Marsupialized wrote:That may be, but 90% of these companies would hurriedly fall over themselves to monetarily squash it if they got wind of a threat by a former female employee.

I'm not talking about actually going through the court process, what's the point in that? So she can go through a bunch of bullshit and maybe get a check 10 years from now and hand 70% of it over to some asshole lawyer?

I saw it time and time again at the CBOT, every company I worked for....which was pretty much all of them by the end of it....these chicks would get a job there and 2 weeks later threaten to sue and they'd write her a check.

Saw it happen, and I'm in no way exaggerating, at least 100 times over the 6 or whatever years I worked there. Ask Peppers, he was down there with me.

These chicks are now rich, one of them got enough to buy a giant house in Nashville and make a shitty pop country record.

Yeah, I mean, there's no reason why the stupid companies wouldn't just settle out of pocket so as to avoid a lawsuit. I guess if they have enough money they'd just be fine with letting people take advantage of them that way.

But I'm just talking about actually going through with a lawsuit. The bar is very high. What Kayte describes could be a basis for a suit only if the behavior was frequent, severe and harmful to her job performance. The test is necessarily pretty fact-specific, but, I can say with virtual certainty that the slim chances of success would make the prospect of her suing them a huge risk of losing lots of time and money.

If companies were smarter, they'd realize how high the bar is, and they wouldn't give in immediately to threats of a suit. On the other hand, it would definitely be worth it to sue if you had an open-and-shut case. You can get lots of damages for that shit, and make a strong difference in the working conditions for future employees. Courts will probably make the damages a lot higher because it's in the interest of public policy to do so.

NerblyBear wrote:She should not file a suit for the behavior she just mentioned, as that is nowhere near enough to merit a sexual harassment claim. Saying sexist comments and showing pictures of porn will not be enough. I exhaustively researched this issue last semester, and behavior much worse than that would still not suffice.

Courts' standards are rather tough for sexual harassment.

Nerbly, I don't think you are anywhere near as smart you think you are regarding this. In my experience,(not me personally), where I work, just doing this behavior is enough to get you suspended or fired. We have had corporate lawyers come in to go over this stuff with all managers and supervisors, and from what I understand, it's not anywhere near as hard to win as you think.

The only thing that may stand in your way is whether you have enough proof the behavior happened, but in all likelihood, they would settle out of court rather than defend it very far.

Mark Hansen wrote:
Nerbly, I don't think you are anywhere near as smart you think you are regarding this. In my experience,(not me personally), where I work, just doing this behavior is enough to get you suspended or fired. We have had corporate lawyers come in to go over this stuff with all managers and supervisors, and from what I understand, it's not anywhere near as hard to win as you think.

The only thing that may stand in your way is whether you have enough proof the behavior happened, but in all likelihood, they would settle out of court rather than defend it very far.

Of course you can get suspended or fired. But that's the company's call. I'm talking about whether or not a lawsuit will be successful. Two different things.

I don't know what your lawyers told you. I read, like, twenty five cases from my circuit on this issue last semester, and I'm just relaying the sense I got from what those courts held. Lots of those cases failed on the basis of behavior much worse than what Kayte described. The ones that succeeded were so open-and shut that you would be appalled at what these women had to endure. There were also a handful on the border-line.

But Kayte didn't go into great detail, so maybe there's more to her story. She could also file an EEOC complaint (as you mentioned), and I think that they will tell you right up front whether your case is likely to succeed on its merits.

Skronk wrote:When a guy uses the word "feminine" as a pejorative towards another guy, he means it as being a weakness.

Why do you think that is?

Skronkella wrote:I don't use the word "faggot" to describe someone, nor their actions because I don't consider homosexuality to be a negative in any way. If I were to use the word "bitch" towards either a man or a woman, I would use it to address the way they're acting, not as a personal, catch all judgment.

Exactly the same as the word faggot, then.

Rick Reuben wrote:No, it's not. Genetics cause women to grow vaginas. What more evidence do you need of genetic distinctions between genders? Why can genetics not be the explanation for different emotional and behavioral traits also? Don't they start in the brain, which is a biological organ?

What's the biggest organ in the body? The skin. You wouldn't expect to judge someones behaviour based on that.

Also "genetic distinction" between genders. Haha. Are women a different species?

Oh and technically humans all start proto-female, girls do not grow vaginas, boys grows penii from their proto-vaginal mush. With girls the mush just sits around and eventually starts a photoblog about china dolls and watches Hollyoaks. This is a crass laymans description, I warn you. This forum post does not qualify the reader in genetics or midwifery.

This is why men have nipples according to the Straight Dope, which is 100% correct about everything.

big_dave wrote:

Skronk wrote:When a guy uses the word "feminine" as a pejorative towards another guy, he means it as being a weakness.

Why do you think that is?

Isn't the answer to this question a little obvious even for you?

big_diana wrote:

Skronkella wrote:I don't use the word "faggot" to describe someone, nor their actions because I don't consider homosexuality to be a negative in any way. If I were to use the word "bitch" towards either a man or a woman, I would use it to address the way they're acting, not as a personal, catch all judgment.

Exactly the same as the word faggot, then.

Not quite. If you or I use the word "faggot" around people, they wouldn't be wrong in assuming we'd be speaking negatively about homosexuals, or at least calling a straight man gay in a vicious manner. Using "bitch" doesn't mean I'm speaking negatively about women.

Skronk wrote:Isn't the answer to this question a little obvious even for you?

Quite a controversial area, actually.

Not quite. If you or I use the word "faggot" around people, they wouldn't be wrong in assuming we'd be speaking negatively about homosexuals, or at least calling a straight man gay in a vicious manner. Using "bitch" doesn't mean I'm speaking negatively about women.

Both faggot and bitch are pejorative descriptions of female behaviour. Using them to describe a man signifies something very specific about such behavior other than the specific insult itself.

Just because bitch is still used to describe women, whereas faggot has become obsolete in that respect, does not mean that they stop describing aspects of a percieved feminine.

I am not saying it is particularly bad to use either. It depends on the circumstances. But they both carry the weight of prejudice. Faggot carries a more immediate impact because it is the slur du jour of the American right, gradually phasing out nigger. That immediacy doesn't do much to dilute the history and intents of both words.

It doesn't dilute, you're right about that, but at the same time, it's the intent with which a person uses that word is what we should be aware of.

This is an interesting talk, and brings up a few questions about slurs/hate speech. We can all recognize the reactions these words brings up, but where do we go from here? Is a slur (sexist, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, etc.) destined to be phased out, either by conscious refusal to use the word, or does this enter the legislative world, where we actively stamp out the use of these words?

The reaction to speech like this, while justifiable, kind of suggests that the words are some kind of "moral abrasive", and that even casual use in a joking manner is intolerable.

To be honest there is nothing wrong with considering direct personal meanings and long term significance.

If someone dropped a hammer on his foot and yelled "nigger faggot bitch" I wouldn't really waste time questioning in his intent, but it would make me wonder why those words were slurs fit to yell at a time like that.

I do not think "legislating" against individual slurs is even an option. The psychology behind them has always been the issue. If we erase bitch, fag and cock from popular vocabulary we'll see another set of phonemes replace their place in the socio-linguistic structure.

Linguistics tells us that words have no direct meanings, they just denote differences within a larger system. Therefore we can assume that strong language is stronger because it signifies a vaster difference. When it comes to expletives and slurs, this makes perfect sense. What easier gateway into the mind of a fearful bigot than see that impotent language as just measures of the unknown other that bigots and rightwingers seem to fear so much.

Not Crap.

Women are different from men. If a man calls another dude a "girly man" he is saying he is not a man. This is how men insult each other.

To me, a person's opinion on women exists separate and distinct from this.

Women exact pain on each other by saying things behind each others' backs and other indirect catty nonsense.

It's just what's done.