Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

femalefoundersconference.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#41

Post by swatow »

tomjen3 wrote: post #40
tomp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the original meaning of "woman" is "a female human", whereas "female" is an adjective or a noun for one of the biological sexes (the one that produces ova in sexual reproduction). Including trans-women in the definition of "woman" is a modernistic redefinition of the word, so people are totally justified if they use the word with its original meaning. Maybe we should make up a new word for the new meaning?

That might have been a sensible choice about twenty years ago. As it is the other usage seems to have been established too much now. This isn't anything new, words change meaning and tone all the time.

I think that only 10% of English speakers think trans-Women are actually women. However that 10% are disproportionately powerful, so they are able to control how the word is used in the media, in the workplace, and in educational institutions. If they stopped doing this, usage would revert to its original pretty much instantaneously.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#42

Post by ncza »

Mz wrote: post #26
ncza wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And can we get any source on that claim?

Firsthand personal experience as a woman, plus observation of the world around me, including reading what other women write, many of whom are extremely angry about how men interact with them.

I am sorry but that sounds like an echochamber effect. It does not mirror my experiences at all which consist of mostly the same. Personal experiences are not a measure for all society.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

tomjen3 wrote: post #27
DanBC wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are creating a drama where there is none. People identify as male or female, and that might be different to how they were born. Ask a trans-person if they identify as male or female and they will usually tell you what they identify as now. They choice of "female" is possibly for the aliteration with "founder". There's nothing strange about that word choice.

Generally sex is what you were born as, you were born as either male or female. Gender is what you identify as, you either identify as man or woman. Now it is clear that PG and company aren't transphobic, but by giving in to the first demand for more representation of "minorities" (as if asians, immigrants and indians weren't minorities and weren't already statistically over representated) they have given the SJW a f…

This distinction between sex and gender is a common use of those two terms (at least in particular contexts) but the idea that "man" and "woman" identify genders and "male" and "female" identify sexes is much less common. More commonly, "male" and "female" are adjectives pertaining either to sex or gender and "man" and "woman" are mind referring to adults who are, respectively, male and female, again, either by sex or gender.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#44

Post by birdsareweird »

Mz wrote: post #33
birdsareweird wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile nobody still gives a shit about the way women treat men, or men's "lived experiences". You complain, people listen. We complain, we are told to suck it up. For some reason, "observant" women keep denying it though.

I am guessing you have never read any of my blog posts. Perhaps you should.

No but you've pulled this exact same "do you know who I am???" spiel before. I remember the account name. Didn't care then either.

Hint: if you were relevant, you wouldn't need to remind people. And if you weren't stuck up, you'd have made a point here instead of acting sanctimonious.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#45

Post by Mz »

ncza wrote: post #42
Mz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firsthand personal experience as a woman, plus observation of the world around me, including reading what other women write, many of whom are extremely angry about how men interact with them.

I am sorry but that sounds like an echochamber effect. It does not mirror my experiences at all which consist of mostly the same. Personal experiences are not a measure for all society.

That cuts both ways: Your personal experiences do not dismiss the widespread experiences of a great many women.

If it isn't an issue for you, then you may be a statistical outlier. It seems to be a pretty typical experience for most women -- not all, of course, but it appears to be quite common. Even female founders* sometimes talk about the degree to which they have been treated like nothing but a piece of ass by men they were trying to make deals with, an issue men do not typically have to face when they are trying to launch a business.

* http://heidiroizen.tumblr.com/post/84530650750/its-different...

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#46

Post by cbd1984 »

Mz wrote: post #17
blueflow wrote: post #5

Were Women not allowed on the 'normal' conference? Or why do we have this separation?

Or why do we have this separation? One of the biggest issues women face is that most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. Men sometimes do this out of the best of intentions -- not wanting a woman to think he is hitting on her or not wanting anyone to think there is an affair because he is "friendly" with her -- but it is a very serious obstacle to women being able to network and actually hav…

> most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them.

This is just very, very sexist, and I'm surprised nobody has called you out on it.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#47

Post by Mz »

cbd1984 wrote: post #46
Mz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or why do we have this separation? One of the biggest issues women face is that most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. Men sometimes do this out of the best of intentions -- not wanting a woman to think he is hitting on her or not wanting anyone to think there is an affair because he is "friendly" with her -- but it is a very serious obstacle to women being able to network and actually hav…

> most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. This is just very, very sexist, and I'm surprised nobody has called you out on it.

It is a nutshell version of what I said here: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zon...

That piece made the front page, so I suspect some folks here have context as to what I mean: That women have trouble getting men to engage them in a meaty way. Many men err on the side of caution, as I stated above. Heterosexual men have a tendency to engage women only superficially, unless they are looking for a romantic relationship. No, not all men do that. But a high percentage seem to and it's problematic.

I regret that it was probably not the best way to express it, but I'm not sure there is a good way to say it in brief.

Post reply on HN