| Visible Minority men here chiming in;
I find this type of perspective (and the lack of empathy that underlines it) kinda saddening. Most of the argument you are saying are the same we used to make to other minority, "No i didn't mean all of them", "Understand the context in which i make a wide generalization etc..." > assumed the speaker meant...
I am guessing you are not an old person being subject to ageism... > Context matters a lot Yes it does, the context in which the statement is made, the person who made it and the context in which the statement is receive. Asking us to only consider on side of the communication ,and making excuse because in certain context the statement is not offensive doesn't seem fair to me. > such quotes are usually said in reference to a company's leadership team, and there's quite a bit of truth to them There is truth in any stereotype, that's why they exist. The usual issue is that they are alienating and non inclusive to some people. > it's overwhelmingly middle-aged/old white men And the prisons in America are filled with poeple who look like me, should i be okay with generalization on me about that. One thing that it seems that most leftist like me forget is that most CEOs are white , but most white are not CEOs... > I would consider that just as problematic as the age-discrimination that the article was referring to. Yes and the first step is adopt an inclusive language, and not make excuse we wouldn't accept on any other protected classes. The fight for diversity is won we get everybody on board. When we start to have a hierarchy of protected classes, some classes where it's kind of okay to discriminate against because X,Y,Z reasons then it starts to look like the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve And i guess the most interesting thing is the amount the mental gymnastic we have to do to find this statement okay, instead of just taking the most plausible explanation... It simply reflect the latent ageism in our industry, and the fact that it is still okay to be ageist so long as it's directed at white men... |
If someone could demonstrate convincingly that executive roles are being awarded out in a purely meritocratic manner, then demographic-imbalances might be excusable. But let's be honest - executive roles at mega-corps are almost always handed out on the basis of personal relationships and perceptions. I strongly suspect that in a purely meritocratic system, we would see far more diversity in the executive ranks.
It's also curious to see the extent to which many commenters are willing to accept the premise that old/white/men are being discriminated against in some roles, but not the premise that other demographics are being discriminated against in other roles. Is the evidence for the former really all that stronger than the evidence for the latter?