It's up to the woman (or man) in question what to do about inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. If they're comfortable ignoring it and firing back, fine, but there's no point telling them it's all good fun if it's not for them, is it? Obviously, it wasn't for Leadsom and Fallon sounds like a creep. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or something?

In Australia, bullying is considered 'repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards workers or a group of workers, that creates a risk to health and safety' and note the keyword repeated. Common sense should dictate as per the article that the nice girl wont psychologically or emotionally cope being taunted by men and as one who has experienced this I can assure you that this risk to health and safety is real. The workplace requires a vigilance to inappropriate behaviour despite there being Sue Carrol' and to condescendingly say "yawn" to this is, well, wrong.

I think that regardless of what we do, unfortunately, these kind of bad-natured sexual innuendos will not end at the workplace... Most people are too controlled by sexual desire.

The Sun's appreciation of a large pair of tits has never been in question, but it is not my go-to source for an understanding of sexual politics.

Over time, her column featured her thoughts on society, values, popular culture and celebrity.[2] She displayed a consistent ability to provoke, and in 2002 during supermodel Naomi Campbell's privacy case against the Daily Mirror, judge Mr Justice Morland described Carroll's reference to Campbell as a "chocolate soldier" as "extremely rude and offensive".[1] She was described by Kevin Maguire, an associate editor at the Daily Mirror, as "the queen of columnists"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Carroll

One woman's witty banter is another judge's rude and offensive racism.

It's up to the woman (or man) in question what to do about inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. If they're comfortable ignoring it and firing back, fine, — Baden

I beg to differ. Casual humiliation passed off as humour is impossible to resist alone without appearing as a killjoy, pc mad, over-sensitive, behaviour nazi. It's up to all of us to set the standard for what is an acceptable level of insult, and allow the victim to show the strength of not being bothered while we observers get on our high horses, and ride roughshod over such jollities. Have we not discovered through "me too" that what is normal is unacceptable?

The Sun's appreciation of a large pair of tits has never been in question, but it is not my go-to source for an understanding of sexual politics. — unenlightened

That's a nicer ad hom than I could think up, and I was sorely tempted. (Y)

I beg to differ... — unenlightened

I never said anyone had to resist potential harassment alone only that it was their judgement about what steps to take. It's up to society to make sure the systems are in place to facilitate a choice concerning reporting and that there is no stigma attached to doing so. But people have different views about what's acceptable and what's not. If someone thinks the appropriate thing to do in the face of a particular comment is to fire back verbally rather than to make an official complaint, that's their business as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't feel the latter option is unavailable or stigmatized. And sure, society has it's part to play though #metoo campaigns and so on in transforming the zeitgeist.

I feel like, if people are okay with "harmless" work banter, then this is an exception to a general opposition to it. Someone might be fine with sexual jokes, but just because they're fine with it doesn't mean everyone is fine with it. And to publicize this ends up contributing to the problem, as this encourages the sexual harassment of those who don't appreciate it. I don't think it's "harmless" more than it's just narrow-minded, and it portrays a lack of understanding, viz: of how sexual advances hurts many people:

Sometimes it’s just harmless fun and, as equals, we must learn to not take it too seriously and give as good as we get. — Jane Moore, The Sun

Don't take it too seriously! Wait...why? Because a few goofs enjoy having some fun, and by taking workplace sexual harassment seriously, we might be depriving them of this sublime and time-honored tradition? To me, that just seems to be a failure to understand why it's important to nab workplace sexual harassment.

The same thing can be said of things like prostitution or gun ownership. Just because a person likes selling their body, or owning big ass guns, doesn't mean it's a healthy, responsible, let alone moral, thing to do. I think it's better just to say no, rather than try to publicize all these exceptions, because everyone already knows there's exceptions to the rule. If we're going to be a just society, there are some things everyone needs to just stop doing. Like, I'm sorry cracking down on sexual harassment will deprive you of a bit of fun, but the actual harassment of workers on the job is more important than your occasional banter.

It's up to the woman (or man) in question what to do about inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. — Baden

Yes, but that strikes me as beside the point. That it's up to them doesn't mean that there aren't better or worse ways in which to handle a certain sort of situation, and it doesn't mean that their way is the right way.

If they're comfortable ignoring it and firing back, fine, but there's no point telling them it's all good fun if it's not for them, is it? — Baden

There is a point in encouraging the right kind of attitude and criticising the wrong kind of attitude. That's what the article is aiming for. It's not pointless just because people might not be comfortable with it. Education isn't always comfortable, but it is often beneficial. Sometimes you have to adapt to achieve.

Obviously, it wasn't for Leadsom and Fallon sounds like a creep. — Baden

Yes, Fallon sounds like a creep, and Leadsom sounds like a bit of a douche. That the one is a creep doesn't mean that it's alright for the other to be a douche.

Of course, they're both Tories, so they're already the scum of the earth, anyway. >:)

Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or something? — Baden

Clearly not, and if that's what you've taken from the article, then I think that you've misunderstood.

In Australia, bullying is considered 'repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards workers or a group of workers, that creates a risk to health and safety' and note the keyword repeated. Common sense should dictate as per the article that the nice girl wont psychologically or emotionally cope being taunted by men and as one who has experienced this I can assure you that this risk to health and safety is real. The workplace requires a vigilance to inappropriate behaviour despite there being Sue Carrol' and to condescendingly say "yawn" to this is, well, wrong. — TimeLine

The "yawn" was justified, as it was directed at someone being judgemental from an outside perspective, either failing to get, or wilfully overlooking, the mutual understanding of those on the inside.

Behold the definition of "sexual harassment" according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including some explanatory comment:

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:
•The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
•The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
•The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
•Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
•The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome."

This is federal law, applicable to employers with 15 or more employees. States generally have their own laws in this area.

All sorts of conduct, intended or otherwise, may fall within this definition and these examples, yes?

Is this too much, too little? It matters not. THE LAW RULES. Take heed, o ye employers and employees.

Common sense be damned.

When it comes to one's workplace, unless you know your audience incredibly well, it would seem prudent to abstain from sexual comments directed at any particular coworker. Or maybe all sexual comments, directed or not. The thickness of someone's skin is not evident by their actual skin. You never know what history someone is bringing along with them. Even if you do know someone very well and they consent to such joking, there might come a time where the friendship sours and now your coworker has an arsenal of inappropriate comments with which to bury you. A friend of mine was fired for such a thing because his coworker wanted to climb the ladder quicker.

As much as I hate blanket rules that restrict all degrees of a particular behavior, it would be a nightmare for HR departments to decide where the line is when it comes sexual joking/sexual harassment.

It's worth noting that the situation my friend was fired for was male to male joking, so you really never know.

The Sun's appreciation of a large pair of tits has never been in question, but it is not my go-to source for an understanding of sexual politics. — unenlightened

Nor mine, but the newspaper happened to be sitting there on the table in the lunch room.

One woman's witty banter is another judge's rude and offensive racism. — unenlightened

Yes, and I find it offensive and racist also, but that's a different topic.

I beg to differ. Casual humiliation passed off as humour is impossible to resist alone without appearing as a killjoy, pc mad, over-sensitive, behaviour nazi. It's up to all of us to set the standard for what is an acceptable level of insult, and allow the victim to show the strength of not being bothered while we observers get on our high horses, and ride roughshod over such jollities. Have we not discovered through "me too" that what is normal is unacceptable? — unenlightened

There's appearing as a killjoy, pc mad, over-sensitive, behaviour nazi, and there's actually being one. What's what is up for debate.

I don't think that's it's up to all of us, collectively, to set the standard over what is or is not acceptable discourse. I think that two or more people are perfectly capable, and at liberty, to set their own standards. An appreciation of relativism, context, and liberty, is required to see things right, in my view.

I think that regardless of what we do, unfortunately, these kind of bad-natured sexual innuendos will not end at the workplace... Most people are too controlled by sexual desire. — Agustino

What do you mean, "bad-natured"? Where are you getting that from? I think you're just reading that into it.

It was regarded as workplace banter, and they all burst out laughing. Doesn't that context mean anything to you?

I'm not a fan of common sense but in this instance, both my common sense and my explicit ethical analysis tell me that what Fallon said to Leadsom was unacceptable, and that - unless there are mitigating circumstances not reported here - his being sanctioned was reasonable.

For me the interest in this story is the first encounter involving Carroll. At first glance it may appear a harmless, consensual exchange of banter between adults with approximately equal power. Neither participant was a victim. If no others had been present it would be hard to find anything to complain about. But others were present, so there were other potential victims. What if one of those present were an impressionable mid-level employee who formed the impression - based on that and similar incidents - that making sexualised comments about co-workers was not only condoned but encouraged. What if that co-worker subsequently made a sexualised comment to an even more junior female employee - who was not dressing flamboyantly - that intimidates and upsets her. Then that female employee is an indirect victim of the Carroll incident, and potentially so is the one that makes the later comment, if they face repercussions. Repeated incidents like the Carroll one normalise gratuitous sexual comments in the workplace and create a climate with a greater risk of harm to people that are psychologically less robust than Carroll is portrayed to be.

The aim to avoid this sort of damage is one of the reasons that many (most?) professional firms have dress codes that forbid employees - male or female - from dressing in an overtly sexualised manner, which is what the report implies Carroll did. I believe that dress codes, to the extent that they are shaped by that motivation, have strong ethical and practical support. Dressing in an overtly sexual way in a workplace makes sexual comments almost inevitable and creates an atmosphere that can lead to harm to people other than the person who chooses to dress that way.

Prima facie there is an inconsistency there with my view that, in the general public space, people should be able to dress however they like, subject to some fairly light restrictions to cut off extremes. I am for instance supportive of the marches that were held protesting against 'slut shaming'.

I haven't resolved this apparent conflict yet. But I think the answer probably relates to the facts that (1) a workplace is a private, not a public place and (2) there are much stronger power inequalities at play in the workplace, that necessitate greater prudence.

Someone might be fine with sexual jokes, but just because they're fine with it doesn't mean everyone is fine with it. — darthbarracuda

Sure, but that wasn't suggested. She even gave a second example, in a different context, in contrast to the first, to emphasise this very point, and probably in part to attempt to keep at bay that kind of knee jerk reaction.

But had Sue been a young intern, nervously bringing coffee into a­ room of senior men who then chose to belittle her with a sexual comment, knowing full well that she would not have the power or the confidence to even dare to answer them back?

Well, that would be a matter that needed further investigation. — Jane Moore, The Sun

And to publicize this ends up contributing to the problem, as this encourages the sexual harassment of those who don't appreciate it. — darthbarracuda

No, it does not encourage that.

Every day there are genuine, clear-cut cases of sexual harassment or abuse in the workplace where senior men — and women — use their power to either proposition or publicly humiliate those who are not in the position to fight back.

It’s wrong and should be dealt with through all the proper channels. — Jane Moore, The Sun

No where does it explicitly encourage what you allege - it clearly does the opposite, as the quote above shows. The rest is down to what one takes from it. And blaming an opinion piece, such as this one, from a newspaper, for someone's act of sexual harassment, strikes me as a very poor excuse, a tacit admission of inadequate reading comprehension, and an attempt to vacate personal responsibility.

What it encourages is to think before reaching a hasty conclusion and acting upon it. It encourages one to appreciate context, and to think about things from a different perspective, instead of having a knee jerk reaction based on some notion of political correctness that you might have picked up as a result of social conditioning. It encourages one not to blindly follow the herd.

I don't think it's "harmless" more than it's just narrow-minded, and it portrays a lack of understanding, viz: of how sexual advances hurts many people: — darthbarracuda

What's narrow-minded is forcing your own interpretation on the anecdote, like Agustino's "bad-natured". What portrays a lack of understanding is failing to appreciate the importance of context.

Sometimes it’s just harmless fun and, as equals, we must learn to not take it too seriously and give as good as we get. — Jane Moore, The Sun

Notice how she begins with, "Sometimes". That's an important qualification, and should not be carelessly overlooked.

Don't take it too seriously! Wait...why? Because a few goofs enjoy having some fun, and by taking workplace sexual harassment seriously, we might be depriving them of this sublime and time-honored tradition? To me, that just seems to be a failure to understand why it's important to nab workplace sexual harassment. — darthbarracuda

No, that completely misses the point. The point was that having some fun does not necessarily constitute sexual harassment, and that it's important to recognise the difference. Again, no where did she argue that sexual harassment should not be taken seriously. She was arguing that one can, and should, get rid of the bathwater without also getting rid of the baby.

Like so many things in life, it’s all about perspective, circumstance and common sense. — Jane Moore, The Sun

I think when it comes to comments sexual in nature, harassment is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with the gist of the article, but I think it's unrealistic that everyone would understand the nuance between jokes involving sexual content and sexual harassment. And as Andrewk mentioned, in these instances it's not just between two people, it's a whole room of people leaving open a whole room of interpretation.

This sort of nuance is probably better discussed between friends outside of a professional workspace.

I think when it comes to comments sexual in nature, harassment is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with the gist of the article, but I think it's unrealistic that everyone would understand the nuance between jokes involving sexual content and sexual harassment. And as Andrewk mentioned, in these instances it's not just between two people, it's a whole room of people leaving open a whole room of interpretation.

This sort of nuance is probably better discussed between friends outside of a professional workspace. — ProbablyTrue

That's probably true, ProbablyTrue.

Like, I'm sorry cracking down on sexual harassment will deprive you of a bit of fun, but the actual harassment of workers on the job is more important than your occasional banter. — darthbarracuda

(Y)

Like, I'm sorry cracking down on sexual harassment will deprive you of a bit of fun, but the actual harassment of workers on the job is more important than your occasional banter. — darthbarracuda

(Y) x 2

Yes, thumbs up to a false dilemma! (Y)

As much as I hate blanket rules that restrict all degrees of a particular behavior, it would be a nightmare for HR departments to decide where the line is when it comes sexual joking/sexual harassment. — ProbablyTrue

Our best friend was a manager of a Medical Nuclear lab that draws and delivers doses of Nuclear medicine for prescribed medical testing on people.

The lab was mostly male with a few females and the jokes were often sexual in nature but never assigned to one person, females and males were fair game.

One morning a female employee called our best friend, the manager to let him know that she would be late coming in to work because one of her cats had been favoring a leg or hip but it had gotten worse though the night. Her manager said he absolutely understood and went to work. When the female employee arrived at work, the staff was curious as to how her cat was doing. And I am sure that many of them were genuine but it only takes one smart ass to make a sexist remark for the arena of remarks to open. She explained that the cat had broken it's leg, showed the x-ray and explained that the cat was at the vet till the end of the day having the leg casted. A guy who had arrived half way through her explanation as to what happened, asked her in front of the rest of the staff if the xray was of her broken pussy and she blushed and backed out gracefully and the next day filed a report with the Corporate office back east, going over his manger, of sexual harassment by a fellow employee and the manager who did nothing to intervene.

Lawsuit, court, Corporate lawyers, our best friend at the helm and shit went down. The employee was fired and the manger was put on two year probation, with no raises or advancement in the company and he could take it or leave it but they were done.

You never know what others are bringing to the experience they have at work and it is a place that has to be safe sexually, including but not limited to sexual banter. It can sour in a heart beat and no banter is worth ending your career over.

@Sapientia (N) Everyone else (Y)

Serves you right for picking up The Sun, fella. :P

You're right. I should probably remain confined to my echo chamber, and stick to The Guardian, The Independent, and The Mirror.

A guy who had arrived half way through her explanation as to what happened, asked her in front of the rest of the staff if the xray was of her broken pussy... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Legend. >:O

*Shug* You can leave your echo chamber without jumping on the chamber pot. Or if you do, use The Sun to wipe your ass rather than read it.

I'm deliberately expressing my opinion. You're deliberately judging me. And we deliberately lived happily ever after. Deliberately.

Look, I wasn't there, I didn't make that remark, I didn't report it, I didn't make the rules, I didn't enforce them, I didn't fire anyone, and I didn't cause anyone to be fired. I wasn't involved, and I had no control over any of it. The unfortunate consequences are indeed unfortunate. But it's still a hilariously outrageous thing to say, and nothing you can do or say will change that. You can disapprove, you can vent at me as much, or as forcefully, as you like. You can call me all the names under the sun. But funny is funny. And me likes funny.

At the end of the day, laughing at an inappropriate sexual innuendo will never be as bad as, say, supporting gun ownership. Not even close.

I think that regardless of what we do, unfortunately, these kind of bad-natured sexual innuendos will not end at the workplace... Most people are too controlled by sexual desire. — Agustino

Besides, you have zero credibility when you talk about these matters, since you frequently and openly praise Donald Trump, recently saying that he's an inspiration to you. This is the same Donald Trump who made comments that go far beyond sexual innuendo, and who occupies the most powerful position in the United States.

The "yawn" was justified, as it was directed at someone being judgemental from an outside perspective, either failing to get, or wilfully overlooking, the mutual understanding of those on the inside. — Sapientia

Can it not also work in reverse? The "yawn" itself was unnecessary and whilst the act cannot be constituted as harassment legally here in Australia, repeated and tolerance to such negative behaviour breeds a poor workplace environment that can be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of others. Clearly the aforementioned has a toxic culture considering it is openly "male-dominated" which can only mean that a woman' survival would require such supposed "thick skin" and so how many women who do not have this "thick skin" but have more talent and capacity then the men sitting around that table are working elsewhere because of it?

Culture is essentially a top-down process and bad leadership enables bad men to behave badly and this all comes down to communication; jokes and a positive working environment and culture is necessary, but within reason. The comment "yawn" is an indication that there is no appreciation for how others feel and whether there was mutual consent between the two parties, there was no inherent respect for the effects such behaviour has overall in the organisation, the industry, and other members present in the room. As one who has experienced bullying by men that took advantage of my vulnerability, I feel tired of having to develop this thick skin when it is not who I am just to survive. The effects of that experience took years and a lot of distress for me to overcome and I took it with me to my new job that I become vigilant of the behaviour of others because of it. It is not fair that I am not allowed to be myself because idiots are dominating.

Having spent the better part of two decades in a professional environment in a major corporation, I can say that any direct comment about a woman's anatomy by a man would not be tolerated by anyone. The rules grow more strict as the disparity in position grows. A lawyer commenting on a secretary's anatomy is very off limits. A secretary commenting on a lawyer's anatomy would seem manipulative. Of course, not everyone abides by the rules.

But to the point, bad conduct can be significantly limited by creating a culture where it's not accepted. There will be those who break the rules, but corporations are really good at self protection and eliminating hazards from within. Compliance officers, in addition to stifling all feelings of human worth, do serve a valuable service.

The story of the guy commenting on the woman's breasts wouldn't have evoked laughter. It've evoked cringes and we'd all be waiting for HR to bust through the door.

The appropriate way to present perverse sexual expression, both express and through thinly veiled innuendo, is by posting anonymously on philosophy websites where the mods let you get away with anything. Hell, I even know of one where they let you be a mod.

Besides, you have zero credibility when you talk about these matters, since you frequently and openly praise Donald Trump, recently saying that he's an inspiration to you. — Sapientia

So what, once someone supports Trump you can forever attack whatever they say because of their association with an asshole? It's just so ad hom.