San Francisco All-Female Hacker House Aims to Support Women Builders(thenewstack.io)
thenewstack.io
San Francisco All-Female Hacker House Aims to Support Women Builders
https://thenewstack.io/san-francisco-all-female-hacker-house-aims-to-support-women-builders/
36 comments
Yes, non-inclusive spaces are legal. There are still golf clubs in the US that don't allow women. Just last week the top golf club in the US voted to allow women for the first time in its 108 year history. If these male-only spaces are legal I don't see how these female-only spaces would be illegal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/31...
Just because something hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it is legal and the ongoing existence of a counterpoint is not a strong argument regarding legal review.
And the more obvious difference to me is that your example is not providing housing and is not providing education.
There are really two questions here, the first being is it legal, and the second being is this what we want whether it is currently legal or currently illegal? If the answer to the second question is "yes" then carry on. To me it currently seems incompatible, and I am still trying to understand what the current consensus is. I don't have strong opinions on it, or much of anything, which is why I gravitate towards the legal field because - like lawyers - I can compartmentalize anything. So I am aiming to also understand the consensus on what people desire and if "safe spaces" are the most productive approach to getting there.
And the more obvious difference to me is that your example is not providing housing and is not providing education.
There are really two questions here, the first being is it legal, and the second being is this what we want whether it is currently legal or currently illegal? If the answer to the second question is "yes" then carry on. To me it currently seems incompatible, and I am still trying to understand what the current consensus is. I don't have strong opinions on it, or much of anything, which is why I gravitate towards the legal field because - like lawyers - I can compartmentalize anything. So I am aiming to also understand the consensus on what people desire and if "safe spaces" are the most productive approach to getting there.
Ok, some other examples include:
-Seminaries and monasteries that only house and educate men.
-Women's colleges that only house and educate women.
-Homeless and domestic violence shelters that only house men or women.
-All-boys and all-girls schools that only educate boys or girls.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is "good" or "bad". I'm just pointing out that there are many examples though out the United States. So your statement that "the bay area is rebranding separate but equal" just doesn't make any sense when this is common in various forms throughout the entire United States.
-Seminaries and monasteries that only house and educate men.
-Women's colleges that only house and educate women.
-Homeless and domestic violence shelters that only house men or women.
-All-boys and all-girls schools that only educate boys or girls.
I don't have a strong opinion on whether this is "good" or "bad". I'm just pointing out that there are many examples though out the United States. So your statement that "the bay area is rebranding separate but equal" just doesn't make any sense when this is common in various forms throughout the entire United States.
People have the freedom to hang out with who they want?
With some limitations on housing, education, and employment.
The question is whether those limitations apply here.
The question is whether those limitations apply here.
People have the freedom to sleep, learn, and work with who they want?
(It’s interesting to consider when this isn’t true in the US from a philosophical point of view)
(It’s interesting to consider when this isn’t true in the US from a philosophical point of view)
That golf club is not in California.
I'm still waiting to see a lawsuit forcing strip clubs to hire equal proportions of male and female dancers
That would almost certainly fall under the "bona fide occupational qualification"[1] exception.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
Oh that's interesting, so the strip club featuring women could have to just have other positions like bouncers, doormen, cooks etc that were fillable by both men and women, which they already do.
I didn't even think of that in the prior person's example.
I didn't even think of that in the prior person's example.
That's because I specified "dancers". But... as the gay cakes case shows, bisexuals probably won't be able to compel strip clubs to cater to them.
In California they only recently got reclassified as employees and the club as employer, so you were waiting for that first and now you might be able to get the challenge you desired.
I know there are first amendment exceptions that would, for example, not require a movie to consider male actors for the role of Juliet or woman actors for the role of Romeo.
I think the residence non-discrimination requirements don't apply if it's a shared space, only if it's a multi-family dwelling over a certain number of units.
Ah possibly, thats how employment works too, some anti-discrimination statutes coming into play after a certain number of employees.
Not in California, no. This house would not be allowed to exclude men.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f...
“ The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In very limited circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family houses sold or rented by the owner without the use of an agent, and housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.”
So, they may be able to get by legally under the private club/member exemption.
“ The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In very limited circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family houses sold or rented by the owner without the use of an agent, and housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.”
So, they may be able to get by legally under the private club/member exemption.
Thanks! The California version can be stricter too with fair housing and employment being under one agency
Education under another though
Education under another though
>I don't really think the various Civil Rights Acts support the bay area's rebranding of separate but equal.
that is an incredible bad faith characterization. In informal 'frat house' style settings that don't have many rules women often face incredible amounts of harassment because mostly men don't respect boundaries. It's why there is such a stereotypical bro-culture in SV, it's enabled by the laissez-faire attitude.
In settings with rules and where people expect professionalism it doesn't tend to be as much of an issue, but in some house where people even mix drinking and work it tends to go bad really quick.
that is an incredible bad faith characterization. In informal 'frat house' style settings that don't have many rules women often face incredible amounts of harassment because mostly men don't respect boundaries. It's why there is such a stereotypical bro-culture in SV, it's enabled by the laissez-faire attitude.
In settings with rules and where people expect professionalism it doesn't tend to be as much of an issue, but in some house where people even mix drinking and work it tends to go bad really quick.
It's supposed to be provocative to potentially stoke introspection.
I understand the rationale behind "safe spaces", that wasn't my question.
I understand the rationale behind "safe spaces", that wasn't my question.
well it's not provocative, it's just stupid. The whole "oh safe spaces? See you're the real racist!" thing you can find in the youtube comment section of Ben Shapiro videos. You're not making some genius point here, you're just not familiar with the kind of experiences women face in these environments or lack the social intelligence to imagine it, like 95% of the HN audience.
your words and I’m not familiar with those influencers
Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Do you see how easy that is for me to have zero emotion on this, your turn. Think of it as a standardized test question, you have to answer those based on accuracy.
Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Do you see how easy that is for me to have zero emotion on this, your turn. Think of it as a standardized test question, you have to answer those based on accuracy.
>Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws?
Obviously. Private, gender separated clubs exist everywhere in the United States. Ever been to a sports club or a fraternity? Civil rights legislation addresses employment and 'spaces of public accommodation'. You're obviously JAQing off because you know this
Obviously. Private, gender separated clubs exist everywhere in the United States. Ever been to a sports club or a fraternity? Civil rights legislation addresses employment and 'spaces of public accommodation'. You're obviously JAQing off because you know this
California has legislation that goes beyond national legislation.
I am no legal expert so I won't comment on that aspect but I cant say I am surprized by the kneejerk MRA-type reaction here.
Here is the actual issue, current "mixed" hacker houses don't attract women so this is a thing to address that weather its harassment or just general discomfort of living with unrelated people of the opposite gender.
Another problem is the population of SF skews high percentage of men.
If the men here can leave their tribalism for one second, it would possibly be a good thing for the people complaining or vaugely making dog whistles about this too. Personally the heavy male-to-female ratio is kind of a reason I would rather not live/work in SF as a single guy(this is me appealing to the most selfish instinct of the commenters here). Also if I do get married and have a daughter, I want her to have the same job options and location options as me, same with my sisters and cousins and female friends and I hope some of you can put aside your own fragile ego to think of those women.
I am also willing to bet no women would be in the comments here because they have learned to know how toxic this comment section will be.
I think too often we make the mistake of thinking people have “fragile egos” when in reality they just don’t give a dump about what the other side wants or thinks.
Post about this by the co-founder and the discussion around it about six days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27032094
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27032094
Good luck to The Garden! I’m curious what creations will take root there.
What are some well known companies that came from founders living in hacker houses?
Pied Piper
l0pht Heavy Industries / @stake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L0pht
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L0pht
Nice. SF also has Double Union, an all-female hacker space.
Although it's late in the cycle to be starting a hacker house.
Although it's late in the cycle to be starting a hacker house.
[deleted](1)
It seems that in residences that it would be sanctionable to deny housing based on assigned sex or gender identity, and in education it would be sanctionable to have admissions based on that as well.
I was curious about this with Hackbright too, but I wasn't interested in this cause enough to see what legal counsel thought of it (it was the closest coding academy to me at one point). The California regulator ended up slapping them with other violations, and the sanctions seem fairly toothless.
I don't really think the various Civil Rights Acts support the bay area's rebranding of separate but equal.