Cool I am going to host the "Male Founders Conference" And no girls are allowed....

Hacker News

Cool I am going to host the "Male Founders Conference" And no girls are allowed.

What are you implicitly stating here? Women aren't good enough to stand toe to toe with male founders so the only way they will ever be able to succeed is if they are given special treatment. Why can't I go to this event and learn from female founders do they have nothing of value to convey to me as a male ?

ChrisAntaki 269 days ago | link

> Cool I am going to host the "Male Founders Conference"

I feel like I've seen that conference before, many times. Don't get me wrong, there were some very good speakers. But if one is trying to differentiate, and try something fresh, an all women conference makes a lot of sense.

-----

human_error 269 days ago | link

> I feel like I've seen that conference before, many times.

Really? Where? Could you please give an example?

-----

Tohhou 269 days ago | link

Silly males! The world is your conference!

-----

danilocampos 269 days ago | link

Uh, every single tech conference... ever?

-----

rimantas 269 days ago | link

Every single tech conference did not allow girls? Really?

-----

kyro 269 days ago | link

I've got a question for you.

Blacks are incredibly underrepresented in the medical field (13% in the US population, 4% as physicians). Some believe it to be due to the damaging effects of medical experiments conducted on African Americans -- eg. the Tuskegee experiment where many were purposefully left untreated for syphilis despite the existence of a simple treatment (read: penicillin). Other reasons include the lack of African American physicians in the media, peer-pressure to pursue other career paths, and financial constraints. Bottom line: there is a racial disparity in the medical field, and those that are underrepresented have some very legitimate reservations for entering that industry.

So, the question: Would you be against movements targeted towards Blacks/African Americans meant to both encourage them as well as address their many concerns regarding entering a career in medicine?

-----

rimantas 269 days ago | link

To answer your question first: depends what you mean by "encourage". If it implies some "positive discrimination", quotas, etc. then yes, I'd be against it.

Alas, I am afraid that is is already impossible to have rational discussion about anything involving race or gender. Race especially, but the gender is quickly reaching the same level of thought-stopping cliche. Say anything out of line with politcorrect white-knighty position and you will be labeled racist or sexist, and quite often by those who don't even know what those words really mean.

On the other hand, white population is seriously underrepresented in the NBA (only 17% of players are white). Don't you thinks something must be done, and soon?

-----

mcantelon 269 days ago | link

>Some believe it to be due to the damaging effects of medical experiments conducted on African Americans

Or an even simpler explanation: medical education is expensive and many blacks (and members of other races) are working class. So perhaps scholarships tailored towards the economically disadvantaged, rather than any specific race, would address the disparity.

-----

kyro 269 days ago | link

High tuition is one reason, yes, but it isn't the entire story.

Check out:

- http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-...

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575862/

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9395587

-----

mcantelon 269 days ago | link

Interesting. In the abstracts of the two studies of the issue that you link to, one highlights financial concerns and the other ignores this factor.

-----

Crake 269 days ago | link

But that would benefit poor people of all colors! We can't help out white people--1 homeless straight white male already has more privilege than ALL black millionaires COMBINED!

-----

zequel 269 days ago | link

the Tuskegee experiment??

Just no, no no no. I don't think any black person nowadays thinks "Wow, can't go into the medical field because of that experiment that happened 40 years ago!" That's just illogical.

-----

kyro 269 days ago | link

Historical events can cause effects that span multiple generations, effects that can manifest in ways not immediately traceable to the inciting incident. Black kids don't drop out of high school and cite slavery as the reason.

-----

iskander 269 days ago | link

I just started working at a research hospital. One problem I've heard mentioned from several people is the difficulty of getting black patients to participate in studies or even consent to having their biological samples used for research. If you think this is "illogical", then you're probably (1) don't belong to a lower status group in American society and (2) haven't read much about the history of medical experimentation. Tuskegee wasn't an isolated incident, before the advent of modern consent & ethics standard, medical experimentation in the US preyed on the lower rungs of society.

Some examples:

* Holmeburg prison: http://www.amazon.com/Acres-Skin-Experiments-Holmesburg-Pris...

* Development of modern gynecology through live experiments on slaves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marion_Sims#Medical_experime...

* Whole-body radiation exposure experiment in the 60s: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/06/local/me-saenger6

* Immortalized cell line from Henrietta Lacks without her permission or that of her family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

and, of course, there was eugenics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#C...

-----

PopsiclePete 269 days ago | link

Sheesh. Somebody feels threatened. Let them be, seriously. We have enough "Ruby-on-rails super-star douche-wad with tits and porn jokes on his slides" events for overgrown man-children, let there be something for women that doesn't make them feel awkward or weird.

We already have a problem with this industry being a boys-only club, no need to get your panties in a bunch over this.

-----

rimantas 269 days ago | link

Or maybe women feel awkward and weird when tits and porn jokes are on slides just because men taught them to feel that way?

  > overgrown man-children

That's the spirit!

-----

danellis 269 days ago | link

What do you mean to say by suggesting that a man is wearing "panties"? It reads like you're suggesting he is acting like a woman by getting upset, which makes your position very unclear.

-----

nRike 269 days ago | link

> Cool I am going to host the "Male Founders Conference" And no girls are allowed.

You can apply if you are male.

> Why can't I go to this event and learn from female founders do they have nothing of value to convey to me as a male ?

I think the conference goal is pretty clear: help aspiring female founders start more startups, the same way Startup School does.

-----

human_error 269 days ago | link

> You can apply if you are male.

Don't you think it'd be just a 'founders conference' in that case?

-----

nRike 269 days ago | link

> Don't you think it'd be just a 'founders conference' in that case?

That's right, but its seems YC is looking to find an open space for aspiring female founders and, at the same time, still remain open for male atendees. What I said was because in the application form you can say if you are male or female.

-----

SDGT 269 days ago | link

> YC is looking to find an open space for aspiring female founders and...

PG is probably partially covering his own ass after the most recent debacle. Correlation does not equal causation and all that fun stuff, but this is rather well timed.

-----

smtddr 269 days ago | link

Nope. PG planned this before that other incident happened.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7097462

-----

Permit 269 days ago | link

It makes a lot of sense to encourage minority groups to join a field. An example including men would be something like the American Assembly for Men in Nursing.[1]

Alternatively, there are men-only classes for parenting, and those aimed at stay-at-home fathers.

These sorts of groups are not exclusive to women.

[1]http://aamn.org/

-----

kyro 269 days ago | link

Please explain to me the worst that can happen because of an event like this.

-----

dkhenry 269 days ago | link

People who might not have the ability to succeed in the wider market are encouraged to start and then drop out and they extend the perception that females aren't suited to be start-up founders

-----

kyro 269 days ago | link

That you take an event like this meant to inspire and empower an underrepresented group and interpret its implication to mean that said group is somehow inferior to the majority is just a remarkable level of mental gymnastics.

You are essentially in support of no form of supportive outreach that targets a specific group because the act of targeting alone implies a kind of special assistance for the less capable.

-----

dkhenry 269 days ago | link

Actually I would be against most forms of target supportive outreach. The one exception would be experiential targeting ( I have no issues with a "First time founders" conference ) I don't subscribe to the notion that the way to fix the imbalance in anything is to treat groups of individuals special. That has never worked through all of history so I don't know why we think it will start working now.

-----

kyro 269 days ago | link

But can't you look at this event in the same light? To women, blacks, etc, entering a given field in which you are underrepresented, you are no different than a first time founder with concerns, reservations, a desire to connect with people similar to you who've achieved success and to learn about the obstacles you may face. The set of factors that may work against a woman getting into tech may differ from that that works against other groups doing the same. There's no harm in addressing these sets of concerns specifically. It seems like a more efficient way.

-----

jmelesky 269 days ago | link

> What are you implicitly stating here?

Good question. Actually, let's ask more simply "what are you stating here?"

> Women aren't good enough to stand toe to toe with male founders so the only way they will ever be able to succeed is if they are given special treatment.

It seems unlikely that's what they're stating. What other possible interpretations could there be? Or do you sincerely believe that the organizers of this conference are denigrating women? If so, how do you go about warning your female founder friends that this conference is denigrating them?

-----

wellboy 269 days ago | link

Could you kindly s tfu please?

Women do simply have it much harder than men in tech and if you even criticize them for trying to build a community, you do a lot of harm to the whole industry and will scare away even more women from becoming interested in tech.

With statements like yours, you are making sure that the gender divide becomes bigger and bigger and that people become very sensitive and insecure when discussing female founders, female programmers and similar.

-----

Crake 269 days ago | link

Feminists are probably the #1 force for scaring away women from tech. If you say something is true enough times (All men might rape you! Programmers all hate women!), especially from a position of power and political influence, people will start to believe it. Encouraging and (in some cases, like donglegate) inducing both an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in and towards women is incredibly detrimental towards the general humanitarian goal of bettering society.

There are isolated instances of sexism, but women don't really have it hard at all in tech. I'd say the sex discrimination in favor of women ("affirmative action") massively outweighs any lingering discrimination against women.

-----

orthecreedence 269 days ago | link

Normally I'd keep walking but, respectfully, I think you need to shut the hell up.

> All men might rape you!

Nobody says this. Nobody. There's this leftover artifact of overreach from feminists in the 90s that makes people think feminism is about castrating men and putting them in little cages until mating season, but most feminists don't think like this and certainly not most women.

> Programmers all hate women!

This wasn't feminism, this is the NYT spreading their usual ignorant filth about the tech industry.

> in some cases, like donglegate

Yes, that was ridiculous. That doesn't mean all women in tech are touchy and going to explode if you say "thrust" or "spurt" or whatever the hell else other words have double meanings.

> women don't really have it hard at all in tech

Are you a woman? If so, your experiences may have been great so far...good for you! If not, shut the hell up because you don't know what you're talking about: whether or not being a woman in tech is difficult or not isn't for you to say because you are not a woman in tech.

-----

Crake 269 days ago | link

>I think you need to shut the hell up.

Dissenters are just so problematic, aren't they?

>Nobody says this. Nobody. >feminists in the 90s

More like 2009.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-sch...

>This wasn't feminism, this is the NYT spreading their usual ignorant filth about the tech industry.

Feministing, Jezebel, and the like seem to have a lot to say on the subject. Hell, so do a lot of HN comments about how "toxic" and "hostile" tech workers are towards women.

Also, anyone can call themselves a feminist. It's not up to you to decide who is or isn't one.

>Are you a woman?

That shouldn't matter. Why do you need to ask about my genitalia in order to decide what to say to me? You should treat me the same way, whether I'm male or female. Address my brain, not my body.

>If not, shut the hell up

So, I'm either allowed to speak or not allowed to speak based exclusively on something I was born with and have no control over.

I guess if I have the "right" genitals, I only have to "shut the hell up" once instead of twice. Either way, it seems you don't want anyone to disagree with you--even if they are a woman, you'd still prefer them to think what you think women should be thinking.

Telling me to just "shut the hell up" isn't exactly a convincing argument. I'm not a kid, and you're not my parent. "Because I told you to" isn't a valid argument for this sort of exchange.

-----

wellboy 269 days ago | link

> women don't really have it hard at all in tech + affirmative action

I'm sorry, but the facts are all against what you were saying. I've read numerous stories about female programmers having a hard time fitting in at work, facing prejudice all the time etc. Same about female tech-founders.

You might be right in the business world or more "female-like" industries such as fashion, but definitely not in tech.

-----

Crake 269 days ago | link

>the facts are all against what you were saying

This would probably be more convincing if actually you provided any, instead of just vaguely referencing anecdotes. Without it, you have just an opinion, not an argument.

-----

wellboy 269 days ago | link

Yeah sorry, I think you have a lot of basics missing so it would take several years and experiencing the world lots more for you to understand it.

-----

Crake 269 days ago | link

Ah, more anecdotes. Of course.

-----

wellboy 269 days ago | link

Why the downvotes, I said kindly?

-----

tomp 269 days ago | link

>s tfu

Not really.

The way I understand GP's comment, he was stating why the whole idea might be considered controversial/misandric/inappropriate by reversing the genders (I'd say he was quite successful, btw, as you have clearly demonstrated by assuming chauvinistic/misogynistic intentions behind GP's comment). On the other hand, what you have done is you projected your dogmatic worldview where intellectual discussion and criticism is not welcome and only one point of view is correct/allowed.

-----

wellboy 269 days ago | link

If you mean that he meant his comment to be satirical, I can't see a hint for that anywhere in his comment.

-----

tomp 269 days ago | link

No, I mean that he was making a point, as if (s)he was in a debate and he was assigned to argue the opposite side of the argument

-----

wellboy 269 days ago | link

Looking at the other comments, he was serious...gotta fight that!

-----

asdasf 269 days ago | link

>With statements like yours, you are making sure that the gender divide becomes bigger and bigger and that people become very sensitive and insecure when discussing female founders, female programmers and similar.

No, that is what statements like yours do. Contrary to popular belief, not all women share a single brain and all think the same thing. Many women do not like being singled out with patronizing events like this. They do not enjoy being reminded once again that they are not "programmers" but "women programmers", to be used as tools to score points in a game of politics.

-----

Crake 269 days ago | link

Thank you.

-----

rfnslyr 269 days ago | link

Why can't people just have their own events for their own people where they feel more comfortable? Maybe that's what it takes for some women, a friendly environment of just women.

Let it be.

-----

orthecreedence 269 days ago | link

Yeah take a look at some of the comments here, and it's understandable why there would be a conference geared towards women.

That said, it's not like they're pulling down your pants and checking if you have a dick at the door. Men can go. It's a conference to help women with the challenges they will face specifically as females in the tech industry. If you find this topic interesting, then by all means go: man, woman, or anyone inbetween.

-----

danellis 269 days ago | link

As a man, I wonder what makes me assumed to be so unfriendly to women.

-----