12 ms·

I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. It's also intere

• badman_ting 13y ago
  > Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. Yes, it does. Think on that more deeply.
  • loceng 13y ago
    Are you trying to imply two wrongs makes a right?
    • epi8 13y ago
      I don't know about the person to whom you are replying, but in my opinion, in this case, two wrongs make a right, if you can call hosting a conference aimed at an under-represented group a "wrong". Sure, in a perfect world, we wouldn't want or need such conferences, but in this world, we should strive for the best equality we can manage and not limit ourselves by blind idealism. If in the future, women and men are equally represented in STEM fields, then we can have a discussion about whether such conferences have outlived their purpose. But since that is not the case today, I think that trying to rectify the imbalances in a reasonable, non-confrontational way that doesn't harm anyone is laudable.
      • rimantas 13y ago
        What makes you think that 50:50 representation in given field is "the correct" one?
        • epi8 13y ago
          Nothing, and I'm not sure what the "correct" representation would be. However, I do not believe the representation we have now indicates a field with an equal barrier for entry for a man and a woman who have the same skill set, motivation, and intelligence.
      • loceng 13y ago
        First most I was trying to get clarification as to what the person meant with their comment, as what my comment was is how I interpreted their comment. I am not for or against such a conference, though ideally they're not needed - however if there's enough of a specific interest then business-minded people will try to create a conference to leverage that interest and try to make profits from that common interest - nothing wrong with that - just stating it for the point of that conferences for X,Y,Z group will always end up existing. I think the solution is to shift the power structures that have been sustained, and are perpetuated, by most of our culture's current societal structures - and so everyone - poorer women and men, any minority, have the same chance of making their way into "power." Unfortunately I have to get back to work before I start writing a mini-essay going into more depth..
    • badman_ting 13y ago
      You think this conference is wrong? Why?
      • loceng 13y ago
        I haven't read anything about the conference, other than from the title, it seems to be geared towards women. That's fine - just hoping men aren't ban from it, and wouldn't be ridiculed or outcast if they did attend.
        • badman_ting 13y ago
          Yes, it would be a shame if people attending a tech-related conference were treated harshly due to their gender.
• danilocampos 13y ago
  > Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. And if transwomen are accepted, what's their definition of that. Really. That's interesting. I know... a few feminists 'round these parts who might be characterized "radical." Can't think of anyone getting their hate on against trans women. And I don't know why you would raise such a specter of exclusion with no basis.
  • badman_ting 13y ago
    I have never heard of such a thing in a conference context, but I have seen it come up in others. And I don't think it's helpful to label such exclusion "hate", as it typically comes from women who feel that self-identifying as female is not sufficient to qualify one to be called a woman. But it's a very complex and interesting issue, not worth bringing up here, as you note. It's brought up here to stir the pot, I seriously doubt GP actually cares about transpeople at all. [Edited later: for what it's worth, I regret choosing the word "typically" above. "Sometimes" or "often" would have been more appropriate word choices]
    • mtrimpe 13y ago
      I agree that it's largely to stir the pot in this case, but as a gender-dysphoric bisexual male I am curious where the line would be drawn. I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense. Not that I'd be able to attend either way though; even though I would very much love to.
      • dictum 13y ago
        > I'm fairly sure Jessica will just apply common sense though and would put me somewhere below full (trans-)women but above cisgendered men as far as priority goes, which would make sense. Why? If anything, a heterosexual man would be more likely to benefit from a conference for female founders because his SO is a founder or wants to start a company. (Not trying to start a flame war — I just can't see the difference between a bisexual man, a homosexual man and a heterosexual man in this context.)
• limedaring 13y ago
  > Our goal with this conference is to inspire women to start (or hang in there with!) a startup through the insights and experiences of those who have done it already. If you're a woman interested in learning more about startups, I encourage you to apply. How is that discriminatory? You can't argue that women are widely represented in entrepreneurship (heck, it's an even smaller percentage than in development.) Startup School has always been 99% men. I'm personally super excited about a conference with women who've dealt with the issues I have as a female founder.
  • nawitus 13y ago
    It's discrimination by definition. Some may claim that certain kind of discrimination is positive (e.g. positive discrimination itself). I'm personally objected to all kinds of discrimination, "positive" or not.
    • limedaring 13y ago
      I think you should revisit your definition of discrimination. Discrimination is treating someone unfavorably or with prejudice due to their gender. This event is for female founders and promoting them. There is nothing against men, against male founders, or the sex in general. Just because something is for one subject does not mean it's against the opposite.
      • rimantas 13y ago
        Just because something is not against one subjets doest not mean that there is no discrimination.
      • nawitus 13y ago
        Definitions of words are a) subjective b) tools for communication and c) political. I think my definition of discrimination is better, because there's no objective definition of 'good discrimination' versus 'bad discrimination'. Defining discrimination to only mean 'bad discrimination' is then futile, and doesn't really help with communication. In fact, those endless debates of what is and what is not discrimination would be replaced with slightly more constructive debates of where discrimination might be justified and where not.
• epi8 13y ago
  So, I understand your intent, I suppose, but a think a more pragmatic viewpoint could be beneficial. Sure, this conference is aimed at women, but many tech conferences are predominantly aimed at men, simply because that's the largest demographic who attend. This isn't hurting men in any appreciable way, and could encourage more equality later down the road. > Some radical feminists only accept 'born as women' to their conferences. This may be true in some rare, extreme cases, but is frankly hard to imagine. Can you cite any sources on this? My experience (though I am neither trans nor a woman) is that people involved in the feminist movement or gender-queer community try to treat a trans person as much as possible as any other person of that gender.
  • mantas 13y ago
    How are many tech conferences "predominantly" aimed at men?By not saying they're specifically for women? So now not mentioning gender is women discrimination? Nice. Go, Equalia!
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > How are many tech conferences "predominantly" aimed at men? By not saying they're specifically for women? One common argument is that conferences that are organized predominantly by men also tend to target men, even without conscious intent, because their planning, structure, and communication reflects the different ways that men are socialized in our society.
    • epi8 13y ago
      I didn't say it was discrimination, in the same way that the conference under discussion is not discrimination. However, have you ever been to a tech conference where, say, a quarter of the attendees were women? I haven't. What I am saying is that creating at least one conference in which a woman is not unusual is not a "wrong" in the way that someone up the thread said. I don't think it's too far-fetched to claim that conference organizers try to tailor their conference to the demographic who attends. While the vast majority of topics apply equally to men and women, there may be some topics that women will be more interested in, given their minority status in the tech world. I'm saying that it is laudable to create a conference where such topics can more easily be discussed.
• bovermyer 13y ago
  I would think that gender equality would trump gender discrimination. Or are you saying that inequality is acceptable in the face of attempts to take corrective action?
• oskarth 13y ago
  > I'm against these It's not a football team. It's a conference that someone else organizes. Leave it alone if you don't like it.
  • nawitus 13y ago
    I'm against many things that should be legal and that I don't organize. Just because someone has the legal right to hold a discriminatory conference, that doesn't mean I don't have the right to criticize it.
• imgabe 13y ago
  Words have multiple meanings. Yes "to discriminate" does mean to treat one thing differently than another, to discern among various alternatives. That's not the context discrimination is being used in here. In that sense, having separate bathrooms is also "gender discrimination". Are you against that as well? In this context discrimination refers to a systemic tendency to undervalue a particular class of people for reasons unrelated to their ability to contribute. That is a situation worth reversing. Don't deliberately interpret words in the wrong context just to be a pedant.
  • rimantas 13y ago
    having separate bathrooms is not discrimination. Having bathroom only for one gender would be.
    • imgabe 13y ago
      Again, there are two different meanings of the word discriminate. Having different bathrooms is discriminating between the genders. Treating them differently. Having bathrooms for one gender and not the other would be discriminating against that gender.
      • rimantas 13y ago
        No, there are two word, discrimination and segregation. Men having a bathroom and women not (or vice versa) would be discrimination: one have bathroom, other don't. In having separate bathrooms men have a bathroom and women have a bathroom, no discrimination there.
        • dragonwriter 13y ago
          Segregation on an axis requires discrimination on the same axis (if you don't make distinctions, you can't separate.)
          • rimantas 13y ago
• neilk 13y ago
  Since you are against this conference in principle, I have a feeling you're only bringing up the trans issue to cause trouble. But, you're right, it has been an issue at some conferences. So it's worth clarifying. The Ada Initiative does not represent all women in tech, but they do help organizers with codes of conduct and other policies for female-friendly conferences. It might be good for jl and YC to consult with them. Their policies are inclusive: http://adainitiative.org/faq/#how-does-the-ada-initiative-define-women-are-trans-women-included http://adainitiative.org/faq/#how-does-the-ada-initiative-de...
  • loceng 13y ago
    Or maybe they're bringing it up because it would be gender discrimination and would be hypocritical?
• hythloday 13y ago
  "I'm against gender discrimination" Do you believe that no gender discrimination in favour of men occurs in the rest of the industry? Are you against any particular act of discrimination that you happen to witness, or are you stating a preference for a system in which no discrimination occurs? (I, too, am against gender discrimination, which is why I am for these.)
  • detcader 13y ago
    "Discrimination" is a red herring. We practice discrimination all the time, it can be a good thing. Using it like it's a dirty word is insulting to the intelligence of the organizers here.
• eevilspock 13y ago
  Imagine you're a woman. The legislature that governs your country is more than 80% male, and that's after a lot of very recent gains by women. You feel this status quo is the direct result of historical as well as current bias against women, and bias for men. Much worse, since this legislature makes the laws and performs checks on the other branches of government, the inclusion or lack thereof of women in the legislature has concrete and far reaching impacts, such as whether congress takes seriously and pursues reports of sexual harassment and discrimination in the military, or whether abortion rights are upheld. This status quo is not simply the result of age-old and deep bias, it is a player. It perpetuates the bias and slows our evolution out of it. It is in your interests to have a government that is representative and understands your difficulties as a woman in this society, that understands these biases and is highly motivated to undo them. You would also like your daughter and the daughters of others to one day look at that poster on the classroom wall with a solid block of 44 male presidents in a row and finally see a woman among them, because you know it has an impact on their psychology and dreams and perceptions of gender, even if only one woman among 44, even if it takes decades for that poster to change enough to erase its impact. You directly experience on a day to day basis how much women are limited by society simply due to their gender. It is also obvious that despite the ever increasing number of men who are sensitive to women's issues, it is fare easier for other women to share your understanding simply because they've lived it and have been pained by it. It is not just a abstract principle of equality for them. Is it not rational, in fact extremely smart, to have a preference toward electing women into office, when all other factors are more or less equal or less important? As a preference, a factor in your choice, not the sole decider, you would of course vote for a man sensitive to women's issues over a traditionalist women, or a man with unknown sensitivity to women's issues over a woman who was significantly less competent or more disagreeable with you on other important issues. Is this gender discrimination? Is it gender discrimination if said preference only lasted as long as the stilted status quo existed? Would you not be a naive idealist to stick to the notion that despite the deeply ingrained sexism in society, one should not take any active action against it other than not be sexist yourself?
  • nawitus 13y ago
    >Is it not rational, in fact extremely smart, to have a preference toward electing women into office, when all other factors are more or less equal or less important? If one assumes falsehoods, many irrational decisions becomes rational. For example, like the assumption that a male politician doesn't care about women's issues. In fact, I live in a country with 40% of the parliament being women, even though 60% of the voters are women. Women decide the outcome of the election, which might be one reason that men are used in forced labour but women are not. Anyways, if the choice is between a male and a female politician who are completely identical in every respect other than gender, then it's a roll of dice - but such a situation is not realistic.
• scott_s 13y ago
  1. The invitation form ask for gender, implying men are allowed to attend. 2. If we assume that an imbalance in a system is self-enforcing, then it is unlikely to remedy itself - even if we remove what initially caused the imbalance, because it is self-enforcing. 3. I don't think you brought up the transgender issue in good faith. The organizers of this event have given no indication that they align themselves such a fringe group.
• MartinCron 13y ago
  Please stop. Bringing up radical feminism in this context is just trolling. There is absolutely nothing radical in what they're doing here.
• Ambrosia 13y ago
  jeez what's with all of these MRAs coming out everywhere when somebody tries to do something for women? this shit happens every single time
  • detcader 13y ago
    Men always become very nervous when women try to have their own spaces, talk amongst themselves, organize into groups, etc. It's like reality can't pass the Bechdel Test.
    • aaren 13y ago
      Some men!
      • detcader 13y ago
        More like "men as a political class." I'm male, and I knew I was inviting this comment. To me saying "some men" is like giving the "good men" a cookie, when really all men should be concerned about these kinds of things, by virtue of being human.
        • mcantelon 13y ago
          >To me saying "some men" is like giving the "good men" a cookie To me, saying "some men" is being precise with language and not falling into generalization. "Men", in common usage, refers to individuals that are male, not a "political class".
          • aiiane 13y ago
            "some" people always seem to jump up to make this pedantic argument when men are generalized about, and yet somehow talking about women as a general group never seems to invoke the same.
            • mcantelon 13y ago
• Aloisius 13y ago
  > I'm against these, because I'm against gender discrimination. Gender discrimination means that one gender is treated differently from another. As a society, we accept discrimination in order to build a better and more equitable future. SV prides itself on being a meritocracy, but it isn't a perfect one. People were born with money and connections have it much easier than the average schmo off the street. But certain minorities in our field* also have the added burden of having to battle pervasive stereotypes that sometimes borders on downright hostility on top of a near complete lack of a support network. In order to become a more perfect meritocracy, we should strive to level the playground for everyone, but we can't easily tilt the playground such that average schmo's are on equal standing with people born into SV royalty, but we can make some minor shifts to help overcome the burden of being stereotyped because of what you look like. So we accept some discrimination. And we benefit from it. The fact of the matter is that having diversity in startups is A Good Thing and increases the odds of success (unless your plan is to only sell your product to people who look/act/think just like you). * Yes, women are the majority in the world, but for this and all discussions, it is important to limit ourselves to a field; in this case, tech startups. I would be just as supportive of a conference/support group/etc. for promoting and helping male child care workers (95% female) to overcome the stereotype of men being unfit for child care.