"Inclusive language" for the Lords

ResisterRex · 2022-04-18T08:57:00+00:00

It just never ends. You'd think Parliament would be the one place where no one gets to police others. But no: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10724953/Staff-told-say-folks-colleagues-inclusive-Lords-language-guide.html

Hortensiateapot · 18/04/2022 17:19

I’m sure there was a section in ‘invisible women’ about this very thing

ChateauMargaux · 18/04/2022 13:07

This is where things get tricky... as a woman, I want to feel included and not singled out.. but I do not want to be erased. We need visible female role models but research shows that being identified as a woman has an impact on how you are perceived and how people react to you.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 18/04/2022 12:18

@mudgetastic

In times of a terror attack the country needs a coordinated response , an effective response , a clear workable response

And maybes if we had fewer people trying to give strong responses we might actually get effective solutions

But that is about disagreeing with the best way to approach things, not about whether strong is the appropriate word to express what they actually do mean. I don't disagree that it is important to understand how language affects people differently, but it doesn't necessarily follow that because we understand implications/effect that we should stop using the language. If strong and grip are the right words to describe something/give impression that is wanted, we should use them. The fact that this same language puts women off who might otherwise be real assets is something that can be addressed in other ways.

Deliriumoftheendless · 18/04/2022 11:35

@tabbycatstripy

I find “folks” absolutely nauseating.

I can’t object to folk or folks - it’s a good Yorkshire word and as a Yorkshire Woman I’m not giving them up.

Mebbe dunt say it if tha’s not from North though 🤣

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:32

It's not all ever. That's stupid

But at a population level it is very influential

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:30

Gender spelling mistake

TammyOne · 18/04/2022 11:29

I’m sorry but a) I have worked in recruiting and b) words like strong are NOT masculine and people who want to work as a team and make a difference are not all female. It’s perpetuating stereotypes to assume that women are all about soft skills and don’t see themselves as strong leaders. What ACTUALLY make the difference, and gets women into leadership roles is ( in my experience) mentoring with high- up women, which models that it’s possible and gives women confidence to realise they are capable of leading too.
Not being talked down to and it being assumed that female = soft skills.

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:29

We haven't got neutral language now

You could say it needs to be feminised rather than just neutral

There are times when it needs to be sexed

And a lot of times when it doesnt

At the moment we have people going neutral when it should be sexed - yes that's stupid and always harmful

But we still need people to go neutral where it should not be sexed - to remove the hidden barriers for women

It's over simplifying to say no to all genes et neutrality in language

Original poster

ResisterRex · 18/04/2022 11:24

I disagree. When language moves to neutral, what we've seen is "people who [insert subject]". And it's always in areas where women are more likely to be the relevant and disproportionately affected. We don't see it happening for things that affect men.

When everything becomes "neutral" you can't count categories and at the moment that means you can't see women. Which group is next up for being hidden?

I'm not convinced that the words "strong" or "grip" have a root in something offensive. It's a way of describing a response that the public would understand. I'm not buying it.

And the original story to which the Telegraph tacked on the secret services policy, was that of the Lords being policed. Our politicians have to be free to say what they like. Where does this end? Removal of Parliamentary privilege? That would be disastrous for society and democracy. Across all topics and not only this one.

OP posts:

Artichokeleaves · 18/04/2022 11:22

People are struggling to pay for food, they can't afford to heat their homes, petrol is becoming a luxury item, ambulances take hours if they turn up at all...

frankly standing around worrying about the implied masculinity of superlatives is not something to worry about right now and is a sign of services so busy with all this wankery they have lost all grip on reality or fitness to do the core bloody job. What does it cost, all this faffing about and worrying about language? In paid man hours, what does it cost, what else could those workers have been doing instead, and why is money being wasted employing them at all in this completely pointless exercise?

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:17

Neutral isn't about erasing women

It's about getting them in

You can also use language not neutral to attract women if you want - talk about team players and focus not on the personal attributes of the candidates but the worth of the job role ( make a real difference to peoples lives )

What you're seeing as neutral isn't / it's the default and it is masculine - hence women not being equally represented in many areas of life including politics and business

Use of superlatives is implied masculine
Use of fighting and hero language is implied masculine

Original poster

ResisterRex · 18/04/2022 11:12

Neutral = erasing women.

And we need our services to do their jobs. In this case it's protecting us or having open debates. Not scoring Stonewall points.

OP posts:

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:11

@Lovelyricepudding

"We particularly welcome female applicants. If you have any queries about the role please contact senior manager J Bloggs (He/Him) or engineer F Smith (He/Him), application forms are available from HR assistant Sarah Jones (She/Her)"

Doesn't work quite the same way as wording the job role sex neutral

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:10

In times of a terror attack the country needs a coordinated response , an effective response , a clear workable response

And maybes if we had fewer people trying to give strong responses we might actually get effective solutions

Lovelyricepudding · 18/04/2022 11:06

"We particularly welcome female applicants. If you have any queries about the role please contact senior manager J Bloggs (He/Him) or engineer F Smith (He/Him), application forms are available from HR assistant Sarah Jones (She/Her)"

Original poster

ResisterRex · 18/04/2022 11:06

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you mudge. Your examples are not particularly convincing here. In an unfolding terror incident, the country needs a strong response. If our secret services are so afraid of everyday language then they're potentially not doing much of a job protecting us.

OP posts:

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:04

This insidious hidden societal training and mysogeny is why so many initiatives fail

It's why it's easy for people to believe men and women are fundamentally ( beyond reproduction) different

Sweden is an example -Give more respect and pay to traditional female jobs leads to more females in those roles - because they can get on without having to challenge the hidden norms

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:01

And it's important because it's only by getting good women in and up the ranks that the myths will gradually die out and that the problems affecting females will be taken seriously

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 11:00

Stand up in a meeting

Ask for a recommendation for a strong leader who will get a grip on the situation

Watch who doesn't step up/ get nominated

Then try Asking for someone who can pull the team together

Original poster

ResisterRex · 18/04/2022 10:57

Actually I don't think it's likely that MI5 is going to be saying "big strong boy". I think those words are more likely to be used in the sense of having or making a "strong response" to a situation or having a "grip" on an incident.

Here's another one: getting a grip. Something these policy writers need to do.

OP posts:

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 10:48

It's bloody important to get right if you work in recruiting - makes a huge difference

Stereotypes run deep and are self perpetuating

Lovelyricepudding · 18/04/2022 10:48

How can you insist on 'gender neutral' language on the one hand then insist on declarations of gender (preferred pronouns) on the other?

tabbycatstripy · 18/04/2022 10:46

I find “folks” absolutely nauseating.

TammyOne · 18/04/2022 10:45

I think that’s so patronising if it’s true mudgetastic*! Surely it only perpetuates silly stereotypes if language like strong is considered to be masculine.
What I can’t believe is that the government spend money producing fucking inclusion toolkits when services are slashed to the bone, terrorism is a massive threat and there is war going in. Stupid fuckers.

mudgetastic · 18/04/2022 10:39

Using terms associated in society with masculinity will leave an impression that masculinity is important trait in that context

Big strong boy
Pretty kind girl

So by using the word like strong you may well be off putting to women even if that isn't your intent and even if the women don't recognise their response

There is a whole load of research on how language affects people and it's subtle and subconscious