Wow. You missed the point.
Ryan Devenish

The business landscape in America is overwhelmingly white because America is overwhelmingly white. It is not complicated. It’s the same reason why the business landscape in China is overwhelmingly Asian. The business landscape in most countries is overwhelmingly male because women are driven by different biological priorities, and tend to make very different career choices; and also because so many drop out of the business landscape in their twenties or early thirties. Biology kicks in. None of this is complicated and none of it is discrimination.

I am familiar with the history. I am also aware that there is almost no race or group of people that has not been both victim and perpetrator of oppression. I am also aware of how carefully you avoided the points I was making in reply to your post. You avoided answering any of them, preferring to opt for more vague, sugar-coated word-salad instead

I am aware for example that black people were slaves in America; mostly because of the fact that black people in Africa were busy enslaving them in their millions for profit, before that evil trade was finally stamped out, by Europeans, who all abolished slavery long before any of the African kingdoms did. History is a lot more complicated than your trendy “black man good — white man bad” fantasy. Inhumanity has never had a skin colour. Nor has oppression. My own people were labelled sub-humans because of their ethnicity and slaughtered and enslaved in their millions not to long ago during the biggest attempted genocide in human history, but that does not make me a victim.

So pardon me if I decline to play victim Olympics with you. I know it is a very popular sport today, but it’s one that I despise; because it is a shameful use of the memories of people who really did suffer horrific oppression, by those who didn’t. I believe those people; my people and yours deserve a more worthy legacy than that.

None of that is relevant anyway. Your implication that I can not look at the facts and draw logical conclusions because I am not black or not American or something is nonsense. Facts are easy to check and facts do not depend on how anybody feels about them. How should a black person respond to a white man in America who said — “I am being held back and you have no right to comment on that because you are not white?” Don’t be ridiculous.

Everybody has the right to analyse topics and voice opinions. Analysis being the operative word, because objective analysis prevents us from just chanting knee-jerk theoretic to comply with the politically correct orthodoxy.

But the funniest part of your post is the fact that you as a white man, are telling me in the pious tones of one of the “enlightened ones,” that I cannot understand and have no valid right to comment because I am not a minority American:-) And you add to that bizarre contradiction by attempting to lecture me with simplistic slogans about how women are supposedly held back??? I am not held back but thank you for your concern. If we women are looking for a white knight to prove how wonderfully enlightened he is by rattling off a few childlike PC mantras, we’ll call you.

You keep saying that minorities have barriers that prevent them form achieving their aspirations in the tech industry? But you consistently refuse to say what these barriers actually are. Actually it is easily demonstrable that some minorities do very well indeed in the tech industry. If others don’t, then maybe they are being held back by clinging to victim narratives based on past injustices instead of embracing the opportunities afforded to them today. Or maybe they are just not interested in tech in large numbers.

And surely you don’t have the right to comment anyway because you couldn't understand because you are not part of the relevant demographic? Now I don’t agree with that rather bizarre argument but isn't that what you told me?

As for women: Women in the USA got the vote a century ago. In America and across Europe today, we have all the same rights and opportunities as men and then some. We are also the most influential voting block in terms of representation. That is a fact. Again you decline to actually deny that; but just make vague unsubstantiated implications that women are somehow being held back; and you also fail to understand that women tend to take very different paths, freely chosen, because of very different biological imperatives leading to very different priorities and aspirations. But you are suggesting that women’s choices must not be valid, or must somehow be imposed, because we are not lining up in the correct numbers in each different field to satisfy your inexplicable need for properly regimented “diversity.” That is just not the way people work.

Diversity is all very fine, but it cannot be artificially engineered. Different groups of people, making different choices is also diversity. What you are advocating for is homogenisation. That is not diversity at all.

I don’t care whether a product I use is designed by a black person or a white person or a man or woman. I don’t even know most of the time. I don’t care if some time in the future, all scientists are women and all linguists are men. I know that is unlikely because I am aware of all of the genetic and biological reasons for the different choices men and women make, but I wouldn’t care either way.

If men and women are the same (as you seem to be suggesting) then who cares who is making various products or which one is holding office? If they are not the same; then how could you expect anything approaching similar outcomes in terms of careers and fields chosen? I suggest you have a little think about that, because; like a religious zealot, you are tying yourself up in knots of contradiction in order to comply with the meaningless mantras of your chosen dogma.

I am at a loss to understand why anyone cares whether most computer programmers are black, white or Asian. It really doesn’t bother me. I am not interested in some kind of Orwellian social-engineering disguised behind fluffy mantras like “diversity.” Diversity to me is freedom of choice, not homogenisation.

Just as long as we have good computer programmers, I really don’t care whether their great-grandparents were Chinese, Kenyan or Russian.

But I am forgetting. For you, it’s all about race: Do you really think that Will Smith is being held back, and that a homeless white guy sleeping in a cardboard box is privileged? Do you think that the homeless white guy has the power to oppress anyone, but that Barack Obama does not? Because that is the kind of stupidity we end up with when we simplify everything along racial lines, which is precisely what you are doing. The world is a lot more complicated than that.

When you take people from many diverse backgrounds; millions of individuals with different origins, cultural traditions, languages, beliefs and aspirations, and you pigeon hole them all into one homogenised block based on nothing but skin colour; you are practising the exact same attitudes that facilitated the oppression of both your people and mine. It is called dehumanisation, taking away a person’s individual identity and culture, and categorising them only by one superficial point such as skin-colour or religion. You are perpetrating the sort of practise that has enabled every major atrocity in history from the holocaust to the slave-trade to the Rwandan Genocide. People with your attitude, of all colours are the problem, not the solution.

But it really boils down to choices. Why should we care if more women choose teaching and more men chose engineering? Why should we care if more black people choose basketball and more white people prefer soccer? Why should we care if women choose to work part-time or not at all after they have children? Why should we care if more Asians choose tech or medicine? I sure as hell don’t know? You claim this is all some kind of crime against your sacred creed of “diversity” but I just see it as freedom of choice, and that’s all the diversity I need.