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.

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.

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.

"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.

>> If in 2014 you are still feeling different for a __color__, I think the problem is more on you than others.

The thing is.. you're right that it's fucking ridiculous that people are so judgmental and mean for a __color__, and that __they__ have a problem. But the fact that matters is that when you're the one being judged and mistreated every day, it doesn't really matter if they're right or not, it hurts and it's frustrating.

>> Also, we want the same sex thing? What if we do Only Man Conferences? ? How much bad press will that get?

That's a whole different subject. The point is, why would you do a man-only conference? Is it because you really care about having only men in there? Or because that's a way to (passive-aggressively) express your opinion against how stupid you think feminism is?

>> I just see most of them just taking advantage of being a minority to complain when things gets wrong.

I see what you mean, and maybe it's true in rare occasions. But more often than not, for someone to publicly talk about an issue, it's something important to them. Maybe not to you, but to them.

As a stupid example, it really pisses me off when people are disturbing me when I try to hack. I lose all my productivity and I feel like I wasted my day. But for them, they don't care.. they don't understand, they're just chatting about the weather or whatever. Unless I take the time to explain to them why it bothers me, they won't get it.

So, maybe when you see the other gender complaining you think they're annoying, or find excuses, or are abusing their minority. But in practice, I'd recommend paying close attention to what they say because it's not about what you think, it's about how you (or someone else) just hurt them without even knowing it.

>> I never judged someone just from the color or for being a girl, gay or whatever could be.

What if I told you that your post is extremely cruel for someone struggling with racial or gender harassment?

>> I'm pretty sure that is the same for most of us.

I wish.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

In the business world it's taboo because it would be seen as colluding against women and minorities. Historically (and even currently), business and politics have been dominated by white males, and that tends to give an advantage of familiarity and incumbency. Women-only, or minority-only conferences like these are a chance to balance the scales a little.

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...

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