
Female Founders Conference 2015 applications are open - katm
http://blog.ycombinator.com/female-founders-conference-2015-applications-are-open
======
d0m
I understand where a lot of people commenting here come from, but I think
Female only tech events are actually amazing.

I believe the main reason why there's less women in tech is because there's
less women in tech(!) It's really hard to jump in a new field where you're the
extreme minority. Just as a crude example, imagine getting into nursing school
as a guy. That would take a lot of guts. I know because I have a friend who
did it and you can easily imagine the kind of comments he's getting all the
time from families, strangers, administrators, etc. However, if there were
more guys in nursing, it wouldn't be as hard.

You can also think about being gay in San-Francisco right now vs 50 years ago.
Yes, _a lot of things_ changed, but part of the reason why it's getting much
better is because there simply are more gays, you know you're not alone.

I'm not sure if this was a good example. But women in tech are a bit similar.
It's hard to jump in when you're the minority. It's much easier to take the
easy route and get a profession where there's already a good ratio of
men/women.

Why am I saying all this? Because I think women-only events help girls looking
to move into tech understand that there actually _are_ women in tech. If we'd
only have mixed-in events, the few women in the crowd would easily be missed
by the overwhelming majority of guys.

Someone also posted something about Black, Latino/Hispanic Founders. That's
extremely related. A black friend of mine told me that one of the hardest
thing about being black in the tech community is that he's almost always the
_only_ one. It takes a lot of guts to be the only different one in the room.
Some people like that, but for lots of people it's hard. Personally, as an
introvert, I'd hate to have everyone in the room looking at me the second I
enter the room, all the time.

~~~
belorn
The problem with using exclusion in order to solve social problems is that
sooner or later the group need to start hating others in order to validate a
continuation of the exclusion.

A extremely related issue is indeed how African Americans are treated in
American. The Black Panther Party was a reaction to racism in the police (In
1966, only 16 of Oakland's 661 police officers were African American) in the
same way that women exclusive events are a reaction to sexism and gender ratio
in IT.

I understand that using exclusion is a simple method in order create a
environment where a minority groups feel more included. It also source for
hate, tribe mentality and radicalization. When people like me criticize such
methods, it simply because the benefits do not seem to validate the high cost.

~~~
akiselev
> The problem with using exclusion in order to solve social problems is that
> sooner or later the group need to start hating others in order to validate a
> continuation of the exclusion.

I think this is a matter of perspective. When a certain section of a
population (50% in this case!) is passively or actively discouraged from
participation, I don't view an event like this as exclusion of the majority
but as radical inclusion of the minority.

YCombinator plays a significant role in the community around tech
entrepreneurship and, most importantly, how that community is portrayed to the
rest of the world. I don't see how this relates to the Black Panthers which
were started, as you say, as a response to institutional racism. If I were a
gambling man, I would bet that the Black Panthers would have had much more of
a cultural impact than they did if they were born out of, and were actively
supported, by the same institutions whose behavior they fought against.

Furthermore, humanity's tribal instincts aren't inherently bad and often they
serve a useful purpose. Who here hasn't band together with like minded
individuals for support whens faced with adversity? The problem arises when
that tribalism is used to put down other 'tribes' which I do not think is the
intention here.

~~~
belorn
You don't view it as an exclusion of anyone but as inclusion of a minority.
Here I disagree, and I do so based on YCombinator previous statements.

"the go-to place where women can speak honestly with each other, deliberately
away from the male gender".

If you think a person saying that statement is all about inclusion and not
exclusion, I suggest a test. Use such statements about people around you and
see how they react. If you are married, tell your partner that you want to go
to a party with friends, deliberately away from that person. If they react
happily and thank you for being inclusive with your friends then its clearly
shown that this is all about being inclusive.

------
zaroth
It will be interesting to see how they tailor the content to be most
useful/motivating/supportive/educational for their target audience. There is
plenty to founding a company which is entirely gender neutral, and yet,
there's a morass of unique challenges (and benefits) that _female_ founders in
particular may face.

Catering to a specific field of expertise is orthogonal to catering to a
specific pool of genetics. I think the actual reason why it would make no
sense at all to have a 'Male Founders Conference' versus the obvious appeal of
a 'Female Founders Conference' is because male founders simply don't have to
deal with their gender as part of their identity as a Founder. I don't ever
stop and think, "Is X happening because of my gender?" I very rarely have to
stop and think, "Do I need to approach this problem differently because I'm a
man?"

Whereas a female founder is almost certainly going to have their gender become
a notable / discussion-worthy factor tied into their popular identity as a
Founder (whether they want it to or not). They are going to be faced with
situations, perhaps regularly, when they will question how much their gender
played a role in a particular outcome. They will actually encounter
discrimination with some regularity, and need the tools to deal with it, and
the experience and support system to decide how they should best respond.

The way I see it, when there's nothing left to talk about at a Female Founders
conference, then we can happily stop having them.

------
benhamner
This is phenomenal & a huge thanks to YC for promoting this. The massive
gender disparity in tech is painfully clear to anyone walking the halls of a
SF startup, attending a team meeting at a large corporation, or observing . It
is a multifaceted and highly complex challenge, but hopefully strong
leadership on this issue from central players like YC will help things move in
a positive trajectory.

To those saying "what about an Latino/African American/etc. founders
conference?": you can't be everything to everyone, and you have to start
somewhere. Looking at this as a binary world view where "you can only have
nonexclusive events" or "you need to have an exclusive event for every
potentially underrepresented group" is counterproductive and gets us nowhere.
Supporting one underrepresented group will hopefully have positive downstream
effects across the board. If things like this are successful in moving one
underrepresented group on a better trajectory, then that model can be more
easily replicated.

To those saying "why not a YC conference just for male founders?" or "this
isn't necessary" or the like: you're being petty and this isn't for you. The
tech industry has plenty of open opportunities for people to connect across
the board, and stronger connections tend to be forged within smaller sub-
communities. If this and events like this encourage more females to become
founders, then that's a great outcome.

------
viiralvx
When are we going to have the Black or Latino/Hispanic Founders Conference,
YC?

------
sremani
I am not against conferences like these - women to women connection is
different from women to mixed crowd. Actually, I would not mind men only
conferences either if they improve the social environment for all the
attendees.

~~~
w1ntermute
> women to women connection is different from women to mixed crowd

Why is it socially acceptable to say this, but it's not socially acceptable to
say "men to men connection is different from men to mixed crowd"?

~~~
anigbrowl
Because men are collectively better off than women in this sector.

Your handle refers to a character in the sci-fi novel _Neuromancer_ , an
artificial intelligence that is prevented from linking up with another one to
pursue their mutual destiny by an arbitrary human prejudice against artificial
intelligence enforced by administrative fiat. In fact, the urge to circumvent
this established power structure is the motivating force that drives the plot.
Perhaps you can find a way to generalize from one disenfranchised class that
you identify or empathize with in some fashion, artificial intelligences, to
another that you apparently don't, women.

------
jcr
Anyone can apply to attend the Female Founders Conference so it's not "female
only" as some have mistakenly claimed. If you are notable in the given
specialization and you want to speak at the conference, I'm sure you could
contact them and ask if they need more speakers. Like most YC-related events
and functions (e.g. funding batches, startup school, hack weekend, etc.), the
main problem they face is most likely limited space/resources. If you know
anything about YC, then you know they will optimize for quality and
growth/scale. If you're unable to attend, YC does provide videos of the talks
[1] so you can still learn from them.

Though I'd definitely learn a lot at this conference, I'm not going to apply
for an invitation because I'd rather see the limited invitations go to people
who can make the most of them. I'm not founder material, so I should wait
until the videos get released. If I was mistakenly given an invitation, I'd
politely and humorously report it as a bug in their optimization algorithms.
;-)

HN users tptacek and cpercival are known representatives of a specific
minority in tech, namely, people with a reasonable grasp of crypto. If there
was a specialized conference of this crypto-cogent minority, the people who
would gain the most from the conference are either already crypto-cogent, or
are considering becoming crypto-cogent. The rest of us crypto-ignorant people
(myself included as an admitted crypto-failure) are much better off always
trying to learn from the experiences they generously share. If the title of
this story was, "Crypto Conference 2015 Applications Are Open," I'd like to
believe people on HN would not be arguing whether specialized cryptography
conferences should exist.

All conferences are specialized in some sense. Learning from the unique
perspectives and experiences of said specialization is one of the main reasons
for going to any conference. The other reason is networking with your peers.
The specialization can be a field, topic, group, or some other commonality. In
this case, the specialization is Female Founders and the chance to learn from
them is a fantastic but rare opportunity. The same is true for any specialized
group of notable people speaking on topics where they have the benefit of
experience and perspective.

My challenge to you, the regular HN user, is can you tell me something
interesting about the accomplishments of any of the speakers?

I'll start. Jessica Livingston wrote a book called "Founders At Work" and it's
one of my absolute favorites. I've nearly broken the binding on my copy with
all the sticky-note page markers. Though my server will probably melt from the
load, proof of my assertion is available [2].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-
uHSnFig5PSIanlQ_x6...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ-
uHSnFig5PSIanlQ_x6FApB4cX84aKX)

[2]
[http://designtools.org/pix/DSCN0022.JPG](http://designtools.org/pix/DSCN0022.JPG)

------
taprun
I always wonder if these "female only" conferences, awards and events are
beneficial for women.

Many folks might (mistakenly) see them as an admission that women can't hack
it on a level playing field. Such thoughts would only serve to harden their
chauvinistic mental models and cause gender discrimination to be more (rather
than less) likely in the future.

~~~
dang
_Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something
genuinely new to say about them._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
ps4fanboy
If women only conferences are good at helping women network and communicate
safely, I really think we could apply the same argument to men, do we just
disregard men who are to afraid or feel uncomfortable around women because we
already have too many successful men who dont suffer from this problem?

