sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself — ProbablyTrue

sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself — ProbablyTrue

The idea that only a minority of males can function in a zero-tolerance environment is kinda de la merde, tho.

For most adults, the place they spend the greater part of their day is at work. Work has always been a socializing site as well as a place of drudgery. As much as bosses would like to suppress that function, work is the place where a lot of people look for and find friends and mates. Friends and socializing is one of the few things that humanizes many work places.

How are men and women supposed to assess their co-workers romantic potential if they can not engage in the normal female/female. male/male, or male/female interaction that spawns friendship, romance, and marriage?

The preliminaries to asking someone out involve flirting, touching (and I'm not talking about running a hand up a woman's thigh, or down a man's trousers, here), banter, and so on. I consider it meet, right, and salutary that people should pursue personal goals like friendship and romance at work.

Granted, many people at work are already married or already partnered. Some people are all business all the time, and can't be bothered by frivolous socializing. No profitability in that! But still, all that has to be sorted out in a group--who is available and who is not.

You already know that I have no understanding of millennial women (so strange a species, unlike any generation before) so you will understand why I don't quite understand how they are ever going to get laid by anybody--male or female, let alone find a husband and have children (Gawd, what a pathetic patronizing patriarchal thing to say--total insensitivity!!! Get married and have children? What cave did he crawl out of???) if they can't find a way to interact more enthusiastically with men. Look, you know as well as I do that this discourse applies to on-campus and post-campus socializing as well. It doesn't apply ONLY to the work place.

There may be some argument for dialling back PC in some of its guises but you seem to be saying little more than you should have the right to verbally trample on whomever you so wish because it amuses you. — Baden

Ha ha.

Fuck you, darling.

Ha ha. — unenlightened

I worked for a US company for awhile with a US manager and once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. He called me over and said I couldn't say that to a woman. — Benkei

Benkei's experience of being reprimanded for complimenting Ms. Dutch on her dress illustrates where these finicky rules about behavior end up.

I don't know whether it would be a good thing for us all to spend an Encounter Weekend together or not. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of leaping to conclusions on the basis of posts which can't be judged in the context of people's actual behavior.

Benkei's experience of being reprimanded for complimenting Ms. Dutch on her dress illustrates where these finicky rules about behavior end up. — Bitter Crank

I would argue that is too prudish even for me. There's nothing inherently sexual about complimenting someone unless you are speaking about specific parts of their body. That or saying "nice dress" as creepily as possible. Who knows, maybe Benkei is a creep? ;)

Benkei's experience of being reprimanded for complimenting Ms. Dutch on her dress illustrates where these finicky rules about behavior end up. — Bitter Crank

I don't think Benkei should have been reprimanded for that. But it's a far cry from any of the examples we've been discussing so far.

How are men and women supposed to assess their co-workers romantic potential if they can not engage in the normal female/female. male/male, or male/female interaction that spawns friendship, romance, and marriage? — Bitter Crank

They can as far as I'm concerned. But what's that got to do with commenting on their tits and pussies?

The preliminaries to asking someone out involve flirting, touching (and I'm not talking about running a hand up a woman's thigh, or down a man's trousers, here), banter, and so on. I consider it meet, right, and salutary that people should pursue personal goals like friendship and romance at work. — Bitter Crank

There's banter and banter. I've engaged in banter at work but again not gone the tits or pussies route. That wouldn't have worked with any woman I've ever been interested in.

You already know that I have no understanding of millennial women (so strange a species, unlike any generation before) so you will understand why I don't quite understand how they are ever going to get laid by anybody--male or female, let alone find a husband and have children (Gawd, what a pathetic patronizing patriarchal thing to say--total insensitivity!!! Get married and have children? What cave did he crawl out of???) if they can't find a way to interact more enthusiastically with men. Look, you know as well as I do that this discourse applies to on-campus and post-campus socializing as well. It doesn't apply ONLY to the work place. — Bitter Crank

Again, I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the discussion but the examples given (apart from Benkei's) weren't anything to do with flirtation they were obnoxious comments about tits and pussies. What am I missing here?

obnoxious comments about tits and pussies — Baden

I don't recollect tits having been mentioned in this thread. Tits doesn't seem to be a frequently used words -- somebody did reference great tits in a thread, but that was literally a bird, not a breast.

Well, never mind the missing tits.

I was in the workforce for 40+ years, and there were only two places where words such as pussy, tits, and ass (as in anatomical ass/arse) were used. One was an 8 month stint at a Job Corps in 1968 where the black corpsmen were always talking about pussy. The other was 9 years at the Minnesota AIDS Project where just about everything sexual was talked about in excruciating detail at one time or another. This really was a place without boundaries. The workforce was about 50% straight women and 50% gay men. "Pussy" wasn't a term that I heard often.

in the 33 years at other jobs, really very typical work places--colleges, non-profit agencies, etc. I can recollect hearing or seeing very, very few instances of inappropriate sexualized behavior. People just didn't behave this way. Of course there was conflict -- sometimes very heated -- but it was over other issues, like office politics, personal snits, favoritism, and the like. Some of the workplaces were sick -- very bad interpersonal relations, but sexuality just didn't figure much. Maybe Minnesota is different than the coasts? Not better, just different. More tightly wrapped? Lots of Lutherans? Better levels of education? Better corporate leadership? Don't know.

Maybe my experience is abnormal; maybe I wasn't paying attention to what was happening; maybe I wasn't around when people were being naughty, don't know.

Well, the OP example was about breasts though the specific word "tits" wasn't used :

Blimey, anyone order a bouncy castle? — Jane Moore, The Sun

Then came Tiff's example about pussy which we've discussed. That's the type of thing I find objectionable not comments about dresses and so on.

But it's just so double standard. — Sapientia

So what? That the person is entirely inconsistent from one thread to the next, is hypocritical, or whatever, hardly affects the truth value of any given statement.

I don't think Benkei should have been reprimanded for that. But it's a far cry from any of the examples we've been discussing so far. — Baden

I lied about lying by the way but I just wanted to illustrate that the rules, and as a result probably the expectations of employees too, are different in different countries. As to the exact compliment, I said: "That's a really pretty dress and the colours suit you." I don't think that's sexual harassment by any stretch of the imagination in the USA but it is telling people (a well paid manager who isn't stupid) think it could be.

Too many men that are too oblivious about basic etiquette? Men and women aren't really talking to each other beyond superficial "how you doin'?" so they don't know what each other's boundaries are? I don't know.

Neither the lady with the injured...pussycat nor I would be injured in any way, shape, manner, or form by going along with jokes like this -- or even more raucous, guffaw-inducing jokes.

My guess is that leaking radiation from the warehouse probably fried her sense of humor. — Bitter Crank

Part of the context could be she had to deal with comments like that everyday combined with an undercurrent of unwanted attention. It gets old really fast and could've come across as creepy instead of funny. On its own it seems harmless enough but we don't really know.

I worked for a US company for awhile with a US manager and once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. He called me over and said I couldn't say that to a woman. Since I was one of the three in-house attorneys I naturally lied about the standards in the Netherlands being medieval with regard to sexual harassment and avoided getting fired. — Benkei

Being called aside is all that was going to happen even without your bogus excuse most likely. It's not like major corporations vest significant authority in middle management, nor can anyone do anything without following some tortuous process, including firing someone on the spot. If the woman formally complained, HR would investigate and then decide what to do to you, from being chastized, to being forced through sensitivity training, to being forced to wear the same dress and being ridiculed yourself so you'd know how she felt, to being terminated, although very very doubtful.

Since you are struggling to understand American culture, to help you out, I would suggest a better line than the simple "that dress looks good on you," is you should say, "that dress looks good on you, but it would look better crumpled up on my bedroom floor. " That way she will know you simply like her dress wherever it is, and you are making no reference to her anatomy.

Following my advice will assure you of a long successful career in the US. Thank me later.

Too many men that are too oblivious about basic etiquette? — Benkei

The sexual harrassment rules would be spelled out in the HR manual and, if it were like where I worked, every employee would have to take an online test every year, which would include helpful videos of various scenarios as part of mandatory compliance protocol. That along with videos about proper document retention, protecting corporate assets (you can't bring the company chair home apparently no matter how well it matches your other furniture), proper sharing of customer information, workplace violence (you can't wrestle a co-worker, sexual wrestling violates two rules), and I'm sure some others make up your annual compliance training. At some point after taking these tests you actually do your job, which probably entails checking a bunch of other boxes, and then you go home when hear the loud prison release buzzer go off.

Bitter, you didn't respond to the question about the difference between the two statements- one where the boss is swearing in general about circumstances, and one where he directly points it in an aggressive manner to a subordinate. A lot of it is context. Things you mention like certain forms of banter and flirting or whatnot, are usually not thought about as aggressive or alarming. People generally have a common sense understanding of how the interpersonal dynamics work amongst their peers. That is the sentiment I think you are trying to convey, and I agree. People generally have a sense of what is within the boundaries of conduct, and things that are awkwardly or alarmingly outside the norm. In other words, it is when a co-worker/boss repeatedly crosses the barrier into hostile or oddly uncomfortable that things are not right. There are certain aggressive personality types that run roughshod right over civility.
It's doubly bad if it is then defended and allowed to continue. So, just as an ultra PC culture stifling, boring, and allows for no humanness (which we agree on), not addressing what are disturbing (often times operating just below the radar as to not cause too much alarm) behaviors in forced settings of social interaction is also not good practice for a healthy culture or personal welfare.

How about if a boss says, "Don't even mention my wife, sometimes I feel like hitting her". Hmm, that to me sounds like overtones of domestic violence, and a person not on the level- even if the joke was some meant as some sort of "salt of the earth" quip like "One of these days Alice!" from the Honeymooners. Should that be cause for making people uncomfortable? Now its not directed at someone directly in the room but it certainly has the air of aggressive-personality type and for women, can especially be alarming. How about a boss that says "I'm gonna blow my fuckn head off" when he gets frustrated about some minor detail, etc. etc. Does that engender an atmosphere of calm and stability? There are ways to make a workplace hostile, and as I and Baden said earlier, people are essentially forced into workplaces in general. Even though people can quit on a whim, being that this is how first world humans survive, it disrupts people's lives significantly to do something like that. It is when the behavior crosses into that bizarre zone that cannot quite be quantified but somehow feels like an uncomfortable or violating atmosphere. The reason it is hard to distinguish is that it is hard to determine when something is crossing that boundary unless you are the person who thinks it is being crossed.

Yes, I suppose it could in some situations. But, to go back to the example, what business is it of a few twenty-somethings, who were not even there, who have read the anecdote and recoiled in horror at what they see as a roomful of old dinosaurs being “inappropriate” towards their “victim”, to be directing their outrage at those on the inside, who were, as they saw it, just having a laugh? — Sapientia

People spend more time at work then they do at home and some people - like myself - depend on the financial income to survive; such aggressive comments breed a toxic culture and ultimately lead to this "male-dominated environment" and it is the latter that is unethical. The organisational values like integrity that an industry or company hold is a whole lot broader than one simple remark because - while it may be 'isolated' (though I doubt this considering that the environment is now male-dominated) - it is nevertheless in contravention of these values and that's that. It is journalism we are talking about and therefore there is no excuse that it is male dominated rather than, say, a profession that requires physical duress. To say, "well, bad luck to the woman who can't survive that" is unethical as it ignores the rights of women in principle, even if she has adapted to this toxic environment.

Not to turn the attention away from the subject, but what is with the ageist remarks by the way? Dinosaurs, twenty-somethings? I think that once you pass 21 you should be mature enough to understand the difference between your left and right hand.

A toxic culture? What about the testimony of someone who was actually there, and therefore knows the culture better than you do? Why must this culture change, rather than those women who can't hack it? Clearly some women are more than capable. They'd be better suited for the job. Working for The Sun isn't for everyone. — Sapientia

It is not a matter of being there or not, that is the point, and what a dumbass thing to say the women who can't hack it should not be there; no, the obnoxious one's should not be there. And what, so if you are not present in a domestic violence situation, does that mean that a frightened wife who testifies for her husband is actually engaging in an honest critique of the situation? Just because Sue is engaging in the same obnoxious behaviour does not suddenly make her equal or the vulgarity justifiable. It just makes her adaptable to a toxic environment. That completely rejects talent, intelligence, capacity because of aggressive men who rise up the ranks not because they are talented, intelligent and capable but because they bully their way up.

I'm not sure I agree with this attitude that the world around me must change to my liking, rather than adapting myself to better suit my environment. — Sapientia

It is the same the other way around, mate, the world is not a philosophy forum where people are protected by the vastness of virtual space. You sign a contract where you say you will comply with the rules and the rules are clear, otherwise, don't work there.

Just because Sue is engaging in the same obnoxious behaviour does not suddenly make her equal or the vulgarity justifiable. It just makes her adaptable to a toxic environment. That completely rejects talent, intelligence, capacity because of aggressive men who rise up the ranks not because they are talented, intelligent and capable but because they bully their way up. — TimeLine

Great point. (Y)

Yeah, thanks for this. It's so exhausting trying to make some of these points and it's good to see those willing to do so.

I knew you'd appreciate my reply.

High five!

How is this conversation still going? How many hundreds of years were comments like these, directed at women, commonplace but also less lighthearted in nature? A way for men to steer the conversation towards the sexual all while under the guise that it's either a joke or a compliment.

Now we're at a time where sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself because of the aforementioned nuances and multiple interpretations.

Is this a great loss to society? Should we mourn the loss of crude sexual jokes at work? Would any of you even make the same jokes in a boardroom setting? Call me a prude, but I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on a female coworkers body.

If this is a great loss for some of you and you're looking for a utopia of unrestricted language, I would recommend you get a job in construction. — ProbablyTrue

Is it a great loss? Maybe not. Does it need to be? No.

I for one am glad to see that there are still people who actually stop and think about these things instead of merely jumping on board the bandwagon.

But perhaps you lot are right. Let's not discuss the matter. Let's instead drive people off the planet or direct them to a job in construction.

It's not always a bad thing to jump on a bandwagon when the alternative is to sit in the gutter. If you're looking for something thoughtful to read on this issue, I'd recommend @TimeLine and @schopenhauer1 rather than The Sun.

...once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. — Benkei

:-O (!)

...once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. — Benkei

The problem wasn't probably that you were sexist, that was merely a pretext to get back at you for daring to do something that could be flirty with HIS secretary. This is exactly what I mean with regards to this political correctness. It is just a weapon, and nothing else.

Let's look at the ideology and psychology behind sexual banter. Take a bunch of heterosexual white guys who partake to some degree in sexual banter. What commonalities do they share? Well, if you look at how precarious their masculinity is perceived to be by themselves, you get an increase in the propensity to partake in this kind of denigrating discourse.

It's also pretty cowardly, since what is actually a delegitimization strategy at the collective level is portrayed as 'just a joke'. As if this wasn't also part of what made it work as a way of reaffirming your position over a female colleague. Can we just take a moment to notice the idea that 'it's just a joke' is part of the horribleness of sexually denigrating discourse?

fdrake's rule of thumb: take a statement which might be prejudiced, permute variables to pre-established societal norms, see if the thing looks prejudiced. If it does, then it's structurally discriminating. 'Is this an X-Ray of your broken pussy?' is structurally 'is this object representative of some private personal property which shouldn't be brought up?', so it's structurally similar to 'is this coffee your skin flakes?' to a black colleague. (xray->coffee, vagina->skin, allusion through 'broken pussy' as derogatory category and arbitrary object to allusion through skin colour to arbitrary object). The specificity of the joke is removed, but structurally they are very similar.

It is at this point that anyone who's saying that this discriminatory language against women is completely different from making a joke about someone's skin colour using a derogatory term for or property of that person. No, it's not, the only difference is your insecurity and 'it's just a joke' which was already established as part of the mechanism of deligitimization in this kind of discourse. This was already established. No one would doubt that 'nigger' shouldn't be used because of the history of disenfranchisement, isolation and racism associated with it, but of course it's so much different to make a sexual comment about a woman's genitals than from the unfortunate colour of someone's skin.

Insisting that it's just a joke insulates a person from all criticism, the indifference to the discriminatory structure of the joke because it's just a joke is part of being the kind of asshole that thinks speaking in a derogatory manner using prejudicial categories to anyone.

@Sapientia, if you're so beyond this debate that you get to look down on everyone in it and mock everything, never exposing yourself and your possibly prejudicial actions, never taking the place of the fool in something you obviously don't understand, and never listening to people who have born the brunt of this abuse, you're going to stay an asshole. When you grow old and still think this language is OK, your grandkids are going to think of you as a prejudiced, sexist grandpa. Workplace legislation on harassment and consciousness raising activities are working to make this kind of discourse not OK. Exactly what happened with race, it's only a matter of time.

Is that the way you want to be remembered?

Then there's the idea that political correctness has gone mad and people can't take a joke any more. Let's ignore the last bit of that statement since it was already dealt with, what actually is political correctness? It's an often clumsy negotiation towards a more formally inclusive language.

Here's Herbert Kohl on the generation of the term and how it obtained its current meaning:

I first heard the phrase "politically correct" in the late 1940s and early 1950s in reference to the political debates between Socialists and members of the United States Communist Party (CP). These debates were an everyday occurrence in my neighborhood in the Bronx until the McCarthy committee and HUAC silenced political talk on the streets. Members of the CP talked about current party doctrine as the "correct" line for the moment. During World War II, the Hitler-Stalin pact caused many CP members considerable pain and often disgrace on my block, which was all Jewish and mostly Socialist. The "correct" position on Stalin's alliance with Hitler was considered to be ridiculous, a betrayal of European Jewry as well as Socialist ideas. The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in equalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.
Given that history, it was surprising to hear right-wing intellectuals in the 1990s using the phrase "politically correct" to disparage students and professors who advocate multiculturalism and are willing to confront racism, sexism, or homophobia at the university. Yet it is not uncommon, for example, for right-wing critics to accuse students (or other professors) who insist that women's voices or the voices of people of color be included in the curriculum of making rigid, oppressive demands that infringe upon academic freedom. The implication of these accusations is that people calling for compliance with antisexist and antiracist education today are similar to the Communist party hard-liners who insisted on compliance with the "correct" line on the Hitler-Stalin pact. It is a clever ploy on the part of neoconservatives, a number of whom were former CP members and know how the phrase "politically correct" was used in the past, to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox, and Communist-influenced when they oppose the right of people [End Page 1] to be racist, sexist, and homophobic. The accusation of being "politically correct" is a weapon used by right-wing professors, and publicized by conservative media critics, to protect themselves against criticisms of their own biases by students or other, usually younger, professors. It is a way of diverting the issue of bias within the university to issues of freedom of speech without acknowledging that the right to question professorial authority is also a free speech matter. — Herbert Kohl,On Political Correctness, Core Curriculum and Democracy in Education

Historically the idea of political correctness is a delegitimization strategy towards democratization and anti-prejudicial reforms in education and politics. No one is going to say, at this point, that racism is a good thing, that calling someone a nigger or a wetback is ever ok even 'just for a joke' (excepting n-word privileges for black communities). THAT IS A RESULT OF WHAT YOU CALL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND DISPARAGE.

Edit: anyone who disagrees with me already will probably find my anger and frustration funny more than enlightening. Ah well.

I think work "banter" that is based on commenting on people's sexual attractiveness is unacceptable. That's just for the record.

What I'd like to ask is what do posters feel about "battle of the sexes" banter - joking about stereotypes like men are no good at such 'n such; women are no good at this 'n that. Is that acceptable? For the record I think it probably is, though not always scintillating. But I am open to dissuasion... — Jake Tarragon

Well, interestingly, what this discussion has seemingly demonstrated is that the tongue-in-cheek use of sexist stereotypes as bait, like that of shrill complaining women, is considered more acceptable than responding in kind, which is considered to be something which ought to be flagged and censored.

It's interesting where people draw the line.

At least 50% of your list are right-wing racists. Katie refugees-are-cockroaches Hopkins and her ilk are the lowest of the media low. They sell an ideology of ignorance to the worst elements of society to which for some unknown reason you've decided to tether your rope. If you think a significant proportion of women would laugh along with you as you mock them sexually or guffaw about their "broken pussies", you're seriously misguided. Try it in the real world and see how you get on. There may be some argument for dialling back PC in some of its guises but you seem to be saying little more than you should have the right to verbally trample on whomever you so wish because it amuses you. — Baden

What have I been saying? What's the big point that I have been trying to emphasise? Context matters.

So no, it is not at all how it seems to you. I want to shatter that illusion. I am not so stupid or so arrogant as to think that I've got an absolute right to say what I wish, to who I wish, irrespective of circumstance.

But I do appreciate someone who can take a joke - even if it is a little risqué - and that includes women - real women, out there in the real world, in our modern times. That they might be regarded as black sheep is not always the great deterrent that some might wish it to be.

And no, this isn't all about Katie "refugees-are-cockroaches" Hopkins or Sue "chocolate-soldier" Carroll.

Duly noted.

Allport's Scale of Prejudice.

Sorry about neglecting a response -- I did read your earlier comment, and this one too. Yes, context matters, and the devil is in all the details of context.

Whether one is the legitimately offended, or foolishly offended person, or whether one is the legitimate offender, or the foolishly named offender, depends on details, details, details. One of the things that often happens in these kinds of discussions (not just here, everywhere) is that the details are compressed into a black cube and a white cube, decontextualizing the facts of the case.

Jack made a joke, jill took umbrage, a brouhaha ensued. Why Jack made that joke in that particular way, why Jill was so offended, will soon get lost in a new set of details located in the brouhaha. Everybody engages in the decontextualizing, because it's just much easier to talk about the black cube and the white cube than sort through all the details, which themselves will be contested.

"below the radar" you said. Yes. The last -- and worst -- place I worked at in a 40 year work life was a service agency where the forms were followed quite closely. Racist/sexist comments and "inappropriate" behaviors were scrupulously avoided by the staff. The clients were a rich mix of races, both sexes and a few transgendered, and quite a few with very troubled lives.

But "below the radar" the place was a mess of passive-aggression, subtle games of isolation and playing staff against each other, favoritism, and so on.

It took a while to tease out how this all worked, and it wasn't till after I had left that the patterns of behavior became clearer.

There was no less racism, sexism, gay and straight masculine chauvinism or feminine manipulation, etc. here than anywhere else, it was just deeply submerged. It might have been an easier place to work, and a less toxic one, if people had just come out with ordinary, run of the mill sexism, racism, agism, homophobia, etc. rather than the rococo cuckoo craziness that reigned supreme there.

There are details on the radar screen which are addressed in social rules and regulations. It's much more difficult to diagnose and remedy details that are below the radar. It is not impossible, though, and remediation has helped. Putting more women into management positions, for instance, helps. As sex, and race problems work their way up the hierarchy, it isn't only males that do the evaluation. Details matter here too, of course. A ruthless, vindictive authoritarian woman in management is as bad as a ruthless, vindictive authoritarian man -- and yes, both types exist.

How wide a range of behavior can the radar screens encompass? How does "radar" detect and display the rococo craziness of individuals and organizations? I don't know.

Remember too, we're talking about the workplace and that's somewhere that can't be escaped very easily. It's not like being down the pub where you can just walk away. It can make the environment poisonous and turn into a form of bullying like having a boss who constantly belittles you. — Baden

Yes, it can. That would be this:

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.

But remember, that's not what actually happened.

What actually happened was an exchange of remarks, in a good-humoured teasing way, between people regarded as equals, which resulted in laughter.

And I want to emphasize again that there's an asymmetry here between the sexes. Women are far more threatened sexually by men than men are by women, and tend to react accordingly. So, it's much more likely to feel like humiliation and bullying to a woman than a man. And that's not something you can brush off by telling people to stop being so PC. Besides, there are plenty of other places you can get your rocks off on sexual innuendo (like here in the Shout box for example...), it's no great loss not to have it in the workplace. — Baden

In return, I want to emphasise that that's a generalisation, and that there are exceptions. There was no asymmetry between Sue and her male colleagues. They were regarded as equals. She did not feel threatened, humiliated, or bullied. She considered it banter and gave as good as she got. There are likely many more women like Sue.

Given the above, it suddenly seems much less inappropriate to brush off the objection of the twenty-something who wasn't even there by telling her to stop being so politically correct.

And again, it needn't be a "great loss". You'll find that that's not a term that I've used to describe the consequences of rigidly adhering to political correctness in the workplace. I would, however, consider it at least a minor loss if my workplace environment drastically changed in line with this sort of interpretation of political correctness. I'm very supportive of political correctness when it seems right, but not otherwise.

A colleague of mine said something hilarious at work just the other day, and it was obvious that he wasn't being serious, but it could have been interpreted as threatening violence. No one saw it that way, and nothing came of it. Inappropriate or not, it was a good laugh.