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

Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 295 posts

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#121

Post by claudius »

thenmar wrote: post #80
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…

Great comment. If anyone would like to learn more about feminism, I can't recommend highly enough the book "Feminism is for Everybody" by bell hooks. I find a lot of commenters here and on other sites form (strong!) opinions about feminism and sexism despite not understanding basic concepts like privilege, oppression, and intersectionality. That book is an accessible primer on those topics.

The problem with ‘feminism’ is that it is essentially worthless as a label to denote a political ideology – sure, there are some people who call themselves ‘feminist’ who have perfectly respectable views, but there are also a bunch of people calling themselves ‘feminists’ who are worse sexists than anybody else.

Sure, equal rights and all such things are good and proper aims, but ‘cutting off penises’ is not. Certainly there is a lack of women in some fields and one should attempt to help balance gender distributions. Surely nobody should feel ashamed for reporting an (even attempted) rape regardless of the way they dress. Of course, if strong independent women want to sell sex for money, they should be allowed to – oh, wait, one of the leading feminists (Alice Schwarzer) is strongly opposing any legalisation of prostitution and you will find people who call themselves feminists opposing any of the previously-mentioned targets as well.

I like to think that ‘communism’ as a label has much the same problems – surely ‘people should have equal incomes’ is a somewhat acceptable (not necessarily agreeable) opinion, and calling yourself a communist possibly justified. But what is the relation between the ‘communist’ label here and the ‘communist’ label of the people who built a wall around their country (GDR) or killed all intellectuals (Burma)?

Is there no word that one can use to describe the ‘sensible’ (equal rights, balancing of gender distributions etc.) feminism? Put another way, if I happen to come across someone who calls them-self a ‘feminist’ online, does that actually tell me anything about them?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#122

Post by dragonwriter »

rimantas wrote: post #89
dragonwriter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Segregation on an axis requires discrimination on the same axis (if you don't make distinctions, you can't separate.)

Treating differently by "distinctions" is discrimination, not just making them. Otherwise the whole concept of gender is discriminatory.

> Treating differently by "distinctions" is discrimination, not just making them.

Segregation is treating people differently by the axis on which segregation occurs.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#123

Post by MartinCron »

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…

And here I came to make this exact same point but you did it so much better than I ever could. You're my new hero. Thanks.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#124

Post by wellboy »

nhangen wrote: post #47
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…

My only concern with events like this is that males could also learn from female founders advice and experiences. It just seems like a loss to forcefully segregate the audience. I would love to attend an event that featured a female only stage. It would be a refreshing change from the current conference lineup.

Yeah, but the upside for female founders to have a female-only event is much bigger than the downside for men not being able to attend such an event.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#125

Post by MartinCron »

claudius wrote: post #121
thenmar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comment. If anyone would like to learn more about feminism, I can't recommend highly enough the book "Feminism is for Everybody" by bell hooks. I find a lot of commenters here and on other sites form (strong!) opinions about feminism and sexism despite not understanding basic concepts like privilege, oppression, and intersectionality. That book is an accessible primer on those topics.

The problem with ‘feminism’ is that it is essentially worthless as a label to denote a political ideology – sure, there are some people who call themselves ‘feminist’ who have perfectly respectable views, but there are also a bunch of people calling themselves ‘feminists’ who are worse sexists than anybody else. Sure, equal rights and all such things are good and proper aims, but ‘cutting off penises’ is not. Certain…

Is there any label that people apply to themselves or others that successfully filters out the lunatic fringe from reasonable people?

I'm not afraid to call myself a feminist (even though that puts me in the same camp as some crazy people) in the same way that I'm not afraid to call myself a hacker or a man or a parent or an urban farmer.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#126

Post by obstacle1 »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #115
thenmar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comment. If anyone would like to learn more about feminism, I can't recommend highly enough the book "Feminism is for Everybody" by bell hooks. I find a lot of commenters here and on other sites form (strong!) opinions about feminism and sexism despite not understanding basic concepts like privilege, oppression, and intersectionality. That book is an accessible primer on those topics.

Where I really crossed the threshold into understanding Feminism was in a class I took in college (as trite as it sounds). We were discussing gender-specific organizations, not unlike the one in this post, when someone asked why it's OK for women to have a conference, but if men did, people would flip. The teacher gave a long-winded answer, but what really stuck with me most was a single statement: "Because every oth…

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 to argue with you" brush-off used by campus feminists everywhere -- means nothing.

Every other organization is already a men's organization? Really? In what sense could they possibly mean that? What assumptions must they be making for that to hold true? By virtue of the fact that they're on a university campus, they're part of an organization consisting of well over 1/2 women [1]. Men are a minority on most campuses in the states. So does the university as a whole qualify as a "men's organization"? If not, why is a "women's organization" necessary on campus? If there's no need to be 'shielded' from a broader, all-encompassing men's organization constituted by the university, it seems that a men's organization is just as justified as a women's organization in that environment.

[1] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-...

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#127

Post by MartinCron »

altero wrote: post #97
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…

You wrote that issue is stigmatization. But by creating separate group we make stigmatization worse. This field already has lowest possible entry bar. IT sucks and not all people want to work here. Get over it.

But by creating separate group we make stigmatization worse

I hate to be that guy, but... is there any proof for this claim other than the fact that it aligns with what you already believe?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#128

Post by MartinCron »

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.

Please stop. Bringing up radical feminism in this context is just trolling. There is absolutely nothing radical in what they're doing here.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#129

Post by azernik »

danellis wrote: post #117
azernik wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This field" refers to tech, and the startup scene in particular.

"Tech" is far too broad a term to be a legitimate field. I presume you don't really claim to speak for all technology-based industries.

1. In this case, I'm translating the top-level post, not speaking for anyone.

2. Idiomatically, "tech" usually refers to the computing (specifically software, in most uses) industry. I guess I could have said "Silicon Valley", but man, those extra 10 letters, very difficult :P

Post reply on HN