Timeline for How do I respectfully address new company initiative I disagree with?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 25, 2019 at 18:00 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 203 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2019 at 16:53 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 653 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2019 at 16:50 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @Sigma-stopharmingMonica have edited the answer to address this comment. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 0:14 | comment | added | Sigma - check out Codidact | Perhaps if you read my second sentence you would see that I have already had these conversations with others and come to the conclusion that my company does not have the sexism issues plaguing other companies. I have friends across all departments and given the #metoo movement these discussions have definitely come up, but everyone seems to be in agreement that our company has a refreshingly inclusive culture. I'm not saying that there aren't situations I'm missing; I'm simply concerned that making a big deal about a non-problem will lead to the situation where it becomes a problem. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 19:39 | comment | added | DJClayworth | No existing imbalance [citation needed] | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 19:38 | comment | added | Jeffrey | Existing imbalance [citation needed] | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 18:51 | comment | added | DJClayworth | "No equivalent opportunity" does not mean "no opportunity". And if you apply the label "sexist" to this, and you agree it's a good thing, so you have to admit there can be good "sexist" things. I would rather not, and it makes more sense to call it "not discriminatory". | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 18:46 | comment | added | Frank Hopkins | And the group is definitely sexist, it discriminates by sex, nothing uninformed or jerky about that. It's just that it's a form of sexism we sometimes tolerate to counter-balance other perceived sexism or sex-based disadvantages. Whether that's good, moral etc. typically depends on your viewpoint and the exact circumstances. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 18:44 | comment | added | Frank Hopkins | @DJClayworth all we have is OP's description of the situation and that explicitly says "and there is no equivalent professional development opportunity available to men", so no, men don't get that kind of opportunity in that company. If they get these skills self-driven outside the company that doesn't mean it would not be helpful to them to make it available by company support. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 18:31 | comment | added | DJClayworth | We don't know that the men in the company need this. Maybe they are getting professional development in other ways. And even if some men need this sort of development, maybe women have extra needs that are not currently being addressed at all. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 18:09 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Nov 14, 2019 at 18:07 | comment | added | user100499 | Actually, in the case of wheelchairs the point is that people who are able bodied do not need them. However in the case of,and I quote the OP (my emphasis though) "and there is no equivalent professional development opportunity available to men", plenty of me do need that. lastly "But don't lead with "This group is sexist", or you will come across as an uninformed jerk." to the sort of people who think men's careers never stagnate, perhaps... | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 17:36 | comment | added | GHP | The problem with this is that the 'imbalance' is often unquantifiable, or occurred in the past such that there can be legitimate debate over whether or not it should still be considered. Since there is (usually) no deterministic way of proving the balance, everything is up for debate and arguing. Furthermore, your last sentence reads literally as "separate but equal" for the two genders, if they have separate groups, and plainly discriminates against non-binary folks whom don't fall into either group. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 17:34 | comment | added | user43144 | This should be the answer, in my opinion. I think there's a lot of misconception about redress needing to be equal when the problem is not equal itself. Thanks for making the severe risk for the OP clear as well. Great job. | |
| Nov 14, 2019 at 15:30 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 143 characters in body
|
| Nov 14, 2019 at 14:43 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 54 characters in body
|
| Nov 14, 2019 at 14:37 | history | answered | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |