4 ms·

The“Women in Tech” movement is full of victim blaming bullshit

8 points by sarahnadav 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago
> Conference and panel organizers who “can’t find” diverse panel members should be fired. Point blank. Based on what, not meeting some percent quota? The statistics for demonstrating a bias is rather delicate. The simple fact that 12 out of 13 panel members happen to be male doesn't confirm a selection bias. PG proposed a way to detect it: http://paulgraham.com/bias.html http://paulgraham.com/bias.html Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483751
- sarahnadav 11y ago
  The emphasis is on whether or not the conference organizer "can find" people to speak. Bias alone is not the issue, a lot of organizers just recycle lists from previous years or rely on recommendations of people they know. Any organizer who is capable, and sets out to find new and diverse voices for a panel will easily find them. And aren't we all tired of hearing the same people over and over again anyway???
- sarahnadav 11y ago
  Also, I think that it is important to note that diversity has it's own value. It doesn't generally get factored into the equation of who is going to be a good speaker, but it should.
forgottenpass 11y ago
Why limit your goals to the trappings of power? Speaking at conferences and easier access to venture capital strikes me as setting your sights low. Furthermore, if you don't aim to be taken as seriously as anyone else even when you don't get speaking engagements and venture capital, you'll find that obtaining access them is an hollow victory.
- sarahnadav 11y ago
  Access to capital and influence are not the "trappings of power", they are the definition of power in the industry. Both capital and influence are drivers to getting shit done.
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    Now you're talking about capital and influence. But they're not interchangeable with talking at conferences and better access to a VC's ear. In tech, talking at a conference is meaningful in a way that it isn't in a lot of other industries. I'm not saying tech conferences are set to turn bland and contentless any time soon, but there is nothing inherently influential about them. They're just a trapping of influence that _could_ change with the winds. VC is fetish. Venture funding is nether necessary nor sufficient to having capital. Taking VC means a founder limits the amount they can make off of a successful company and also ties that company to an unrealistic trajectory reducing their chances of profitability. Finally, the founder doesn't actually control the capital. They have temporary authority over someone else's, to be used only for a specific purpose.
- sarahnadav 11y ago
  Did you read the article? The point isn't arguing whether or not their needs to be a change for Women in Tech- it is arguing about how we are going about it. There is a victim blaming rut that is forcing women to make the change from the outside, and it isn't working. The change needs to happen from men on the inside in positions of power.

8 points by sarahnadav 11y ago

> Conference and panel organizers who “can’t find” diverse panel members should be fired. Point blank. Based on what, not meeting some percent quota? The statistics for demonstrating a bias is rather delicate. The simple fact that 12 out of 13 panel members happen to be male doesn't confirm a selection bias. PG proposed a way to detect it: http://paulgraham.com/bias.html http://paulgraham.com/bias.html Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483751

sarahnadav 11y ago
The emphasis is on whether or not the conference organizer "can find" people to speak. Bias alone is not the issue, a lot of organizers just recycle lists from previous years or rely on recommendations of people they know. Any organizer who is capable, and sets out to find new and diverse voices for a panel will easily find them. And aren't we all tired of hearing the same people over and over again anyway???
sarahnadav 11y ago
Also, I think that it is important to note that diversity has it's own value. It doesn't generally get factored into the equation of who is going to be a good speaker, but it should.

forgottenpass 11y ago

Why limit your goals to the trappings of power? Speaking at conferences and easier access to venture capital strikes me as setting your sights low. Furthermore, if you don't aim to be taken as seriously as anyone else even when you don't get speaking engagements and venture capital, you'll find that obtaining access them is an hollow victory.

sarahnadav 11y ago
Access to capital and influence are not the "trappings of power", they are the definition of power in the industry. Both capital and influence are drivers to getting shit done.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  Now you're talking about capital and influence. But they're not interchangeable with talking at conferences and better access to a VC's ear. In tech, talking at a conference is meaningful in a way that it isn't in a lot of other industries. I'm not saying tech conferences are set to turn bland and contentless any time soon, but there is nothing inherently influential about them. They're just a trapping of influence that _could_ change with the winds. VC is fetish. Venture funding is nether necessary nor sufficient to having capital. Taking VC means a founder limits the amount they can make off of a successful company and also ties that company to an unrealistic trajectory reducing their chances of profitability. Finally, the founder doesn't actually control the capital. They have temporary authority over someone else's, to be used only for a specific purpose.
sarahnadav 11y ago
Did you read the article? The point isn't arguing whether or not their needs to be a change for Women in Tech- it is arguing about how we are going about it. There is a victim blaming rut that is forcing women to make the change from the outside, and it isn't working. The change needs to happen from men on the inside in positions of power.