Quote:
Originally Posted by driveway
You may not think of yourself as "a victim blamer" but it is what you did. Your comment placed the responsibility for current acts of bigotry directly upon those people who are themselves the victims of that bigotry, this is exactly what victim-blaming is, if you can present a different definition of victim blaming, by all means present it.
Operational efficiency? I'm having trouble following your line of thinking here. Are you stating that businesses and organizations should only adopt DEIJ policies and programs when they believe those policies and programs will enhance the 'bottom-line'? (whether that be profit or, say for an educational institution, quality of instruction)
Furthermore, how, other than through political pressure, do you suggest marginalized and oppressed groups make their needs known to those with power?
]
|
Actually, I never did mention any one group. That was you. I placed the blame at the feet of the institutions for their poor handling of these groups and then using bad structures like DEI to try and force acceptance. Look at what I posted again.
"The momentum of the swing was leveraged by every queer sub-culture and fractured it into too many facets for people to grasp. Worse, the cultures began to be rammed down the throats of everyone with forced diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. That is how you get people to push back and push back hard. Instead of allowing acceptance to develop organically the acceptance of these lifestyles was forced. You can't tell people what terms to use or pronouns that are acceptable. You have to teach them over time and allow that change to happen organically. When corporations started to go overboard with adopting queer people as representatives so they could display their wokeism it alienated a lot of customers. When they do forced DE&I programs they force people to make choices about perceptions and acceptance, and some of those choices are not going to be positive. This is the mistake and what caused the pushback IMO."
Where does it point a finger at anyone that is a member of any group? My criticism has been the attempt to force acceptance of any group rather than just raise awareness and show them to be no different than any other group. When we view all groups the same and provide equal rights to all groups in the same fashion that is when true equality is achieved. You can't force that, otherwise you will get negative responses. Ironically, the more the victim card gets played the more people want to take a step back because it sounds like someone wants something different or special.
Like it or not the role of an institution is to execute its charter and produce value. It is the same for private and public sector organizations. Their job is not to worry about individuals but instead be concerned about creating an environment where the institution will perform to its maximum efficiency. That should mean making sure that all employees are treated the same way. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.
How should people who have concerns about their treatment take on such challenges? Work through existing processes / governance frameworks while trying to educate people on the issues and allow them to become accepting on their own. The reason racism still exists so strongly in the southern United States is not because of an inherent hatred towards African Americans, it's because of forced desegregation and being forced to do something they didn't want at the time (the South never forgets). You want to get into a fight in Alabama, bring up Brown v Board of Education. The response is irrational, but it is based on forced acceptance. The same attitude exists on many subjects. Look at vaccines. You can't force acceptance on everyone.
The solution to this is to treat everyone the same. EVERYONE.