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.
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.
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.
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]
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".
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In which case, you have also clearly missed what I was trying to communicate. Maybe, we both suck at English. I said nothing about politics or any other inappropriate workplace chatter. I was trying to say that an environment where you become paranoid about saying anything for risk of offending is not a healthy one. Does this particular company get to that point? Probably not, but too much focus on whether or not something is a "micro aggression" could bring it there rapidly.
I actually agree with most of what you said; I just don't see how it is relevant in the context of the point I was trying to make.
Nobody is advocating for that kind of environment! The reason "micro-aggressions" need a name is because white dudes freak the fuck out when they got told that people are unhappy about their supposedly benign comments about people's appearance or background. The only thing any company I know of is asking is that people stop making these comments when made aware that they're bothering people.
I tried to leave it, but I find that I can't . . .
It may be that no one is actively advocating for such an environment. Nevertheless, that is the direction that I see things trending. The road to hell being paved with good intentions and all that. I have participated in the mandatory all-staff harassment training with several employers. What I took away from it each and every time is that a person can be fired for literally anything if someone else (mis)construes his/her actions/remarks as offensive. There was never a requirement that the "offender" be warned or told to stop. In at least one jurisdiction, it did not even have to be a coworker or in a work situation. Literally, anyone on the planet could complain about you to your employer, and your employer would likely be forced to fire you. Thankfully, most people are reasonable and I have no personal knowledge of any miscarriages of justice due to these policies. My workplaces for the most part have been open and honest and respectful. However, I have encountered enough unreasonable people, read enough media reports, have enough second-hand knowledge of incidents to be nervous about the prospect of a mere allegation ruining someone's reputation, career, or even their whole life. It does have a chilling effect. In principle, I am very much in favour of "zero tolerance" policies, but I remain cautious about what that can mean in practice, especially so if I encounter a person or organization that seems to be putting an unusual amount of emphasis on it.
P.S. bonus points for using a race/gender based comment in your crusade against "micro aggression." I do hope that the irony was intentional.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
What is the comment that is perceived as a micro-aggression which you feel you should be entitled to make after it has been made clear to you that the comment is unwelcome?
Again, you're missing the point of what a micro-aggression is. Micro-aggression is not about the repeated use of language to a specific, individual person, who has shown previous discomfort to that language. That is pretty much the definition of harassment, which again, is not a micro-aggression.
A micro-aggression would be asking Allison, during a discussion about something in our childhoods, "Where do you grow up?". Unknown to me, Allison actually grew up in Bolivia, and she is sensitive about discussing it because she feels people discriminate against her because she's an immigrant. I have micro-aggressed Allison. It has nothing to do with repeatedly asking this question, or similar questions, about where she grew up.
If Allison did respond in an uncomfortable manner to this question, I should be receptive enough to pick up on this and avoid asking further questions that might be related. Continuing to do so at that point is harassment and not a micro-aggression.
Policies against harassment are good. Policies against micro-aggression are a difficult subject, but the obvious answer isn't that "workplaces should definitely fire people for repeatedly and unknowingly micro-aggressing a variety of people".
No, that's what you're saying it is. And the claim that asking where "Allison" is from would result in you being fired is also yours and yours alone.
Am I correct in assuming that the answer to my last question is "there is no such comment on a micro-aggressions list that is OK to make to a colleague after it has been made clear that such comments are unwelcome"? If that's the case, we have nothing to argue about.
I don't believe in even the most strict enforcement of an anti-micro-aggression policy would you get fired for a single instance of it, but the point is that you can make similarly innocuous comments, each aggressing in a unique way, to multiple people - which could be enough to get fired.
And I guess we have nothing to discuss. There is no comment that is okay to repeatedly make to the same person after it's been clear that it's uncomfortable to that particular person because that is then harassment. However, just because Allison didn't like the "Where do you grow up?" question doesn't mean it's harassment to ask that of someone else (though it could still be another micro-aggression).
I am not sure why you're specifying that this is "my" definition of a micro-aggression. This is the most common, and widely accepted, definition of "micro-aggression". It is possible the person quoted misused it.
No, what's happened here is that you insist on conflating the concept of micro-aggressions with your inference of what a particular company meant by them "not flying there". To wit: you presume that if you make a benign comment about someone's hair or shoes or math talent, you'll be fired abruptly. That's a caricature of reality.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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".
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."
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?
Sorry, I can not cite a specific case of someone getting fired for one of those things.
Edit: The only thing I can think of is "dongle-gate" but that is likely to just go off into a tangent about what is or is not "non-harassing" and I kind of suspect we won't agree on that either so that is not going to be very productive.
Based on what I understand about it, I think "dongle-gate" was an embarrassment for just about everyone involved. One company doing something fabulously stupid in response to some other stupid thing is not a good basis for a discussion of company policy.
Let me see if I understand correctly. I think we both agree that firing someone for just one accidental "micro-aggression" would not be right... possibly even stupid. And you asked me to cite a case of that happening... or "anything else even remotely like" it. But then when I cite a case (admittedly not a great one) you reject it on the grounds that it is just one company doing something fabulously stupid. I am opting to disengage at this point because I don't really think you are interested in making this discussion meaningful. We'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
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.
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...
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.