Easier way - attend all the "allyship" and DEI meetings instead of doing your job. If confronted say "challenging white supremacy is everyones job!" and insist they should "do the work"
Join Zoom. Use a heart or snaps emoji in the first five minutes. Turn off camera. Leetcode.
"Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel."
Most likely because we don't all know his individual lady friend, but we definitely know people who are 'women in the bay area'. If a person makes a broad sweeping statement then qualifying it with an individual exception is no more significant than some tiny disclaimer int he corner of a billboard.
White men as a group have high social and economic status, so a broad-spectrum put-down isn't likely to impact them very much. Women have spent a long time trying to overcome exclusionary social mores, and have correspondingly less social and economic capital, so it's in their interest to cooperate against overt sexists.
I've seen a lot of white homeless men around the Bay Area. In fact, the ratio of homeless white men to homeless women of any race is quite high.
Do these homeless white men have high social and economic status? I'm curious to know when it is appropriate to generalize based on group membership, and when it is not.
EDIT: More curiosity from me: Has anyone demonstrated that any women were actually impacted by his statement (again, a few lines taken out of context from, well, a book-length book) in any real way?
The assumption seems to be that now he's irrevocably tainted as sexist, like some sort of charged particle inducing sexist discrimination on any nearby woman according to some inverse square law. I have yet to understand how a flippant (and joking) sentence or two in a book somehow causes anyone any real harm.
I just looked up the suicide rates, and holy cow.[0] How many additional white men have taken their own lives because they are assumed to be able to "handle put-downs?"
Do not put your words in my mouth, please. You got a good faith reply, which you are misrepresenting. It was you that switched the context to 'white men in the bay area' in the first place.
I really don't see how your comment does not imply the meaning I took from it. You said that white men (due to their "high social and economic status" as a group) would not be impacted much by a negative generalization. In other words, as I put it, "they can take it".
Now, if I've misunderstood something substantive about your argument I am open to correction. With regard to how I phrased your argument, the whole point was to make it clear why I don't find your argument convincing.
> Ryan Singer, had been suspended and placed under investigation after he questioned the existence of white supremacy at the company
>“I objected to an employee’s statement that we live in a white supremacist culture. White supremacism exists, and America’s history of racism still presents terrible problems, but I don’t agree that we should label our entire culture with this ideology.
> “I strongly disagree we live in a white supremacist culture,” Singer said. “I don't believe in a lot of the framing around implicit bias. I think a lot of this is actually racist.”
That looks much closer to "one of the senior management team said white supremacy does not exist" than "he questioned the existence of white supremacy at the company."
This only gets worse if they hadn't. We have hours of these meetings every week. I attend a few hours to keep the target off me and turn off my camera to workout instead.
The culture here is getting bad. We have an "inclusion council" that hands out these diktats. The word ban list (not blacklist!) is approaching 100 words including husband, housekeeping, normal, hacker and meritocracy. Worse part is we're a security company
When anyone tries to prescribe language, it's time to look for the exit. For anyone who has not read the book Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)[1], or seen the movie, I strongly recommend reading or watching. George Orwell understood the power of language when he wrote about Newspeak[2].
Yup. Pro tip: If you're at a SV-influenced company and you find yourself talking about your personal life, don't say "husband," "wife," "boyfriend," or "girlfriend;" say "partner." That signals that you're an Ally rather than an Enemy.
You'll notice other weird speech patterns too. Pay attention to them; they're meaningful.
I often see that peculiar speech pattern here on HN! It's like they're afraid to say 'wife' out of fear of offending the woke mob. The same people who are OK with work being a constant struggle seminar.
I use "sibling" rather than "brother" or "sister" and "parent" rather than "mother" or "father" to reduce information leakage. "Partner" could find the same use.
This isn't any woke thing - its just a "don't reveal information that isn't necessary."
Ah, yes. Let's just obfuscate every humanizing aspect of our lives to ensure we are seen as a replaceable cogs in the money making machine instead of real people with feelings.
But isn't your restriction of my language and how I refer to the people I love pretty much the opposite of "inclusion"?
What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.
This is almost certainly for product or marketing materials, and not for you talking about your personal relationships. That is Okta should not talk about building a security tool for you and your wife to use, but instead for you and your partner to use.
Because I have no clue who your partner is (or really if you have one) so I shouldn't assume until I have that information. Note that the words in the example are all plural, presumably referring to multiple other peoples' partners.
Oh, I see what you are saying. I can definitely get behind the use of gender neutral language in product and marketing materials. That part makes sense anyways.
Curious about the context here - is the guidance page suggesting how to refer to your own relationships, or when referring to an abstract group of relationships?
Do we have any examples of this D&I stuff working? All I hear about are campuses and companies literally imploding. I never hear any places that were bad, and then got better. Is there any data at all to suggest that these ideas work and result in a better world?
Come to us. First of all it’s Florida and second of all you can say and think what you like. In fact unique points of view are deeply appreciated and widely supported - and engaging contrarian intellectual conversations most welcome.
The most crazy about this stuff in the stirring-stuff-up sense person that I know went to okta specifically because they sensed it would be a good place to engage in this behavior.
It's bad where I work too. I'd call myself anti-woke. I just keep to myself. The sad thing is that I feel completely demoralized by it all. Like no one is on my side and I can't express myself at all anymore.
I can't understand the people who say quit, because for every Basecamp or Coinbase there are 10,000 other companies who haven't banned it where it's taking over.
> 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.
mines only 6, shes defeated some child locks and found a "cheat" in one of her kid games on the iPad and presses every button on every machine she sees. Hack the planet kiddo!!
That seems like they don’t understand the word. I can’t think of many more communities more inclusive than hackers. It’s certainly not gendered either.
Join Zoom. Use a heart or snaps emoji in the first five minutes. Turn off camera. Leetcode.