KJK & bringing your whole self to work

Definitely: keep yourself to yourself, I don't want to know.

But how much I object when someone doesn't do that depends on my feelings and not really anything rational.

Crosses? Never minded in Ye Olde Days. But once it became a Mark of Fundamentalism and everything that meant for trying to destroy my rights, well, now it annoys me. Ditto, hijabs. Women buying into BS that it's somehow up to them to soothe men? Just because the idiots have set up a giant fake scarcity system to serve their own ends? All I want to do is shout "Quit it!" Sikh turbans, though? Don't bother me at all since they're not implying much beyond the religion.

As for piercings or tattoos? Comes down to whether they're gross or not. Nose rings that invariably look like a blot of unremoved snot? Ewwww. Maori-style tattoos that really are body art? Excellent. As I say, it just depends on whether I like it or not, which would be no way to set up a general guideline!

The first rule of Job Club is : "Pretend you don't completely hate having a job"

Can't think of much worse professionally than peolle bringing their whole selves to work. I can't personally because most of me doesn't want to go at all 😂

I've got 24 years experience and my bosses have long learned that I'm a troglodyte engineer with no managerial ambition, best left to do my job, and never, ever, to be exposed to customers. And that's with me filtering and masking as best I can.

of course you're right. Self included. I'm just mega grumpy right now and ranting like the tasmanian devil. The young people I know are actually bloody marvellous people.

Actually, I think 15% of my whole self is probably a tad too much for most people.

Which is why I'm self employed and work alone.

My whole self would be unbearable for other people.

People really don't understand how to behave in public any more, do they? This sheer entitlement to do whatever they want, without regard for anyone else in the vicinity. I think this lot must be the most selfish, self centred and fucking BORING generation ever bred. They've got issues to face, sure (housing crisis, massive debts, climate worries etc) but oh my god, kids, you're not being sent to the fucking trenches of Belgium and norther France to be melted by trench foot, shot by snipers and have your brains bombed out. This generation are smart as hell, but instead of finding solutions and working to fix things, they throw paint at shops and soup at 300 year old paintings in galleries. DO SOMETHING USEFUL. Use those amazing brains and creative juices to DO SOMETHING THAT HELPS.

And breathe.....

If I bring my whole self to work, does that include my knitting and my cats?

That must be really difficult.

I am very much not a morning person, I am currently still in bed as it's too early. Does bringing my whole self to work mean that I don't have to start at 9 anymore? It's a struggle on my working days to be up early and get to work on time so if I could just rock up when I feel like it that would be grand.

I have autism and ADHD. Anyone want my whole self at work? No I thought not. Even my masked self can't get a job and I can be quite charming for brief periods, but the whole self is exhausting even for me. It's a load of bullshit - as is inclusivity.

Actually, in a way it reminds me very much of the Soviet type approach. Sure, you can have religion privately, just so long as it in no way affects what you do or is brought into the public sphere in a meaningful way. Because this is understood to be a threat to the ideology of the state which they want to be total.

The excuse there is also that it is to create equality among people.

Which I said - it's not neutral at all, nor is it about equality in terms of treating ideologies the same way.

It's not actually secular, in the true sense, at all, so that isn't a justification for it. Any justification is about maintaining a different cultural ideology.

I don't have an issue with the idea of cultural integrity. But I do think that if the state finds it's needing to position itself to draw lines around that, there are deeper issues. If it's Trying to preserve Frenchness in the face of high immigration, for example, it seems the problem is probably around immigration. Perhaps it's a reasonable approach there.

Trying to preserve language forms against organic change - I think that's probably the opposite of cultural preservation.

I mean, are we seriously suggesting that Catholicism isn't culturally French? If this state approved ideology isn't really secular, than really what you have is a promotion of one vision of Frenchness against another.

If the Catholics aren't supposed to complain, why should those who don't believe n gender ideology? Or to put it another way, if it's legitimate for a state to decide what constitutes the socially normative form of Frenchness for all, I don't see how they shoudn't treat gender GI the same way.

France takes its cultural integrity very seriously. It has an official body to preserve the language, for example. The French principle of 'Frenchness' is carefully debated, structured and enshrined in law if they feel it necessary. In effect French multiculturalism is assimilative, where ours is adaptive.

The French model has no problem with people being Muslim, Sikh or Jedi. What it forbids is the outward signalling. There is naturally a great deal of flex in this but, as @rhywlodes says, public servants in particular are expected to represent the State, which is secular. So no turbans, etc. French people do wear crosses, Stars of David and so on. But a local authority employee could be censured for counting her rosary at work.

France holds philosophy and philosophers in high regard. French philosophy very much does underpin its education model. This is not contradictory at all, it's part of the 'Frenchness' model.

I wish Britain were more like this, tbh.

This.

"State approved ideology" - genderism, anyone?

"State approved" makes it sound like a thought through and imposed ideology. It is isn't, it is just prevailing cultural norms. These are created by society, and evolve, are moulded and tweaked, as time passes. Prevailing cultural norms can vary across society or there may be sudden changes e.g. those brought about during WW2. The prevailing cultural norms provide the backdrop that allows people to innovate counter cultures and for individual and group expression that exists outside norms.

I don't think you can have education at all without an ideological underlay. People think they do, but only because they are too immersed in a particular ideological viewpoint to notice.

I think it would be much more honest to say they are imposing a state approved ideological perspective, rather than trying to pretend it's neutral and treats ideologies equally. It does not do either of those things.

Bringing your whole self to work led to the man working for the NSPCC to bring his rubber fetish to work with him, wearing rubber under his clothes and masturbating in the toilets, filming it and uploading it to the internet.

Why should that happen in any workplace? Why should his colleagues be used as props in his fetish unbeknown to them? Why would anyone think this is acceptable behaviour at work?

You go to work to work not to indulge fetishes and fantasies.

And a person with a turban can work for the state - he just can't wear his turban to work.

I believe that public servants also have to keep to a 'principe de neutralite', so a Marxist wouldn't be able to 'proselytise', or even mention politics in front of servcie users or customers, but freedom of expression would allow them to chat to their colleagues about it at lunch time or whatever (and anyone who's ever had lunch with a French person in election season will know that there can be fairly robust discussions on the subject!)

I suppose my obvervation (anecdotal by definition) is that the principle of laicite is a fundamental part of French society, particularly for civil servants. Many of my friends are teachers and take this really seriously as for them it's about treating everybody with absolute equality, as well as being part of the succesful integration of students from other backgrounds.
And yet. Many institutions, and the individuals within them, have not applied the same thinking to the ideology of gender identity, which has made its way into (for example) schools in a way that Marxism (or any other ideology as far as I know) hasn't.

I mean, it's far from perfect and there are plenty of things I would criticise about France and its systems and institutions. But it's something that has occured to me.

Your observation reveals a contradiction though.

What the heck counts as secular?

As you say, gender ideology is clearly an ideology, despite not being religious.

What about other ideologies?

If non-religious ideologies also count, the fact is, everyone has one. So what counts as neutral? Are we advantaging those ideologies that don't happen to have visible signs, as if that makes them ok? So those whose belief means they wear a turbon can't work for the statement but say, a Marxist, could?

How about they be themselves in their free time and be professionals when at work? 🤷‍♀️

It would be helpful if people could quietly be themselves rather than the attention seeking drama queens that so many are shoving things in people's faces.