Ignorance is not bliss

We really need the comment that was made. The OP didn't give the quote... only her subjective (over)reaction to it.

A woman in the workplace is no more fragile than a man. Women in the workplace often make off-color jokes, and goof off and act like human beings. I have had women initiate flirting with me (including a female co-worker many years ago who grabbed my butt in the workplace cafeteria and was surprised that I didn't want the attention).

Absolutely there is a line that should not be crossed. Intimidation or demanding sexual favors are obviously unacceptable. The "reasonable person" standard from the EEOC makes sense. But does joking around really meet that standard?

If a co-worker makes a joke that offends me, I am not going to be damaged or go into hysterics about it. If it is important enough to me, I will say something to that co-worker. There is nothing wrong acting like adults. It would have to be pretty egregious for me to go to HR directly.

Hopefully in the example given, the aggrieved woman talked to her co-host offscreen if she was offended, and hopefully they worked it out like decent human beings. Of course, there is the possibility that the "victim" here doesn't give a ****, and the OP is just looking for a reason to be offended. I really wish we had the quote on hand.

@maxdancona
Yes... issues of pay equality, and sexual harassment, and how to get women to enter fields like engineering are important I agree. However this nit-picking you refer to sounds like you're suggesting that we should all let the small things slide. Where do we start drawing lines on what's worthy or not worthy of discussion? Who decides what needs to be addressed and what doesn't? You? It sounds like you're attempting to make the rules for all of us, and that you decide what concerns of ours are legitimate by your standards. Surely you can see that putting yourself in that position is going to piss people off.

Your stance on this is that of one person. Telling others what should and should not be important to them is not your place. Express your opinion and let others do the same without telling them that their concerns are not important enough to talk about.

These shows are so contrived and so edited that one wonders if the exchange was not left into 1) show what a horse’s ass he was or 2) attempt at some eye rolling humor at make/ female perspective in the construction world.

It’s TV for chrissakes.

Quite the contrary.

1) It is up to the person (in this case a woman) in question to decide whether they are offended or not. If she wasn't offended, then there is no offense.

2) If I am offended by something someone says at work, I will talk to them about it first. I will ask them to stop, and if they do... then no big deal. Obviously this does't apply if someone intentionally threatens me, or is blatantly trying to intimidate. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

3) I don't think standards at work should be different for men and woman. Something that is offensive when said by a man to a woman should (in most cases) be offensive when said by a woman to a man. There is a woman at work, an Jamaican who is older than I am, who calls me "sweetheart". She calls lots of people sweetheart. If I was offended I would ask her to stop.

4) If someone at works asks me to stop joking around with them on some topic, I will respect them. Oddly enough, the only person that ever told me I offended them was a man.

I don't like the idea that women are somehow delicate creatures that need to be protected from coarse language or unwomanly talk. My experience suggests that women aren't that much different than men. There are people (men and woman) who I can joke around with at work with no one being offended.

You don't know that the OP is overreacting, and they didn't say that a woman in the workplace is no more fragile than a man. This is purely a straw man of your creation. The kind of joking and goofing off and butt grabbing in the workplace that you refer to is inappropriate and could be reported as offensive by other people.

Joking meets the standard.

Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:
• The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
• The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
• Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

So saying that this behavior really bothered the OP is what you consider hysterics. Understood. Hysterics would be enough to bring harassment complaints against the offender.

I don't know how staged the scene was that the OP refes to, but in regard to harassment on air and recorded television shows, Gretchen Carlson withstood a lot of that on Fox News from her collegues. Her reactions would range from rolling with the comments to being visibly upset by them and attempting to cut them short. In an interview with Amy Robach, Carlson asked her if she had ever been sexually harassed and Robach answered that yes she had and that it has happened to so many women and "most of us say nothing."

Our resident misogynistic twit, maximillius, now adds in racist and ageist.

What, does her heritage or age have to do with the price of eggs, max? For you, it would seem to be defining factors.

Let me explain it to you, Izzy....

1) If a White older man called a female co-worker "Sweetheart", most people would find this inappropriate. This fits the narrative (which may or may not be true) of a White man using his power.

2) This female co-worker of mine calls me (a male co-worker) "Sweetheart". I accept it as normal and, in fact, endearing. The cultural context matters. She is a sweet person and her culture is part of who she is.

If a older White man calls everyone "Sweetheart", and a female co-worker objected... I would hope that she would go to him (assuming his intentions weren't threatening) rather than going straight to HR. Intentions also matter.

But the point is that all of these things, joking, endearing terms and general interactions between human beings are judged in context.

1) Whether or not it bothered the OP is really irrelevant to the question of whether or not this was harassment. The OP is an observer, not the participant. The important question is how the people involved felt about this interaction. We don't have access to that information.

2) If neither person involved in this interaction feels that this is harrassment.... than it is not harrassment. If someone at my work tells an offensive joke... and I find it funny, laugh and appreciate it, then it isn't harrassment.



Some jokes are harrassment. They have to meet the "reasonable person" standard, and they have to actually make someone feel uncomfortable at work.

Just the fact that it is "joking" doesn't make it harrassment.

Why are you addressing me for something Sturgis said?

You really are a slimy nonce.

There’s a huge difference between calling someone an affectionate name like pet or love or sweetheart and fishing for compliments. We do it a lot over here and it’s perfectly normal.

Your work colleague’s race is irrelevant, yet you felt the need to bring it up. There’s no good reason for that at all.

More to the point why do you think Trump’s grab them by the pussy comment is fine. Why do you think sexually assaulting young girls is acceptable behaviour?

Thank you Sturgis! That was my point exactly.

(It is funny how you are trying to be insulting... but you are basically agreeing with me).

We agree you’re a nonce.

Unlike you I don’t have any sock puppets, and if I did they wouldn’t be American, let alone New Yorkers, a place half the population of A2K know very well.

A one horse moron like Oralloy could be done by anyone even someone with your limited skills.

I love Izzy's new "nonce" thing. It's meant to be insulting, Izzy is calling me a paedophile in his cute little British way.

But it is so quaint, I can't even be offended. Cheerio mate... it is a nonce on the telly!

What was that supposed to mean?

Who the **** says cheerio?

What century do you live in?

You brought up the OP's reaction for the purpose of your ad hominem argument, but now you're saying it's irrelevant. I'm taking the OP's description of the incident at face value.

"The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct."

While not all joking is harassment, the jokes that I'm talking about here, in a thread about workplace harassment, referencing workplace harassment, that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission refers to in regard to workplace harassment, are harassing jokes.

OK, you are taking the "OP's description of the incident at face value". What exactly are you "taking at face value" that you think is sexual harassment?

(I also question whether you know what the term "ad hominem argument" means... but I am just a nonce, so what do I know).

The big question is what is the definition of "sexual harassment". The EEOC has the reasonable person clause. The alleged offense here is "fishing for compliments"... we don't have the quote (if the OP wants to help that would be great).

If a female co-worker comes into the office with a new hairstyle and says "hey Max, how do I look?".

Have I been harassed? I don't think so. Maybe I am not a reasonable person.

You really are ******* thick.

A culture where an insubordinate is made to feel uncomfortable because of suggestive remarks normalises such behaviour and makes sexual harassment, assault and rape more likely.

It’s not rocket science, most people understand it but it shoots right over your head as evidenced by all your stupid ******* questions.

I'm taking this description at face value



An "ad hominem argument" is an attack against the person instead of the person's argument. In your instance, you referred to the OP's reaction as overreaction and hysterics—which you then threw away as irrelevant after it had served your purpose of attacking the OP personally—instead of addressing the description directly and giving them the benefit of the doubt and taking their description at face value.

Sure, but that is different from the incident described by the OP. Instead of making up straw man arguments to flail against, try addressing the argument made by the OP.

You are being silly. I was commenting on the "OP's reaction". I wasn't commenting on the OP. A reaction is an opinion. That isn't an ad hominem. (Inceidently, your comment about my comment is also not and ad hominem.) An ad hominem has to be an attack on a person, rather than an "attack" on their opinion or their statement.

I am glad I cleared that up.