
For an Inclusive Culture, Try Working Less - itsdrewmiller
https://hackernoon.com/for-inclusive-culture-maybe-less-is-more-87b663662cea
======
exelius
Yes, yes, yes.

This was brought up in a thread last week about "As a female, how do I
identify a good employer?"

The best answers basically said "work somewhere that has as boring a corporate
culture as possible". Basically, work for a place where you are rated on your
production and nothing else. Work elsewhere and things like "how late did you
work?" \-- a metric that is far easier for people without children to meet --
cease to matter.

Working late isn't the only thing (though it is a big one), but it tends to
correlate with "immature HR practices" in general. Inclusivity is about
recognizing that people have life configurations that differ from your own,
and creating the space for those differences to exist.

~~~
blablabla123
Damn, all this corporate bashing during the last years... It sounded so right.
Having worked at several startups in these years, and also co-founded one, I
realized the culture is often borderline insane. Working now at a more or less
corporate startup, I'm so much happier.

~~~
cortesoft
It is not insane... if you are 24 with no family. Everyone thinks that
startups are populated by young, single 20-somethings because those are the
people who take risks and disrupt the status quo, when actually, it is because
they are the only people who can put up with that lifestyle.

~~~
falcolas
Even if you're 24 with no family... there are better things to be doing with
your life than working 10-14 hour days. Some unsolicited advice: don't wait
until your 30's to figure that out.

~~~
lacampbell
my background was working fast food, being a day labourer and long periods of
unemployment. I knew this from day 1 going into tech. I find people who come
from wealthier backgrounds than me tend to over work.

------
trustfundbaby
For all the noise tech startups make about meritocracy, they sure do a poor
job of separating the work from personal issues which spells doom for
minorities in a lot of instances.

I lost count of how many times, something innocent like not going to lunch
with the team regularly (I'm a picky eater), or participating in whatever game
the team was nuts about (foosball, or various exotic board games) turned into
personnel issues where all of a sudden I was "unavailable to the team", or
"distant and aloof" etc, even though my professional contributions were just
fine or even stellar.

You can imagine how stressful it is to show up to work everyday wondering what
bullshit non-work related nonsense is going to come up that day and require
another stupid chat with your manager. And in the midst of that you're
expected to keep up a cheerful demeanor and work well with the same assholes
that keep bringing up this irrelevant crap because the fault in these
interactions couldn't possibly be with them.

The day it becomes about the work, and not personal discomfort with new and
differing points of view about communication and interaction, diversity at
tech companies will become an after thought ... in a good way.

~~~
navalsaini
Ps... did you do anything to become less unavailable to the team? Like standup
meetings or scrum. Or any other interesting strategy.

~~~
trustfundbaby
I was never unavailable in the first place, thats kinda the point of the
story.

------
adventist
> That’s because the culture was mostly about the business of software, how
> you build it, how you sell it, how you support it. If you were excited about
> that, you automatically belonged. You didn’t need to stay late, or drink
> alcohol, or play Rock Band, or play board games, or not have kids to pick
> up, or go to church, or not go to church, or do anything except show up
> 9-to-5 and care a lot about good software.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

I don't drink, and its kind of sad that I get to miss out sometimes because I
don't go to the bar. Because I like to bike instead, why can't I not feel
pressure to go to the bar and do my own thing after work?

Handling work stuff at Work I feel is the way to go.

~~~
lmm
> I don't drink, and its kind of sad that I get to miss out sometimes because
> I don't go to the bar. Because I like to bike instead, why can't I not feel
> pressure to go to the bar and do my own thing after work?

Because having a liminal zone where people feel allowed to step outside the
hierarchy and say things that might otherwise be unacceptable (e.g. "this
framework we're using is totally fucked") is really important and valuable?
It's not about the alcohol per se, but alcohol is a particularly effective way
of creating that atmosphere.

~~~
ABCLAW
If your organization can't encourage frank discussion about workplace issues
without a venue for employees to drug themselves, you probably have more
important problems to dive into.

More importantly, if you lean on off-site drinking as your method to get real
feedback and communication, you probably have less incentive to fix your
workplace culture in the first place.

~~~
asdqwwwww
Congratulations on missing OPs point. Completely.

A bar is a pretty standard watering hole where you go to complain about things
you'd like to complain about off the record. Maybe the problem is annoying and
not fixable, e.g. "this framework sucks", or the problem is with with the
industry, e.g. "diversity shouldn't be priority over merit".

Both of these problems don't really belong in a "realtime feedback and
communication" system because they can't be fixed through the proper channels.
The second one especially, where voicing that opinion in SV will get you hung
on a cross outside Google HQ.

The bar provides a cathartic release so you don't explode at work on problems
you can't fix. Why do you think people stop at the bar before going home? Most
of them aren't alcoholics, they just don't want to bring unfixable problems
home, and face it, complaining _feels_ good.

~~~
ABCLAW
If you're in danger of 'exploding at work' or have problems that can't be
fixed through the proper channels, maybe you should focus on dealing with
those issues and opening lines of communication instead of getting people to
meet up at the bar after work to instill a sense of team that excludes
pregnant women, older individuals, people with kids, people who don't drink,
etc. I don't have drinks with my work buddies so that I don't explode. I have
drinks with my work buddies because I like catching up with them and sometimes
we're too busy at work to shoot the shit.

I don't think anyone has an issue with a few co-workers occasionally grabbing
a brew after work. The problem is when people feel pressured to do so because
the post-work ritual is replacing actual candid work discussion. Why? Well,
its pretty simple. Not everyone drinks. Not everyone has the time to grab a
drink after work. Not everyone feels comfortable in a bar around intoxicated
co-workers.

There's a marked difference between a few co-workers grabbing a beer
occasionally and friday night pints being the only place you can discuss
problems you're facing at work.

~~~
asdqwwwww
> Implying you have to drink at a bar

> If you're in danger of 'exploding at work' or have problems that can't be
> fixed through the proper channels, maybe you should focus on dealing with
> those issues and opening lines of communication instead of getting people to
> meet up at the bar after work to instill a sense of team that excludes
> pregnant women, older individuals, people with kids, people who don't drink,
> etc. I don't have drinks with my work buddies so that I don't explode

Second to the above - thanks for getting semantic with me. I don't see how a
bar excludes any of these people. Maybe where you live they check green cards
and do ultrasounds at the door, but where I live anyone can walk into a bar
and not feel compelled to drink. You seem to be really up on the inclusion
game though. Why shouldn't people be excluded from certain conversations?
Should I invite everyone to my complain fest about a framework they love
because I hate it? I can't just leave my job, so I go to a "place" (since you
seem to have this internal fixation with bars and alcohol) with "receptive
people" (since you seem to think exclusion implies leaving out minorities)
that can assure me I'm not alone in this world. Additionally I drink at that
bar because an ice cold pint at the end of the day is great and it's a thing
we all have a common. I don't drink so I don't "explode". I'm really
regretting using that word because people like you fixate on minutiae so you
don't have to argue an actual point.

I don't think you're nearly as level-headed as you think are you are. Everyone
"winds down" some way. I prefer the bar, some people prefer a picnic at the
park. There's a bar down the street from work where I can complain with people
friendly to my cause about things that bother us. I don't see why this is such
a problem. It's almost like you're discouraging human interaction in the name
of this ambiguous spectre that haunts SV - "inclusion at all costs".

~~~
ABCLAW
Oddly personal response. "Thanks for getting semantic with me", "People like
you", "You seem to have this internal fixation with bars and alcohol", "I
don't think you're nearly as level-headed as you think you are"

Again, I don't care if people grab a brew after work. I care if an
organization's culture excludes those who don't.

Since the topic seems a bit close to home, imagine this: you work at a start-
up and the founder only seeks frank input about how things are going during
weekend sailing regattas. The two teams that are led by sailors keep having
their roadblocks removed, while the rest aren't. Comparisons between the
sailor led teams and the others are driving negative performance reviews for
the teams you're a part of. Do you think this is healthy for the company?

~~~
CompanionCuuube
It is objectively healthier for the company to have two teams with roadblocks
removed rather than no teams having their roadblocks removed.

------
jblow
This is all fine, but there are side-effects.

If you only work a minimum number of hours within your field, you are unlikely
to emerge as one of the peak achievers or thought leaders in your field.
That's just because you learn more from experience, and working more hours
gives you more experience.

You can extrapolate from there what this means for companies and individuals.

I am not at all saying that companies should ask people to work long hours. (I
run a software company, and we are super-lax about hours, people showing up at
the office, etc). But I am saying that if an individual wants to be an expert
in a particular field, that person should probably work a lot (and probably
wants to work a lot anyway, due to interest in the subject). This doesn't
necessarily have to be at the company; it could be at home, on personal
projects, whatever. But the deeper and more challenging the project is, the
better you learn, and it's easier to have one project that is deep and
challenging than somehow to have two in parallel. And if only one is deep and
challenging, then you are sort of idling with half your time. So there are
basically two paths to this kind of deep work: work for a company, make sure
you get a project that's really good, and then work hard on it; or go do your
own thing, make sure you have enough money somehow, and work hard on what
interests you.

This also means that "work-life balance" is not a thing for experts the way it
is for normal people. But that's fine, because for these kinds of experts
their work is a serious part of their life and the two things are inseparable.

Of course if you don't feel this way about what you're working on, that it is
a serious part of your life, then this strategy doesn't make sense; and I
would not encourage people who don't feel this way (who are the majority of
the population) to work that hard. I am just pointing out that there are some
of us for whom a different life strategy is best.

~~~
maxxxxx
"This also means that "work-life balance" is not a thing for experts the way
it is for normal people. "

I have seen quite a few experts in their field and they didn't work long hours
but everything they did counted. The problem is that most of us are being
overloaded with repetitive, trivial stuff and never get the opportunity do
deep thinking and solving difficult challenges. This can't be solved by
working more.

You pretty much wrote this but I just want to emphasize that long working
hours won't get you ahead but challenging work.

~~~
whiddershins
I have observed that most of the people I know who fit your description:
experts who work fewer hours but everything they do counts, almost always went
through a period of ridiculous and obsessive long hours early in their career.

Once you've built that skill set, it makes sense to dial things back because
you now know how to be effective and you also probably do tons of mental work
semi consciously away from your "desk."

But it drives me crazy how people seem to think they can start out that way.
In my experience that is a sure path to modest abilities, which is fine, but
that's the trade off.

~~~
maxxxxx
"almost always went through a period of ridiculous and obsessive long hours
early in their career."

Maybe. But for sure they worked on something challenging and not on checking
off endless lists of JIRA tickets. It's not long hours but quality of work
that makes you grow. Both together is probably the winner.

------
alexashka
I think he's taking the surface level and assuming if we copy the surface
level, we are going to get the rest.

No.

The reason Fog Creek works well, is because it's very smart people, who care
about what they're doing. They care because it's a product company - they get
to make decisions that impact the product. They feel a sense of ownership.

Contrast that with a sweat, uh sorry, I mean dev shop. Contrast that with
doing contract work for big companies where you come in, leave 6 months later.
Contrast that with start-ups that only exist because someone got free money.

Contrast that with shit maintenance work at big corps.

Does that about cover 95%, if not more, software jobs out there?

There is no fixing shit workplaces because the foundation is rotten. When you
have no say, when you don't care about the product, when you move around every
few years - yeah, it's shit culture.

There is no fixing that - most people long for a stable group of people they
can make something happen with.

Most people are confused about how much work and dedication it takes to make
something great. Most people's actions create what most people complain about
and they don't even know it. There is no fixing it, there is only becoming
good enough to either start your own Fog Creek, or be good enough to join one.

------
creepydata
>Yesterday, I had a wide-ranging Slack conversation with some very nice people
who patiently allowed this privileged white male to repeatedly touch the third
rail of diversity and inclusion.

Read this three times and I can't understand what it means. Can anyone
"translate?"

On the overall topic, it seems really obvious in retrospect that removing
formalities in the workplace turns the office into a social club and those who
don't want to socialize are excluded. Its certainly an unintended consequence
though.

I can certainly see the benefits of formality in the office now that I'm
older.

~~~
blackbagboys
Current social norms require a degree of self-abasement before it's socially
acceptable for certain types of people to offer an opinion on certain cultural
topics. This is a ritualized phrase designed to fulfill this norm. It's not
intended to convey any information.

~~~
stickfigure
I wish to subscribe to a newsletter in which you annotate, line by line,
speeches by politicians and other popular figures.

------
nashashmi
I am going to wrap this article around a bigger more general concept. I might
be going off topic but bear with me.

The difference between a startup culture and a corporate culture is the
difference between a creative company and a disciplined company. "Discipline"
is like a swiss knife, something that can work anywhere and everywhere.
Creativity only works in some places, in places that are desperate, in places
that are still making basic decisions, in places where the problems are high
and the solutions are few.

A disciplined company has no problem being acquired by a creative company. But
a creative company has many problems when they start masquerading in a
disciplined company. (Read: Microsoft acquires Company X and writes it off 5
years later.)

Working in a disciplined company is easy for most people. No manual required.
Working in a creative company is difficult for most people but easy for
creative people. Most foreigners or people with diverse minority backgrounds
have a difficult time adapting to very social environments. They would rather
stay strictly professional and confined to their work.

But here is the problem: what is the point of having diversity if social
interaction is nil? How messed up is your social world if it does not include
unsocial minorities?

There is a balance that is needed. Google started as creative and became more
corporate and also became more "boring". (Sergey Brin's word)

~~~
brixon
"Most foreigners or people with diverse minority backgrounds have a difficult
time adapting to very social environments. They would rather stay strictly
professional and confined to their work."

Maybe rephrase this sentence, this reads like anyone not like you cannot do
creative work. It sounds extremely racist and other 'ists.

~~~
nashashmi
I guess I stepped on a racism mine, even if I happen to be of a minority
myself.

------
temp-dude-87844
This approach finds its parallels in other collaborative spaces where
meritocracy is valued; open source software development comes to mind. In that
arena, this approach was widely deployed, but is at odds with the more recent
trend of explicitly stating to promote inclusion and diversity.

Staunchly meritocratic online interaction and collaboration, from software
development to messageboards, allows people to cultivate identities largely
defined by their contributions, which is often distinct, or even at odds, from
the identity they wish to demonstrate in their real life. In online spaces
where individual contributors aren't restricted from speaking out against the
leadership, this disconnect will manifest instead of being suppressed.

While I don't disagree with the author's recommendations and rationale, it's
unfortunate that the OP's argument essentially reduces down to the fact that
the less casual interaction between people, the more inclusivity will result.
It's also re-framing the implied problem: the equality vs. equity debate. In
the OP's view, the solution is to cultivate a minimalist, work-focused culture
that solves the inclusivity question by avoiding it entirely. This is very
much at odds with the approach that receives a lot more press these days,
which seeks to prescriptively address inclusivity within its own problem-
space.

~~~
ch4s3
How are you defining "meritocratic online interaction"?

~~~
temp-dude-87844
A contribution defined by its payload's self-contained substance and value-add
to a core mission of the effort, e.g. a block of code for a requested feature,
documentation to accompany a feature, an insightful on-topic post, or a
stimulating exchange.

It's an artifact whose value is derived from its content, and not from its
provenance.

~~~
ch4s3
OK, I'll bite.

In principle, this makes sense, but I think if we poke at it a little you may
agree that there are some holes.

>A contribution defined by its payload's self-contained substance and value-
add to a core mission

Let's discuss the core mission. How is this mission decided? Is there a
process that includes multiple stakeholders? Who picks these stakeholders? I
would presume that most open source projects are started by 1 person, or a few
people who work together, but recognize that other arrangements exist. At some
point either they must set these goals or expand the core group that makes
such decisions. So to start with, the first person(s) setting the mission are
as arbitrary as having been there when it started. Are they the best at
setting goals once a project is in full swing? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I
think you can agree that at the outset, merit is defined by those who start a
project or are arbitrarily close to it's start.

> It's an artifact whose value is derived from its content, and not from its
> provenance.

How does a project determine the "value" of a piece of content. What is the
process for derivation? Is it simply the fulfillment of a feature request with
accompanying tests and docs? I would suggest that for any non-trivial code, it
will be difficult to determine if a pull request will do exactly what it is
purported to do with no negative externalities.

What is you have competing contributions for the same feature request? How do
you determine which one to choose? Let's say for example that concurrently an
issue is addressed by a core contributor and a first time contributor and both
arrive at equivalently good solutions. Which implementation should you choose
to maintain "meritocracy"? How do you justify that decision?

You may be interested to look to the origin of the word meritocracy[1]. It was
intended as satire.

[1]The Rise of the Meritocracy
[https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ](https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ)

~~~
icebraining
I think you're talking a bit past temp-dude-87844's point.

Yes, a system based entirely on the contents of the contributions will end up
modeled by the biases of those who take the decisions. But aren't those the
same forces that would apply to a "work-focused" company environment like the
article proposes?

------
lmm
> It’s so comfortable and nice to lead an integrated life where your
> colleagues are your friends and vice versa, where your conversations over
> beers solve problems encountered over keyboards.

> But maybe that comes at a cost. If we set aside that desire and focus on
> what we’re really trying to do here — make good software — then maybe we’ll
> open up some different possibilities. By constraining the number of things
> we have to agree on, and the number of hours we have to spend agreeing on
> them, we naturally open ourselves to a diverse world of talented people.

Much as we might wish otherwise, I think this article is right that
informality and diversity are in tension (though I think it's massively wrong
to conflate informality with long hours; it's very much possible to have a
culture where you drink alcohol, play Rock Band, play board games, but still
go home after your 35 hours/week). But having to give up informality would be
a very heavy price. For me a comfortable life is the end and making good
software is the means. But even if your goal is good software, looking at the
past couple of decades of big professional companies being displaced by
scrappy startups, _informal organizations seem a lot better at producing good
software_.

~~~
rayiner
> For me a comfortable life is the end and making good software is the means.

I have a comfortable life. It involves being on a kayak with my wife and kid,
not hanging out with coworkers.

> But even if your goal is good software, looking at the past couple of
> decades of big professional companies being displaced by scrappy startups,
> informal organizations seem a lot better at producing good software.

Are startups "better at producing good software?" They may be better at
entering novel markets, software that's novel isn't the same thing as software
that's good. _E.g._ Facebook's iOS app used to be a buggy piece of crap. It's
gotten much better as Facebook as gotten more "corporate." Some of the best
software I've used in the last decade was made by Apple, which hit a billion
dollars of revenue the year I was born.

~~~
lmm
> I have a comfortable life. It involves being on a kayak with my wife and
> kid, not hanging out with coworkers.

Having friends in work is no barrier to spending time with other friends or
family outside of work - it's not zero-sum. Even 35 hours/week (and if you've
got a better deal than that then I envy you) is a lot of time to be spending
with a bunch of people none of whom are your friends.

> Are startups "better at producing good software?" They may be better at
> entering novel markets, software that's novel isn't the same thing as
> software that's good. E.g. Facebook's iOS app used to be a buggy piece of
> crap. It's gotten much better as Facebook as gotten more "corporate."

Users vote with their feet for featureful-but-buggy over well-engineered-with-
less-cool-functions, and I don't think it's because users are stupid. I think
a willingness to "move fast and break things" translates into genuinely more
life-enhancing software on the whole.

------
platz
It is also known that casual dress is somehow connected to less social
mobility.

> But above all I didn’t have the cultural and social capital to know how to
> dress casual in the right way. My casual dressing was made of nerdy,
> unfashionable and cheap clothes: you could immediately say that I haven’t
> accomplished anything. And I didn’t even know that there was a “rich” way to
> dress casual.

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/05/inf...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/05/informal-
dress-social-mobility-sicilian-perspective.html)

there’s more art to looking sharp in casual attire than in a suit and tie!

> Tyler Cowen: Well, being a casual person myself, I'm very glad being casual
> is in vogue, and probably will stay in vogue. But what I find striking is
> societies with a lot of upward mobility often tend to have strict dress
> codes. So you see this today with Mormons, at Mormon businesses. You see it
> in Japan in its heyday years--you know, the businessman or journeyman suit,
> they more or less all looked the same. There's something about upward
> mobility where actually clothing is not that casual and one is being more
> formal in trying to impress; and that is a [?]. But the thing about being
> casual is it actually makes it harder for people to prove themselves. So,
> Bill Gates goes to a meeting and he may show up dressed very casually; but
> he's still Bill Gates--either everyone knows or if you really needed to, you
> could Google him. So there's a code of casual that's actually very difficult
> for, say, people from other cultures in America to master or demonstrate
> that's actually made signaling harder. Just that right way of looking casual
> is in a funny way more conformist than like the blue suit and tie, which you
> could do and then innovate around and try to climb to the top. So I find
> this disturbing, the more I think about it.

[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/05/tyler_cowen_on_1.ht...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/05/tyler_cowen_on_1.html)

~~~
elgenie
I listened to that podcast, and I think the money quote is this one:

> Russ Roberts: […] I do think it's--instead of getting a very highly tailored
> and expensive suit, now you have to know exactly how to match your tee-shirt
> with your running shoes in a way that doesn't make you look the wrong kind
> of geek or whatever it is.

> Tyler Cowen: Yes, so say you are an immigrant to this country and you show
> up at a workplace and they tell you, 'Look, put on a blue suit jacket and a
> tie, and burgundy shoes.' I mean, don't you feel immense relief at that,
> actually?

~~~
platz
right, though i thought the guests other points were overall garbage

------
golemotron
I wish I could up-vote this more.

It is a problem that corporate America tries to optimize function by getting
everyone closer and closer together with team building exercises and alignment
of values.

Values are deeply personal and we should recognize that people are going to
differ. Freedom of conscience is as basic as freedom of religion and important
for the same reason.

If we keep work a professional space we maximize diversity of thought and life
experience, which are ostensibly what the large push toward ethnic and gender
diversity are a proxy for.

------
andrewfong
The takeaway for me is less about minimum hours and more about minimum
culture. Or put another way, "keep your identity small".
[http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)

------
Animats
Maybe this is more about drinking than dress code. Companies of Japanese
salarymen have the same problem - too much group drinking, and a very uniform
culture.

------
323454
Sometimes, to solve really difficult problems, you have to make big personal
sacrifices.

Sometimes, to evolve, adapt and gain the edge, you have to be loose and
unprofessional.

Sometimes, to survive a famine or a drought, you have to ruthlessly cut what
isn't absolutely necessary.

These are the other phases of the business cycle that the author neglects.
Professionalism, openness, and work life balance belong to a certain phase of
the cycle. That phase does not come from nothing and it does not last forever.

------
voidr
Why does racial and gender diversity matter in tech? I have worked in teams of
all white guys and teams of mixed race and gender and I have seen no
difference in productivity. The only thing that ever mattered was the skill
level of the people. I see nobody complaining that most successful basketball
players are tall black people.

I don't see a problem with having companies with corporate culture and
companies with startup culture side by side, just because I dislike the suite
and tie culture doesn't mean I want it gone, however from reading the article
I get the impression that the author wants the more liberal companies gone
just because he doesn't like them.

------
anothercomment
The assumption seems to be that companies culture is driving women away. Is
that even true, as in, are there really hundreds of thousands of female
software developers in waiting who would jump at a job at a company with the
appropriate culture? It seems very unlikely to me - more likely, the pipeline
dries out long before the hiring stage.

That some companies with great effort manage to compete over the few female
developers on the market doesn't prove every company could hire lots of female
developers if only they changed their culture.

To be honest, personally, even if there were those hundreds of thousands of
female developers supposedly driven away by bro culture, I would still
maintain that people should have a right to create companies they enjoy
working in. If some people want to work in T-Shirts and get drunk every night,
it is their right to do so (if they can earn the money to sustain it).

Luckily not all companies are the same, so that people can apply to companies
that suit their tastes.

If it weren't so, there wouldn't even be a need for hiring or job seeking to
begin with. People could just apply to the next best company and be hired,
likewise, companies could hire the next best applicant - because there would
be no such issues as cultural fit or whatever. Not very realistic (source: I
am not friends with everybody and not everybody is friends with me).

------
Mz
Overall good post, but:

 _Yesterday, I had a wide-ranging Slack conversation with some very nice
people who patiently allowed this privileged white male to repeatedly touch
the third rail of diversity and inclusion. That conversation led me to the
realizations in this post. I’ll thank them by not naming them, and by
promising never to bring this up in their Slack channel again._

In other words, people openly hated on him for wanting to discuss something
with them and get informed -- a white male in a position of power that few
women or poc occupy. And all they can do is make him scared to bring it up
again and act like the abuse they heaped upon him is some sort of privilege he
didn't deserve or something.

Wow.

I am so sick of women and people of color being openly hateful to people who
were born the "wrong" gender and color to be part of the unfortunate many.
Hello? Whining about how "it isn't my job to explain this stuff to you!"
instead of being all "OMG! An opportunity to have a useful conversation with a
white male who is actually curious about how the so-called other half live!"
is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

(Before you auto-downvote this on the assumption that I am some overprivileged
asshole man, please note I am a woman.)

~~~
jolux
"I am so sick of women and people of color being openly hateful to people who
were born the "wrong" gender and color to be part of the unfortunate many."

Really? So now being born white and male is the "wrong" color and gender?
Those are identities that are near the apex of privilege in our society. As a
white man, being afraid to ask questions for fear of being unintentionally
racist or sexist is nowhere near comparable to the actual experience of racism
and sexism. God forbid we hurt a white man's feelings while discussing social
justice. That would be a true injustice.

~~~
stouset
This is an infuriatingly unhelpful attitude.

Presumably the goal is to encourage people who lack awareness about issues
surrounding racism and sexism to both become aware and to actually care about
these problems. And to change their behavior, to the extent that it should
change.

Unnecessarily attacking, humiliating, or embarrassing a person who is
willfully admitting their own ignorance and seeking a better understanding of
the situation is so obviously counterproductive that I can't believe I'm
having to write this comment. This is not the way to win people to your side —
in fact, it's completely the opposite. Doing so only causes both sides to
become more firmly entrenched in their beliefs and less likely to try and
discuss the issue further. By giving them a positive experience, you not only
increase the likelihood of them seriously considering your arguments, but you
also open the door for them to come back to the table for discussion again,
even if you didn't win them over the first time around.

~~~
zepto
Right - clearly it is the job of women and PoC to give positive experiences to
white men otherwise they cannot expect to be treated well.

It is also clearly not the responsibility of white men to give positive
experiences to PoC and women, because they can't be expected to understand how
if they aren't first given positive experiences by PoC and women.

~~~
stouset
It's not a duty or responsibility. And it's not _un_ productive as a sibling
commenter suggests. It's straight up _counterproductive_ and a form of self-
sabotage.

If your goal is to feel self-righteous and superior, by all means attack those
who are showing genuine interest in coming over to your side. If your goal is
to actually bring about a positive change in society, perhaps it's worthwhile
to consider a different approach.

~~~
zepto
This is based on an almost ludicrously simplistic straw man: you conjure up
the idea of someone who is "showing genuine interest in coming over you your
side"

How are they 'showing' this exactly? What makes it 'genuine' that they want to
come over to another side? Why are they on a 'side' in the first place, and
what makes you think that the goal is to have them change 'sides'? Are you
saying they are not already on 'our side'? What does that imply? How can you
distinguish their arguments from those of people who simply want to argue
their position and remain ignorant?

------
jankotek
Remote work is even more inclusive.

~~~
slaunchwise
Remote work, in my experience, also tends to be managed/ rewarded largely on
the basis of productivity.

------
mnm1
The whole article is brilliant. I'd argue one great way to make this happen is
remote work. Agree on some basic tools for text and voice chat and you're good
to go. No stupid bro culture. No having to be seen working late. No dress
codes. No bullshit. Either you create the product or you don't and get fired.
Been working for years for my company and many others.

------
to_bpr
There's no shortage of corporate environments to work in for those who want
it.

------
Sir_Substance
Am I the only one who gets the niggling feeling that anyone who uses the words
"males" and "females" in their public dissertations like it's normal to refer
to people the same way one does cable connectors must have a tenuous and
possibly weakening grip on the real world?

~~~
rhapsodic
_> Am I the only one who gets the niggling feeling that anyone who uses the
words "males" and "females" in their public dissertations like it's normal to
refer to people the same way one does cable connectors must have a tenuous and
possibly weakening grip on the real world?_

I hope you are, because I don't think your "niggling feeling" has any rational
basis. If you want to indicate the gender of a person, there is absolutely
nothing wrong with using the terms "male" or "female".

I guess I need to clarify that I'm using the term "gender" in the traditional,
biological sense of the word, rather than the current fashionable sense that
vicious scolds and busybodies insist that everyone must use.

~~~
rayiner
> If you want to indicate the gender of a person, there is absolutely nothing
> wrong with using the terms "male" or "female".

In English, "man" and "woman" are the preferred terms for male and female
humans, respectively. "Male" and "female" are clinical and dehumanizing. It's
like saying "Laura is gestating an embryo" instead of saying "Laura is going
to have a baby." They're also just grammatically weird, because they're
adjectives that have been turned into nouns. It's like saying "Ben is a
Hispanic" instead of "Ben is a Hispanic person." Finally, they're one letter
longer for no benefit.

Neither of the reasons people use "male" and "female" instead of "man" and
"woman" are any good. The first is attempting to sound educated by using
French-derived words like male and female in preference to German-derived
words like man and woman. The second is that "male" and "female" punt on
having to refer to the person's age, and in our era of perpetual adolescence
people are terrified of being considered a "man" or a "woman."

~~~
rhapsodic
_> In English, "man" and "woman" are the preferred terms for male and female
humans, respectively. "Male" and "female" are clinical and dehumanizing. It's
like saying "Laura is gestating an embryo" instead of saying "Laura is going
to have a baby." They're also just grammatically weird, because they're
adjectives that have been turned into nouns. It's like saying "Ben is a
Hispanic" instead of "Ben is a Hispanic person." Finally, they're one letter
longer for no benefit.

Neither of the reasons people use "male" and "female" instead of "man" and
"woman" are any good. The first is attempting to sound educated by using
French-derived words like male and female in preference to German-derived
words like man and woman. The second is that "male" and "female" punt on
having to refer to the person's age, and in our era of perpetual adolescence
people are terrified of being considered a "man" or a "woman."_

No offense, rayiner, but I think everything you wrote is simply ridiculous on
its face. Saying they're "clinical and dehumanizing" or "grammatically weird"
are simply your opinion, which I do not share. And saying that "they're one
letter longer for no benefit" just smacks of desperation.

If you want to indicate the gender of a person, there is absolutely nothing
wrong with using the terms "male" or "female".

But, as evidenced by this thread, there are people who want to make that usage
taboo.

~~~
harryh
There is a reason that the Ferengi on Star Trek referred to women as females.
It sounds weird and dehumanizing. This isn't a new thing either. The first
Ferengi episode aired in 1987.

You can obviously believe what you want but know that people will judge you in
a negative light if you talk like that.

~~~
qb45
To me these terms simply sound like how a biologist would talk about animals.
But it seems they are indeed gaining traction among feminists for reasons I
haven't cracked yet.

~~~
rayiner
Relevant:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYRTmvhOOVU#t=30s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYRTmvhOOVU#t=30s).

------
thegayngler
So by forcing everyone to work strict 9-5 schedules you can create diversity.
Ok.

Hmmmm... I agree at least in principle that one shouldn't be required to
always hangout late nights after work. However, admittedly occasionally I
think it's useful and it's helpful to understand your co-worker's motivations
and spending a bit more time with co-workers sometimes is certainly reasonable
and helps to build trust and respect amongst other co-workers.

Maybe people should be working only 30 hours a week and spending the other 10
hours just on team building.

I also think its useful to understand the social aspect of things because
understanding motivations can help the team solve problems in a way that
everyone will agree to.

~~~
creepydata
10 hours a week on teambuilding seems extremely excessive.

The thing is, many people don't want personal relationships with their co-
workers, they want business relationships with their co-workers. Forcing
employees to socialize with each other means you are excluding those people
who don't want to socialize with their co-workers and those who don't have
much in common with their co-workers, or even those who don't like their co-
workers on a personal level. This seems pretty obvious, but only in
retrospect.

I also don't understand what "understanding motivations" means.

~~~
thegayngler
I would love to be in agreement with you but my experience has taught me
differently. Social relationships are business relationships. There isn't a
way to separate the two. If you don't like someone you work with directly
eventually one of you will leave if you both are working two closely together.
The tension could also cause other business problems in some form or another
over time. 9 to 5 doesn't work for everyone.

For some people working different schedules is what works for them. What about
that type of inclusion? Inclusion of those who don't want to do the standard 9
to 5 and those who do want to socialize with each other.

I think there is a tendency for individuals to do 180 on business-related
processes every time a new article comes out about some business is doing X
and it appears to be successful for now.

When times are rough having a social relationship will help keep the business
part of the relationship in tact. Things will not always be easy and there
will be rough patches and stressful situations. It's also helpful to meet and
get to know people in other departments before you need them for something.

If you work in any kind of large organization with lots of departments and
moving parts you will need to know now to navigate the organization. Social
situations allow you a chance to build relationships with people working on
other parts of the business that you may or may not need help with later on
down the line. People have to socialize with each other to get work done. It's
not an option to not have at least a somewhat social relationship with someone
you work with closely. It's not realistic.

Yes, I think it's helpful to understand someone else's point of view(and/or
motivations) and where it comes from. Knowing these things can stop you from
being offended by something that may be said or done that wouldn't otherwise
be considered offensive. Many times you will already know how someone will
react to certain situations and decisions as well as figure out ways to
effectively navigate that.

Its easier to get a co-worker to care about and help you with your problem if
you have some common ground with a co-worker or some social capital. A
"business only non-social" environment means you have a whole bunch of people
working who ultimately undermine each other.

You wind up with duplication of effort etc... I've had people tell me flat out
tell me they don't want me to tell them the solution to the problem they were
having that was already solved because they wanted to figure it out by
themselves. This type of "business-only" competitive attitude is wasteful of
the businesses time and money. This happened at one company I worked at who
was steadily laying folks off while this sort of wasteful behavior was
happening.

All in all trying to take the people out of the people in my almost 10 years
of experience doesn't actually work out well and can actually be wasteful and
hurt the business.

~~~
creepydata
Complete and utter nonsense.

Business and personal relationships can most certainly be separated, it just
takes the right mindset and the willingness to set personal boundaries.
However, if you are telling your employees "come in in shorts, drink beer,
don't leave the office, we are all just friends here" you're intentionally
putting up barriers to forming that mindset.... You don't have the same sort
of relationship with your dad as you so with your spouse as you do with your
best friend as you do with your good friends as you do with an acquaintance as
you do with a stranger. This is normal.

Learning to work well with people who you don't particularly like is a skill.
One that is learnable. Children have problems with it but adults should know
better and if they don't know better they should be fired and replaced with
people who can act like adults. "Working well with others" is something one is
taught in kindergarten, it is mandatory for the workplace.

There's plenty of people I don't particularly like that I work with, that I
know I wouldn't get along with on a personal level but I don't have issues
working with them. People who I hold very, very different core values from me
and people who have fringe political beliefs. But I don't have issues with
them at work. I wouldn't want to socialize with them though.

Avoiding offending someone is easy, it's called avoiding saying offensive
things or things "considered offensive," otherwise known as "being nice to
others." Once again, we learned this in kindergarten.

If nobody is helping you with business problems unless you are friends or have
"common ground" you have a very, very dysfunctional organization and it needs
serious help. Even worse if everyone underminds each other. Not being friends
with a coworker is not an excuseable reason for undermining them and at that
point you are dealing with an office full of psychopaths and children. Forcing
them to socialize with each other isn't going to fix the larger core issue.

What about customers? Do you need to 'get to know' your customers personally
before you can work with them too? I'd imagine that would be a huge barrier to
new customer acquisition. "Sorry, we can't give you a quote until we 'know
your motivations(?)' and get to know your pets names. Meet at the pub at 5?"

The toxic workplaces you have described have nothing to do with a lack of
coworker socialization.

------
Kinnard
I'm looking for an alternative framework to work-life balance:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14538411](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14538411)

I bet there's more than one out there.

Work/life balance doesn't "work" for a lot of people, a lot of types of work
and a lot of lives. Astronauts, Presidents, Prophets . . . startup ceo's . . .

~~~
exelius
Work/life balance is often a cyclical thing: during certain periods in your
life, you will have more time available and desire to work than others. I
don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution, which is why giving
employees the flexibility to figure out what it means for their life is the
right approach.

As an employer, you're going to find that giving people the flexibility to
manage this for themselves is ideal. The alternative is you get to manage high
turnover, which is exactly what happens when companies demand "only the top
engineers" and then work them to death with 6 months of unnecessary 100-hour
weeks.

