[sawyer]

This is not a company where micro-aggressions will fly.

This seems like such a toxic philosophy to me. One of the worst things you can do for a workplace is stifle honest conversation and criticism, and this focus on not "micro-aggressing" will do just that - the way it has in colleges over the last few years.

[jkyle]

Microaggression is, by definition, to casually denigrate others by repeating or affirming stereotypes for the purpose of discounting contributions or establishing the dominate class as normal and the minority class as aberrant or pathological.

It is the exact opposite of honest conversation and criticism.

Some examples would be dismissing a woman's analysis because "women are bad at math". Turning to the one female colleague in the room and telling her to go get some coffee. Suggesting that a minority is unqualified and a diversity hire. Labeling LGBT coworkers as psychologically unsound. Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant.

Having a policy against toxic environments is not, itself, toxic. Even if it makes some men who hold the above opinions feel "on guard". Because they should feel on guard about not spouting such vitriol.

[tomjen3]

In theory. In practice lots of things can be seen more than one way.

You can ask the women to go fetch coffee because she is closests to the door, because it is her turn or because she is a woman.

In practice it means you never ask the women to get coffee, even when she is sitting closest to the door and you would have asked a man in the same situation.

And the trouble isn't that you have to actually shut up about racists shit, the trouble is you constantly have to ask yourself "could this statement be read the wrong way" - it is like posting everything you do on tumblr, where the term originated.

[jkyle]

Yes, but these things don't occur in a vacuum. For example, the word 'boy' was used demean african american males by whites for much of our history. Now even if they are, in fact, a young male using that word in reference to an african male is about as offensive as it can get.

It may be unfortunate that because men oppressed women for so long that there are certain conventions that have taken on offensive connotations. But I assure you, the inconvenience of getting your own coffee is nothing compared to the experiencing the history leading to that act taking on a negative implication.

I've never worked in an office where people took turns fetching coffee for each other as a matter of routine though I'm sure some do. I seriously doubt there's a wave of women refusing to take a turn in such an ordered affair. I personally know and seen of many, many women who've been told to fetch coffee for a room full of equals that are men.

> the trouble is you constantly have to ask yourself "could this statement be read the wrong way"

It's only really a trouble if you're in the habit of being casually offensive. If you're not, it's just a small check no different than when in a group being generally polite and respectful.

Ultimately, in my experience those who are most bothered and vocal in their complaints about being considerate tend to also be those that are most likely to do offensive things like objectifying women, making racially offensive remarks, etc.

> it is like posting everything you do on tumblr, where the term originated.

This is incorrect. Microaggression is a theory developed at Harvard in the 1970's by psychiatrist Chester Pierce. [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory

[digler999]

> Some examples would be

none of those is micro. Those are egregious acts of sexism and discrimination in my book.

To me, a micro aggression would be very nuanced stereotypes and bigotry ( "let's have Wong do it, Chinese guys are great at math" ), or a condescending "let me know if you need help" from a male to female when she clearly already knows how to do it. Saying "I'll take it, this one's a man's job".

[kefka]

> Telling a woman she must not take her career seriously if she is pregnant.

I'm for equality, and the area around FMLA is not equal, by any means.

That issue is caused by the risk that women of child-bearing age have with regards to our laws on FMLA. Women (of child bearing age) are an inherent risk with strong legal ramifications if ignored. Once pregnant, they can effectively get up and leave their position. Depending what they were doing, can cause significant team problems. And the employer is required to provide their or a similar position back when they return. I'm sure the actuaries have calculated that risk appropriately.

To fix that, all gov't needs to do is apply FMLA to all parties in a relationship when one in it is pregnant. Then the actuarial cost equals itself out. Equality is approached.

[jkyle]

You won't hear any dissent from me when it comes to improving our lack luster family leave support.

However, telling a woman she doesn't take her career seriously is a different matter. You cannot assume to know that woman's situation, her commitment to her job, her resources for child care, etc. She may have a stay at home husband. She could have a full time nanny. Her commitment, as an individual, may be no more or less than any of her coworkers.

Further, U.S. law (as abysmal as it is) on family leave is egalitarian. Both men and women may take up to 12 weeks leave in a 12 month period after the birth. Two states, including CA, extend 6 weeks of subsidized pay to both men and women. Most companies extend the same "bonding period" allowance to both men and women (generally taken out of their base vacation).

The only exception I've seen that women get aside from men is an extra couple of weeks if they have a cesarean. But again, this is entirely up to the private company issuing the benefits. The state is equal in the benefits it allots.

Thus, dismissing a woman through this verbalization is more about stereotyping than any reality with regard to disparity in benefits. And the perceived risk is as much about cultural and corporate biases on care taking. Which is why it is a microagression.

[kefka]

> However, telling a woman she doesn't take her career seriously is a different matter. You cannot assume to know that woman's situation, her commitment to her job, her resources for child care, etc. She may have a stay at home husband. She could have a full time nanny. Her commitment, as an individual, may be no more or less than any of her coworkers.

I've never seen someone be that crass. Live and learn, I guess.

I was referring to managers and business people making choices with these actuarial decisions in mind. Of course they aren't going to say "you there is a woman, you sure serious about working?"... Instead, they're going to be paid lower wages and passed up on promotions. My justification is that this is the cost of the risk associated related to the FMLA.

[jkyle]

I'm confused how it's associated with the FMLA. The FMLA benefits apply equally to men and women (12 weeks unpaid in 12 months).

[BossHogg]

If you can't have an honest conversation without being insulting or degrading, you're the problem.

[kefka]

"I'm offended so you need to shut up."

Is no way to have proper communication. And that's the point with branding things as "micro-aggressions". Its an effective social construct to silence someone by branding them as discriminatory. Usually, without proof.

[mavus]

> This is not a company where micro-aggressions will fly. This is a company where the first bedrock rule is that nobody gets interrupted, and the second is that everyone gets their say.

If you take the whole quote from the article, it doesn't seem like it would stifle honest conversation at all, if anything micro-aggressions would reduce open communication by making people believe their input is valid or wont be heard.

[tptacek]

Businesses are not colleges.

[beeboop]

I think you will agree a tyrannical workplace that stifles honest conversation and criticism is a pretty shitty place to work, and perpetuates the unhealthy power imbalance between employers and employees. A workplace shouldn't be a kingdom of the CEO where his word is law, at least not as it applies to your everyday behavior and speech. Exceptions of course to expecting widely accepted professional behavior.

[coke12]

No, I don't agree. Nobody should feel uncomfortable in their workplace, especially if the reason for discomfort has nothing to do with work. Comments about gender, sexual orientation, and race are almost never appropriate. College is a very different environment because people go there to learn holistically.

[beeboop]

I poorly worded the parent comment. I agree with everything you said. It's when you take "nobody should feel uncomfortable in their workplace" to the absolute extremes that things become difficult, which is what a discussion about "micro-aggressions" becomes. At what point does someone's uncomfortableness with something become invalid? It's obviously not limitless.

[coke12]

No, but most companies filter out the most unreasonable people in their hiring process. I think you're making a caricature of these people's attempts to support their coworkers. "Microaggressions" in this context means that you should be careful about the little things you say, because you're in a multicultural workplace.

[tptacek]

I think you will agree that active serial rapists make bad receptionists. See how easy it is for us to meet in the middle?

[drdeca]

I am confused about what you mean by this.

I mean obviously the first sentence makes sense but I don't understand the relevance.

I'm not expressing anything against the point you are making, I just honestly don't understand what point you are making.

[tptacek]

I was snarkily refusing to have a discussion on the artificial terms of the parent commenter, about "tyrannical" workplaces.

[peterwwillis]

Startups are more like colleges than businesses. You drink a lot of beer, play ping pong, get no sleep, and after 4 years you're broke and moving back in with your parents.

[goodcanadian]

True, but most environments will benefit from open and honest (and civil) discussion.

[tptacek]

No, most businesses will not in fact benefit from a venting of the open and honest feelings of people who strongly believe in prejudices against races, genders, religions, ages, ethnicities, and the like.

[goodcanadian]

To be fair, I specified "civil." The thread started by referencing "micro aggressions," so I don't think strong beliefs in prejudices really apply here. I agree that most spaces (college or business) should be free of most types of aggression, but it seems to me that there is a subset of people who perceive aggression (or even go looking for it) when it is not in fact there. There is a cost to being too careful in what you say just as there is a cost in not being careful enough.

[goodcanadian]

You know, now that I've had a chance to think about it, the fact that you would interpret what I wrote as in any way condoning racist or sexist behaviour is exactly the sort of reaction I was talking about.

[digler999]

He's saying politics has no place at work. you're there to make money, producing a quality product or service. Not to meditate on your philosophy of 21st century feminism.

[steverb]

Neither do they seem to appreciate my honest opinion that coworker X is a complete and total moron who shouldn't be allowed to tie his shoe laces unsupervised, much less be writing code.

I think that honestly is valued when we are talking about other people's ideas and efforts, but not so much when we just think the other person is an idiot/jerk/psychopath, etc.

[tptacek]

No, most employers would not appreciate an employer's earnest report that their coworker is "a complete and total moron who shouldn't be allowed to tie his shoe laces unsupervised". I think your problems may have less to do with principles and more to do with communications.

[tomjen3]

No, we make more money.

But that doesn't mean being formal or faking professionalism is the best way to make money.

[escherize]

Right, businesses collapse under their own weight when you stifle honest conversations.

[tptacek]

No, they don't. Go to the Fortune 500, start at the top, and spot the first company where you can have "open, honest conversations" in the manner of a college dorm.

[beeboop]

I don't think people are advocating for blatant sexism and harassment you see in dorms. They are advocating that a company shouldn't have an essay-length corporate policy on what their personal definition of a "micro-aggression" is and how you need to change your every day speech to remove vocabulary that 0.000001% of the population finds offensive and complains about on their tumblr page.

I am frankly disappointed with how obtuse you are being about this. I expected more from someone like you.

[tptacek]

"Don't call team members names, and don't make jokes about their race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or age." doesn't require an essay-length policy. I think I just did it in one sentence.

I don't know what to do with your last sentence. What would disturb me is if someone here believed I was sanguine about gendered hostility in the workplace.

[beeboop]

I think you are missing the original point of the comment that started this discussion. We are discussing "micro-aggressions". Examples of micro-aggressions:

"I like your new haircut"

"Why are you so quiet?"

"Where were you born?"

"How did you get so good at math?"

There is a huge list here: http://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggres...

I am not discussing harassment, or jokes about any of the groups you listed. I am not discussing verbal discrimination. I am discussing micro-aggressions, the range of which varies drastically from person to person. Having a workplace that has to narrowly define what their definition of a micro-aggression is, to the point of saying "You are not allowed to comment on the appearance of a coworker in any way, even the smallest comment about their haircut or liking their shoes" is what I am, and presumably other people in this comment thread, are against.

As you can see in the PDF I linked, it's two very dense pages of explanation. Having something like this included in a corporate policy is what I find to be a bad idea. Granted, there are very obvious things in the PDF that are just plain old harassment, but there are also plenty of things that are silly to expect to enforce in a workplace.

[camelite]

> I think I just did it in one sentence.

Yeah it's almost like importing the lingua franca of a bunch of extremists into your organizational policy isn't necessary and that the actual sensible part of it can be easily summarised in simple and straight forward english. Hmmm...