Google Hosts Special Demo Day For Female Entrepreneurs (thenewstack.io) 220
An anonymous reader writes: Wednesday Google hosted a special edition of their annual "Demo Day" event featuring 11 early-stage startup companies founded by women from eight different countries. More than 450 women from 40 different counties applied for a spot, and the winner of the competition was Bridgit, a fast-growing Canadian company which provides a mobile communications platform for construction teams. Online voters also awarded the "Game Changer" title to KiChing, a startup that's actively addressing Mexico's unique e-commerce challenges. But all of the startups at Wednesday's event were already actively raising series-A funding, and "We aim to help connect them to mentors, access to capital, and shine a spotlight on their efforts," said Mary Grove, the director of Google for Entrepreneurs, addressing the Demo Day audience in San Francisco.
Another poor summary (Score:1, Funny)
Missing important details like how many sandwiches did they make?
Why are most of the Rust contributors men? (Score:1)
There's a fellow at work who keeps going on and on about how great the Rust [rust-lang.org] programming language is. He keeps raving about how its community is totally diverse, how it has a code of conduct, how there's a team that goes after people who don't follow the code of conduct, and how it's the most progressive programming language community he has ever been a part of. Yet when I go look at the contributors [github.com] to Rust, I see one male after another. Why are so many Rust contributors men? If the project is so inclusive,
Re: (Score:1)
Missing important details like how many sandwiches did they make?
It's actually a position of incredible weakness to only be able to eat a sandwich if a woman makes it for you - which perhaps explains why men in that position feel so much anger.
That's not to say that there are no advantages to cooperation and reciprocity, "I'll take change the burned-out light-bulb in the garage while you make us some sandwiches for lunch."
But there's also a huge sense of satisfaction and power from being able to make your own sandwich - to be able to eat a sandwich whenever you want reg
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like we have a... (Score:1)
Slow news day.
Re: (Score:2)
Very slow, it arrived three days late.
Here we go again (Score:1)
Quotas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Most top scientists are white males, but that doesn't mean black females are just genetically inferior. It just means that history has provided more opportunities to develop talent to white males.
Of course, long ago it was mostly middle eastern males, or Greek males, or Chinese males, depending on who had opportunity at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
(since you don't have the option of finding a rich spouse to support you if you fail).
Hey, don't disparage my five-year plan.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of "social tribes" composed primarily by white people (for example, skin heads) that are known to be "problematic", and if you look like one of them be assured that you will not pass a job interview.
No one is claiming you cannot throw away your opportunities with poor choices.
Re:Quotas (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always been clear why women aren't competitive with men at the 100-meter dash, but it's not clear why women aren't competitive with men at professional poker.
Most likely it's the testosterone.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That's because they have smaller brains and are not as smart and need a special edge, just like here where they need their own special Female Entrepreneurs events, since they can't compete with men evenly. At least that is the message that Google seems to be sending.
The fact you're receiving that message has more to do with you than Google.
Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages that men get when it comes to entrepreneurship in the technology industry and see events such as this as attempts to even a heavily tilted playing field.
Re:Quotas (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages"
Like the men only demo days, men only networking events, men only scholarships, men only mentor setup programs, men only coding programs and so on. I think what you mean to write was: "Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages that women get".
Re: (Score:2)
"Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages"
Like the men only demo days, men only networking events, men only scholarships, men only mentor setup programs, men only coding programs and so on. I think what you mean to write was: "Some of us are able to recognize the extreme advantages that women get".
The fact that when you have a mixed group people just automatically assume one of the guys in the leader.
That there's a lot more successful guys to mentor younger guys than there are successful women to mentor young women.
Or all the legitimate misogynists who have a real problem with the prospect of a female superior.
Or how uncomfortable it can be working in an industry that can be really hostile to women.
Or the very powerful fact when you're a guy you're surrounded by examples of male leaders and entrepren
Re: (Score:2)
Except I don't think guys only mentor guys and girls only mentor girls. (NB, I'm willing to use men and women, or guys and girls, but you should be consistent in your forms). I think the number of misogynists who have a problem with a female superior are really, really small. And with every company and incubator having events like this, how is the industry hostile to women?
Re: (Score:1)
> The fact that when you have a mixed group people just automatically assume one of the guys in the leader.
That's not really much of an advantage.
> That there's a lot more successful guys to mentor younger guys than there are successful women to mentor young women.
There's zero reason, other than bigotry, to assume that people need a same-gender mentor. Do you think it's okay for people to say they're not comfortable around women? If yes, then how is that different from being "uncomfortable" around b
Re: (Score:2)
> The fact that when you have a mixed group people just automatically assume one of the guys in the leader.
That's not really much of an advantage.
It isn't? How do you think people end up in management? How do you think they get the idea that they have leadership skills?
> That there's a lot more successful guys to mentor younger guys than there are successful women to mentor young women.
There's zero reason, other than bigotry, to assume that people need a same-gender mentor. Do you think it's okay for people to say they're not comfortable around women? If yes, then how is that different from being "uncomfortable" around black people?
Mixed gender is fine, but same gender gives them the ability to effectively council them about gender-specific issues. It also reduces worries that an older man mentoring a younger woman will be perceived to have ulterior motives.
That's two non-bigotry reasons.
> Or all the legitimate misogynists who have a real problem with the prospect of a female superior.
And every legitimate problem someone has with a female superior will get blamed on mysogyny.
Only if they express their concerns in misogynist terms.
> Or how uncomfortable it can be working in an industry that can be really hostile to women.
So you don't think that saying "you have a penis, you're not welcome at demo day" is hostile?
No because there's lots of different high quality demo days for guys to
Re: (Score:2)
When we are successful it is because of our hard work and perseverance. Something I have yet to see any women display. All they do is bitch and moan about how misogyny is keeping them down.
Simultaneously denying the effects of misogyny while claiming to have never seen a woman display "hard work and perseverance".
Do I file that under oblivious or ironic?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Men get all those things. That's the default state of most of these things, 90%+ male and sometimes 100%.
It's not really an advantage though, men are worse off because of it.
Re: (Score:1)
Why am I not shocked any more to read SJWs misinterpret good points in order to make an emotional message filled with unnecessary contempt?
To "even" the playing field by refusing to extend advantages to others based solely on gender or race is just wrong. The right way is to ensure all who wish it have equal access. Work to reduce roadblocks, not present golden highways meant only for certain races or genders every time some quota isn't being met.
SJWs are on the wrong side of history. All good people must
Re: (Score:1)
Moderation timeline of your post:
Early mods arrive: +5 Insightful
MRA mods arrive: -1 Troll / Overrated
Metamods arrive: Insightful again
Happens on every story about women.
Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So now that women have their own safe space we can expect some amazing innovation to follow. But if we don't, I wonder what the next excuse will be?
Spherical Cows?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you expect more from women? Men have had spaces and opportunities forever, and most of them produced mediocre crap that no one remembers now.
People forget that for every Uber or Twitter there are 1000 other platforms that failed. That's how it works, lots of people failing but a few turning into billion dollar businesses.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
>Why do you expect more from women?
I don't, its women who do. It was women who said that if it wasn't for all the nasty misogyny everywhere that women would prove themselves actually better than men. But I'm a reasonable guy, with safe spaces and free this and that, and sexist women only funding, I'd happy if they were to produce one tenth that of men. But ten thousand years of evolution wouldn't bet on it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are going to have to specify which women said that. There are 3.5 billion of them, and it's not a mainstream point of view, so we need to know who said it and why you are holding this group to that standard.
Re: (Score:1)
The assertion that women can do anything a man can, only better, is the core tenant of feminism. But you know this already, and prefer to feign ignorance rather than admit what you've been taught is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have been misinformed. Feminism is the pursuit of equality for women, based on the theory that women are different but equally valued as human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
Feminism is the pursuit of equality for women, based on the theory that women are different but equally valued as human beings.
The label, however, is used by many people to describe their particular flavor of hate. For example, the pursuit of superiority for women, or even just the pursuit of equality for women based on the notion that all things are all men's fault. And as a label for equality, it is especially crap, seeing as how it is inherently feminine. Feminism is more properly the pursuit of additional rights for women. There is nothing wrong with that, except when people use the name as an excuse for some bullshit.
There are
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. For it to be that, the person must clearly be part of a well defined group. In the example the person is from Scotland, with Scottish parents and citizenship.
You can't make it work the other way around, i.e. arbitrarily defining the nature of Scottishness to fit the person in question. Feminism is well defined by decades of work on the subject, and anyone arguing that women are superior to men is by definition an anti-feminist.
I think it would reall
Re: (Score:3)
You can't make it work the other way around, i.e. arbitrarily defining the nature of Scottishness to fit the person in question. Feminism is well defined by decades of work on the subject, and anyone arguing that women are superior to men is by definition an anti-feminist.
You could say the same thing about Christianity, and you'd be just as wrong. Technically, you're not a capital-C-Christian if you don't take on the Holy Trinity ever since Nicea. And while you might technically not be a feminist if you blame everything on men, you can still call yourself one and go to meetings.
I think it would really help if you tried to understand the difference between "men" and "masculinity" too.
I'm not the one with the problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
So now that women have their own safe space we can expect some amazing innovation to follow. But if we don't, I wonder what the next excuse will be?
Because women have never achieved amazing innovation? http://www.entrepreneur.com/ar... [entrepreneur.com]
http://www.investopedia.com/ar... [investopedia.com]
http://womenshistory.about.com... [about.com]
If you haven't been as accomplished as these women...I have to ask...what's your bloody excuse?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Sounds like you're arguing that women have already surpassed men in technology, and if so then why do they need special safe spaces?
"startup" = app idea (Score:5, Insightful)
"Tech entrepreneurs" of whatever gender are mostly just rich/connected people with an idea for an app and either are personal friends with or hire someone to actually make the beast.
90% of "tech startups" are "apps" of some time or have them as a major part of what they do.
It was different back in the day.
In the US, typically the person with the money wanted to be the "investor" and the "entrepreneur" was the same as the inventor or coder.
Old-school rich people showed off by being able to choose the right person to invest in, nowadays the new-school rich show off by *being* the person at the top of the investment, at least publicly.
More sexual discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered suing? If your son really is disadvantaged then you would have a good case and could probably get someone to pay your legal fees or work pro-bono.
Never the twain (Score:2)
I don't think men and women are ever meant to see eye to eye. Each sex finds the other intoxicating and infuriating in equal amount. However I do think this perpetual turbulence must help us thrive as a species somehow.
Or maybe we're just the Gods' reality show, and the producers made us this way to "stir up some trouble", and make it more interesting. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think men and women are ever meant to see eye to eye. Each sex finds the other intoxicating and infuriating in equal amount.
Speak for yourself. There are plenty of women I see eye to eye with and plenty of men I don't. Since I figured out that feemales are people and in fact I wasn't going to attempt to initiate sexy times with the vast vast majority of them it became much simpler and easier.
The people I tend to see eye to eye with best on average are fellow nerds because that's who I have most in c
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good distinction. I should have been clearer that I was considering men and women statistically as a group. (Also that I was talking about heterosexual people).
Given the above, then as you say, there is certainly enormous variation within a random collection of men. What there isn't however, is any sexual tension between members of that group. My claim is that it is this extra ingredient that causes so much of the trouble between men and women.
Where is APK? (Score:2)
Even Google hosts! The only way, which does not only block ads, but malware and government spying!
KiChing (Score:2)
KiChing, a startup that's actively addressing Mexico's unique e-commerce challenges
Really? They named a company intended for Mexican markets something that basically translates into KiFuc?!
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to flame - not being a Jerk, just pointing out a disconnect at Google HQ.
What if one of those Female Entrepreneurs sold confederate merchandise in her "Bring Back the Dukes of Hazard" store?
Well then obviously the Patriarchy made her do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How long have you been here?
The general consensus on Slashdot is that:
1. Men have no advantage over women; quite the opposite, a significant set of disadvantages;
2. Women are under-represented in higher-earning professions because "they just don't feel like it"
3. Anything aimed at women only is end-of-the-word discrimination.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How long have you been here?
The general consensus on Slashdot is that:
1. Men have no advantage over women; quite the opposite, a significant set of disadvantages;
2. Women are under-represented in higher-earning professions because "they just don't feel like it"
3. Anything aimed at women only is end-of-the-word discrimination.
I'm trying to shift that consensus.
Mostly when I read a thread on /. I see similar opinions to those I see in the industry as a whole.
But whenever an article about feminism comes up the comment threads become absolutely toxic. I normally brag to people about the high quality of comments on /., but I don't want any association with the views I see expressed in threads like these.
These threads aren't going to get any better until those those of us who disagree with this consensus speak up and make our case.
Re:Discrimination is discrimination (Score:5, Informative)
These threads aren't going to get any better until those those of us who disagree with this consensus speak up and make our case.
What are your thoughts about female discouragement of other females?
My wife was an example of of what a lot of women say is the goal. Well paid, well respected, no one's fool.
Oh - hold on. Many of the other women hated her. Not for her personality, which is admittedly alpha, but for her success. The backstabbing and occasional sabotage by jealous females was something that didn't go over too well.
The men? Despite the meme of men being the source of all trouble, they respect and with one exception really like her. They certainly listen to her when she hands out the orders. And this is in an industry with a lot of "traditional" type guys.
The same situation exists with the female engineers and scientists I worked with. Many ended up associating with only men at work because we would accept them. In the end, is it even wrong to lay all of the blame for gender issues at the feet of men?
Re:Discrimination is discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of Slashdotters are, to put it simply, against discrimination. If there was discrimination against women as blatant as the discrimination against men in this story, I assure you, it would be condemned just as strongly.
Essentially, there are three groups, with different beliefs:
A: Discrimination against women is more acceptable than discrimination against men.
B: Discrimination against men and women are equally unacceptable.
C: Discrimination against men is more acceptable than discrimination against women.
Groups A and C are sexist. The majority of Slashdotters are in group B. You, and a substantial minority, are in group C. No one is in group A.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a forth option:
D: Things that help women gain equality while not directly harming men are an acceptable way to correct the existing imbalance.
So, in this case, men are not actually being hurt in any way*, and the goal is to correct the imbalance in tech, and thus it is okay. D is the mainstream view held by the majority of people, which is why events like this are legal and rarely challenged.
* I'm looking forward to the tortured logic that tires to claim it is though.
Simple logic: sexism is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in this case, men are not actually being hurt in any way....I'm looking forward to the tortured logic that tires to claim it is though.
No tortured logic required, just a reversal of roles. Suppose the event had been organized such that women were excluded? This would be regarded by almost everyone to be sexist discrimination that denied women a fair opportunity to demonstrate their talents to Google and thus it harms them. If this is true for women if then, by symmetry it applies to men when they are excluded. To argue otherwise would be to claim the sexism does not harm those it is biased against.
There may be a more subtle bias elsewhere which harms women but surely the society we want to strive for is where nobody's chances of success are harmed by their gender not one where we strive to harm everyone equally? The solution to sexism is to identify it and fix it not to be equally sexist in reverse. As the old saying goes "two wrongs do not make a right".
Re: (Score:2)
There can only be symmetry if you assume than women have an equal opportunity in this area. As the premise stated, and you conveniently ignored, that is not the case.
See what I mean about tortured logic? You have to use a straw man to make your counter point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And you have the false premise that there is a lack of equal opportunity. Of course sound bites promoting an agenda based off ideology is better than actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
And you have the false premise that there is a lack of equal opportunity. Of course sound bites promoting an agenda based off ideology is better than actual evidence.
Indeed, everyone is free to dine at the Ritz.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple logic: sexism is wrong ... No tortured logic required
The problem isn't tortured logic, it is simplistic understanding of what makes discrimination and sexism bad. When people complain about reverse sexism, racism, etc. they are usually making the mistake that all discrimination is bad. This is because colloquially we add the same connotations to the words discriminate and prejudice. Prejudices lead to poor discriminating behavior. But discriminating behavior can be very beneficial when it allows people to more efficiently make choices and create change.
It is
Lookup definition of prejudice (Score:2)
Claiming something is wrong just because it includes discriminating behavior is not a valid argument by itself, as it is quite intellectually dishonest. Unless prejudice against men is found (aka, they aren't being included because they are deemed inferior)...
I disagree. Discrimination based on gender, unless our different biology is relevant, is wrong because it automatically implies prejudice. Look up the definition: prejudice is "an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge" [cambridge.org]. Hence this example is prejudicial against men since they are being rejected out of hand without and knowledge of who they are based solely on the unreasonable criteria that they are men.
I never said that all discrimination i
Re: (Score:2)
Could you be so kind to actually mention that evidence that shows that "this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument", unless it's just the fact that there are more than X% of people of gender A in particular field.
While you probably won't take the time to read any of these and/or will claim all research you disagree with is biased, here you go. Most of the research where double blind tests are easily done includes using identical resumes other than the gender of the applicant. It is pretty hard to see how people still claim these biases do not exist, but here we are.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students [pnas.org]
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science [pnas.org]
Gender Bias Against Women of Color [uchastings.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Not all discrimination is bad? Then before we go any further:
1. Explain why it's morally wrong and detrimental to society for women to be discriminated against.
2. If it's wrong then give concrete examples with supporting evidence to show how women are currently being discriminated against-- no need to be exhaustive, three examples will do.
1. I'm assuming you mean discriminated against based on societal prejudices. If you mean discrimination such as giving them different bathrooms or private areas to pump breast milk then I find nothing morally wrong about that.
a. Providing equal opportunity is a moral imperative for most people in the western world, especially the United States.
b. Society is improved when every member has equal opportunity to fulfill their full potential. When someone does not fulfill their full potential because of lack of
Re: (Score:2)
This is begging the question. Why is it a moral imperative?
This type of reductive argument is too complex to discuss in a Slashdot post. If you disagree that concepts such as personal freedom or equal opportunity are not moral imperatives then there is little to be gained from this discussion. Equal opportunity is a very new addition to the moral code of even western societies, just as the assertion that slavery is immoral is fairly new. You may have a different moral code than our society at large, but if you cannot admit the current moral code of most of western
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it must be answered before the question of what to do about it.
The reason it's important to me is that I reject the notion that because a lot of people (i.e. most of Western society) think a certain way makes it correct and furthermore that the sheer weight of numbers is a valid basis for morality: peer pressure is just bullying.
The reality is this has been answered by society. Virtually no one here is arguing that women don't deserve equal opportunity except you. There are certainly some other outliers like yourself, but you are certainly the vast minority. The people complaining about SJWs are complaining that women do have equal treatment, not that they don't deserve it. This is a belief many people share, so it is a worthwhile argument to have. Your belief that we should even question the merit of equal opportunity is such a fr
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, claiming that "it's obvious why discrimination against women is wrong!" is begging the question on top of undermining your argument.
It's axiomatic, like "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Or "slavery is wrong."
Re: (Score:2)
A: Discrimination against women is more acceptable than discrimination against men.
B: Discrimination against men and women are equally unacceptable.
C: Discrimination against men is more acceptable than discrimination against women.
Sure, few publicly state that they are members of A. However, the status quo is A. Therefore if you are satisfied with the status quo, then you are a member of A.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the Slashdot idea that we live in a perfect society where there is no sex discrimination going on, which means that all (not just some) differences are due to personal inclination. I've also seen the claim that lack of legal obstacles means there's no discrimination (and those people should recognize that Google is legally free to do as it likes in this area). I don't believe those, and I'm for measures that will at least attempt to correct things. As far as I'm concerned, we do not live in
Re: (Score:2)
Right, men really struggle to compete with all those women being forced into jobs they don't want. Men have to work twice as hard, and if they can't they complain that it's because women made overtime a dirty word or got them fired for doing guy stuff that other guys wouldn't mind, like sending dick pics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Discrimination is discrimination (Score:5, Informative)
Go tell a women she has to pull a few all-nighter because the product need to be shipped Sunday evening...
I know several female devs.
They've been just as likely to stay late or come in on weekends as anyone else.
Now they didn't have kids so maybe that would change if they get children, but for the childless twenty-somethings, they're just as dedicated as the guys.
Re: (Score:2)
We should praise the ones who don't want to stay late. They hurt themselves, and they hurt the rest of us by normalising it to the point where it's expected if you want to get ahead.
I worked at a place that discouraged it, and always made people who worked late for exceptional reasons take the time off later. As such people would set realistic deadlines and not pressure others to work late to make them look good.
Subordinates having too much overtime was taken as a sign of poor management.
Re: (Score:3)
Mark it on the calender we agree about something. Unfortunately a lot of people are forced into overtime due to the lack of living wages.
Re: (Score:2)
We should praise the ones who don't want to stay late. They hurt themselves, and they hurt the rest of us by normalising it to the point where it's expected if you want to get ahead.
I worked at a place that discouraged it, and always made people who worked late for exceptional reasons take the time off later. As such people would set realistic deadlines and not pressure others to work late to make them look good.
Subordinates having too much overtime was taken as a sign of poor management.
I agree though our place is really good about that.
Previously we were hourly so to the extent people did OT they were generally driving it themselves. Now we're on salary but management is very good about encouraging a 40hr week. If you work 42 your manager starts asking why you aren't going home earlier.
It's still a pain if it happens since you do plan your life around a regular workday and weekends off, but it's not a terribly common occurrence.
Re: Discrimination is discrimination (Score:2)
Amen, +5. I know several devs who are women and a higher percentage of them won't put up with management bullshit than the male devs I know (many of whom are human floormats). The very best thing male devs can do for the culture is to aspire to be as socially courageous and self-respecting as the women. One reason female devs are disrespected is because male devs create an environment for all devs to be disrespected.
Of course, when my plans for groups include "be more courageous" usually I'm disappointed
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those are formed in gender studies instead of some STEM area?
I bet on none, which is why they're actually "white CIS males in disguise and don't actually count" for the PC group of evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exceptions that prove the rule.
If everyone I know is an exception then it's not a very useful rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What advantage? Are males somehow better?
All these 'helping hands' given to women make us look weak and pathetic. As a woman, I don't like that.
Re:Discrimination is discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
Being barely 1/3rd of college graduates is an advantage? Having virtually no special programs, aid, funding, or mentorship available to you is an advantage? Being utterly excluded from virtually the entire social safety net in case you go broke trying is an advantage?
Re: (Score:2)
Being utterly excluded from virtually the entire social safety net in case you go broke trying is an advantage?
After 12 years as a freelancer, I can say with confidence: In America there IS NO safety net. Long-term dependency programs for the permanent underclass? Sure! Help for a productive person who has fallen on temporary hard times? Nada, zip, zilch, none.
Re: (Score:3)
Males have a ridiculous number of advantages when it comes to becoming entrepreneurs, having the occasional female-specific event to try and correct some of the imbalance does not count as discrimination.
"Advantages"? Like what?
"Correct"? Why is there a need to "correct"?
Re: (Score:2)
Males have a ridiculous number of advantages when it comes to becoming entrepreneurs, having the occasional female-specific event to try and correct some of the imbalance does not count as discrimination.
"Advantages"? Like what?
"Correct"? Why is there a need to "correct"?
"Men don't have any advantages, and if they do they don't need to be corrected because men are superior".
Got it.
Re: Discrimination is discrimination (Score:2)
> having the occasional female-specific event to try and correct some of the imbalance does not count as discrimination.
You can't undefine the word. You can make a [good - ed.] argument that it's not an injustice, but denying the facts does nobody any favors.
Re: (Score:3)
having the occasional female-specific event to try and correct some of the imbalance does not count as discrimination.
actually, it is discrimination by definition.
Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.
Re:Discrimination is discrimination (Score:4, Funny)
Jews have a ridiculous number of advantages when it comes to being entrepreneurs, having the occasional Aryan-specific event to try and correct some of the imbalance does not count as discrimination.
(I don't know for sure, but I would bet cash money that there were Aryan-only business networking events. I *do* know that there were Aryan-only academic programs.)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
perhaps males have a ridiculous number of advantages because at some point in the past, women had all the advantages and males were treated as charity cases and given preferential treatment which they exploited to revolt.
sexism is sexism. put lipstick on the pig all you want... you're an ignorant hypocrite.
I can't tell if you're trolling or an explorer from an alternate dimension.
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps males have a ridiculous number of advantages because at some point in the past, women had all the advantages and males were treated as charity cases and given preferential treatment which they exploited to revolt.
sexism is sexism. put lipstick on the pig all you want... you're an ignorant hypocrite.
I can't tell if you're trolling or an explorer from an alternate dimension.
I love how you got modded troll yourself for this.
Slashdot itself appears to be inhabited by mods from an alternate dimension.
Re: (Score:1)
3) so do women, moreover, all men don't succeed
4) difficult when you can't get a boner
6) stupid pro-life argument, abortion should be encourage to limit population increase, though, most religion are stuck in the past. Moreover, an unwanted child generally mean 2 fuck-up lives.
7) women are more attracted to socially interacting jobs, thus HR / secretary / reception
8) true for lots of men as well
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see that if there are cultural or societal issues that make women less likely to be entrepreneurial, then perhaps an event of this nature can send a message that women do indeed participate and compete in such endeavors. That's all well and good and I have no problem with it. Maybe it will encourage more women to cast aside incorrect stereotypes.
But as others have said, let's never send a message that women aren't as good and need extra help to be successful. That's horribly condescending, unfair, and
Re: (Score:2)
To your chess example, two words: Judit Polgar.
Was the only woman to ever beat Kasparov.
At her peak, was the #8 chess player in the world.
And...mostly refused to play women-only tournaments.
Re: (Score:2)
To your chess example, two words: Judit Polgar.
I remember reading an interview with her in some chess magazine. My brother was a very keen chess player and rather good (obviously not *that* good). I wasn't but I went to quite a number of tournaments (yeah! slogging it out on the bottom board of the minor---someone's gotta do it), but often had uh... a rather long wait between games.
Anyway, in answer to one question she quipped that she'd never beaten a well man, or words to that effect. IOW every win (well
Re: (Score:2)
I think anyone who reaches the top of their field, no matter what field, is deeply strange and on some level has problems relating to the rest of us mortals. Because in order to achieve that level of focus on that one thing, one must be able to block other things out. It probably acts to the detriment of other skills that everyone else needs to get along with the rest of the planet, who weren't born with natural talents and need to compensate somehow.
Polgar, as I understand it, is a chess prodigy, who cou
Re: (Score:2)
No you misunderstand. The minors are just as full as deeply strange people as the major and open.
I have never met her and I've no idea if she's weird, but I played plenty of strange, not very good chess players at tournaments. Hell I've been one of the really weird people at chess tournaments.
I'm not sure what you mean by false modesty. Perhaps you're referring to something I've not read.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I misread what you originally wrote, but what you wrote reads as though she may have some sort of false modesty about her (your words: "came with excuses for the opponent's loss").
For a player of her caliber, that's the very definition of false modesty.
Re: (Score:2)
For a player of her caliber, that's the very definition of false modesty.
I think you're misinterpreting. I don't remember the precise words (it was decades ago), but the meaning was quite clear in that almost every man she beat would come up with some excuse about not being entirely well or on form etc etc.
That's not false modesty, it's an observation about the top players not wanting to admit they got beaten fair and square by a girl.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
4chan is infested with SJWs now. I would say /. is still significantly more mature than that wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah but /. has significantly less interesting discussion than 4chan. And oddly enough 4chan is (or was) greater referenced.
One of the larger problems here is even the act of questioning the validity of women only event is seen as misogyny. 4chan bears no such illusion and has unbridled misogyny and questioning.
That aiming a critical eye at women preferencing events gets tag with misogyny here is nothing more than an attempt at censorship; that people could even think that separate class doesn't support gre
Re: (Score:1)
For any discussion worth reading I go to "The Right Stuff.biz".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
political: of, relating to, or involving the state or its government -- not the kindest way to describe someone but not inherently a bad thing.
correctness: the quality of conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate -- not at all a bad thing.
politically correct(PC): polite; respectful; considerate of the feelings or sensibilities of others -- terribly bad, evil, oppressive
I'll leave 'social justice' as an exercise for the readers.
tl;dr "Youse is moydering da King's English." Curly Howard