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

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Sums it up nicely. And ignore laughing dog's pedantry. You're life will be better for it.

 

[laughing dog]

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


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.

Pedantry, "no u" and now a meaningless platitude. LOL.

 

[Jarhyn]

The conduct of the OP is pretty garbage.lots of people love sports and talki g about it and it's sexist bullshit to say women are excluded in conversation about sports.

Of course, workers in the setting should be aware, in general, that some people aren't interested in some topics and discussion should be balanced in topic. Any workplace where one topic dominates and thus excludes wider participation is problematic.

This isn't to say that some individuals in some workplaces don't do it purposefully to exclude women. But if that is what is happening, the statement of the OP shouldn't have referenced a specific topic but rather the general behavior, and used sports, perhaps, merely as the exemplar.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

Sums it up nicely. And ignore laughing dog's pedantry. You're life will be better for it.

Is it though?

She may be a feminist. It's not unlikely. But she was on the show as the chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute and as a recognized expert on gender equality in the workplace.

Did she posit women are 'victims'? Seems to be more of an equivocation than a fair assessment. She said it is presents a problem for inclusion which disproportionately affects women, and that managers have a responsibility to create inclusive work environments.

Did she 'manufacture' links to problematic behaviour from 'whole cloth'? Possible, but unknown. This was not an in-depth interview. She made the assertion and did not substantiate it, which is on her. The assumption that it is baseless is one inserted by metaphor rather than something we can conclude from the interview itself. While he is free to defend it, is it a good summary of events, or is it editorializing them?

Did she deny she wants to regulate the behaviour? No. She said she doesn't want sports talk banned; however, he believes managers have a duty to moderate it.

Does she offer no solutions? Unknown. She was in the process of answering that very question when she was cut off. The interview ended without her being given chance to speak again. She may have solutions to offer. Likely she does given the nature of her work (regardless of whether anyone here agrees they would be effective). She may have actually been offering some in that interview before being cut off. But again, that's not how it played out. She was not provided the chance to finish.

Please, tell me how that 'sums it up nicely', exactly?

 

[Metaphor]

Is it though?

She may be a feminist. It's not unlikely.

Then why argue with my characterisation? If you had to bet $100 on whether she's a feminist, which way would you bet?

But she was on the show as the chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute and as a recognized expert on gender equality in the workplace.

...so? That is evidence that feminism is no barrier to mainstream success and power.

Did she posit women are 'victims'? Seems to be more of an equivocation than a fair assessment. She said it is presents a problem for inclusion which disproportionately affects women, and that managers have a responsibility to create inclusive work environments.

Saying a problem disproportionately affects group x is making that group a victim.

Did she 'manufacture' links to problematic behaviour from 'whole cloth'? Possible, but unknown. This was not an in-depth interview. She made the assertion and did not substantiate it, which is on her. The assumption that it is baseless is one inserted by metaphor rather than something we can conclude from the interview itself. While he is free to defend it, is it a good summary of events, or is it editorializing them?

What she asserts without evidence I am entitled to dismiss without evidence.

Indeed, I've been in a variety of workplaces during my youth and adulthood, and her idea that 'sports talk' may encourage 'weekend conquest' talk is something I have never witnessed. I'd also wager I'm better placed to witness it, since I'm a man and Francke isn't, and men say things to each other in private that they do not say when women are around.

Did she deny she wants to regulate the behaviour? No. She said she doesn't want sports talk banned; however, he believes managers have a duty to moderate it.

Who is the 'he'? Francke?

Does she offer no solutions? Unknown. She was in the process of answering that very question when she was cut off. The interview ended without her being given chance to speak again. She may have solutions to offer. Likely she does given the nature of her work (regardless of whether anyone here agrees they would be effective). She may have actually been offering some in that interview before being cut off. But again, that's not how it played out. She was not provided the chance to finish.

What solutions do you believe she has to offer? My background is organisational psychology, so this topic is of interest to me.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But she was on the show as the chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute and as a recognized expert on gender equality in the workplace.

Then why argue with my characterisation? If you had to bet $100 on whether she's a feminist, which way would you bet?

She's a "recognized expert on gender equality in the workplace". I will bet you a hundred to one that she's a feminist. I'll also give 50:50 odds that she actually has any credibility regarding gender equality or even supports it.

 

[jladam]

They're is only one problem with people discussing sports at work and that is this: A bunch of people standing around talking about a non-work related topic - regardless of what that topic is - when they should be fucking working.

 

[Jarhyn]

They're is only one problem with people discussing sports at work and that is this: A bunch of people standing around talking about a non-work related topic - regardless of what that topic is - when they should be fucking working.

On that note: old man yells at clouds.

Everyone does and should do this, regularly and often, in any healthy office environment.

Most people in an office spend a significant time doing non-work activities, and if they are not having conversations that bind them together socially, they are doing something else, likely non-social.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Sums it up nicely. And ignore laughing dog's pedantry. You're life will be better for it.

Is it though?

She may be a feminist. It's not unlikely. But she was on the show as the chief executive of the Chartered Management Institute and as a recognized expert on gender equality in the workplace.

Did she posit women are 'victims'? Seems to be more of an equivocation than a fair assessment. She said it is presents a problem for inclusion which disproportionately affects women, and that managers have a responsibility to create inclusive work environments.

Did she 'manufacture' links to problematic behaviour from 'whole cloth'? Possible, but unknown. This was not an in-depth interview. She made the assertion and did not substantiate it, which is on her. The assumption that it is baseless is one inserted by metaphor rather than something we can conclude from the interview itself. While he is free to defend it, is it a good summary of events, or is it editorializing them?

Did she deny she wants to regulate the behaviour? No. She said she doesn't want sports talk banned; however, he believes managers have a duty to moderate it.

Does she offer no solutions? Unknown. She was in the process of answering that very question when she was cut off. The interview ended without her being given chance to speak again. She may have solutions to offer. Likely she does given the nature of her work (regardless of whether anyone here agrees they would be effective). She may have actually been offering some in that interview before being cut off. But again, that's not how it played out. She was not provided the chance to finish.

Please, tell me how that 'sums it up nicely', exactly?

What did you expect to accomplish with such "pedantry"?

Be wary about this "feminism" label. To some posters, "feminism" is the ideology of "feminists" who are the equivalent of cultural and societal terrorists intent of ineluctably destroying the very important fabrics of our "culture" and our societal institutions and replacing them with utter destruction and dismay. It only took until post 7 of this thread for the evil feminists to creep into the discussion.

 

[repoman]

The day that the Christchurch massacre happened, the staff at my job was, unusually, all men. The talk about it was like a sports game blowout, even made me blush.

I had already seen the full stream so I knew how unhinged it was.

If there was at least one women it would have been different.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

IF a person paid to invent problems says one day "Hey, X is a problem", does that imply that person has some ideological worldview that presumes that X and only X is a problem? Unless she only has ever talked about "problems" that entail women being victimized by men, there is no evidence that this "problem" was chosen on ideological/feminist grounds. These consultant companies focus on "problems" around interpersonal workplace issues, particular those participated in by management level employees who have more control over the workplace culture. One guess what gender the large majority of those corporate management employees are in the UK?

IOW, until you've combed through everything this person has said in her role as a corporate consultant, you have no grounds to infer anything about her motives from one statement you cherry picked, beyond her known motives to invent whatever problems she can try to sell to companies who'll pay them to "fix" them.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

What did you expect to accomplish with such "pedantry"?

Oh. I thought the word floating around was 'pendantry'. Thought if I played along I might get a nice necklace out of the deal. Now I just feel I've wasted my time.

Be wary about this "feminism" label. To some posters, "feminism" is the ideology of "feminists" who are the equivalent of cultural and societal terrorists intent of ineluctably destroying the very important fabrics of our "culture" and our societal institutions and replacing them with utter destruction and dismay.

I just want to watch the world burn.

 

[Metaphor]

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



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.

IF a person paid to invent problems says one day "Hey, X is a problem", does that imply that person has some ideological worldview that presumes that X and only X is a problem? Unless she only has ever talked about "problems" that entail women being victimized by men, there is no evidence that this "problem" was chosen on ideological/feminist grounds. These consultant companies focus on "problems" around interpersonal workplace issues, particular those participated in by management level employees who have more control over the workplace culture. One guess what gender the large majority of those corporate management employees are in the UK?

What do you mean by a "corporate management employee"? Do you mean any employee who manages others? Senior executives? Key management personnel? C-suite?

IOW, until you've combed through everything this person has said in her role as a corporate consultant, you have no grounds to infer anything about her motives from one statement you cherry picked, beyond her known motives to invent whatever problems she can try to sell to companies who'll pay them to "fix" them.

No: I didn't cherry-pick. I'd never heard of this woman before I came across the article. To cherry-pick implies I had a range of material to choose from, but I didn't.

But her motives aside: do you think any advocacy for women to regulate their behaviour in workplaces so as not to exclude men would be a problem that this management consultant would be able to 'sell'?