There is a lot of hate from TERFs and religious groups towards the non-straight/non-cis community.
I think the corporatization of pride parades (like this article advocates for) is both harmful and helpful, insofar as its a positive for those of us in the Overton window (eg: gay people like myself) but it drowns out those that society still violently rejects (Trans, enby, pan, poly, etc) with corporate advertising rather than forcing society to improve.
> but it drowns out those that society still violently rejects
The big joke is that society is always going to be violently rejecting some outgroups; it's just a human universal to want to make scapegoats out of thin air. Labeling does not oppose this process; on the contrary, it facilitates and encourages it. There is value in explicitly promoting tolerance, inclusiveness and openness as real virtues; but to assume that meaningless quips like "your workplace should be LGBTQIA..." help this message is simply delusional. Your workplace should not be LGBTQIAetc.etc., and the less it gets involved with that sort of thing, the more LGBTQIA folks will be able to trust it to do the right thing in the long run.
I suspect you've been downvoted because you've put out these long acronyms without (much) explaination and they may suspect, as I mistakenly did, that it was said in mockery.
There's a lot of hate from LGBT back the other way too. Look at the massive backlash towards the straight pride parade. If you can be proud of being gay why can't I be proud of being straight?
"Pride" is not in opposition to shame; it's in opposition to modesty. Honor and integrity are in opposition to shame, but there's very little that's honorable, and much that is outright insolent and deliberately so, about pride parades.
Edit: My comment might seem a bit too negative towards LGBTQ and that's definitely not my intention, so I'd like to mention advocacy of gay marriage as a positive example - something that does clearly point towards a public image of very real honor and integrity for this notable minority group. It's hard to deny its significant contrast to the recurring image of "pride parades".
I am not sure how much you've had to do with the LGBT+ community as a whole, but please do not reduce "Pride" to certain risque parts of certain glitzy annual parades. That is just a media-distilled version of the tip of a very big iceberg.
Your comment is not just too negative, it is simply wrong. Without Pride, same-sex marriage would never have been possible.
Definitions used for this sense of Pride (ripped from Google define, since they're good enough and I am lazy):
"Confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized, on the basis of their shared identity, culture, and experience."
and
"Consciousness of one's own dignity" (Antonym: Shame.)
Note the Google definitions of Pride not being used in this sense:
"The quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's importance." (Antonyms: modesty, humility)
and
"A feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired."
Look, my point is much simpler than that. What the over-corporatized, commercialized "Pride parade" meme is doing is explicitly erasing the very real distinctions between pride and dignity/honor on the one hand, as well as shame and modesty on the other. No other social/political movement is doing that, whether involving marginalized people or not[1]; so no, one can't simply assert that "Pride is just social/political affirmation" and leave it at that; this is simply not what's going on. Is this really what we want as a society? That's quite arguable to say the least!
[1] (And since the most basic way of countering social marginalization is to build up social capital, the "pride" attitude is something that, as a matter of fact, is directly detrimental to this goal. "Pride" is bad precisely because it corrupts and destroys social capital as much as shame does!)
Modesty is in opposition to arrogance. Honor and integrity are principles. Shame is an emotion. Pride is "A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect", among other things.[1]
People fighting for marriage equality were called worse things than insolent.
Because being proud of being straight is not what straight pride parades are about. It’s just real-life trolling, nothing more, and it’s really really, really obvious. It makes as much sense as opening a food kitchen that’s only for rich people.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
Shouldn't both be irrelevant to what you do in the boardroom? What you're saying makes it sound like it's not okay to marginalize women in the workplace, but is ok to marginalize gay women.
Why should a workplace embody properties of the greater community, as opposed to being a place where a person’s identity is only defined by their work and professional interactions?
I’m asking why should it be considered good for people in a workplace to express (while at work) properties of a community that exists outside of the workplace? Why should cultures (of any kind) be actively celebrated at work for example?
Workplaces are comprised of people who possess cultural attributes. Why is it common to believe this matters in some way that necessitates acknowledgement, discussion or celebration of those attributes while specifically being in the workplace?
An example from my own life is parenthood. I’m a parent, yet I feel a strong moral and ethical duty to keep my parenthood culture out of my professional workplace. None of my coworkers owe me any sort of acknowledgement of my identity as a parent. In fact, apart from non-work conversations in which others opt in to participating, my coworkers ostensibly should not even know if I am a parent or not — it is simply not relevant and needs no accounting.
I don’t see why this wouldn’t apply to any type of cultural attribute.
I _very_ sincerely do not understand how it’s a flame war tangent or in any way not explicitly on-topic and valuable as a discussion in response to the article.
I'm making a guess that you're as familiar with internet flamewars on these predictable, generic, and inflammatory topics as the rest of us are. If so, then your innocent-seeming question was concern trolling. If not, I'm sorry for the mistaken assumption. Moderation is guesswork.
That sounds like an extreme false dichotomy to me. The only two possible options are that I’m either being disingenuous and coy about trope flame war topics or else I’m too disconnected to know that my comment can only be perceived that way?
No, sorry. I understand moderation is not easy and I appreciate the work you do to facilitate this site, but that’s just not going to cut it.
Posting a philosophical question about the foundational assumptions that go into a topic like workplace culture norms is absolutely sincere and on-topic here.
As I said, it's guesswork, but my guess is that you're far too experienced an internet commenter not to know what concern trolling is. When I see someone seemingly-innocently try to relitigate workplace diversity in a thread about an article by Ellen Pao, of all authors, I ask myself what the odds are that they don't know what effect that is likely to have.
I completely agree with Ellen Pao about being aware and pro-active when it comes to workplace discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
It's too bad that Ellen Pao doesn't think that fit people, people who believe the most responsible behavior is to not eat more food than you need, have a place in the workforce or in discussions.
I'm so sorry to be a white male programmer around 40! I'm so much in the crowd...
"Around 4.5 percent of the US population is LGBT, [...] the LGBT population is young, [...] under 34 years of age—and growing." ... ok, it's a typical marketing bullshit: look all the money that you could earn selling to these people!!! Actually, she doesn't give a shit about the people, only about a "new" market.
Moreover, she failed to understand the difference between "being LGBT" and "showing to be LGBT". I don't think that there are MORE LGBT (nor less either)... only that they need less to hide (which is not good or bad: your work shouldn't be where you live your life, only where you earn money anyway).
What does you being white or male or around 40 have to do this article?
The article says that employees are least likely to answer questions about gender or sexual orientation. Project Include's case studies[1] suggest that the surveys include questions about religion, marriage, children, disabled family members, and other things people could also hide. Why don't they?
> The article says that employees are least likely to answer questions about gender or sexual orientation
In France (where I live), that kind of question would be illegal. There's quite a clear separation between personal life and professional life: whatever you do outside work is your only business, and nobody will matter (and shouldn't, as it would be illegal).
In a way, in France, the accepted policy is like the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that was (still is?) the US Army policy if I remember.
That's certainly not necessary. If you'd like to post thoughtful, substantive comments, you're as welcome to do so as anyone else is. We're just trying as a community to get out of the shallower, angrier habits of internet commenting.
You might also find these links helpful for getting the intention of this site:
45 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadI think the corporatization of pride parades (like this article advocates for) is both harmful and helpful, insofar as its a positive for those of us in the Overton window (eg: gay people like myself) but it drowns out those that society still violently rejects (Trans, enby, pan, poly, etc) with corporate advertising rather than forcing society to improve.
The big joke is that society is always going to be violently rejecting some outgroups; it's just a human universal to want to make scapegoats out of thin air. Labeling does not oppose this process; on the contrary, it facilitates and encourages it. There is value in explicitly promoting tolerance, inclusiveness and openness as real virtues; but to assume that meaningless quips like "your workplace should be LGBTQIA..." help this message is simply delusional. Your workplace should not be LGBTQIAetc.etc., and the less it gets involved with that sort of thing, the more LGBTQIA folks will be able to trust it to do the right thing in the long run.
LGBTTQQIAAP
LGBTTIQQ2SA
From the wiki page:
The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual)
Straight people have never been systematically subjected to shaming due to their sexuality or gender identity.
Edit: My comment might seem a bit too negative towards LGBTQ and that's definitely not my intention, so I'd like to mention advocacy of gay marriage as a positive example - something that does clearly point towards a public image of very real honor and integrity for this notable minority group. It's hard to deny its significant contrast to the recurring image of "pride parades".
Your comment is not just too negative, it is simply wrong. Without Pride, same-sex marriage would never have been possible.
Definitions used for this sense of Pride (ripped from Google define, since they're good enough and I am lazy):
"Confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized, on the basis of their shared identity, culture, and experience."
and
"Consciousness of one's own dignity" (Antonym: Shame.)
Note the Google definitions of Pride not being used in this sense:
"The quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's importance." (Antonyms: modesty, humility)
and
"A feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired."
[1] (And since the most basic way of countering social marginalization is to build up social capital, the "pride" attitude is something that, as a matter of fact, is directly detrimental to this goal. "Pride" is bad precisely because it corrupts and destroys social capital as much as shame does!)
People fighting for marriage equality were called worse things than insolent.
[1] https://www.wordnik.com/words/pride
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20219170.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Gender identity absolutely must be accommodated in the workplace.
But sexuality is on another orthogonal axis. What you do in the bedroom is irrelevant to what you do in the boardroom.
Workplaces are comprised of people who possess cultural attributes. Why is it common to believe this matters in some way that necessitates acknowledgement, discussion or celebration of those attributes while specifically being in the workplace?
An example from my own life is parenthood. I’m a parent, yet I feel a strong moral and ethical duty to keep my parenthood culture out of my professional workplace. None of my coworkers owe me any sort of acknowledgement of my identity as a parent. In fact, apart from non-work conversations in which others opt in to participating, my coworkers ostensibly should not even know if I am a parent or not — it is simply not relevant and needs no accounting.
I don’t see why this wouldn’t apply to any type of cultural attribute.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, sorry. I understand moderation is not easy and I appreciate the work you do to facilitate this site, but that’s just not going to cut it.
Posting a philosophical question about the foundational assumptions that go into a topic like workplace culture norms is absolutely sincere and on-topic here.
It's too bad that Ellen Pao doesn't think that fit people, people who believe the most responsible behavior is to not eat more food than you need, have a place in the workforce or in discussions.
"Around 4.5 percent of the US population is LGBT, [...] the LGBT population is young, [...] under 34 years of age—and growing." ... ok, it's a typical marketing bullshit: look all the money that you could earn selling to these people!!! Actually, she doesn't give a shit about the people, only about a "new" market.
Moreover, she failed to understand the difference between "being LGBT" and "showing to be LGBT". I don't think that there are MORE LGBT (nor less either)... only that they need less to hide (which is not good or bad: your work shouldn't be where you live your life, only where you earn money anyway).
The article says that employees are least likely to answer questions about gender or sexual orientation. Project Include's case studies[1] suggest that the surveys include questions about religion, marriage, children, disabled family members, and other things people could also hide. Why don't they?
[1] https://projectinclude.org/case_studies/
In France (where I live), that kind of question would be illegal. There's quite a clear separation between personal life and professional life: whatever you do outside work is your only business, and nobody will matter (and shouldn't, as it would be illegal).
In a way, in France, the accepted policy is like the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy that was (still is?) the US Army policy if I remember.
Of course it might be only a cultural difference
> Actually, she doesn't give a shit about the people
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended?
I will shut up from now on, and only use HN as a reader.
You might also find these links helpful for getting the intention of this site:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html