211–220 of 288 posts
This thread is 100% nerdy dudes feeling offended by this event, plus other dudes attempting to counter this.
Is not this thread itself indicative of a giant problem?
To all the people kvetching in the comments... this is the live stream for "YC's Female Founders Conference" [1]. That's why "female" is in the post title. I'm an ardent supporter of the effort, and I hope (much like startup school) that YC is able to make it into an annual event! Very inspiring! Also, my wife is in attendance. I look forward to hearing her reactions later tonight. If the live stream is any indicator…
On the flip side, there is an equally powerful emotional appeal to support an event like this when wife, daughter, girlfriend, female friend would like to attend. Though that might be more about the relationship of you and the person and less about the merits of the event.
Note the extreme lack of women commenting in this thread, as well as the lack of discussion of any of the substance of the livestream. This thread is 100% nerdy dudes feeling offended by this event, plus other dudes attempting to counter this. Is not this thread itself indicative of a giant problem?
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software
Whenever gender and software appears in a discussion, the same bs comes out every time. It's so predictable now you can just skip these sort of thread.
Note the extreme lack of women commenting in this thread, as well as the lack of discussion of any of the substance of the livestream. This thread is 100% nerdy dudes feeling offended by this event, plus other dudes attempting to counter this. Is not this thread itself indicative of a giant problem?
Seriously though, I am not a proponent of gender restricted events, but I have not commented on this particular thread because I wanted to watch the content first, and it's not really the place for such discussions.
That said, others may feel differently, having not participated in prior conversations on this topic, and thus, the label you've applied to opponents is unnecessary and unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Problem is, Crake, we're doing something wrong . And perhaps the support of segregationist policies is the thing we're doing wrong.
Okay. Let's hear your proposal for addressing the already segregationist technology industry. Let's hear your proposal for elevating female/non-white founder percentages out of the single digits. What've you got?
To all the people kvetching in the comments... this is the live stream for "YC's Female Founders Conference" [1]. That's why "female" is in the post title. I'm an ardent supporter of the effort, and I hope (much like startup school) that YC is able to make it into an annual event! Very inspiring! Also, my wife is in attendance. I look forward to hearing her reactions later tonight. If the live stream is any indicator…
I feel like a lot of the knee jerk negativity comes from the implication that the event is 'good', 'great', 'inspiring' because of it being only. Sort of has that liberal agenda, politically correct twang to it that really seems to exist in America, at least in this form. It gives a circle jerk like quality to it. I was personally uncomfortable with attending events in a minority only engineer group for the same reas…
Since when is that a bad thing?
On the flip side, there is an equally powerful emotional appeal to support an event like this when wife, daughter, girlfriend, female friend would like to attend.
That's a very Christian take on the subject and one that more people need to get rid of. A woman is not "made of man"; a woman's worth does not come from her relationship to a man. No one's worth comes from someone else's existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that special thing is the golden rule to treat others how you want be treated yourself. Unless you have some magical way of forcing everyone to suddenly drop their prejudices, then there is a need for social activism. Sorry if that inconveniences you. Your entire argument is a straw man. Who are these women being given more than a fair chance? Bear in mind that the purpose of this "Female Founders" event is to show…
>Unless you have some magical way of forcing everyone to suddenly drop their prejudices, then there is a need for social activism. Predicated on what? What's your proof that such prejudices exist, or that they're applied more so to women than men? Furthermore, what's your proof that discrimination is the form of social activism required to fix this unproved prejudice? In any debate around this issue there seems to be…
Oh, you want proof? Here you go: http://programmersbeingdicks.tumblr.com/.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that special thing is the golden rule to treat others how you want be treated yourself. Unless you have some magical way of forcing everyone to suddenly drop their prejudices, then there is a need for social activism. Sorry if that inconveniences you. Your entire argument is a straw man. Who are these women being given more than a fair chance? Bear in mind that the purpose of this "Female Founders" event is to show…
No, my entire argument is about convincing people that events like these are sexist events and does not belong in an equal society. My experience is not that people have prejudices against females. My experience is that people rely on prejudices to exist in order to make sexist events "ok" or even "good". Maybe female founders inspire women which is completely fine and maybe almost all the other founders events would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
staticelf, most of us here want that "true equality" that you refer to. But the unassailable fact of the matter is that we don't have it today. Look around you: assuming you're in IT, unless you work in a truly remarkable place men considerably outnumber women. We (and I mean the egalitarian "we") have to do something about that. I'd welcome your suggestion. But "start treating everybody as equals" is a goal, and not…
"men considerably outnumber women. We (and I mean the egalitarian "we") have to do something about that." Why? What is that evidence of? You assume sexism presumably. Men and women are different and have predispositions to excel in different areas. You know what would be really weird? A 50/50 split. Why is that the definition of correct? Why are so few people rational about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't any blatant inequality except for the sex based discrimination being pushed on the field by feminists, which won't be corrected without pushback from egalitarians.
If you believe the sexes are equally represented in this field, you should probably try to learn more about a topic like this before forming such strong feelings on it, because the numbers show that not to be remotely true. I honestly have trouble believing you really think this, but I'll assume you're sincere but misinformed, which is kind of a relief. The claim that there are as many women in tech as men is as poor…