I think the consensus is that single-sex schools don't work for everyone but in a broad sense (and somewhat counterintuitively to me) work better for a larger percentage of boys than the percentage of girls. Of course these are broad conclusions; those "success" percentages may be small (I haven't followed this work closely). Anecdoctally it was great for me while my sister considered it disastrous for herself.
Despite being happy with my single sex education, I'm really glad that scouting is finally been desegregated in the US as I noticed in scouting in Palo Alto that the boy scouts had much better opportunities than the Girl Scouts did. And I can be glad even though I did notice my son benefited from having a section of his life that was male-only. That will probably still be possible.
I suspect it's more likely that there's just a lot of latent talent in women due to being undervalued. A female-only group is a coarse way to create an org that unlocks that value, but there are plenty of ways to do it in a mixed environment.
One that I'd like to see more of is a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who marginalizes women in the workplace (e.g. people who file tone complaints only against women, people who talk over women in meetings, supervisors who make gender-based promotions, women getting paid less due to "market rates" etc.) I see a lot of those things still happening in tech companies, which leads to women underperforming in mixed groups.
There is no case made that women are actually undervalued apart from the delusion that the sexes somehow have to be equal. You can equally argue that there is a lot of talent in whites being undervalued due to mixed-race workplaces, using just as much evidence
this is why moderation is required. if a group facilitator allows a womans attempt toward contribution to be loudmouthed over into oblivion there is an entrenched problem.
this is not a tragedy of the commons this is systemic fraternalism
We can take it a step further. Maybe they can have exclusive communities where they only live together. And they can then "enable" each other by only buying from each other.
This is a dumbass idea in a field of dumbass ideas.
The Canadian Navy did some work pre-2000 that showed when there were only a tiny handful of women on a ship, it was hard/stressful, but when there was a 'critical mass' of say 8% of the ship female, it worked out. So they could make some small adjustments to deployment rosters and get better performance.
So 'small minority groups' sometimes need a means to coalesce a little bit and work through issues etc..
VC/entrepreneurialism is way male oriented for whatever reason. Much more so than 'regular business'. So some kind of women's meetups or whatever might help.
'Gender segregation' in education is just another thing entirely. It's about focus, social development etc..
There's a pretty big leap. Can you explain your reasoning a little more because I don't understand why it would logically follow, the answer to your question seems a simple "no" to me.
Or none of the women techies you know want to admit in front of you they want a place like this.
Not saying you don't know them, but I am saying that admitting to wanting to talk to other women has traditionally been admitting to weakness in the workplace.
None of them would be comfortable joining an organization that was about excluding others based on their demographics (e.g., race, gender, orientation, etc.). That's one of the reasons I hold them in high regard.
Hey look, I hear you, but why is this always the counter argument when women do this? Men have, in the past and present, held tight knit groups that may not be explicitly stating that women are excluded, but that aren’t supportive of women being in those groups.
If women felt liked they belonged in this industry, they wouldn’t form groups like this at all. Furthermore, don’t strawman them by saying you wouldn’t associate with those who would exclude based on gender, ethnicity, etc. The article clearly states that this is a place for women to seek advice and mentorship from one another. Please don’t bring any other factors into this when the article is clearly about a group that is accomplishing a well-meaning goal.
One group is saying they want equality and accuse the other of supporting the status quo if the other don't support single-sex organizations.
The other group is saying they want equally and accuse the first group of supporting discrimination for having single-sex organizations.
One can accuse the first group of assuming bad faith or the second group for building strawmen, but all that does is signaling which group one identify with. It is unclear how to find common ground when both groups clearly has the same goal but have polarized opinion in how to get there.
There has never been a time in my life when I would have considered joining such an organization, no matter how beneficial they might have been to me personally. I believe in the dream.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed--go for it--but I don't consider them ethical.
As I wrote in a comment on that story, I have a theory: Women-only groups aren’t just “Women-only”, they also exclude women with these beliefs [from the linked article]. But this is far from obvious, so women at these group gatherings see only themselves, and it becomes an echo chamber where they believe they represent all women’s views on this subject.
FWIW my girlfriend is pretty interested in this. And yes, I'd call her a techie: PhD in computer science, worked at Microsoft, FB, LinkedIn, and a bunch of smaller companies.
What’s the alternative? Make every decision by committee? Have shareholders vote on every decision? Randomly selected leader of the day? Have an AI run everything?
a female only group is a rational response to a brogrammer culture. a desire for a femcentric branch forum {note i didnt say sub forum} is something that should be taken as a symptom of a systemic problem. women, are already segregated devalued and even attacked for thier gender, right here in SV, and right here in YC and HN. ostriches are not the only bird that thrust thier heads in the sand.
segregation is bad, segregation is exclusion of another group or creed. the desire to have a place where something can be accomplished without being shamed or ostracized automatically for no other reason than being xenogenous is a big concern.
It should come as a big wakeup call that women are so uncomfortable that they feel a need for a place of respite.
I hope they excell far above YC, and i also wonder why there was a need for the startup to separate itself from YC so early in the game. Is it because they were encouraged every step of the way? or perhaps they were made to feel equal and given congruency of accreditation for thier efforts, maybe its the habit thier peers have of providing a hand shake and a conversation that involves a look in the eye that doesnt go south, maybe its about the absence of obscene whispering when they walk by certain offices and lounges? I dont know maybe its me, maybe im not seeing the reality around me, only a bunch of me too clenching feminists. There is a lot of change that has to happen. monumental change. The existence of this thread is proof and pudding all at once.
I don't know why so many commentators are taking a polar stance.
I sometimes hang out with people from my native country; that doesn't mean I'm unhappy with the USA or Americans born here. Some things still strike me as weird, and some things I do strike others as weird so it's occasionally nice to be immersed in a group of people who understand that.
And I come from an English-speaking country and am treated like a white male (not true for me as a kid before I came here). I think this phenomenon of sometimes stepping into a "subset community" would be far more useful for folks who don't fit that dominant model.
This may be illegal in California. Discrimination on the basis of sex for events open to the public is forbidden. It’s quite broadly construed too, for example bars can’t legally have ladies night.
Edit:
To clarify, a nonprofit women’s forum appears fine, but turning it into a business not so much.
37 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 95.4 ms ] threadDespite being happy with my single sex education, I'm really glad that scouting is finally been desegregated in the US as I noticed in scouting in Palo Alto that the boy scouts had much better opportunities than the Girl Scouts did. And I can be glad even though I did notice my son benefited from having a section of his life that was male-only. That will probably still be possible.
One that I'd like to see more of is a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who marginalizes women in the workplace (e.g. people who file tone complaints only against women, people who talk over women in meetings, supervisors who make gender-based promotions, women getting paid less due to "market rates" etc.) I see a lot of those things still happening in tech companies, which leads to women underperforming in mixed groups.
It's an ironic tragedy of the commons.
this is not a tragedy of the commons this is systemic fraternalism
This is a dumbass idea in a field of dumbass ideas.
The Canadian Navy did some work pre-2000 that showed when there were only a tiny handful of women on a ship, it was hard/stressful, but when there was a 'critical mass' of say 8% of the ship female, it worked out. So they could make some small adjustments to deployment rosters and get better performance.
So 'small minority groups' sometimes need a means to coalesce a little bit and work through issues etc..
VC/entrepreneurialism is way male oriented for whatever reason. Much more so than 'regular business'. So some kind of women's meetups or whatever might help.
'Gender segregation' in education is just another thing entirely. It's about focus, social development etc..
Not saying you don't know them, but I am saying that admitting to wanting to talk to other women has traditionally been admitting to weakness in the workplace.
If women felt liked they belonged in this industry, they wouldn’t form groups like this at all. Furthermore, don’t strawman them by saying you wouldn’t associate with those who would exclude based on gender, ethnicity, etc. The article clearly states that this is a place for women to seek advice and mentorship from one another. Please don’t bring any other factors into this when the article is clearly about a group that is accomplishing a well-meaning goal.
The other group is saying they want equally and accuse the first group of supporting discrimination for having single-sex organizations.
One can accuse the first group of assuming bad faith or the second group for building strawmen, but all that does is signaling which group one identify with. It is unclear how to find common ground when both groups clearly has the same goal but have polarized opinion in how to get there.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed--go for it--but I don't consider them ethical.
Clearly some women don’t like places like that:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702676
As I wrote in a comment on that story, I have a theory: Women-only groups aren’t just “Women-only”, they also exclude women with these beliefs [from the linked article]. But this is far from obvious, so women at these group gatherings see only themselves, and it becomes an echo chamber where they believe they represent all women’s views on this subject.
segregation has happened before.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Burning
Also, Mississippi Burning? Do you not realize the extent of hyperbole in that comparison?
I sometimes hang out with people from my native country; that doesn't mean I'm unhappy with the USA or Americans born here. Some things still strike me as weird, and some things I do strike others as weird so it's occasionally nice to be immersed in a group of people who understand that.
And I come from an English-speaking country and am treated like a white male (not true for me as a kid before I came here). I think this phenomenon of sometimes stepping into a "subset community" would be far more useful for folks who don't fit that dominant model.
Edit: To clarify, a nonprofit women’s forum appears fine, but turning it into a business not so much.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act