Recently I’ve run into a couple of situations where employers provide employees the opportunity to “identify” themselves as members of “marginalized” groups. In both cases, the employees are subcontractors, working for the company’s clients. In both cases, the excuse given was that clients might want to work with members of “marginalized groups”. One even told me that it was in case some clients didn’t want to work with “white people”, displaying blatant racism.
Another excuse given was that this way, we made sure we weren’t discriminating against gay people.
In both cases, this identification was presented as “optional”. The closing line of an email I received from an agency announcing the personal identification option stated “P.S. This is completely voluntary, no obligation.”
What’s the problem with that? Well, it’s clear the purpose is to mark out members of so-called “marginalized” groups so they can receive favourable treatment. Clients wish to hire people of fashionable identities so they can boost their social credit score.
If it’s optional, who will choose to opt in? Well, the people of fashionable identities, of course. They know they stand to gain by doing so. Who will opt out? Those with not-so-fashionable identities, of course, like evil white, heterosexual men. What would they gain by “identifying” themselves? Nothing but active discrimination. By not identifying themselves, they out themselves as undesirables, too.
By identifying themselves, they lose out. By not identifying themselves, they lose out. The woke, Kafka-esque, identity trap.
As for the excuse that we need people to identify themselves so we make sure we’re not discriminating against them: you can only discriminate based on information you have. If you don’t make people tell you what kind of people they like to sleep with, you can’t possibly discriminate against them on that basis. In fact, the reality is the opposite: they wish to make gay employees identify themselves so they can discriminate in their favour.
Woke is evil. It’s insidious, divisive, and all its touted “equity” is nothing but a cover for good old-fashioned group hatred and partiality.
Yep, also to say, identity politics puts the focus on our differences first. Wrong priority to begin with.
My son has "multiple exceptionalities" according to his school report. The rainbow of inclusion doesn't seem to apply to folks like him though, at least not politically. It's a shame, really, given the general level of vulnerability of this growing group.
He came home the other day, and with a sly grin tells me he identifies as a toaster.
Hah! He sees through this so much more easily than so many who deem themselves wise