> His effort to be courteous made me feel that I was different, the odd one out, the one we must be careful around and treat like a fragile flower.
We should respect all our colleagues equally regardless of the type of sexual organs they happen to be equipped with (and regardless of other irrelevant characteristics). Singling out one group over others for additional "respect" is what makes them feel different and out of place.
In the setting of this anecdote her role was not that of a "lady", but that of an "engineer".
I personally thing it is more sexist to try and deny gender differences than simply recognise them and deal with people respectfully. I find the implication that the only way to not be sexist is to treat everyone as gender neutral disturbing.
Sure, there are gender differences. But I don't think "genetic vulnerability to profanity" is one of them.
Yes, I'm being half-sarcastic here. It seems like if you want to question this definition of misogyny, you have to concede that every such thing, like casual uses of the terms "trigger" and "microagression", is suspect. Why is "fuck" so acceptable to say around women that they feel left out when you try to abstain, but saying "forking" and "dongle" was a mini sexual assault that one time?
[1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Guide_for_foul-mouthed_fe...
You're acting like the article you linked is some sort of rulebook all women in technology abide by.
On the other hand, the OP herself is in the gray (for now at least) for saying dick jokes are fine and the only sexism there is the lack of vulva jokes.[1]
The fact that there is no rulebook was exactly my point. For every person wanting to analyze whether your anatomical/sexual reference is offensive to someone, there is someone else feeling singled out that you would take that care before saying it in front of them. I don't want to throw up my hands and give up, just point out that people act like the answers are easy but it's actually very complex. There's little consensus on proper behavior on these small scales, and both sides have tribal and exclusionary behaviors.
Behavior of today's college students, in the US at least, suggests the Tumblr generation is growing and therefore a sizable contingent of people really will increasingly apply these standards to everyone else.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10760819 (you have to go up to parent to see the grayness, and I'm assuming it's the OP because she claimed so in another comment and has a sufficiently-aged account with the same name as the website)
I still keep in touch with her, so I'll be sure to pass on the message that she's both sexist and condescending.
But if it was literally him saying something like "what the fuck" or whatever, then yes, I think she was not being reasonable. If she were to say "I don't like that kind of language", that's fine, but to suggest ladies don't like that kind of language is a big overgeneralization on her part.
I'm guessing it was a different kind of comment, though, given "ribald". In which case it's not just an issue of profanity anymore, and so her reaction may have been perfectly justified.
As far as I'm concerned, her reaction was justified whatever the context. If she'd had a different reaction, that would have been fine too. It's not reasonable to tell someone that they aren't entitled to a reaction.
Have you lived in the South before? Men are raised that it's a sign of respect to be on their best behaviors around ladies. Shouldn't this count as cultural diversity and be respected?
:-)
Your statement is actually extremely sexist, I'm not sure if you realise that. "The role she's earned should trump the one to which she was born" - so being a "lady" is somehow an "inferior role" that can be trumped by the superior, earned role of "being an engineer"?
It really doesn't seem that hard to me. A person can be all sorts of genders and various fluid things in between male and female, and you accept that and treat them as such - with respect for all those roles, without assuming one to be superior to the other. On top of that, they might take on a bunch of other roles. Those roles don't obliterate the nature of who they are. "I'm no longer a woman, I'm now an engineer" implies that the two roles are exclusionary, that one is superior, to the other, etc.
How about: "I'm a woman and I'm an engineer. They're both part of my identity."
Caveat: I live in the UK. We don't have quite the levels of rampant sexism y'all seem to have in the states (or at least I haven't observed it). Or racism, for that matter. Seems a bit more civilised over here, based on the stories I read about the US. People are people. They're black, white, rainbow-striped, whatever. They're people and people are awesome and worthy of all the love in the universe, whatever their gender, skin colour, profession, etc.
Not at all. As an accurate reading of my earlier comment would make obvious, I'm well aware they are not incompatible in the slightest. But for someone who doesn't understand that, and has therefore to choose one or the other as a basis for dealing with another person, "engineer" would seem to be preferable, and I've yet to run across the engineer, in a room full of engineers, to whom an apology for swearing is necessary.
The remainder of your exceptionalism I'll let pass without comment, save to note that of course nothing says "civilized" like days of unsuppressed looting and rioting in the capital city. Yes, you're clearly doing something right there.
At least that's the main point of GP's post. What the guy in the story was thinking is debatable I guess, but I don't see much point since we can't know.
Speaking of my parents, my mother brought me up to always be a gentleman around ladies, which included things like not using bad language. This was quickly drilled out of me when I entered the real world.
Dave Chappelle has an amusing stand-up routine about this subject called "Chivalry is dead, and women killed it"
Did you misread the bit about "holding the door open for a lady"? Hint: the reason he does so is not because of her gender, has nothing to do with "being a gentleman" or anything else your parents taught you that you're dragging into this thread before anyone else did. The reason I know is because he calls it a "common courtesy" in a "similar light" to his position on being respectful with your language regardless of the gender of your listeners, and disavows one sexist justification for holding the door for women specifically. He probably brought up the door thing because some people have the idea that women are offended by having a man hold a door for them, precisely because it used to be chivalrous. And a counter-meme is that few real women are like that, so who knows, but this swearing anecdote seems a point in favor of the first idea. Did you see that he used the word "lady" and your chivalry detectors flared up and refuse to take anything else he says at face value? Was the comment edited after your reply? I was there around that time and it seems unlikely.
Since I had to dig a bit to justify it above, I can understand how you've misinterpreted it. The comment may have been sloppily written, or has a certain subtle sense of humor/sarcasm/analogy, or maybe even trolling by appearing sexist but being technically not.. but if you read it carefully and maybe a bit charitably I really believe it means pretty much the opposite of what you thought.
You probably still hold back on some "bad language" to men and women you don't know well, or you wouldn't call it "bad language." That was the main point.
The weird thing is not that he apologized (that's reasonable), the weird thing is that he apologized /to her/ (and not to the group as a whole).
I guess the author's impression trumps ours (and only the swearer's honest account of his thoughts could trump hers), but she didn't really address those, so I have some doubts on whether it's as clear-cut as you say.
(If that's the case, he shouldn't have said it regardless of who was around, but once he said it, apologizing with some amount of sincerity would be better than not apologizing.)
Additionally, swearing is a social signal that typically bonds people, as it's a "we can say these things together" type affair.
We swear in front of and with clients (not all - there are some where we know it would be a lead balloon). We talk like human fucking beings. Folks tend to find this refreshing, and it results in a more relaxed atmosphere, and more relaxed interpersonal and client relationships.
Franky, if someone is offended by my language, then I see that as strictly their problem, and I won't apologise for it.
I'd be pretty pleased if I managed to hold down a conversation with any of our political 'leaders' that didn't involve a good many expletives.
I would apologize if I said "fuck" near my country's president, or even the president of my small-ish company. Both of whom are male. It's a sign of respect. In the context of women, I see it in a similar light to holding the door open for a lady. It isn't me assuming she's too weak to open a door, it's just a common courtesy.
I'm genuinely sorry that the author was offended by the guy apologizing for saying "fuck" near her. I can't speak for him, and perhaps he was a total douchebag. But perhaps he was aware that on average men can be more crude than women, and in a professional (male-dominated, numerically speaking!) setting like that one, it's prudent to avoid language that could make people feel uncomfortable.