It is a private organization is probably why; so they are allowed to discriminate. In government if they had a female issues oriented event there would be a foot note stating that men are welcome to attend.
edit: to respond to the below comment, I don't think it is socially acceptable. It just isn't something that affects people too adversely yet so while they may shake their head and fire off a tweet no one really cares enough to bring significant pressure to bear.
The problem with this line of argument is that while technically correct, it completely lacks the context that underpins the entire problem of discrimination against women.
Men discriminating against women is a problem because of the effects. The lesser rights. The lower pay. Being passed over for advancement. The dismissive treatment. etc.
Until men are being systematically disadvantaged by the discrimination they receive from women, trying to equate our hypothetical hurt feelings at being excluded from the tiny minority of women-only events, to their very real career barriers is just adding insult to injury.
I think you should revisit your definition of discrimination. Discrimination is treating someone unfavorably or with prejudice due to their gender. This event is for female founders and promoting them. There is nothing against men, against male founders, or the sex in general.
Just because something is for one subject does not mean it's against the opposite.
False equivalence in your examples. The gp didn't say he would refuse to go to events that happened to be all girls. He would refuse to present at events that prevented male attendees.
The massive difference is being explicitly prevented from joining based on sex, which makes your privilege rant pointless.
On the same token, a specifically male only group tends to get crucified. It's more of a confusion of double standards, perceived or otherwise. Sure, most groups end up de-facto male only, but you never see groups actively advertised as male only.
"Gender inequality is a problem that needs to be avoided" but you find that an all-male publicizing going to a "breasturant" for a team outing is a "non-issue"? Do you genuinely not see any contradiction in those viewpoints?
"because of something they can't control" is a dangerous point to me; while I may not be able to change or "control" the fact that I am male, I can certainly gain awareness of my male privilege and behave in a way that does not perpetuate it.
So going to back to the original poster, had he been aware of this privilege he would not make statements about reverse discrimination or some injustice being perpetuated against him or other men due to policies that support women's equal participation in our industry.
Seriously though, I am not a proponent of gender restricted events, but I have not commented on this particular thread because I wanted to watch the content first, and it's not really the place for such discussions.
That said, others may feel differently, having not participated in prior conversations on this topic, and thus, the label you've applied to opponents is unnecessary and unfair.
Same goes for virtually any space that used to be male-only. It's become socially unacceptable (and often illegal) to exclude females from anything, while it's still perfectly OK to exclude males.
The enforcement has been rather inconsistent (in my view, from my perspective), and is one reason why I am not that happy about it. You can have a women only meetup in a conference, but a women only music festival is forbidden. You can have gender discriminating prices at a hair stylist, but not at a restaurant. You can have single gender university programs for a minority demographic, but you can not give additional points during the application phase to a minority demographic.
I can not think of an explanation for any of these.
Companies only talk about equality because 1. Requires by title IX and 2. Advertising. It is immediately clear to anyone whom has done even the slightest research that no org with millions/billions sitting around can ever claim to support equality in any respect.
The analagous position (not that i endorse either) would be that discrimination against men isn't sexism because men are in the dominant position, not that it is impossible to discriminate against men.
reply