Female Founders Conference 2015 applications are open
blog.ycombinator.com
blog.ycombinator.com
I believe the main reason why there's less women in tech is because there's less women in tech(!) It's really hard to jump in a new field where you're the extreme minority. Just as a crude example, imagine getting into nursing school as a guy. That would take a lot of guts. I know because I have a friend who did it and you can easily imagine the kind of comments he's getting all the time from families, strangers, administrators, etc. However, if there were more guys in nursing, it wouldn't be as hard.
You can also think about being gay in San-Francisco right now vs 50 years ago. Yes, a lot of things changed, but part of the reason why it's getting much better is because there simply are more gays, you know you're not alone.
I'm not sure if this was a good example. But women in tech are a bit similar. It's hard to jump in when you're the minority. It's much easier to take the easy route and get a profession where there's already a good ratio of men/women.
Why am I saying all this? Because I think women-only events help girls looking to move into tech understand that there actually are women in tech. If we'd only have mixed-in events, the few women in the crowd would easily be missed by the overwhelming majority of guys.
Someone also posted something about Black, Latino/Hispanic Founders. That's extremely related. A black friend of mine told me that one of the hardest thing about being black in the tech community is that he's almost always the only one. It takes a lot of guts to be the only different one in the room. Some people like that, but for lots of people it's hard. Personally, as an introvert, I'd hate to have everyone in the room looking at me the second I enter the room, all the time.
If in 2014 you are still feeling different for a __color__, I think the problem is more on you than others.
I'm not saying that racism or things like that don't exist. That is another thing.
I'm saying that really I'm pretty annoyed when I read these things. So what I'm Italian and I'm always the only Italian in the room, and so what?
Also, we want the same sex thing? What if we do Only Man Conferences? ? How much bad press will that get?
We want to be all equal? So what if a site of the weight of oKcupid will be like okWhiteCupid as this: www.blackpeoplemeet.com
Would be fun to read on hacker news: "Ok Cupid" now becomes only for whites. But if we want to be really equal no one should be upset right?
--
Long thing...
I'm sayin' that while I'm for the parity of things and equality in general I just see most of them just taking advantage of being a minority to complain when things gets wrong.
As far I can tell you, mostly in my day to day life I don't see this white male dominance. I never judged someone just from the color or for being a girl, gay or whatever could be.
I'm pretty sure that is the same for most of us.
I'm not saying that there aren't problems about that.
TL;DR; humans seems to like to create problems (on both sides).
NOTE: I know is not really female only
NOTE 2: After the down-vote please explain.
>> If in 2014 you are still feeling different for a __color__, I think the problem is more on you than others.
The thing is.. you're right that it's fucking ridiculous that people are so judgmental and mean for a __color__, and that __they__ have a problem. But the fact that matters is that when you're the one being judged and mistreated every day, it doesn't really matter if they're right or not, it hurts and it's frustrating.
>> Also, we want the same sex thing? What if we do Only Man Conferences? ? How much bad press will that get?
That's a whole different subject. The point is, why would you do a man-only conference? Is it because you really care about having only men in there? Or because that's a way to (passive-aggressively) express your opinion against how stupid you think feminism is?
>> I just see most of them just taking advantage of being a minority to complain when things gets wrong.
I see what you mean, and maybe it's true in rare occasions. But more often than not, for someone to publicly talk about an issue, it's something important to them. Maybe not to you, but to them.
As a stupid example, it really pisses me off when people are disturbing me when I try to hack. I lose all my productivity and I feel like I wasted my day. But for them, they don't care.. they don't understand, they're just chatting about the weather or whatever. Unless I take the time to explain to them why it bothers me, they won't get it.
So, maybe when you see the other gender complaining you think they're annoying, or find excuses, or are abusing their minority. But in practice, I'd recommend paying close attention to what they say because it's not about what you think, it's about how you (or someone else) just hurt them without even knowing it.
>> I never judged someone just from the color or for being a girl, gay or whatever could be.
What if I told you that your post is extremely cruel for someone struggling with racial or gender harassment?
>> I'm pretty sure that is the same for most of us.
I wish.
>> What if I told you that your post is extremely cruel for someone struggling with racial or gender harassment?
Probably where I live (SF) I can't totally see the entire problem as you.
Again I'm not saying that there aren't problems at all or SF reflects the world. I'm saying that I'm my pretty own small experience I saw something filled under racism or feminism when it wasn't.
>> As a stupid example, it really pisses me off when people are disturbing me when I try to hack. I lose all my productivity and I feel like I wasted my day. But for them, they don't care... they don't understand, they're just chatting about the weather or whatever
That comes with a perfect example few days ago on a local bus an old man (politely) asked a black guy lower the rap music.
He started to freakout about racism and the fact he can't because he is black etc... Just two normal genuine guys and a problem (music on speaker) that becomes racism.
--
My comment aimed to say to the girls and blacks that are reading this that not everyone is racist against women and most of us (I hope) are not so please don't think that a small complain/problem is because of that.
A extremely related issue is indeed how African Americans are treated in American. The Black Panther Party was a reaction to racism in the police (In 1966, only 16 of Oakland's 661 police officers were African American) in the same way that women exclusive events are a reaction to sexism and gender ratio in IT.
I understand that using exclusion is a simple method in order create a environment where a minority groups feel more included. It also source for hate, tribe mentality and radicalization. When people like me criticize such methods, it simply because the benefits do not seem to validate the high cost.
I think this is a matter of perspective. When a certain section of a population (50% in this case!) is passively or actively discouraged from participation, I don't view an event like this as exclusion of the majority but as radical inclusion of the minority.
YCombinator plays a significant role in the community around tech entrepreneurship and, most importantly, how that community is portrayed to the rest of the world. I don't see how this relates to the Black Panthers which were started, as you say, as a response to institutional racism. If I were a gambling man, I would bet that the Black Panthers would have had much more of a cultural impact than they did if they were born out of, and were actively supported, by the same institutions whose behavior they fought against.
Furthermore, humanity's tribal instincts aren't inherently bad and often they serve a useful purpose. Who here hasn't band together with like minded individuals for support whens faced with adversity? The problem arises when that tribalism is used to put down other 'tribes' which I do not think is the intention here.
"the go-to place where women can speak honestly with each other, deliberately away from the male gender".
If you think a person saying that statement is all about inclusion and not exclusion, I suggest a test. Use such statements about people around you and see how they react. If you are married, tell your partner that you want to go to a party with friends, deliberately away from that person. If they react happily and thank you for being inclusive with your friends then its clearly shown that this is all about being inclusive.
Catering to a specific field of expertise is orthogonal to catering to a specific pool of genetics. I think the actual reason why it would make no sense at all to have a 'Male Founders Conference' versus the obvious appeal of a 'Female Founders Conference' is because male founders simply don't have to deal with their gender as part of their identity as a Founder. I don't ever stop and think, "Is X happening because of my gender?" I very rarely have to stop and think, "Do I need to approach this problem differently because I'm a man?"
Whereas a female founder is almost certainly going to have their gender become a notable / discussion-worthy factor tied into their popular identity as a Founder (whether they want it to or not). They are going to be faced with situations, perhaps regularly, when they will question how much their gender played a role in a particular outcome. They will actually encounter discrimination with some regularity, and need the tools to deal with it, and the experience and support system to decide how they should best respond.
The way I see it, when there's nothing left to talk about at a Female Founders conference, then we can happily stop having them.
To those saying "what about an Latino/African American/etc. founders conference?": you can't be everything to everyone, and you have to start somewhere. Looking at this as a binary world view where "you can only have nonexclusive events" or "you need to have an exclusive event for every potentially underrepresented group" is counterproductive and gets us nowhere. Supporting one underrepresented group will hopefully have positive downstream effects across the board. If things like this are successful in moving one underrepresented group on a better trajectory, then that model can be more easily replicated.
To those saying "why not a YC conference just for male founders?" or "this isn't necessary" or the like: you're being petty and this isn't for you. The tech industry has plenty of open opportunities for people to connect across the board, and stronger connections tend to be forged within smaller sub-communities. If this and events like this encourage more females to become founders, then that's a great outcome.
Why is it socially acceptable to say this, but it's not socially acceptable to say "men to men connection is different from men to mixed crowd"?
In the business world it's taboo because it would be seen as colluding against women and minorities. Historically (and even currently), business and politics have been dominated by white males, and that tends to give an advantage of familiarity and incumbency. Women-only, or minority-only conferences like these are a chance to balance the scales a little.
Your handle refers to a character in the sci-fi novel Neuromancer, an artificial intelligence that is prevented from linking up with another one to pursue their mutual destiny by an arbitrary human prejudice against artificial intelligence enforced by administrative fiat. In fact, the urge to circumvent this established power structure is the motivating force that drives the plot. Perhaps you can find a way to generalize from one disenfranchised class that you identify or empathize with in some fashion, artificial intelligences, to another that you apparently don't, women.
Though I'd definitely learn a lot at this conference, I'm not going to apply for an invitation because I'd rather see the limited invitations go to people who can make the most of them. I'm not founder material, so I should wait until the videos get released. If I was mistakenly given an invitation, I'd politely and humorously report it as a bug in their optimization algorithms. ;-)
HN users tptacek and cpercival are known representatives of a specific minority in tech, namely, people with a reasonable grasp of crypto. If there was a specialized conference of this crypto-cogent minority, the people who would gain the most from the conference are either already crypto-cogent, or are considering becoming crypto-cogent. The rest of us crypto-ignorant people (myself included as an admitted crypto-failure) are much better off always trying to learn from the experiences they generously share. If the title of this story was, "Crypto Conference 2015 Applications Are Open," I'd like to believe people on HN would not be arguing whether specialized cryptography conferences should exist.
All conferences are specialized in some sense. Learning from the unique perspectives and experiences of said specialization is one of the main reasons for going to any conference. The other reason is networking with your peers. The specialization can be a field, topic, group, or some other commonality. In this case, the specialization is Female Founders and the chance to learn from them is a fantastic but rare opportunity. The same is true for any specialized group of notable people speaking on topics where they have the benefit of experience and perspective.
My challenge to you, the regular HN user, is can you tell me something interesting about the accomplishments of any of the speakers?
I'll start. Jessica Livingston wrote a book called "Founders At Work" and it's one of my absolute favorites. I've nearly broken the binding on my copy with all the sticky-note page markers. Though my server will probably melt from the load, proof of my assertion is available [2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-uHSnFig5PSIanlQ_x6...
Many folks might (mistakenly) see them as an admission that women can't hack it on a level playing field. Such thoughts would only serve to harden their chauvinistic mental models and cause gender discrimination to be more (rather than less) likely in the future.
Lots of people seem to have opinions on these conventions, but to be seriously seriously honest, it is very rare I have been involved in any tech thing where, if you mandated that 90% of the participants must be male, that it would change the demographic. That is a satirical way of demonstrating that most technical, mathematical, engineering, and computer things are male dominated purely by their origin and lineage of development. It's like asking a 14 year old boy to go lingerie shopping. People react because it's not the norm. The reaction is neither good nor bad. I react to people too.
If a female founder conference helps women develop confidence or competence, or helps connect them to customers or investors or future employees, good for them. Those benefits will last a lot longer than whatever silly (over)reactions people have.
This stuff just makes me feel like I might one day achieve my goal of being 'crazy genius'. I hate when I let culture make me feel like I don't even fit into that group of people, just because I don't look like them.
Lots of high energy stuff going on there.
The possible increased discrimination from those with pre-existing chauvinistic mental models can be weighed against decreased discrimination from those whose pre-existing chauvinistic models are challenged by seeing capable female founders, which I think would be the larger effect.
And there are bigger and more direct benefits: networking with other founders, getting your startup / product out there in front of more potential customers and investors, media coverage, etc.
Again, you can (as I do) disagree with this assessment and think that it should be obviously wrong with a little bit of thought and knowledge of the actual situation, but as a subconsious inference it seams reasonable.
In fact, if you recall the "separate cannot be equal" ruling in relationship to racial discrimination, one of the arguments was that even if the separate accommodations were in fact equal (which they weren't) simply having black only schools creates a feeling of inferiority.
EDIT: Minor correction. After looking up the opinion for separate cannot be equal (Brown v Board of education [1]), it turns out that, in the opinion of the court, accommodations were in fact equal (or being equalized), which is what forced an examination of the separate but equal doctrine itself. I'll just leave this quote here:
"To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." [1]
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483#writing...
So perhaps some men sit around and use these conferences as an excuse to be chauvinistic, but the conference isn't for them, it's for women.
Though, ironically, last year I couldn't go because I didn't have a babysitter.
This wording would seem to imply that the conference attendance, or at least the expected audience is restricted to women. The invitation request (https://news.ycombinator.com/ffc) doesn't explicitly state it one way or the other, but does have a field for "Gender".
Then again, if prospective female founders are benefiting from my not being there, so be it. I assume there are several other ones I can go to, Startup School seems like the nearest gender-nonspecific equivalent.
Anyway, none of this changes the fact that I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable going to said conference, and I imagine neither would most men. If this effect is intended, it's perfectly fine by me (as I have made clear in my comment, and have even laid out a viable alternative).
???
You're reading a hell of a lot into my comment that wasn't there.
There are some events I avoid because of the language being all about men and the speakers all being male. It's just never intentional when that happens. We're not so different, you & I.
They may not explicitly disqualify men from attending, but the language on the site and the proceeding application form makes it very clear who they want, and do not want, there.
To be clear though, I don't care one way or another. I find these type of events to be laughable at best, but they're only a small part of this bizarre, gender war fueled narrative we're having pushed into the IT industry every day by online "journalists" who've never even been a part of it.
I think you're being petty here.
Its like when a boy owns an arsenal of toys and he can't possibly play with all of them so he inevitably casts some out, and his baby brother comes and picks one up from that pile, and suddenly THAT toy was the boys FAVOURITE toy and the boy cries and screams to his mother, and mom is like yeah, technically it’s your toy, but you have so many and look little jimmy doesn’t have any why dont you let him play with that one, but the kid keeps crying over the injustice of having his best toy taken away and so mom reasons with little jimmy, and jimmy is a kind-hearted boy so he relents the toy and the spoiled brother gets the toy back and makes a show of lathering it with the adoration befitting its special status but even though he wont admit it he never gave a shit about that toy anyway and is secretly relieved when mom and little jimmy finally go to the next room because he can now put down the toy and return to his iPad games without losing face.
Or consider a company that has a table reserved in their cafeteria specifically for black men. Would that be OK?
It seems as a society we've decided that a certain basis of discrimination is fine while others are not. For example having a table exclusively for executives is fine, while one based on race or gender is not.
The gist is: At novice level women-only events are very useful, at expert level they tend to be constricting.