Live data from Hacker News

Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

blog.ycombinator.com

221–230 of 295 posts

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#221
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.

> I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another.

As a society, we accept discrimination in order to build a better and more equitable future.

SV prides itself on being a meritocracy, but it isn't a perfect one. People were born with money and connections have it much easier than the average schmo off the street. But certain minorities in our field* also have the added burden of having to battle pervasive stereotypes that sometimes borders on downright hostility on top of a near complete lack of a support network.

In order to become a more perfect meritocracy, we should strive to level the playground for everyone, but we can't easily tilt the playground such that average schmo's are on equal standing with people born into SV royalty, but we can make some minor shifts to help overcome the burden of being stereotyped because of what you look like.

So we accept some discrimination. And we benefit from it. The fact of the matter is that having diversity in startups is A Good Thing and increases the odds of success (unless your plan is to only sell your product to people who look/act/think just like you).

* Yes, women are the majority in the world, but for this and all discussions, it is important to limit ourselves to a field; in this case, tech startups. I would be just as supportive of a conference/support group/etc. for promoting and helping male child care workers (95% female) to overcome the stereotype of men being unfit for child care.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there any label that people apply to themselves or others that successfully filters out the lunatic fringe from reasonable people? I don’t know, it probably has to do with the visibility of these fringe groups and your position in the spectrum described by the label. I am sure there are lunatic social democrats somewhere, I have just not yet met them, and I am also positive that there are lunatic liberal democra…

The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism. It would be like if every time a science article was posted on HN you had multiple people pointing out that all science is crazy because some lunatics used to think eugenics was a good idea. Seriously, pick any thread on…

>The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism.

No, that is not the only reason. The fact that their beliefs are mainstream, and not a fringe at all is a major reason they seem more visible. These are the bulk of the women's studies departments at universities. These are the most mainstream organizations like NOW. They are the ones actively fighting against equality, and screaming hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues.

>When in fact her position is nowhere close to that

Her position is exactly that, and she has repeatedly campaigned to prevent legalized prostitution. She literally views consensual sex between adults as a violent act, with the woman always the victim and the man always the aggressor. You even quoted as much, yet you act like it is a lie? That does not seem like the actions of someone engaging in an honest, good faith attempt at discussion.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that most institutional structures aren't dominated by men. I don't know whether "most" are or aren't -- neither do you. If you figure out a way to quantify that, let me know. Seems like a research grant in the making. I do know, however, that "every other organization is a men's organization" is a ridiculous statement. Every other organization ? Seriously? In order for that to be true, "men's organizati…

So your issue with feminism is essentially that it's wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues? Nothing about feminism is orthogonal to addressing the needs of men. In fact there is a lot of feminist theory exploring pretty much every single issue you listed, and if you did actually engage the issue critically you'd probably know that.

Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you calling them a liar and belittling them?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#224
post #157
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…

HN readers in these gender discussions are so outright condescending, hateful, and knowingly, deliberately unreasonable-- not to mention "othering"-- it makes me consider never coming to this website ever again. Thank you for being a voice of reason, even though doing so can be incredibly frustrating in its fruitlessness sometimes.

As someone else said, it's a hot-button issue that brings out a vocal minority of the insecure and/or deliberate trolls. I know it's ugly, but please consider sticking around to try to help.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#225
post #147

Isn't that illegal? Discrimination based on gender, which the organizer openly admits to: "We want to give priority to women". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

No, the act does not cover private events such as this.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#226
post #136

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...

"It seems you need a bit more than dclowd9901"

How arrogant and condescending.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#227
post #100
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…

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, poss…

Agree, whether it's startups or politics, those born into a lower social class don't really have advocates (obviously politicians pay lip service to the poor). That said, if a group of upper-class women want to have a founder conference where the attendees are primarily upper-class women no one should begrudge them.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your issue with feminism is essentially that it's wrong for a women's movement to pursue women's issues? Nothing about feminism is orthogonal to addressing the needs of men. In fact there is a lot of feminist theory exploring pretty much every single issue you listed, and if you did actually engage the issue critically you'd probably know that.

Is it possible for someone to disagree with you without you calling them a liar and belittling them?

Yes it's quite possible, as long as the don't lie about and belittle the position they are attacking.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#229
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

"It seems you need a bit more than dclowd9901" How arrogant and condescending.

omigosh, so sorry, I'll be more pleasant next time..

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism. It would be like if every time a science article was posted on HN you had multiple people pointing out that all science is crazy because some lunatics used to think eugenics was a good idea. Seriously, pick any thread on…

>The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism. No, that is not the only reason. The fact that their beliefs are mainstream, and not a fringe at all is a major reason they seem more visible. These are the bulk of the women's studies departments at universities. These…

I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work. She's pretty explicitly pro legalized sex work.

Let me quote the relevant part again:

"She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal"

If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence you're totally right on that one too.

In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality, and scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues?

Post reply on HN