4 ms·

They were not sexual jokes at Adria's expense. They were not sexual jokes about women. They were not sexist jokes. They were jokes about dongles. Men make dick

They were not sexual jokes at Adria's expense. They were not sexual jokes about women. They were not sexist jokes. They were jokes about dongles. Men make dick jokes. Women make dick jokes. They're usually in bad taste, but they are in no way sexist. This wasn't abuse, it was a publicity op that went south. Adria saw an opportunity for a spotlight and didn't foresee the consequences of that spotlight. Judging from her blog post, she's more of a sexist than the joker, because she makes the implicit assumption that other women can't be around sexual humor. Anyone who spends any time with women knows that that is not the case; most of my female friends make dirtier jokes than I ever would. The jokes were not discriminatory, they were not prejudicial, they were not sexist, and they were not abuse.

dalke 14y ago
I don't understand your argument. Are you following up to my response to point #1 or #2? In regards point #1, the law is pretty clear that a joke does not need to be sexist or even sexual for it to be part of a hostile workplace environment. And my reading of the letter is that the letter writer believes that any sexual joke at the workplace is a form of verbal abuse. While that is the considered opinion of the letter author, the law and courts do not agree that a single instance is sufficient to indicate workplace discrimination. But nemothekid is incorrect in saying that the letter author framed this in terms of direct abuse. The letter is actually best understood if "abuse" means "direct or indirect abuse" and is not restricted to "direct abuse." (After all, no one has made the claim that there was a direct abuse.) In point #2, nemothekid attempts to justify the firing, but the arguments given (eg, "People lost money", "unprofessional"), when in the context of a discrimination report, may not legally be used to fire someone, based on my understanding of Title VII. I also pointed out that what she did in "public shaming" was legal. While it might have been against PyCon's code of conduct, no complaint was made. Even if the company decided to fire her because of her previous actions, independent of this most recent event, a court will likely find that it is a pretext for an illegal action. Quoting from the EEOC, "Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. ... Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity" I think the comment about "heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity" is apropros, don't you? Do you honestly think she would have been fired had there been no heightened scrutiny? Now as to your comments here, all of your objections ignore the point. Firing someone who made a legally protected and truthful complaint about possible workplace discrimination is illegal. (Everything I've read has said that the complaint was truthful.) Firing them for some other reason as a pretext for an illegal reason is also illegal. The law does not require that the sexual jokes be at Richard's expense in order for her complaint to be protected, the law does not require that the sexual jokes be about women (or even about the complainant's own gender) in order for her complaint to be protected. The law doesn't require that the complainant have no ulterior motive, nor require that the complainant be without sin before casting the first stone. In fact, to require any or all of these will greatly reduce the power of Title VII. It would mean that I can't complain in order to protect my Polish co-worker from a workplace hostile to foreign born workers (being neither the person attacked nor Polish), even though I as an American-born person am likely to face less reprisal for complaining. It would also mean my Polish co-worker couldn't file a complaint if for whatever reason he himself had ever told a Pollock, or a Russian joke. Do you really want the Civil Rights Act to be so constrained? The law is quite clear. If someone make a truthful claim about sexual harassment, which is believable by at least one reasonable person, then that complaint is a protected action and may not be used to as the basis for firing the person who made the complaint. No matter if that complaint is made in private or public, no matter if that complaint may cause economic damage or embarrassment to the company, no matter if the incident occurred at the company's workplace or elsewhere, no matter if it was eventually found to be non-discriminatory. (There are a few obvious restrictions, like the complaint cannot be in the form of sabotage, but do you really want me to quote more laws and legal decisions?) Am I wrong? Feel free to show me how I've misunderstood the law. Otherwise I will continue to conclude that arguments like yours are meant to defend a personal belief which is opposed to the law. Does your belief have any deeper moral basis or is it specific only to this single incident? Can you explain how you would like to change the law, in order to make a better future?
- nbouscal 14y ago
  See my reply to you elsewhere in this comment tree re: law vs. culture.

dalke 14y ago

I don't understand your argument. Are you following up to my response to point #1 or #2? In regards point #1, the law is pretty clear that a joke does not need to be sexist or even sexual for it to be part of a hostile workplace environment. And my reading of the letter is that the letter writer believes that any sexual joke at the workplace is a form of verbal abuse. While that is the considered opinion of the letter author, the law and courts do not agree that a single instance is sufficient to indicate workplace discrimination. But nemothekid is incorrect in saying that the letter author framed this in terms of direct abuse. The letter is actually best understood if "abuse" means "direct or indirect abuse" and is not restricted to "direct abuse." (After all, no one has made the claim that there was a direct abuse.) In point #2, nemothekid attempts to justify the firing, but the arguments given (eg, "People lost money", "unprofessional"), when in the context of a discrimination report, may not legally be used to fire someone, based on my understanding of Title VII. I also pointed out that what she did in "public shaming" was legal. While it might have been against PyCon's code of conduct, no complaint was made. Even if the company decided to fire her because of her previous actions, independent of this most recent event, a court will likely find that it is a pretext for an illegal action. Quoting from the EEOC, "Even if the respondent produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, a violation will still be found if this explanation is a pretext designed to hide the true retaliatory motive. ... Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity" I think the comment about "heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity" is apropros, don't you? Do you honestly think she would have been fired had there been no heightened scrutiny? Now as to your comments here, all of your objections ignore the point. Firing someone who made a legally protected and truthful complaint about possible workplace discrimination is illegal. (Everything I've read has said that the complaint was truthful.) Firing them for some other reason as a pretext for an illegal reason is also illegal. The law does not require that the sexual jokes be at Richard's expense in order for her complaint to be protected, the law does not require that the sexual jokes be about women (or even about the complainant's own gender) in order for her complaint to be protected. The law doesn't require that the complainant have no ulterior motive, nor require that the complainant be without sin before casting the first stone. In fact, to require any or all of these will greatly reduce the power of Title VII. It would mean that I can't complain in order to protect my Polish co-worker from a workplace hostile to foreign born workers (being neither the person attacked nor Polish), even though I as an American-born person am likely to face less reprisal for complaining. It would also mean my Polish co-worker couldn't file a complaint if for whatever reason he himself had ever told a Pollock, or a Russian joke. Do you really want the Civil Rights Act to be so constrained? The law is quite clear. If someone make a truthful claim about sexual harassment, which is believable by at least one reasonable person, then that complaint is a protected action and may not be used to as the basis for firing the person who made the complaint. No matter if that complaint is made in private or public, no matter if that complaint may cause economic damage or embarrassment to the company, no matter if the incident occurred at the company's workplace or elsewhere, no matter if it was eventually found to be non-discriminatory. (There are a few obvious restrictions, like the complaint cannot be in the form of sabotage, but do you really want me to quote more laws and legal decisions?) Am I wrong? Feel free to show me how I've misunderstood the law. Otherwise I will continue to conclude that arguments like yours are meant to defend a personal belief which is opposed to the law. Does your belief have any deeper moral basis or is it specific only to this single incident? Can you explain how you would like to change the law, in order to make a better future?

nbouscal 14y ago
See my reply to you elsewhere in this comment tree re: law vs. culture.