search

w3c / PWETF

Positive Work Environment Community Group
https://www.w3.org/community/pwe/
Other
113 stars 62 forks source link

Patronizing Language (Issue 232) #237

Closed wareid closed 1 year ago

wareid commented 1 year ago

Making some editorial adjustments to address the comments raised in issue 232.

Some notes on my edits:

I have also made a few small changes to microagressions to compensate for moving patronizing behaviour out, specifically expanding the scope of identity (we previously mentioned only racial identity).

Took out language examples as I feel they don't add to the text in a helpful manner.

Preview | Diff

dbooth-boston commented 1 year ago

I am confused by this PR. Is it intended as an alternative to the proposal that was made in https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/232 ? It does not seem to address most of the concerns raised in that issue. Based on last week's teleconference, I thought the group wanted to discuss https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/232 before making a PR for it, and I took an action to file an issue for it, to facilitate such discussion. Did I misunderstand the intended process?

wareid commented 1 year ago

Hi @dbooth-boston! I made this PR to help guide the discussion for the next meeting we are able to discuss this.

Based on your feedback in issue #232 we agreed that some amendment to this section was a good idea. After reviewing your issue and the language, I moved some things around to hopefully bridge the gap. I have done my best to balance the goals of the document with your feedback.

Feel free to comment on what I have done here or when it comes up in the meeting (we'll ensure it's mentioned in the agenda).

dbooth-boston commented 1 year ago

Feel free to comment on what I have done here or when it comes up in the meeting (we'll ensure it's mentioned in the agenda).

This PR is pretty far from what I proposed in https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/232 , so it doesn't feel to me like the right starting point. I would feel more comfortable starting from the proposal as stated in https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/232 , so I've made a separate PR with that proposal as is: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/238

TzviyaSiegman commented 1 year ago

@dbooth-boston Please be aware that @wareid and I chair this group and are the current editors of this document. We asked you to create issues, not PRs, so that we had a record of your issues to lead to productive PRs if any are needed. We understand that Wendy's PR was not what you requested verbatim, but we have been researching these issues for years and the current version of CEPC is based on broad consensus as well as AB, AC, and Director-approval. We do not make changes lightly, and we prefer to back changes up with evidence or cause, such as a request for a marginalized group.

Wendy included a link to your issue, which included all your concerns. Creating a separate PR (or several separate PRs) will muddle the conversation and potentially create merge conflicts in GitHub. While we don't formally restrict who can create PRs for this document, we ask you to please respect our group's culture and allow the chairs to lead the discussion.

dbooth-boston commented 1 year ago

Oops! Sorry, I was attempting to follow the group's culture, which is why I created PRs: that's what I saw that Wendy did, so I did the same thing. I did not realize that you only wanted chairs to make PRs.

We understand that [ https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237 ] was not what you requested verbatim

As far as I could tell, it did not at all reflect the changes proposed in #232 , so it seemed to me that a better basis for discussion would be a PR that directly reflected the proposed changes.

nigelmegitt commented 1 year ago

Re https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237#issuecomment-1424323798, I just opened #242 : it seems unfair to expect people to follow a culture when there's no trail in the repo to find out what that culture is.

wareid commented 1 year ago

Thanks for the feedback, just want to clarify a few things.

I believe I addressed this before on another issue or PR, but using the term "irrelevant" to describe characteristics or aspects of a person is not something we should ever do. We all bring our whole selves to the work we do, nothing is irrelevant.

Happy to remove the well actually example as I do think the other one is more clear.

The grandmother example is a good illustration of the point it's attached to. I've heard this phrase used a lot in relation to tech, because the assumption being made is that an older woman would not be technically proficient. Obviously that is not true, which is why we discourage people from making generalizations like that.

I'll also say again, the code is a roadmap, not an instructional manual. We cannot and should not be prescriptive about the extent and nature of each interaction people may have. We have to trust in the judgement and professionalism of our community, the code is in place to remind people what that looks like. We're asking for mindfulness and care.

dbooth-boston commented 1 year ago

Thanks for your response. Some further comments, and apologies for the length . . .

using the term "irrelevant" to describe characteristics or aspects of a person is not something we should ever do.

That does not make sense to me, given the context. The context was about making assumptions about others: "Assuming that particular groups of people are technically unskilled based on irrelevant characteristics such as gender, nationality, accent, clothing, etc.". I do not see how gender, nationality, accent or clothing should ever be considered relevant to assessing someone's technical skill. If you're suggesting that the word "irrelevant" should not be used in this context, then I don't understand why not. It seems like the right word to me. Am I missing something fundamental?

We all bring our whole selves to the work we do, nothing is irrelevant.

I guess I don't see it that way. I want a work environment that makes people feel safe, respected and appreciated. To my mind that means sometimes not bringing to work an aspect of one's self that may make others feel unsafe, uncomfortable or disrespected. The classic three no-no topics in polite company are sex, politics and religion. In my experience those three topics are pretty much off limits in the work environment also, in order to be respectful of people's differences. For example, although humans are innately sexual beings, in a work environment topics involving sexuality are very likely to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable, and generally are not appropriate for the workplace.

It seems to me that a major point in establishing an equitable work environment is to to avoid discrimination based on characteristics that are irrelevant to the job requirements. To my mind that's a very important theme to convey in this document. It's also the basis of anti-discrimination laws. I don't understand how we can do that if we don't distinguish between characteristics that are relevant vs. irrelevant to the job requirements.

The grandmother example is a good illustration of the point it's attached to. I've heard this phrase used a lot in relation to tech, because the assumption being made is that an older woman would not be technically proficient.

I'm still struggling with that example, both because it is not at all clear to me (as reader) which aspect(s) of "grandmother" are seen as offensive, and because it seems to me that there is quite a gray area involved. Would "grandfather" be just as offensive? What about "grandparent", or "90-year old"? What about "grandchild"? "Or "first grader"? Or "total newbie"? It seems to me that a person's age has some relevance to a reasonable expectation of technical proficiency, though it's certainly not determinant.

If the point of the "grandmother" example is that it is offensive to state a gender when exemplifying an unskilled group, then I think that should be clarified, because I don't think that is self evident, given that another major component of that example -- age -- could just as well be construed as being the offensive element. Either way it seems more like an example of sexism and/or ageism than patronizing behavior.

I'm not trying to defend the use of "so easy your grandmother could do it", but I am trying to decipher the rationale behind viewing that example as offensive while potentially viewing other instances of "so easy an X could do it" as acceptable, because a key point of the document is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. All in all, I think the example should either be clarified or omitted. I favor omitting it.

I'll also say again, the code is a roadmap, not an instructional manual. We cannot and should not be prescriptive about the extent and nature of each interaction people may have. We have to trust in the judgement and professionalism of our community, the code is in place to remind people what that looks like. We're asking for mindfulness and care.

Agreed. That's why I think we may be better served by not attempting to define patronizing behavior.

BTW, regarding the phrase "grammar or language corrections that were not invited", it isn't clear whether that is referring to a person's spoken language or to a published document. I suggest changing that phrase to "unwanted corrections to one's spoken language or grammar", because:

As an example of patronizing behavior, the statement "I don't think you understood my previous comment..." seems problematic to me. Perhaps I am not understanding the context, because that statement seems completely appropriate to me if someone is feeling not understood. Maybe more context is needed?

Finally, I'm still concerned about this wording: "Intentionally or unintentionally making assumptions about the skills or knowledge of others, such as using language that implies the audience is uninformed on a topic". As explained before, I'm concerned that this document not discourage speakers from providing context and defining their jargon when speaking to an audience. But the phrase "using language that implies the audience is uninformed on a topic" may discourage speakers from defining their jargon, lest they be seen as patronizing.

wareid commented 1 year ago

@swickr I have added an explanation of the example to make more explicit the issue with that kind of language.

As mentioned in the meeting, I've also added a definition for patronizing. @a11ydoer you mentioned not being familiar with the term, could I ask if you could review the definition to see if it helps?

a11ydoer commented 1 year ago

@wareid The current update is clear to me what "patronizing" means with examples. Thanks.