UK Firms urged to crack down on office sports chats
Because.... it excludes women.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51261999
Chartered Management Institute head Ann Francke said sports banter can exclude women and lead to laddish behaviour such as chat about sexual conquests.
"A lot of women, in particular, feel left out," she told the BBC's Today programme.
"They don't follow those sports and they don't like either being forced to talk about them or not being included."
"I have nothing against sports enthusiasts or cricket fans - that's great," she said.
"But the issue is many people aren't cricket fans," she added, arguing bosses should crack down on sports banter.
Ms Francke is concerned that discussing football and, for example, the merits of video assistant refereeing (VAR) can disproportionately exclude women and divide offices.
"It's a gateway to more laddish behaviour and - if it just goes unchecked - it's a signal of a more laddish culture," she said
"It's very easy for it to escalate from VAR talk and chat to slapping each other on the back and talking about their conquests at the weekend."
Lads, they are onto you.
Maybe it's better if we let Wuhan end the human race.
This sounds like a cause I would go to bat for.
What is the world coming to... This goes against BASIC principles of free speech.
As a man, I feel oppressed by all the chat about spinning classes. Please make it stop, I feel excluded.
...one person's opinion is so far from relevance that it is barely worth commenting on, let alone creating an entire thread for
How about this one? I’m a Heterosexual Woman Who’s Politically Opposed to Heterosexuality - Who do I date? https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/01/straight-woman-dating-on-grind…
Thread worthy?
No.
Weird people exist with weird opinions across the political spectrum. They are not a reflection of mainstream thinking. The internet has certainly amplified those voices, because the weirder they are the more they stick out, but they are no more relevant than they used to be - only louder.
Slate in particular is a terrible blog that https://www.mediaite.com/online/slates-contrarian-ways-mocked-on-twitte…</a">gets made fun of even by people on the left for being hot take hipsters and often just https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/trolling_readers.php</a">writes and publishes shit for clicks by trolling their audience. Even still, the person who responded to that nonsensical letter to the editor didn't exactly support the view.
I'd agree if it wasn't for the fact that woke bullshit gets shoved down our throat on daily basis, see the Goldman Sachs ''less straight white men in boards'' policy. At least let me make fun of it.
My point, I suppose, is that the "woke" crowd isn't as omnipresent as you (and many others) say it is. It's just loud.
Goldman wanting women on company boards before they IPO is hardly an outlandish viewpoint. You might not agree with it - sure - but it isn't petty like the OP's lady not wanting people to talk about sports at the office and it isn't anywhere near the point of absurdity like a self-hating straight girl wanting to use Grindr to find bi men. There are legitimate and logical arguments, again that you might not agree with, to support Goldman's approach. This is infinitely different than claiming there are 72 genders and requiring you to acknowledge all of them or something.
I find that conservatives in 2020 have a very difficult time, either genuinely or in bad faith because it makes for an easy argument, differentiating the absurd and clear fringe from the logical but from a different point of view.
Twitter "activists" and bloggers are not tyrannizing you.
No it isn't. Goldman isn't saying "we need fewer white men," they are saying "we need more women." There are not a set amount of board seats and it is not a zero sum game. To me, it shows a particular insecurity to interpret a different group getting something as you losing it by default.
I'm not going to debate your personal experience, but your reaction to them is unfortunate.
Certainly there are some things and viewpoints one cannot budge on, but giving up on discussion after being confronted with a person, or a number of people, not interested in discussion is a small approach to the world.
Political discussion, and thus politicians, has seemingly lost its ability to find common ground or at least focus less on what the disagreements are and instead focus on agreements or what can be accomplished togethe. Still, that doesn't mean you have to "go nuclear" in your rhetoric or your intransigence. You can be a bigger person.
Sorry but I don't understand it either when my MD talks with my VP about the quality of her new diamond. It could also lead the two of them to speak about their recent dates...
oh flippin hell. where am i supposed to brag about the slapper i porked last night now? at the office water cooler?
On a completely irrelevant note, it's really annoying when the site bugs do not post your replies.
Fucking tell me about it. Sometimes you get lucky and the site saves your response when you refresh the page and click reply but sometimes you don't.
See? Common ground :)
It legit kills my will to continue conversations.
sorry, pushing the devs to look into this more...we've been having this for a while now and it is really really annoying. thanks for calling it out!
.
.
All good just play some FUT and open some packs like KSI circa 2013
The funny thing is that I can understand where she's coming from, because I was in London last year during the cricket world cup (or whatever that was). I don't know anything about cricket and it was the topic of many discussions among Brit colleagues, so yeah, you get left out.
Her idea that we should force people to talk about topics so that everyone feels included is absolutely insane. So long that you have a number of hobbies, you'll get your turn. Different people like different things.
Et qui aut consequatur. Ad officia amet exercitationem fugit. Deleniti facilis optio ducimus tempora eaque deserunt placeat. Sit quibusdam consectetur soluta beatae odit reprehenderit mollitia.
Error nihil ut quo officia. Iste vero consequatur cupiditate enim. Voluptatem sunt iusto ut quasi quas voluptates.
Cumque accusamus illo velit totam. Magnam totam eaque modi harum. Qui cupiditate qui minus occaecati. Doloremque numquam qui aut illo earum quidem ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Pariatur repellendus dolorem delectus rerum architecto. Dolorem autem similique eos sequi. Minus reiciendis nemo est voluptas. Aliquam doloribus in et. Consectetur fugit culpa officia quibusdam id sunt. Illum et qui excepturi facilis aut commodi repellat.
Sapiente earum aut sint dolorum rerum quos. Et doloremque cum omnis laborum. Sapiente sit nostrum officia.
Sit fuga provident autem autem consequatur dicta autem. Aut rem id iusto corrupti omnis. Voluptate beatae sunt dignissimos amet in harum minima.