5 ms·

"As communications experts, we can make an important contribution to an equally authentic and individual representation of women and men in their leadership pos

by jonsen 4y ago

"As communications experts, we can make an important contribution to an equally authentic and individual representation of women and men in their leadership positions by uncovering biases and creating awareness." What exactly is bad about this agenda?

kaczordon 4y ago
I think because it’s assuming an outcome before the results? I’d say everyone is for people of both genders being treated equally.
- eulenteufel 4y ago
  > I’d say everyone is for people of both genders being treated equally. But this is not true, historically, and still today. Most people in (in some cultures) may be for treating genders equally in a lot of aspects, but I don't have to go very far on the web or IRL to find people who are not for equal treatment of genders. But for everyone who does want to treat genders equally, learning about unconcious bias should be helpful. Learning about unconcious biases enables you to question your behaviour in order to actually treat genders equal instead of just agreeing that they should be.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    What about people who, themselves, do not want to be treated equally? I have found that most women I interact with do not necessarily want to be treated equally, they want to be treated with dignity and respect. These are sometimes, but often not the same thing.
    - eulenteufel 4y ago
      Sure if people want to be treated differently go ahead. But observing some women wanting to be treated differently (this step can go wrong!) and then applying that treatment to other women is a whole different thing.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  I see plenty of examples where gender-blind treatment does not appear to be the goal of people. Some of these are biased against women while others are biased in favor of them.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    Is your name a Dishonored reference?
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      No; it’s simply my last name, which shares a common root word (“falcon”) and the end spelling (-v, -va, -ve vs -ff, -w) varies with past regional dialect (ff or w being the Germanized form).
      - boppo1 4y ago
        Neat, thanks!
Banana699 4y ago
Because it's one-sided and unscientific. The kind of feminist-infected soft fields that make up those terms and agendas (HR, "Communication Studies",...) only really care about women, and by 'caring' about women I really mean they care very much about how easy it's for women to be corporate drones while thinking it's "Empowering". Have you ever heard about "Unconscious Bias Against Men"? Of course not, nobody gives a shit about men. It's unscientific because the conclusion is already formed before the data is gathered. Women get more questions about family than men? That must mean that the interviewers think women are baby factories unfit for work, SEXISM. Women get less questions about family than men? That must mean that the interviewers think career-driven women are barren and childless and without prospect for having a family of their own, SEXISM. No matter what happens, they have already made up their mind, women are oppressed. The "experiments" and the "data" is just a dress up game to make it look as if they're doing serious science.
- boppo1 4y ago
  I think you're close but missing some important info. An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. We can fairly call that oppression I think. The promoters of the disputed language, in light of the priors, mis-apply* probable reasoning such that for any case of a negative outcome for a woman, it must be oppression. *in some cases intentionally, in some cases unintentionally
  - Banana699 4y ago
    >An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. You can replace 'women' in this statment by any number of other group tags and still preserve the truth of the statment : -------- An enormous amount of men have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being men, like - forced military service, - genital mutilation (amusing fact : searching this term in google only turns up results about female genital mutilation in all pages), - and child labor. I leave it as an exercise to you how you can correctly apply the template to a random group label of your choosing. -------- So 'Women Most Affected' sentiments like yours serve only to illustrate the curious asymmetry with which injustice against men and injustice against women are treated. An asymmetry that, while not created by feminism and allied ideologies, is certainly much exploited and streamlined and stroked by them. >The promoters of the disputed language Oh, but it isn't a problem of language. The inherent delusion of feminism is that women are especially oppressed, in ways that fundamentally differ quantitatively and qualitatively from men. Expressing this delusion in any language will output biased and dumb nonsense, lobbyism dressed up as 'fighting for justice'. In other words, you can't say 'Women Most Affected' in more intelligent or naunced language. Every way of expressing a delusion will turn out to be ridicoulous and unfair and easily-detected.
boppo1 4y ago
'Biases' is a poorly defined term. So is the goal of 'creating awareness. In most cases, given historical persecution of 'othered' identities, people understand that agenda as a positive thing and it certainly is. However, it also gives cover to people to play power games, treat others like shit, and feel morally righteous about it. "I'm just expanding your awareness about your unconscious biases. I'm helping you."

by jonsen 4y ago

kaczordon 4y ago

I think because it’s assuming an outcome before the results? I’d say everyone is for people of both genders being treated equally.

eulenteufel 4y ago
> I’d say everyone is for people of both genders being treated equally. But this is not true, historically, and still today. Most people in (in some cultures) may be for treating genders equally in a lot of aspects, but I don't have to go very far on the web or IRL to find people who are not for equal treatment of genders. But for everyone who does want to treat genders equally, learning about unconcious bias should be helpful. Learning about unconcious biases enables you to question your behaviour in order to actually treat genders equal instead of just agreeing that they should be.
- boppo1 4y ago
  What about people who, themselves, do not want to be treated equally? I have found that most women I interact with do not necessarily want to be treated equally, they want to be treated with dignity and respect. These are sometimes, but often not the same thing.
  - eulenteufel 4y ago
    Sure if people want to be treated differently go ahead. But observing some women wanting to be treated differently (this step can go wrong!) and then applying that treatment to other women is a whole different thing.
sokoloff 4y ago
I see plenty of examples where gender-blind treatment does not appear to be the goal of people. Some of these are biased against women while others are biased in favor of them.
- boppo1 4y ago
  Is your name a Dishonored reference?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    No; it’s simply my last name, which shares a common root word (“falcon”) and the end spelling (-v, -va, -ve vs -ff, -w) varies with past regional dialect (ff or w being the Germanized form).
    - boppo1 4y ago
      Neat, thanks!

Banana699 4y ago

Because it's one-sided and unscientific. The kind of feminist-infected soft fields that make up those terms and agendas (HR, "Communication Studies",...) only really care about women, and by 'caring' about women I really mean they care very much about how easy it's for women to be corporate drones while thinking it's "Empowering". Have you ever heard about "Unconscious Bias Against Men"? Of course not, nobody gives a shit about men. It's unscientific because the conclusion is already formed before the data is gathered. Women get more questions about family than men? That must mean that the interviewers think women are baby factories unfit for work, SEXISM. Women get less questions about family than men? That must mean that the interviewers think career-driven women are barren and childless and without prospect for having a family of their own, SEXISM. No matter what happens, they have already made up their mind, women are oppressed. The "experiments" and the "data" is just a dress up game to make it look as if they're doing serious science.

boppo1 4y ago
I think you're close but missing some important info. An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. We can fairly call that oppression I think. The promoters of the disputed language, in light of the priors, mis-apply* probable reasoning such that for any case of a negative outcome for a woman, it must be oppression. *in some cases intentionally, in some cases unintentionally
- Banana699 4y ago
  >An enormous amount of women have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being women. You can replace 'women' in this statment by any number of other group tags and still preserve the truth of the statment : -------- An enormous amount of men have faced unfair (or worse) situations with negative (or worse) personal outcomes for just the fact of being men, like - forced military service, - genital mutilation (amusing fact : searching this term in google only turns up results about female genital mutilation in all pages), - and child labor. I leave it as an exercise to you how you can correctly apply the template to a random group label of your choosing. -------- So 'Women Most Affected' sentiments like yours serve only to illustrate the curious asymmetry with which injustice against men and injustice against women are treated. An asymmetry that, while not created by feminism and allied ideologies, is certainly much exploited and streamlined and stroked by them. >The promoters of the disputed language Oh, but it isn't a problem of language. The inherent delusion of feminism is that women are especially oppressed, in ways that fundamentally differ quantitatively and qualitatively from men. Expressing this delusion in any language will output biased and dumb nonsense, lobbyism dressed up as 'fighting for justice'. In other words, you can't say 'Women Most Affected' in more intelligent or naunced language. Every way of expressing a delusion will turn out to be ridicoulous and unfair and easily-detected.

boppo1 4y ago

'Biases' is a poorly defined term. So is the goal of 'creating awareness. In most cases, given historical persecution of 'othered' identities, people understand that agenda as a positive thing and it certainly is. However, it also gives cover to people to play power games, treat others like shit, and feel morally righteous about it. "I'm just expanding your awareness about your unconscious biases. I'm helping you."