Write a blog post about what you found more convincing and what you found less convincing.  Do you think the authors’ messages to you was what they intended?  Why or why not?

I did not find the Holmes article convincing at all. Two of her arguments greatly distracted from her argument and led me to question her credibility. The first was when she explained that a majority of white people do not believe that diversity should mean a 1 to 1 ratio of white people to people of color in the work place. She claimed that this was because white people were uncomfortable with such an even ratio. However, it must be considered that caucasian people make up a vast majority of our country and the 1 to 1 ratio, though ideal, is unachievable based on our current demographics. The other argument I did not support was her considering Matt Damon’s support of increased diversity on-screen “a striking example not just of mansplaining but also of whitesplaining” (Holmes 219). I personally feel that Damon’s main argument is that diversity should be present where people can see it on-screen, not just behind the scenes. I believe Holmes grossly misinterpreted his true message. I did find Hagan’s argument convincing. His article had a much lighter tone while still highlighting the key benefits of diversity through his personal story. His arguments seemed less extreme than Holmes, and therefore, easier to agree with.