[rev_bird]

>What problem is this intended to solve that isn't solved by moderation policies and forum culture?

I think this comment thread is a pretty good illustration of the problem. A group of women are saying, "hey, we think this is a beneficial project, for this reason and this other reason," and a bunch of men are saying "WRONG it's pretty much white supremacy except against men." Forums reflect their membership -- in an industry dominated by men, discussions will be slanted away from positions held by women unless compensatory measures are taken.

[rarec]

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.

[ambivalents]

This once again reads as an illustration of the problem. This isn't an issue of double standards. You do understand the difference in experiences, right, between members of a group comprised and in support of a minority/systematically-unrepresented group, and a counterpart group comprised of a majority/the ones often perpetuating (even if indirectly) this imbalance?

[rarec]

I do. However, I'm not sure how that means that a subset of the majority cannot also have their own exclusive spaces while also allowing a minority to have the same. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a woman only support group and find the idea of Leap great. What is the problem you're stating, in this case, that a woman only group can solve that one comprised of men and women could not? Genuine question.

If the answer is "Men cannot understand" that's fair, but a terrible simplification. You'll find most men are at least willing to try to understand, and by vilifying the majority and hiding in a smaller exclusionary group you may just end up worse off than before.

[ambivalents]

> What is the problem you're stating, in this case, that a woman only group can solve that one comprised of men and women could not? Genuine question.

To me, as a member of this minority group, I see this service as offering a solution to one aspect of (but obviously not the entire) problem: that of community and validation. A de facto understanding based on shared experiences. It does not mean that men can't understand and can't help, but that comes later or alongside this component of building strength in numbers.

If you are the only woman on a dev team, for example, who at work can you talk to openly about your experiences without fear of judgment/professional repercussion? We've seen what HR is (in)capable of in stories like what surfaced at Uber. And the men on your team may be the most emotionally intelligent, compassionate beings but they still won't be able to fully empathize. Maybe they will say, "I hear you, and I think that is awful, so what can I do to help?" (which IMO is a wonderful response), but they likely can't say, "I know exactly what you mean."

I hope people don't see Leap as a vilification of the majority. I have signed up for the beta but haven't used it yet, so I don't actually know what the overall culture is like. I sincerely doubt it was anyone's intent to alienate men, but rather to create a safer space for women than the tech world at large generally provides.

ETA: To address your point about a men's group--you're right that it probably wouldn't be received well, which isn't fair. But it also wouldn't be getting much of my sympathies, as its need for existence is altogether different.

[jochung]

There is plenty of reason to think "systematically underrepresented" is untrue, especially because the yardstick being applied, a 50/50 target, is likely unobtainable.

Given that a "bro" was denigrated, persecuted and fired for trying to bring light to some of the causes, there is plenty of reason to think the imbalance being perpetuated is not the one you're thinking of.

[ambivalents]

So because some guy at big tech co was reprimanded for publishing his opinions on the matter (the veracity of which we don't even need to get into), the real injustice here is a man's inability to speak, not a woman's inability to do her job in a safe/supportive environment?

Both speech and gender issues are complex, no doubt. But what I do have are my own very real, collected experiences as well as those of many other women I've talked to and read about on the topic. There is also plenty of data if you look. [0] It's getting tiring to have to continually explain to men that yes! This is actually a problem! No matter whether you think you've seen differently, no matter what your probably good intentions are. This stuff is happening all around you, and hey, maybe it's because you've enjoyed a lifetime of it not happening to you that you aren't constantly attuned to it.

[0] earlier post in this thread with some links to data https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16163130&goto=threads%...

[etjossem]

There is a reason for this, and I think you answered it just now.

Men don't need it - in technology and many other industry spaces, we are comfortable voicing our experiences because we know they'll be well-received and affirmed by much of our audience. We're the prevailing voice in the broad group, so we're already being heard.

If you're creating a space for men only, it's either because you're part of another group with a sidelined voice (e.g. gay men) or because you have Damore-esque ideas about the world and really do want to be exclusive.

[QAPereo]

Head over to MGTOW and see why. Maybe the need for men only groups in a society we generally have dominated is intrinsically different from women doing the same? In the same way that MRA’s inevitably raising the issue of female-on-male spousal abuse is both true, and a smokescreen. It is the “all lives matter” approach to scuttling honest debate.