I love your insights, Angel. They make so much sense. But they might be more easily put into practice by removing them from the DEI framework. It is steeped in anti-racist rhetoric and has an aura of contempt for white people baked into it. It sounds like the training you received was better than most, but the underlying philosophy rem…
I love your insights, Angel. They make so much sense. But they might be more easily put into practice by removing them from the DEI framework. It is steeped in anti-racist rhetoric and has an aura of contempt for white people baked into it. It sounds like the training you received was better than most, but the underlying philosophy remained, especially when it comes to microaggressions and the assumptions about who is subject to them.
I'm relieved that your HR person didn't use their power to make your life miserable when confronting your uncensored personality. But is it possible that you were handled gently because you're a person of color? We’ll never know, but I can’t help wondering.
Microaggression is an interesting topic, worth addressing. I cringe inside when I remember doing exactly what you describe: at work, I once confused two Asian women with one another. One was a long-standing employee and the other was brand new, so your solution was right on the money.
In DEI, there’s an assumption that white people can only be perpetrators, never recipients, of microaggressions. I'm a fair skinned Jew, and apparently I "look Jewish," because strangers like to remind me of that fact out of the blue. As a child, I went to a day camp where I was one of a handful of Jews, and I was sometimes mistaken for the other Jewish girls who looked nothing like me. I'm a woman, so microaggressions and actual aggressions always were and will be a problem. And I'm a lesbian, so my short hair and gender-neutral clothes have often made me a target of homophobic threats, both physical and verbal, from both men and women. None of this is going to magically go away through “training.” A range of tactics and responses are required by me to get through life. I am sometimes wary, but if I walked around offended all the time, hating the human race, I'd be miserable.
Life is a collection of microaggressions and microkindnesses both given and received. If we love our fellow humans and want to have a happier life, it’s worth it to shine a light on our unconscious biases and strive to do better. But I don’t believe that DEI is the way.
Hi there, thanks for responding! To respond to each of your points:
I don't think it's all steeped in anti-racist rhetoric—and not all anti-racist rhetoric is wrong or bad. For example, FAIR Diversity (FAIRdiversity.org) and FAIR Advisor Sheena Mason's Theory of Racelessness (theoryofracelessness.org) are among many other alternative approaches that we can and should highlight and promote. We can bring new and better options forward that don't have the troubling underlying philosophy as a basis.
My HR person was also a "person of color," so I can say with confidence that my supposed race had nothing to do with it.
I certainly agree with you about the drawbacks of walking around being offended all the time. And you're right that no amount of training will eliminate threats or misunderstandings that cause upset. What the right kinds of trainings *can* do is limit those things in workplaces and schools, and give individuals the tools and perspectives that can help them navigate those circumstances, should they find themselves in them.
DEI, as it is often currently structured, is certainly not the way because it doesn't teach kindness and compassion, but there *are* DEI programs that do—such as FAIR Diversity and Chloé Valdary's Theory of Enchantment. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thank you, Angel. I'm familiar with the work of both Sheena Mason and Chloé Valdary, and I find both of these women inspiring. But I don't think of them as exponents of DEI, because I equate DEI with the philosophy of woke "anti-racism." However, If Valdary and Mason consider their work as falling under the "DEI" rubric, then I need to expand my definition of the term.
I think both ladies consider their work to be in a DEI-type realm, only that they're looking to propose a different way of going about it. FAIR Diversity certainly fits that criterion. There's nothing wrong with anti-racism or DEI; there's something wrong with certain permutations of it. We shouldn't cede the principles or language whole cloth simply because they've been misused by others.
Yes, that's fair, except the use of the term "equity," which refers in the DEI model to manipulation of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. The other two terms have been perverted or used cynically in DEI trainings, but when they refer to true diversity and inclusion, they are gold.
I've spent the majority of my working life in occupations traditionally dominated by women, and the number of what people might consider microaggressions I've faced as a male in those occupations has at times been off the charts. I also knew from experience there was little point in saying anything about it. Any time you can be considered "the other" by the majority you're going to face this. Obviously that doesn't make it right or excuse it, but it's just there. The Inclusion aspect of DEI only works when it's truly inclusive, and this is often not the case.
Steve, I know what you're saying. It is socially acceptable in progressive/liberal circles for women to diss men right to their faces, based on the usual stereotypes, in a way that would be unacceptable if the tables were turned. The term "toxic masculinity" strikes me as particularly pernicious. I say this as a lifelong lesbian feminist. Now, I've never lived with a man, so maybe I'm in no position to judge, but at the age of 70 I've had plenty of experience with male relatives, friends, teachers, doctors, bosses, etc., and have had many more wonderful interactions with men than horrible ones. We don't hear much talk about "toxic femininity," but I could tell you a few stories.
I agree "toxic femininity" is certainly a "thing," even though some might wish it wasn't. And in some occupations I think it's not only socially acceptable to diss men...it's expected. And since we're talking about the workplace, I think your observations and judgments are totally valid.
Toxicity is a thing; I'm not sure how useful applying it to masculinity or femininity is—though I guess there are some traits unique to each that cause some to think it warrants distinction. I can be persuaded, but the obvious risk is that this sort of thing can be weaponized against people who actually didn't do anything wrong (or who did something wrong but understandable).
Considering that toxic masculinity has already been weaponized, I think that ship has sailed. But I do believe there are some marked distinctions between genders when it comes to toxic behaviors. What could be labeled toxic femininity often manifests itself socially, and tends to manifest more in social shaming or ostracizing as opposed to more direct attacks.
I'm honestly not a fan of any gender-based toxic labels. At the risk of running afoul of the language police, there are assholes and there are people who aren't assholes. That's independent of gender, race, or any other category (real or invented). Weaponizing labels is often used to excuse behavior that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated. It's ok to bash "the other," after all.
I love this. I think the main thing missing from some DEI programs is "benefit of the doubt." I think it is fashionable right now to not grant clemency, to not think well of people who make mistakes, to assume that errors due to unfamiliarity are actually due to bias. Everyone assumes all less-than-optimal behaviors stem from racism because this feeds the whole virtue signalling posture that is so popular at present. The problem with this assumption is that it dehumanizes people.
I hope that this idea of "reframing the problem" catches on. There are positive solutions available to all of these challenges—solutions that don't dehumanize people. What we need is leadership that a bit wiser and a bit more mature than what we have been seeing to lead the way.
Bravo, Angel, for stepping up to speak out on this issue. You are sowing the seeds of peace, love, and understanding—just what we need right now. 🌼
I love your insights, Angel. They make so much sense. But they might be more easily put into practice by removing them from the DEI framework. It is steeped in anti-racist rhetoric and has an aura of contempt for white people baked into it. It sounds like the training you received was better than most, but the underlying philosophy remained, especially when it comes to microaggressions and the assumptions about who is subject to them.
I'm relieved that your HR person didn't use their power to make your life miserable when confronting your uncensored personality. But is it possible that you were handled gently because you're a person of color? We’ll never know, but I can’t help wondering.
Microaggression is an interesting topic, worth addressing. I cringe inside when I remember doing exactly what you describe: at work, I once confused two Asian women with one another. One was a long-standing employee and the other was brand new, so your solution was right on the money.
In DEI, there’s an assumption that white people can only be perpetrators, never recipients, of microaggressions. I'm a fair skinned Jew, and apparently I "look Jewish," because strangers like to remind me of that fact out of the blue. As a child, I went to a day camp where I was one of a handful of Jews, and I was sometimes mistaken for the other Jewish girls who looked nothing like me. I'm a woman, so microaggressions and actual aggressions always were and will be a problem. And I'm a lesbian, so my short hair and gender-neutral clothes have often made me a target of homophobic threats, both physical and verbal, from both men and women. None of this is going to magically go away through “training.” A range of tactics and responses are required by me to get through life. I am sometimes wary, but if I walked around offended all the time, hating the human race, I'd be miserable.
Life is a collection of microaggressions and microkindnesses both given and received. If we love our fellow humans and want to have a happier life, it’s worth it to shine a light on our unconscious biases and strive to do better. But I don’t believe that DEI is the way.
Hi there, thanks for responding! To respond to each of your points:
I don't think it's all steeped in anti-racist rhetoric—and not all anti-racist rhetoric is wrong or bad. For example, FAIR Diversity (FAIRdiversity.org) and FAIR Advisor Sheena Mason's Theory of Racelessness (theoryofracelessness.org) are among many other alternative approaches that we can and should highlight and promote. We can bring new and better options forward that don't have the troubling underlying philosophy as a basis.
My HR person was also a "person of color," so I can say with confidence that my supposed race had nothing to do with it.
I certainly agree with you about the drawbacks of walking around being offended all the time. And you're right that no amount of training will eliminate threats or misunderstandings that cause upset. What the right kinds of trainings *can* do is limit those things in workplaces and schools, and give individuals the tools and perspectives that can help them navigate those circumstances, should they find themselves in them.
DEI, as it is often currently structured, is certainly not the way because it doesn't teach kindness and compassion, but there *are* DEI programs that do—such as FAIR Diversity and Chloé Valdary's Theory of Enchantment. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thank you, Angel. I'm familiar with the work of both Sheena Mason and Chloé Valdary, and I find both of these women inspiring. But I don't think of them as exponents of DEI, because I equate DEI with the philosophy of woke "anti-racism." However, If Valdary and Mason consider their work as falling under the "DEI" rubric, then I need to expand my definition of the term.
I think both ladies consider their work to be in a DEI-type realm, only that they're looking to propose a different way of going about it. FAIR Diversity certainly fits that criterion. There's nothing wrong with anti-racism or DEI; there's something wrong with certain permutations of it. We shouldn't cede the principles or language whole cloth simply because they've been misused by others.
Yes, that's fair, except the use of the term "equity," which refers in the DEI model to manipulation of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. The other two terms have been perverted or used cynically in DEI trainings, but when they refer to true diversity and inclusion, they are gold.
Even "equity" is good as originally defined: the quality of being fair and impartial.
True!
I've spent the majority of my working life in occupations traditionally dominated by women, and the number of what people might consider microaggressions I've faced as a male in those occupations has at times been off the charts. I also knew from experience there was little point in saying anything about it. Any time you can be considered "the other" by the majority you're going to face this. Obviously that doesn't make it right or excuse it, but it's just there. The Inclusion aspect of DEI only works when it's truly inclusive, and this is often not the case.
Steve, I know what you're saying. It is socially acceptable in progressive/liberal circles for women to diss men right to their faces, based on the usual stereotypes, in a way that would be unacceptable if the tables were turned. The term "toxic masculinity" strikes me as particularly pernicious. I say this as a lifelong lesbian feminist. Now, I've never lived with a man, so maybe I'm in no position to judge, but at the age of 70 I've had plenty of experience with male relatives, friends, teachers, doctors, bosses, etc., and have had many more wonderful interactions with men than horrible ones. We don't hear much talk about "toxic femininity," but I could tell you a few stories.
I agree "toxic femininity" is certainly a "thing," even though some might wish it wasn't. And in some occupations I think it's not only socially acceptable to diss men...it's expected. And since we're talking about the workplace, I think your observations and judgments are totally valid.
Toxicity is a thing; I'm not sure how useful applying it to masculinity or femininity is—though I guess there are some traits unique to each that cause some to think it warrants distinction. I can be persuaded, but the obvious risk is that this sort of thing can be weaponized against people who actually didn't do anything wrong (or who did something wrong but understandable).
Considering that toxic masculinity has already been weaponized, I think that ship has sailed. But I do believe there are some marked distinctions between genders when it comes to toxic behaviors. What could be labeled toxic femininity often manifests itself socially, and tends to manifest more in social shaming or ostracizing as opposed to more direct attacks.
I'm honestly not a fan of any gender-based toxic labels. At the risk of running afoul of the language police, there are assholes and there are people who aren't assholes. That's independent of gender, race, or any other category (real or invented). Weaponizing labels is often used to excuse behavior that wouldn't otherwise be tolerated. It's ok to bash "the other," after all.
Microkindness - love it!
The cool thing about microkindnesses is that even in tiny doses they produce an outsized benefit.
I love this. I think the main thing missing from some DEI programs is "benefit of the doubt." I think it is fashionable right now to not grant clemency, to not think well of people who make mistakes, to assume that errors due to unfamiliarity are actually due to bias. Everyone assumes all less-than-optimal behaviors stem from racism because this feeds the whole virtue signalling posture that is so popular at present. The problem with this assumption is that it dehumanizes people.
I hope that this idea of "reframing the problem" catches on. There are positive solutions available to all of these challenges—solutions that don't dehumanize people. What we need is leadership that a bit wiser and a bit more mature than what we have been seeing to lead the way.
Bravo, Angel, for stepping up to speak out on this issue. You are sowing the seeds of peace, love, and understanding—just what we need right now. 🌼