[exstudent2]

BLM is a group that represents economically disadvantaged people. This list is pulled from the upper most echelons of society. Do you think it's ok to represent the wealthy as somehow oppressed?

Please don't take my question as an attack, I'm genuinely curious how people who support these initiatives view wealth.

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13260049 and marked it off-topic.

[danso]

I appreciate the question and I don't take it as an attack, nor do I think the topic is an easy one. My rough analogy was just meant to argue that focusing on the achievements of women entrepreneurs does not significantly devalue the achievements of men entrepreneurs, as the status quo is heavily weighted in favor of men. I wasn't saying that women entrepreneurs were facing the same burden as what BLM fights against, just that some people think that BLM is "racist" against non-blacks.

To put it another way, most people agree with MLK Jr's dream of people not being judged by the color of their skin. At the same time, MLK Jr. also argued that racial equality wouldn't just come about on its own after victories for the civil rights movement, but would require a concerted effort by society to make up for past inequality:

> "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/04/martin_luther...

It's indisputable that the achievements of female founders are not as significant as what male founders have achieved. Part of the way to encourage potential female founders is to celebrate what female founders have done so far, even if on certain metrics (e.g. market cap) they are far behind men.

[tptacek]

BLM is a group that exists to call attention to the ways that American society structurally devalues the lives of African Americans, most significantly by stubbornly assuming that African Americans killed by police officers (and by their surrogates, such as homeowners patrolling their property with firearms) represent justifiable homicides.

It is not primarily an economic justice movement and cannot therefore reasonably be attacked on the grounds you're attempting to attack it on.

This is, obviously, a tangent not relevant to article. 'danso was drawing an illustrative parallel, between the (implied) "All Lives Matter" rebuttal to Black Lives Matter, to "where's the men-only event" rebuttal to women-in-tech initiatives.

[exstudent2]

I'm not attacking BLM. I support it.

This list however I don't support because the members are from wealthy backgrounds and are being presented as needing extra help.

[kaitai]

How is this list presenting these people as needing extra help? They're all on the list because they have successful companies or had successful funding rounds, and also fall in the category of 'female'.

If it was 'top Silicon Valley founders' no one would think 'needs extra help'; if it was 'top Midwest founders' probably HNers would think 'needs extra help'. There's nothing in the article format that says 'needs extra help' -- that idea is brought by the reader.

[tptacek]

It's not even a valid observation about BLM.

[exstudent2]

We're way off topic but again I support BLM and do feel economics play a role.

[tptacek]

Black Lives Matter could consist predominantly of wealthy white people and it would remain coherent as a movement.

Similarly: there simply is a profound gender imbalance in technology, and celebrating progress toward correcting that imbalance is reasonable regardless of the underlying economic story.

It is reasonable to have concerns both about the structural privileges afforded to wealthy people in technology and the gender gap. What's not reasonable is to use one issue as a cudgel to beat back concerns about the other. If you think the tech gender gap doesn't matter, you'll have to argue that directly.