

Follow-up to “Quiet Ladies. Wadhwa is speaking now.” - sp332
http://blog.ameliagreenhall.com/post/i-wrote-about-wadhwa-and-youll-never-guess-what-happened-next

======
paul_milovanov
My thoughts on the original article:

I'm sure Wadhwa does a lot of things that are counterproductive to his stated
goals and obstructive to the women trying to have their voices heard. I'm sure
he is oblivious to the fact that he ends up stealing some attention from the
cause for himself, and to many other things.

However I'm also pretty sure that he is earnest in his intensions and his
desire to help women in tech. He is well respected in Silicon Valley by many
influential people and has the pulpit to attract the attention to the
difficulties women in tech face and the great things they have to offer. His
language may be off and he is a bit tone deaf, but consider that he was
(probably) raised in a fairly patriarchical, misogynist culture that he has
come to actively reject and campaign against. I also take offense at the
libelous implication that Amelia (author) makes of the sexual nature of
Wadhwa's offer to talk to people who disagree with him at his private office
at Stanford.

I am not a woman, a member of an lgbt or any other visible minority group, but
I strongly support acceptance and acknowledgement of the shared humanity that
we all share, equal opportunities and everybody's fundamental right to human
dignity and making choices in their private lives that make them happy. I will
take help and support for these causes anywhere they come from, especially if
it is coming from a person that is in the position to influence a group that
is otherwise unlikely to listen to these messages. I also support open
civilized discussion and believe that well intentioned and compassionate
people will make changes in their behavior if someone takes the time to
explain to them in a non-hostile manner how particular things they are doing
harm the people they want to help.﻿

~~~
spb
> I also take offense at the libelous implication that Amelia (author) makes
> of the sexual nature of Wadhwa's offer to talk to people who disagree with
> him at his private office at Stanford.

I don't really think it's like that. It's more the latently threatening
implications of requesting that someone come see you, one-on-one, behind
closed doors on your own turf.

Think of it like the iconic scene in the film _Network_ (as referenced earlier
this week in the _Better Call Saul_ premiere) where Ned Beatty's seemingly-
harmless Arthur Jensen invites Peter Finch's anxious and ambitious Howard
Beale to talk in his corporate conference room. Once the doors close and Beale
is without recourse or defense, Jensen blows up into an apocalyptic rage,
contextualized by his tone and environment to inescapably inculcate his forced
parishioner that he is no less than, as Beale meakly whimpers at the end of
the tirade, "the face of God".

Clip for those who haven't seen it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc#t=20s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc#t=20s)

------
paul_milovanov
Supreme Court holds that a proper remedy to hate speech is not censorship, but
more free speech. Publishing slanderous accusations ("Wadhwa invites women to
his office _hint hint wink wink_ ") only serves to discredit the cause.

------
cbd1984
Yeah, self-appointed spokespeople are a weird group anyway. It's good to see
one taken down a peg.

