Hey folks, I’m a freelance voice-over artist and QA reviewer working on training content, usually things like workplace harassment and diversity courses. Recently, I was asked to QA a course on workplace harassment—and noticed the client had removed all references to gender, replacing it with sex. Anywhere the word “gender” appeared, it was just… gone or replaced.

It seems like a subtle thing on the surface, but it’s not. It completely shifts the tone and scope of the training. It feels like a quiet rollback of DEI principles, and honestly, it made my stomach turn. The kicker? I need this job. Turning this down could burn a bridge I can’t afford to lose.

I have a good relationship with the lead on the project (who’s just relaying instructions—they don’t have control over the content decisions), and I want to say something. At the same time, I’m scared that even a polite pushback could cost me.

Has anyone else been in this kind of situation? How do you draw the line when your ethics and survival are at odds? Would really appreciate your thoughts.

  • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    4·
    3 days ago

    I would rather not do it and hope nobody else does it.

    While this is certainly something to dream about, I live in the Bible Belt. If I hadn’t taken it, there would have been a hundred others lining up to do it.

    “Oh, if I don’t use my electrical engineering skills to bomb children for a MIC company then someone else will do it, nah bitch I’ll work in a different field”

    It’s a bit of a stretch to equate it with making bombs. And if you have the flexibility to work in a different field, then you’re already speaking from a position of privilege. Not everyone has that luxury. Some people have niche skills or have small tight-knit job fields, where burning a bridge with one company could cascade to other companies as word spreads.

    Edit: although I do have to say you have to consider all aspects. If you’re only making content that changes gender to sex and you gotta feed yourself, then it’s a big jump from killing people for a war company for fun.

    There are absolutely arguments for why we should require engineers to take engineering ethics classes. Hell, even city zoning departments can be abused by racists. But it all eventually boils down to a cost/benefit analysis for the person considering the job; Ethics studies may cause an engineer to weigh the moral “cost” more heavily on certain topics. But it’s still essentially just a mental calculation when deciding whether or not to take the job.

    At what point do the benefits of the job begin to outweigh the moral costs? When you’re going to go hungry if you turned down the work and burned bridges? When your family is going to go hungry? Sure, the high horse may be attractive when it’s just you… But nobody wants to see their child go hungry because they refused work. Eventually, people will compromise on their morals in order to put food on the table. And effecting change is a lot easier to do when you have a good job and can afford to donate (either your time or money) to causes you believe in. Homeless people aren’t exactly known for their political weight.