5 ms·

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

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".
      - merlincorey 5y ago
        Thanks for the pointer, but I am still confused about the categorization of "analysis" and now also "competitive". For some reason, both of these words are included in patterns ("analy*" and "compet*") in the "Masculine Words" list; however, the methodology for Study 1 indicates that the word "competitive" is agentic and has to do with agency rather than gender. It then references several papers for where they sourced their lists, but I can only access some of them. In the ones I was able to access, I can't find discussion on why "analysis" or "competitive" are considered masculine words. Many of the ones I can't access are older studies, perhaps not incidentally. I work with "analysts" many of whom are women and they are expected to perform "analysis" as part of their job. A research study I found[0] indicates as much as 48% of women are in "Analyst" roles. The study referenced in the paper you linked looked at roles where the largest group of women in a male dominated profession was 26% for computer programmers. I am sure it is very complicated and I'm missing lots of things in my quick survey, but in this admittedly cherry-picked example I don't understand how "analyst" is considered a masculine word when there is near parity between genders in "analyst" roles. I wonder if some of these words are coded based on biases from times gone by -- maybe back in the 1970's and 1980's most "analysts" were male and therefore most "analysis" being performed by males, but in 2020's this does not seem to be the case. [0] https://www.zippia.com/analyst-jobs/demographics/ https://www.zippia.com/analyst-jobs/demographics/
        twofornone 5y ago
        >Thanks for the pointer, but I am still confused about the categorization of "analysis" and now also "competitive". Let me try to abate some of your confusion: you are approaching this with the assumption that the research and policies originate from a position of good faith. They don't. The motivations are petty jealousy, greed, and insecurity. It's much easier from an emotional perspective to blame "the system" (i.e. white men) than to acknowledge that some groups are more likely to be better suited for certain occupations than others. Racism and sexism are convenient excuses which direct attention away from personal insufficiencies. That's partly why this dogma is so intoxicating - and the other reason is that it's misleadingly presented in a way that implies it can only result in more positive outcomes. Add in the stigma against questioning any of this and the outcome is a rigid orthodoxy which is totally removed from western liberal values of equality of opportunity, which is being deliberately conflated with equality of outcome.
  - kristjansson 5y ago
    Thanks for the actual reference. The feminine/masculine assignment list verges on insulting on its own. Autonomy is masculine? Objective? Logic?? Reads like a 80s cartoon stereotype.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      > Reads like a 80s cartoon stereotype. Yeah, that's the point. The words are supposed to be gender stereotypes, and they are in fact taken from literature circa ~90s-00s (not the 80s but we all know the stereotypes were still prevalent then). It's not supposed to be insulting, these are presented in an academic context with extensive references to the prevailing literature.
- twofornone 5y ago
  See the link in my post. The claim is that women are discouraged from applying. Frankly it's bullshit.
thegrimmest 5y ago
I'm not sure why having a more diverse applicant pools should even be a goal. Often diversity hinders team cohesion and creates communication barriers. What's wrong with homogenous teams and organizations? Furthermore, when did the (highly subjective) masculine/feminine coding of a word become more important that its actual definition? What if you do in fact need an "independent" person? Does that mean you need a man? Aren't we just back to stereotyping then?
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  The first question is not hard to find answers to if you genuinely want them. But it has a lot to do with how the claim in that paragraph is not true: homogenous teams are less effective in some measurable ways. Plus our society is not homogenous, so from what mechanism does the homogeneity of the team emerge? Is it completely benign and spurious? The actual definition is the meaning ascribed by users of a word as it is understood by their audience. The dictionary is a recording of meaning, not a creator of it.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    >But it has a lot to do with how the claim in that paragraph is not true: homogenous teams are less effective in some measurable ways As far as I'm aware there is a single contrived study which looked at financial metrics from boards with female representation to come to that conclusion. This is a tenet that activists desperately want to believe but flies in the face of conventional experience and basic reasoning. At the very lease some minimum common culture, like language, is necessary for a functioning team. How do you expect a team to function if half the members believe that traits like "independence" are toxic and words like "analysis" are offensive? That's culture too. >Plus our society is not homogenous, so from what mechanism does the homogeneity of the team emerge? Is it completely benign and spurious? Another recently popular fallacy used to justify these toxic policies. That a team is composed primarily of one demographic does not imply sexism. People who share cultural values and personality traits are likely to gravitate toward certain disciplines, it is an entirely emergent phenomenon and does not require invocation of discrimination to explain. For example, regardless of the amount of sexism actually present in the tech workplace, it is absurd to expect gender parity if one acknowledges that women are fundamentally less likely to be interested in programming in the first place, as a consequence of human nature. These policies all feel great but are ultimately half baked, and the danger here is that for merely questioning them, as any rational person should, we risk our livelihoods. The consequences for society are bleak, as we are now explicitly prioritizing gender and race over competence. This is, ironically, top-down mandated systemic racism/sexism. Edit: in fact I would go as far as to say that all communication is predicated upon common culture, because words, symbols, gestures, and inferred intentions are all inherently cultural. Even things like correcting mistakes of others and questioning seniors/elders are vary with culture. There is absolutely no reason to believe that diversity is an absolute good and cannot hamper communication and cooperation when certain cultures are mixed. We've gone totally off the rails because the same people pushing for these policies have created a system where their discussion is forbidden.
twofornone 5y ago
>Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. Yes, I know very well what the alleged rationale is for this toxicity. But can you spend more than half a second actually thinking critically about the implications of such policy? Let me put it this way: if a person is so sensitive as to be unable to handle a job posting listing objectively desirable traits and behaviors like "leadership", "competitive", "analysis", "objective", etc, then I would question their ability to function as part of a competent team, or even as an adult. The implication is that women are so fragile that they need to be protected from words otherwise representing totally desirable traits in a team member. We can't find a female senior python engineer because there are almost none in the pipeline, not because our job postings are "gendered". Of course these D&I grifters would be out of a paycheck if they admitted as much. But the gaslighting and forced discrimination is absolutely infuriating and totally demoralizing.
baud147258 5y ago
> Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. but if I want to put lead and driven on a job ad for a person, that's because I want someone who feel they can lead and are driven for the job. If prospective applicants don't feel they have those quality (or are ready to apply them for the job offered), why should I care?
Manuel_D 5y ago
How on earth is "analysis" a non-inclusive word? What if you're hiring someone to do some sort of analysis? Or, for job title that's literally "analyst"? It's probably the case that a lazy researcher saw a fewer URM applicants for jobs with those words and assumed the causal factor was the word, rather than factors like education requirements or something else.

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".
    - merlincorey 5y ago
      Thanks for the pointer, but I am still confused about the categorization of "analysis" and now also "competitive". For some reason, both of these words are included in patterns ("analy*" and "compet*") in the "Masculine Words" list; however, the methodology for Study 1 indicates that the word "competitive" is agentic and has to do with agency rather than gender. It then references several papers for where they sourced their lists, but I can only access some of them. In the ones I was able to access, I can't find discussion on why "analysis" or "competitive" are considered masculine words. Many of the ones I can't access are older studies, perhaps not incidentally. I work with "analysts" many of whom are women and they are expected to perform "analysis" as part of their job. A research study I found[0] indicates as much as 48% of women are in "Analyst" roles. The study referenced in the paper you linked looked at roles where the largest group of women in a male dominated profession was 26% for computer programmers. I am sure it is very complicated and I'm missing lots of things in my quick survey, but in this admittedly cherry-picked example I don't understand how "analyst" is considered a masculine word when there is near parity between genders in "analyst" roles. I wonder if some of these words are coded based on biases from times gone by -- maybe back in the 1970's and 1980's most "analysts" were male and therefore most "analysis" being performed by males, but in 2020's this does not seem to be the case. [0] https://www.zippia.com/analyst-jobs/demographics/ https://www.zippia.com/analyst-jobs/demographics/
      - twofornone 5y ago
        >Thanks for the pointer, but I am still confused about the categorization of "analysis" and now also "competitive". Let me try to abate some of your confusion: you are approaching this with the assumption that the research and policies originate from a position of good faith. They don't. The motivations are petty jealousy, greed, and insecurity. It's much easier from an emotional perspective to blame "the system" (i.e. white men) than to acknowledge that some groups are more likely to be better suited for certain occupations than others. Racism and sexism are convenient excuses which direct attention away from personal insufficiencies. That's partly why this dogma is so intoxicating - and the other reason is that it's misleadingly presented in a way that implies it can only result in more positive outcomes. Add in the stigma against questioning any of this and the outcome is a rigid orthodoxy which is totally removed from western liberal values of equality of opportunity, which is being deliberately conflated with equality of outcome.
- kristjansson 5y ago
  Thanks for the actual reference. The feminine/masculine assignment list verges on insulting on its own. Autonomy is masculine? Objective? Logic?? Reads like a 80s cartoon stereotype.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > Reads like a 80s cartoon stereotype. Yeah, that's the point. The words are supposed to be gender stereotypes, and they are in fact taken from literature circa ~90s-00s (not the 80s but we all know the stereotypes were still prevalent then). It's not supposed to be insulting, these are presented in an academic context with extensive references to the prevailing literature.
twofornone 5y ago
See the link in my post. The claim is that women are discouraged from applying. Frankly it's bullshit.

thegrimmest 5y ago

I'm not sure why having a more diverse applicant pools should even be a goal. Often diversity hinders team cohesion and creates communication barriers. What's wrong with homogenous teams and organizations? Furthermore, when did the (highly subjective) masculine/feminine coding of a word become more important that its actual definition? What if you do in fact need an "independent" person? Does that mean you need a man? Aren't we just back to stereotyping then?

giraffe_lady 5y ago
The first question is not hard to find answers to if you genuinely want them. But it has a lot to do with how the claim in that paragraph is not true: homogenous teams are less effective in some measurable ways. Plus our society is not homogenous, so from what mechanism does the homogeneity of the team emerge? Is it completely benign and spurious? The actual definition is the meaning ascribed by users of a word as it is understood by their audience. The dictionary is a recording of meaning, not a creator of it.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >But it has a lot to do with how the claim in that paragraph is not true: homogenous teams are less effective in some measurable ways As far as I'm aware there is a single contrived study which looked at financial metrics from boards with female representation to come to that conclusion. This is a tenet that activists desperately want to believe but flies in the face of conventional experience and basic reasoning. At the very lease some minimum common culture, like language, is necessary for a functioning team. How do you expect a team to function if half the members believe that traits like "independence" are toxic and words like "analysis" are offensive? That's culture too. >Plus our society is not homogenous, so from what mechanism does the homogeneity of the team emerge? Is it completely benign and spurious? Another recently popular fallacy used to justify these toxic policies. That a team is composed primarily of one demographic does not imply sexism. People who share cultural values and personality traits are likely to gravitate toward certain disciplines, it is an entirely emergent phenomenon and does not require invocation of discrimination to explain. For example, regardless of the amount of sexism actually present in the tech workplace, it is absurd to expect gender parity if one acknowledges that women are fundamentally less likely to be interested in programming in the first place, as a consequence of human nature. These policies all feel great but are ultimately half baked, and the danger here is that for merely questioning them, as any rational person should, we risk our livelihoods. The consequences for society are bleak, as we are now explicitly prioritizing gender and race over competence. This is, ironically, top-down mandated systemic racism/sexism. Edit: in fact I would go as far as to say that all communication is predicated upon common culture, because words, symbols, gestures, and inferred intentions are all inherently cultural. Even things like correcting mistakes of others and questioning seniors/elders are vary with culture. There is absolutely no reason to believe that diversity is an absolute good and cannot hamper communication and cooperation when certain cultures are mixed. We've gone totally off the rails because the same people pushing for these policies have created a system where their discussion is forbidden.

twofornone 5y ago

>Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. Yes, I know very well what the alleged rationale is for this toxicity. But can you spend more than half a second actually thinking critically about the implications of such policy? Let me put it this way: if a person is so sensitive as to be unable to handle a job posting listing objectively desirable traits and behaviors like "leadership", "competitive", "analysis", "objective", etc, then I would question their ability to function as part of a competent team, or even as an adult. The implication is that women are so fragile that they need to be protected from words otherwise representing totally desirable traits in a team member. We can't find a female senior python engineer because there are almost none in the pipeline, not because our job postings are "gendered". Of course these D&I grifters would be out of a paycheck if they admitted as much. But the gaslighting and forced discrimination is absolutely infuriating and totally demoralizing.

baud147258 5y ago

> Your D&I consultant is saying this because those words make certain demographics less likely to apply. but if I want to put lead and driven on a job ad for a person, that's because I want someone who feel they can lead and are driven for the job. If prospective applicants don't feel they have those quality (or are ready to apply them for the job offered), why should I care?

Manuel_D 5y ago

How on earth is "analysis" a non-inclusive word? What if you're hiring someone to do some sort of analysis? Or, for job title that's literally "analyst"? It's probably the case that a lazy researcher saw a fewer URM applicants for jobs with those words and assumed the causal factor was the word, rather than factors like education requirements or something else.