What are you implicitly stating here? Women aren't good enough to stand toe to toe with male founders so the only way they will ever be able to succeed is if they are given special treatment. Why can't I go to this event and learn from female founders do they have nothing of value to convey to me as a male ?
I feel like I've seen that conference before, many times. Don't get me wrong, there were some very good speakers. But if one is trying to differentiate, and try something fresh, an all women conference makes a lot of sense.
Really? Where? Could you please give an example?
Blacks are incredibly underrepresented in the medical field (13% in the US population, 4% as physicians). Some believe it to be due to the damaging effects of medical experiments conducted on African Americans -- eg. the Tuskegee experiment where many were purposefully left untreated for syphilis despite the existence of a simple treatment (read: penicillin). Other reasons include the lack of African American physicians in the media, peer-pressure to pursue other career paths, and financial constraints. Bottom line: there is a racial disparity in the medical field, and those that are underrepresented have some very legitimate reservations for entering that industry.
So, the question: Would you be against movements targeted towards Blacks/African Americans meant to both encourage them as well as address their many concerns regarding entering a career in medicine?
Or an even simpler explanation: medical education is expensive and many blacks (and members of other races) are working class. So perhaps scholarships tailored towards the economically disadvantaged, rather than any specific race, would address the disparity.
Check out:
- http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-...
Alas, I am afraid that is is already impossible to have rational discussion about anything involving race or gender. Race especially, but the gender is quickly reaching the same level of thought-stopping cliche. Say anything out of line with politcorrect white-knighty position and you will be labeled racist or sexist, and quite often by those who don't even know what those words really mean.
On the other hand, white population is seriously underrepresented in the NBA (only 17% of players are white). Don't you thinks something must be done, and soon?
Just no, no no no. I don't think any black person nowadays thinks "Wow, can't go into the medical field because of that experiment that happened 40 years ago!" That's just illogical.
Some examples:
* Holmeburg prison: http://www.amazon.com/Acres-Skin-Experiments-Holmesburg-Pris...
* Development of modern gynecology through live experiments on slaves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marion_Sims#Medical_experime...
* Whole-body radiation exposure experiment in the 60s: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/06/local/me-saenger6
* Immortalized cell line from Henrietta Lacks without her permission or that of her family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks
and, of course, there was eugenics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#C...
Women do simply have it much harder than men in tech and if you even criticize them for trying to build a community, you do a lot of harm to the whole industry and will scare away even more women from becoming interested in tech.
With statements like yours, you are making sure that the gender divide becomes bigger and bigger and that people become very sensitive and insecure when discussing female founders, female programmers and similar.
Not really.
The way I understand GP's comment, he was stating why the whole idea might be considered controversial/misandric/inappropriate by reversing the genders (I'd say he was quite successful, btw, as you have clearly demonstrated by assuming chauvinistic/misogynistic intentions behind GP's comment). On the other hand, what you have done is you projected your dogmatic worldview where intellectual discussion and criticism is not welcome and only one point of view is correct/allowed.
No, that is what statements like yours do. Contrary to popular belief, not all women share a single brain and all think the same thing. Many women do not like being singled out with patronizing events like this. They do not enjoy being reminded once again that they are not "programmers" but "women programmers", to be used as tools to score points in a game of politics.
There are isolated instances of sexism, but women don't really have it hard at all in tech. I'd say the sex discrimination in favor of women ("affirmative action") massively outweighs any lingering discrimination against women.
I'm sorry, but the facts are all against what you were saying. I've read numerous stories about female programmers having a hard time fitting in at work, facing prejudice all the time etc. Same about female tech-founders.
You might be right in the business world or more "female-like" industries such as fashion, but definitely not in tech.
This would probably be more convincing if actually you provided any, instead of just vaguely referencing anecdotes. Without it, you have just an opinion, not an argument.
> All men might rape you!
Nobody says this. Nobody. There's this leftover artifact of overreach from feminists in the 90s that makes people think feminism is about castrating men and putting them in little cages until mating season, but most feminists don't think like this and certainly not most women.
> Programmers all hate women!
This wasn't feminism, this is the NYT spreading their usual ignorant filth about the tech industry.
> in some cases, like donglegate
Yes, that was ridiculous. That doesn't mean all women in tech are touchy and going to explode if you say "thrust" or "spurt" or whatever the hell else other words have double meanings.
> women don't really have it hard at all in tech
Are you a woman? If so, your experiences may have been great so far...good for you! If not, shut the hell up because you don't know what you're talking about: whether or not being a woman in tech is difficult or not isn't for you to say because you are not a woman in tech.
Dissenters are just so problematic, aren't they?
>Nobody says this. Nobody. >feminists in the 90s
More like 2009.
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-sch...
>This wasn't feminism, this is the NYT spreading their usual ignorant filth about the tech industry.
Feministing, Jezebel, and the like seem to have a lot to say on the subject. Hell, so do a lot of HN comments about how "toxic" and "hostile" tech workers are towards women.
Also, anyone can call themselves a feminist. It's not up to you to decide who is or isn't one.
>Are you a woman?
That shouldn't matter. Why do you need to ask about my genitalia in order to decide what to say to me? You should treat me the same way, whether I'm male or female. Address my brain, not my body.
>If not, shut the hell up
So, I'm either allowed to speak or not allowed to speak based exclusively on something I was born with and have no control over.
I guess if I have the "right" genitals, I only have to "shut the hell up" once instead of twice. Either way, it seems you don't want anyone to disagree with you--even if they are a woman, you'd still prefer them to think what you think women should be thinking.
Telling me to just "shut the hell up" isn't exactly a convincing argument. I'm not a kid, and you're not my parent. "Because I told you to" isn't a valid argument for this sort of exchange.
We already have a problem with this industry being a boys-only club, no need to get your panties in a bunch over this.
> overgrown man-children
You can apply if you are male.
> Why can't I go to this event and learn from female founders do they have nothing of value to convey to me as a male ?
I think the conference goal is pretty clear: help aspiring female founders start more startups, the same way Startup School does.
Don't you think it'd be just a 'founders conference' in that case?
That's right, but its seems YC is looking to find an open space for aspiring female founders and, at the same time, still remain open for male atendees. What I said was because in the application form you can say if you are male or female.
PG is probably partially covering his own ass after the most recent debacle. Correlation does not equal causation and all that fun stuff, but this is rather well timed.
Alternatively, there are men-only classes for parenting, and those aimed at stay-at-home fathers.
These sorts of groups are not exclusive to women.
You are essentially in support of no form of supportive outreach that targets a specific group because the act of targeting alone implies a kind of special assistance for the less capable.
Good question. Actually, let's ask more simply "what are you stating here?"
> Women aren't good enough to stand toe to toe with male founders so the only way they will ever be able to succeed is if they are given special treatment.
It seems unlikely that's what they're stating. What other possible interpretations could there be? Or do you sincerely believe that the organizers of this conference are denigrating women? If so, how do you go about warning your female founder friends that this conference is denigrating them?
Let it be.
That said, it's not like they're pulling down your pants and checking if you have a dick at the door. Men can go. It's a conference to help women with the challenges they will face specifically as females in the tech industry. If you find this topic interesting, then by all means go: man, woman, or anyone inbetween.