The Women's March on Washington convened a broad and diverse group of leaders to produce an intersectional platform known as the Unity Principles. Representing a new understanding of the connected nature of our struggles and a vision of our collective liberation, the Unity Principles continue to be a guiding light for our movement. We believe in accountability and justice in cases of police brutality and ending racial profiling and targeting of communities of color.
These written accounts have mostly focused on its significance to the culture wars and the characters of the attendees. At first it was to be a frank discussion between Damore and Boghossian but the immediate criticism — mostly from students and on social media — was that diversity could not be discussed by two white men.
It mattered not at all that one was the author of the memo at the center of the debate and the other a Socratic philosopher who focuses on epistemology and liberal ethics and is therefore well-qualified to probe both motivation and empirical justification.
The problem was that both of the people had penises, those penises were white and, as far as anyone knows, responsive to those of the opposite gender.
They were hegemonic penises and this was problematic. They were believed to have different views to the biological argument put forth by James Damore and, importantly, they had vaginas. They all declined to attend, one insisting it was inconceivable that the discussion could be had in good faith given The intersectional identity of the black participation of Damore and Boghossian.
Next, it was decided to ask other women with relevant knowledge to attend. These included Professor Heather Heying, whose area of expertise in evolutionary biology related directly to the biological claims within the memo, and me, a political writer and commentator who addresses the intersectional ideology making the biology of gender difference so taboo at present.
Lindsay was removed from the panel in the week leading up to the event for being a third white male. In addition to having the chance to discuss issues of most central importance to my work with people from such diverse disciplines, I had also been particularly interested in the memo and spent much time talking to its detractors, few of whom seemed to have read it.
The typical pattern of our conversations had been that I would ask them why they objected to it so strongly and be told that it claimed that women were less intelligent, less capable of doing STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematicsless capable of generating ideas, generally biologically unsuited to working in tech, or that it perpetuated the idea that men and women are two distinct groups with different strengths and roles in life.
I knew that accusations that the memo was sexist could not stand up to honest scrutiny because I had read it, but I could not know whether James Damore himself was sexist. It is perfectly true that people have a variety of reasons for bringing up psychological, cognitive, and behavioral gender differences.
These can be political whether socially conservative — women are better suited to childrearing and should stay in the home — or feminist — men commit more violence and should receive anti-toxic-masculinity training. Damore gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for raising the issue of gender difference in his memo.
It was a response to a request for feedback following a meeting about diversity and the underrepresentation of women in tech, Nevertheless, it was possible that he was also sexist and undervalued women or disliked working with them.
I felt that, as someone who has spoken to so many people about their beliefs on gender equality and unrooted their biases, I might be able to discern sexist attitudes in Damore if I talked with him in person.
Nevertheless, it would certainly tell me whether Damore himself was worth supporting. In talking with him before, during, and after the event, I found James Damore to be a kind, gentle person who addressed the issues in a cautious and nuanced way with every indication of sincerity and good intention.
Therefore, absolutely none of the overreaction to Damore presented by students, the community, and the university itself seemed warranted, yet it remains an inescapable conclusion that it is central to why I had been invited to participate in this panel in the first place.
Despite being very excited to have this opportunity and having a great deal to say on the subject, I remain concerned about the extent to which I had been invited because I am a woman.
In fact, I sent this in response to the invitation: I have written about liberalism and diversity of ideas and about intersectionality and diversity of identity.
I have shown how the shift from the former to the latter happened on the academic left and argued passionately about why it is a problem. I have drawn on some the greatest thinkers from Wollstonecraft to Mill to Rauch to Haidt, and I have invoked the very essence of liberalism to argue this.
My writings on this have been read by hundreds of thousands of people. I have another orifice which is much more problematic.
My mouth will not be forgiven for not complying with what people with a vagina should say. None can be innate or inherited, and certainly demographics cannot be allowed to innately differ from each other, even on average.
Cultural constructivism underlies the belief that any imbalances in any area of society can only be caused by cultural conditioning or outright discrimination. While it is true that differing background perspectives may bring different information to the table, what remains unclear, even dubious, is the corollary idea that diverse background perspectives can bring different relevant information to bear on any given subject.
Specialist skills, like coding, have to be learned from the ground up by everyone who engages with them, and it remains completely unclear how diversity of lived experience can impact these skills.
One of the greatest assumptions of universal liberalism is that the acquisition of such specialist skills is ultimately up to the individual and accessible to anyone who wishes to learn them. Under intersectionality, however, people of a certain race, gender, or sexuality are assumed to think in largely the same way.
Women will have certain perspectives, as will people of color and LGBT and disabled people. This assumption underlies the beliefs intersectional thought puts into practice: It should be clear that placing women on the panel specifically to satisfy the bad assumption that they will reject the abundant evidence that biological gender differences exist is extremely demeaning to women and unlikely to decrease any remaining prejudiced assumption that we are not suited to science.
The only biologist on the panel was, in fact, a woman, and she declined to comply with this view. It was probably coincidentally — they seem to have staged the walkout for 6: Heather Heying standing to project her voice after the sound was temporarily damaged.
At a following related talk about intersectionality which I gave a few days later, a trans woman approached me to talk about the additional problems she experienced when trying to advocate for freedom of speech and classical liberalism and an Indian cognitive scientist addressed the whole panel about his confusing and upsetting experience of being accused of racism and sexism for advocating science and reason in his classes.
The orientalism implicit in the assumption that science and reason were not for him is breathtaking. The pressure on women and ethnic and sexual minorities to adhere to views deemed suitable for their identity is more suited to a feudal or caste system than to a liberal democracy.
This rejection of individuality and personal agency is anti-liberal.The Problem with Intersectional Feminism. by Helen Pluckrose; Posted on February 15, December 31, ; T hose of us committed to social justice are accustomed to being told that intersectional feminism with its focus on critical race theory, queer theory and anti-ableism is the key.
Only intersectionality, we are assertively informed, really listens to the experiences and needs of . True Diversity Is Intersectional. At Project Include, we continue to be troubled by one big thing missing in diversity discussions: intersectionality.
Womanism is a social theory based on the history and everyday experiences of women of ashio-midori.com seeks, according to womanist scholar Layli Maparyan (Phillips), to "restore the balance between people and the environment/nature and reconcil[e] human life with the spiritual dimension".
The writer Alice Walker coined the term womanist in a short story, "Coming Apart", #7 The drive to silence, disrupt, and punish views which dissent from intersectional ones is extremely troubling. We need to talk about diversity. Identity politics on the left was at first about large classes of people – African Americans, women – seeking to redress major historical wrongs by mobilizing and then working through our.
This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.
Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (October ) (Learn how and when to remove this template message).