Re:That Amanda Blum Article on Adria Richards is Not What It...
by dalke on Sunday March 24, 2013 @11:23PM
(#5435223)
You are correct. The EEOC agrees with you. "Making a dongle joke is not oppression of women." In fact, a workplace where everyone cracks Benny Hill-style jokes full of sexual innuendo does not (according to the law) count as form of sexual harassment.
Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC:
"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."
Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC:
"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."