6 ms·

>As it turns out, a lot of people choose to be inclusive and non-inflammatory. Ideologues deliberately gloss over the fact that the "inclusiveness" has become

>As it turns out, a lot of people choose to be inclusive and non-inflammatory. Ideologues deliberately gloss over the fact that the "inclusiveness" has become inflammatory. Edit: our D&I consultant does not allow us to use words like "analysis", "independent", "lead", "driven", and "competitive" (there is a whole laundry list) in our job postings to foster "inclusiveness" [0]. The implication that these traits, which are virtues in my culture, are undesirable, is offensive, as is this top-down culturally mandated feminization. Google is doing the same thing here. Its a minority imposing their culture onto others. Let's not even get started on the views that we are supposed to have regarding, say, gender. The same "research" is undoubtedly underpinning Google's "inclusive" suggestions. Is this really benefitting anybody? It's worse than mere coddling, it's antithetical to the equality movement, fosters a toxic workplace for straight men, and we should all be pushing back against it. 0. https://blog.ongig.com/diversity-and-inclusion/list-of-gender-coded-words/ https://blog.ongig.com/diversity-and-inclusion/list-of-gende...

otterley 5y ago
> "inclusiveness" has become inflammatory And crosses became inflammatory when Black people started getting civil rights in the U.S. I, for one, refuse to cede any influence whatsoever to bigots attempting to control our discourse by throwing temper tantrums about inclusive language.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Yeah, I guess I'm a bigot because I don't want to go into countless places and change my git repos from "master" to "main" for the default branch, for example.
  - otterley 5y ago
    There's room to disagree on whether this change is useful or necessary. But there's a sizable gap between having a difference of opinion and being a jerk about it. I've personally made the change because I see no harm in it, and it makes my colleagues happier. Being kind and considerate has low cost and high rewards.
    - homonculus1 5y ago
      You aren't being kind, you're being a bully with a thin veneer of social piety. Your standard of behavior leads directly to tyranny of the most demanding and intolerant minority and you aren't even brave enough to own it as your own. We have no obligation to do or say anything other than "What you're telling me to do is unreasonable, you can get stuffed."
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        clownsh0es 5y ago
    - dshpala 5y ago
      The common theme in the discussion here that doing X "makes my colleagues happier". Do you know a real person that became happier once you changed "master" to "main"? Also you said "high rewards". What are rewards in this particular case?
      - otterley 5y ago
        That’s a fair question. No individual has ever personally communicated to me that they care. And to be quite honest, I never considered the term “master” to be problematic in the scientific or mechanical context in which I’ve used it before. However, there are groups of people at my work who say that “main” is a less controversial term and in fact a better term for a “trunk” of code development (“mainline”). Since I see no harm in using it, I figure, why not? The rewards for me are having better relationships with my colleagues and less friction, which in turn leads to a more promising long-term career outlook.
        5y ago
gkoberger 5y ago
Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. They aren't trying to police language; they're trying to help whomever hired them increase the diversity of the people who apply. If you think straight men are the victim of toxic workplaces because of this, imagine how other people feel.
- johndfsgdgdfg 5y ago
  > Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. Which are the demographics not going to apply if you include "analysis" in job posting? I am genuinely curious.
  - gkoberger 5y ago
    Assuming your question is in good-faith, here's likely where the list came from: https://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/static/documents/Gaucher-Friesen-Kay-JPSP-Gendered-Wording-in-Job-ads.pdf https://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/static/documents/Gauc... I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, but this will help explain it. (I will note that the paper often uses the word "analyze" itself, for what it's worth.)
    - merlincorey 5y ago
      As a manager of people that includes women, I am always trying to understand how I can be more inclusive. The paper you linked uses the word "analysis" 10 times and never in a listing of "gendered words". What is the gendering of the word "analysis"?
      - gkoberger 5y ago
        Appendix A, it's written as `Analy*` to include variations (analyze, analysis, etc). This paper doesn't say you can/can't use these words, but rather just categorizes them as "gendered".
nullc 5y ago
> our D&I consultant does not allow us to use words like "analysis", "independent", "lead", "driven", and "competitive" I wonder if each of those words have been rigorously studied on their effect on applicants, or if your D&I consultant is just imposing someone's sexist stereotypes on your listings? The link strongly suggests that it's the latter. The thing that hurts the most about many of these inclusiveness pushes is that they are actually endorsing, enabling, and promoting sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory stereotypes while pretending to be holier than thou about it.

otterley 5y ago

> "inclusiveness" has become inflammatory And crosses became inflammatory when Black people started getting civil rights in the U.S. I, for one, refuse to cede any influence whatsoever to bigots attempting to control our discourse by throwing temper tantrums about inclusive language.

jaywalk 5y ago
Yeah, I guess I'm a bigot because I don't want to go into countless places and change my git repos from "master" to "main" for the default branch, for example.
- otterley 5y ago
  There's room to disagree on whether this change is useful or necessary. But there's a sizable gap between having a difference of opinion and being a jerk about it. I've personally made the change because I see no harm in it, and it makes my colleagues happier. Being kind and considerate has low cost and high rewards.
  - homonculus1 5y ago
    You aren't being kind, you're being a bully with a thin veneer of social piety. Your standard of behavior leads directly to tyranny of the most demanding and intolerant minority and you aren't even brave enough to own it as your own. We have no obligation to do or say anything other than "What you're telling me to do is unreasonable, you can get stuffed."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
      - clownsh0es 5y ago
  - dshpala 5y ago
    The common theme in the discussion here that doing X "makes my colleagues happier". Do you know a real person that became happier once you changed "master" to "main"? Also you said "high rewards". What are rewards in this particular case?
    - otterley 5y ago
      That’s a fair question. No individual has ever personally communicated to me that they care. And to be quite honest, I never considered the term “master” to be problematic in the scientific or mechanical context in which I’ve used it before. However, there are groups of people at my work who say that “main” is a less controversial term and in fact a better term for a “trunk” of code development (“mainline”). Since I see no harm in using it, I figure, why not? The rewards for me are having better relationships with my colleagues and less friction, which in turn leads to a more promising long-term career outlook.
      - 5y ago

gkoberger 5y ago

Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. They aren't trying to police language; they're trying to help whomever hired them increase the diversity of the people who apply. If you think straight men are the victim of toxic workplaces because of this, imagine how other people feel.

johndfsgdgdfg 5y ago
> Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. Which are the demographics not going to apply if you include "analysis" in job posting? I am genuinely curious.
- gkoberger 5y ago
  Assuming your question is in good-faith, here's likely where the list came from: https://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/static/documents/Gaucher-Friesen-Kay-JPSP-Gendered-Wording-in-Job-ads.pdf https://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/static/documents/Gauc... I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, but this will help explain it. (I will note that the paper often uses the word "analyze" itself, for what it's worth.)
  - merlincorey 5y ago
    As a manager of people that includes women, I am always trying to understand how I can be more inclusive. The paper you linked uses the word "analysis" 10 times and never in a listing of "gendered words". What is the gendering of the word "analysis"?
    - gkoberger 5y ago
      Appendix A, it's written as `Analy*` to include variations (analyze, analysis, etc). This paper doesn't say you can/can't use these words, but rather just categorizes them as "gendered".

nullc 5y ago

> our D&I consultant does not allow us to use words like "analysis", "independent", "lead", "driven", and "competitive" I wonder if each of those words have been rigorously studied on their effect on applicants, or if your D&I consultant is just imposing someone's sexist stereotypes on your listings? The link strongly suggests that it's the latter. The thing that hurts the most about many of these inclusiveness pushes is that they are actually endorsing, enabling, and promoting sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory stereotypes while pretending to be holier than thou about it.