True, but mostly what I meant was that it's funny that she refers to a room full of black people as a utopia of diversity, when it's really just that she happens to be in the majority there.
Which may be the only time, in our industry that has a white supremacy problem, in which she feels her knowledge and abilities are judged on their merits rather than on how well she conforms or how well she plays the game of being accepted by white folks.
She talked quite a bit about that in the article; I believe she was clear, if you aren't taking single sentences or even paragraphs out of context. I believe she is saying that in a team that at least somewhat shares her race and gender, she can expect her race and gender to be invisible and not part of the equation. Whereas, in a team where she is the only black woman on the team, she expects other things to determine her fate (based on prior experience in similar situations), and that causes her distress (as it would for anyone).
Being in the majority allows one to be ignorant of problems of diversity. She hasn't said she needs to be in the majority to be happy. What she has said, I believe, is that she needs to not have to think about blending in in order to be happy; and a massive preponderance of white males in the workplace does not allow her that freedom, because of the direct and indirect actions of some white males.
"Being in the majority allows one to be ignorant of problems of diversity..."
Your point is expressed very well.
Made me think about how, though I have been the sole or one-of-a-few white guy(s) in work situations and maybe at times times taken out of my comfort zone. But not to the extent that the author describes. I cant imagine dealing with what she describes.
Saying it is the same thing is disingenuous or worse.
I understand what you meant. That the phrase 'diversity lightning struck' seemed to imply a situation with a diverse workplace that was also good to work in. Whereas the rest of the sentence implied that the workplace was black rather than 'diverse'.
I don't think the 'diversity lightning struck' phrase is clear. So without clarification from the author we should probably skip over it rather than analyse it deeply and concentrate on the other bits that are clear.
The general theme of the article is about her experience in a minority (of one) so silly to focus in on a comment about her working as a majority.
