6
votes
I was a sensitivity reader – until I realised why I was hired
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- By Anonymous author, By Tara Thorpe, By Josie Ensor, By Simon Johnson, By Sam Hall, Arlene Foster, By Richard Ainsworth
- Published
- Feb 21 2023
- Word count
- 421 words
I read this article three times and I feel like I'm still missing something. The title implies that something intentionally nefarious is going on, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It doesn't even match what happens in the story - she realizes why she was picked for the job and then she continues working until a family issue happens and even then she continues to do the same work freelance. She only decides to quit when she finds the emotional toll to be too taxing. In the author's own words:
I don't think it's wrong to hire people to do emotional labor - there are many jobs that carry emotional weight, after all - but I do agree that it's unethical to hire people to do it without revealing that it's part of the job, especially when it might not be obvious.
I think the thrust of the article is captured in the following quote:
And I felt that the following quote captures some of the details around this mistreatment:
This kind of behavior at work shouldn't be permissible. Have you ever experienced this at work? Did HR intervene? What's unsaid here is that there isn't a story about how this person was reprimanded, or how this behavior stopped. I don't think it's a huge jump to assume she didn't just sit and get berated without letting anyone else know about it, so the question is why is this behavior being highlighted as an example of what her work looks like? It sure seems like she's not being treated with respect or given any real power - the essence of which is captured in the quote you chose.
That kind of behavior generally isn't permissable anywhere, but it still happens. Coworkers will occasionally lapse in their professional demeanor. And if you have ever worked in a job that is public-facing then you already know there are countless assholes just waiting to unload as much vitriol onto whoever they think will take it without having to suffer consequence.
I think the rest of her article shows off that she did get respect for most of her jobs and although she had no power to change the final content of the published work, there were people who took her criticisms to heart and make those changes. If you read my comment on the Dahl edits, then you already know that I think that there are cases when being rude, insensitive, or antisocial can be used in works of art in service of a greater message, so it only makes sense that they wouldn't always want to alter those aspects.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I know these things are crappy, but we live in a crappy world.
And personally (as someone who has also gone through trauma in his lifetime), If I were to choose between her job and a customer service job, I'd much rather take the role as a sensitivity reader.
Absolutely, I think this is just a case where in which someone is venting, and sharing their experience of a crappy job, and reflecting upon how they are being taken advantage of. Just as you are recognizing your trauma and have perhaps vented online about your treatment or how you deserved to be treated better.
It's part of the reason I posted this in humanities - it's someone sharing their experience, not a scientific paper or a thesis on this kind of behavior (although depending on the reach those might be applicable here instead of ~science). It's just a vent, some insight into some of the work that's out there, and a value judgment on capitalism.
As with most published articles: don't judge the article by the headline. It's never written or chosen by the actual writer, but by the editors of the outlet who are not usually incentivized to make the most accurate headline but the most clickworthy one.
But in the case of this article, I think the actual problem is that they were not treated respectfully by the publishers. Much like retail employees feel frequently made "less than" by their managers kowtowing to abusive customers and siding against the employee, the job of a sensitivity reader shouldn't stop and end at being a process step to reduce liability.
Headlines should at least reflect what the article is about. That's the whole reason why I wrote this comment to begin with; I was honestly wondering if I wasn't understanding the article or if there was some part of it that wasn't loading for whatever reason.
The title is not just inaccurate, it's a fabrication. I also find it an extreme abuse of editorial powers to use the term "I" in a title unless the title is a direct quote from the author - preferably taken from the article itself. On their website they even put it in single-quotes to make it extra unclear.
Yes, you're not wrong.
But unfortunately this is just how it works now. Headlines have become something of distractions, and it's not unusual for an editor to choose a title that's more punchy than accurate now. Pretty much every current approach to titling and headlining with content right now goes against what we were taught in schools about what a good title should be like. I've run into titles that are explicitly chosen to maximize "engagement" (i.e. outrage) rather than to accurately depict what the much more nuanced and considered article is actually about.
It's not ideal but the only thing to do is give the article a chance and disregard the headline most of the time.