I don't know if they are right or not, but it can be argued that to correct hundreds of years of negative discrimination you need some positive discrimination.
Fortunately I'm sure the people commenting here stand up to all discrimination and not just the things affect them.
Cuz I don't recall encountering any "men in tech" events, or investment funds that invest only in men, or efforts to encourage white boys to study computers.
Men and women are employed in the same rate, with 85% of men working in gender segregated professions and 86% of women. As such it is rather simple math that is indeed supported by the actually numbers for each profession that about half of the professions are dominated by women and about half is dominated by men, with a small minority of 14.5% that has a minimum 40% men and women in them (The official minimum line for gender segregation).
You want a top 10 list? Last time I check the highest segregated profession was midwife at around 99.7% women to 0.3% men. Second highest is dentist nurse with 99.6% women. Third highest is stone brick layers with 99.4% men. Forth to ninth was all 99% and are listed as mechanics, tinsmith, carpenter, concrete construction worker, electrician, and plumber. Then its pediatric nurse at 98%. (2012 data)
If one goes by the 30 most common profession in Sweden (ie most employees per profession group), female dominated professions are 17/30, male dominated professions are 11/30, and equal is 2/30. In that list the top groups are truck driver, construction worker, secretary, mechanic and nurse. (2004 data)
Not sure how well google translate work but you can look at http://www.duochjobbet.se/nyhet/nio-av-tio-har-jobb-med-ojam... and http://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/statistik-efter-amne/arbet...
Now if any of those professions have programs to address gender segregation is an other question, but since most of those have around 90-99% gender segregation one can guess that the efforts are not that effective if they exist.
A lot of underrepresented people know that generic invitations don't really mean they are also invited. It's really only open to the existing in-crowd. As a woman who gets a lot of reactions that suggest to me that women are not supposed to so much as initiate conversations with men, I can kind of understand the logic here.
Having been burned by an extremely toxic classist group where, no, the rules absolutely are not the same for "the wrong kind of people" -- by which we mean poor people (in this case, though they also do really shitty things to anyone who can't somehow establish in-group standing) -- I can understand why a lot of members of underprivileged groups err on the side of "They don't really mean me when they say anyone/everyone."
My mind doesn't work that way. I generally take folks at their word, even when I know they may not really mean it -- and recently got banned from a forum for doing so because they were full of shit and didn't mean any of the high minded BS that came out of their lying mouths. I'm willing to live with that.
But I'm also very well aware that if you get that result often enough, shunning can mean you de facto have no income at all, there is no place for you to go, etc. It can be essentially a death sentence, and I don't mean metaphorically. I mean literally.
I don't know what the fix is. I'm not really all that crazy about the framing of this promo. But my suspicion is that is the real impetus here -- to make sure women don't feel that the subtext is "Not really you, though we say anyone."
And, honestly, I don't have a better answer, so I'm not going to dog them for it.
This is kind of interesting and in stark contrast to much of the hacker mentality that doesn't really care "what they really mean" when "they" make rules. In fact, the hacker mentality is usually to twist interpretations and tease out any technical loophole. It goes along with "ask for forgiveness, not permission." Certainly, something to think about.
I guess it would be a bit less confusing if they'd just made the offer to folks that attended the events but it seems quite nice that they didn't.
But what is your explanation for them having an event specifically for female founders if not the logic I outlined above that some groups need to be clearly signaled that they are equally welcome too?
Image it like Norway allowing electric cars on bus lanes. It's a way to reach a goal and can be phased out once you have gotten close enough.
"Stripe Atlas will waive the one-time $500 company formation fee for anyone that uses the link below by October 15th." - Not just females? Otherwise it could be considered discrimination.
Stripe Atlas waives the one-time $500 company formation fee for everyone.
Stripe could then generate back the $500 in credit card processing fees by bolstering those startups, which wouldn't have otherwise existed.
Edit: I see where the confusion is.
The title is: "Stripe for female founders has invited you to join Stripe Atlas."
That's the reason for the reaction.
However, at the bottom.
"Stripe Atlas will waive the one-time $500 company formation fee for anyone that uses the link below by October 15th."
I applaud this. The copy should have been read a bit more carefully!
Although this article has been flagged. I would welcome clarification by Stripe!
I contacted the Stripe Atlas team about this offer and as they say, if they read the website, it refers to the offer is only for women (but it is not the case), the offer is open to any person / gender that wants take advantage of it, they only put "For women" to continue promoting in which more founders are united to the emprendimiento of this decade.
For example, I just got the offer as a man, they did not charge me the $ 500 fee, so I understand that everything is correct.
Do not take everything as literal, one thing is what the web says and another is what they really offer, anyone can be wrong.
Anyway, great move from Stripe. Seems that they want remove barriers for starting and running a company, which is good for the creation of wealth and jobs. Be it Stripe Atlas, the card business, Indiehackers or the publishing company. Al those newly founded companies are also target customers for Stripe. Which is completely ok and speaks of good common business sense!
Shouldn't we rise above and instead of helping minorities, just help/accept "everyone" already. A side benefit is to remind them that there is no such thing as "minority" and they are regular persons. And that no particular person no matter what his gender/color/religion is still a person and welcome.
And is it actually legal to give woman an unfair advantage? Or advertise capitalizing on it (I'm aware the offer is open to anyone).
