Live data from Hacker News

Why I won't speak at women-only events

guardian.co.uk

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they wield a ton of power. Ask the programmer that was fired for saying "dongle" within earshot of Adria Richards. Chances are your HR bureaucracy is radically feminist.

More like radically covering-their-ass-ist. HR departments are paid to prevent potential lawsuits and it's cheaper/less risky to fire someone at the first hint of controversy than it is to face the chance of a lawsuit, no matter how small.

If feminist complaints are acted upon by HR, and patriarchal complaints are not (if, in fact, they ever receive one), then you know on which side is HR.

Feminists see themselves as permanent underdogs, like the USA, but it just ain't true.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#102

The reason I don't listen to women in tech presentations: 1. I'm basically not allowed to voice an opinion that isn't completely aligned with the feminist status quo (I believe in equality, fuck me right). 2. I'd rather learn how to build a better emberjs app. Or learn more about thorium. 3. Unlike the vast majority of problems, there are few concrete steps to be taken to correct the imbalances that do exist. Edit: I…

I can't believe I had to self sensor, just to hit the post button. What do you mean?

I had a fourth point, but there is no reason to kick the hornets nest in life.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sentence 1) I'm a victim. I'm oppressed by women who won't allow me to express my opinion because it differs from theirs. I believe in equality so I guess I'm implying they don't. Sentence 2) I'm uncomfortable talking about this so I'll try and say let's not talk about it at all and just focus on some abstract technology discussion. 3) We're doomed. You can't solve the problem. It's just the way it is so leave it the…

Sentence 1 speaks only about the "women in tech" movement. The fact that "women in tech" self selects a mostly women population does not mean that commenting on it is commenting on women. Sentence 2 is again speaking specifically about "women in tech" event, not about talking about the subject. Sentence 3, is admittedly a defeatist attitude. However if there is nothing we can do about it, then why should we waste our…

Your projections are completely accurate. The only thing I would add is that my own fiancee is a woman in tech (she's a frontend developer), so it isn't like I'm hostile to women in tech or anything.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#104

She nailed it: it's a waste of my time to be invisible to half the people I need to talk to. The danger with women-only events is that they become perceived as a ghetto. By opening the doors to all, the entire community has a voice, which is as it needs to be if women are to be full, mainstream members of tech communities. There's a place for "safe spaces" if people are sharing extremely personal stories (e.g. sexual…

"Become perceived as a ghetto"? I go to plenty of mainstream tech events. But I also go to a gay geek event every month. Is that "ghettoing"? No. It's a fun night out with people who share both interests and sexual orientation. I don't see why this is such a big deal.

I don't personally see it as a big deal or a problem.

As a straight guy, I probably wouldn't attend, seeing as it's not intended to be an event for me (although I would if I were invited by a friend).

I was mainly referring to "women only" of conference scale. I'm sure they are useful for networking and comparing notes (e.g. which companies are sexist, which companies promote women into leadership).

But since most of the most distinguished / known people in tech still tend to be male, if women want to reach the top of the profession, they will also need the support and endorsement of men. So female-only events are fine, but they don't boost women's careers all on their own.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#105
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The few female focused technology events that I have seen promoted locally give off the vibe of a private members club. They don't say it explicitly, but hint with words like attendees are welcome to take their partners etc. It just seems strange to me because other events have nothing like that style of language.

> They don't say it explicitly, but hint with words like attendees are welcome to take their partners etc. How is an invitation for guests to bring their partners make an event a private club?

It means that the partners wouldn't be invited except they happen to know someone in the club.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone says they believe in equality, why do you then say they have an issue with women?

Sentence 1) I'm a victim. I'm oppressed by women who won't allow me to express my opinion because it differs from theirs. I believe in equality so I guess I'm implying they don't. Sentence 2) I'm uncomfortable talking about this so I'll try and say let's not talk about it at all and just focus on some abstract technology discussion. 3) We're doomed. You can't solve the problem. It's just the way it is so leave it the…

Sentence 1: If you disagree with something you get nothing but ridicule and insults. You just proved that point. Sorry, some people are just not worth arguing with, for example people with that discussion style, like you and most feminist. Or most fans of homeopathy. Or most jehovah's witnesses. Or other esoteric world views, preferably with a very strong in-group/out-group mentality. Case closed.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#107
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of mythology that is widely agreed upon in feminist circles. If you expect insane conspiracy theory nonsense like "patriarchy" to actually be supported by evidence rather than accepted on faith, then you are not welcome in feminist discourse, plain and simple.

Do you really think societal structures that privilege men are a myth? Apart from being quite obvious to anyone who is not extremely biased, there are whole academic branches that study this. I'd say calling that "mythology" puts you into conspiracy theory territory.

Simply put, if you say that the patriarchy causes X and not Y and I say that the patriarchy causes Y and not X there is no way to resolve the disagreement.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm rather confused by your post. I've never seen the patriarchy described as a "conspiracy", or a willful choice by men to control women, but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women. Regardless of the existence of the patriarchy as a phenomena - and there are many critics of the theor…

>but has a social structure - perpetuated by certain social institutions - that ensure that men as a gender (not every individual, of course) maintain oppressive power over women. What you described is a conspiracy. Of course feminists don't describe their own conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, they want them to appear legitimate.

I disagree. This is necessary but not sufficient to describe a conspiracy. Conspiracies imply collusion, or some form of plan.

Patriarchy as it is commonly understood in feminist circles is more nuanced than your straw-man. It's bottom-up, not top-down. You'd have to stretch the definition of "conspiracy" awfully far to cover an emergent property of a set of principles and societal norms.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#109
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think societal structures that privilege men are a myth? Apart from being quite obvious to anyone who is not extremely biased, there are whole academic branches that study this. I'd say calling that "mythology" puts you into conspiracy theory territory.

> Do you really think societal structures that privilege men are a myth? Nope. And neither are the societal structures that privilege women. Western women have always been among the safest, most privileged human beings on the planet. Predictably, and unfortunately, modern western feminists never compare the plight of the average man with the plight of the average woman when determining who wins the Oppression Olympic…

Ignoring the fact that oppression can come from outside of congress (university policies, for example), those people are defining patriarchy to simply mean "Oppressive policies written by people with penises, even if feminists support those policies".

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think you'd be better served by engaging with a more nuanced and complex version of these views. What you describe here is caricature. And in all I think it says more about you than feminism.

A common refrain in feminist circles is that patriarchy hurts everyone. A good example is parental leave as it applies to men. Paternity leave in the US is absurdly bad, suggesting that we as a society do not value the time a father spends with his child. Along those lines, men are typically graded on a patronizingly terrible curve when it comes to childcare. And so on.

Note that these aren't just laws, but societal norms, especially the latter where people praise you for doing basic shit like picking up your kids from work or whatever. If you view patriarchy as an emergent property, then the idea that "laws written by men" are a sufficient description of the concept is just absurd. You could of course take the least coherent out of any group which espouses a belief and engage with that, but that's not an honest way to have a discussion.

So like I said maybe don't engage with the most ridiculous possible presentation of feminism.

Re: Why I won't speak at women-only events

#110
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you must be gay (not sure why people use this one) People use that because they think a man acting like a woman (by having sex with men, by being the receptive partner in sex, by being penetrated, etc.) is a terrible thing for a man to do. Some homophobia is a form of misogyny, hating men who act woman-like.

I've seen feminists publicly accuse men of being closeted gays to explain "an otherwise inexplicable hatred of women".

I've seen men publicly accuse feminists of being lesbians to explain "an otherwise inexplicable hatred of men."

You're not going to get very far towards any kind of understanding by taking the least worthwhile arguments made by a group of people and projecting that belief on everyone else. That dog won't hunt and it just looks silly.

Post reply on HN