quadmoniker at PostBourgie, “Hurting for Female Directors” (emphasis mine):

His answer was that he simply hired the best writers, whether that led to any sort of fair representation from women or non-whites. What he didn’t realize, of course, was that his definition of ”best” probably excluded, intentionally or not, all but white males.

He added that he didn’t want to sit around and count quotas because he felt that was condescending. But it’s not just about parity; making sure his organization was more representative was about realizing there are varied points of view that his history as a white male might prevent him from immediately understanding. When you’re talking about writers good enough to get an assignment from Harper’s, there isn’t just one best. After a certain level of quality, distinctions from one writer to another become a matter of taste, and this particular editor was showing his bias toward white males. Pulling in other perspectives would enrich Harper’s voice.

[...] I’m not going to say that [The Hurt Locker's different emphases] was due to Bigelow’s special woman-sense or anything, because we don’t know why she was able to make it so good. That’s kind of the point. The excellence of the movie speaks to Dargis’s point and the problem with Harper’s at once. If we leave out half the population from movie-making, we’re leaving out half the perspectives that might be able to bring something new to the table. The major studios would be better off if they brought it, because I’d love to see more movies like The Hurt Locker.

The last point in particular makes a lot of sense to me: some people would assume that, well, when it comes to imagining new things and taking things from new perspectives, white men can do it too — that white men are capable of providing any perspective or creative direction that humanity could possibly provide — and therefore there is no need to necessarily seek out a diverse creative class, because there is nothing a Muslimah or gay Filipino could bring that a white male couldn’t, and it’s an insult to white men to imply that they do not hold the entire world in their mind’s hands.

But they don’t, because no human being is capable of tapping into the entire universe of perspectives available. We all see the world through unique, specialized lenses that were formed and shaped by our experiences as the person we are. The place we grew up in, the family that raised us, the way the world treated us, the distinct qualities of the culture we are part of, the choices we make as adults as far as the direction of our lives, our careers, our relationships, our hobbies and passions. All of these things change the shape of our particular lens in their own unique way, and we all have a unique combination of these things which forms our own unique perspective of the world.

But those lenses have limits, they necessarily have limits, and we do not always even know what those limits are. Those factors we share with others will create a lens shape quite similar to their own, and when we are surrounded by like people we might often begin to believe that our shared lens is not a matter of our shared experience, but rather a matter of universality.

This is what leads us to believe that there is nothing the white male cannot achieve, cannot bring to the creative table: his experience is shared by so many, and especially shared by so many in power, that he, and we, might begin to believe that it is not a particularly-shaped lens anymore, but rather no lens at all.  And when we believe that he has no lens at all, what benefit could there be to paying attention and inviting participation from people who do have differently-shaped lenses? No creative benefit, certainly, because there is no difference between what those different perspectives see and what the white male could see if he felt like trying. Because he can see all.

And so we wind up where we are: it is an insult to creativity itself to suggest that it is worthwhile to drink in a diversity of perspective, and it becomes not a matter of improving the depth and quality of creative offerings, but rather a matter of personal benefit to the creators.

And we can see where a white male might prickle when confronted with a person who appears to be suggesting that he does not deserve to sit on his side of the conference table, that someone else who can do no more than he could do has some greater worthiness of sitting where he does based on factors outside hir creative potential, and that he should actually willingly give up his seat to make room for hir. It becomes a personal affront, rather than a pressure to improve the greater craft. And, in fact, might become an affront to the quality and depth of his craft, to specifically invite participation from people who bring with them one perspective, but only one — while he brings all.

So he will invite only those different people whom he favors for personal benefit. And he will continue to scoff at the suggestion that diversity is wealth.

How it might be changed? I don’t know. But one place to start is to make everyone aware that they can only see the world through their own personal lens, and that their lens has borders, limits, boundaries. That no one can approach the world without a lens, and that every lens is malleable, not set, not infinite, but formed in the first place by one’s personal experiences.

It’s going to take some time.