That's just discrimination; your power+prejudice BS holds no water to normal people. It sounds ridiculous.
You want diversity of skin and sexual orientation. We want diversity of ideas.
Who's crazy here?
Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.
You know why? Because if you don't have power, your ideas do not come into implementation (you don't have resources!).
Therefore, a dominant group i.e. men or white people, cannot be discriminated against because they are the centre of power - they are the arbiters.
This BS of reverse sexism that you are perpetuating is complete nonsense with absolutely zero sociological backing. Therefore, the men you reference were not "discriminated" against.
In fact, your reference to "normal people" shows how un-nuanced you are in your understanding of discrimination and society in general.
Also, the fact that you expect a diversity of ideas from a homogenous group of people is absurd - unique ideas come through because people have unique backgrounds and experiences - as these in turn act as frameworks for their intellectual products.
Has it ever occurred to you that having people with "diverse" "skin" and "sexual orientation" could actually contribute to your goal of having diverse ideas?
Don't cite one conference as proof for why men are discriminated against. Do you know who was part of the blind review process? and more importantly, does that selection reflect on the quality of scholarship put forth by female candidates or is it the product of the experiences of the people sitting on the panel?
First, your definition here is neither the common English nor one broadly accepted. I assert that this is an attempt to redefine language in order to obscure the argument at hand.
Second, power is situational. Part of Damore's criticism is that those in power at Google are sing that power to discriminate against a non-dominant group.
If you take that as axiomatic then there is no debate here if we insist on using the term discrimination to discuss this problem. However, if one can arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever one so chooses them to mean and, in so doing, believe they're redefining what their interlocutor is espousing, then that individual is being truly intellectually dishonest.
Academically, of what discrimination consists and how discrimination is defined, as a word and concept, is still of great debate. Google around for morally relevant differences and discrimination for some sources and further reading. The Stanford Encyclopedia entry on discrimination is a good starting place.
However, in general common usage, the word discrimination is defined as:
> treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimin...
> a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination
>The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination
Note that in common usage the word is not qualified on the power or status of the agent of discrimination.
Unless both one and one's interlocutor have agreed on another definition it is vital to assume good faith and and stick to commonly accepted words and their meanings. If one does not one is at the risk of violating Grice's maxims and, in so doing, losing one's privilege of having others take one's words seriously. Put simply, if it's a new concept, use a new (or qualified) word. A seat at the table is predicated on clear, honest, equivocation-free communication.
I'm sure you're not doing these things purposefully. After all what is the point of advancing a cause if one, through one's actions, prejudices the very people one is trying persuade? It's rather self-defeating.
It's not about dictionary definitions of words, it's about how discrimination manifests (or how it cannot in the hands of those who don't hold power). Surely we can debate what discrimination means, but there's a plethora of sociological literature on the intersection of that dictionary definition (that you referenced) and how it comes to fruition in the hands of dominant groups. This is obviously central to this discussion as it was implied that there was somehow reverse discrimination against men.
Please share what you think about that, genuinely curious.
What you refer to simply as discrimination is probably better characterised as discrimination by "morally acceptable" traits while your interlocutor would characterise it as discrimination by "morally irrelevant" traits. This, I think, is the heart of the debate. It's clear that discrimination is occurring. The real question of debate is whether or not it's acceptable.
It's politically untenable to admit that and so we do actually have to discuss semantics. After all, can you imagine having to say "I'm being sexist but it's okay, he's male." or being called a misogynist and saying one is proud of that fact?
I think the answer to that question is certainly a yes. Is it possible that some of those discriminated against identify as male? Again, yes. We shouldn't make blanket statements or dismiss complaints about specific possible injustices. To do so is to forget how we got to the worse place we were at decades ago and risk going back there (in any direction). I can't imagine any of us want that.
So going to back to the original poster, had he been aware of this privilege he would not make statements about reverse discrimination or some injustice being perpetuated against him or other men due to policies that support women's equal participation in our industry.
However, I must take issue with your statements regarding privilege. Privilege isn't something one chooses to take, it's something one is given and gives. It is impossible for each of us to escape the privileges we're granted and we should all be mindful of them. Everyone is, in some way, privileged.
Again, this isn't a debate about whether or not privilege exists, it's a debate about how/if we go about ensuring that everyone has the privileges they desire. As such, we all have a responsibility to point out the unjust granting of privilege and to not grant it to others ourselves. As policies are a matter of consensus and systematise privilege, I would say that OP is doing the right thing in calling out what they see as unfair and unjust so that we can have this discussion, just as those with opposing perspectives are doing.
I think we've all already come to the conclusion that equality of opportunity is a privilege we all would benefit from. That is, we should all have the freedom to be treated as an individual in individual circumstances. Now, and as always, we have to be careful to separate the debate of whether or not someone should have a privilege from the debate about how we go around systematising that privilege in order to avoid unintended consequences. We've already had the first as a society and now we have to do the work required of the second. It's always a messy process but if it is to be truly representative everyone with a grievance willing to engage in thoughtful, honest discussion should have a seat at the table. It does very little good to discriminate in the talks about how we end discrimination - we would simply be repeating history and, if we don't like how it went the last time, why do that?
Note: I am aware that the first debate is still occurring in some isolated locations. However, I speak from where I have experience and do not claim authority anywhere else.
Not sure what you mean by "we've all already come to the conclusion that equality of opportunity is a privilege we all would benefit from".. equal opportunity is not a privilege - it's a baseline.
How can you genuinely say that everyone is "in some way privileged"? The whole idea of privilege is that only few have it, especially in the context we're talking about. I can think of so many marginalized groups in society that enjoy no privilege whatsoever.
Lastly, re: "we would simply be repeating history", please shed light on this, I don't really get it.
Actually, given the confusion around the word discrimination earlier, how do you define privilege?
Regarding equal opportunity being a baseline, I would have to disagree. As individual circumstance varies based on, well, circumstance, opportunities cannot be equal except through the privilege of societal intervention to make them so.
In regards to your statements that some marginalised groups enjoy no privileges whatsoever, they may be true in a given sociocontextual frame. However, shift that frame and you might be able to find some privilege, for example those of the same class are more likely to be perceived positively by other members of the same class (a form of tribalism) which is a privilege outsiders do not receive. This is what I mean by "in some way" - I am not holding some privileges as more valuable that others. I suppose the only way to really eliminate privilege is to eliminate social contexts and interaction; or at the very least the experiences of all those who interact in said society. However, that's not exactly a practical option.
With regards to repeating history, well, you might imagine exclusion of voting rights of minorities - disenfranchisement - as a parallel to telling people they shouldn't contribute to a discussion regarding them because of some otherwise irrelevant trait. That is, in a gross simplification, the situation to which I am alluding.