[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.

[tptacek]

What company are we discussing that has entered this document into their company policy?

Don't comment on coworkers appearances. It's usually unwelcome and almost always creepy. You shouldn't need a policy document to tell you that. If you have a relationship with someone in your workplace that makes those comments kosher, you already know it.

[beeboop]

The article in the original post that prompted this entire discussion, and was quoted in the parent-most comment, was:

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

This is implying that micro-aggressions are a fireable offense. Whether it is literally printed in policy is beside the point. The point is the "micro-aggression" concept is being enforced, the extent of which is barely touched on in that dense, two page PDF I linked you. If it isn't explicitly printed, it's frankly even worse. It's impossible to know what the scale of offensive micro-aggressions is for someone, and it probably changes from day to day.

You are also conveniently ignoring the other micro-aggression examples I gave you, which are not nearly as clear-cut as commenting on appearances. I am frankly done with this discussion unless you want to actually address why asking "Where did you grow up?" during casual conversation, and without any sort of poignant tone, should be a fireable offense. It feels like you are being deliberately evasive of the actual conversation people are trying to have.

[tptacek]

You saw the word "micro-aggression" and implied it meant that a university's guide to micro-aggressions was to be enshrined in some company's policy.

You have also missed a step. You think the policy under discussion is that if you comment on a coworker's earrings, you can be fired instantly. Nobody has said that. However, if you continually make remarks on the attire or appearance of a coworker after being asked by that coworker not to, you should be fired. That's toxic behavior.

What's embarrassing is that teams could be so obtuse that they would even need a written policy to say that. But then: as far as we know, this company doesn't have that policy written down; they may just have the common sense policy of "if you make unwelcome comments about your coworkers after being asked not to, we will escort you out of the building".

This doesn't seem at all complicated to me.

[beeboop]

I have obviously made the mistake of mentioning comments on appearance as being a micro-aggression, since it's frankly a terrible example and you seem to have latched on to it. Commenting on appearance in such a way it makes someone uncomfortable, repeatedly, is pretty blatantly harassment and not a micro-aggression.

I think you are still misunderstanding what a micro-aggression is. I doubt 99% of the American population has even heard the term, and 99.999% of them don't understand it well enough to make a conscious effort to never use them. To suggest that it's "not that complicated" is simply not true.

Harassment is not a micro-aggression. Most anyone who uses the term "micro-aggression" is not referring to blatant harassment.

[jack-r-abbit]

Hmmmm.

If I see a coworker that has some cool new shoes or a new jacket, I don't see the problem telling them. How is a cool new haircut any different?

Asking someone where they are from doesn't mean I think they are not "a true American." I might just be interested to know where they are from. That could be Cleveland or Dubai. I'm from the Seattle area. Are we not allowed to know anything about our coworkers?

If I saw a coworker juggling in the break room and I asked them how they got so good at it (because I have tried for years to get it and still suck at it) then we have some good conversation about juggling. That question doesn't come loaded with a "because usually women suck at juggling" qualifier. The same is true about math.

[Dain42]

I think that you're failing to see the context of these things. You're looking at them as isolated incidents when they are not.

As I understand it from friends and acquaintances, being asked again and again, "So where are you from?" becomes exceptionally irritating over time and can feel isolating. It might be a question that anyone can get asked, but it gets asked much more frequently of people who appear to be "foreign" in some way. It's not a big deal once or twice, but those incidents pile up over time and it can get disheartening, especially when asked of people who are from the US. When they answer, they often get the follow up question, "No, no, where are you really from?" It's a good way to unintentionally make a person feel unwelcome or like an "other" in a group, because after many repetitions, it hammers home the point, "You don't fit in, and I can plainly see it."

And the problem with the math question is that when asked of a woman or a girl, it generally does come loaded with "because usually women suck at math". Math isn't juggling, which is an uncommon talent; math is a basic, fundamental skill in STEM fields. Acting surprised or questioning how a female coworker "got so good at math" is just one more way that people accidentally perpetuate outdated, outmoded stereotypes about women in STEM fields. It's a question that almost nobody would think to ask of a male coworker. Because math skills are taken as a given in these sorts of fields.

These things don't seem like a big deal until you're on the receiving end of them again and again and again, day after day, month after month, year after year. Just like a little trickle of stream will eventually erode a valley where there wasn't one previously, over time all the little slights and knocks can wear people down.

Nobody is saying, "Don't be nice to your coworkers, and don't be social." They are saying, "Be mindful of the things you say, because they can hurt people unintentionally." Maybe you don't see the problem, personally, but if it's something that bothers a lot of people and they ask you to please cut it out, is it really that big a deal to try to cut it out? It's not like it's some kind of major encumbrance upon you.

[camelite]

> I think that you're failing to see the context of these things. You're looking at them as isolated incidents when they are not.

No, what you're doing is inventing a context (bad man hurt woman, bad white man hurting good minority etc), and arguing for a lexicon that implicitly nurtures the contextual penumbra and emanations of left-wing culture warriors. And you're singing a soothing melody of how this tool (it is a tool) will be used to fight injustice. But that's not how it goes. That's never how it goes.

[Dain42]

Given that I'm a man, I'm certainly not inventing any context that involves caveman speak about "bad man hurt woman". I wasn't even really talking about the direct interpersonal context of the remarks, I was talking about the remarks in the context of the larger experience of the person on the receiving end of them.

You can't just ignore the larger life experiences that people have. You can't treat every social interaction in some kind of hermetic isolation. Because that's not how social interactions happen. There's the context of the interpersonal relationship(s) of the people involved in an interaction, their history, their previous interactions. And, as I said, there's the context of each person's life experience that they bring to any social interaction.

Obviously, we don't think about this sort of thing on a deep level all the time. It'd short out every social interaction if we constantly tried to puzzle out every nuance of this context.

But we don't have to, we have short-hands, and we have "models" that we follow that work well most of the time. But when some large portion of a group of people says, "Hey, this part of the social interaction model is broken, and it's hurtful," there's no good reason to not at least reevaluate it and think about it. It's good to spend some time considering the nuances sometimes, even if it's not good to do it all the time.

If you really don't like the academic term "microaggression", then just think about it as "mild rudeness". Mild rudeness isn't the worst thing ever. But it's still not a way you should behave toward colleagues. You should endeavor to be polite, professional, and courteous towards those you work with. Personally, I'd want to know if I was accidentally doing something rude. I'd be a bit mortified a first, but I'd rather know so that I can curtail that behavior.

I think it's kind of absurd how negative the reaction is to, "Hey, can you please stop saying that; it's honestly a bit rude." It's not like it costs people anything. Courtesy is free, and it's no great imposition. And even when the courteousness involves more delicate matters of race, gender, marginalization, etc. it remains free.

[tptacek]

Funny, I don't see him saying "bad man hurt woman" anywhere, nor do I hear any "soothing melodies".

[tptacek]

It is enough that you simply respect when someone tells you that your comments about their juggling or their cool new haircut is alienating, instead of freaking out about how you intended only to compliment them. That's all you have to do.

Nobody is asking you to memorize a dictionary of "microaggressions".

[jack-r-abbit]

I agree and if I was told something like that after my first interaction, I'd refrain. The problem is when the first time it happens it is met with a trip to HR, or public shaming on social media, or getting fired, or all of the above. Which is why we kind of are being asked to memorize a dictionary of microaggressions. Quite literally anything that comes out of a person's mouth has potential to offend someone. And when it does, they can get crucified for it. If we were allowed to ask people "why are you so quiet" we might actually get a fair number of people answering with "because I'd rather just not talk to you than risk offending you."

[tptacek]

To make this discussion meaningful, can you cite a case of someone being fired for making non-harassing comments about a coworker's appearance, interesting accent, surprising math talent, or anything else even remotely like the premise you've set up in your comment?

[beeboop]

This is the view most people have, and why trying to stop micro-aggressions is a difficult subject. It's really more of a societal and moral question - how much should we change our behavior to prevent offending people? To what extent can we say someone's offense is valid?

Obviously if I tell you that wearing shorts is offensive to me, you shouldn't feel the need to stop wearing shorts. This isn't even a made-up opinion - people feel this way about women all over the globe. This means there are definitely limits to what we should accept. But the question is, where do we draw the line?

That is why implementing this in a workplace isn't feasible in 2016, because you have to explicitly define that line, which is a very difficult thing to do, and especially so for people who don't even know what a "micro-aggression" is.

The "problem" with all of your statements isn't that they are offensive, but that the person you said them to happened to have some sort of background or experience that makes it offensive to them.

[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...