Announcing the Female Founders Conference (March 1)
I'm assuming some HNers are soon to arrive saying things like "why does it matter that a founder is a female?", "why make an excluding event? isn't it sexism all the same", "imagine if someone make a 'male founders conference'?"I would like to ask you to think for a moment, before raising this concerns (I am not bothering here to debate with haters, only with those who are genuinely concerned that this might sexism all the same).If a group is underrepresented in some professional, economical, academical field, it is worthy to understand the causes. Sometimes is a historical gap in fields that have a self-perpetuating cycle of dominance (such as blacks in politics). It is tough to adress such underrepresentation, and it take generations to make any change (as it took generations and generations to create the initial gap).This is no such case for female founders. Here we have a much simples issue: stigmatization. At least, this is how most people in this field, including the organizers of this event, seems to classify it. It is easier to address because a cultural perception is easier to change than institutionalized cycles of power (as in politics).And, as I see it, this is the only goal of this event. No one is claiming that women are better than men in founding startups. Or the opposite, that women are worse than men in founding startups that they need special treatment. This event is only trying inspire women that founding startups does need to be stigmatized as a male club. Women can have a good life in founding one if they give this thought a chance.So there the only assumptions I see in this event are that: (i) founding a startup is a good thing that they should inspire people to do (something largely supported by HN audience I would guess) and (ii) that women aren't currently being correctly or ideally presented, attracted and inspired to these opportunities of founding a startup.These two assumptions may be contested. If you disagree with assumption (i) you a have a much bigger fight to pick, basically the whole illusion that Sillicon Valley sells to the world, this event isn't particular relevant in this broader debate.And if you disagree with assumption (ii), that this event is not necessary, it means that is no harm done by such an event ocurring. It would by useless at most, but not particularly harmful.This is my perception of this, and I am writing it hoping to avoid a thread full of heated debate based on false assumptions. Maybe I am being pretentious, but I swear I am just trying to help and expose my thoughts on the subject.