Google rant

[shnarkle]

Does anyone notice a double standard here; particularly with this?

we must doggedly insist that family does not imply children.

The reason I bring this up is because this person seems to be under the impression that those who are living an alternative lifestyle are not recognized by our advanced and openly tolerant culture.

He then insists that we need to redefine the definition of family to suit his criteria, but in the process he leaves out numerous other criteria, not to mention countless other people who he has overlooked such as those who consider their pets as family, or those who prefer not to be identified in relation to families.

The speaker is clearly referring to those who have children, but the rant against him insists that this be articulated, presumably every time he refers to the type of family he's explicitly talking about.

The spirit of the Grand Inquisitor seems alive and well at Google.

One employee stormed out of the March 2017 presentation after a presenter “continued to show (awesome) Unicorn product features which continually use the word ‘family’ as a synonym for ‘household with children,'� he explained in an internal thread. That employee posted an extended rant, which was well-received by his colleagues, on why linking families to children is “offensive, inappropriate, homophobic, and wrong.�

He wrote:

This is a diminishing and disrespectful way to speak. If you mean “children�, say “children�; we have a perfectly good word for it. “Family friendly� used as a synonym for “kid friendly� means, to me, “you and yours don’t count as a family unless you have children�. And while kids may often be less aware of it, there are kids without families too, you know.

The use of “family� as a synonym for “with children� has a long-standing association with deeply homophobic organizations. This does not mean we should not use the word “family� to refer to families, but it mean we must doggedly insist that family does not imply children.

Even the sense, “suitable for the whole family�, which you might think is unobjectionable, is totally wrong too. It only works if we have advance shared conception of what “the whole family� is, and that is almost always used to mean a household with two adults, of opposite sex, in a romantic/sexual relationship, with two or more of their own children. If you mean that as a synonym for “suitable for all people� stop and notice the extraordinary unlikelihood of such a thought! So “suitable for the whole family� doesn’t mean “all people�, it means “all people in families�, which either means that all those other people aren’t in families, or something even worse. Use the word “family� to mean a loving assemblage of people who may or may not live together and may or may not include people of any particular age. STOP using it to mean “children�. It’s offensive, inappropriate, homophobic, and wrong.

[Bust Nak]

He then insists that we need to redefine the definition of family to suit his criteria, but in the process he leaves out numerous other criteria, not to mention countless other people who he has overlooked such as those who consider their pets as family, or those who prefer not to be identified in relation to families.

I don't see where he's done that. One must not exclude a married couple from being a "family" does not imply it's okay to exclude a guy plus his cat from being a "family."

The speaker is clearly referring to those who have children, but the rant against him insists that this be articulated, presumably every time he refers to the type of family he's explicitly talking about.

Seems fine from the context. "Family friendly" doesn't mean pets allowed either.

As for the rant itself, I don't see how not recognizing same sex couples without children as a "family" is homophobic. Straight couples without children don't qualify as a "family" either under the same standard.

[shnarkle]

He then insists that we need to redefine the definition of family to suit his criteria, but in the process he leaves out numerous other criteria, not to mention countless other people who he has overlooked such as those who consider their pets as family, or those who prefer not to be identified in relation to families.

I don't see where he's done that. One must not exclude a married couple from being a "family" does not imply it's okay to exclude a guy plus his cat from being a "family."

Right here:

Use the word “family� to mean a loving assemblage of PEOPLE who may or may not live together and may or may not include PEOPLE of any particular age.

His only critria is in relation to people and their ages. He is doing exactly what he is accusing others of doing. The fact is that the speaker was referring to families with children, and this is in no way a slight upon homosexuals as homosexuals have the same right to raise children as heterosexual couples. What he is doing is assuming that only homosexual couples don't have children which is simply false. He's spotlighting his own self exclusionary claims by making them.

The speaker is clearly referring to those who have children, but the rant against him insists that this be articulated, presumably every time he refers to the type of family he's explicitly talking about.

Seems fine from the context. "Family friendly" doesn't mean pets allowed either.

Sure, but it isn't exclusionary either. It doesn't presupose that a family has no pets. It makes no difference if they do or not. It also doesn't matter if the couple is homosexual or not either so it can't be homophobic.

As for the rant itself, I don't see how not recognizing same sex couples without children as a "family" is homophobic. Straight couples without children don't qualify as a "family" either under the same standard.

Yes, and no. The speaker isn't negating the fact that people who don't have kids are a family. He is simply not referring to people who don't have children; chldless families. By the same token homosexual couples who have children are not being excluded from the speaker's presentation which is what the rant is suggesting.

[Bust Nak]

Right here... His only critria is in relation to people and their ages. He is doing exactly what he is accusing others of doing.

I see what you are getting at now, but it still seem pedantic to me. It doesn't take much charity to interpreted that as use the word “family� to include but not limited to a loving assemblage of PEOPLE who may or may not live together and may or may not include PEOPLE of any particular age.

His point is that when people say family, we immediately think "father, mother plus their two point four children" is quite true.

Sure, but it isn't exclusionary either. It doesn't presuppose that a family has no pets...

Neither does "loving assemblage of PEOPLE who may or may not live together and may or may not include PEOPLE of any particular age" presuppose no pets.

It also doesn't matter if the couple is homosexual or not either so it can't be homophobic.

Right. Pretty much what I said.

Yes, and no. The speaker isn't negating the fact that people who don't have kids are a family. He is simply not referring to people who don't have children; chldless families. By the same token homosexual couples who have children are not being excluded from the speaker's presentation which is what the rant is suggesting.

They kinda are though in practice.

[shnarkle]

Right here... His only critria is in relation to people and their ages. He is doing exactly what he is accusing others of doing.

I see what you are getting at now, but it still seem pedantic to me. It doesn't take much charity to interpreted that as use the word “family� to include but not limited to a loving assemblage of PEOPLE who may or may not live together and may or may not include PEOPLE of any particular age.

Sure, but the problem isn't in a lack of charity on the speaker, but of the ranter who has taken it upon himself to assume that the speaker as well as anyone else in the world has just crawled out from under a rock and isn't necessarily cognizant of this definition. Just because the speaker is explicitly referring to children doesn't mean that he has excluded homosexuals or anyone who may or may not live together, or other ages from the definition of family. He's not excluding anyone. He's simply directing his comments at those who do have children.

His point is that when people say family, we immediately think "father, mother plus their two point four children" is quite true.

Speak for yourself. I haven't thought that in over 30 years. I lived in the San Francisco bay area for over 20 years and nearby for another 20 so I can assure you most people who have lived there for the last 30 or 40 years make no assumptions either. The fact that this is happening in Silicon valley is ridiculous. If it were in "fly over" country, he might have a point, but even then he's assuming something he clearly can't know for sure. He's making an accusation with nothing to back it up other than his own assumptions.

Neither does "loving assemblage of PEOPLE who may or may not live together and may or may not include PEOPLE of any particular age" presuppose no pets.

To a certain degree I see what you're saying, but the problem is that adding qualifiers necessarily excludes those who aren't included in those qualifications. Which is why it is probably better to just leave it at "family" which leaves it to the interpretation of those who are listening to the presentation. The fact that the rant interprets it to be exclusionary is on him, not the person giving the presentation.

Here's the problem. The speaker is addressing families that have children. This is explicitly the point of his presentation. He's not there to exclude familes that don't have children, but to address those who do with their concerns. If it were a presentation on feminine hygene, it would probably not concern those who don't purchase feminine hygene products to begin with. It isn't like anyone can't attend the presentation, but to then suggest that anyone else who does attend must be pacified by having the presenter repeatedly point out that their comments are not excluding anyone who doesn't want to use feminine hygene products is asinine.

Yes, and no. The speaker isn't negating the fact that people who don't have kids are a family. He is simply not referring to people who don't have children; chldless families. By the same token homosexual couples who have children are not being excluded from the speaker's presentation which is what the rant is suggesting.

They kinda are though in practice.[/quote]

How? More to the point, the speaker is making no clarifications or qualifications based upon sexual orientation whatsoever. He's only confining his comments to those who have children, which can be anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

[Bust Nak]

Sure, but the problem isn't in a lack of charity on the speaker, but of the ranter who has taken it upon himself to assume that the speaker as well as anyone else in the world has just crawled out from under a rock and isn't necessarily cognizant of this definition... Speak for yourself. I haven't thought that in over 30 years...

Perhaps that's the difference then, when I hear "family," I am thinking "kids."
"Family friendly" means "kids welcomed." "Starting a family" means "trying for kids."

Which is why it is probably better to just leave it at "family" which leaves it to the interpretation of those who are listening to the presentation...

Well, I am interpreting "family" as "with kids," so (at least that part of) his rant is applicable to me. Where he lost me is when he framed it as homophobic, when straight couples without children are also excluded.

How?

From raised eyebows to out right refusal to served.

More to the point, the speaker is making no clarifications or qualifications based upon sexual orientation whatsoever. He's only confining his comments to those who have children, which can be anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Right you are.