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

271–280 of 295 posts

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#271

Post by hythloday »

mcantelon wrote: post #239
_bfhp wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like "men as a political class." I'm male, and I knew I was inviting this comment. To me saying "some men" is like giving the "good men" a cookie, when really all men should be concerned about these kinds of things, by virtue of being human.

>To me saying "some men" is like giving the "good men" a cookie To me, saying "some men" is being precise with language and not falling into generalization. "Men", in common usage, refers to individuals that are male, not a "political class".

English does not discriminate well between the universal quantification (∀; all men are) and existential quantification (∃; some men are) when quantification is indefinite (men are). It's often unambiguous; saying "men are well-represented in the boardrooms of US companies" would not be taken as implying that a number of men close to 165 million (or 3.5 billion) crammed into American boardrooms. Where it's not, it's far better to assume that the speaker is using the existential qualifier, as universal quantification is usually spelt out as a rhetorical feature ("ALL MEN benefit from the patriarchy" is far stronger than "MEN benefit from the patriarchy").

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#272

Post by kelvin0 »

MartinCron wrote: post #140
kelvin0 wrote: post #118

Aren't the autistic-transgendered-albino hackers are also an underrepresented group? Where does the fragmentation stop?

Wow, you can take something reasonable and stretch it until it is no longer reasonable! What rhetorical mastery!

Please define a 'reasonable' subset of hackers as opposed to an 'unreasonable' subset (such as the one I mentioned previously). Does not any individual or group deserve equal consideration? How can you judge what group 'makes more sense' in you opinion?

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#275

Post by therogerwilco »

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…

This is like feminism. Once I had a feminism say it was about equality for women AND men.

I said, "would you like to join an organization called 'maleism'? It's for the equal treatment of men AND women."

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#276

Post by therogerwilco »

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.

This is like feminism. Once I had a feminist say it was about equality for women AND men.

I said, "would you like to join an organization called 'maleism'? It's for the equal treatment of men AND women."

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#277

Post by MartinCron »

Jun8 wrote: post #242
MartinCron wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Before resorting to name calling ("troll") or useless stereotyping ("the insecure") of people disagreeing with you please try to understand what some of these people are trying to say. I don't think the comments made by ravetkn and obstacle1, for example, do not quite fit the typical troll pattern. This is a grown up forum, differing view points should be securely discussable, including race and gender issues. AFAIK,…

Before resorting to name calling ("troll") or useless stereotyping ("the insecure") of people disagreeing with you please try to understand what some of these people are trying to say

I never said that absolutely everyone who disagrees with me is a troll, or insecure, or both, I'm saying that these threads tend to bring out some terrible behavior from a vocal minority. That's not a controversial position.

I want, more than anything, a meaningful discussion on these issues. I also know that "But what if I had a conference FOR JUST MEN? What about that, you SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR?!" isn't meaningful discussion at this point.

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#279

Post by [deleted] »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #211
hbags wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you lack empathy for the challenges faced by women in Silicon Valley because you're a white male whose local culture is globally famous for being tolerant and inclusive? You haven't experienced the problems personally, and you probably haven't even seen them locally. But they're real.

What an incredibly rude and condescending thing to say.

[deleted]

Re: Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)

#280

Post by nawitus »

imgabe wrote: post #65
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.

Words have multiple meanings. Yes "to discriminate" does mean to treat one thing differently than another, to discern among various alternatives. That's not the context discrimination is being used in here. In that sense, having separate bathrooms is also "gender discrimination". Are you against that as well? In this context discrimination refers to a systemic tendency to undervalue a particular class of people for r…

>That's not the context discrimination is being used in here. In that sense, having separate bathrooms is also "gender discrimination". Are you against that as well?

Yes. And gender separated sports leagues. I believe people shouldn't be defined by their gender, which is a problematic term in the first place.

Post reply on HN