3 ms·

Right, so it's interesting to consider why they don't feel used. Considering this was done consciously what is message we are meant to come away with? Is it

Right, so it's interesting to consider why they don't feel used. Considering this was done consciously what is message we are meant to come away with? Is it a) to show the world that black women can be engineers at successful companies? b) to show the world that companies can be successful with black women engineers? c) to show the world that companies are more successful with black women engineers? In each of those cases what are the implications of them not feeling like a prop?

tptacek 11y ago
First, to come closer to the most charitable, least controversial framing of what's happening here, replace (c) with: d) to show the world that companies are more successful when they don't adopt practices that exclude black women engineers? Then, to be fully charitable, replace "black women" with "statistically underrepresented people", or whatever term you feel comes closest to that which will allow us not to pointlessly litigate. Then, I think the answer is (a, b, d). Finally, the simplest, most obvious implication of them not feeling "like a prop" is that they share the objective that their employer has in promoting the idea. The term "prop" is derisive. We don't feel like "props" when we work with other people towards shared goals, even though our work is, directly or indirectly, helping those other people as well.
- hnamazon123 11y ago
  That's a really good point. I suppose I'm cynical when it comes to corporations taking social positions. My first inclination would be to assume that there's an alterior profit motive in terms of the optics as it relates to marketing in addition to the virtue signaling on the part of the leadership - both of them being a result of the influence of identity politics. I suppose that's not exactly a charitable assumption or provable.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I generally agree that companies are going to be inclined to signal social values when those values align with their own interests. But I'm generally happy when the interests of companies line up with what I believe to be the interests of society as a whole. Companies that go out of their way to be environmentally friendly are most often doing that in order to seize a marketing niche. That's a signal sent with a profit motive. But that doesn't bother me; why should it? Like you, I do remain wary of the motives of companies when they send signals about social values. Their actions might not match the signals they're sending, or, having firmly established those social values as part of their "brand", they may cease serving those values altogether. I think it's good to be wary of companies. But I think we should be careful about about letting the social values themselves take flak due solely to that wariness. The ulterior motives of Slack are a small issue. Whichever way you feel about it, diversity is a big issue. Let's not lose the forest for the shrubs. I suspect we may not entirely agree about the merits of the particular social values ("diversity", whatever) at stake here. I believe the underrepresentation of women and African Americans in tech is a major problem. But either way: you seem like a pretty reasonable person, so, thank you for being that way.

tptacek 11y ago

First, to come closer to the most charitable, least controversial framing of what's happening here, replace (c) with: d) to show the world that companies are more successful when they don't adopt practices that exclude black women engineers? Then, to be fully charitable, replace "black women" with "statistically underrepresented people", or whatever term you feel comes closest to that which will allow us not to pointlessly litigate. Then, I think the answer is (a, b, d). Finally, the simplest, most obvious implication of them not feeling "like a prop" is that they share the objective that their employer has in promoting the idea. The term "prop" is derisive. We don't feel like "props" when we work with other people towards shared goals, even though our work is, directly or indirectly, helping those other people as well.

hnamazon123 11y ago
That's a really good point. I suppose I'm cynical when it comes to corporations taking social positions. My first inclination would be to assume that there's an alterior profit motive in terms of the optics as it relates to marketing in addition to the virtue signaling on the part of the leadership - both of them being a result of the influence of identity politics. I suppose that's not exactly a charitable assumption or provable.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I generally agree that companies are going to be inclined to signal social values when those values align with their own interests. But I'm generally happy when the interests of companies line up with what I believe to be the interests of society as a whole. Companies that go out of their way to be environmentally friendly are most often doing that in order to seize a marketing niche. That's a signal sent with a profit motive. But that doesn't bother me; why should it? Like you, I do remain wary of the motives of companies when they send signals about social values. Their actions might not match the signals they're sending, or, having firmly established those social values as part of their "brand", they may cease serving those values altogether. I think it's good to be wary of companies. But I think we should be careful about about letting the social values themselves take flak due solely to that wariness. The ulterior motives of Slack are a small issue. Whichever way you feel about it, diversity is a big issue. Let's not lose the forest for the shrubs. I suspect we may not entirely agree about the merits of the particular social values ("diversity", whatever) at stake here. I believe the underrepresentation of women and African Americans in tech is a major problem. But either way: you seem like a pretty reasonable person, so, thank you for being that way.