@johnnyauau Your advocacy of making the distinction between girls and guys when it's non-essential is tribalistic to the extreme, and truly anti-male. You are valuable based on your choices and values, not in regard to your genetics. That's an idea imported from Germany in the 1850's. See my above post.
There is no value in there being people of different races. It is immaterial as to whether two human faces are female, male, or one of each. That's the entire point of rejecting segregation. There is no value in the sheer presence of female faces and male faces in the same room. It has no significance. the value is the fact that we are not judging these characters on their gender but instead their values and passions.
@Legolas_Katarn Spot on. The technical name for Carolyn's statement is that she is "perceptually bound." Instead of valuing people based on their choices and values, she is drawn to people look like her instead, hence why she places value on women simply for their gender.
If you want some intellectual ammunition against Caroline's argument, read here.
"Diversity" is a con word, an anti-concept, which is designed to eliminate a valid concept or idea. Diversity the legitimate concept means that things are valuable because they are varied, as in a Diversity OF stocks and bonds. In that case, diversity OF stocks and bonds means that your portfolio will survive if the stock market drops, while it would be wiped out if you placed all of your eggs in one basket. Stocks and bonds can be legitimately described as diverse because they are COMPATIBLE and have something in common, namely as tools of investment. There is only a diversity OF compatible things, while there is no such thing as "diversity" all by itself.
Continuing our above analogy, if you diversified your portfolio with stocks and bonds and a BRATWURST SANDWICH, what would you then have a diversity of? NOTHING. The bratwurst sandwich has nothing in common with the stocks and bonds. You do not diversify what is a great investment with something that is not a non-investment.
If you "diversify" your breakfast with arsenic, what have you diversified? Again, NOTHING. You do not diversify a Value with a Non-Value.
Saying that the "diversity" between arsenic and breakfast is a value in and of itself is a hoax; it's exactly like claiming that absence is a value in and of itself. Think about it for a moment; what if I asked you if you appreciated the "absence" on this table? Could you appreciate all the "quantity" in this room? There can only be an absence OF something, there can only be a quantity OF something. Consequently, there can only be a diversity OF something. Diversity in and of itself has NO VALUE.
This is key to unravelling the con trick.
"Diversity" the anti-concept obliterates this distinction by proclaiming that you can have value by mixing totally incompatible things. And yet, you have a "diversity" OF NOTHING. When she says "diversity," Carolyn doesn't really mean diversity, she actually wants "equality" in the number of men and women. This is the evil doctrine of Egalitarianism, hiding beneath all the intellectual jargon and muck.
The doctrine of "diversity" rules that people are different, and thus they should all be treated the same. The philosophy of "diversity" believes that these differences should be hailed, as they assign an individual to a certain tribe based on gender, race, etc. In other words, "diversity" ascribes value to gender, declaring that women and men or in the room have value BECAUSE they are DIFFERENT genders. This is sexism, ascribing value to women simply because they are female and look like other females. This doctrine of ascribing value to human being based on genetics is appropriate only for farm animals and Nazis, not human beings.
This is an even lower form of collectivism than racism, snuck in through the back door. It's really sad to see Carolyn propose a false dichotomy between advocating sexism against women, as shown in the above poster, and her back-door sexism, or "diversity" as she calls it. We should reject both and strive to be ACTUALLY gender-blind, understanding that race or sex does not determine one's value IN ANY SENSE, let alone art.
Thus, the gender of a given character that you choose to place in your piece of art IS IRRELEVANT. Gender does not determine your value. It is a NON-ESSENTIAL.
If you are interested in this argument, find Peter Schartz's "The Diversity Delusion."
This choice is reflective of fundamental inverted priorities that create the foundation of our corrupt culture. Journey is "deep" because it is not, it is "excellent" because it is not, it is "anything you want it to be" because it is, in reality, nothing.This is comparable to movie directors who believe that words are terrible, hence why a silent film won last year's Oscar. Hence why a silent game won this year's GOTY from Gamespot.
Defianc4's comments