[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?

[Manfred Belheim]

@MaryKB, let me introduce you to Manfred. His shtick is to pretend to be absolutely mindlessly unaware of something totally obvious and badger you endlessly to "explain it" to him, while so obviously not bothering to read the explanations before he asks to have them repeated that you will want to explode in frustration.

Ugh. This is an RD thread.

I think I'm asking a pretty reasonable question. How is "telling jokes about sex in the presence of women" a sexist act? I 100% get how "telling jokes about sex in the presence of other professional people at a professional conference" is a generally offensive and inappropriate act, which could offend or annoy any person of any gender, and probably should be discouraged. But why is it sexist? And is it not sexist to assume this is particularly offsensive to women, or to assume that all men just love this sort of thing?

He wasn't just talking about dongles, but also other things being inserted

As far as I was able to tell, the actual joke made was never explicitly spelled out, but involved "dongles" and "forking". He admitted joking about a "dongle", but not the rest. But either way... that's just a crude joke about sex. I don't think it's sexist to refer to sex in the presence of women.

lewd jokes were expressly forbidden by their rules, and she just wanted someone to correct him and make him stop, and she ends up being fired and blamed for what happened (very common!).

Well that's fine. Like I say it seems pretty unprofessional and inappropriate and I see no reason why he shouldn't have been reported, and I'm not defending her getting fired either. But none of that makes the joke sexist.

My suggestion though is if you want to understand how something's sexist, consider women's perspectives and not men's.

Well that seems pretty sexist in and of itself.

Thank you kindly for your advice @Timsup2nothin, I was frustrated but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I won't reply any more.

Well it's disappointing that that's your attitude, but up to you. It would be nice if you could just judge me on your own terms, rather than taking the word of someone who's trolling me in an RD thread. Like I say I think it's a reasonable question and I'm explaining why I disagree, in a reasonably cordial manner. Up to you though.

Be prepared to accept that he will claim that as a "win," demonstrating that since you "can't" explain obviously it was never sexist in the first place.

Can you please point to any example where I've ever said anything like that? I honestly have no idea who you think you're describing now, but it's not me. Please take your character assassination into a non-RD thread at the very least.

 

[metalhead]

Well that seems pretty sexist in and of itself.

This is, of course, the heart of the matter. You're asking why a woman would find something to be sexist, and then also saying that it is sexist to only consider a woman's point of view on the matter.

How are you supposed to broaden your understanding if you don't explicitly consider the other point of view, rather than require equal consideration to a point of view which, frankly, has no value.

What I gather from reading and listening to female points of view is that in male-dominated fields, they view this type of behavior as men lording their dominance in the workplace over the women. It's inappropriate, as you note, but it also leaves women feeling powerless, because if they complain it will only lead to negative consequences for the woman who complains. It's a way to make women in the workplace feel small, whether it is intended as such or not (and it is often intended as such).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is, of course, the heart of the matter. You're asking why a woman would find something to be sexist, and then also saying that it is sexist to only consider a woman's point of view on the matter.

How are you supposed to broaden your understanding if you don't explicitly consider the other point of view, rather than require equal consideration to a point of view which, frankly, has no value.

What I gather from reading and listening to female points of view is that in male-dominated fields, they view this type of behavior as men lording their dominance in the workplace over the women. It's inappropriate, as you note, but it also leaves women feeling powerless, because if they complain it will only lead to negative consequences for the woman who complains. It's a way to make women in the workplace feel small, whether it is intended as such or not (and it is often intended as such).

Well I think you're conflating two different things. Men and women (or at least the average man and the average woman) can experience the same thing in different ways, particularly in situations where one or the other is in a minority. It's all pretty subjective and if you want to understand how the experiences are different then it makes sense to look at the situation from the point of view of both sexes. That's all well and good. But that's asking why a woman would find something uncomfortable (or some other similar descriptor).

Whether something is sexist or not is a different question entirely. It's a question that's a lot more objective and pretty easy to deduce from just looking at the facts, since we have a pretty simple definition of what sexism is. The claim is that the joke itself is sexist, which is independent of whether or not a woman is even there to hear it. I think anyone should be able to judge whether or not that claim is true without having to defer to anyone else's judgement. The suggestion that women are especially able to deduce when something is sexist, or that you have to "think like a woman" to be able to spot it, seems to fit the definition of sexism more than the joke does, against both men and women.

 

[Lexicus]

Well that's fine. Like I say it seems pretty unprofessional and inappropriate and I see no reason why he shouldn't have been reported, and I'm not defending her getting fired either. But none of that makes the joke sexist.

I know that you don't do this on purpose, it's just how you think, but you get people involved in endless hair-splitting with virtually no actual implications for reality. Like, you agree that this was totally inappropriate so what is actually the point of insisting that it isn't sexist? Is it just so that you can continue to believe that sexism is not a significant problem in society and feminists are stooopid?
My answer, incidentally, is that the reason it is sexist is the context in which the joke is being made (by men in a position of power over a woman who is essentially a 'captive audience'), not anything inherent to the joke itself.

Well that seems pretty sexist in and of itself.

Considering the woman's point of view - that's the real sexism

The claim is that the joke itself is sexist,

Who has made this claim?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I know that you don't do this on purpose, it's just how you think, but you get people involved in endless hair-splitting with virtually no actual implications for reality. Like, you agree that this was totally inappropriate so what is actually the point of insisting that it isn't sexist?

I don't understand why you see it as hair splitting to distinguish between "inappropriate" and "sexist". They're entirely different things. Things can be inappropriate because they're sexist, but also because they're racist, or homophobic, or vulgar, or insensitive, or a whole host of completely different reasons. In this case it's because it's crude and vulgar and most professional environments frown strongly on that sort of behaviour. But why are crudity and vulgarity "sexist"?

It's kind of like saying "you agree that this is a fruit, so what's the point of insisting that it isn't an orange?". It was inappropriate, but not sexist. Even if you disagree with me entirely (which I'm sure you do), I don't see how you can't concede that there's a significant distinction between those two concepts.

My answer, incidentally, is that the reason it is sexist is the context in which the joke is being made (by men in a position of power over a woman who is essentially a 'captive audience'), not anything inherent to the joke itself.

Were they in a position of power? My understanding was that they were just attendees of the same conference who were sat near each other in an audience. In that circumstance I don't see how either party has any power over the other, particularly since they don't even work for the same company. She had the power to complain to the conference organisers, and obviously it turns out she did have some power over the guy in the end. If that wasn't the situation then correct me of course, but that's what I thought it was.

Considering the woman's point of view - that's the real sexism

The specific claim that, in order to determine whether or not something is sexist, men need to consider if from the point of view of women, is sexist (for a whole bunch of reasons - imo of course). Obviously the general concept of looking at things from the point of view of women is not sexist.

Who has made this claim?

Mary did (?!?!)

 

[Lexicus]

I don't understand why you see it as hair splitting to distinguish between "inappropriate" and "sexist". They're entirely different things.

Actually I think I would argue that the set of all things sexist is contained within the set of all things inappropriate. So I mean, yeah, they're conceptually distinct, but again, if we're talking about real-world applications insisting on the distinction is just pointless hair-splitting. Particularly when we're talking about something that, contra your claims about sexism having a "simple definition," is inherently tied up in the subjective.

It's kind of like saying "you agree that this is a fruit, so what's the point of insisting that it isn't an orange?".

Nah, it's really more like arguing about whether the orange was overripe or not when someone already ate it.

But why are crudity and vulgarity "sexist"?

I already explained why I think the joke is sexist based on the context in which it was made. If you don't agree with the premise that the same words can have different meanings in different contexts then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[Farm Boy]

But why are crudity and vulgarity "sexist"?

When people move to enforce class, do you think they're going to call it that?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Actually I think I would argue that the set of all things sexist is contained within the set of all things inappropriate.

Yes I agree. Like oranges are a subset of fruit. That's why I chose that analogy.

So I mean, yeah, they're conceptually distinct, but again, if we're talking about real-world applications insisting on the distinction is just pointless hair-splitting.

Of course it isn't. You've just admitted they're conceptually distinct, so there's no reason that the specific accusation of "sexism" applies whenever something "inappropriate" happens. If someone is telling racist jokes at a conference, is it pointless hair splitting to argue with someone who calls it sexism?

I already explained why I think the joke is sexist based on the context in which it was made. If you don't agree with the premise that the same words can have different meanings in different contexts then we have nothing more to discuss.

Yep, I think you explained that in an edit though which wasn't there at the time I replied. But I did reply to that and I do disagree (by which I mean I disagree that it was sexist, not that I disagree that the same words can have different meanings in different contexts).

When people move to enforce class, do you think they're going to call it that?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

 

[Lexicus]

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

In typical Farm Boy style he's gaslighting the victims of sexist harassment by implying that it's somehow inherently a lower-class thing to make crude jokes in a professional setting, therefore being offended by it is some form of prejudice against the poor.

Yep, I think you explained that in an edit though which wasn't there at the time I replied. But I did reply to that and I do disagree (by which I mean I disagree that it was sexist, not that I disagree that the same words can have different meanings in different contexts).

Looking up the original thing (I thought this was a personal experience of a poster, but I was mistaken) you are correct that it was not in the setting I initially thought.

I still think it's sexist because it's a professional setting and you have what are in essence a captive audience. All they really had to do to make it not sexist was keep it in their own hotel room.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think I'm asking a pretty reasonable question. How is "telling jokes about sex in the presence of women" a sexist act?

Well, since you are the only Manfred in the crowd, if the rest of us started swapping "jokes" about how much Manfreds and excrement have in common it is likely that you as the only Manfred would be made to feel uncomfortable, and come to think that maybe the rest of us didn't really value you as highly as we did each other. So, if there is one woman among a group of men there could be a similar effect.

Now, if it was just you and me and we were swapping jokes about how Manfreds and excrement have similarities it might just be a couple of friends having a self deprecating humor bonding experience. Similarly, a man and a woman who are friendly might swap the same bawdy jokes that in the group were inappropriate.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Which part?

 

[metalhead]

Whether something is sexist or not is a different question entirely. It's a question that's a lot more objective and pretty easy to deduce from just looking at the facts, since we have a pretty simple definition of what sexism is. The claim is that the joke itself is sexist, which is independent of whether or not a woman is even there to hear it.

I don't think that was the claim, and that's not really a useful thing to examine in any case. The claim was that the joke was sexist because of the context, and because of the likely and disparate impact it has on a woman exposed to it, as opposed to a man. Women find it demeaning and belittling for quite valid reasons in ways that men do not, in large part because of how professional workplaces are structured such that they are discouraged from expressing how they are negatively affected by such unprofessional behavior.

Dongle guy got fired but so did the woman who complained about it.

 

[brennan]

if you want to understand how something's sexist, consider women's perspectives and not men's.

Ah, the 'just agree with me and you'll see i'm right' argument.

How about we judge whether things are sexist by evaluating whether or not they are sexist? I mean I don't accuse all the women in the office of sexism when they discuss all manner of bodily functions guaranteed to make men uncomfortable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, the 'just agree with me and you'll see i'm right' argument.

How about we judge whether things are sexist by evaluating whether or not they are sexist? I mean I don't accuse all the women in the office of sexism when they discuss all manner of bodily functions guaranteed to make men uncomfortable.

Why not? Are you too manly to complain?

 

[Lexicus]

all manner of bodily functions guaranteed to make men uncomfortable.

Speak for yourself dude, don't try to put your hangups on all men.

 

[brennan]

Why not? Are you too manly to complain?

If manly means 'understanding that other people's conversations are their own business and I have no right to silence them' then sure.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If manly means 'understanding that other people's conversations are their own business and I have no right to silence them' then sure.

Oh, so the discussions that were "guaranteed to make men uncomfortable" you were only privy to because you were eavesdropping? Yeah, best not to complain about that.

 

[brennan]

I'm not sure the definition of eavesdropping is 'works in the same little office' Tim.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure the definition of eavesdropping is 'works in the same little office' Tim.

Fair enough. How about "hears a conversation between participants who may not know the person is listening because there is no indication the listener is participating." If you, me, and Lexicus are standing around the water cooler on a break, talking football, and the conversation swerves to an off color joke that is loosely related...and a woman passes by and overhears it, in my opinion that's on her lookout, not ours. If all four of us are standing around talking football, and the same loosely related off color joke occurs to me and gets thrown in her face, that's not the same thing.

If the women in your office are in the middle of a conversation that obviously includes you, and then they all put their palms up in a "talk to the hand" gesture while they have a sidebar about how tiny peckers just don't do it for them, then you have a good case.

 

[Lexicus]

I think the jokes at this conference were being told by people sitting in the row directly behind the woman who was offended by it.