b) tools for communication and c) political. I think my definition of discrimination is better, because there's no objective definition of 'good discrimination' versus 'bad discrimination'. Defining discrimination to only mean 'bad discrimination' is then futile, and doesn't really help with communication. In fact, those endless debates of what is and what is not discrimination would be replaced with slightly more constructive debates of where discrimination might be justified and where not.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#172

Post by MartinCron » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:53 PM UTC

Ambrosia wrote: post #152

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.

jeez what's with all of these MRAs coming out everywhere when somebody tries to do something for women? this shit happens every single time

I think it's just an underlying insecurity and zero-sum-game thinking, basically "anything intended to help women must also hurt men".

A part of me feels pity for them, after all, they're fighting a doomed fight, but it doesn't excuse their behavior.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#173

Post by mtrimpe » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:54 PM UTC

crazy1van wrote: post #160

The problem -- and the reason they are popular -- with identity events like these are that they give lots of people except the most talented women a cop out: Sexist males - "See, women can't hack it as founders in the real world. They need extra help." Non-sexist males - "Whew. I'll support this event and stop second guessing myself whenever I choose to fund a male-led organization." Mediocre females - "Sweet. Now I…

You probably are a naive idealist; there's nothing wrong with that.

If you want to get rid of that give the IAT on gender a try at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit

I'm willing to bet that just the experience of taking it will make you somewhat uncomfortable.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#174

Post by ksrm » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:55 PM UTC

Fibrewire wrote: post #130

If we created a Announcing the [Male] Founders Conference (March 1) they'd be marching on washington

make u think!

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#175

Post by obstacle1 » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

_bfhp wrote: post #148

obstacle1 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I graduated from a feminist-oriented humanities department where I engaged with these issues critically for a long time. Rather than linking me polemics from 1988 that don't address my point, consider that I disagree with the fundamental positions on a logical basis. If you'd like to engage the points I actually made in my post, feel free.

So what you're saying is, you won't read either essay.

What I'm saying is explicitly written down in the posts I've made. If you're willing to engage the points I'm actually making, I'll have a discussion with you. If you're just going to throw broad-reaching polemical feminism 101 articles at very specific points, I'm not going to take you seriously. You didn't even state why you think those articles apply to the (again, very specific) point I made.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#176

Post by mtrimpe » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

revetkn wrote: post #155

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…

> This is no such case for female founders. Here we have a much simples issue: stigmatization. I disagree. I might be in the minority but in the places I've worked in tech no one cares - at least as far as I can tell - what your gender is, it's how well you do the job. What I do see a lot of is women who are capable but not interested in STEM. Not because of some kind of social stigma, they just don't care about it.…

Would you be willing to do me a favor and take the implicit association test on gender at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit and post back the results?

I really think that it's the best answer I can give to someone like you who would want a bit of deeper understanding into what this is all about ...

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#177

Post by hythloday » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:56 PM UTC

_bfhp wrote: post #145

hythloday wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not all people who call themselves radical feminists believe that "all PIV is rape" (notice how you equate sex with penis-in-vagina intercourse). You forgot to provide a link to that [0], I'll give you one: http://againstallevidence.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/cant-we-a...

I didn't mean to imply (and I don't believe) that all radical/separatist feminists believe that, but that the idea originated in that movement. I don't equate PIV with sex but didn't want to add jargon to what was meant to be a 101 post. Hence quotes.

Thanks for your help disambiguating.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#178

Post by xixi77 » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:59 PM UTC

_bfhp wrote: post #136

obstacle1 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, are you saying that statement made you understand as in the statement is an explanation of some essential point of feminism? Or are you saying that statement made you understand that feminism often (not always!) has a tenuous grasp on reality, tends to make baseless or meaningless statements, and is purely ideological much of the time? Because that statement -- which btw is the standard "I don't want to have t…

It seems you need a bit more than dclowd9901. Perhaps "White Privilege and Male Privilege" by Peggy McIntosh and "Oppression" by Marilyn Frye are good places to start: http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part2/McIntosh%20White%20Privile... http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/tbettch/Frye,%20Oppression...

Just looked at the former, and it starts with an example of zero-sum thinking -- namely, that someone's disadvantage is necessarily a source of an advantage for others. Other social justice concepts are apparently also derived from this logical fallacy.

I love feminism btw; it has been, and still is, a truly progressive movement, despite it being currently infested with SJW's. The fundamental difference, which results from exactly this zero-sum thinking, is in the approach: are we pulling women up (the conference in question being a great example of that), or are we dragging everyone else down? Are we trying to reduce the gender gap by helping women to increase their value in our society, or do we try to make the society less efficient and reduce everyone's value, just so that the disadvantaged parties feel better?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#179

Post by eevilspock » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 9:59 PM UTC

richardlblair wrote: post #131

eevilspock wrote: post #7

Shouldn't it be called X Combinator? :)

In a post that is pretty serious and has some heavy conversion, I appreciate your joke.

I made a serious and thoughtful comment as well, but this one is getting way more votes :P

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#180

Post by _bfhp » Tue, Jan 21, 2014, 10:02 PM UTC

hythloday wrote: post #177

_bfhp wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all people who call themselves radical feminists believe that "all PIV is rape" (notice how you equate sex with penis-in-vagina intercourse). You forgot to provide a link to that [0], I'll give you one: http://againstallevidence.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/cant-we-a...

I didn't mean to imply (and I don't believe) that all radical/separatist feminists believe that, but that the idea originated in that movement. I don't equate PIV with sex but didn't want to add jargon to what was meant to be a 101 post. Hence quotes. Thanks for your help disambiguating.

Any time. I believe there's a high amount of nuance to the writings, activism, and ideas referred to by the phrase "radical feminist," and without noting it, it becomes very easy to get the wrong idea about the whole thing. "All sex is rape" and "all PIV is rape" are two vastly different statements in the context of this politics.