I'm going to have to contest the complaint on "gendered wording". Ironically, this is coming from the same people who will often berate you for "tone policing" them, judging by the ideological dispositions of several of the linked resources in the footer.
I don't have time at hand to analyze the study (which is never directly linked, even in the supplied article, by the way), but there's a reason why companies use the supposedly "gendered" wording, in place of the "neutral" wording: it conveys a different meaning. "Strong communication and influencing skills" and "Proficient oral and written communications skills" are two different things. The latter is much looser and removes the implication that one should be a decent manipulator.
Indeed, the implication that women cannot have "strong communication and influencing skills" and that the very wording repels them, actually reinforces traditional gender roles quite neatly. The ones that are allegedly to be abolished here. At least, judging from the ideology of the web page's authors. I'm making assumptions, I know, but gender politics and theory as a whole is a clusterfuck these days.
But there's also a wider belief being pushed on eradicating "harmful language". I'd agree, but I have a different interpretation of it. Language is harmful not when it has a negative or potentially offensive meaning, but when it has no meaning. Examples are the words "socialism" and "liberalism" which have become so diluted in public discourse, so as to be meaningless in of themselves.
So while I can't contest the end goal, the methods being used to achieve it are less than stellar, to say the least. Finally, the need to aim for a 50/50 men-to-women ratio is simply unrealistic. It really depends on one's goals. If you simply want to neutrally deliver a product, getting yourself involved in someone's identity politics crusade is of little meaning. Not everything revolves around that, you know.
I don't have time at hand to analyze the study (which is never directly linked, even in the supplied article, by the way), but there's a reason why companies use the supposedly "gendered" wording, in place of the "neutral" wording: it conveys a different meaning. "Strong communication and influencing skills" and "Proficient oral and written communications skills" are two different things. The latter is much looser and removes the implication that one should be a decent manipulator.
Indeed, the implication that women cannot have "strong communication and influencing skills" and that the very wording repels them, actually reinforces traditional gender roles quite neatly. The ones that are allegedly to be abolished here. At least, judging from the ideology of the web page's authors. I'm making assumptions, I know, but gender politics and theory as a whole is a clusterfuck these days.
But there's also a wider belief being pushed on eradicating "harmful language". I'd agree, but I have a different interpretation of it. Language is harmful not when it has a negative or potentially offensive meaning, but when it has no meaning. Examples are the words "socialism" and "liberalism" which have become so diluted in public discourse, so as to be meaningless in of themselves.
So while I can't contest the end goal, the methods being used to achieve it are less than stellar, to say the least. Finally, the need to aim for a 50/50 men-to-women ratio is simply unrealistic. It really depends on one's goals. If you simply want to neutrally deliver a product, getting yourself involved in someone's identity politics crusade is of little meaning. Not everything revolves around that, you know.