I get the intent here and applaud encouraging female participation and equality, but this is pretty much just discrimination based on sex.
I don't know if they are right or not, but it can be argued that to correct hundreds of years of negative discrimination you need some positive discrimination.
The way you choose to to the distinction might be unfair: you either put someone at a disadvantage, or give them an unfair advantage.
Most usage was focused on unfair disadvantage but it can be either really.
For example giving someone a free movie ticket doesn't mean that everybody else is penalized. They get to pay exactly what they were told and expected, and nothing changes their situation. But one person is subsidized, gets an advantage without it subtracting from the others. They all get to see the movie but one does so for free.
In a university admission exam giving one person an unfair advantage might mean that they get admitted instead of someone else. So someone has to lose for this person to win.
So the question becomes who much unfairness is now due to the past practices (the past negative discrimination of women), and can that be corrected through giving some kind of advantage to women?
Maybe the answer is that none at all, because people will just think that every women founder is just there because of the gratis advantage.
Or maybe it'll really help push a lot of women toward entrepreneurship and the market won't look at how they started.
I bet Stripe did a lot of discussion about this and they are at least somewhat better informed than us. (And since Atlas is available internationally it could help a lot of women to break out of their respective seemingly hopeless situation - 500 USD is worth a lot in quite a few places in the world.)
1) Children, particularly much younger ones, will remember less of the experience specifically. They're certainly likely to have an overall positive memory of the experience though.
2) If you're a family of 5 that's a lot of tickets. Making the children's tickets cheaper and the toddler's ticket free makes it much easier to go to the zoo on a budget. Children aren't going to the zoo by themselves but the zoo is likely not losing any revenue by discounting child tickets because they're able to get so many more families to come in the first place.
It’s easy to support such efforts until you’re the class discriminated against.
Fortunately I'm sure the people commenting here stand up to all discrimination and not just the things affect them.
Cuz I don't recall encountering any "men in tech" events, or investment funds that invest only in men, or efforts to encourage white boys to study computers.
> When do men unfairly benefit from things in the tech industry?
There's a systemic problem which benefits men over women, regardless of which industry. For example, men have a more positive sentiment for the same resume than women do: https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/
Moreover, this sentiment might extend to women, as well, as reportedly 69% of women ask for less than their male counterpart for the same role https://hired.com/wage-inequality-report
> investment funds that invest only in men
I'd be surprised if most investment funds didn't invest in women, but this is a very surface-level view. You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments, such as: connections made through school, fraternities, or other networking phenomena; and men have a greater perceived ability (see the resume discrimination above).
> efforts to encourage white boys to study computers
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
> Can you show something specific, that isn't a strong assumption of invisible discrimination on the basis of statistically differing outcomes?
Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.
This appears to be a strong assumption of the sort I asked to avoid. How do you know the reasons are historical and sociological and not simply that men like computers more?
You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments
But again, I asked for concrete discriminations not hypothetical "privileges" based on working backwards from unequal outcomes. You're speculating that "connections made through school" are important for men and not women, but that's nothing concrete and doesn't even make much sense - startup founders typically find VCs or the other way around the time they create a company and need money, and men and women are not segregated at universities. It's not like investors pick companies on the basis of being at the same college together. See the article yesterday about the flood of money from Softbank who have more or less single handedly killed any talk of a bubble pop.
Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.
No. This is exactly the kind of argument I asked people to avoid - you are observing statistical trends and then assuming it must be caused by invisible discrimination. You can't point to any actual examples of companies stating they won't hire women or investors saying they won't invest in women, whereas I can do both these things for men. Instead you resort to strong assumptions of invisible discrimination you can't actually point to, based on observation of disparate outcomes.
Oh, and you can explain 11% of executives being women and women not going into tech very easily using ordinary and undisputed biology/psychology - men take more risks and women prefer working with people. These aren't even controversial aspects of biology: no "pattern of exclusion" required.
Ahh, your post history is illuminating and an interesting walk through the reactionary mind:
> Historically speaking fascists were hard left
> You know what Nazi stands for, don't you?
> Implying someone is racist when they've not said anything racist is unacceptable ad-hominem.
I don't think you're equipped to have this conversation.
There is no such thing as a "soft science problem" for which "hard-science demonstrations" are invalid. That's a separation you've made up on the spot.
What I'm asking for isn't even science, I'm not even asking for data. I'm asking for anecdotes! That should be easy! Just show a bunch of cases of companies explicitly refusing to hire women or refusing to promote women because of their gender. You don't even have to show that amounts to the entire cause of the disparity. That's an absurdly low bar.
Why are there no "men in tech" events? Why are no efforts made to encourage white guys to study compsci?
After all, if there's a genuine need for them, I would strongly expect them to exist.
For example, there are few events targeted at recruiting more boys to college, even though only 40% of college students are male; and few programs specifically targeted at helping homeless men even though most homeless people are adult men.
Contrast that to the PR value of program like this that's targeted at helping women.
But in other fields sometimes such events are organised, to encourage men into female-dominated jobs. Guess who comes out of the woodwork to attack them:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydne...
The University of Sydney is under fire for a new scholarship of nearly $30,000 that gives preference to male applicants, with the head of the scholarships office likening it to grants that “discriminate” against students who are not Aboriginal.
...
“The way I think about it, affirmative action should only apply to people who have structural barriers to receiving an education – that’s what the exemption in discrimination law is about, so you can procure particular benefits for women in Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics], Aboriginal students and so on,” Grant said. “It’s not for further advantaging men. It’s really quite bizarre.”
some people and groups just want special treatment