4 ms·
> "but seemed to totally ignore the ones that were standing right in front of him" No, no. He ignored the woman writing this article specifically. And now she
by jbmorgado 10y ago
> "but seemed to totally ignore the ones that were standing right in front of him"
No, no. He ignored the woman writing this article specifically. And now she is writing telling us that being a woman should give her special access to be a founder at the event disregarding the fact that she is or isn't qualified for the task.
- new299 10y agoyea... not really. We only have the article to go on, but according to the article there were multiple woman in the audience (at least 2) he could have talked to. I guess we'll never know the reality of the situation.
- jbmorgado 10y ago2 woman... is "multiple woman" now. You want that from dozens of people, he singles out 2 of those people specifically for a job that envolves some kind of expertise, not because they are good at it, but just because they are woman. I guess this is the "equality" thing I keep hearing about...
- new299 10y agoYes... two is in fact... multiple. There might have been more, we don't know. In this specific case, the event organizer wanted to include women, specifically because they were women. According to the article. He said he couldn't find any, and was actively seeking them. But seems not to have explored the resources available. Honestly this happens a lot. Because event organizers are embarrassed that their panels/events appear to be men only events. But they don't actually care that much, just want to pay lip service to the idea. You can argue that he shouldn't care if they happen to be men only events, but pretending to care makes him disingenuous.