4 ms·

>I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ peop

>I would invite everyone to remember this the next time someone wants a “politics-free” workspace. Specifically, remember that a vague assertion that LGBTQ people exist (a rainbow, on a logo), is what some folks consider “political.” There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified. Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month, emphasizing the importance of teaching your boys self-reliance, emotional control, delayed gratification. Or housewives' month, praising women that sacrifice careers and spend countless time teaching their kids important skills that will help them achieve independence and success in life. But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important, but one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner. So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday, we instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests. Because, you know, having common goals brings people together. And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension.

avocadvocate 4y ago
Hmm, I don't think any governments are actively legislating to make it illegal to be (or acknowledge the existence of) fathers or housewives.
- UkrainianJew 4y ago
  So? If the SMART goal [0] is to discourage these governments from passing such legislation, how does the pride publicity in the countries that DO NOT have that problem help? No multinational company is putting rainbows on its stores in Turkey or Pakistan, but there are plenty in North America. I personally only see the downsides of the current approach: 1. It attracts people that enjoying making others uncomfortable, and all kids of trolls/attention seekers. 2. The former group keeps pushing the limits, demanding more and more unrealistic things, slowly pushing the public opinion against the minority in question. 3. This is used as an excuse for more restrictions of freedom (like the hate speech laws), that are further abused, igniting more and more tensions between people of opposing views. [0] https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-smart-goals https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-sma...
drewbug01 4y ago
> mandatory acknowledgments Who mandates that? > shielded from a lot of criticism By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. They seem free enough to criticize to me? > while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified Each side mocks the other; so it seems to be a moot point to me. > Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month > Or housewives' month > But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important? > one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner. The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference? > So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. I would disagree. My experience has been that “politics-free” spaces in fact allow the dominant politics to be expressed, while silencing other groups. > And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension. You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. It uses the gravitas of a “right” to make a point but then immediately admits that the point was false all along. So let’s drop the nonsense about “special rights” - this is about acknowledgement, or “tokenism”.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference? There isn’t one. There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. > The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important? That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety?
  - drewbug01 4y ago
    > That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety? My statement was referring to the immediate parent, which bemoaned the lack of “Fathers appreciation month” and “housewives appreciation.” How does the lack of an “abstinence celebration month” support the idea I was responding to - the idea that the media has decided that “fathers” and “housewives” are unimportant? > There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. We certainly agree on that.
solardev 4y ago
I dunno... as a straight hetero man, Pride has had pretty much zero impact on me. A bunch of gay people walk by in costumes and flags, and businesses add rainbows to everything. What's the big deal? But for people who are LGBTQ, it is an expression not just of pride but also sheer survival and resilience, something that wasn't guaranteed even in recent history (and still isn't, in many places). I think it's easier to think of something as "political" when it's different from one's own norms, because the status quo is often invisible. And most of these minority groups don't seek to convert the status quo, only to find space for them to be themselves. There's a difference between evangelism and asking for tolerance, between asking for respect and reversing the oppression. > There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified. Isn't that just how culture works? It's not some baked-in static thing that we figure out once and then never have to discuss again. As to why certain topics get more positive coverage than others, well, probably it's just cultural norms trying to change, but seeing friction when it meets the status quo. Change is hard on a lot of people, institutions, cultures, and religions -- and that conflict is therefore newsworthy (and inflammatory and gets all the hits on social media, sigh). The things that are changing get more coverage because they are actually newsworthy -- they are novel. "How to raise your kids" is a very important topic, but it's not exactly newsworthy because it's not new. It's been around for hundreds of thousands of years. You're still welcome to raise your family in a heterosexual nuclear way if you'd like, but it's relatively new for LGBTQ couples to be able to openly adopt (or otherwise have children), or even to work and marry and walk around in the open. Likewise, "How to be a housewife" is also a very important topic (and a difficult job!). And frankly it would be great if we celebrated both kids and moms more, and gave kids enough schooling and shelter and care and love to be able to grow and thrive as kids, and paid the working class enough such that single-earner households become viable again. For what it's worth, all those same concerns apply to gay parents raising kids too, but it would be considered "ideological" or "political" to discuss that in some circles. > And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension. So... like giving health benefits to one's heterosexual spouse, before gay marriage was legal? Or... having people take free, undocumented PTO for a personal errand, but only if they have kids to pick up? Or... paying and promoting white hetero men more? Or... having reproductive health covered by your health plan? Or... having Christmas as a mandatory paid holiday and refusing to cover other religious days? There is so much in the workplace that is already discriminatory to many people. The difference is that the status quo has the power to just invisibly normalize these things and so we don't really have to think about it day to day, but the underdogs have to use "political" messaging or advocacy just to try to reach parity with the status quo majority. Is something only toxic and tension-causing if it's different from the status quo? What if the status quo IS the problem for some? The "non-monetary tokenism" usually applies to some historically oppressed group for whom "leave politics out of _______" has resulted in actual harm, monetary or worse, upon their lives. > We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday That is only the case when your workplace is either homogenous enough (which works well), or else invisibly oppressive (which doesn't work well), or else is diverse but also well paid enough that people choose to look the other way (which also works well, but is rare). In practice the second is the most common, I think, where you don't really talk about it but there's this permanent underclass who's just otherized and neglected. The cultural movements we're seeing now are because many of them have had enough and feel the need to speak up rather than to continue being marginalized. And frankly that goes both ways: all across the ideological spectrum, people are culturally dissatisfied with the status quo, each other, their employer, their government, etc. Our companies are ultimately just reflections of the individuals who own and staff them, and they don't exist in some cultureless vacuum... If your workplace really hasn't had any discussions about any of this stuff, um... maybe it should? It's an inevitability that it's going to affect the employees/customers/stakeholders in one way or another. And if you don't address it, it's just going to blow up on its own when the pressure builds enough. I think cultural schisms are like earthquakes: you can have many small ones that are easy to address as they come up, or you can let the pressure build and build and build until it explodes catastrophically. > We instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests. People are part of the work too. Whether it's taking a new hire out to lunch, or celebrating someone's baby shower, or not offending someone with a gift of the wrong religion, or letting a dad pick up his kids from school, or treating someone's same-sex partner with the same respect you would anyone else at a +1 event. How could you expect to work well with people if you can't even show them basic human dignity and respect? "Shut up and go refactor that test" is pretty awful, no matter their sexual orientation or political ideology. IMO we're people first and employees second, and if your workplace can't even acknowledge that basic tenet of the relationship... eh... :shrug:

avocadvocate 4y ago

Hmm, I don't think any governments are actively legislating to make it illegal to be (or acknowledge the existence of) fathers or housewives.

UkrainianJew 4y ago
So? If the SMART goal [0] is to discourage these governments from passing such legislation, how does the pride publicity in the countries that DO NOT have that problem help? No multinational company is putting rainbows on its stores in Turkey or Pakistan, but there are plenty in North America. I personally only see the downsides of the current approach: 1. It attracts people that enjoying making others uncomfortable, and all kids of trolls/attention seekers. 2. The former group keeps pushing the limits, demanding more and more unrealistic things, slowly pushing the public opinion against the minority in question. 3. This is used as an excuse for more restrictions of freedom (like the hate speech laws), that are further abused, igniting more and more tensions between people of opposing views. [0] https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-smart-goals https://www.atlassian.com/blog/productivity/how-to-write-sma...

drewbug01 4y ago

> mandatory acknowledgments Who mandates that? > shielded from a lot of criticism By whom? From where I stand, a lot of folks have stated calling me and mine “groomers,” which is pretty critical in my book. They seem free enough to criticize to me? > while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified Each side mocks the other; so it seems to be a moot point to me. > Pride month would be fair if we also had, let's say, Fathers' month > Or housewives' month > But no, the media has decided that all these things are not important The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important? > one's sexual orientation, a very private thing that makes many people uncomfortable and has zero relation with actual business, needs to be broadcasted on every corner. The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference? > So the whole idea of a politics-free workspace is that we keep these things to our private lives. I would disagree. My experience has been that “politics-free” spaces in fact allow the dominant politics to be expressed, while silencing other groups. > And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension. You can’t say that one group is being given “different rights” and then in the next breath say that it’s actually “non-monetary tokenism.” Rhetorically, that’s nonsensical. It uses the gravitas of a “right” to make a point but then immediately admits that the point was false all along. So let’s drop the nonsense about “special rights” - this is about acknowledgement, or “tokenism”.

rayiner 4y ago
> The world broadcasts heterosexuality on every corner. What’s the difference? There isn’t one. There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. > The media certainly has not decided as much. This is still what we, as a society, glorify. What would you say shows that the media has decided these things are no longer important? That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety?
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > That we don’t have a month celebrating abstinence and sexual propriety? My statement was referring to the immediate parent, which bemoaned the lack of “Fathers appreciation month” and “housewives appreciation.” How does the lack of an “abstinence celebration month” support the idea I was responding to - the idea that the media has decided that “fathers” and “housewives” are unimportant? > There is too much blatant heterosexuality in our culture. We certainly agree on that.

solardev 4y ago

I dunno... as a straight hetero man, Pride has had pretty much zero impact on me. A bunch of gay people walk by in costumes and flags, and businesses add rainbows to everything. What's the big deal? But for people who are LGBTQ, it is an expression not just of pride but also sheer survival and resilience, something that wasn't guaranteed even in recent history (and still isn't, in many places). I think it's easier to think of something as "political" when it's different from one's own norms, because the status quo is often invisible. And most of these minority groups don't seek to convert the status quo, only to find space for them to be themselves. There's a difference between evangelism and asking for tolerance, between asking for respect and reversing the oppression. > There are many things that "just exist", but one subset of them receives massive media attention, mandatory acknowledgments, and is shielded from a lot of criticism, while another subset is constantly being ridiculed, mocked and villified. Isn't that just how culture works? It's not some baked-in static thing that we figure out once and then never have to discuss again. As to why certain topics get more positive coverage than others, well, probably it's just cultural norms trying to change, but seeing friction when it meets the status quo. Change is hard on a lot of people, institutions, cultures, and religions -- and that conflict is therefore newsworthy (and inflammatory and gets all the hits on social media, sigh). The things that are changing get more coverage because they are actually newsworthy -- they are novel. "How to raise your kids" is a very important topic, but it's not exactly newsworthy because it's not new. It's been around for hundreds of thousands of years. You're still welcome to raise your family in a heterosexual nuclear way if you'd like, but it's relatively new for LGBTQ couples to be able to openly adopt (or otherwise have children), or even to work and marry and walk around in the open. Likewise, "How to be a housewife" is also a very important topic (and a difficult job!). And frankly it would be great if we celebrated both kids and moms more, and gave kids enough schooling and shelter and care and love to be able to grow and thrive as kids, and paid the working class enough such that single-earner households become viable again. For what it's worth, all those same concerns apply to gay parents raising kids too, but it would be considered "ideological" or "political" to discuss that in some circles. > And giving one subset of people different rights from another one (even if it's non-monetary tokenism) makes a workplace toxic and increases tension. So... like giving health benefits to one's heterosexual spouse, before gay marriage was legal? Or... having people take free, undocumented PTO for a personal errand, but only if they have kids to pick up? Or... paying and promoting white hetero men more? Or... having reproductive health covered by your health plan? Or... having Christmas as a mandatory paid holiday and refusing to cover other religious days? There is so much in the workplace that is already discriminatory to many people. The difference is that the status quo has the power to just invisibly normalize these things and so we don't really have to think about it day to day, but the underdogs have to use "political" messaging or advocacy just to try to reach parity with the status quo majority. Is something only toxic and tension-causing if it's different from the status quo? What if the status quo IS the problem for some? The "non-monetary tokenism" usually applies to some historically oppressed group for whom "leave politics out of _______" has resulted in actual harm, monetary or worse, upon their lives. > We don't argue which subcategory deserves a month of acknowledgement, and who can get by with half-a-Friday That is only the case when your workplace is either homogenous enough (which works well), or else invisibly oppressive (which doesn't work well), or else is diverse but also well paid enough that people choose to look the other way (which also works well, but is rare). In practice the second is the most common, I think, where you don't really talk about it but there's this permanent underclass who's just otherized and neglected. The cultural movements we're seeing now are because many of them have had enough and feel the need to speak up rather than to continue being marginalized. And frankly that goes both ways: all across the ideological spectrum, people are culturally dissatisfied with the status quo, each other, their employer, their government, etc. Our companies are ultimately just reflections of the individuals who own and staff them, and they don't exist in some cultureless vacuum... If your workplace really hasn't had any discussions about any of this stuff, um... maybe it should? It's an inevitability that it's going to affect the employees/customers/stakeholders in one way or another. And if you don't address it, it's just going to blow up on its own when the pressure builds enough. I think cultural schisms are like earthquakes: you can have many small ones that are easy to address as they come up, or you can let the pressure build and build and build until it explodes catastrophically. > We instead focus on actual work. Like have a month of refactoring, or a month of unit tests. People are part of the work too. Whether it's taking a new hire out to lunch, or celebrating someone's baby shower, or not offending someone with a gift of the wrong religion, or letting a dad pick up his kids from school, or treating someone's same-sex partner with the same respect you would anyone else at a +1 event. How could you expect to work well with people if you can't even show them basic human dignity and respect? "Shut up and go refactor that test" is pretty awful, no matter their sexual orientation or political ideology. IMO we're people first and employees second, and if your workplace can't even acknowledge that basic tenet of the relationship... eh... :shrug: