"Not all people who call themselves playwrights are good writers.
Not all good playwrights write the kind of plays that most theaters want to do.
Not everyone who fails to get regularly produced is untalented. Or writes bad plays.
Not everyone who gets produced is talented. Or writes good plays.
Not every solution can target all problems at once. Similarly, no single diversity or inclusion effort can really afford to be all-inclusive. The more generalized and vague a solution is, the more likely it is to fail.
With very few exceptions, the goal of inclusion efforts is not that every single person is definitely included, but rather that every single person has a fair shot at being included.
Confusion over this word “inclusion” might mean that it isn’t a very good replacement jargon term for “diversity,” which, to be honest, is how it is generally used. The fact that there seems to be no word for “diversity” that white people (and in particular white men) won’t find threatening is a problem I don’t know how to solve. Although I really, truly wish I did.
The hope is that multiple co-existing efforts will work simultaneously (and with any luck, collaboratively) to attack a problem from multiple angles.
No single diversity effort has any moral obligation to be intersectional in nature. Intersectionality can be present both within individual efforts/orgs or across multiple efforts/orgs. What’s most important is that various diversity efforts not compete with one another.
Trial and error are important. Actually taking action instead of just talking about and critiquing all potential action is important.
Doing something different from other people is not a judgment of their choices. Just as my being married is no judgment on unmarried couples, the fact that there are multiple organizations and individuals trying to attack the gender parity issue through different means, lenses, frames and efforts does not mean that they are competing with one another.
This is because each efforts is going to have its own versions of (a) an understanding of what the problem is, (b) a target audience and (c) a theory of change. Just because one organization’s theory of change is different from another’s does not mean they are competing. For example, a structural critique of racism does not invalidate an intersectional one, or vice versa. “
I recommend reading all of this post. Isaac drops some truth.