Sometimes, girls, work banter really is just harmless fun — and it’s all about common sense
An interesting perspective, and she makes some good points:
[Quote=Jane Moore, The Sun]She was fond of tight leggings and over- the-knee boots, too, and one morning this vision of magnificence strode and jiggled her way into The Sun’s male-dominated morning conference.
“Blimey, anyone order a bouncy castle?” quipped one brave soul.
Quick as a flash, Sue fired back: “I’d better not sit near you, then. A small p***k would be lethal.”
We all burst out laughing, including the recipient of her waspish comeback.
No doubt there are a few twentysomethings who will read this anecdote and recoil in horror at what they see as a roomful of old dinosaurs being “inappropriate” towards their “victim”. Yawn.
Sue never saw it that way, and neither did I.
For me, it actually showed that they regarded Sue as their equal — a highly respected journalist who could look after herself and engage in the same kind of workplace banter that men do all the time without feeling the need to run off to HR.
But had Sue been a young intern, nervously bringing coffee into a room of senior men who then chose to belittle her with a sexual comment, knowing full well that she would not have the power or the confidence to even dare to answer them back?
Well, that would be a matter that needed further investigation.
Like so many things in life, it’s all about perspective, circumstance and common sense.
Which brings me to an alleged incident six years ago between Andrea Leadsom, now 54 and Leader of the House of Commons, and her Conservative colleague Sir Michael Fallon.
When she complained of cold hands, he allegedly quipped: “I know where you can put them to warm them up.” Trained at the Sue Carroll school of comebacks, I would have replied: “Yes, Michael, around your bloody neck.”
Leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom, complained about Michael Fallon’s conduct.
But, citing that and other examples of “derogatory comments of a sexual nature”, Mrs Leadsom waited six years before taking her complaint to the PM and getting him fired as Defence Secretary.
Really? Mrs Leadsom was 48 at the time and, one might imagine, perfectly capable of simply dealing with it herself.
Women of Mrs Leadsom’s age and older had mothers who had to put up with sexist adverts like this one from the 1950s, below. So when their daughters started making inroads into male-dominated professions, it was a long-awaited and thrilling breakthrough.
From there, for the most part, we have steadily forged a fantastic working relationship with our male colleagues, from the backroom to the boardroom.
So let’s not ruin it with a misguided witch-hunt that, in some cases, is tipping into misandry — the opposite of misogyny and used so rarely that I had to look it up.
Every day there are genuine, clear-cut cases of sexual harassment or abuse in the workplace where senior men — and women — use their power to either proposition or publicly humiliate those who are not in the position to fight back.
It’s wrong and should be dealt with through all the proper channels.
If anything comes out of this current maelstrom of accusations, it should be that every workplace — whatever its size — makes it easy for all employees to make a complaint and follow a due process in investigating it.
But meanwhile, let’s not create a climate where every small bit of workplace banter involves a “female victim” and “male aggressor”.
Sometimes it’s just harmless fun and, as equals, we must learn to not take it too seriously and give as good as we get.[/quote]
Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4865373/jane-moore-sometimes-work-banter-harmless-fun/amp/
Sometimes workplace banter is just harmless fun between equals and we women must learn to not take it too seriously, says Jane Moore.
Many years ago, I worked with a gloriously ballsy Geordie woman called Sue Carroll (RIP), who taught me everything I know about male and female interaction in the workplace.
Sue, below, had an impressive pair of boobs that she was very proud of, often overtly displaying them in push-up, lacy bras and low-cut tops. We always used to joke that they arrived in a room two minutes before she did.
[Quote=Jane Moore, The Sun]She was fond of tight leggings and over- the-knee boots, too, and one morning this vision of magnificence strode and jiggled her way into The Sun’s male-dominated morning conference.
“Blimey, anyone order a bouncy castle?” quipped one brave soul.
Quick as a flash, Sue fired back: “I’d better not sit near you, then. A small p***k would be lethal.”
We all burst out laughing, including the recipient of her waspish comeback.
No doubt there are a few twentysomethings who will read this anecdote and recoil in horror at what they see as a roomful of old dinosaurs being “inappropriate” towards their “victim”. Yawn.
Sue never saw it that way, and neither did I.
For me, it actually showed that they regarded Sue as their equal — a highly respected journalist who could look after herself and engage in the same kind of workplace banter that men do all the time without feeling the need to run off to HR.
But had Sue been a young intern, nervously bringing coffee into a room of senior men who then chose to belittle her with a sexual comment, knowing full well that she would not have the power or the confidence to even dare to answer them back?
Well, that would be a matter that needed further investigation.
Like so many things in life, it’s all about perspective, circumstance and common sense.
Which brings me to an alleged incident six years ago between Andrea Leadsom, now 54 and Leader of the House of Commons, and her Conservative colleague Sir Michael Fallon.
When she complained of cold hands, he allegedly quipped: “I know where you can put them to warm them up.” Trained at the Sue Carroll school of comebacks, I would have replied: “Yes, Michael, around your bloody neck.”
Leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom, complained about Michael Fallon’s conduct.
But, citing that and other examples of “derogatory comments of a sexual nature”, Mrs Leadsom waited six years before taking her complaint to the PM and getting him fired as Defence Secretary.
Really? Mrs Leadsom was 48 at the time and, one might imagine, perfectly capable of simply dealing with it herself.
Women of Mrs Leadsom’s age and older had mothers who had to put up with sexist adverts like this one from the 1950s, below. So when their daughters started making inroads into male-dominated professions, it was a long-awaited and thrilling breakthrough.
From there, for the most part, we have steadily forged a fantastic working relationship with our male colleagues, from the backroom to the boardroom.
So let’s not ruin it with a misguided witch-hunt that, in some cases, is tipping into misandry — the opposite of misogyny and used so rarely that I had to look it up.
Every day there are genuine, clear-cut cases of sexual harassment or abuse in the workplace where senior men — and women — use their power to either proposition or publicly humiliate those who are not in the position to fight back.
It’s wrong and should be dealt with through all the proper channels.
If anything comes out of this current maelstrom of accusations, it should be that every workplace — whatever its size — makes it easy for all employees to make a complaint and follow a due process in investigating it.
But meanwhile, let’s not create a climate where every small bit of workplace banter involves a “female victim” and “male aggressor”.
Sometimes it’s just harmless fun and, as equals, we must learn to not take it too seriously and give as good as we get.[/quote]
Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4865373/jane-moore-sometimes-work-banter-harmless-fun/amp/
Comments (184)
It's up to the woman (or man) in question what to do about inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. If they're comfortable ignoring it and firing back, fine, but there's no point telling them it's all good fun if it's not for them, is it? Obviously, it wasn't for Leadsom and Fallon sounds like a creep. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or something?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Carroll
One woman's witty banter is another judge's rude and offensive racism.
Quoting Baden
I beg to differ. Casual humiliation passed off as humour is impossible to resist alone without appearing as a killjoy, pc mad, over-sensitive, behaviour nazi. It's up to all of us to set the standard for what is an acceptable level of insult, and allow the victim to show the strength of not being bothered while we observers get on our high horses, and ride roughshod over such jollities. Have we not discovered through "me too" that what is normal is unacceptable?
That's a nicer ad hom than I could think up, and I was sorely tempted. (Y)
Quoting unenlightened
I never said anyone had to resist potential harassment alone only that it was their judgement about what steps to take. It's up to society to make sure the systems are in place to facilitate a choice concerning reporting and that there is no stigma attached to doing so. But people have different views about what's acceptable and what's not. If someone thinks the appropriate thing to do in the face of a particular comment is to fire back verbally rather than to make an official complaint, that's their business as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't feel the latter option is unavailable or stigmatized. And sure, society has it's part to play though #metoo campaigns and so on in transforming the zeitgeist.
Don't take it too seriously! Wait...why? Because a few goofs enjoy having some fun, and by taking workplace sexual harassment seriously, we might be depriving them of this sublime and time-honored tradition? To me, that just seems to be a failure to understand why it's important to nab workplace sexual harassment.
The same thing can be said of things like prostitution or gun ownership. Just because a person likes selling their body, or owning big ass guns, doesn't mean it's a healthy, responsible, let alone moral, thing to do. I think it's better just to say no, rather than try to publicize all these exceptions, because everyone already knows there's exceptions to the rule. If we're going to be a just society, there are some things everyone needs to just stop doing. Like, I'm sorry cracking down on sexual harassment will deprive you of a bit of fun, but the actual harassment of workers on the job is more important than your occasional banter.
Yes, but that strikes me as beside the point. That it's up to them doesn't mean that there aren't better or worse ways in which to handle a certain sort of situation, and it doesn't mean that their way is the right way.
Quoting Baden
There is a point in encouraging the right kind of attitude and criticising the wrong kind of attitude. That's what the article is aiming for. It's not pointless just because people might not be comfortable with it. Education isn't always comfortable, but it is often beneficial. Sometimes you have to adapt to achieve.
Quoting Baden
Yes, Fallon sounds like a creep, and Leadsom sounds like a bit of a douche. That the one is a creep doesn't mean that it's alright for the other to be a douche.
Of course, they're both Tories, so they're already the scum of the earth, anyway. >:)
Quoting Baden
Clearly not, and if that's what you've taken from the article, then I think that you've misunderstood.
The "yawn" was justified, as it was directed at someone being judgemental from an outside perspective, either failing to get, or wilfully overlooking, the mutual understanding of those on the inside.
"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
•The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
•The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
•The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
•Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
•The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome."
This is federal law, applicable to employers with 15 or more employees. States generally have their own laws in this area.
All sorts of conduct, intended or otherwise, may fall within this definition and these examples, yes?
Is this too much, too little? It matters not. THE LAW RULES. Take heed, o ye employers and employees.
Common sense be damned.
As much as I hate blanket rules that restrict all degrees of a particular behavior, it would be a nightmare for HR departments to decide where the line is when it comes sexual joking/sexual harassment.
Nor mine, but the newspaper happened to be sitting there on the table in the lunch room.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, and I find it offensive and racist also, but that's a different topic.
Quoting unenlightened
There's appearing[/I] as a killjoy, pc mad, over-sensitive, behaviour nazi, and there's [i]actually being one. What's what is up for debate.
I don't think that's it's up to all of us, collectively, to set the standard over what is or is not acceptable discourse. I think that two or more people are perfectly capable, and at liberty, to set their own standards. An appreciation of relativism, context, and liberty, is required to see things right, in my view.
What do you mean, "bad-natured"? Where are you getting that from? I think you're just reading that into it.
It was regarded as workplace banter, and they all burst out laughing. Doesn't that context mean anything to you?
For me the interest in this story is the first encounter involving Carroll. At first glance it may appear a harmless, consensual exchange of banter between adults with approximately equal power. Neither participant was a victim. If no others had been present it would be hard to find anything to complain about. But others were present, so there were other potential victims. What if one of those present were an impressionable mid-level employee who formed the impression - based on that and similar incidents - that making sexualised comments about co-workers was not only condoned but encouraged. What if that co-worker subsequently made a sexualised comment to an even more junior female employee - who was not dressing flamboyantly - that intimidates and upsets her. Then that female employee is an indirect victim of the Carroll incident, and potentially so is the one that makes the later comment, if they face repercussions. Repeated incidents like the Carroll one normalise gratuitous sexual comments in the workplace and create a climate with a greater risk of harm to people that are psychologically less robust than Carroll is portrayed to be.
The aim to avoid this sort of damage is one of the reasons that many (most?) professional firms have dress codes that forbid employees - male or female - from dressing in an overtly sexualised manner, which is what the report implies Carroll did. I believe that dress codes, to the extent that they are shaped by that motivation, have strong ethical and practical support. Dressing in an overtly sexual way in a workplace makes sexual comments almost inevitable and creates an atmosphere that can lead to harm to people other than the person who chooses to dress that way.
Prima facie there is an inconsistency there with my view that, in the general public space, people should be able to dress however they like, subject to some fairly light restrictions to cut off extremes. I am for instance supportive of the marches that were held protesting against 'slut shaming'.
I haven't resolved this apparent conflict yet. But I think the answer probably relates to the facts that (1) a workplace is a private, not a public place and (2) there are much stronger power inequalities at play in the workplace, that necessitate greater prudence.
Sure, but that wasn't suggested. She even gave a second example, in a different context, in contrast to the first, to emphasise this very point, and probably in part to attempt to keep at bay that kind of knee jerk reaction.
Quoting darthbarracuda
No, it does [i]not[/I] encourage that.
No where does it explicitly encourage what you allege - it clearly does the opposite, as the quote above shows. The rest is down to what one takes from it. And blaming an opinion piece, such as this one, from a newspaper, for someone's act of sexual harassment, strikes me as a very poor excuse, a tacit admission of inadequate reading comprehension, and an attempt to vacate personal responsibility.
What it encourages is to [i]think[/I] before reaching a hasty conclusion and acting upon it. It encourages one to appreciate context, and to think about things from a different perspective, instead of having a knee jerk reaction based on some notion of political correctness that you might have picked up as a result of social conditioning. It encourages one not to blindly follow the herd.
Quoting darthbarracuda
What's narrow-minded is forcing your own interpretation on the anecdote, like Agustino's "bad-natured". What portrays a lack of understanding is failing to appreciate the importance of context.
Notice how she begins with, "Sometimes". That's an important qualification, and should not be carelessly overlooked.
Quoting darthbarracuda
No, that completely misses the point. The point was that having some fun does not necessarily constitute sexual harassment, and that it's important to recognise the difference. Again, no where did she argue that [i]sexual harassment[/I] should not be taken seriously. She was arguing that one can, and should, get rid of the bathwater without also getting rid of the baby.
This sort of nuance is probably better discussed between friends outside of a professional workspace.
That's probably true, ProbablyTrue.
(Y)
(Y) x 2
Our best friend was a manager of a Medical Nuclear lab that draws and delivers doses of Nuclear medicine for prescribed medical testing on people.
The lab was mostly male with a few females and the jokes were often sexual in nature but never assigned to one person, females and males were fair game.
One morning a female employee called our best friend, the manager to let him know that she would be late coming in to work because one of her cats had been favoring a leg or hip but it had gotten worse though the night. Her manager said he absolutely understood and went to work. When the female employee arrived at work, the staff was curious as to how her cat was doing. And I am sure that many of them were genuine but it only takes one smart ass to make a sexist remark for the arena of remarks to open. She explained that the cat had broken it's leg, showed the x-ray and explained that the cat was at the vet till the end of the day having the leg casted. A guy who had arrived half way through her explanation as to what happened, asked her in front of the rest of the staff if the xray was of her broken pussy and she blushed and backed out gracefully and the next day filed a report with the Corporate office back east, going over his manger, of sexual harassment by a fellow employee and the manager who did nothing to intervene.
Lawsuit, court, Corporate lawyers, our best friend at the helm and shit went down. The employee was fired and the manger was put on two year probation, with no raises or advancement in the company and he could take it or leave it but they were done.
You never know what others are bringing to the experience they have at work and it is a place that has to be safe sexually, including but not limited to sexual banter. It can sour in a heart beat and no banter is worth ending your career over.
Serves you right for picking up The Sun, fella. :P
Legend. >:O
*Shug* You can leave your echo chamber without jumping on the chamber pot. Or if you do, use The Sun to wipe your ass rather than read it.
I'm deliberately expressing my opinion. You're deliberately judging me. And we deliberately lived happily ever after. Deliberately.
Look, I wasn't there, I didn't make that remark, I didn't report it, I didn't make the rules, I didn't enforce them, I didn't fire anyone, and I didn't cause anyone to be fired. I wasn't involved, and I had no control over any of it. The unfortunate consequences are indeed unfortunate. But it's still a hilariously outrageous thing to say, and nothing you can do or say will change that. You can disapprove, you can vent at me as much, or as forcefully, as you like. You can call me all the names under the sun. But funny is funny. And me likes funny.
At the end of the day, laughing at an inappropriate sexual innuendo will never be as bad as, say, supporting gun ownership. Not even close.
Besides, you have zero credibility when you talk about these matters, since you frequently and openly praise Donald Trump, recently saying that he's an inspiration to you. This is the same Donald Trump who made comments that go far beyond sexual innuendo, and who occupies the most powerful position in the United States.
Can it not also work in reverse? The "yawn" itself was unnecessary and whilst the act cannot be constituted as harassment legally here in Australia, repeated and tolerance to such negative behaviour breeds a poor workplace environment that can be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of others. Clearly the aforementioned has a toxic culture considering it is openly "male-dominated" which can only mean that a woman' survival would require such supposed "thick skin" and so how many women who do not have this "thick skin" but have more talent and capacity then the men sitting around that table are working elsewhere because of it?
Culture is essentially a top-down process and bad leadership enables bad men to behave badly and this all comes down to communication; jokes and a positive working environment and culture is necessary, but within reason. The comment "yawn" is an indication that there is no appreciation for how others feel and whether there was mutual consent between the two parties, there was no inherent respect for the effects such behaviour has overall in the organisation, the industry, and other members present in the room. As one who has experienced bullying by men that took advantage of my vulnerability, I feel tired of having to develop this thick skin when it is not who I am just to survive. The effects of that experience took years and a lot of distress for me to overcome and I took it with me to my new job that I become vigilant of the behaviour of others because of it. It is not fair that I am not allowed to be myself because idiots are dominating.
But to the point, bad conduct can be significantly limited by creating a culture where it's not accepted. There will be those who break the rules, but corporations are really good at self protection and eliminating hazards from within. Compliance officers, in addition to stifling all feelings of human worth, do serve a valuable service.
The story of the guy commenting on the woman's breasts wouldn't have evoked laughter. It've evoked cringes and we'd all be waiting for HR to bust through the door.
The appropriate way to present perverse sexual expression, both express and through thinly veiled innuendo, is by posting anonymously on philosophy websites where the mods let you get away with anything. Hell, I even know of one where they let you be a mod.
So what, once someone supports Trump you can forever attack whatever they say because of their association with an asshole? It's just so ad hom.
Not in accordance with moral standards of behaviour. Not the type of behaviour I enjoy seeing.
Quoting Sapientia
Sure, and I have no issue with them doing this if they like it, but I wouldn't like working in such an office, even if I were to actually laugh at such a comment.
Quoting Sapientia
Why besides? I am sort of on your side, I said I don't personally like it, and wouldn't engage in that sort of office humour, but I don't think it can actually be stopped. Compare that with other people around here who also don't like it, but think we can do everything in the world to bring it to an end through the One Supreme Commandment of political correctness...
Yes, I suppose it could in [i]some[/I] situations. But, to go back to the example, what business is it of a few twenty-somethings, who were not even there, who have read the anecdote and recoiled in horror at what they see as a roomful of old dinosaurs being “inappropriate” towards their “victim”, to be directing their outrage at those on the inside, who were, as they saw it, just having a laugh?
Quoting TimeLine
The yawn was an understandable reaction to a judgemental twenty-something sticking their oar in without fully understanding or appreciating the situation.
It doesn't really breed a poor workplace environment, just as videogames don't really breed violence. This is just scapegoating.
Quoting TimeLine
A toxic culture? What about the testimony of someone who was actually there, and therefore knows the culture better than you do? Let's see:
That doesn't sound very toxic to me. Why must this culture change, rather than those women who can't hack it? Clearly some women are more than capable. They'd be better suited for the job. Working for The Sun isn't for everyone.
I'm not sure I agree with this attitude that the world around me must change to my liking, rather than adapting myself to better suit my environment.
In an office context, I wouldn't openly call someone a cunt. That's for lunch time fun.
But it's just so double standard.
That's fine that they didn't have a problem with it, but let's say the banter continues, and a third person enters this atmosphere. Instead of taking the joke lightly, the person takes offense. So, maybe the person does have to adapt, but adapt to being less civil than he or she is used to. That is a change for the worse. Professionalism is there usually for a reason.
People are usually forced into work situations by circumstances of economics, not because they want to be buddy buddy with their coworkers. Due to the fact that the market economy forces people into these settings with others they would normally not associate with, professionalism makes sense to try to maintain. Now, I agree that being too "professional" or "corporate-y" is going too far in the other direction (e.g., can't reflect your own personality, forcing people to into group-think points of view regarding the organization, vapidly positive slogans, not able to express political or philosophical views, etc. etc.). That is bullshit, yes. But, trying to maintain an atmosphere of civility amongst people who might otherwise not associate other than the workplace is appropriate.
That's not what it usually means. It usually means spiteful, malicious, catty, vindictive... yet they considered it banter - the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks - so that doesn't jibe, nor does that constitute a discord with moral standards of behaviour. And whether that's the type of behaviour that you enjoy seeing is neither here nor there.
Quoting Agustino
Okay, Agustino wouldn't like working in such an office. Duly noted.
Quoting Agustino
It could be, in a limited sense, by clamping down on it. The question is ethical in nature, and consists of whether it should or should not be. Do you have an opinion on that? Are you suggesting that you think that it should not be, despite your personal dislike of it?
My position can be summed up with the idiom about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Quoting Agustino
Okay, point taken. Our respective positions might be closer together in comparison to the positions of others in that regard.
Okay, thanks for explaining that.
Quoting Sapientia
People who want to do that will keep doing that if they have power.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't think the question is ethical, your question is political. With regards to the ethical question, I do think it's unethical. With regards to the political question, whether we should clamp down on it, I don't think we should.
Quoting Sapientia
If you're asking whether I think we should use a hammer to put an end to it, then probably not. Using a hammer has its own deficiencies and can also be abused, for example, to get rid of people you don't like. In addition, it will just breed hypocrisy.
Jokes about "pussy" are built into the language. The word references cats, female anatomy, and plants (pussy willow). It can also reference squeamish men.
If a workplace can sour in a heartbeat because someone makes a joke about a broken pussy, (an injured cat) then that workplace has some serious problems, all right.
We literally know only what Tiff told us about that story. Perhaps the worker got a chance to apologize and instead decided to be a douche. We don't know that.
But I'm sure we all know that attributing defective genetalia to people is a no no in our modern age. As far as I'm concerned you all have Brazzers-worthy primary and secondary sexual attributes, and it would be very polite if y'all assumed the same of me, without us ever having to say anything about it at work.
But I am quite certain she didn't make it up. Tiff is pretty straight arrow.
If I had a rooster with a broken leg, and somebody said I had a busted cock, I would not be offended. I would offer to show them just how operational my cock was, and would laugh along with them. My cock may not be Brazzer-worthy (never heard of them before), but it is eminently satisfactory. It has undergone extensive field testing. Most people's genitalia are, if not splendiferous, at least perfectly adequate.
Neither the lady with the injured...pussycat nor I would be injured in any way, shape, manner, or form by going along with jokes like this -- or even more raucous, guffaw-inducing jokes.
My guess is that leaking radiation from the warehouse probably fried her sense of humor.
It's like you take pleasure in being completely ignorant in terms of what women feel about this kind of thing. Odd to watch. Have you ever spoken to a woman of the modern age? Let me fill you in, for most women strangers joking about their "pussies" makes them feel very uncomfortable, and possibly humiliated.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well bully for you. You're a real tough guy and I'd feel the same. But who gives a toss? The discussion is about women and what should constitute sexual harassment not about your comfortable relationship with your cock (albeit which you and your cock are very welcome to).
So if I walked into an office where stuff like that happened, I wouldn't work there. I'd just give my papers in and resign. I cannot force a business owner to run his place by my rules. If I don't like the rules, I'm free to leave.
But, as it happens, that is the way we work, Sex, or more broadly, libido§ is what drives our personalities, and minds as well. One may not buy a single word of Freud's theory, but it seems pretty clear from experience that the sex driver is pretty central in the operation of our systems. We do have options: We can repress our libidinous drives (which leads to obstreperous neuroticism) or we can sublimate libido, which (Freud says) leads to the production of Civilization.
Whether we choose the Grand Neurosis (which I think a lot of peeps are suffering from -- female peeps in particular -- or the Great Civilization (which not enough people have tried), the broadly defined sex drive is still running the show.
§Sigmund Freud defined libido as "the energy, regarded as a quantitative magnitude... of those instincts which have to do with all that may be comprised under the word 'love'." It is the instinct energy or force, contained in what Freud called the id, the strictly unconscious structure of the psyche.
Bollocks. Offices and other places of work should not be places that effectively exclude women (or the majority of them). And no, as I said before, you don't get to tell women how they should feel about sexism. It would be like telling Bitter Crank not to act like a dinosaur who still thinks it's the 1950s. Totally pointless and counterproductive. ;)
If I want to run my company as a military base for example, who are you or the government to stop me? People who work there will obviously agree with those terms.
Uh, because your business would be nothing without the infrastructure the government provides like roads, education for your workforce etc. Therefore the government has a right to tell you what to do in terms of certain things. If you don't want to be regulated, go set up an acorn selling business in the woods.
Yeah, you mean those dummies in the government :-d ... can't do anything with their lives, entirely useless - so they go into politics. If you fail in everything, that's what you do - you go become a politician and enforce your silly rules on others by force. You take their money, etc.
Quoting Baden
The government should then do something productive. They can't produce anything, communism proved that. The government failed in running production. When they can finally run an efficient operation, then they will have proved to me they know what they're talking about, and the business owner might listen to them. Until then, they should listen to the business owner.
In Europe, darn socialism is spreading everywhere once again...
So silly. Without successive governments, you'd be hanging out in a cave. Yes, governments have their faults but you owe everything you have to their cumulative efforts over centuries. That's not socialism, that's perspective. And common sense. All this BS about you and your business when you are sitting on the shoulders of the very forces you claim are dragging you down. I mean government was instrumental in inventing the internet the very thing you rely on for your business. If they really could do nothing, you wouldn't be able to spout nonsense about them here or earn one red cent from your business.
The cumulative efforts of people who the governments have for centuries robbed, yes.
So without any government, in a state of anarchy over the past few centuries, we'd still have everything we have now in terms of social infrastructure and technology? Is that really your considered analysis?
It's not the 1950s? When did this happen? Why was I not informed at once?
Actually, If you followed my example in real life, and not as I write here (in the 1950s vernacular of antiquated dinosaurs) you would never get into trouble.
I don't recollect ever calling a woman a pussy as a cliché, a slur, or a joke. I never touch women inappropriately, (really, not at all), and behave quite respectfully toward other people, both males and females.
The question is what is legitimate interaction between men and women in the workplace (and elsewhere). I am well aware of what will fly, and what won't in 2017 -- but I disapprove of the map of appropriate behavior boundaries.
It reminds me of a "Rosie the Riveter" kind of story from a WWII documentary about when many women took up male occupations in factories. A machinist told his new female assistant to go to the tool room and get him a bastard file. She objected to the bad language he used. ("Bastard file" is a term of art, having nothing to do with the file's parentage.)
Even in 1945 (never mind 1955, or 2017) there was no reason for a woman to object to the term "bastard", whether it referred to the file or the foreman. There is a long string of words to which anyone might take (and has taken) objection.
In principle, I prefer people have few limitations on what can be said, and I also prefer that people not prepare knee-jerk reactions to a selected word list. In principle, I side with the free-speech prerogatives of the speaker, rather than the sensitivities of the hearer.
A lot of women have no difficulty calling every other male they deal with a "jerk" or "asshole". That's fine, speak freely -- but don't flip out if somebody calls you a bitch.
The free-speech prerogative goes for my own sensitivities as well. I know that a lot of people don't like socialists and homosexuals (It's difficult for some people to settle on which one is more loathsome) and in referencing my political and sexual orientation, they aren't going to be especially complimentary. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I want to be able to speak freely too.
How's that book you're writing?
In pretty much every area except sex I would agree with you. I curse in the workplace and if someone complained I'd think they were being petty and oppressive. Viva the bastard files! I think we do have to recognize though that men and women in general react very differently to sexual talk. I may even be accused of sexism by saying this but I think it's an unavoidable reality.
I sympathize with your views, as a lot of it is context. A manager can say, "This fuckin report is so full of errors, what a bitch this is!". Or he can say to his subordinate, "Get me the FUCKN report NOW!!" in an extremely aggressive tone. Would you say there is a difference there? I would.
Absolutely there is.
Well, I spoke to a woman this afternoon -- but she's 63 years old, I suppose a dinosauress. I had lunch earlier this month with three former co-workers who are now in their late 40s. They were in their early 30s when I worked with them. A good friend at Church is in her 30s.
Now, I get that young women (and young men) in the allegedly totally novel millennial generation have a special set of highly refined sensibilities. I don't mix a lot with this age group. I'm not just 71, I look sort of like Santa Claus. They definitely see me as "not one of them".
I get that the young tend to be more finicky and touchy than us jaded old folks. They are also more likely to be extremist in their views. So was I when I was their age. They were educated under the baleful influence of post modernism, and that has left a mark on their generation that previous generations were mercifully spared.
Maybe, although I doubt there was ever a time, po-mo or no, when most women appreciated jokes about their "broken pussies". My guess is the only thing that's changed now is that they are more likely to speak up about their displeasure.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Of course, the X-ray was of her cat-pussy, not "her" pussy. I pointed out earlier in the thread that this joke is built into the language. Pussy has been a metaphor for genitalia or cats, since the 16th and 17th centuries. according to the OED.
?a1560 in T. Wright Songs & Ballads Reign Philip & Mary (1860) lxxiv. 209 Adew, my pretty pussy, Yow pynche me very nere.
1583 P. Stubbes Anat. Abuses sig. Hv You shall haue euery sawcy boy..to catch vp a woman & marie her... So he haue his pretie pussie to huggle withall, it forceth not.
1699 T. D'Urfey Choice Coll. New Songs 7 As Fleet as my Feet Could convey me I sped; To Johnny who many Times Pussey had fed.
"Pussy" has been used in print with varying frequency, with a peak in 1870 and 1920, then a steady increase from a low in 1960 to a new high in 2000. I'm guessing it's pre-1940s meaning was more "cat" or term of endearment for a very pleasant woman (as used in Uncle Tom's Cabin) than "genitalia". I doubt very much that there was a surge of "Pussy = genitalia" in 1870 and 1920 in print
The 1960-2000 surge in pussy in print probably refers to genitalia, as much as anything else.
Many people are humor challenged, and any sort of double entendre, even one as ready-made and as old as "is that your broken pussy" offends them.
The lady with the broken pussy needn't have looked up pussy in the OED, of course. But one would think that most people would be at least vaguely familiar with the double pussy/pussy metaphor on which the joke here depended.
According to the search engine Google, two of the three most searched terms at present are "penile fracture" and "broken penis". Again, 2009.
Yes, it is possible. The tough lining of the spongy tubes that erect the penis can rip, with a distinct "crack" noise. One has to be engaged in pretty strenuous sex for this to happen. It's very painful, as one would expect.
Appropriately, nobody stalked off to HR to complain about having his or her virgin ears pierced.
Maybe I have beaten this dead pussy long enough.
? Obviously she was as is everyone I presume. That's the point. Your cat / Your genitalia. Har har. But not har har for her or most women or just purely on funny factor for anyone who's heard a million of those jokes already.
It's good, do you want to pre-order a copy? ;)
Sometimes "banter" is not harmless and is a subtle way to dominate the situation by making other's look small.
Sometimes it is a fully conscious effort to put another person down.
I don't think this regulation is at all necessary. Just more bureaucracy
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, in the latter case, the manager may have to change secretary quite frequently :P
That is at least partly wrong. "Mother nature" (or it may be the result of the Fall) may have set up the hardware, but the operating system is by and large self-altering. The brain has what is known as neuroplasticity, and there's a series of drives within the human organism, not just sex.
Quoting Bitter Crank
So broadly defined that it doesn't mean much anymore.
Some people, for example, are driven by curiosity to know more about the world, to find out more about nature, to understand the universe better. And that is their dominating instinct as Nietzsche would say, not sex. In their case, this dominating instinct takes over even the sex drive.
Other people are driven by deep piety and devotion to God, and they seek to deepen their spiritual understanding, reach closer to God in this life and so on. All instincts then become subordinate to this one.
Others are driven to build something in the world, to make a mark, to leave something behind. This is also a form of reproduction, albeit not a sexual one.
Others are driven to build a big family, with all that it takes.
Others are driven to have as much sex as possible and spend almost their entire time being busy with their sexual drive.
And so on. People are very different, we don't all have the same dominating instincts.
Freud, if I remember correctly, didn't have a lot of sex either for most of his life, and viewed this with pride.
Yes, yes, of course, but neuroplasticity does not over-write the basic design of the brain. The limbic and hormonal systems (where our basic drives and emotions come from) are ancient and not given to convenient remodeling.
Quoting Agustino
Libido was always a term describing a strong, vital, but blunt urge, that could be redirected by the will into the sort of constructive activities which you describe in your own life. Or, it can be channelled into debauchery and dissipation, or into a great quest, scholarship, and so on. And, of course, it includes the specific "sex driver".
Quoting Agustino
This is one of the great watershed questions: Are people all alike, or are they all different. There's no proving it, one way or the other -- it's like an article of faith. I hold the view that people are all alike. There's nothing wrong with thinking that we are all different, because people behave the way they behave, either way.
Quoting Agustino
Quite right. That's the result of sublimation, a very noble process where we redirect our most basic, organic drive into sometimes very etherial. That's how civilization get's built.
Sure, but it certainly changes the output. How information is processed by the hardware is more important than the hardware itself generally (unless we're dealing with severe limiting factors like mental retardation, brain damage, etc.)
Quoting Bitter Crank
But if libido simply means that, why not call it "life energy"? Why not call it "spirit"? These words indicate something that has an abundance of energy and must spend it somehow - must pour that energy into the world. And from a strictly physical point of view, that's what human beings are - we take energy in, process it, and then must outpour it back into the world. So a better way to think of this is that there is some primal energy, which isn't sexual in nature, but can become sexual if it is channelled along the sexual path.
Quoting Bitter Crank
But there are practical implications if we go one way or another. It's not a purely metaphysical issue that would remain identical regardless of how the physical world is. If people are all the same, as you hold, then we should expect to be able to turn any one person into any other person in terms of desires and values. But we can't turn one person into another in terms of their values and desires. This seems to be the most evident truth that I've learned so far about people.
Quoting Bitter Crank
See, I don't think this drive is organic. It's just pure energy seeking an outlet. The easiest outlet does happen to be sexual. So this energy goes along the path of least resistance in the absence of a consciousness or reason to direct it differently.
Two sides of the same coin.
That would be the greatest of crimes, and the perpetrator would have to be severely punished, like all deliberate cunts ought to be. This is no laughing matter.
Crucify him, I say, like they did to Jesus, the most deliberate cunt ever to have graced this earth.
Jane Moore, Sue Carroll, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Katie Hopkins...
What thoughts and feelings have these women expressed about this kind of thing?
I spoke to a female friend of mine last night about this, as it happens. We were of like mind and agreed.
Believe it or not, not all women of the modern age think alike or share your opinion.
Depends on the perks level of your kickstarter.
Yes, and sometimes it's otherwise.
Sometimes it's refreshing to listen to an alternative to the predictable mainstream emphasis on political correctness.
Yes it is, and there is no shortage of examples from which to choose. Just consider criminal law and how regularly it's enforced. And parliament is the supreme legislative body.
No, trust me, the misunderstanding is all yours. I neither claimed nor implied that they're the same. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of that idiom I employed.
Your example proves nothing. I could point out a hundred things which I think are unethical, yet within the law. But that wouldn't alter the fact that, contrary to your suggestion, politics, law enforcement, and ethics, have a significant relationship. It is the business of parliament to legislate, and it is the business of the police to enforce the law. Parliament is political, and that which is political has a foundation in ethics. Your liberalism is no exception.
Only because we live in times of plenty.
If you push the conditions, almost everything we tolerate could become of such importance that we would consider reasonnable to no longer be tolerant of it.
Such as the last man on an Earth filled with women refusing to reproduce because he happens to like dudes.
Quoting Sapientia
Still, it's not the business of the law to legislate morality. Yes, no doubt there are correlates between the law and morality, but they are by no means identical, nor as related as you want them to be.
Now we're at a time where sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself because of the aforementioned nuances and multiple interpretations.
Is this a great loss to society? Should we mourn the loss of crude sexual jokes at work? Would any of you even make the same jokes in a boardroom setting? Call me a prude, but I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on a female coworkers body.
If this is a great loss for some of you and you're looking for a utopia of unrestricted language, I would recommend you get a job in construction.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
Yeah, I've heard such comments in boardroom settings too (amongst business owners I've worked for in the past), of course. The idea that installing these "politically correct" barriers will do anything but enact hypocrisy is wishful thinking. What is required is a spiritual change in people, which cannot be achieved politically.
I don't think enacting rules in spite of yourself is necessarily hypocritical. People are capable of comporting themselves differently based on their environment. People can generally govern their speech while at church or in court. I don't see why a boardroom couldn't be the same.
I read your other post about the stringent rules in the USA as well. I worked for a US company for awhile with a US manager and once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. He called me over and said I couldn't say that to a woman. Since I was one of the three in-house attorneys I naturally lied about the standards in the Netherlands being medieval with regard to sexual harassment and avoided getting fired.
What I'd like to ask is what do posters feel about "battle of the sexes" banter - joking about stereotypes like men are no good at such 'n such; women are no good at this 'n that. Is that acceptable? For the record I think it probably is, though not always scintillating. But I am open to dissuasion...
At least 50% of your list are right-wing racists. Katie refugees-are-cockroaches Hopkins and her ilk are the lowest of the media low. They sell an ideology of ignorance to the worst elements of society to which for some unknown reason you've decided to tether your rope. If you think a significant proportion of women would laugh along with you as you mock them sexually or guffaw about their "broken pussies", you're seriously misguided. Try it in the real world and see how you get on. There may be some argument for dialling back PC in some of its guises but you seem to be saying little more than you should have the right to verbally trample on whomever you so wish because it amuses you.
The idea that only a minority of males can function in a zero-tolerance environment is kinda de la merde, tho.
How are men and women supposed to assess their co-workers romantic potential if they can not engage in the normal female/female. male/male, or male/female interaction that spawns friendship, romance, and marriage?
The preliminaries to asking someone out involve flirting, touching (and I'm not talking about running a hand up a woman's thigh, or down a man's trousers, here), banter, and so on. I consider it meet, right, and salutary that people should pursue personal goals like friendship and romance at work.
Granted, many people at work are already married or already partnered. Some people are all business all the time, and can't be bothered by frivolous socializing. No profitability in that! But still, all that has to be sorted out in a group--who is available and who is not.
You already know that I have no understanding of millennial women (so strange a species, unlike any generation before) so you will understand why I don't quite understand how they are ever going to get laid by anybody--male or female, let alone find a husband and have children (Gawd, what a pathetic patronizing patriarchal thing to say--total insensitivity!!! Get married and have children? What cave did he crawl out of???) if they can't find a way to interact more enthusiastically with men. Look, you know as well as I do that this discourse applies to on-campus and post-campus socializing as well. It doesn't apply ONLY to the work place.
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Benkei
Benkei's experience of being reprimanded for complimenting Ms. Dutch on her dress illustrates where these finicky rules about behavior end up.
I don't know whether it would be a good thing for us all to spend an Encounter Weekend together or not. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of leaping to conclusions on the basis of posts which can't be judged in the context of people's actual behavior.
I would argue that is too prudish even for me. There's nothing inherently sexual about complimenting someone unless you are speaking about specific parts of their body. That or saying "nice dress" as creepily as possible. Who knows, maybe Benkei is a creep? ;)
I don't think Benkei should have been reprimanded for that. But it's a far cry from any of the examples we've been discussing so far.
They can as far as I'm concerned. But what's that got to do with commenting on their tits and pussies?
Quoting Bitter Crank
There's banter and banter. I've engaged in banter at work but again not gone the tits or pussies route. That wouldn't have worked with any woman I've ever been interested in.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Again, I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the discussion but the examples given (apart from Benkei's) weren't anything to do with flirtation they were obnoxious comments about tits and pussies. What am I missing here?
I don't recollect tits having been mentioned in this thread. Tits doesn't seem to be a frequently used words -- somebody did reference great tits in a thread, but that was literally a bird, not a breast.
Well, never mind the missing tits.
I was in the workforce for 40+ years, and there were only two places where words such as pussy, tits, and ass (as in anatomical ass/arse) were used. One was an 8 month stint at a Job Corps in 1968 where the black corpsmen were always talking about pussy. The other was 9 years at the Minnesota AIDS Project where just about everything sexual was talked about in excruciating detail at one time or another. This really was a place without boundaries. The workforce was about 50% straight women and 50% gay men. "Pussy" wasn't a term that I heard often.
in the 33 years at other jobs, really very typical work places--colleges, non-profit agencies, etc. I can recollect hearing or seeing very, very few instances of inappropriate sexualized behavior. People just didn't behave this way. Of course there was conflict -- sometimes very heated -- but it was over other issues, like office politics, personal snits, favoritism, and the like. Some of the workplaces were sick -- very bad interpersonal relations, but sexuality just didn't figure much. Maybe Minnesota is different than the coasts? Not better, just different. More tightly wrapped? Lots of Lutherans? Better levels of education? Better corporate leadership? Don't know.
Maybe my experience is abnormal; maybe I wasn't paying attention to what was happening; maybe I wasn't around when people were being naughty, don't know.
Well, the OP example was about breasts though the specific word "tits" wasn't used :
Then came Tiff's example about pussy which we've discussed. That's the type of thing I find objectionable not comments about dresses and so on.
So what? That the person is entirely inconsistent from one thread to the next, is hypocritical, or whatever, hardly affects the truth value of any given statement.
I lied about lying by the way but I just wanted to illustrate that the rules, and as a result probably the expectations of employees too, are different in different countries. As to the exact compliment, I said: "That's a really pretty dress and the colours suit you." I don't think that's sexual harassment by any stretch of the imagination in the USA but it is telling people (a well paid manager who isn't stupid) think it could be.
Too many men that are too oblivious about basic etiquette? Men and women aren't really talking to each other beyond superficial "how you doin'?" so they don't know what each other's boundaries are? I don't know.
Part of the context could be she had to deal with comments like that everyday combined with an undercurrent of unwanted attention. It gets old really fast and could've come across as creepy instead of funny. On its own it seems harmless enough but we don't really know.
Being called aside is all that was going to happen even without your bogus excuse most likely. It's not like major corporations vest significant authority in middle management, nor can anyone do anything without following some tortuous process, including firing someone on the spot. If the woman formally complained, HR would investigate and then decide what to do to you, from being chastized, to being forced through sensitivity training, to being forced to wear the same dress and being ridiculed yourself so you'd know how she felt, to being terminated, although very very doubtful.
Since you are struggling to understand American culture, to help you out, I would suggest a better line than the simple "that dress looks good on you," is you should say, "that dress looks good on you, but it would look better crumpled up on my bedroom floor. " That way she will know you simply like her dress wherever it is, and you are making no reference to her anatomy.
Following my advice will assure you of a long successful career in the US. Thank me later.
Bitter, you didn't respond to the question about the difference between the two statements- one where the boss is swearing in general about circumstances, and one where he directly points it in an aggressive manner to a subordinate. A lot of it is context. Things you mention like certain forms of banter and flirting or whatnot, are usually not thought about as aggressive or alarming. People generally have a common sense understanding of how the interpersonal dynamics work amongst their peers. That is the sentiment I think you are trying to convey, and I agree. People generally have a sense of what is within the boundaries of conduct, and things that are awkwardly or alarmingly outside the norm. In other words, it is when a co-worker/boss repeatedly crosses the barrier into hostile or oddly uncomfortable that things are not right. There are certain aggressive personality types that run roughshod right over civility.
It's doubly bad if it is then defended and allowed to continue. So, just as an ultra PC culture stifling, boring, and allows for no humanness (which we agree on), not addressing what are disturbing (often times operating just below the radar as to not cause too much alarm) behaviors in forced settings of social interaction is also not good practice for a healthy culture or personal welfare.
How about if a boss says, "Don't even mention my wife, sometimes I feel like hitting her". Hmm, that to me sounds like overtones of domestic violence, and a person not on the level- even if the joke was some meant as some sort of "salt of the earth" quip like "One of these days Alice!" from the Honeymooners. Should that be cause for making people uncomfortable? Now its not directed at someone directly in the room but it certainly has the air of aggressive-personality type and for women, can especially be alarming. How about a boss that says "I'm gonna blow my fuckn head off" when he gets frustrated about some minor detail, etc. etc. Does that engender an atmosphere of calm and stability? There are ways to make a workplace hostile, and as I and Baden said earlier, people are essentially forced into workplaces in general. Even though people can quit on a whim, being that this is how first world humans survive, it disrupts people's lives significantly to do something like that. It is when the behavior crosses into that bizarre zone that cannot quite be quantified but somehow feels like an uncomfortable or violating atmosphere. The reason it is hard to distinguish is that it is hard to determine when something is crossing that boundary unless you are the person who thinks it is being crossed.
People spend more time at work then they do at home and some people - like myself - depend on the financial income to survive; such aggressive comments breed a toxic culture and ultimately lead to this "male-dominated environment" and it is the latter that is unethical. The organisational values like integrity that an industry or company hold is a whole lot broader than one simple remark because - while it may be 'isolated' (though I doubt this considering that the environment is now male-dominated) - it is nevertheless in contravention of these values and that's that. It is journalism we are talking about and therefore there is no excuse that it is male dominated rather than, say, a profession that requires physical duress. To say, "well, bad luck to the woman who can't survive that" is unethical as it ignores the rights of women in principle, even if she has adapted to this toxic environment.
Not to turn the attention away from the subject, but what is with the ageist remarks by the way? Dinosaurs, twenty-somethings? I think that once you pass 21 you should be mature enough to understand the difference between your left and right hand.
Quoting Sapientia
It is not a matter of being there or not, that is the point, and what a dumbass thing to say the women who can't hack it should not be there; no, the obnoxious one's should not be there. And what, so if you are not present in a domestic violence situation, does that mean that a frightened wife who testifies for her husband is actually engaging in an honest critique of the situation? Just because Sue is engaging in the same obnoxious behaviour does not suddenly make her equal or the vulgarity justifiable. It just makes her adaptable to a toxic environment. That completely rejects talent, intelligence, capacity because of aggressive men who rise up the ranks not because they are talented, intelligent and capable but because they bully their way up.
Quoting Sapientia
It is the same the other way around, mate, the world is not a philosophy forum where people are protected by the vastness of virtual space. You sign a contract where you say you will comply with the rules and the rules are clear, otherwise, don't work there.
Great point. (Y)
High five!
Is it a great loss? Maybe not. Does it need to be? No.
I for one am glad to see that there are still people who actually stop and think about these things instead of merely jumping on board the bandwagon.
But perhaps you lot are right. Let's not discuss the matter. Let's instead drive people off the planet or direct them to a job in construction.
It's not always a bad thing to jump on a bandwagon when the alternative is to sit in the gutter. If you're looking for something thoughtful to read on this issue, I'd recommend @TimeLine and @schopenhauer1 rather than The Sun.
:-O (!)
The problem wasn't probably that you were sexist, that was merely a pretext to get back at you for daring to do something that could be flirty with HIS secretary. This is exactly what I mean with regards to this political correctness. It is just a weapon, and nothing else.
Well, interestingly, what this discussion has seemingly demonstrated is that the tongue-in-cheek use of sexist stereotypes as bait, like that of shrill complaining women, is considered more acceptable than responding in kind, which is considered to be something which ought to be flagged and censored.
It's interesting where people draw the line.
What have I been saying? What's the big point that I have been trying to emphasise? [I]Context matters[/I].
So no, it is not at all how it seems to you. I want to shatter that illusion. I am not so stupid or so arrogant as to think that I've got an absolute right to say [i]what[/I] I wish, to [i]who[/I] I wish, irrespective of circumstance.
But I do appreciate someone who can take a joke - even if it is a little risqué - and that includes women - [i]real[/I] women, out there in the [I]real[/I] world, in our [i]modern[/I] times. That they might be regarded as black sheep is not always the great deterrent that some might wish it to be.
And [i]no[/I], this isn't all about Katie "refugees-are-cockroaches" Hopkins or Sue "chocolate-soldier" Carroll.
Duly noted.
Whether one is the legitimately offended, or foolishly offended person, or whether one is the legitimate offender, or the foolishly named offender, depends on details, details, details. One of the things that often happens in these kinds of discussions (not just here, everywhere) is that the details are compressed into a black cube and a white cube, decontextualizing the facts of the case.
Jack made a joke, jill took umbrage, a brouhaha ensued. Why Jack made that joke in that particular way, why Jill was so offended, will soon get lost in a new set of details located in the brouhaha. Everybody engages in the decontextualizing, because it's just much easier to talk about the black cube and the white cube than sort through all the details, which themselves will be contested.
"below the radar" you said. Yes. The last -- and worst -- place I worked at in a 40 year work life was a service agency where the forms were followed quite closely. Racist/sexist comments and "inappropriate" behaviors were scrupulously avoided by the staff. The clients were a rich mix of races, both sexes and a few transgendered, and quite a few with very troubled lives.
But "below the radar" the place was a mess of passive-aggression, subtle games of isolation and playing staff against each other, favoritism, and so on.
It took a while to tease out how this all worked, and it wasn't till after I had left that the patterns of behavior became clearer.
There was no less racism, sexism, gay and straight masculine chauvinism or feminine manipulation, etc. here than anywhere else, it was just deeply submerged. It might have been an easier place to work, and a less toxic one, if people had just come out with ordinary, run of the mill sexism, racism, agism, homophobia, etc. rather than the rococo cuckoo craziness that reigned supreme there.
There are details on the radar screen which are addressed in social rules and regulations. It's much more difficult to diagnose and remedy details that are below the radar. It is not impossible, though, and remediation has helped. Putting more women into management positions, for instance, helps. As sex, and race problems work their way up the hierarchy, it isn't only males that do the evaluation. Details matter here too, of course. A ruthless, vindictive authoritarian woman in management is as bad as a ruthless, vindictive authoritarian man -- and yes, both types exist.
How wide a range of behavior can the radar screens encompass? How does "radar" detect and display the rococo craziness of individuals and organizations? I don't know.
Yes, it can. That would be this:
But remember, that's not what actually happened.
What actually happened was an exchange of remarks, in a good-humoured teasing way, between people regarded as equals, which resulted in laughter.
Quoting Baden
In return, I want to emphasise that that's a generalisation, and that there are exceptions. There was no asymmetry between Sue and her male colleagues. They were regarded as equals. She did not feel threatened, humiliated, or bullied. She considered it banter and gave as good as she got. There are likely many more women like Sue.
Given the above, it suddenly seems much less inappropriate to brush off the objection of the twenty-something who wasn't even there by telling her to stop being so politically correct.
And again, it needn't be a "great loss". You'll find that that's not a term that I've used to describe the consequences of rigidly adhering to political correctness in the workplace. I would, however, consider it at least a minor loss if my workplace environment drastically changed in line with this sort of interpretation of political correctness. I'm very supportive of political correctness when it seems right, but not otherwise.
A colleague of mine said something hilarious at work just the other day, and it was obvious that he wasn't being serious, but it [i]could[/I] have been interpreted as threatening violence. No one saw it that way, and nothing came of it. Inappropriate or not, it was a good laugh.
Withdrawn.
(And yes, I understand what an ad hominem tu quoque is).
Yes, quite. But it happened to be a twenty-something in the example, so that's what I've been referring back to.
Your reply has given me some food for thought, but I think we're just talking past each other to a large extent. When you condemn a toxic environment, bullying, and so on, you're preaching to the choir. Obviously, no one would condone that. But what's what is more nuanced than you make it sound.
Yes they would, actually, and I am one of them. Why? Well, because once again, [i]context matters[/I]. There's an episode of Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle that gets that point across quite well, which I'd recommend.
Also, regarding the use of the word 'nigger', I refer you, specifically, to the part about six minutes in, although the whole thing is worth a watch. (Interestingly, near the start of the video, he also makes a point regarding this 'just a joke' defence of which you speak).
It went to court. He won the case and received over £50,000 in libel damages.
Anyway, thanks for the reply, but not for the part where you get all personal. Other than that part, it was a good reply.
No, I know the episode well, and the discussion here made me think of that as well. But, as a reply to what I said, that's changing the subject. It's not a competition to see who can agree the most with Stewart Lee. The specific point I was making was clearly about the importance of context, not the importance of political correctness.
I hope you read more of the post than that. Getting personal about hatespeech and sexism is the best way to change people's minds, I've found. If the person you're talking to has a little respect for you, or at least thinks you're not a waste of space, then it feels pretty bad to be chewed out by them. Rhetorical strategy.
Still, I don't want to be remembered as a sexist grandpa.
I can understand you rolling your eyes at the first post. The second one makes the case with less patronising and inflammatory language. Your call.
This is sadly many office space work environments. You put personality types of various stripes into the same office from various backgrounds, all with various principles, and you have a recipe for an uncomfortable 8 hours +.
Quoting Bitter Crank
You mean, you recovered from your PTSD? ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
So how is antinatalism not a good option in the face of the fact most newborns are destined for the neon fluorescent lights and dreary interpersonal dynamics of the office space? :D. Places like Google and such try to dress it up a bit, but it's the same wherever humans are coordinating in a managerial-type setting and coworkers of various beliefs and ethics. Also, being that this style has been around for about 100 years, and not much has changed since the child labor and 8-hour workday laws, we are stuck in this unimaginative mode of life for some time to come.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yep, any race and sex, any person can be as vindictive and authoritarian as the next.
Quoting Bitter Crank
When you dread walking in the door everyday. To walk into a cubicle office space environment and stay glued to an office building for 8 hours is madness. You have to readjust your brain that you are really going to devote your time and energy to this. Of course, the work place BS occurs in work settings of all stripes, not just the cube kind. Schools, hospitals, construction sites, coal mines, universities- you name it, there are probably awful politics, unhealthy interpersonal dynamics, and abusive power relations going on. But I suppose because it isn't subsistence farming and malaria, we should all be appreciative.
it was a sort of PTSD. And yes, the rococo craziness of the industrial office work space is probably a full and sufficient reason never to have children, if they have even a small chance of ending up there.
I think this is absolutely the case, and moreover, I think context is exactly what is lost in the reactionary responses like that of the OP article and other cries of witch-hunting and so on. It's crystal clear that the context of the recent up-swell against the pervasive harassment of women (not just 'in the office' but also - and importantly - in the street as well) has to do precisely with its overwhelming social ubiquity. In a time and culture where women are routinely judged by their sex to the detriment of their life experiences, it is just that routinization that is being fought against. That is the context, and it is precisely that context which is lost in the reactionary attempt to shift the level of analysis from the social to the individual. That 'work banter may just be harmless fun' thus may be true, but it is also entirely irrelevant, insofar as it aims to displace the focus on a social problem - obvious to anyone who has contact with sunlight and air - onto a sophistic focus on atomized, localized and context-free cases.
Also, there's something irredeemably pathetic in the sentiment expressed by some here that without the crutch of sexual harassment, they can't fathom how it is that anyone can get laid. Consider perhaps that this is total failure of imagination and an impotency of sexual prowess rather than anything even resembling an indictment on society.
Blasphemy!
There's no "common sense" defense to claims of sexual harassment in the wonderful world of the law. Those who complain that "common sense" establishes that there is no actionable claim are mere fools at best. Those subject to the law should simply act prudently given the law or accept responsibility for the consequences of not doing so. And be damned if they don't.
Yes, yes, I take your point.
When I was a lad in days of yore, there were a thousand schoolboy jokes about the foolishness of the Irishman, always called Paddy,who always worked on a building site. And another thousand about a well endowed black man whose name I forget.
This was the time when there were places advertised for rent with signs, "no Irish, no blacks, no dogs".
To be the butt of derogatory jokes is to be subject to ritual humiliation, and is part of the process and justification of 'endangerment'. Jokes are fake news, that rely on, and so reinforce, the acceptance of the unspoken stereotype. Jokes have always been at the heart of prejudice, bullying, and systematic oppression, as a glance at German Nazi propaganda will illustrate. and accusations of hypersensitivity and lack of sense of humour are just as commonplace accusations in defence of oppression.
@jamalrob (N)
(Y)
“Many a true word hath been spoken in jest.” ? William Shakespeare, King Lear
I am beginning to see a pattern. It seems like whenever you respond directly to me we get a straw man or something else that misses the point.
I think that the point Kipnis was making is that there's a big difference between a woman's boss telling her "Perform oral sex on me! I could terminate your employment, you know!" and a group of guys sharing a dirty joke at the water cooler.
Yes, one is an expression utilising a shared background of institutionalised prejudiced to furnish its acceptance and is acceptable, and one is an expression utilising a shared background of institutionalised prejudiced to furnish its acceptance and is not acceptable.
Yes, I agree that is her point, and I agree that some shit is smellier than other shit. There are grades of it.
But it all belongs in the toilet, and none of it by the water cooler. You can call that a straw man if you like, and it will indeed be a pattern, as long as people seek to justify oppressive, demeaning, and totally unnecessary behaviour.
No.
It is apples and oranges, not varying degrees of the same thing.
Quoting unenlightened
Your personal attitude towards it contributes nothing to resolving the issue.
It could, however, encourage the behavior that you detest. The fact that it gets people to respond like you are responding probably affirms the attitudes, beliefs, power structures, etc. that generate it.
If a joke is so bad that it harms people, it probably isn't a funny joke.
Something objective that can't be refuted is probably going to be a lot more effective than something subjective like "That belongs in the toilet". Try, "That is not funny. The punchline is based on a stereotype that educated people started seeing as false a long time ago".
Quoting unenlightened
Saying that logic does not matter is not a good idea, especially if you want rational people to hear what you are trying to say.
Speaking of logic, I hope your use of the words "justify oppressive, demeaning, and totally unnecessary behaviour" do not refer to me. I brought up a point made by a woman who was arguing against something that she saw as harmful to women. We can only conclude that you think that it is "justifying oppressive, demeaning, and totally unnecessary behaviour" for someone to think critically, rationally and objectively about something and then share her concern about how it harms women.
If "justify oppressive, demeaning, and totally unnecessary behaviour" refers to somebody else in this thread, where is it? I haven't seen anybody trying to justify anything. I have seen people expressing frustration with laws that they believe make life miserable for innocent, harmless people.
Even if you do not see things the way that they do, a little empathy would probably bridge the gulf between you and them and give resolving the issue a better chance.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Is it a fine line, or is it apples and oranges?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Perhaps you can point to where I said that? But am I talking to rational people? If I was, I would expect them to respond to the historical examples, from Nazi propaganda and from my own youth, of humour being used to normalise oppression. You know, some logic or counter example to show that it does not do that in this case?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Well you might conclude that I do not consider it critical, rational, objective thinking. If you did that, you might want to try and convince me, by expanding the argument, that it was those things. Given that this is a philosophy forum, it would be a fairly reasonable conclusion.
You claim logic and rationality, but instead of presenting evidence and argument, you criticise my attitude and rhetoric. And note, please, that while it is a good idea to pay attention to what women are saying about this, their positions vary, and just as there are strong pressures against making complaints about serious oppression, so there are about minor issues, and even against recognising them.
There is an argument that it is a mistake to put together what are sometimes called 'micro-aggressions', including the sort of thing we are discussing, and the more serious abuses of power, not because they are apples and oranges, but because they are motes and beams. There is some sense to this tactically, but there is also an argument the other way, which I tend to favour, of zero tolerance.
[quote=wiki]Various institutions have undertaken zero-tolerance policies, for example, in the military, in the workplace, and in schools, in an effort to eliminate various kinds of illegal behavior, such as harassment. Proponents hope that such policies will underscore the commitment of administrators to prevent such behavior. Others raise a concern about this use of zero-tolerance policies, a concern which derives from analysis of errors of omission versus errors of commission. Here is the reasoning: Failure to proscribe unacceptable behavior may lead to errors of omission—too little will be done. But zero tolerance may be seen as a kind of ruthless management, which may lead to a perception of "too much being done". If people fear that their co-workers or fellow students may be fired, terminated, or expelled, they may not come forward at all when they see behavior deemed unacceptable.[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance
When I say I favour zero tolerance, though, I mean I favour it in terms of discussing and responding. I wouldn't want to see anyone lose their job over a joke, but I don't either want to leave unanswered, the suggestion that jokes are harmless; they are not.
What determines if a joke is so bad that it "harms people"? What is the working definition of "harm" you are using?
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
This citation from Forbes article titled Sexual Jokes And Lewd Conversations In The Workplace: Where's The Line? is from 2012. I would be curious as to what the *updates have been in the years since, most importantly through the year 2017, which is quickly ending. If I were a betting person, I would place all my chips on a Revised Employee Manual for 2018.
Your expectation is itself irrational, since rational people can decide not to respond to a point, yet remain rational - especially if that point is itself irrational, as it would be if it was an appeal to extremes or an association fallacy, as these comparisons seem to be. A rational person can acknowledge that humour can be used to normalise oppression, as in Nazi Germany and elsewhere, whilst rejecting your implications in raising that here. Rational people are still people, and people can get tired of bullshit.
Quoting unenlightened
Who is it that you think has made this suggestion, and where do you think that they've suggested it? If a rational person were to read, say, the title of this discussion, or that quote from the Forbes article, that is not what they'd conclude.
It's right there in the same post in the wiki quote I am discussing.
No, I would like a straight answer, please. Can you confirm whether or not you think that anyone involved in this discussion has made that suggestion? And, if that is what you think, then can you name those who you think have made that suggestion, and provide quotations where you think that they have done so. And, if that is not what you think, then will you concede that you're attacking a straw man?
Cutting through the you-know-what, I take that to be an admission that no one here has actually made the simplistic suggestion I was referring to, namely that jokes are harmless, which means that addressing that alleged suggestion instead of what is actually being argued is to attack a straw man. Don't worry, Mr. Hardliner, I get it: it is easier, and provides you with an illusory sense of having injured the opponents you face here where the debate is taking place. But is that what a rational person would do?
No, that is not a certainty, merely your skewed interpretation. I would implore you to set aside whatever emotions you happen to perceive in my replies, as the content is more important than the tone; and to bring up the latter is, as usual, a distraction from what really matters.
I am just trying to keep things on track, assess what yourself and others are saying, and hold people to account. If we are both in agreement that no one here has made the simplistic suggestion which you addressed, then we can move on.
Can a good joke not be at least somewhat harmful to someone?
The majority of jokes have a little kernel of honest cruelty in them. Jokes about the English, for instance, are generally a mite insulting. The English butt of the joke is depicted as critically inadequate in some way -- culinarily, sexually, linguistically, politically... something.
A joke has to hit home in some small way to be funny. A joke about how gays are style blind (meaning that they couldn't tell a polka dot from a plaid if their lives depended on it) isn't funny, because it doesn't resonate. A joke about gays and promiscuous oral sex has a better chance of success--it has a bit of cruel truthfulness to it. (Can a gay man safely laugh at a joke about gays and oral sex? Probably not.)
Maybe we should not even be telling jokes.
What sort of jokes do you tell, or laugh at? Silly limericks? Safe puns? Cockney rhymes?
It's easier to criticise the suggestion that nobody here seems to have suggested, that jokes are harmless, and it's easier to criticise its contrary, claimed by unenlightened, that jokes are not harmless.
But what would I know about jokes? X-)
Like the man said, it's all about context. If the context is The Last Leg, a show hosted by disabled comics, disability jokes and gross insults between them are fine by me, but I wouldn't feel at all fine making some of those same jokes at the disabled hotel where I used to work.
Yes cruelty is part of much humour, and the critical contexts it seems to me relate to power and responsibility on the one hand, and ubiquity and avoidability on the other. I generally prefer jokes directed at power and status to those directed by power and status at vulnerability; or jokes directed at oneself rather than at others.
So gay jokes by gays to gays are potentially empowering, but gay jokes at my boarding school back in the day when homosexuality was a crime were disempowering. Likewise, jokes about tits amongst women are one thing, and the same jokes in a male- dominated workplace are another.
So where are we? The best philosophy forum on the net, I'd say, and one that is, like most of philosophy, dominated by white men. So what kind of humour is appropriate here? Well you know my opinion.
So it's only appropriate to joke about dominating white men here? You must be having a laugh.
We are on the best philosophy forum on the net and as it often does, it reflects what is going on in the society at large.
True. The difficulty has arisen because something has been thrown away. The distinction is easily articulated as 'good manners' and the proof was to respect other people's feelings and to put the needs of others before one's own. These things still exist and are thankfully very common but people feel embarrassed and prudish to mention them in such easily understood terms. So they are driven to talk about contextualisation, appropriateness, banter, harassment, disempowerment and oppression: all useful concepts, but often invoked where 'let's mind our manners' will do the job well enough.
When people are on a crusade to do things like destroy "the patriarchy", it won't do the job for them at all to say "Let's mind our manners". On the contrary, they'll likely tell you that those manners were created by men in a male-dominated society in order to keep women in their place and maintain male privilege.
The irony is that they don't see how censoring speech is itself a form of oppression.
What has gotten lost in all of this is respect. People have a right to their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes, etc. Other people have a right not to be exposed against their will to those thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes, etc. when they are harmful. People on neither side of the issue mutually respects those rights, it seems.
It is all self-interested politics and extremist ideology, it seems safe to say.
The workplace in industrial society probably wasn't very diverse at one time. But it is very diverse now. Part of that diversity includes people who like to indulge in banter, dirty jokes, etc. Condemning them as misogynists, male chauvinists, an old boy network, female enablers of misogyny, etc. is no more inclusive than their words and actions that make the workplace uncomfortable for people not like them. Should feminists in the workplace be allowed to say things in front of everybody like, "Men are all misogynists afraid of losing their privilege"? That is not anymore inclusive than non-African-Americans using the n word.
But not only do we have people in this thread who are not speaking on behalf of respect and inclusiveness for all, we have them saying that some people's thoughts and words "belong in the toilet". We have them saying that anybody who tells certain jokes is a contributor to genocide and other evils.
It is illiberalism, basically. It is McCarthyism.
None us are omniscient. None of us can read other people's minds. Somebody telling a joke could be a card-carrying misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc. Or he/she could be caving in
to pressure to fit in against his/her better judgement. Or he/she may not know better; he/she may honestly believe that the joke is harmless and would be surprised to learn that anybody was hurt or offended by it. Only he/she knows. It is not the job of the government or other organizations that serve the public to judge people. Moral witch hunts are not a good use of resources by government or business. That is probably why the diversity program at one job I had said, "Focus on the behavior, not the person".
Clearly, we have people here who want to co-opt government and business to indirectly censor things that they believe cause social harm. In my humble opinion, they are no less illiberal than a business owner who denies homosexuals public accommodations as a way to advance his/her ideology, agenda, etc.
Everybody's focus should be on finding a happy medium that makes the workplace and other environments as inclusive as possible in a diverse, pluralistic liberal democracy. Calling people misogynists cannot be part of that inclusiveness. Insisting on having the right to tell jokes that some people find hurtful or offensive cannot be part of it either.
Alas, we live in a time when society is extremely polarized. Things like compromise, respect for those who disagree with you, finding common ground, etc. seem to be a thing of the past. Just look at how this thread has unfolded if you do not know what I mean.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
See here.
Indeed. 'Crusade' is perhaps a tad hyperbolic, but it seems inevitable in a topic like this that there will be some unpleasantness. Nobody has been burned at the stake so far, but there is no painless way to say to someone, 'I think you are behaving badly, and you need to change'. I accept that I have made myself unpleasant, and also that I have at times over-reacted and expressed myself unnecessarily harshly. Nobody's perfect, and one really needs to be perfect when criticising others. Still, there are some charges that I will offer a defence to, if I may.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
This is a commonplace nonsense. To claim that the prevention of oppression is oppression is simply to refuse to allow any meaning to the term. It does not require a bully to prevent bullying.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
'Extremist' is rather unclear; I would think that anything a long way from one's own position seems extreme, but in that sense it is not any criticism. But since I am a man arguing on behalf of women philosophers, I reject the charge of self-interest. It is not safe to say that.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Well you are using a language that has not been much used: "male chauvinists, an old boy network, female enablers of misogyny". It's a long thread, and I might have missed them, but I don't recollect using or seeing these terms.
No. But no one has suggested that they should be, and no one has said anything of the sort on this thread either.
I'll plead guilty to the first, but not guilty to the second. I pointed out that humour can be and has been used, and generally has the effect of, normalising and legitimising dehumanising attitudes. That does not equate to accusing anyone who tells an off-colour joke, or shows the effect of such normalising of genocide. Nevertheless, genocide can be the extreme result of such dehumanising, and this is a fact that should give one good reason to be careful. Genocide is not committed by monsters, but by ordinary and even intelligent people - people like me, and people like anyone else.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
But that is the job of the government. I remember a time when it was quite normal for folks to drink six pints of beer and then drive home, and there was no law against it. It was made illegal, and a long campaign was waged by the government to make it socially unacceptable - against a deal of opposition along the lines of "not the government's business, a restriction of freedom, nanny state, how do they know what I'm like after six pints," etc. Folks honestly believed it was harmless. And they felt insulted, oppressed and angry when told that it was not.
Some secretaries are much better than others. X-)
That's kinda the point Sap is making, I think. It's not sexual harassment - as in unwelcomed - if the parties involved aren't offended. Is it?
I know lots of folk who wouldn't be offended at all with innocent playful remarks that are not intended to harm. I also know lots of folk who hold that all sexual remarks are offensive. The law errs on the side of the latter.
Isn't witnessing a crime but not reporting it against the law?
Here's an idea. We could mind our manners, but not at all times, so as to allow for occasional workplace banter, which sometimes really is just harmless fun. It's all about common sense.
Alternatively, we could all have a stick up our respective arse.
It's the 'don't be a prude' objection that I mentioned.. But if a person has to demean or domineer in order to have a laugh then learning manners (respect and putting others first) is not the only challenge facing them, though it is probably one of them.
Common sense is only understood when people already have a shared view. But it's only appealed to or needed when they don't. So it's a concept of rather limited use.
On the question whether smashing the patriarchy that invented manners as a way of oppressing women is more important:- I think the patriarchy in question is the process of men belittling, disrespecting, domineering and excluding women from opportunities. I doubt whether that patriarchy invented good manners (respect and self-denial). It's not the patriarchal style. But there is lot of under-cover demeaning that masquerades as good manners. I can quite believe the patriarchy invented that.
[quote=Masha Gessen]In the current American conversation, women are increasingly treated as children: defenseless, incapable of consent, always on the verge of being victimized. This should give us pause. Being infantilized has never worked out well for women.[/quote]
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/sex-consent-dangers-of-misplaced-scale
The other relevant one:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/when-does-a-watershed-become-a-sex-panic
One of the most important points she makes, aside from the one about the infantilization of women, is that sexual assault and harassment (the latter of which I think can be usefully defined here as repeated and sometimes coercive sexual advances when the advancer knows his attention is unwelcome) are trivialized when they're conflated with unwelcome flirting (you don't know until you try) and drunken bad sex. That this conflation is happening in the present discourse I think shows that predatory and coercive sexual behaviour is being essentialized as something intrinsic to being a man, on a continuum alongside normal sexual interaction.
There's a pretty balanced podcast on Slate where they talk about whether what we're seeing is a moral panic ("sex panic"). Generally they see it as a very good thing that sexual coercion and assault are being exposed, but they do have concerns that it is indeed becoming a moral panic--and personally I would go much further than they do in those concerns.
http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/doublex_gabfest/2017/11/doublex_gabfest_on_kill_all_normies_sex_panic_and_she_s_gotta_have_it.html?ref=hvper.com
Perhaps all dating, sexual encounters, and intimate male/female relations in general are victimizing women in unfair power dynamics. Well, if it hastens antinatalism- so be it. Less dating, less sex, less people are born, less suffering in the world.
Everyone can move to their respective lonely corners, reflect on the absurdity of the 80+ possible years of their human life, maintaining themselves, occupying their minds with whatever entertainments, bearing the burdens of whatever harms, and generally being pricks to each other in the process of having to live in a society. Cheers!
Just trying to bring some Friday cheer to the conversation! ;) No good?
I understand the point you're making with the rest of your post, but calling someone a victim because they might have heard a disagreeable joke is taking the victim card way, way too far. We run the risk of making victim a meaningless term if we stretch it to include hearing anything possibly offensive.
I've heard tons of offensive things over my life, as has everyone, and I'm not a victim for it. But of course it all depends on context in the workplace. The OP's first example was not a case where hearing a joke would be victimizing anyone.
Garrison Keillor, the Prairie Home Companion himself, has been publicly repudiated by Minnesota Public Radio and the Washington Post. Keillor worked for MPR for several decades, bringing in a tremendous amount of fame and revenue for the organization. The "inappropriate sexual behavior" as described by MPR was inadvertently touching the bare skin on the back of a female performer on the show (backstage) who had been telling him of various unhappy events in her life. He intended to merely pat her on the back. She flinched, he apologized personally and in writing, she accepted the apology, and said "don't think about it". Keillor said he had considered her a friend until she showed up at MPR with a lawyer, 10 years after the "event".
Apparently, just guessing, she was wearing a short vest-type blouse over a low backed dress. Where he expected to encounter cloth, he touched bare skin -- on her back--not rear end, not breast, not thigh.
So, ONE ten year old complaint about a non-event resulted in MPR severing all connections with Keillor. (He had retired from performing a year or so ago -- he's 75.) No more re-runs of the PHC, no more carrying the excellent Writer's Almanac, a daily 5 minute piece on literature. They're even dropping the name of the Prairie Home Companion for the show which somebody else now hosts.
The Washington Post, for whom Keillor is an occasional columnist, also fired Keillor. Keillor had written a column last week defending Al Franken, one of Minnesota's Senators.
I think women can tell the difference among an accidental touch, flirtation or a pass, a sexual advance that persists past initial rejection, an assault, and rape. I have to assume that when women come forward with the sort of complaint lodged against Keillor (and some others) that they are doing so dishonestly, or are delusional about what happened.
It is a balancing act that takes time to form socially just as much as post-colonial political regimes in formerly tribal communities need to find that balance between liberal democracy and compartmentalising pluralism that challenges the cultural identification to sovereignty. So, from the initial state of infantilisation where women' place is in the kitchen, that they belong to their husband and had no mind, no ambition or opinion but their sole purpose was to bear children came the sexual revolution, but that tipped the scale to yet another extreme where the continuity of this idea that they are sexual objects remained, but different. The "panic" so to speak lies in this assumption.
I had a conversation once with a UN representative to Afghanistan and she said that once when she was in Sri Lanka, she was responsible for organising a program that supports young women from a particular community to understand their rights and the importance of education and it was a great success but also a great failure. The success was that the women certainly did identify with program and wanted to reach out for more in life, but the failure was that the men in the community found that to be deplorable and it backlashed in a very extreme way. The moral point is that education about women and their rights requires both men and women to be involved in union.
In saying all that, the only thing we need is to appreciate respect. We need to respect one another and if one woman is more flirtatious or welcoming to sexual advances than another woman, it does not make the latter a frigid or the former a slut. It is their decision and we need to respect that. It is balancing liberty without the compartmentalisation or our cultural identification to moral behaviour.
I have learnt that in my community men seem to wait for women to respond (whereas I am more the type of 'traditional' person that waits for men to show interest) and I think that the reason the former is the case is because men are starting to respect women. Both have their risks; if I show interest, would I be disrespected? If I don't, would they think I have no interest? That is why friendship enables respect and a gradual bond would form from that. It is just respecting other people.
I agree, and if you read the paragraph carefully, you'll see that that's not what it says.
That reply strikes me as evasive and pedantic. The paragraph contained a reference to potential victims based on their presence in the room. Are you going to tell me that hearing a disagreeable joke was not part of the scenario of potential victims which you had in mind?
All social relations related to friendship or romantic partners are about bargaining for loneliness. Humans are more-or-less social creatures, but with varying degrees and tendencies. The ones able to be by themselves for longer periods of time are the most valuable. They generally have the most power as the more "needier" party is always lacking, while the alone party only needs him/herself. The power dynamic is actually about which person feels the need to be around other people more. But, this kind of folk philosophizing is where the real stuff happens.
Perhaps 'all' is much too all-encompassing and while I agree insofar as we are separate from the external world and thus isolated from others, it is about how that loneliness is overcome and the authenticity of the bond between two people. Erich Fromm states this perfectly:
“If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism”
A majority of relationships are attachments that one becomes dependent on for a number of reasons and I think the word 'bargaining' is perfect in describing this. The financial rewards, the social standing, people are not authentically 'falling in love' (where they admire the person, the things that they think and feel) but rather they 'like' what that person offers to them and so it is egotistical rather than empathic; as though on auto-pilot, to make sure that the security of this relation remains static regularly state 'I love you' and yet in secret do a number of other things to survive the very same loneliness.
The authenticity behind genuine love is to form an actual bond with someone who genuinely understands you, that you overcome this loneliness because the person is able to actually identify with something deeper (hence the empathic) and sometimes you can fall in love with someone who is not what you thought you wanted, who is completely different but yet there you are connecting with them.
I once thought I loved a young man, but I actually later realised he was all in my imagination and the reality left was this vicious and perhaps even insane person that I thought was beautiful. I wanted to give my love - and I can be incredibly loving - to a crazy man. I was torn between trying to work with him to get him to grow up and become man enough to speak from his heart and my desire to have him go away and leave me alone, because as he refused and was stuck in that world where the opinions of others mattered more to him than his own existence while at the same time frightened me too by playing numerous games that made me think that he ultimately wanted to hurt me. I guess I just believed in him, but he turned out to be disappointing.
I learnt a great lesson from that; loneliness can effect how you identify with others that you can even imagine things that do not exist and while most often it is a bargaining process, the two opposites of this central theme are either genuine love or insanity.
Interesting post, and seems to provide some good evidence of the unhappiness of romantic love. In tribal societies, perhaps this area is a bit less complicated, but we have made it an overwrought and over-complicated subject in the "modern" world of the individualized marketplace.
If I use Schopenhauer's psychological mechanisms as a model- we are basically driven by the pendulum swing of survival (via cultural institutions), comfort-seeking (we need to do various things to improve our comfort), and boredom (we need to occupy our minds). Loneliness is essentially one degree away from boredom. It is a boredom that happens from not having company or friends or an intimate partner. Thus we fill this need by seeking out partners to connect with physically and on an emotional level. It is just part of the human animal, and like I said.. is a special case of fleeing boredom and is only relevant to social creatures such as the human being.
The problem is, where people at one time were able to fill this loneliness aversion in very close quarters (in tribal societies), where they had limited options that were none-the-less suitable to the culture, that is not the case anymore in modern societies. These societies also had tried and true traditions for courtship. However, the modern world is driven by an overabundance of options. The more atomized the individual is in their "unique" personality, their "unique" interests, their "unique" desires, fewer and fewer people will fit the mold of the ideal lover. Intimate relations quickly become just a lifestyle choice. The new behavior pattern and cognitive outlook is to be emotionally detached. Shallow connections become the norm. In the modern world, the people most emotionally detached will have a leg-up. True connections will become rarer and rarer as people will become self-absorbed. One has to open up to the other, and in a culture where options are plentiful, yet shallow, this will not happen often as no one is good enough for anyone's "unique" personality, interests, and needs. There are less clear courtship rituals, more murky, leading to probably stuff that has been discussed in this thread. People don't know what they want in terms of emotional/physical connection. People don't know how to channel their need for intimate relations. Social relations become awkward and strained rather than natural and easy. Lifestyle trumps loneliness and the most emotionally detached, and with the least desire for connection wins this game. Romantic visions of fate, kismet, "it will just happen", and similar slogans are thrown out there, as agency in this department becomes less clear. They push it on to forces out of their control. But these slogans just continue the murkiness and detachment.
*Bullshit detector goes off*
When a client starts telling me how easy it is to work for him, how simple his project is, how nice he is etc. I know he wants to screw me - he either wants a very cheap price, or otherwise wants to abuse my labor. I tend to refuse to work with such clients. And when a girl tells me how incredibly loving she is, but how all guys she ever dated were such pricks, I instantly know that she's looking to abuse me. Only an abuser tries to "sell" him or herself. Great clients, those I love working for, tend to be the people who say here's what I'm looking for, take it or leave it. They don't need me, they come from a position of high value. I tend to learn the most from them, and also enjoy it the most. They also pay well - that's why they never have to negotiate.
Quoting TimeLine
Your authenticity is nothing but a dream. There is no such authenticity. The only authenticity is before God, in the world people get together and form groups, ideally, to serve God and better the world. Not abandoning each other - loyalty - is merely an expedient allowing for success. Building a network of great friends everywhere is a good thing - it really allows you to do much good in the world.
And I don't think you understand what loyalty means. Loyalty means not abandoning the other even if they are pricks once you have made that commitment.
I am going to tell you that any offence they took from the joke is not the harm to which the para refers. It is the subsequent loss of their job when they adopt the practice of offensive 'banter' themselves. I presume you would agree that loss of one's job is generally a greater harm than being offended by a joke. There is nothing pedantic about this. The criticism was based on a complete failure to comprehend what the paragraph said.
This is actually a good a point from an anthropological perspective; indeed, if your original statement about loneliness and attachment is about bargaining - capitalistic - then romance or relationships can be considered economical in nature. For those in tribal or agrarian environments, marital decisions and even the number of children are essential as part of their economic subsistence, and because they identify with kinship and custom that our 'individualistic' society does not, the decision to do this is fiercely protected. The fact is that our society influences how we perceive and identify with the external world and there is no compatibility between the principles underlying social-economics with the principles that underlie love, because the latter is not an economy and one cannot 'conform' to a model. That makes the experience - authentically - a marginal phenomenon by non-conformists and only sweeping changes to social-economics can the phenomenon be more than this individualistic experience.
It does not, however, mean that our modern adaptation of relationships is completely mistaken and negotiation is an essential part of the longevity of any union. There are elements in both that are advantageous and reprehensible; I don't like the idea of bargaining or 'selling' myself neither do I like the unequivocal submission to custom.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think any emotional connection is last for many people, the initial prompt being physical and that in itself - the concept of 'beauty' or what is attractive - can also be influenced by society (what one considers attractive could merely be an unconscious submission). Whilst we are social creatures, we need to transcend this 'blindness' so to speak to our social environment and reverse the chain of events through a consciousness of our decisions vis-a-vis relationships. So, as an example, there are men who are in relationships with women that they have no connection with at all, but socially the women are accepted and even loved, they are attractive, they are thus satisfactory because since other people love them then so should the men, all the while behind the scenes they are silently deteriorating and cheating etc. There is bargaining there, but how much of yourself do you bargain?
I think that if non-conformists - who genuinely epitomise 'individuality' and so have an independent mind - needn't actually be anti-social, but rather they have merely transcended the unconscious submission to societal expectations. Only when they meet someone of the same calibre can any 'genuine' connection be made.
Do you have one?
Quoting Agustino
There are nuances that you have to detect during interaction with such people and I understand where you are coming from here, perhaps because I did not articulate that with that said-person, I took a risk by allowing myself to love someone who was ultimately deceitful, the 'client who would abuse labour' and so by opening my heart I was hurt the process. I refuse, however, to cave into this hurt and believe that existential lessons are learnt enough to ascertain whether the intention is genuine. I am happy to take that risk, but I am learning to better understand whether this risk far outweighs the ultimate goal of allowing myself to love someone. Does that make sense?
Quoting Agustino
There is no complete authenticity because we cannot entirely transcend society (unless we completely remove ourselves), but it is really about the capacity to transcend toward an awareness or consciousness that will enable you to train your mind and take an objective approach to decision-making. This takes time, wisdom, experience and even making mistakes, but it is a process and the tool - our minds - is there for us to actually utilise. Unfortunately, most do not transcend to this state of conscious awareness and mostly it is because of fear. How you identify with loyalty, for instance, could merely work in parallel to custom and the people around you that you may identify with, but genuine loyalty is about removing oneself from that unconscious submission or automaton behaviour and overcoming the fears that kept you from thinking for yourself that will enable you to approach relationships with your heart. There is authenticity, it just isn't easy.
Love is not economical. You cannot serve God and mammon.
Last I checked I did, what happened, did you steal it in the meantime? :s
Quoting TimeLine
No. Next question please.
Quoting TimeLine
I'm not interested in transcending towards that state, so I cannot buy what you're selling, sorry.
Quoting TimeLine
That love transcends economics is clear - someone who loves you won't abandon you even if you're destitute or poor for example. However, that love also involves economics is also without question.
Quoting TimeLine
That is true.
Yes, I see that now. I didn't realise that that quote was taken out of context. I thought that that quote [i]was[/I] the paragraph.