Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamesmiller5 | Hacker News Reader

Women are underrepresented in technology. This event is to help promote the potential as well as accomplishments of women in technology.

I fail to see how this is segregation, they make no claim that this series is to be representing everyone, just highlighting women. It is an event focused on women's roles in technology and available to the community.

View on HN

By the self-centered logic of the OP, even if a minority group has only 0.1% representation, they should have no events targeting specifically them and their causes -- the 99.9% majority should be able to attend, and presumably contribute to the conversation with no ability of the event's organizers to moderate the dialog or direct the focus to the minority's experiences. Anything less than that is segregation.

It doesn't occur to the OP, apparently, that they are trying to create something that is decidedly different from the ordinary tech experience -- a conversation dominated by awkward-to-arrogant, entitled males who think that their very important opinions need to be heard everywhere and at all times.

I wonder if the OP (presumably male) insists on attending (female) rape survivor meetups, or if he could understand why attendees thereof would not feel totally comfortable with his attendance.

I see, women are going to share their traumatic experience in tech.

BTW, this discussion is just silly because there are millions of meet Ups in tech filled with only men, but in the other hand meet ups of rape survivors not accepting men would be just evil, men are a minority in that group, it would be like a tech company not accepting any women.

Ok. Good luck trying to convince them to let you in, I'm sure your unassailable logic misses nothing obvious. Make sure you let them know that it's evil for you not to be allowed in.

What? Fortunately I wasn't talking about me, just men victims of rape. And doesn't matter if they follow my logic or not, we are discussing what's right, not the logic of the organizers of such meetings.

If you can't take your knowledge of "what's right" and actually change objective reality with it in a useful way, then it's dubious as to whether what you know is actually true. And IMO you would not be able to convince a female survivors group to let you in with logic, so again, I doubt strongly that it actually corresponds to truth.

Why you keep suggesting I'm talking about me?... are you just trolling?

I assumed that you would take ownership of the argument you're forwarding, and at least monetarily, you could put yourself in the position of someone who would try to employ your logic. To do otherwise would be arguing in bad faith. And whether or not you are the person employing the logic, the point remains: a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in, and so I really have to wonder in what sense you think this argument is true. Presumably because it exhibits logical consistency, which by itself is irrelevant (cf bounded rationality)

> a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a group that he should be allowe in

Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another that some people should be allowed in.

And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't exist in reality; there are some about violence or abusive relationships in general.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think there are no female-only rape survivor groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.

It's not as hominem to say that you do not have facts. Moreover, I already said that being logically correct is not my aim. Your argument lacks relevance or informedness, so you can make as many valid points as you want, your words simply have no correlation to reality.

Correlation with reality? If I wanted to speak the news I would become an anchorman. Most people here is discussing how things _should_ be and how that could become a reality.

And say what you want, Im pretty sure white female rape-victims is not a valid meet up.

When did "white" get added? Also, you could have easily searched for this:

http://www.raap.org/support-groups.html

As you obviously know nothing of rape, and probably not much of women either, I really have to question why you're still typing. You seem to be woefully unqualified to be participating in any conversation about what _should_ be, even supposing, as you have, that such a conversation doesn't need to be informed with facts.

"White" excludes 40% of Americans, "female" excludes 50%. Its just semantics.

So the typical experience is a "conversation dominated by awkward-to-arrogant, entitled males..."?

How is that not sexist? It's like someone saying gender (female) studies classes are filled with by stupid-to-ignorant, entitled females.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com