4 ms·

Consistently throughout this thread you go off into a legal discussion when that's not what anyone is trying to talk about. We're talking about sexism. The ques

Consistently throughout this thread you go off into a legal discussion when that's not what anyone is trying to talk about. We're talking about sexism. The question is whether or not the joke was sexist. The answer is that it was not. Jokes of sexual nature are inappropriate and unprofessional. That is obvious, and everyone agrees. They are not, however, inherently sexist.

dalke 14y ago
You're absolutely right that I'm talking about the law, and that I'm not talking about if the joke is sexist or not. That's what this discussion should be about, shouldn't it? The law defines what discrimination means, with many cases brought to the courts to flesh out the details, including a Supreme Court case that establishes that sexual harassment is part of Title VII restrictions on sexual discrimination in the workforce. It's much easier to reference these laws and these legal cases, with reasoned judgments which are directly relevant to the topic, then to suppose that my personal beliefs are the way of the world. As such, my comments are not about the topic of whether the joke was sexist. My comments are about the topic of if jokes like these contribute to a hostile workplace. The Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc says > This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. We need not answer today all the potential questions it raises, nor specifically address the EEOC's new regulations on this subject, see 58 Fed. Reg. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§ 1609.1 1609.2); see also 29 CFR § 1604.11 (1993). But we can say that whether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required. Notice how there's nothing in there about being sexist? It's all about discriminatory conduct. So even if every reasonable person agrees that there is no sexism in the joke, it could still be part of a hostile workplace. That's why I'm focused only on the latter. Now, as Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. points out, Title VII is not a civility code: > Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at " discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex." We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations. > We have emphasized, moreover, that the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering "all the circumstances." ... The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relation ships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed. Common sense, and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find severely hostile or abusive. Part of the "constellation" might include the severity or pervasiveness of the offensive acts acts. Part of it might include if there was an attempt to effect change. Part of it might be the reaction of people when there is an attempt to change things. But none of it says that we can only look to see if a joke is sexist in order to help identify if it might be part of a hostile workplace. So I don't care what people are talking about, if they are only concerned about if the joke is sexist or not. I care about if this was contributory towards a hostile workplace environment, and I care about what mechanisms we as the tech industry (and since I am a PSF member, what we as PyCon organizers) should have in place in order to reduce hostility in the workplace -- and yes, a conference is part of many people's workplace. If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues.
- nbouscal 14y ago
  > You're absolutely right that I'm talking about the law, and that I'm not talking about if the joke is sexist or not. That's what this discussion should be about, shouldn't it? No. Absolutely not. The law defines things for the legal system, not for our society and not for our culture. The concern here is a cultural one, not a legal one. The laws on the books are barely relevant to the real discussion here. > If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues. My interest is in whether the joke is sexist because of its relevance to whether the culture is sexist. Many people are using the incident as evidence of a pattern of sexism in the tech community. I'm arguing against that conclusion, because the joke was not sexist. The legalities are not more important. Thornier, sure, because the law is almost always thornier. Not more important. Culture is more important than law, every single time. If the culture of the tech community is positive and welcoming, it won't matter what the law says because nobody will care to file suits. If the culture of the tech community is negative and discriminatory, it won't matter what the law says because women will simply avoid the tech community. Either way, the culture matters and the law does not.
  - dalke 14y ago
    ... Wow. I propose that we shouldn't have a hostile workplace and you only want there to not be a sexist workplace. (Title VII protections include race, color, religion, sex or national origin, pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination, all by the same language. You only want to focus on sex discrimination?) I propose that non-sexist jokes can still be a form of sexual discrimination. You require that a joke be sexist before it is seen as discriminatory ("The question is whether or not the joke was sexist.") even though the law doesn't have that requirement. So you actually think that the current laws are too broad? If the men only tell non-sexist and tasteless poop jokes to women in the workplace but tell each other non-sexist and hilarious poop jokes, might that indicate a sexist workplace culture? I think it can. But it seems that you would say it cannot be, because the jokes themselves are not sexist. Is there ever a case where non-sexual jokes can be part of a workplace which discriminates on sex? If so, might this incident be another such example? Why or why not? I propose looking to the law as a place where these issues have been well discussed and fleshed out. You say to ignore laws and, I assume, ignore all of the relevant and diverse case history? There's some wonderfully interesting cases. Can a man sue other men for sexual harassment, even if none of them are homosexual? Is sexual desire a critical requirement before sexual discrimination can take place? Should there be provisions to prevent retaliation for claiming discrimination, and if so, what constitutes retaliation? Are anti-retaliation restrictions limited to financial considerations, like being fired, demoted, denied a promotion, or denied wages, or can a reassignment of duties "constitute retaliatory discrimination where both the former and present duties fall within the same job description"? (For example, can you assign the men to the worst locations and the women to the nicest, even though both are doing the same job?) Even if you disagree with the court's conclusions, the questions discussed therein should be part of your repertoire. I propose that laws are part of our culture. You say the law is barely relevant. I assume you think that changing the laws won't help improve our culture? How do you resolve the disagreements that will inevitably arise, when someone claims sexual discrimination but another says it isn't? Or do you think the laws we have now are good enough, and we just need to change the culture to match the laws? I can agree with that. What is it that you want to change, and how would that change have affected this incident?

dalke 14y ago

You're absolutely right that I'm talking about the law, and that I'm not talking about if the joke is sexist or not. That's what this discussion should be about, shouldn't it? The law defines what discrimination means, with many cases brought to the courts to flesh out the details, including a Supreme Court case that establishes that sexual harassment is part of Title VII restrictions on sexual discrimination in the workforce. It's much easier to reference these laws and these legal cases, with reasoned judgments which are directly relevant to the topic, then to suppose that my personal beliefs are the way of the world. As such, my comments are not about the topic of whether the joke was sexist. My comments are about the topic of if jokes like these contribute to a hostile workplace. The Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc says > This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test. We need not answer today all the potential questions it raises, nor specifically address the EEOC's new regulations on this subject, see 58 Fed. Reg. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§ 1609.1 1609.2); see also 29 CFR § 1604.11 (1993). But we can say that whether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required. Notice how there's nothing in there about being sexist? It's all about discriminatory conduct. So even if every reasonable person agrees that there is no sexism in the joke, it could still be part of a hostile workplace. That's why I'm focused only on the latter. Now, as Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. points out, Title VII is not a civility code: > Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at " discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex." We have never held that workplace harassment, even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations. > We have emphasized, moreover, that the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering "all the circumstances." ... The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relation ships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts performed. Common sense, and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would find severely hostile or abusive. Part of the "constellation" might include the severity or pervasiveness of the offensive acts acts. Part of it might include if there was an attempt to effect change. Part of it might be the reaction of people when there is an attempt to change things. But none of it says that we can only look to see if a joke is sexist in order to help identify if it might be part of a hostile workplace. So I don't care what people are talking about, if they are only concerned about if the joke is sexist or not. I care about if this was contributory towards a hostile workplace environment, and I care about what mechanisms we as the tech industry (and since I am a PSF member, what we as PyCon organizers) should have in place in order to reduce hostility in the workplace -- and yes, a conference is part of many people's workplace. If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues.

nbouscal 14y ago
> You're absolutely right that I'm talking about the law, and that I'm not talking about if the joke is sexist or not. That's what this discussion should be about, shouldn't it? No. Absolutely not. The law defines things for the legal system, not for our society and not for our culture. The concern here is a cultural one, not a legal one. The laws on the books are barely relevant to the real discussion here. > If your only interest is in if the joke is sexist, then you're spending all your focus on the easy issue, and ignoring the more important and thornier issues. My interest is in whether the joke is sexist because of its relevance to whether the culture is sexist. Many people are using the incident as evidence of a pattern of sexism in the tech community. I'm arguing against that conclusion, because the joke was not sexist. The legalities are not more important. Thornier, sure, because the law is almost always thornier. Not more important. Culture is more important than law, every single time. If the culture of the tech community is positive and welcoming, it won't matter what the law says because nobody will care to file suits. If the culture of the tech community is negative and discriminatory, it won't matter what the law says because women will simply avoid the tech community. Either way, the culture matters and the law does not.
- dalke 14y ago
  ... Wow. I propose that we shouldn't have a hostile workplace and you only want there to not be a sexist workplace. (Title VII protections include race, color, religion, sex or national origin, pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination, all by the same language. You only want to focus on sex discrimination?) I propose that non-sexist jokes can still be a form of sexual discrimination. You require that a joke be sexist before it is seen as discriminatory ("The question is whether or not the joke was sexist.") even though the law doesn't have that requirement. So you actually think that the current laws are too broad? If the men only tell non-sexist and tasteless poop jokes to women in the workplace but tell each other non-sexist and hilarious poop jokes, might that indicate a sexist workplace culture? I think it can. But it seems that you would say it cannot be, because the jokes themselves are not sexist. Is there ever a case where non-sexual jokes can be part of a workplace which discriminates on sex? If so, might this incident be another such example? Why or why not? I propose looking to the law as a place where these issues have been well discussed and fleshed out. You say to ignore laws and, I assume, ignore all of the relevant and diverse case history? There's some wonderfully interesting cases. Can a man sue other men for sexual harassment, even if none of them are homosexual? Is sexual desire a critical requirement before sexual discrimination can take place? Should there be provisions to prevent retaliation for claiming discrimination, and if so, what constitutes retaliation? Are anti-retaliation restrictions limited to financial considerations, like being fired, demoted, denied a promotion, or denied wages, or can a reassignment of duties "constitute retaliatory discrimination where both the former and present duties fall within the same job description"? (For example, can you assign the men to the worst locations and the women to the nicest, even though both are doing the same job?) Even if you disagree with the court's conclusions, the questions discussed therein should be part of your repertoire. I propose that laws are part of our culture. You say the law is barely relevant. I assume you think that changing the laws won't help improve our culture? How do you resolve the disagreements that will inevitably arise, when someone claims sexual discrimination but another says it isn't? Or do you think the laws we have now are good enough, and we just need to change the culture to match the laws? I can agree with that. What is it that you want to change, and how would that change have affected this incident?