4 ms·

> 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 abo

> 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?
- nbouscal 14y ago
  Yeah, you're entirely missing the point. I haven't rendered any opinions regarding current laws other than to say that they are not relevant in this particular issue. I'm saying that the concern is the culture, not the law. The reason I'm talking about sexism as opposed to discrimination regarding race, color, religion, national origin, et cetera is that the jokes in question were clearly not discriminatory in those areas. Nobody has claimed that the joke was racist. That would be ridiculous. Many people have claimed that the joke was sexist, and that is the claim that I am taking issue with. I'm talking about ignoring the law because culture is more important than law. Yes, there is plenty of interesting case law, and that case law is interesting when discussing the issue in a legal context. I'm saying that the cultural context is more important than the legal context, and therefore the case law is a complete non sequitur. I would strongly assert that laws do not influence culture, and that rather the exact opposite is true. Laws reflect culture. Laws enforce the norms of the culture in which they are written. When the culture changes, the laws change. The reverse is not true. I have not been arguing for change. I do think that some changes to tech culture should happen, because though the actual incident was not discriminatory, the internet reaction clearly was. That is a much broader issue, because internet reactions are always disproportionate and discriminatory. That is a standing issue that must be solved. What I'm asserting is that the joke was not discriminatory, and that the conference was not a discriminatory environment. Though I was not there, from everything I have heard from people who were, the conference was a very positive environment. This is good, and I take issue with people who would cast aspersions on the conference and the community as a whole because of a 'discriminatory' joke that was not in fact discriminatory at all.

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?

nbouscal 14y ago
Yeah, you're entirely missing the point. I haven't rendered any opinions regarding current laws other than to say that they are not relevant in this particular issue. I'm saying that the concern is the culture, not the law. The reason I'm talking about sexism as opposed to discrimination regarding race, color, religion, national origin, et cetera is that the jokes in question were clearly not discriminatory in those areas. Nobody has claimed that the joke was racist. That would be ridiculous. Many people have claimed that the joke was sexist, and that is the claim that I am taking issue with. I'm talking about ignoring the law because culture is more important than law. Yes, there is plenty of interesting case law, and that case law is interesting when discussing the issue in a legal context. I'm saying that the cultural context is more important than the legal context, and therefore the case law is a complete non sequitur. I would strongly assert that laws do not influence culture, and that rather the exact opposite is true. Laws reflect culture. Laws enforce the norms of the culture in which they are written. When the culture changes, the laws change. The reverse is not true. I have not been arguing for change. I do think that some changes to tech culture should happen, because though the actual incident was not discriminatory, the internet reaction clearly was. That is a much broader issue, because internet reactions are always disproportionate and discriminatory. That is a standing issue that must be solved. What I'm asserting is that the joke was not discriminatory, and that the conference was not a discriminatory environment. Though I was not there, from everything I have heard from people who were, the conference was a very positive environment. This is good, and I take issue with people who would cast aspersions on the conference and the community as a whole because of a 'discriminatory' joke that was not in fact discriminatory at all.