Prejudice on Women’s Day?

Prejudice on Women’s Day?

Michael Stuber Michael Stuber

Michael Stuber

Analyse DEI like a scientist + think like an activist + deliver like a strategist = propelling your DEI impact, benefits and progress (aka Engineering D&I)

发布日期: 2021年3月7日
+ 关注

Who is talking about gender, equality or women’s issues on International Women’s Day – and how are their messages perceived? Developments in recent years led to a renewed focus on female voices and even occasional incidences of male bashing. The underlying dynamic also exists in other diversity areas – and already turned out to be a dead-end road in the 1990s.

Flip to test – the other way around

Imagine a safe space that is created to let activists from diverse backgrounds speak up. Now imagine a female expert to be invited to contribute. As she has no personal anecdote to share, she politely refers to her different (expert) perspective and wants to pass on the word to someone else. When the moderator asks her to share some of her expert thoughts she declines, adding that she does not want to take the space that is dedicated for the personal contributions of other participants. How would her behaviour be perceived? I think the vast majority would consider her to be modest, mindful and considerate.

What if the same behaviour was shown by a man – and with the same intention?

Well, I behaved in exactly that way and the moderator accused me of mansplaining her and subsequently put me on the spot and humiliated me in a group of people who could have known me as a pioneer activist as well as an analytical expert for the topic of the meeting: equity.

Should white men campaign for equity?

The large movements of recent years, including #metoo and #blacklivesmatter brought back questions that were answered in the 2000s for the first time: To what extend should men be actively involved in discussing or campaigning for gender inequity, or white people in racial equity, or straight people in LGBT matters? When people said, way back then, that male feminists might be ‘more positively perceived’ (than females) quite some bias was included. The key benefits from including men or whites were showing broad-based support and adding a perspective that cannot be interpreted as a personal agenda. Subsequently, straight, white, male (etc.) champions propelled the acceptance of D&I in many contexts. At the same time, audiences fortunately remained critical regarding authentic credibility and impact vs. lip service of those new stakeholder.

Reverse diversity preference vs. expert involvement?

The current dynamic, though, is not questioning the involvement of members from dominant groups. It is about who is granted credibility in the first place or, in other words, positive or negative preconceptions or even prejudice. I have noted, both in corporate and NGO contexts, a tendency to deliberately look for and invite women and people from minority backgrounds to talk about diversity, equity and inclusion – or the lack thereof. That’s perfect and should always be the starting point, you will probably say and I fully agree:

Listening to other voices is always a key element we will insist on in any D&I journey.

It brings in real life experiences and provides visibility for invisible dynamics that most people do not (or cannot) see. In addition, we can learn what equity and inclusion would look like for women or minorities. Explaining underlying mechanisms and understanding how a comprehensive change process can be successfully designed and facilitated in complex systems – that is, or should be, a different question, which must be tackled by experts who actually very often happen to be women and/or from minority backgrounds. But they are usually different people than the everyday testimonials invited. 

Compensating past inequalities? Inside D&I?

I have recently experienced several situations in which people who looked more ‘diverse’ than I do, or who came from the U.S.A., were assumed to have expertise which I had to explain or prove for myself. On a levelled playing field, my specific, unique background is – excuse the bluntness – almost unrivalled. However, when preference for other personal demographics exists, it becomes an uphill battle [which I am no longer prepared to fight]. This is to best of my knowledge quite similar to what women and minorities have experienced for decades. Should that mean that the reverse is now okay as a compensation for past inequalities? And can such preference be okay at any time within the role-modelling D&I area?

Personal background as an asset or a bias?

A trainer who offers disability awareness training based on her own experience as a person with a disability told in an interview that people who have not personally experienced marginalisation should not be in charge of Diversity (sic). While this very position might not find too many supporters, it raises the question of the desired or required mix of personal perspective and expert knowledge and skills. Depending on the context, we sometimes find reflections on this question whereas in other cases, the stakeholders simply use their position to set their agenda and claim the narrative.

  1. Almost every ERG has to be clear on its mission as a sounding board and reflect how much subject matter expertise it has (in addition)
  2. Female journalists that report about International Women’s Day or Women in management in a way that reproduces internalised stereotypes or simplified explanations while (journalistic) research would have revealed a different picture 
  3. Young activists (for climate, equity or political issues) who naturally accuse mainly or only the older generations of having created issues but not reflect their own behaviour (or bias)
  4. Organisers of women or diversity events who invite presenters who exactly sing their songs and monopolise an agenda (despite being publicly funded for a broader mission)

Also the moderator of my introductory example (mis)used her role as a moderator when she only offered her perspective on the situation and undermined my credibility in a way that I had to intervene and remind the audience of my alternative perspective.

I have never understood why people working for Diversity, Equality and Inclusion would consciously polarise and communicate divisive messages –

if it wasn’t to foster their personal brand? On the other side, it is no surprise that also the D&I area was invaded by populist dynamics with simplified explanations, myths and – a necessity for good populists – an enemy target.

Together on International Women’s Day

Each and every event in the Diversity diary should be an opportunity to showcase the essence of our shared agenda:

United in Diversity – Together for Inclusion!

My experience clearly shows that only women and men, black and white, gay and straight can instigate and drive change together. This is why I implement the concept of allies also beyond the LGBT area where it first emerged from. By the way, the LGBT area was the first to actively pursue the synergetic potential of Diversity 20+ years ago… 

I will always choose to march together with feminist sisters or black brothers, even when they might have reservations.

At the same time, I would never rise to speak at such an event but see my role as visible supporter only. As a D&I expert, I particularly support this year’s motto:

Choose to Challenge

Systems and cultures can only be changed when the people choose to challenge situations or dynamics they observe that might not be in line with the organisations proclaimed principles or values.

I recommend to challenge rather often than selectively, for each discussion is a healthy exercise for everyone involved.

There is still a lot to challenge in the Diversity arena and I am concerned by the renewed competition between the various strands which I have observed in recent years. It cannibalises our resources and diminishes our strength. However, nothing is as destructive for a mission as not living up to its own values. Therefore, I will always choose to challenge D&I stakeholders who from my point of view do not behave fairly, openly or inclusively.

 

要查看或添加评论，请登录

Michael Stuber的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了