MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Mar 30, 2023, 13:55:
Well, assume hypothetically she lays down some specific detailed framework for a random company to follow to fix these complex issues. Now, find some company who will actually follow (sincerely) that plan to change, and stick with it. Then, assume, like all of human history, anything goes wrong, then of course all the blame would go to her of course, because the company in question would never take the fall if they could avoid it. Then of course the backlash against her and any sort of equality measures would be even worse than it is now. You get what I'm saying, I hope. Your request, while it would be nice, is unreasonable. At least in my opinion. The next obvious criticism is, if it's so easy to just give a solution to this sort of problem, then what is yours? I am being facetious of course, it's not reasonable to expect a functional change to human behavior at the drop of a hat.

I've been in leadership roles both in and out of uniform for the majority of my life so perhaps my perspective is skewed. When something goes wrong, and it will go wrong, you should have flexibility in your plan to account for it. You assume, in the planning stage, that you're going to step on the proverbial landmine. That's basic plan theory. If something goes catastrophically wrong to the point where you don't have have enough flex to own it, then leadership stands up and takes responsibility for the failure. Then, instead of falling on their sword, they address the failure, fix it, and learn from what went wrong.

Now does the above accountability often take place in American corporations? Not only no but HELL no for the most part. But, let's be real, leadership in most American organizations sucks to the point that it's not a miracle that the bear waltzes, it's that the bear dances at all. However, I try to be a different than that.

You state that my request is unreasonable yet I have done so. I know several other people in leadership roles who have also done so. Tackling human problems is at the very core of being in a leadership role. Without taking care of your humans, every other business concern is useless. Businesses don't exist without people. So every other consideration becomes a secondary or tertiary objective. To me, it's like saying "Well, how do you plan for or resolve a sudden FMLA request? Or a sudden accommodation request?" To me, a good team balance based on skill and fit is no more of a challenge than any other planning for human problems. That's not to say it is easy, it isn't, but that doesn't mean I wave my hand, say something vague in corpospeak, and push it off to be someone else's problem to solve.

I don't have an easy, pat answer for how to make DEI be both effective and not punishing and if it seemed like I did, I apologize. But then the people who actually get hit the hardest by flailing, pointless DEI initiatives are never people who have a seat at the table when those initiatives are being drafted. It's all done by HR drones who, outside of paperwork, have zero bearing on hiring or team makeups. So DEI initiatives will always fail.

That's where Sarkessian, to me, comes in to play. Stop spouting useless platitudes like a soft touch HR drone and start working on the hard problem.

That's my rub. Stop talking, start solving.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Mar 30, 2023, 09:55:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Mar 30, 2023, 08:59:
*EDIT* That said, Sarkeesian did have some decent suggestions in the article for corporations to attempt to work on, Burrito, I'm not sure if you were expecting more detailed steps than that.

I'm of the opinion that if you're going to be the kind of person who constantly says "This is a problem" that you also need to follow that up immediately with "...and these are the implementable steps to address it."

The four "principles" she brings up are, to put it bluntly, feel good bullshit that are not definitively actionable.

If she feels there are systemic problems, then she can start her own company or organization and address them in a way that shows that such an org can be as equally efficient, effective and, if such is the point of the org, profitable as the system currently operates if not moreso. She needs to be the example of a workable solution to a problem she believes she sees.

Constantly pointing out perceived problems and vaguely addressing them in very nebulous ways is the antithesis of actual problem solving. I get it though, solving soft (read: human) problems is hard but solvable they are. Sometimes that is going to be a long, hard fight but you have to be willing to wade in to that fight to a possibly very bloody end if you want to effect change.

From this interview, because I wouldn't call it an article, she's not willing to take on the fight with a functional strategy that has defined goals and plans to meet the sub and overall objectives of that strategy.

But what I have read from Sarkessian, that seems to be her schtick and I find it very hard to see her as credible.

Well, assume hypothetically she lays down some specific detailed framework for a random company to follow to fix these complex issues. Now, find some company who will actually follow (sincerely) that plan to change, and stick with it. Then, assume, like all of human history, anything goes wrong, then of course all the blame would go to her of course, because the company in question would never take the fall if they could avoid it. Then of course the backlash against her and any sort of equality measures would be even worse than it is now. You get what I'm saying, I hope. Your request, while it would be nice, is unreasonable. At least in my opinion. The next obvious criticism is, if it's so easy to just give a solution to this sort of problem, then what is yours? I am being facetious of course, it's not reasonable to expect a functional change to human behavior at the drop of a hat.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Mar 30, 2023, 08:59:
*EDIT* That said, Sarkeesian did have some decent suggestions in the article for corporations to attempt to work on, Burrito, I'm not sure if you were expecting more detailed steps than that.

I'm of the opinion that if you're going to be the kind of person who constantly says "This is a problem" that you also need to follow that up immediately with "...and these are the implementable steps to address it."

The four "principles" she brings up are, to put it bluntly, feel good bullshit that are not definitively actionable.

If she feels there are systemic problems, then she can start her own company or organization and address them in a way that shows that such an org can be as equally efficient, effective and, if such is the point of the org, profitable as the system currently operates if not moreso. She needs to be the example of a workable solution to a problem she believes she sees.

Constantly pointing out perceived problems and vaguely addressing them in very nebulous ways is the antithesis of actual problem solving. I get it though, solving soft (read: human) problems is hard but solvable they are. Sometimes that is going to be a long, hard fight but you have to be willing to wade in to that fight to a possibly very bloody end if you want to effect change.

From this interview, because I wouldn't call it an article, she's not willing to take on the fight with a functional strategy that has defined goals and plans to meet the sub and overall objectives of that strategy.

But what I have read from Sarkessian, that seems to be her schtick and I find it very hard to see her as credible.

The actual article is well written and reasonably objective, in my opinion. It's an extremely complex problem that is not going to have an easy solution. It's also a very USA-centric problem to constantly classify people as "American" or "Black American" or "Asian American" and it's going to take generations to fix that kind of ingrained racism/prejudice, let alone get rid of the notion that people are automatically NOT qualified if they aren't straight white males.

On top of that, the country is very definitely swinging further to the extreme right at the moment, even 'liberal' figures in this country like Bernie Sanders are seen as right of center in the rest of the world. It'll be pogroms in the streets before people come to their senses.

*EDIT* That said, Sarkeesian did have some decent suggestions in the article for corporations to attempt to work on, Burrito, I'm not sure if you were expecting more detailed steps than that.

RedEye9 wrote on Mar 30, 2023, 07:31:
As to be expected - the DEI dog whistle was blown and the first two respondents didn't bother to read the article.

I did read the article and it's the usual Sarkeesian "I want to point out presumed problems but not provide any functional, concrete solutions to any of them". On the face of it, I have no problems with DEI. I have no issue with bringing more voices to the table that can bring intelligent, workable solutions to problems. I do have a problem when DEI is used as a bludgeon to check boxes instead of hiring candidates that are the best fit. This is where a lot of orgs fail at DEI. It's either performance art, which she does point out, or it swings to the other side of the spectrum and becomes punishing which creates a less efficient and effective workforce.

RedEye9 wrote on Mar 30, 2023, 07:31:
As to be expected - the DEI dog whistle was blown and the first two respondents didn't bother to read the article.

Can't be angry at equality efforts unless you do your best to not understand them

Plus, citing gamergate? Let's harass a woman for having sex then claim anything we like stems from it!

As to be expected - the DEI dog whistle was blown and the first two respondents didn't bother to read the article.

This person has their head so far up their ass, all they can speak is entirely subjective sophomore social jargon bable with absolutely no basis in fact.

A person who made a career out of social posturing, now rants that things did not work out the way she predicted with DEI.

This is exactly what you supported. Now you don't like it?! Gamergate wins again I guess, sure took almost a decade before the realization set it.