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.
Take the job, and as part of doing a good job, you should point out, ONE TIME ONLY, that they’re using the incorrect word.
Back this up with an “appeal to authority” citing a dictionary definition and a style guide from an expert on anti-harassment training.
If they don’t accept your correction, drop it.
That’s doing your job to the best of your ability while not hurting your own livelihood.
Take the job. Do some activism in your spare time.
I didn’t see this in the comments. You said you had a good relationship with the project lead - can you just ask about it casually from the perspective of product improvement? Not make a big deal of it but just a “hey I noticed you said sex instead of gender. That’s a thing that might raise an eyebrow (or something to that effect)”.
If you’re doing QA, there’s nothing wrong with asking a question about a choice someone made. Full disclosure: I don’t work in this industry, I don’t know anything about content vs. voiceover.
I know it doesn’t solve your “should I do this” dilemma, just a thought on an alternative approach 😊
So I used to do a lot of freelance, and encountered similar situations a few times.
The most blatant example that comes to mind was a charity run. I had the client reach out for AV gear and crew for a charity run. They needed some projectors and a small stage (and all of the AV gear+crew to go with the stage) for a charity event; They were going to be at a college campus, with joggers making laps on a 1/2 mile loop. For every lap, sponsors would donate to charity.
The projectors and stage were to give the MC a place to be, and to keep the audience entertained while the joggers ran. They’d have a band playing, and cap the event off with a movie screening. Sounds fun. I quoted the job like any other gig. The perceptive reader may have noticed that I haven’t mentioned what kind of charity they were raising funds for. That’s because I didn’t think to ask ahead of time. I got there, and discovered it was a pro-life fundraiser. Fucking yikes.
But I still did the job. I needed the money, and didn’t want to burn future bridges with other companies that were involved. I simply made a mental note to ask more questions the next time a charity event came across my desk. But the big takeaway is that even if I didn’t do it, someone else inevitably would have. The event still would have happened, and the charity money still would have been raised. At least with me doing it, I was able to avoid adding another enthusiastic voice (whoever would have taken my spot) to the echo chamber. Even if I had climbed up on stage to interrupt the event, it wouldn’t have changed any minds. Afterwards, I donated what I could afford to Planned Parenthood and moved on.
if I didn’t do it, someone else inevitably would have
I don’t live by this sentiment, I would rather not do it and hope nobody else does 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”
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.
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.
Ignore the self-righteous advice and take are of yourself first. We can’t fight back against oppression by sacrificing ourselves when it accomplishes nothing. That just means one less person is available to fight back when it does matter. The stakes do matter. They’re not asking you to kill people.
In the middle- to long-term you should think about how to deal with the larger problem. To avoid situations like this you may need to develop new contacts, find similar wok in other sectors, or even find another kind of work. Those are things that will take time and planning, so work on them while you do what’s needed to keep yourself going.
Always do what you can and look for ways you can do more, but make sure any sacrifices you decide to make are worth the likely results.
The replies here are disappointing but not surprising. If you willfully cross your moral boundaries, those aren’t your moral boundaries.
It’s not fair you should have to make this choice and I don’t believe you deserve the negative consequences of standing by your morals in this situation, but reality doesn’t care about any of that. You still have to make the choice and you still have to deal with the outcome.
No way in hell would I break my own code of ethics for an employer. I’ve said no before and I will again. Sometimes that costs me financially. I feel for you.
I mean, whether or not OP does the job literally doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. They are easily replaceable, and will be replaced if they refuse the work or cause too much trouble. The project will continue as planned, with the smallest increase in cost allocated to finding OP’s replacement. The only difference in outcome is that OP doesn’t get paid and loses professional reputation which will make it harder to get jobs in the future.
Instead of martyring themselves for literally no benefit and just ending up poor and miserable, OP should focus on taking care of themselves and taking actions that can actually make a difference.
Take the job. If you don’t take it, some asshole who agrees with the changes will take it. Better to be you to take it, so it goes out of the anti-woke echo chamber.
Take the job if it would be financially unwise to not. Bigots will be bigots regardless of what you do. Burning a bridge won’t change their minds, but it will cost you money
Choose your battles smartly, that’s the only way we’ll win.
Take the job if you need it. You’re not going to change their minds.
Clear your conscience by doing some pro bono work for a gender issues non-profit or small company that is LGBTQ+ friendly/owned—especially if they are a competitor to this company.
Gradually, ween yourself off this company.
*wean
Unless Gene and Dean Ween are somehow involved?
In practice, no one will be hurt by this change, except for the pain caused by a defeat in the culture war. If I were you, I would consider risking my career over real harm done to individuals, but not over abstract harm done to an idea, even an idea I supported.
Ever ask yourself what you would have done if you’d lived in Germany in the late 1930s?
Wonder no more. You’re doing it now.
What work have you turned down? Let’s hear your brave tales of resistance so the rest of us know what to do.
There it is- the classic centrist liberal two-step: first assume I’m American so you can deflect responsibility with ‘what are you doing?’, then scold me for commenting while not being American when you realize I’m not the one failing to stop fascism in your country. Pick a lane, or better yet- grow a spine.
So, nothing? You’ve done nothing.
That’s a lot of words just to say you have done nothing.
you need the job. take it, and do it well like the client wants. invest time in developing options so that you won’t have to take this job again.
your personal survival comes first
Money over other peoples well being, your choice.
If I were in your shoes, I would probably mention the change in tone/word choice to the lead on the project since you have a good relationship with them. Just mentioning that you noticed the change and aren’t sure about it doesn’t need to be combative, and I would be truly shocked if it cost you the job. Depending on your state it might even be illegal to fire you for something like that.
I personally would not take a stand or refuse to do the voiceover or anything like that. I would make it clear that I would do the voiceover using the script as it is written. I would think of it as providing feedback rather than making demands, which seems like it would be within the purview of a QA reviewer.
This way you can at the very least get more information about the situation - find out whether this was an intentional change. If so, it may be time to start making moves so you can eventually drop this company.
Yeah, I think this is the most reasonable approach. Everyone else is suggesting that falling on your sword is the first line of defense, and it really shouldn’t be.
If you are the attorney general, and the president asks you to fire someone prosecuting him, sure, resign.
If you are just some person trying to get by, shooting yourself in the foot isn’t going to help anyone. If you refuse to do a job, and they just hire someone else to do it, you’ve only really lost a lot at the cost of a small moral victory immediately rendered nil.
Not to get too utilitarian, but the ultimate goal should be to have the best outcome for everyone, not to just make the first decision that seems to be right.
There’s a saying about fascism “Do not obey in advance”, and the idea is that during the rise of fascism, the fascists don’t actually have to make people do what they want. Lots of people comply with their goals well before being forced to. We are seeing many companies eliminating DEI objectives because it’s what the fascists want, even though they don’t have to.
This could be one of those situations where a frank conversation with the project lead to see if that’s what’s happening because there is a chance to convince them not to obey in advance. It could also be that the training is going for federal agencies that have been “legally” required to eliminate “gender” from any training materials.
I think it would be foolish to turn down the job without at least establishing that.
I agree with all of this, and I think it’s the right choice. You don’t have to immediately come out as the brave warrior of what is right, but you can absolutely speak up, in all kinds of ways. Even just starting with, “Hey, this line doesn’t sound right, I think it would make more sense if it said ‘gender’ here,” could be helpful. If they insist, ask why.
Everyone’s individual circumstances are going to be different, but there’s definitely something you can do. The pressure you’re feeling is exactly what the fascists want you to bow to, but most of the people you work with aren’t fascists. You might be surprised how much change you can make
It could also be that the training is going for federal agencies that have been “legally” required to eliminate “gender” from any training materials.
I didn’t think of that. All of those are good points.
