Capitalist inkloosivvitee
James Esses tells us that incloooosion stretches even to the pet industry.
There’s a handbook.
This Handbook sets out to members of staff the policies and terms & conditions they must adhere to at work. Pets at Home describe this as “our expectations of you as one of our colleagues”.
At the beginning, this reads like any other corporate virtue-signalling manifesto (which, unfortunately, are ten a penny these days). Pets at Home state: “Diversity and inclusion is an important part of who we are and what we do…We aim to create an inclusive experience for our colleagues where everyone can connect to our purpose, be themselves and make their best contributor to our business”.
Everyone can be themselves? What if my self is lazy, slow, selfish, grumpy, disobliging, careless, rude, incompetent?
Employees are also told: “We ask that you support diversity and inclusion everyday by recognising that your individual actions will impact on others and that you have a responsibility to help us create opportunities for diverse people in an inclusive environment”.
How do I know which people are diverse and which aren’t? What do I do to help you create opportunities for diverse people in an inclusive environment? Are you going to create opportunities for me in an inclusive environment? How can I tell if I’m diverse enough or not? How can I become more diverse so that you will create opportunities for me in an inclusive environment? How can I get in on this scheme?
Very quickly the indoctrination ramps up, as employees are directed towards a guide on “how to be a better ally”, entitled ’10 Ways You Can Make A Difference’.
Why do I have to be a better ally? Why do I have to make a difference? When will I have time to stock the shelves and ring up the dog food?
It goes on and on and on and on in that vein. Anyone would think it was a (colossally captured) university as opposed to a chain of shops.
Don’t worry about it, you’re not. I’m not, either. We are white women, therefore Karens, therefore not inclusive or included. And we are boring old cis-hetero-white women. The more adjectives, the lower you are. We are now crawling under a worm’s belly.
One thing I learned from HR meetings over the years. Diversity is for other people, not for women.
Nooooooo come on more adjectives are the Path to Glory. They just have to be the approved adjectives, that’s all.
I can see how a group could be diverse, being made up of a number of people with a range of personal and physical characteristics, which, if they were charted in some fashion, would place them over a larger space on the graph compared with another group that was more homogeneous in their make-up. Our first group could be said to be “diverse” within itself, as well as “more diverse” in comparison with the second. But I can’t figure out how an individual can be “diverse.” In comparison to someone else, another person can be different, but that applies to everyone, so obviously that won’t do. They’re going to be only one spot on that chart. The only way they’re going to cover more ground is if they become “diffuse.” It feels like using “diverse” in this way is messing up the language in a way similar to using “they” for second person at the insistance of NBs. Maybe “diverse” just means “extra-super different.” Maybe it’s somehow akin to wave/particle duality.
Or maybe it’s just bullshit.
With all the affrming, and allying, and differnce-making, a lot of dogs are going to go hungry waiting for their humans to get home.