‘Talking about sport at work excludes women and leads to laddish behaviour,’ warns management body

[Metaphor]

You know what I do when people in my team are talking about something I'm not interested in?

Change the subject to complain about overreaching feminism?

No; it would be a career-limiting move to speak heresy against the feminist establishment.

 

[Metaphor]

To balance it up, she could have said that in workplace/teamwork situations where there are more women compared to men, that the women should be careful not to exclude the men by talking about...stuff women are more interested in. Off the top of my head...nursing?

Anns Francke is probably talking about the much more common scenario where men predominate.

There is no evidence that Francke cares about alienating banter in general; her only example is one where women are being excluded.

Women are about half the workforce so I rather doubt that men predominating is the 'much more common' scenario. There's still a lot of self-selected segregation in roles, however, so there are probably a number of workplaces where men dominate and a number where women dominate.

 

[Metaphor]

I find the claim that management has no justification to stop people talking about what they like to each other to be incredibly ignorant of the realities of the business. Do employees have the right to talk about sexually harassing a co-worker or how they are going to shortchange or abuse customers just because they like to?

Does it not seem to you that talking about engaging in illegal behaviour is systematically different to talking about video refereeing?

What I find incredibly ironic is that there are reactions that mimic the very feelings of exclusion that the OP article cites.

People at my work talk about all kinds of things I'm not interested in. They talk about their kids, they talk about training for their half-marathon, they talk about Love Island or climate change or their holiday plans. They're not doing anything wrong and they're not required to talk about something that interests me.

 

[Metaphor]

So the OP is against Capitalism or managements consultants? This is nothing other than a for profit management consulting firm who are paid to advise other for profit companies on "team building" crap to increase their profits.

I agree that most "team building" and much of business consulting is snake oil pseudo-psychology nonsense and that corporate managers are often idiots who buy into it.

I am neither against capitalism nor management consultants in principle, though I agree that business consulting seems to me mostly a way for a firm with money burning a hole in its pockets to relieve itself of some of that money.

 

[Metaphor]

I guess this Ann Francke doesn't find anything objectionable about female employees talking about things more women than men are interested in.

Typical feminist double standard ...

Don't be so harsh. If feminists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any at all.

 

[Metaphor]

If the 'laddish behavior' mentioned is meant to indicate that some significant subset of men who talk rugby or football or whatever start acting like teenage boys in a post game locker room under heavy influence of a cascade of hormones that drives them to snap towels at each other, rough house at work, and to talk about women's boobs or whatever: clearly that behavior is objectionable and needs to be stopped.

The 'laddish behaviour' is a figment of Francke's feminist imagination. I've been working alongside heterosexual men for decades, including many who are very enthusiastic about various sporting codes, and not once did discussion of the footy or cricket lead to discussion of tits.

 

[ronburgundy]

If the 'laddish behavior' mentioned is meant to indicate that some significant subset of men who talk rugby or football or whatever start acting like teenage boys in a post game locker room under heavy influence of a cascade of hormones that drives them to snap towels at each other, rough house at work, and to talk about women's boobs or whatever: clearly that behavior is objectionable and needs to be stopped.

The 'laddish behaviour' is a figment of Francke's feminist imagination. I've been working alongside heterosexual men for decades, including many who are very enthusiastic about various sporting codes, and not once did discussion of the footy or cricket lead to discussion of tits.

On what basis do you conclude this corporate hack is a "feminist"? She's paid to invent all kinds of baseless nonsense to sell large corporations in the name of "team building". There's no basis to think that the gender aspect of this particular nonsense is anything more than incidental and one of countless variables they pick to invent a "problem" that their company is paid to come in and "solve".

 

[laughing dog]

I find the claim that management has no justification to stop people talking about what they like to each other to be incredibly ignorant of the realities of the business. Do employees have the right to talk about sexually harassing a co-worker or how they are going to shortchange or abuse customers just because they like to?

Does it not seem to you that talking about engaging in illegal behaviour is systematically different to talking about video refereeing?

Try to focus - abusing customers is not illegal.

People at my work talk about all kinds of things I'm not interested in. They talk about their kids, they talk about training for their half-marathon, they talk about Love Island or climate change or their holiday plans. They're not doing anything wrong and they're not required to talk about something that interests me.

Since Ms. Francke was not advocating banning such talk nor requiring people to discuss topics that may interest others, one wonders why you feel that response was relevant.

 

[Metaphor]

On what basis do you conclude this corporate hack is a "feminist"?

Because she spoke about an ungendered "problem" but framed it in a way to make women the (only or primary) victims.

She's paid to invent all kinds of baseless nonsense to sell large corporations in the name of "team building". There's no basis to think that the gender aspect of this particular nonsense is anything more than incidental and one of countless variables they pick to invent a "problem" that their company is paid to come in and "solve".

It's telling that the best way to sell her invented problem is to gender it and claim women are the victims.

You can choose to believe the gender aspect is 'incidental'; I believe it's obviously deliberate. There was no call to regulate the behaviour of women talking about reality shows or Ryan Gosling, because feminists don't care about gendered behaviour that excludes men.

There was no call to regulate the behaviour of parents talking about their kids to spare the feelings of non-parents. There was no call to regulate the elderly talking about NCIS to spare those of us under 70. Hell, there wasn't even a race angle that might be controversial. The safe example was the one where men are asked to moderate their non-offensive behaviour, solely for the benefit of the imagined tastes of women.

 

[Metaphor]

Try to focus - abusing customers is not illegal.

Why don't you try to focus? Do you think sexual harassment is legal?

Do you think talking about football is in the same league as talking about abusing people? People at work talk about Star Wars. They are excluding me when they do it because I'm not interested but I would be fucking appalled if the boss regulated their conversation so I could be included.

Since Ms. Francke was not advocating banning such talk nor requiring people to discuss topics that may interest others, one wonders why you feel that response was relevant.

If she wasn't advocating the regulation of that talk, one wonders what you think the article is about in the first place.

If, on the other hand, she came across as a mealy-mouthed back-pedalling hack who couldn't quite commit to her nonsense proposal, I'd be inclined to agree.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think its somewhat sexist to dress this up as a male vs female issue. There are plenty of women who are into sports and there are plenty of men who are not. Just because you are male doesn't mean you're included in this conversation and just because you're female doesn't mean you are not.

Thank you Captain Contrary.

I think it is more "Captain Miss the Point".

And what pray tell is the point? The complaint is that people are talking sports and that is being equated with excluding women, which it clearly is not. There is nothing stopping women from learning about and talking sports. They can do so just as easily as men who aren't interested in sports can. This is not whatsoever about "excluding women". This is not men saying women aren't invited into the talk.

There is no evidence that Francke cares about alienating banter in general; her only example is one where women are being excluded.

And they are not, even in her own example.

 

[steve_bank]

At work or anywhere some men and women follow sports and some do not. Some women are avid sports fans.

Should talk about makeup and fasions be limted so men do not feel excluded?

Better yet do not talk about anything lest somebody somewhere may feel left out.

Signed Paul The Progressive.

 

[ruby sparks]

To balance it up, she could have said that in workplace/teamwork situations where there are more women compared to men, that the women should be careful not to exclude the men by talking about...stuff women are more interested in. Off the top of my head...nursing?

Anns Francke is probably talking about the much more common scenario where men predominate.

There is no evidence that Francke cares about alienating banter in general; her only example is one where women are being excluded.

Women are about half the workforce so I rather doubt that men predominating is the 'much more common' scenario. There's still a lot of self-selected segregation in roles, however, so there are probably a number of workplaces where men dominate and a number where women dominate.

It's true, apparently, so I read, that she is especially concerned about women's workplace issues, and so may dwell on them.

I find the particular problems with office talk about 'traditionally male' sports odd for two reasons.

First, as you and others have said, the link between talking about, say, football or cricket (she mentioned both I think) and talking about sexual conquests seems very tenuous. I'm even not sure in the first instance how often men openly brag about their sexual conquests at the weekend when they are working alongside women, it probably happens, but I'm not sure prior sports talk is particularly causal or related to it all that often.

Second, she was speaking in the UK, and in the UK, the profile of and women's participation in sports such as football, and to a lesser extent cricket, is surging, in a big way. Former Sports Minster Tracey Crouch has called her comments, 'a load of nonsense', sports journalist Jacqui Oatley said it was 'a terrible idea', and many female sportspersons and fans have commented that it is sexist to assume women don't understand sports such as fotball and cricket and/or enjoy office banter about them.

The general point about encouraging inclusivity is probably a good one, be it race, gender, sexuality, age, religion (or lack of), disability or whatever.

 

[laughing dog]

I think it is more "Captain Miss the Point".

And what pray tell is the point? The complaint is that people are talking sports and that is being equated with excluding women, which it clearly is not.

Thank you for proving you missed the point. From the OP article , "“A lot of women, in particular, feel left out,” Francke told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“They don’t follow those sports and they don’t like either being forced to talk about them or not being included in the conversation.” It ought to be obvious that Ms. Francke is not talking about all women nor explicitly excluding women. It is about some women (or a lot of women) feeling left out of the group during that discussion.

This OP article is rather short, and we don't the context of the report from the article. Apparently it is from a TV or radio interview, but the entire interview is not reprinted. Maybe Ms. Francke was talking about specific instances. Maybe she had other examples that were more gender general.

ruby sparks dug up a quote from Ms Francke, and I repost it here
“My point is this shouldn't be banned, that's not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if you’re a leader of an organisation, or of a team, part of your job as a good leader is to be inclusive and make sure everybody feels comfortable".

Now, that is not gender specific, so it is possible that the OP article leads some people to jump to conclusions.

 

[Metaphor]

laughing dog[/URL]]
ruby sparks dug up a quote from Ms Francke, and I repost it here
“My point is this shouldn't be banned, that's not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if you’re a leader of an organisation, or of a team, part of your job as a good leader is to be inclusive and make sure everybody feels comfortable".

Now, that is not gender specific, so it is possible that the OP article leads some people to jump to conclusions.

It's meaningless advice. She doesn't want to "ban" sports talk, so she wants to do, what, exactly? Regulate it without banning it? Or proactively monitor all employee conversations and steer talk away from sports whenever she can...or? Lead by example by never talking about anything where anybody might feel excluded by the subject (no such topic exists of course).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think it is more "Captain Miss the Point".

And what pray tell is the point? The complaint is that people are talking sports and that is being equated with excluding women, which it clearly is not.

Thank you for proving you missed the point. From the OP article , "“A lot of women, in particular, feel left out,” Francke told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“They don’t follow those sports and they don’t like either being forced to talk about them or not being included in the conversation.” It ought to be obvious that Ms. Francke is not talking about all women nor explicitly excluding women. It is about some women (or a lot of women) feeling left out of the group during that discussion.

This OP article is rather short, and we don't the context of the report from the article. Apparently it is from a TV or radio interview, but the entire interview is not reprinted. Maybe Ms. Francke was talking about specific instances. Maybe she had other examples that were more gender general.

ruby sparks dug up a quote from Ms Francke, and I repost it here
“My point is this shouldn't be banned, that's not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if you’re a leader of an organisation, or of a team, part of your job as a good leader is to be inclusive and make sure everybody feels comfortable".

Now, that is not gender specific, so it is possible that the OP article leads some people to jump to conclusions.

These are great points. So now I wonder why this story that barely qualifies as news is even political. It seems more like a scare tactic to quotemine and take out of context to MRAs. So it's a true nothingburger. Even if it had meat, in the grand scheme of things it'd be nothing in comparison to real issues like people dying, women's rights, or Trump getting impeached for undermining democracy. These Metaphor identity politic scare tactic threads are so stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

laughing dog[/URL]]
ruby sparks dug up a quote from Ms Francke, and I repost it here
“My point is this shouldn't be banned, that's not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if you’re a leader of an organisation, or of a team, part of your job as a good leader is to be inclusive and make sure everybody feels comfortable".

Now, that is not gender specific, so it is possible that the OP article leads some people to jump to conclusions.

It's meaningless advice. She doesn't want to "ban" sports talk, so she wants to do, what, exactly? Regulate it without banning it? Or proactively monitor all employee conversations and steer talk away from sports whenever she can...or? Lead by example by never talking about anything where anybody might feel excluded by the subject (no such topic exists of course).

General advice is not meaningless advice. Advising leaders to be inclusive and make sure everybody feels comfortable allows people to use that as guide in leading and devising policies or protocols that fit their workplace and employees.

 

[Metaphor]

General advice is not meaningless advice. Advising leaders to be inclusive and make sure everybody feels comfortable allows people to use that as guide in leading and devising policies or protocols that fit their workplace and employees.

Of course it's meaningless, like all platitudes. "Make sure people feel included" is mindless feelgood nonsense. It's like people who claim that extraterrestrial intelligence or God has told them that humanity should simply love one another. What profundity!

Of course, she couldn't help but give an example of the alleged 'problem' by framing it as a problem faced by women and perpetrated by men. Then she offered no solutions except said meaningless platitude.

Or maybe she has practical, well-thought-out solutions, but we'll have to take her management consulting course at two thousand pounds per head to find out.

 

[Metaphor]

These Metaphor identity politic scare tactic threads are so stupid.

Then stop participating in them.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

General advice is not meaningless advice. Advising leaders to be inclusive and make sure everybody feels comfortable allows people to use that as guide in leading and devising policies or protocols that fit their workplace and employees.

Of course it's meaningless, like all platitudes. "Make sure people feel included" is mindless feelgood nonsense.

It's business.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheree...usion-is-good-for-your-business/#31b97bd772b1

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/business-case-for-diversity-in-the-workplace/

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters

(etc.)