4 ms·

It's funny that this kind of overt sex discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable. I guess America is similar to my country where sex discrimination i

It's funny that this kind of overt sex discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable. I guess America is similar to my country where sex discrimination is banned except for flatmates, hiring domestic workers, safety, decency, private clubs, etc. In other words, it's quite acceptable. Don't they know that women can have all the same bad traits they're apparently trying to avoid in men, such as abusing vulnerable people or not being able to make emotional connections? I'll bet there are some effeminate men who are more compatible with this group's ideals than some masculine women. It's like judging IQ by race. Kind of tells you something overall but there are so many exceptions that you still have to use some other measure anyway and it's unfair. If they're concerned about sexual attraction, maybe they should allow gay men and exclude gay women?

krater23 5y ago
Hey, don't be angry and just sit back and observe when the first bitch fight will start and how the project is failing... If you ever worked with a group of priviledged women you know that this will happen. Have fun!
- dang 5y ago
  That's beyond the pale. You can't post like this here. I was about to ban your account for it, but then I checked your previous comments and they don't suggest a pattern, so I'm going to refrain from banning you this time. No more of this, though, please, because if you do it again, we'll have to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
downandout 5y ago
It's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction. If there were a house for men only, in the current bizarre culture in the US, that would be considered misogynist, and Twitter would set about getting the founders fired from their jobs for even attempting it. However, an all female house is considered "progressive" and widely applauded. The argument is that underrepresented groups (e.g. women in tech) should be allowed to discriminate because they are underrepresented. It's a very short-sighted argument, as the inevitable result is in an ever-increasing cycle of backlash and further discrimination on all sides. But Twitter mobs aren't known for their ability to think long-term.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Pretty sure the law is symmetric wrt sex/etc. Those human/civil rights laws were written at a time when disadvantaged groups were just gaining political clout and only bold enough to demand equality, not supremacy. Nowadays, it's different, and they're asking for more than equality but the laws are outdated.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Where on earth is it illegal to choose people you live with any way you like? How would that even work? Housing discrimination law in the US, to my knowledge, apply only when you are not sharing living quarters. The alternative seems unthinkable to me.
- MyHypatia 5y ago
  Your statement that "it's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction" is factually incorrect. There are hundreds of examples of male-only clubs in the US. Every Free Mason lodge, all Catholic seminaries, golf clubs, the list goes on. For example,just a few weeks ago Pine Valley (the number one golf course in the US) just voted to allow female members for the first time in its 108 year history. They aren't legally obligated to allow female members, as a group they just finally decided to open the club to women. It took them 108 years. If that's allowed, I don't see why this women-only group shouldn't exist. Maybe in 108 years they'll decide to allow men. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members

krater23 5y ago

Hey, don't be angry and just sit back and observe when the first bitch fight will start and how the project is failing... If you ever worked with a group of priviledged women you know that this will happen. Have fun!

dang 5y ago
That's beyond the pale. You can't post like this here. I was about to ban your account for it, but then I checked your previous comments and they don't suggest a pattern, so I'm going to refrain from banning you this time. No more of this, though, please, because if you do it again, we'll have to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

downandout 5y ago

It's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction. If there were a house for men only, in the current bizarre culture in the US, that would be considered misogynist, and Twitter would set about getting the founders fired from their jobs for even attempting it. However, an all female house is considered "progressive" and widely applauded. The argument is that underrepresented groups (e.g. women in tech) should be allowed to discriminate because they are underrepresented. It's a very short-sighted argument, as the inevitable result is in an ever-increasing cycle of backlash and further discrimination on all sides. But Twitter mobs aren't known for their ability to think long-term.

exporectomy 5y ago
Pretty sure the law is symmetric wrt sex/etc. Those human/civil rights laws were written at a time when disadvantaged groups were just gaining political clout and only bold enough to demand equality, not supremacy. Nowadays, it's different, and they're asking for more than equality but the laws are outdated.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Where on earth is it illegal to choose people you live with any way you like? How would that even work? Housing discrimination law in the US, to my knowledge, apply only when you are not sharing living quarters. The alternative seems unthinkable to me.
MyHypatia 5y ago
Your statement that "it's only legal and socially acceptable in one direction" is factually incorrect. There are hundreds of examples of male-only clubs in the US. Every Free Mason lodge, all Catholic seminaries, golf clubs, the list goes on. For example,just a few weeks ago Pine Valley (the number one golf course in the US) just voted to allow female members for the first time in its 108 year history. They aren't legally obligated to allow female members, as a group they just finally decided to open the club to women. It took them 108 years. If that's allowed, I don't see why this women-only group shouldn't exist. Maybe in 108 years they'll decide to allow men. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pine-valley-women-members