For All

From iGeek
Revision as of 10:32, 17 October 2020 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

My company does "For All" sessions, to try to improve diversity, but since they are filtered to exclude many, it feels like it does the opposite.


For All

So my company does “For All” events (lunches, trainings, etc), that are about inclusiveness... by excluding straight whites males, conservatives, moderates, or “normals”. Not that gays or minorities are abnormal... but PoC’s are the only ones that count. And in our company male Asians and Indian's aren't PoC's.

Normally, I’m not too impressed — the stories/speakers can be a little too activist with an agenda. Like the lady preaching about how she gave kids different labels and told them one was bad, and all the kids ganged up on that group.

Yesterday’s event had a really nice exec that told his truth about when he started to figure out he was gay, in an Irish Catholic Family, and his fears, discovery and experiences (and the people he lost). It was quite sincere, and a really touching. So zero complaints about him as a speaking or his truth. Quite the opposite, it was the most open/honest I’d ever seen an exec at the company. Yet, it bugged me not because of what he said, but something else...

The venue felt awkward to me. Yes, it was a “safe space”, and the guy will get a ton of sympathy from the audience. And that’s all well and good. But they keep pitching this idea of “bring your true self to work”. And I agree that people shouldn’t have to feel closeted, or like they have two identities (the work them, and the real them). But on the other hand, how much of our real selves should we bring to work and share with everyone else, and why only some groups get to do this, and others are excluded?

  • What about the guy that sincerely was harassed for being white in a minority neighborhood, and that studied history and so believes in white separatism? Why isn’t that guys truth, just as valid?
  • What about the Jew who had their family killed in the Holocaust by democratic socialists, then fled to Israel only to have more of their family murdered by Muslim terrorists? Still they overcame too.
  • We haven’t had a single religious person be able to get up there, and preach their truth that matters to them: about how they found God and it changed their life.
    • This is especially awkward as we have an office in Utah (SLC area) -- I'd expect some LDS/Mormon's to have great stories about their time as missionaries and how it changed who they are. (Either seeing bad shit, and recognizing how good they have it, or conversion).
  • What about the kid that used a gun to hunt or target shoot and it saved them from a troubled life at home?
  • What about the alcoholic/substance abuser that found AA (and the 12 steps) and how that allowed them to be a more functioning person in life.
  • Or about the abused or neglected or sick child (or adult), that overcame great adversity, to get where they are.
  • All the closeted folks I know at work are closet conservatives or Trump supporters -- Biden/Clinton/far-left supporters are allowed to be open about it and chide the other side

All these things are other people's truths too. And all would cause HR to get the vapors, because they might not be far-left, or politically correct.

Again, my problem is not in the individual telling their truth. I’d love sharing that with individuals on a 1:1 setting, or even 1:many... just the venue of the formality of work, juxtaposed with the intolerance of woke, combines to make it less great. In aggregate, it changes from an individual woman telling you her story of abuse (which I have nothing but sympathy for), to a #metoo bitch session where nasty-feminists go around the room supporting each other in a message that men in power are all bad. Or women in power are somehow better.

Why does it bug me?

I was pondering the reason why it feels that way to me, and it’s the lack of diversity of thought or experiences. The venue is the opposite of what it states it is about. There were so many truths, that I wasn't getting to hear.

This wasn’t a venue where people could go around the table, and share their truths, like a group therapy session. It was dogmatic far-left programming where some members get to that, others get to listen in (free speech doesn’t apply to them), and are marginalized by not being called on, with the inferences that:

  • that only the PoC’s truths matter -- and all of them had shitty lives because of the oppression of others (we never hear how it easy it was to be a minority, especially compared to other places in the world)
  • or that by the lies of omission (of not calling on them), the lothers truths aren’t as valid

Thus, it feels like a place to re-affirm far left bigotries, than one where both sides come together based on their shared realities: that life is hard, or that you don’t know what others have had to go through to get there.

“For All”, feels Orwellian to me, and means all animals are equal. Some animals are just more equal than others. Most of the individuals came across as collectivist activated assholes that are taking an opportunity to humble brag about their victimhood cred. A few seem highly sincere and are great speakers opening up about what makes them tick. But as long as only some sides get to do it, it feels more like 1984's "2 minutes of hate", and that taints even the best of speakers and stories in my mind, because “For All”, is a dishonest moniker that most certainly does not mean “for everyone”.

🗒️ NOTE:
A friend added the following insights:

If you introduced yourself as, "Hi, I'm X and I fuck women." You'd get fired immediately. But for some reason--and it's obviously identity politics--there's this implied necessity to make one's delta one's identity and strangely when this delta is sexuality, bring something up constantly which is otherwise purged from the modern workplace. It's very weird. There are a whole number of straight people I know with whom I've never once discussed one of their sex acts. But this sort of PC culture bullshit and the expectations of coming out and whatnot means that <being gay or whatnot> is so vital to <documenting diversity> that it's both a shield and a flag and a label on the name-tag and obviously that also means access to that very topic is now shoved in people's faces.

Can the gay dude at work code? Or whatever he's supposed to do? Who cares? He gargles dicks and probably puts things up his kazoo! But when was the last time anyone asked you to be proud of that thing you did with the missus last Thursday and tell the Tokyo team all about it?

It's one thing to "come out" so you avoid silly little transgressions like "are you going to bring your wife to the company picnic?" when the person actually meant no harm, and what we actually see: punishing the non-delta folks with double standards and implied bad faith:

  • Put up a flag that tells people exactly what sort of kink you have, fine.
  • Die your hair purple, pink, or rainbow, get some obnoxious piercings, fine.
  • Put up a Gadsden flag and wear an NRA shirt, and kiss your career advancement prospects goodbye.

This friend happens to be gay. I only mention that because while it never mattered to me (nor did I know that for years), is because it changes the context of his point. A straight man saying that non-PC stuff, is seen as hostile towards gays. But him saying it is just edgy and not him (or me) perpetuating hate. And that's part of the problem with the double-standard.

GeekPirate.small.png

Adobe for All
AFAewg.jpg
There's this program called "Adobe for All" -- which originated out of the Adobe for Women efforts. These were/are efforts that allow Women to shadow execs, Women to have Women speakers, and stuff like that that are denied/discouraged for men. Later, the "for All" really meant all minorities... straight white males need not apply. They try harder, and are slightly better than a Google or a Facebook at not being completely anti-white-male douches about it... but only slightly better. There's still an undertone and history that makes it fundamentally bigoted and flawed from the premise to the implementation. Men at Adobe know that while they created and built the company, they are second class civitizens, in the name of diversity indoctrination and hypocritical efforts to be politically correct.

more...