A smart friend shared this on Twitter today.
http://sports.mynorthwest.com/47287...inst-encouragement-for-women-in-sports-media/
I can state with absolute certainty that when white men view any discussion of diversity or inclusion from the perspective of what it's going to cost people like them, they're essentially arguing for the status quo in an industry that's 90-percent male, and that is what is actually unfair.
I agree with the internal logic here. I'd also add it's human to be self-interested even in the midst of benefiting from unfairness. I mean, Danny O'Neil didn't offer to resign and urge his bosses to hire a woman in his place, did he? Maybe he's referring to all journalism jobs from this point forward, with himself on the safe side. (Which, BTW, is human, too.
I'm not suggesting O'Neil quit his job. I am suggesting someone's gonna lose their job, and I'm guessing O'Neil isn't volunteering.)
This internal logic, also from the piece, doesn't quite work for me:
There is a fundamental error in this line of thinking because it sees everything as a zero-sum game, assuming that any encouragement or advancement of someone who is not a white male will unfairly come at the expense of a white men. The reason that's an error is because it presumes that things are fair to begin with.
It doesn't work because zero-sum games can and have been used to correct unfairness. It probably, is, to some degree, a zero-sum game. To which we say: Well, yeah, it's time for more women and fewer men and if some men have lose out, so be it. It's worth it get more women in the profession.
So, unless the number of media jobs increases, then, inevitably, if the field becomes 10% more of one gender demographic, it's going to become 10% less of the other demographic.
Which is OK. heck, even necessary. But not everyone wins. Somebody's gonna be replaced over time, and that somebody probably isn't going to give up their job voluntarily, so it's going to be sad for said person
even if it is in pursuit of something morally righteous.