7 ms·

An Outspoken Voice for Women in Tech, Foiled by His Tone

25 points by jdp23 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Oh for pete's sake. This is why I swore off commenting on this issue on HN. You can only lose; you certainly can't win. Unless you stick to parroting some feminist line (and good luck picking WHICH line).
- lkbm 12y ago
  Have you really? Seriously, though, it's really easy, as a member of the dominant group (male, white, able-bodied, you name it) to try to stand up for a minority group in a way that seems really helpful from our own perspective, but is actually really hurtful, dis-empowering, or otherwise messed up from the perspective of the people actually living the issue. If you're finding it frustrating trying to put in your two cents, then there's no harm in just listening for a while. Sometimes it's important to speak out against really egregious stuff, but if you're not confident you're doing it "right", often it's better to let someone else take the reigns--someone living on the disadvantaged side. It's frustrating to have to do, but sometimes that's best. However, it's important to remember that when we screw up, that's NOT the fault of the minority group. Yes, they're the ones calling us out when we're trying to help, but if our response is to dismiss their concerns, then there's a good chance we ARE speaking from our own perspective, rather than promoting theirs. But, yes, you can "win" in these conversations. It sounds like you're dismissing them as totally unreasonable because they didn't always agree with your perspective. Could be they're just crazy, emotional women--shrill, bossy ones, no doubt. More likely you screwed up. A lot. That's what people do. Just don't abandon the idea of supporting minorities because the way you wanted to help wasn't they wanted you to help. If it's any comfort, every feminist who got mad at you for saying something wrong has also said something wrong to a disabled person, a person of color, someone from a minority religion, someone from a different economic class....we all screw up. Ideally people will be nice when we do, but even if they're jerks, they deserve equality. We don't punish all white men when one is a jerk.
  - Chronic31 12y ago
    You realize there are literally tens of thousands of people just like the poster you're responding to. Including me.
    - lkbm 12y ago
      Yes. As I said, we all screw up, and we all come at things from our own perspective. As members of the dominant group, we have the luxury of not having to see others' perspectives. Any movement dependent on legitimizing minority perspectives has an uphill battle in that regard. People who care will provide solutions from their perspective and feel alienated when they're told they're participating in the marginalization of minority perspectives. Minorities don't need my solutions. They need my support for their solutions.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Minorities don't need my solutions. They need my support for their solutions. This is a common but, IMO -- speaking as a member of a minority on one important axis and a non-minority on other important axes -- misguided view. As a developer, I wouldn't say "business users don't need my solutions, they need my support for their solutions" -- though I might say "business users need me to be attentive to their interests and needs in proposing solutions". Similarly, minorities don't need blind adherence to their demands from the majority any more than vice versa -- certainly, people who are outside of a particular minority can often have important and useful perspective on solutions to the problems faced by minorities. But a key part of that is really paying attention to the interests of people in the group at issue. Who, usually, aren't going to be monolithic, and some of whom are going to disagree with any solution, whether its proposed by a fellow member of the minority or not. And, yes, they'll often bring lack of minority status into it if the person they disagree with is outside of the minority (but then, they'll often bring betrayal language into it if the person is a member of the minority -- that's not because either is a valid critique, its because both are convenient emotional attack vectors.)
        12y ago
- acjohnson55 12y ago
  I don't think that's true at all that you can only lose. It's not especially hard to be a good ally to women (or any other underrepresented or underprivileged group). But it does require conscious effort to empathize with the issues they face, to speak up when you see unfairness, and--as the subject of the article seems to struggle with--to take yourself out of the spotlight. Give the people you're advocating for a mic to speak with about the issues they experience. If you find that you as a dude are dominating a conversation about women, you may be speaking over the actual women. Perhaps you even forgot to invite them to the conversation in the first place. I know I've been guilty of this before. But above all, remember that it's not about you winning.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  I don't see how it's that hard to avoid Wadhwa's mistake. Despite what the article asserts, from what I've seen his problem wasn't so much his tone on Twitter as it was that he was putting himself forward -- and being booked to speak at conferences, etc. -- as a spokesperson for women in tech. And the spokesperson for women in tech shouldn't be a man, no matter how well-intentioned he is. It should be a woman. Women are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves; they don't need a man to do it for them. If you're a man (like I am!), and you want to help women in tech (like I do!), and someone approaches you to speak at a conference about that, the thing to do is to recommend some awesome women you know to speak instead. Instead of talking about how women need support in this industry, support an actual woman in the industry. Otherwise you run the risk of coming off like Wadhwa did. He looked like a carpetbagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger) -- someone who had identified a hot trend and jumped on it to raise his own personal profile. And if you're a man who sincerely wants to help women, the way you do that is by helping them raise their own profiles, rather than using their problems to goose your own.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Yet, that's cutting out half the available supporters of equal rights, isn't it? Only women may speak about women's issues, seems reasonable. Until you have something to say, and others aren't saying it. Then what? Do you choose a puppet to speak for you? Do you keep silent, hoping someone will make your point for you? What about venues where there ARE no women?
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      You also now open a problem where women should not be speaking for men. Do we really want to enforce such a gendered nature onto our public discourse?
      - lkbm 12y ago
        This is specifically public discouse about gender-specific issues. Maybe it's okay for a man to be the spokesperson for women's issues, or a white person to be the spokesperson for black issues, but it's important to realize you're speaking for someone else. It's really hard to do that better than that someone. Maybe I'm a better public speaker. Maybe people are more likely to listen to me. Maybe I even have a better understanding of power dynamics and sociology and tech culture. But it's also really, really critical to have an understanding of the perspectives of those I'm speaking for. That's hard. And in this situation, seems like a bunch of those people seemed to feel that wasn't the case.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  I think you're right that you can't win, because the entire point of the issue is that we should spend less time wondering whether a guy is winning or losing. There are other perspectives on life. I think the lesson is clear: if you want to help people, listen to them carefully. Vivek Wadhwa got slammed because he could not take criticism from the very people he was claiming he wanted to help: women. It can't be an ego thing.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    But he did take the criticism - he recused himself. That's the topic of the OP.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Oh for pete's sake. This is why I swore off commenting on this issue on HN. Swearing off commenting on this issue...you're doing it wrong.
astazangasta 12y ago
Foiled by his tone, or his content? I don't see this as very complicated. Women, just like any aggrieved minority, don't want to be spoken for, or spoken to. They want to be heard; they want to speak for themselves. The goal of engagement is not to get some establishment figure to "parrot some feminist line", it's to listen to women's voices, for a change. The primary work of male allies should not be speaking up on behalf of women, it should be facilitating the voices of women. I.e., mostly, stand aside and listen.
- s_baby 12y ago
  >I don't see this as very complicated. Women, just like any aggrieved minority, don't want to be spoken for, or spoken to. They want to be heard; they want to speak for themselves. Are you a woman?
mcantelon 12y ago
Ironically, I'd never heard of Wadhwa until the current campaign accusing him of hogging the spotlight started.
serve_yay 12y ago
It's best to just stay away from discussion of this issue IMO. Lots of heat but very little light.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
Read the Amelia Greenhall post and look at the conversation on Twitter about this. The entire "conversation" emanating from people critiquing him is a thermonuclear kafkatrap. None of it is in good faith and much of it is flagrantly abusive, in particular the accusations that he was sexually propositioning a woman by suggesting speaking in person.
raincom 12y ago
Well, there is a greater issue. Social scientists (or social sciences) have been reduced to a variant of identity politics: who speaks for which group!! Instead of this (who speaks for which group), these scientists (after all, Wadhwa was (is?) a professor of business) should have produced 'knowledge' about what is going in the tech industry. Here, it requires more than "who speaks for which group": generating non-ad hoc hypotheses to understand phenomena, testing such hypotheses for testable consequences. When one can't produce knowledge, they end up with arguments. On one hand, one can reasonably argue for any proposition, say P, to an extent. On the other hand, some others can reasonbly argue for the logical opposite of P too. In the end, it boils down to who believes P or not-P.

25 points by jdp23 12y ago

Oh for pete's sake. This is why I swore off commenting on this issue on HN. You can only lose; you certainly can't win. Unless you stick to parroting some feminist line (and good luck picking WHICH line).

lkbm 12y ago
Have you really? Seriously, though, it's really easy, as a member of the dominant group (male, white, able-bodied, you name it) to try to stand up for a minority group in a way that seems really helpful from our own perspective, but is actually really hurtful, dis-empowering, or otherwise messed up from the perspective of the people actually living the issue. If you're finding it frustrating trying to put in your two cents, then there's no harm in just listening for a while. Sometimes it's important to speak out against really egregious stuff, but if you're not confident you're doing it "right", often it's better to let someone else take the reigns--someone living on the disadvantaged side. It's frustrating to have to do, but sometimes that's best. However, it's important to remember that when we screw up, that's NOT the fault of the minority group. Yes, they're the ones calling us out when we're trying to help, but if our response is to dismiss their concerns, then there's a good chance we ARE speaking from our own perspective, rather than promoting theirs. But, yes, you can "win" in these conversations. It sounds like you're dismissing them as totally unreasonable because they didn't always agree with your perspective. Could be they're just crazy, emotional women--shrill, bossy ones, no doubt. More likely you screwed up. A lot. That's what people do. Just don't abandon the idea of supporting minorities because the way you wanted to help wasn't they wanted you to help. If it's any comfort, every feminist who got mad at you for saying something wrong has also said something wrong to a disabled person, a person of color, someone from a minority religion, someone from a different economic class....we all screw up. Ideally people will be nice when we do, but even if they're jerks, they deserve equality. We don't punish all white men when one is a jerk.
- Chronic31 12y ago
  You realize there are literally tens of thousands of people just like the poster you're responding to. Including me.
  - lkbm 12y ago
    Yes. As I said, we all screw up, and we all come at things from our own perspective. As members of the dominant group, we have the luxury of not having to see others' perspectives. Any movement dependent on legitimizing minority perspectives has an uphill battle in that regard. People who care will provide solutions from their perspective and feel alienated when they're told they're participating in the marginalization of minority perspectives. Minorities don't need my solutions. They need my support for their solutions.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Minorities don't need my solutions. They need my support for their solutions. This is a common but, IMO -- speaking as a member of a minority on one important axis and a non-minority on other important axes -- misguided view. As a developer, I wouldn't say "business users don't need my solutions, they need my support for their solutions" -- though I might say "business users need me to be attentive to their interests and needs in proposing solutions". Similarly, minorities don't need blind adherence to their demands from the majority any more than vice versa -- certainly, people who are outside of a particular minority can often have important and useful perspective on solutions to the problems faced by minorities. But a key part of that is really paying attention to the interests of people in the group at issue. Who, usually, aren't going to be monolithic, and some of whom are going to disagree with any solution, whether its proposed by a fellow member of the minority or not. And, yes, they'll often bring lack of minority status into it if the person they disagree with is outside of the minority (but then, they'll often bring betrayal language into it if the person is a member of the minority -- that's not because either is a valid critique, its because both are convenient emotional attack vectors.)
      - 12y ago
acjohnson55 12y ago
I don't think that's true at all that you can only lose. It's not especially hard to be a good ally to women (or any other underrepresented or underprivileged group). But it does require conscious effort to empathize with the issues they face, to speak up when you see unfairness, and--as the subject of the article seems to struggle with--to take yourself out of the spotlight. Give the people you're advocating for a mic to speak with about the issues they experience. If you find that you as a dude are dominating a conversation about women, you may be speaking over the actual women. Perhaps you even forgot to invite them to the conversation in the first place. I know I've been guilty of this before. But above all, remember that it's not about you winning.
smacktoward 12y ago
I don't see how it's that hard to avoid Wadhwa's mistake. Despite what the article asserts, from what I've seen his problem wasn't so much his tone on Twitter as it was that he was putting himself forward -- and being booked to speak at conferences, etc. -- as a spokesperson for women in tech. And the spokesperson for women in tech shouldn't be a man, no matter how well-intentioned he is. It should be a woman. Women are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves; they don't need a man to do it for them. If you're a man (like I am!), and you want to help women in tech (like I do!), and someone approaches you to speak at a conference about that, the thing to do is to recommend some awesome women you know to speak instead. Instead of talking about how women need support in this industry, support an actual woman in the industry. Otherwise you run the risk of coming off like Wadhwa did. He looked like a carpetbagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger) -- someone who had identified a hot trend and jumped on it to raise his own personal profile. And if you're a man who sincerely wants to help women, the way you do that is by helping them raise their own profiles, rather than using their problems to goose your own.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Yet, that's cutting out half the available supporters of equal rights, isn't it? Only women may speak about women's issues, seems reasonable. Until you have something to say, and others aren't saying it. Then what? Do you choose a puppet to speak for you? Do you keep silent, hoping someone will make your point for you? What about venues where there ARE no women?
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    You also now open a problem where women should not be speaking for men. Do we really want to enforce such a gendered nature onto our public discourse?
    - lkbm 12y ago
      This is specifically public discouse about gender-specific issues. Maybe it's okay for a man to be the spokesperson for women's issues, or a white person to be the spokesperson for black issues, but it's important to realize you're speaking for someone else. It's really hard to do that better than that someone. Maybe I'm a better public speaker. Maybe people are more likely to listen to me. Maybe I even have a better understanding of power dynamics and sociology and tech culture. But it's also really, really critical to have an understanding of the perspectives of those I'm speaking for. That's hard. And in this situation, seems like a bunch of those people seemed to feel that wasn't the case.
snowwrestler 12y ago
I think you're right that you can't win, because the entire point of the issue is that we should spend less time wondering whether a guy is winning or losing. There are other perspectives on life. I think the lesson is clear: if you want to help people, listen to them carefully. Vivek Wadhwa got slammed because he could not take criticism from the very people he was claiming he wanted to help: women. It can't be an ego thing.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  But he did take the criticism - he recused himself. That's the topic of the OP.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Oh for pete's sake. This is why I swore off commenting on this issue on HN. Swearing off commenting on this issue...you're doing it wrong.

astazangasta 12y ago

Foiled by his tone, or his content? I don't see this as very complicated. Women, just like any aggrieved minority, don't want to be spoken for, or spoken to. They want to be heard; they want to speak for themselves. The goal of engagement is not to get some establishment figure to "parrot some feminist line", it's to listen to women's voices, for a change. The primary work of male allies should not be speaking up on behalf of women, it should be facilitating the voices of women. I.e., mostly, stand aside and listen.

s_baby 12y ago
>I don't see this as very complicated. Women, just like any aggrieved minority, don't want to be spoken for, or spoken to. They want to be heard; they want to speak for themselves. Are you a woman?

mcantelon 12y ago

Ironically, I'd never heard of Wadhwa until the current campaign accusing him of hogging the spotlight started.

serve_yay 12y ago

It's best to just stay away from discussion of this issue IMO. Lots of heat but very little light.

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

Read the Amelia Greenhall post and look at the conversation on Twitter about this. The entire "conversation" emanating from people critiquing him is a thermonuclear kafkatrap. None of it is in good faith and much of it is flagrantly abusive, in particular the accusations that he was sexually propositioning a woman by suggesting speaking in person.

raincom 12y ago

Well, there is a greater issue. Social scientists (or social sciences) have been reduced to a variant of identity politics: who speaks for which group!! Instead of this (who speaks for which group), these scientists (after all, Wadhwa was (is?) a professor of business) should have produced 'knowledge' about what is going in the tech industry. Here, it requires more than "who speaks for which group": generating non-ad hoc hypotheses to understand phenomena, testing such hypotheses for testable consequences. When one can't produce knowledge, they end up with arguments. On one hand, one can reasonably argue for any proposition, say P, to an extent. On the other hand, some others can reasonbly argue for the logical opposite of P too. In the end, it boils down to who believes P or not-P.