I don't see how you can suggest that the scenarios I'm discussing are unrealistic. This thread is in response to a concrete female only conference of exactly t

I don't see how you can suggest that the scenarios I'm discussing are unrealistic. This thread is in response to a concrete female only conference of exactly the type I'm discussing. They don't fit the model(s) you're proposing as well, but that makes them different cases, not unrealistic ones. I think we are talking about a fairly different types of things. I'm talking about low-touch high n networking as you find in events, conferences, and meetups; I am not talking about high touch networking like accelerators and degree programs. Whether my suggestions are valid or not in the high touch scenario you're discussing, I don't know, as I haven't considered that case in sufficient depth. Your suggestion of there being value in a separate network hinges on, I think, there being a fundamental incompatibility between the groups. 22yo vs 32yo MBAs have real structural differences in their lives that make divided self help a plausible solution. I just don't buy that the differences we're talking about are significant enough to create fundamental incompatibilities. "The female tech network" vs "The tech network" smacks of separate but equal to me. I have no problem with female focused accelerators, but remember that YC doesn't systemically exclude MBAs to create a network of 22y.o.s. I'm enjoying the discussion (minus the part where you try to dismiss my cases as unrealistic) as you're bringing up models and cases that I hadn't yet considered. Is the goal to have two networks, or to achieve gender neutrality in the existing meta-network? I think our goal is gender neutrality.