While I doubt it was your intent to validate the thesis of my article, I believe you have unwittingly done so. I guess I should be thanking you. After all, the point made in the article was that “this latest firestorm about gender illuminates an age-old problem with diversity programs: they contribute to the very cultural animosity that they are intended to weed out.”
I also owe you a debt of gratitude for explaining my feelings to me. Thank you, Alan. How on earth are women supposed to know how to feel if men like you don’t explain it to us?
As Rebecca Solnit put it best, “men explain things to me, and to other women, whether or not they know what they’re talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean. It’s the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”
If you knew me at all, or had read any of my other essays on the topic, you would understand that I do not consider myself or other women to be victims. Quite the opposite. You talk about women as a group that does not count me as a member. I speak from my own experience, sir. I have no interest in politics and you certainly have every right to disagree.
Lastly, Mr. Damore was not fired because he shared a dissenting opinion about diversity. Google is no government. nor are they the Taliban, as you suggest. As a private company, Google employed Mr. Damore at their will, and he worked for them at his will. He had every right to dissent to Google’s code, and they had every right to fire him for doing so. He signed a code of conduct on his 1st day of employment, and then (quite publicly) violated that code.