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

[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 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.)

Do those articles define diversity and inclusion and how to achieve it? In that case, those articles are not simply espousing meaningless platitudes.

But merely defining an (imagined) problem (sport talk that "excludes" women and leads to "laddish behaviour") and saying the solution is 'make sure things are inclusive' is meaningless platitude nonsense.

Imagine buying an etiquette book that said 'make sure your house guest is comfortable' but then offers no advice whatsoever on what they mean or what practical steps you can take to ensure that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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).

There is pretty much no topic that everyone is interested in. No matter what you talk about, short of the work itself, somebody will not be interested and will exclude themselves. And that's what they are doing, excluding themselves. They are not "being excluded".

So... I'm with you in wondering what exactly she'd suggest. Clamping down on all non-work related talk in the workplace?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's actually pretty funny. I guess I can relate. People in my office like to talk about the latest tv shows and movies. I watch none of them so I am left out and should complain I am being excluded? I need to bring this up and watch the eyes roll. Haha

Yup. I often find myself with no reference for what people are talking about because I don't do sports and I watch very little in the way of TV & movies. And a lot of the women are talking about parenting things, I'm not a parent. I guess such talk must be prohibited!

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.)

Do those articles define diversity and inclusion and how to achieve it? In that case, those articles are not simply espousing meaningless platitudes.

The deal with studies looking at businesses which have higher rates of diversity and inclusion and their performance in the market. You can reflexively wave off the articles all you like. The point is not that it is correct; it's that what is being sold to boards and c-suites is diversity and inclusion yields superior performance and higher revenues.

But merely defining an (imagined) problem (sport talk that "excludes" women and leads to "laddish behaviour") and saying the solution is 'make sure things are inclusive' is meaningless platitude nonsense.

What evidence do you have to suggest that that's what Francke did here? You're making this assertion based on what? A second-hand report of a BBC4 interview?

Imagine buying an etiquette book that said 'make sure your house guest is comfortable' but then offers no advice whatsoever on what they mean or what practical steps you can take to ensure that.

That's likely what Chartered Management Institute offers as a product in greater detail.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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).

There is pretty much no topic that everyone is interested in. No matter what you talk about, short of the work itself, somebody will not be interested and will exclude themselves. And that's what they are doing, excluding themselves. They are not "being excluded".

So... I'm with you in wondering what exactly she'd suggest. Clamping down on all non-work related talk in the workplace?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what she was saying. She wasn't saying all people need to feel interested and included in all conversations. She wasn't even saying people should not have conversations on sports at work. But if you end up with a dynamic where sports talk dominates the interpersonal dynamic of your organization, then it may create ingroup and outgroup dynamics with people who need to work together. It may disproportionately affect women. It's possibly she's also saying if sports talk dominates the interpersonal aspect of your organization, it may start turning into a bit of a boys' club.

By all means, shit on either of those statements or assumptions (or my interpretation of them). But this idea that not all people are interested in all conversations is by no means a criticism of what she was saying. This is an issue of that which becomes problematic when it is pervasive or dominant rather than that which is inherently problematic.

 

[Metaphor]

The deal with studies looking at businesses which have higher rates of diversity and inclusion and their performance in the market. You can reflexively wave off the articles all you like.

These articles are completely irrelevant to the OP and the point I was making. Saying 'it's nice to make people feel included' is the meaningless platitude. Francke defines a problem and handwaves its solution, not me.

What evidence do you have to suggest that that's what Francke did here? You're making this assertion based on what? A second-hand report of a BBC4 interview?

Francke seems to have manufactured, from whole cloth, her posited link between 'discussing sports' leading to 'laddish behaviour'. She doesn't even assert that it's something she's observed personally. She's asserted the link without evidence and the link can be dismissed without evidence.

Now, let's, for the sake of argument, assume Francke has a point that talking about sports at work is more likely to exclude women. Has she actually mentioned a single practical step in addressing the problem that happened to be not reported in that article? Because you know what? I'd like to know. I'd like to know what solution she thinks she has to this (imagined) problem.

That's likely what Chartered Management Institute offers as a product in greater detail.

She probably has a way to build wealth through real estate too, revealed in her VIP seminar series.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

These articles are completely irrelevant to the OP and the point I was making. Saying 'it's nice to make people feel included' is the meaningless platitude. Francke defines a problem and handwaves its solution, not me.

Francke seems to have manufactured, from whole cloth, her posited link between 'discussing sports' leading to 'laddish behaviour'. She doesn't even assert that it's something she's observed personally. She's asserted the link without evidence and the link can be dismissed without evidence.

They are entirely relevant to the article you linked and to your characterization of 'feelgood nonsense' or platitudes (which was specifically what I quoted from you). It's not. It's business.

Now, let's, for the sake of argument, assume Francke has a point that talking about sports at work is more likely to exclude women. Has she actually mentioned a single practical step in addressing the problem that happened to be not reported in that article? Because you know what? I'd like to know. I'd like to know what solution she thinks she has to this (imagined) problem.

Why was she obligated to in a single radio interview? Is the entire basis for your evaluation the article you linked? Did you listen to the interview? Are you using the transcript? Do you even know the context of the comment? Did she come on to the radio show to present and defend a thesis on the effects of sports talk in the workplace, or was it a minor example to a broader point? I mean honestly, what?

I am not defending her statements, but your criticisms are absurd. Some of them are off target altogether.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Making employees feel included may improve productivity, so it is not necessarily a meaningless platitude.

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.

The OP is based on excerpts from a longer interview. Unless you provide a link to that longer interview to substantiate your claims, this is nothing more than confusing conjectures with fact.

 

[Metaphor]

They are entirely relevant to the article you linked and to your characterization of 'feelgood nonsense' or platitudes (which was specifically what I quoted from you). It's not. It's business.

It's a platitude. A platitude does not mean a statement is untrue. In fact, it means it's a pointless truism.

"The world would be better if people were kinder to each other" is a mindless platitude, even though it's a true statement. Saying 'don't be exclusionary' is a mindless platitude.

platitude

[ˈplatɪtjuːd]



NOUN

platitudes (plural noun)

• a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful.
  "she began uttering liberal platitudes"
  synonyms:
  cliché · truism · commonplace · hackneyed/trite/banal/overworked saying · banality · old chestnut · bromide · inanity · tag
  
  
  
  

Why was she obligated to in a single radio interview?

To convince people that she has a good idea worth following up?

Let's say you think people need to do more to combat climate change. Do you think waving a placard with a meaningless platitude (there's no holiday home for earthlings) is useful to someone who does not recognise the problem, or recognises the problem but doesn't know what to do?

Is the entire basis for your evaluation the article you linked?

Yes.

Did you listen to the interview?

No.

Are you using the transcript? Do you even know the context of the comment? Did she come on to the radio show to present and defend a thesis on the effects of sports talk in the workplace, or was it a minor example to a broader point? I mean honestly, what?

You tell me: honestly, what? What is your problem with my commentary? She chose an example of an ungendered phenomenon (conversations where not everybody is interested in the topic), gendered it, made men the perps and women the victims, and then imagined this was a gateway drug to men expressing lurid conquest stories.

I'm not saying she's a feminist whackadoodle with mainstream support, but her behaviour is consistent with what feminist whackadoodles do with mainstream support.

I am not defending her statements, but your criticisms are absurd. Some of them are off target altogether.

No. Her examples were absurd and sexist and I pointed it out.

Imagine instead a man had gone on radio, said conversations about baking at work excluded men, and often led to further toxically feminine behaviours. You'd instantly be able to see what's wrong with the thought process and example.

 

[Metaphor]

Making employees feel included may improve productivity, so it is not necessarily a meaningless platitude.

It's a meaningless platitude because it's a feelgood statement with no practical steps elucidated. Telling people to be 'more inclusive' at work is as useful as telling people that god wants humans to be kind to each other.

 

[laughing dog]

Making employees feel included may improve productivity, so it is not necessarily a meaningless platitude.

It's a meaningless platitude because it's a feelgood statement with no practical steps elucidated.

The absence of practical steps does not make it "meaningless". You may find it unhelpful but that does not make it meaningless. It can be viewed as a reminder.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Why was she obligated to in a single radio interview? Is the entire basis for your evaluation the article you linked? Did you listen to the interview? Are you using the transcript? Do you even know the context of the comment? Did she come on to the radio show to present and defend a thesis on the effects of sports talk in the workplace, or was it a minor example to a broader point? I mean honestly, what?

Easier to answer my own questions by listening to the interview.

• It was the main point she was arguing. That's why they called her in for the interview.
• It was not an in-depth exploration of her views, but rather an interview with two opposed interviewees moderated by an interviewer.
• She was asked what should be done to curtail these conversations apart from a ban, but she only got partway into her answer before being cut off by the interviewer and followed up by the other interviewee.
• The total interview was a little under six minutes. Franke's total speaking time was about a minute and forty seconds, most of it in response to others (as it goes in these cases).

So yeah, while sports talk was the central focus of the conversation, we weren't going to get much depth out of this interview. The format and time allocation didn't allow for it.

 

[laughing dog]

[*]It was the main point she was arguing. That's why they called her in for the interview.
[*]It was not an in-depth exploration of her views, but rather an interview with two opposed interviewees moderated by an interviewer.
[*]She was asked what should be done to curtail these conversations apart from a ban, but she only got partway into her answer before being cut off by the interviewer and followed up by the other interviewee.
[*]The total interview was a little under six minutes. Franke's total speaking time was about a minute and forty seconds, most of it in response to others (as it goes in these cases).
[/LIST]
So yeah, while sports talk was the central focus of the conversation, we weren't going to get much depth out of this interview. The format and time allocation didn't allow for it.

Once again, an OP based on incomplete information to allow the usual suspects to jump to conclusions.

So, there is no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Francke is
1) generalizing about women (or men),
2) focuses only the inclusion of woman in "bantering", or
3) that she engages in only in platitudes (meaningless or otherwise).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It's a platitude. A platitude does not mean a statement is untrue. In fact, it means it's a pointless truism.

Huh? I said my criticism was with your characterization, not that you said she was speaking untrue.

Let's say you think people need to do more to combat climate change. Do you think waving a placard with a meaningless platitude (there's no holiday home for earthlings) is useful to someone who does not recognise the problem, or recognises the problem but doesn't know what to do?

Let's say you are in a radio interview, and you aren't actually given much time to give more than a few soundbites worth of content. What can you do?

You tell me: honestly, what? What is your problem with my commentary?

It's designed to dismiss rather than rationally criticize. It's flippant and vapid.

She chose an example of an ungendered phenomenon (conversations where not everybody is interested in the topic), gendered it, made men the perps and women the victims, and then imagined this was a gateway drug to men expressing lurid conquest stories.

The topic for the interview was sports talk in the workplace, with particular examples given of chat on VAR in football. She indicated that this is something which excludes a lot of women, in particular. The idea that she made men the perps and made women the victims is not a reasonable characterization.

I've not supported her nor criticized you with regard to her comments on escalating behaviour.

No. Her examples were absurd and sexist and I pointed it out.

She was making commentary on the topic of conversation on which she was invited to speak.

 

[Metaphor]

So, there is no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Francke is
1) generalizing about women (or men),

She is absolutely doing that. It is her entire point - that sports talk is more likely to exclude women and that men are more likely to be doing the 'sports talking'.

To add to this generalisation (which isn't a sin in and of itself--men are more interested in sport as a group) she makes a further assertion that sports talks devolves into sexist 'weekend conquest' talk. I can conclude only that this woman has never been in a mixed-sex office environment because her statement is off the rails whackadoodle. Honestly, it's like she's formed her ideas about gender interaction in workplaces from watching 1980s sex comedies.

2) focuses only the inclusion of woman in "bantering", or

It's what she chose to talk about. Maybe she thinks there are certain kinds of office banter that exclude men and can lead to problematic feminine behaviour, but we don't know if she thinks that. There's no evidence that she does.

3) that she engages in only in platitudes (meaningless or otherwise).

I didn't make the claim that she only engages in platitudes, merely that that's what she did do.

 

[Metaphor]

Huh? I said my criticism was with your characterization, not that you said she was speaking untrue.

Making a feelgood, obvious truism statement without any indication as to how to achieve it I have called a meaningless platitude. You can disagree with my specific words (meaningless platitude) but I'm having a hard time seeing how you can disagree that she made an obvious truism statement (it's good to include people) but also failed to enumerate any practical steps on how to get there.

Let's say you are in a radio interview, and you aren't actually given much time to give more than a few soundbites worth of content. What can you do?

Radio interviewers almost always give the interviewed the list of questions that will or may be asked beforehand, especially when somebody is coming on to talk about a specific issue. If she was not prepared to be asked how to mange 'inclusivity' without regulating sports talk, then she's a bad interviewee. If she doesn't know how to manage inclusivity without regulating sports talk, then she's all problem and no solution.

It's designed to dismiss rather than rationally criticize. It's flippant and vapid.

Vapid is what Francke presented. She presented an imagined problem, an offensive and stupid and unevidenced assertion that the 'problem' was linked to other undesirable behaviour, and then provided nothing in the way of solutions to said problem.

The topic for the interview was sports talk in the workplace, with particular examples given of chat on VAR in football. She indicated that this is something which excludes a lot of women, in particular. The idea that she made men the perps and made women the victims is not a reasonable characterization.

Saying 'it excludes women' is talking about women as victims. She made men the perps and women the victims by choosing the example that she did.

She was making commentary on the topic of conversation on which she was invited to speak.

If it was the radio show that came up with the topic idea "sports talk excludes women" it's irrelevant. Francke chose to support the idea, invented her own link to other behaviours, and then, after denying she meant sports talk should be banned, didn't actually have any solution whatsoever.

Here's my summary of the situation:

Feminist goes on radio show, posits that women are victims when some men talk to about sports, manufactures from whole cloth alleged links to behaviour that might actually be problematic, denies she wants to regulate the behaviour, offers no practical solutions.

 

[laughing dog]

She is absolutely doing that. It is her entire point - that sports talk is more likely to exclude women and that men are more likely to be doing the 'sports talking'.

To add to this generalisation (which isn't a sin in and of itself--men are more interested in sport as a group) she makes a further assertion that sports talks devolves into sexist 'weekend conquest' talk. I can conclude only that this woman has never been in a mixed-sex office environment because her statement is off the rails whackadoodle. Honestly, it's like she's formed her ideas about gender interaction in workplaces from watching 1980s sex comedies.

That is your opinion based on your limited experience and poor reading comprehension. She did not say it sports talk necessarily devolves into sexist "weekend conquest talk", but that it may. And in my limited experience, it has.

It's what she chose to talk about.

She was asked a questions about a specific question and she addressed the specific question.

Maybe she thinks there are certain kinds of office banter that exclude men and can lead to problematic feminine behaviour, but we don't know if she thinks that. There's no evidence that she does.

Because that was not the topic. There is no evidence from your discussion up to this point that you think raping people is wrong. What should we conclude from that lack of evidence?

I didn't make the claim that she only engages in platitudes, merely that that's what she did do.

When all you have is pedantry, you've really got nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

That is your opinion based on your limited experience and poor reading comprehension. She did not say it sports talk necessarily devolves into sexist "weekend conquest talk", but that it may.

And feminists say that sexist jokes may lead to rape. The point is they make an assertion that isn't justified because their arguments to ban sexist jokes are not compelling enough on their own.

And in my limited experience, it has.

I don't know where you work but I have never heard such a thing and I frankly doubt Francke has ever overheard such a thing.
Of course, feminists also object to certain conversations that men have in private when no women are around, but they probably correctly understand that the policing of private conversations has less popular support.

Because that was not the topic. There is no evidence from your discussion up to this point that you think raping people is wrong. What should we conclude from that lack of evidence?

I see. So, the conversation was about exclusionary sports talk that affects women, and talking about exclusionary talk that affects men is as far away from that topic as condemning rape is from this topic.

Your analogy is desperate and absurd.

When all you have is pedantry, you've really got nothing.

That's rich--you've done nothing but pick apart each of my sentences (she said it "may" do that"!!). You're the pedant.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know where you work but I have never heard such a thing and I frankly doubt Francke has ever overheard such a thing.

Your sheltered existence is limits your world view.

Of course, feminists also object to certain conversations that men have in private when no women are around, but they probably correctly understand that the policing of private conversations has less popular support.

Nice story bro.

I see. So, the conversation was about exclusionary sports talk that affects women, and talking about exclusionary talk that affects men is as far away from that topic as condemning rape is from this topic.

Your analogy is desperate and absurd.

Not an analogy, an application of your “reasoning”. You are claiming the lack of a response to an unasked question as relevant. I am illustrating how desperate and absurd it is. Apparently, you agree.

That's rich--you've done nothing but pick apart each of my sentences (she said it "may" do that"!!). You're the pedant.

Pedantry followed by a “no u” shows you really have nothing.

 

[Metaphor]

Your sheltered existence is limits your world view.
Nice story bro.

I see. So, the conversation was about exclusionary sports talk that affects women, and talking about exclusionary talk that affects men is as far away from that topic as condemning rape is from this topic.

Your analogy is desperate and absurd.

Not an analogy, an application of your “reasoning”. You are claiming the lack of a response to an unasked question as relevant. I am illustrating how desperate and absurd it is. Apparently, you agree.

That's rich--you've done nothing but pick apart each of my sentences (she said it "may" do that"!!). You're the pedant.

Pedantry followed by a “no u” shows you really have nothing.

Thank you for this productive and fruitful exchange. I hope you are able to address the problematic sports talk in your own workplace via unspecified means.