"Critics say the recently proposed campaign leads to tokenism, where women are invited as keynote speakers to placate concerns over gender imbalance. Worse yet, they argue tokenism casts a cloud over a woman’s seat at the table because onlookers will question whether she was included for her sex or her merit. Others say the status quo is simply unacceptable and that drastic measures — initiated by the world’s leading male philosophers, no less — must be taken." - Kathryn Blaze Carlson
Echoes of Affirmative Action here. And also literature, I think. There is debate about this in literature even now, I think. When folks assemble a new literature survey book, they have to make decisions. Do they include women nobody read when they were alive and publishing simply because they're female (and we want a more "balanced"--not necessarily accurate--representation)? Since most women weren't educated and thus couldn't serve as an audience, does that justify inclusion of people who didn't have a wide readership because they were female?
Part of me thinks that it would really irk me to be the token female or to be suspected of being her. However, I was quite happy to hang on to a job for years due to my disability status. I really needed that job. I think I would have kept it even if I was somehow only allowed to because of my chromosomes.
Am I just really inconsistent here, or is the usual war of practical and theoretical, perfect world and actual world colliding. What are your thoughts on the topic?