This thread made me want to cry..... this thread..... oh my god you guys this thread is so awful!
Does anyone have ideas about what could be done to educate against the constant same old "If it's just for women, it's sexism, same as if we said something was just for men" crap? I mean this is basically internet discussion canon at this point.
As a side note, we COULD have a conference just for men if it was aimed (as this is) to close the gender gap in society, tech, etc. That conference would be about treating women better, how to see your own biases and avoid them, things you think are ok but aren't, etc. Nobody would go, but that would be analogous event, not an event aimed at helping male only founders found companies.
Edit:
I decided to write up a quick blog for public discussion outside of this thread
There are few situations where crying is “acceptable.” The worst offenses, she found, are crying in a public meeting or because of work stress, like a looming deadline or coworker disagreement, because it is considered disruptive and weak. Crying in a private performance evaluation is also considered unprofessional and often manipulative.
The only exception to criticism is crying due to a personal loss like death or divorce, and even that has its limits. “If the crying is excessive–repeated or prolonged, rather than a single episode–it could be considered unstable or weak,”
My question to you is what were you thinking in this choice of language?
Didn't consider it, I'm a man though. That seems relevant. I also can not have achieved any of the chemical benefits of crying because you aren't near me. So... I don't know. I don't even really know what you're trying to say.
If you're saying my use of language was extremely strong, you're right - intentionally so because I actually felt like crying and did, in fact, cry a tiny bit after reading these comments. They're horrible and I love HN so much, I can't stand that it can't deal with gender issues in a reasonable way.
Does anyone have ideas about what could be done to educate against the constant same old "If it's just for women, it's sexism, same as if we said something was just for men" crap? I mean this is basically internet discussion canon at this point
At this point, you have to believe that comments like this (along with the "why no programs to get more male teachers?" gem) are pure trolling and not people trying to express new or compelling ideas.
I mean, do these guys think that they are such brilliant thinkers that they are the first ever to try apply symmetry to an asymmetrical context?
It looks like you've spent the last few months ignoring all but the worst arguments against your position. That sort of insularity doesn't help you understand the other side.
> I mean, do these guys think that they are such brilliant thinkers that they are the first ever to try apply symmetry to an asymmetrical context?
You need to read more charitably, because I can safely say that everyone recognizes the asymmetry.
There are a couple of issues here, the first of which is that contextual asymmetry doesn't always matter.
One example:
Sarah and Amy walk up to John and Christopher on the playground at school. John is enjoying a strawberry ice cream cone.
The two girls slap Christopher, who retaliates by slapping them both back. John, ice cream cone still in hand, yells for the teacher to come over.
"Christopher!", scolds the teacher, "Slapping is wrong! Come to the office with me."
"But Sarah and Amy slapped me first! Why aren't they getting in trouble?"
"Because John has an ice cream cone, and you're both boys."
Second, some of the asymmetry in this context is actually inconvenient for your position.
A few examples:
1. Society is far more sensitive to the plight of girls than to the plight of boys. As such, it's often politically unfeasible to ever reverse a program that elevates girls at the expense of boys. For instance, there are still far more scholarships available to girls than are available to boys, despite the fact that women have outnumbered men in college for decades.
2. Boys and men are less risk-averse than girls and women, and as a result, they find themselves more numerous at both the top and the bottom of society. Programs that ignore the men not at the top of society, in favor of elevating women toward the top, end up hurting disadvantaged men.
3. STEM jobs are perhaps the only good realistic job prospect for young boys today. Programs that whisk girls ahead of boys for STEM jobs end up leaving those boys with nowhere to turn, because there is insufficient (not non-existent) political pressure to open up other opportunities for them (as point #1 above demonstrated).
You're close. I have spent the last few months feeling outrage in response to unoriginal drivel. I am not saying that every position different from mine is drivel, I am just ridiculing the ridiculous.
You can have a female founders conference, whose purpose is to uplift women, and allow men to be there as well. True story: I once attended a "women in tech" style conference as a hiring manager looking for potential recruits, and I won a random drawing for a prize. It was a purse with a company logo on it. Yes, it felt pretty sexist that no one expected a man would be there.
I'm sorry you didn't like the prize, but is it such a stretch that prizes at a women-in-tech conference would be targeted at women in tech?
You might not realize it, but women face a similar issue all the time at conferences/events where "unisex" (really men's) cut t-shirts are given out. These t-shirts are generally quite flattering on men and not-so-flattering on women, so I'd argue they're the woman's equivalent of your purse.
I went to the Grace Hopper conference this year and it was very refreshing to see that every company that gave out t-shirts used female cuts, since those are t-shirts I'll actually wear!
>You might not realize it, but women face a similar issue all the time at conferences/events where "unisex" (really men's) cut t-shirts are given out. These t-shirts are generally quite flattering on men and not-so-flattering on women, so I'd argue they're the woman's equivalent of your purse.
Erm. This kind of makes a lot of assumptions about what 'flattering on women' means. Which of course begs the question about a lot of possible latent sexism at play in your response.
The sorts of t-shirts given out at conferences don't fit anyone. They're generic pieces of cloth that wear like drapes. Hanes Beefy-Ts. That you think they're appropriate for men but not women kinda speaks volumes. Drapes over pecs are fine, but not breasts? Why? What would make a women's t-shirt fit in a more 'flattering' manner? Tighter? More forming to curves on the waist and breasts? Looser, more baggy? Why would that particular fit be flattering?
Also why is the goal to have a 'flattering' t-shirt -- which implies impressing other people, being an object for everyone else's gaze -- rather than a t-shirt that you like? It's sexism against women if we don't provide t-shirts that are 'flattering' to the people looking at her?
They're designed it seems for a man who's 5'10 and 170lbs or something and then just scaled linearly in both X and Y. That's not how human beings scale, though.
As a guy who's 6'3 and a bit more torso than legs I feel like I would need to be at least 250-275lbs for an XL shirt (which I need to wear so it's long enough) to not look like a sail.
This isn't a problem unique to women, it's unique to anyone who's not a 5'10 170lbs man; the mannequin they designed the shirt for.
I don't think it's equivalent. Handing out T-shirts that are clearly labeled "unisex" suggests you are trying to accomodate both men and women. Maybe you could accuse someone of ignorance about how unisex T-shirts fit women (I never knew unisex didn't fit women), but I wouldn't accuse them of sexism, quite the opposite because they clearly intended to accomodate.
Rather than crying, try being more persuasive in your arguments. If it ain't working, try a different angle. It will go over better with the people whose opinion you're trying to change - the silent and cautiously indifferent majority. Persuasion is hard, but you sort of signed up for the hardship here, didn't you?
A lot of people on "your side" of the issue are either flat out incoherent or go far too deep into proselytization land to be tolerable. The other side is also somewhat incoherent and often shallow or juvenile. Together the two sides are creating a lot of noise for each other, with hardly any digestible information for the masses.
>Does anyone have ideas about what could be done to educate...
Well the problem with debate is that everyone wants to "educate" the other side. So my idea is that you prove you are actually right, and then maybe people will accept your views.
On a meta-level, I think you are observing the vocal minority bias. As evidence, consider the fact that your comment currently holds the first comment position, suggesting that it received a significant amount of upvotes relative to the other comments. I observe the same effect on other, similar, threads, where the first comment tends to be a response to the overwhelming "If it's just for women, it's sexism, same as if we said something was just for men" you are observing.
Please explain these other factors, I am genuinely interested. How do top comments stay top whilst accumulating a huge number of polar opposite commentary?
Because I'm done with these people bashing these events. Either they're highly-advanced trolls and we're all getting played REALLY HARD or these people are serious; if the latter then as far as I'm concern they're just awful people not much better than the folks at stormfront.org. I think any reasonable person understands it would be a waste of time trying to argue with stormfront.org members... and I'm just about ready to mentally tag these HN comments with the same level of lunacy & bigotry.
____
Preemptive: And yes, I know one of you is going to come along and throw the definition of bigotry back in my face. I don't care. I refuse to consider the ridiculous points of view I've been seeing on these gender stories in the same way I refuse to consider stormfront.org. You're all just trolls or really awful people. The end. I'm just super-happy that Ycombinator officially supports & organizes these kind of event to show YC is above your nonsense.
I've read your comments. You claim to know the real reasons why women aren't going into tech, you reply to comments about gender/racial disparity with such simple-minded arrogance and assurance, yet your profile says you're a college student studying EE and physics. You're nothing more than the typical puffed-up ignorant college asshole who thinks he has the world figured out.
Wait till all the pubes have grown in and get a few years in the real world under your belt before thinking about making such idiotic statements because as of now you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute. For a college kid in the throes of acquiring knowledge and perspective, you're pretty god damn ignorant and stubborn and just dickish on the whole.
And if you're not the typical 18-22yo college kid, but rather someone a bit older, then this is all the sadder really.
Who am I? You told me what I am in your comment, so I guess I'll have to bow to your superior expertise on the matter. Interesting how you think you know all about what sort of person I am without knowing anything about my background, my life experiences, or the circumstances and fields of work that I have/have not encountered sexism in.
SJWs always think they know everything about people who disagree with them, just by the virtue of the fact that the person dared to disagree. Perhaps it is for this reason that you and others of your ideological persuasion seem unable to resort to anything aside from hostile yet awfully generic (and as result--often hilariously inaccurate) personal attacks.
Rude remarks and mistaken assumptions about my genitals aside, no, I am not in the 18-22 year old age range, and haven't been for some time. Sad as it may seem to you, there are indeed people of all ages who believe in egalitarianism.
Thanks for editing your profile. Anyway, you've put more thought and words in this one reply than you have in most of your recent ones in response to racial/gender/socioeconomic disparity. You've mocked the OP for crying (which was a "hilariously inaccurate personal attack" that's a joke now, apparently), and you've responded to my and others' comments with simple-minded quips.
Eh, same info, tidier writing. I'd forgotten about it for a while.
Man, SJWs really take anything involving the word "privilege" seriously, even when it's obvious sarcasm. Anyone have any theories as to why their sense of humor is so underdeveloped?
I have no idea if this is a joke or not, but I'm a male. 6'5", 210, played college basketball, male who wants to or actually does cry reading HN comments about gender issues.
(I don't think my size or athletic ability has anything to do with my maleness, but given the quality of discussion going on here, I figure it may be relevant in some people's minds)
I wish I had enough karma to downvote you. Instead of having any actual discussion you'd rather make some low effort sarcastic shitpost to try and derail?
This thread is doomed to the flamewar detector anyways, I don't suppose there's any point in trying to have decent discussion here.
Cool I am going to host the "Male Founders Conference" And no girls are allowed.
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 ?
> Cool I am going to host the "Male Founders Conference"
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.
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?
To answer your question first: depends what you mean by "encourage". If it implies some "positive discrimination", quotas, etc. then yes, I'd be against it.
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?
>Some believe it to be due to the damaging effects of medical experiments conducted on African Americans
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.
But that would benefit poor people of all colors! We can't help out white people--1 homeless straight white male already has more privilege than ALL black millionaires COMBINED!
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.
Historical events can cause effects that span multiple generations, effects that can manifest in ways not immediately traceable to the inciting incident. Black kids don't drop out of high school and cite slavery as the reason.
I just started working at a research hospital. One problem I've heard mentioned from several people is the difficulty of getting black patients to participate in studies or even consent to having their biological samples used for research. If you think this is "illogical", then you're probably (1) don't belong to a lower status group in American society and (2) haven't read much about the history of medical experimentation. Tuskegee wasn't an isolated incident, before the advent of modern consent & ethics standard, medical experimentation in the US preyed on the lower rungs of society.
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.
Feminists are probably the #1 force for scaring away women from tech. If you say something is true enough times (All men might rape you! Programmers all hate women!), especially from a position of power and political influence, people will start to believe it. Encouraging and (in some cases, like donglegate) inducing both an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in and towards women is incredibly detrimental towards the general humanitarian goal of bettering society.
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.
Normally I'd keep walking but, respectfully, I think you need to shut the hell up.
> 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.
>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.
> women don't really have it hard at all in tech + affirmative action
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.
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.
>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.
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.
Sheesh. Somebody feels threatened.
Let them be, seriously. We have enough "Ruby-on-rails super-star douche-wad with tits and porn jokes on his slides" events for overgrown man-children, let there be something for women that doesn't make them feel awkward or weird.
We already have a problem with this industry being a boys-only club, no need to get your panties in a bunch over this.
What do you mean to say by suggesting that a man is wearing "panties"? It reads like you're suggesting he is acting like a woman by getting upset, which makes your position very unclear.
> 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.
> YC is looking to find an open space for aspiring female founders and...
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.
It makes a lot of sense to encourage minority groups to join a field. An example including men would be something like the American Assembly for Men in Nursing.[1]
Alternatively, there are men-only classes for parenting, and those aimed at stay-at-home fathers.
People who might not have the ability to succeed in the wider market are encouraged to start and then drop out and they extend the perception that females aren't suited to be start-up founders
That you take an event like this meant to inspire and empower an underrepresented group and interpret its implication to mean that said group is somehow inferior to the majority is just a remarkable level of mental gymnastics.
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.
Actually I would be against most forms of target supportive outreach. The one exception would be experiential targeting ( I have no issues with a "First time founders" conference ) I don't subscribe to the notion that the way to fix the imbalance in anything is to treat groups of individuals special. That has never worked through all of history so I don't know why we think it will start working now.
But can't you look at this event in the same light? To women, blacks, etc, entering a given field in which you are underrepresented, you are no different than a first time founder with concerns, reservations, a desire to connect with people similar to you who've achieved success and to learn about the obstacles you may face. The set of factors that may work against a woman getting into tech may differ from that that works against other groups doing the same. There's no harm in addressing these sets of concerns specifically. It seems like a more efficient way.
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?
Why can't people just have their own events for their own people where they feel more comfortable? Maybe that's what it takes for some women, a friendly environment of just women.
Yeah take a look at some of the comments here, and it's understandable why there would be a conference geared towards women.
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.
Questions for the women of HN. Do you see gender specific events as something that will fade away with time? Are they something you are comfortable with being part of society for the foreseeable future?
I hope that gender/race/sexual orientation/anything specific events will fade away eventually. But right now there's still a lot of casual sexism in tech that goes well beyond the well meant joke.
I've worked in the adult industry, gaming and lighter tech(IT) before transitioning to development. Prior to entering the dev job market I wrote off women who complained about the tech industry as whiny or overly sensitive. On one of my very first interviews the CEO told me women aren't math minded so he was going to skip some of the questions for me. On another interview I was asked why "he should take on the liability of hiring a female programmer".
To be honest I personally could not care less about the sexual aspect of it, getting hit on, ect., as that stuff can and does happen anywhere. But I've never ever had people question my intelligence because of my gender until I got involved in development. (Or at least not bold enough to voice it to my face in a professional setting.) At first I was even against the idea of female only learn to program classes until I started volunteering at several LTC type events and saw the difference in how comfortable women are. It's not even about sex in 99.9% of cases, which is where a lot of people take it. This comic gets brought a lot to demonstrate what I'm describing and it's really spot on: http://xkcd.com/385/.
I think everyone can agree that we would like to get to the point where attribute specific outreach programs are not needed but until we get there they are a good resource.
This wasn't part of your question but I'm sure it was brought up somewhere in the thread: Obvious sexism is not long dead. I'm only 30 and when I was in school men had to take shop and women had to take home ec. I was actively discouraged from college as it was viewed as a waste of money because women would only spend a few years working before becoming moms (if they finished school at all).
>On one of my very first interviews the CEO told me women aren't math minded so he was going to >skip some of the questions for me. On another interview I was asked why "he should take on the >liability of hiring a female programmer".
Those are a couple of pretty shitty interviews to be sure. I'm curious how many interview you've had for dev positions and if they're all bad like that with these being the worst examples, or if they're the only good examples.
What I'm trying to get at is that if it was 2/10 interviews were horrible like this then that's regrettable but not indicative of highly institutionalized sexism. If it's more like 8/10 interviews then I would think it is. Obviously we can't draw any rigorous conclusions from a single person's experience but I'm curious nonetheless.
Part of the reason I'm even asking is because I don't see a lot of sexism in the tech circles I travel in, but I also don't go anywhere near "brogrammer" type gatherings either. Based on the absence of sexism I see on a regular basis I'd like to believe the best in people in general.
I should have made it clear that it's is certainly not the majority. My very first interviews were the bad ones and I was referred to the "skipping math questions" guy by a close friend. There was some other minor shit but I felt like it was caused more by awkwardness than sexism. After my troubles I started heavily screening companies I accepted interviews at. So this was 2/8 in person interviews but that's very high because of my pickiness. I probably did 20 or so phone interviews and either chose not to take it further or wasn't invited to continue.
I also run a very large meetup group (around 4000 people) that is nearly 100% tech workers. In four years and hundreds of meetups I've only met a handful of guys that have issues with women in tech. But like I've said, the ones that really believe there's something different about women that make them not care about hard work/intellectual pursuits/math/whatever are just so hateful that they stick with you.
I ended up joining two wonderful companies that were totally accepting and I felt 100% comfortable around everyone at all times. I got a contract to hire gig at Scripted but before the hire date I got an offer from ThoughtWorks from an earlier interview. I can't even describe how wonderful they both are.
I think that it's an ugly cycle right now. It's hard for me to talk about the experiences I've had because without adding a ton of qualifiers it can sound like I am blaming more than those few specific people. Which obviously puts people on the defensive which only leads to worse situations.
I'm jet lagged and rambling, hope this gives you a little more insight.
Perhaps, but people who are similar in some way (in this case, gender and profession) will always want to meet in a specialized way. Conferences are already specialized (CSS conferences, JS conferences, conferences for health startups, conferences for email marketing...)
Like it or not, being a female founder is way harder than being a male founder. Raising money is so much harder since you don't fit the Mark Zuckerburg stereotype. A friend of mine hid her pregnancy while raising money because she didn't want to be asked whether she was committed or not - would a guy with a pregnant wife be asked the same?
So yes, personally — I am very excited about this conference and meeting other female founders and talking to them about their experiences. Finding other people like me. Definitely comfortable with these kind of conferences being a part of society because I find a lot of women don't want to start a company since it's even harder than being a dude, and I want that to change.
I think that women are often put off by the nasty, aggressive vibe in tech. No one wants to go into an industry where they will get sworn at, or have snide remarks made at them. Here are some examples just from this thread:
>you're pretty fucking ignorant and stubborn and just dickish on the whole.
>no need to get your panties in a bunch over this.
You do realize the language being employed in your examples is from the side arguing in favor of the gender segregation themed conference, not against it, right?
Men are put off by nasty, aggressive vibes too. I don't know why you'd think that that's exclusive to women. Men want to work in a friendly, cooperative, supportive workplace where they won't be sworn at or have snide remarks made at them. Unfortunately, that's not always possible, because some people are jerks, and companies don't always hire well. I think that will always be true, because that is human nature.
I can't comment about this because I'm a white male and therefore cannot relate to anyone who is oppressed, since I've experienced nothing but privilege my whole life. So the only thing I can do is be silent so that the silenced can be heard.
This does not deserve to get downvoted, you're right in pointing this out. I mean, applications are accepted on February 10th, and then IF you get to go, you have nineteen days to get there? I know a lot of attendees will already be in Silicon Valley, but that's cutting it pretty close for those who need to find a flight.
Interestingly, although the event description clearly asks: "Are you a woman interested in starting a startup?", if you click through to the application, it actually asks you for your gender. Is that because YC would still like to know now many men want to be present at the event? Is it because men are allowed, but they're not advertising it? Or will they simply inform all men that applied that regretfully their applications have been denied?
And for trans people who don't conform to the gender binary, no option whatsoever: there's only "male" and "female" as an option. Now, I'm not asking for that crazy xe and xir stuff, but if you're going to go to a conference where their main claim to fame is being gender themed, you should be able to put down "other" or "prefer not to specify" (the latter of which may be preferred even by some people who are firmly on one end of the gender spectrum). One big problem I have with events that are either thematically or exclusively gender segregated is that all it really does is reinforce gender roles. You've got to pitch in with one camp or the other, so that the privilege checkers know how many points to assign you. I don't like it. My computer doesn't care what my gender is or isn't, or what's between my legs. That's actually one--of many--things that has drawn me to tech.
Yes, particularly relevant in the Bay Area, where gender discussions are mainstream. I lived in the student co-op system in Berkeley, and it was then for the first time that I really started to appreciate the meaning of "other" as a gender option. I guess YC and SV companies are not yet ready to be that "open-minded"?
This escalated quickly. From a creative interpretation of the interview, to a lengthy plea from pg defending his honor, and now a whole conference for women. I myself have nothing against such a forum, but the way it came about to be is ridiculous and insincere. It's a result of an overreaction and over-attempt to save a reputation. It's not really about female founders, it's about pg and allegations of sexism.
Does anyone have ideas about what could be done to educate against the constant same old "If it's just for women, it's sexism, same as if we said something was just for men" crap? I mean this is basically internet discussion canon at this point.
As a side note, we COULD have a conference just for men if it was aimed (as this is) to close the gender gap in society, tech, etc. That conference would be about treating women better, how to see your own biases and avoid them, things you think are ok but aren't, etc. Nobody would go, but that would be analogous event, not an event aimed at helping male only founders found companies.
Edit: I decided to write up a quick blog for public discussion outside of this thread
Blog: http://istommydrunk.svbtle.com/the-maleonly-version-of-the-f...
Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099636
If anyone wants to find it on the front page, it's there. Expecting/getting trolls.