Born in in the ’60’s, you know, it never occurred to me that I have to make the case for why diversity and access make an organization better and stronger than inflexible homogeneity. When Mishima666 presented that question to me, I had no notion that it actually needed to be addressed. I don’t know how old the man is, or what his personal experiences are. It’s hard to tell from his discourse because he normally just tells me what I think, and creates straw men, then flees. If you ask him his experience, he wont tell you. He just takes shots at what he calls your philosophy.
That is what conversation with the supremacy fantasy is like. It tends not to know itself, and is based upon nothing. When presented with facts, or history, it is gone like a fart in the wind.
Born in the 60’s, I have grown up accustomed to women as police officers, fire fighters, doctors, lawyers, professors, and some very prominent athletes. Billie Jean King defeated Bobby Riggs in September of 1973, just before I turned ten. We all played tennis in my little town, and we all had rooting interests in the “Battle of the Sexes.” The boys all rooted for Bobby Riggs. The girls rooted for Billie Jean King. It was political, of course, but at the age of ten, I did not understand the broader implications of inclusion and equality. It took a bit of maturity to get to that point. At that age, I just rooted for my side, as the immature are likely to do. It was harmless, really. You’re not a hardcore bigot at the age of ten. It was kind of like rooting for the Browns. The match turned out much like most Browns-Steelers games. Billie Jean King was the Steelers in this match.
It is interesting when you apply the diversity question to football. The diversity I am referring to is not ethnic diversity but rather diversity of tactics and tools. Paleo-football was more like a Rugby scrum. The teams surged and clashed over the scrimmage line, and very little advance was ever made. Football was a massive ego clash with little thought given to tactics. The push and shove matches were tests of muscle, expenditures of sweat, and challenges to sinew and bone. Not much ever happened though. It was a bit like World War I.
Back in the era of early football (1905,’06, ’07), as the forward pass was coming into practice, the use was extremely limited, by rule, or policy. The first passes could not be thrown over the line of scrimmage, or more than 5 yards to the left or right of the center. Even those who know little of football or sports know that the game has changed dramatically since then. The game has changed. The ball has changed. The players have changed. The coaches in the paleo-football era were reluctant to adopt the forward pass into their game because they considered it to be “sissified” football. I don’t think anyone today would call football sissified due to the changed rules of the game, and the new participants. I don’t know for certain about that. I was born in the ’60’s. The evidence of the superiority of the game seems unassailable, but so does the military since 1976 when the first women were admitted to the West Point. In the 36 years since then, the U.S. military does not seem to have molted into some inclusive mediocrity. It has become the single military power in the world with no peer. But there must be another view. If anyone sees Mishima666, ask him for me. He has been dodging these facts for the past 13 hours or so.
Diversity of tools, and the added sophistication of approach is a way that systems can become more flexible, more resilient, more inventive, and draw from a larger pool of resources. Women have been flying missions as astronauts since Sally Ride flew her first Shuttle mission in June of 1983. Admitting women to the space program did not cause it to be diminished, or fail. It never occurred to me that it would. I have a hard time understanding that notion that women being involved will make it necessary that standards be lowered. It is part of my base assumption that that is not the case. Why didn’t NASA fail, Mishima666? I can’t see beyond my , what you call, “...liberal ideology, being "equal" is the most important thing, and anything that is not equal must be made equal. So eventually women will have to be included...” Again, I was born in the ’60’s. I did not think these things had to be explained. I did not know that there was a credible alternative view given the evidence. Would you make your case for homogeneity and rigid standards? I don’t want to rely on the aberrational flukes of systems as diverse as sports, and science, and space travel.
There was this dude who had a theory a little while ago about many of the elements that are involved in this broader discussion. He was something of an innovator because he sought to exploit a commonly held perception about natural law which held that the strong dominated the weak, and the quick dominated the slow. This theory arose, and was explained about 2,500 years ago by a man named Sun Wu. The theory was called “Bing-fa.” The work, written 2,500 years ago, is literally “Master Sun’s Martial Arts.” We know it is “Sun Tzu’s Art of War.” Sun Tzu led the world’s first civilian army which defeated larger professional armies. But, what does he know, right?
Born in the 60’s, I thought the lessons taught since ancient China were generally accepted. Sun Tzu taught that size and strength were not power, but rather the illusion of power. The powerful can be exploited through the belief in their own power. That belief in one’s power is its own built in weakness. As term papers go, I think conquering much of China is a pretty persuasive experiment, but what do I know? My belief in “equality” will be the doom of all of our exclusive systems.
How exactly does that work again, Mishima666?