Great Speccie article on bringing your whole self to work

[SirSamVimesCityWatch]

www.spectator.co.uk/article/work-is-no-place-for-your-whole-self-

By the Madness of Crowds author Douglas Murray. Basic idea - how about just bringing the bit of yourself that's good at your job to work?

It's light-hearted but a good read. I don't think anyone should have to hide their sexuality at work, for example, but I don't think anyone needs to actively display every aspect of their personal life / interests / problems / the fact they cross dress at weekends, etc etc, at work either. I think the blurring of work and home life is actually bad for us - makes it harder to separate work from home and, with the introduction of WFH for a lot of people, ends up with you giving up more time to work.

Employers should never be trusted with the intimate details of your life. They will always find a way to use it against you.

I find it useful to pause when sharing any personal information and ask 'how might this be misinterpreted / used against me?'

Sometimes I forget.

I shared this on another thread but in a LGBTQ+ awareness thing the other day a middle aged white guy proudly outed himself as a furrie.

WTF! there is no need for any to know about anyone else's sex life at work.

@WifeOfTiresias same at my work, totally Stonewalled!

Someone at work said she was fearful of saying she was a lesbian in the LGBTQ+ group as they're only interested in the T.

The other side of this "bring your whole self to work" thing is that it is also used to diminish the boundaries of work and home, so that your work is expected to be your life and therefore is as important as say your spouse or children.
This lets exploitative employers use it to try shame people who don't want to work unpaid overtime as not being 'committed' or 'bringing their whole self to work'.
I don't think that way of using it is as big in Britain yet. Definitely something I've heard used in the US.

With regard the 'gay' vs 'a gay' usage as used by a gay man, this is where the issue lies in so many of the current conflicts.
Anyone reading in good faith will know that he's not using the article to try diminish gay rights in any way.
If anything, it's the other way around. He's saying that an employer should have no right to expect to know someone's sexual orientation.
Debate and criticism needs to concentrate on the substance of what is said.
Where people are using words differently or inconsistently, then by all means highlight it so the different viewpoints can be clarified (for e.g. someone using the word 'gender' can be using it to mean three conficting things at once)
But nitpicking over the etymology of 'gay vs a gay' when anyone reading in good faith would know he's not homophobic, just distracts and detracts. It's not helpful.

Employers should never be trusted with the intimate details of your life. They will always find a way to use it against you.

This.

What a load of guff.

Lots of weird conflation in this article and this thread - that inclusion and 'bringing your whole self to work' means that one should be able to be openly lazy or unprofessional at work, rather than relating to protected characteristics such as being able to be openly Muslim, lesbian etc.

I strongly support the latter - while maybe DM gets no hassle at wotk for being gay, sadly that doesn't apply to everyone who is LGB. And likewise racism, misogyny etc are real. As I would expect people to know on a feminist forum.

Don't understand those who cheer this article yet complain they can't express GC views at work. What is that about but being your whole self at work?

Personally, I work better in a work environment where I am comfortable and where I am not made to feel like a weird outsider because I happen to be a woman and an ethnic minority. That has bugger all to do with me wanting or needing to express irrelevant or unprofessional aspects of my personality. It's about the fact that trying to fit into other people's gender or cultural norms day in day out is quite tiring and would make me do my job less well.

Slightly despair at the group think which means that a certain proportion of women feel the need to agree with anything DM said, just because he said it, even if it's blatantly a pretty rubbish page filler.

Come on - feminism is truly without a hope if feminists are now arguing that including women in the workplace is a Bad Thing.

Oh and by the way, civil service inclusion events aren't compulsory, so the idea that this is an idea foisted on everyone, rather than accessible to the maybe 1 in 100 or fewer who choose to attend because they personally find them helpful is ridiculous anyway.

I do enjoy Douglas Murray's waspish style. He's a very readable writer. I agree that he's no friend to women. He peddled the 'why are you so worried about not having a pension, you've had the joy of motherhood' line in The Madness of Crowds. That strikes me as a compelling argument only to someone who isn't worried about how they'll support themselves in their old age.

However, if I only read stuff by people who like women, my reading would be limited indeed.

I agree that like everything, this is a 2 edged sword. You need to be able to safely let your manager know that you have young children who sometimes get ill, or a parent with dementia you have to support, etc etc.

These things will on occasion affect your ability to work and a humane company and manager would make allowances.

It is nice but not essential to be able to talk about your spouse at work. If your spouse is the same sex as you, that shouldn't stop you from talking about them if that's what you like to do.

You do not need to tell your work that you get sexual satisfaction from wearing nappies.

And while you need to share your position in situation 1 with your manager, you do not need to share it with your line reports or colleagues.

But having a fetish for wearing nappies is not - yet - a protected characteristic. So I don't think relevant here.

What inclusion at work means is that the work environment is welcoming for those from all protected characteristics. So for example, women (and men) have separate toilets. And that either no religious festivals are mentioned at work, or a range are (ie not forcing all your non-Christian staff to attend Christmas events and play secret Santa, but complete silence about any other faiths, even where many staff members are of other religious backgrounds). Or not having promotional materials in which every single person is white, or young. Or not having offices that are inaccessible to people with disabilities .

Etc etc etc.

None of this is about people who are female/ethnic minority/of other religions/older/disabled wanting an excuse to be lazy or unprofessional at work.

And it is frankly patronising, privileged crap to pretend it is.

Reminds me of that Viz magazine Top Tips thing ' Is your job really boring ? Just bring a bottle of vodka to work and take frequent sips. The time will just fly !'

What inclusion at work means is that the work environment is welcoming for those from all protected characteristics

But that isn’t how, for example, the CIA interpreted it in the example Murray gave. Announcing that you suffer from debilitating anxiety also counts as bringing your whole self to work there.

It is rarely used in direct correlation with the EA protected characteristics

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

What inclusion at work means is that the work environment is welcoming for those from all protected characteristics

But that isn’t how, for example, the CIA interpreted it in the example Murray gave. Announcing that you suffer from debilitating anxiety also counts as bringing your whole self to work there.

It is rarely used in direct correlation with the EA protected characteristics

I don't know where you work, but where I work, inclusion does relate specifically to the protected characteristics.

As for mental health issues, if permanent and serious, they do indeed come under the category of protected characteristics. As they should. There is no reason why someone who suffers from a mental rather than physical condition shouldn't also be able to access reasonable adjustments at work to help them do their job. Would you similarly mock someone who had a physical disability and wanted reasonable adjustments to support them in their role?

None of this relates to 'announcing' you have deliberating anxiety but presumably in order to get reasonable adjustments, the individual does need to tell their boss. And yes, on the whole, I'm not I favour of a workplace environment where people feel unable to mention mental health, as actually I'd rather people didn't feel they were the only one in the world who ever suffered from such things.

But clearly that puts me beyond the pale. So shoot me.

@TheGreatATuin

With regard the 'gay' vs 'a gay' usage as used by a gay man, this is where the issue lies in so many of the current conflicts. Anyone reading in good faith will know that he's not using the article to try diminish gay rights in any way. If anything, it's the other way around. He's saying that an employer should have no right to expect to know someone's sexual orientation. Debate and criticism needs to concentrate on the substance of what is said. Where people are using words differently or inconsistently, then by all means highlight it so the different viewpoints can be clarified (for e.g. someone using the word 'gender' can be using it to mean three conficting things at once) But nitpicking over the etymology of 'gay vs a gay' when anyone reading in good faith would know he's not homophobic, just distracts and detracts. It's not helpful.

It can also be read as a cynical comment on employers literally ticking a box on their inclusivity and diversity short list.

"We've got a gay but we're still short on a Muslim and a disabled. Any chance on hiring a doubling up for the new PA?"

@TheGreatATuin

The other side of this "bring your whole self to work" thing is that it is also used to diminish the boundaries of work and home, so that your work is expected to be your life and therefore is as important as say your spouse or children. This lets exploitative employers use it to try shame people who don't want to work unpaid overtime as not being 'committed' or 'bringing their whole self to work'. I don't think that way of using it is as big in Britain yet. Definitely something I've heard used in the US.

Was coming on to say pretty much this. And also agree with PP who said that employers like to know everything about you in order to use that info against you if the opportunity arises. Don’t tell ‘em Pike!

Whilst no one should have to hide their sexuality at work, it’s naive to think there are no consequences to bringing your whole self to work even if your company claims you should.

I once experienced a very new member of staff introducing herself on day one as being into cosplay to a group whose other members listed their hobbies as baking or football. I very strongly suspect she wasn’t neurotypical and hadn’t read the room at all, I also think she was probably quite vulnerable and didn’t understand not to overshare, at least not before knowing people better. It didn’t make people see her as part of the team.

Although I don’t know what happened, she didn’t last long at all and I couldn’t help thinking the whole bring your whole self to work thing had set her up to fail.

"A gay" is not offensive. The implied word is "a gay person" which is a perfectly fine thing to say.

The effect of saying it that way is a bit lighthearted which I suspect is what he was going for.

No one else has to say it, but that does not make it offensive. Similarly, while a country might want to move towards a particular usage for their name, or a company, whatever - that does not mean that the fact that many people continue for some time to use the older version are being offensive. Changing language takes time. The Kleenex company have tried to get people to say "tissues" for decades.

And as someone who spends a lot of time in universities, I think Murray is completely right about them at the moment. In fact so much so that I think their continued existence is not a sure thing if there aren't changes.

As for bringing your whole self to work, I think there is a clear space between talking about your public life (I went on a date yesterday with a bloke from Australia, my wife and I just bought a two-seater bike,) and specifically talking about your sexuality (I am sexually attracted to men/women/frogs in go-go boots.)

Yes, you could infer the second from the former. But while it is often ok to mention the former things in many workplaces, I think there is rarely reason to talk about the latter and it's often inappropriate. There is not a hard line on this, there is a grey area for sure, and not all workplaces are the same, so it's difficult to have a one size fits all rule. But that to me is the most basic general principle - is what I am saying part of my public life or stuff that is more directly about my private life - I have a wife vs who I like to have sex with.

Because as soon as you are saying, who I like to have sex with, for some people that includes, I like to have sex with frogs in rubber suits, and I don't think that should be seen as any weirder than Greg who is married to a guy.

Protected characteristics are useful in terms of things like, you can't use these things as hiring/firing/promotion issues. Very concrete stuff.

On the other hand, you can't necessarily control what people in the workplace think and feel. If I belong to a weird cult with beliefs that a lot of people don't find socially acceptable, it may be legal to reveal that at work, but it will affect how some people think of me.

In effect, especially where there is a certain amount of live social controversy, what happens is that it is ok for people on one side to talk about it, but not people on the other. My young college who is very into queer culture and trans identities is able to talk about all that at work quite freely, I, who think a lot of it is factually wrong and some of it is offensive, can't. So choices are made about who can bring what to work. I'm a middle aged professional so I can work with people who think all kinds of things I disagree with, but I can't help but note that there is a disparity with regard to who is expected to put up. And that is not restricted to this issue.

Quite a lot of the problem comes down to identity. Sexuality is not, now, mainly about what people do. It is an identity that has to be validated. And that does not just include the old fashioned versions of sexuality, it also includes a plethora of other sexual identities, from a to z. Validating an identity is functionally different than having people talk about their regular wives in the day to day chitchat at work.

@floralembroidery

What a load of guff.

Lots of weird conflation in this article and this thread - that inclusion and 'bringing your whole self to work' means that one should be able to be openly lazy or unprofessional at work, rather than relating to protected characteristics such as being able to be openly Muslim, lesbian etc.

I strongly support the latter - while maybe DM gets no hassle at wotk for being gay, sadly that doesn't apply to everyone who is LGB. And likewise racism, misogyny etc are real. As I would expect people to know on a feminist forum.

Don't understand those who cheer this article yet complain they can't express GC views at work. What is that about but being your whole self at work?

Personally, I work better in a work environment where I am comfortable and where I am not made to feel like a weird outsider because I happen to be a woman and an ethnic minority. That has bugger all to do with me wanting or needing to express irrelevant or unprofessional aspects of my personality. It's about the fact that trying to fit into other people's gender or cultural norms day in day out is quite tiring and would make me do my job less well.

Slightly despair at the group think which means that a certain proportion of women feel the need to agree with anything DM said, just because he said it, even if it's blatantly a pretty rubbish page filler.

Come on - feminism is truly without a hope if feminists are now arguing that including women in the workplace is a Bad Thing.

Oh and by the way, civil service inclusion events aren't compulsory, so the idea that this is an idea foisted on everyone, rather than accessible to the maybe 1 in 100 or fewer who choose to attend because they personally find them helpful is ridiculous anyway.

I don't think anyone is arguing that inclusion is a bad thing.

"Bring your whole self to work" OTOH seems to be less defined and more open to abuse by employers as a concept.

They are not the same thing.