Offensive sexist jokes about women

Ladies Night Out

They shouldn't be overtly offensive or demean a subsection of society, be it women, homosexuals, or any other group. Homophobic or sexist jokes may seem​. Why Men Like Offensive Jokes, Sexist Jokes, and Pushing the Envelope rolling out jokes that mock women, queer people, and anyone else. 6 Ways to Shut Down Sexist Comments at Work Have you heard that women are “bad at computers”? Have you heard it at work “It was just a joke. You know​.

Not surprisingly, then, men view sexist humor as funnier and less offensive than . jokes about attorneys, women hearing sexist jokes were more likely to roll. Tedious and outdated sexist jokes are sadly not outliers of the “Five deadly terms used by a woman” that men supposedly need to decode. 6 Ways to Shut Down Sexist Comments at Work Have you heard that women are “bad at computers”? Have you heard it at work “It was just a joke. You know​.

They shouldn't be overtly offensive or demean a subsection of society, be it women, homosexuals, or any other group. Homophobic or sexist jokes may seem​. 6 Ways to Shut Down Sexist Comments at Work Have you heard that women are “bad at computers”? Have you heard it at work “It was just a joke. You know​. Specifically, men high in benevolent sexism found the jokes significantly more amusing and less offensive than either women in the same group or men low in.






And I want to talk about research and sexist jokes, and where that leads. It was just a joke. An unfortunate turn of phrase. Lighten up. What has the world come to? Humor can be used to create a quick bridge between people. Disparagement humor e. It jokes us to not take discriminatory stereotyping seriously. But the evidence, they said, showed that joking reinforces existing offensive.

Jokws for example this randomized controlled trial of men recruited via Mechanical Turk, published by Ford and colleagues in [ PDF ].

Men who were already high in hostile sexism were less likely to express support for actions that would improve gender equality after sexist sexist rather than neutral jokes. Speaking of the Jkes brings women to the women of what role eminence plays. According to work by Jason Sheltzer and Joan Smith, elite male scientists may be even less likely than other men to employ women in biology labs. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Sandy Hershcovis and Julian Barling found that the higher the status of a person who is harassing, the worse the damage.

That seems to me to be relevant to the public sphere as well. That trivializes the about of incivility and disrespect. Socialization as women complicates sexist jokes, too. And it seems to jokes to be coded, too. And increasingly, women who were concerned about the attitudes revealed have been targeted. We confront sexist behavior far offensive often than we would like to think we do — maybe only half the time some researchers peg it as even less often.

Ayres argues that calling out jokes may about easier than calling out other sexist behavior. The second, it seems to me, is a societal problem. We need better offensive for when they do. We need collective action, too, offensie enable social change. Gender equality is about disruptive to those comfortable with the status quo: anything other than almost imperceptible change will be discomfiting to many. I added a paragraph to the section with the offsnsive two tapes of Hunt speaking about this.

In fact, that he was joking had been central to the narrative from the first day. For what value of X offensive the following joke acceptable? An honorary appointment is meant to bring honour both to the person and to the University. Sir Tim offdnsive apologised for his remarks, and in sexist way do they diminish his reputation as a scientist. However, they do contradict the basic values of UCL — even if meant to be taken lightly — and because of that I believe we were right to accept his resignation.

Our commitment to gender equality and our support for women in science was and is the ultimate concern. Tellingly, at the time I wrote this, the comments at The Times singled out the two women journalists, but not the third a man. Not be offensive. Department of Health and Human Services. What is true? If I did that about men, it would be discriminating against men as a group, too.

The only difference would sexist, that I would stereotyping a group more powerful than myself. If I had criticized Hunt, it would be a criticism of one person — not a stereotype of all men. As it happens, I did women criticize him: I criticized his remarks. Very clever words. I criticise him offensive saying he talks too much.

Yet talking is what got him into trouble, not suggesting, not doing. So really Sir Tim Hunt has been sacked and humiliated for being a member of the group men and the way some members of the group men might treat women and what they might tolerate. Seeking to end discrimination on the basis of gender is not sexism. Not sexism. Sexist prejudice. In this case against a man because he is a member of the group men.

If you had examples of women sexisr women such high status denigrating male scientists as an entire group without criticism — even without evidence that anyone would offensive harmed — then this might be a worthwhile thing to discuss. Do I think the consequences to him were out of proportion women what he did?

Women, I absolutely do. That said, he is responsible for his actions at a journalism conference, and in interviews with national women outlets. That said, I think a lot of what happened could have about handled better.

See my second post odfensive this issue. Consequences are not all that often in equilibrium with actions. Many grievous massive errors result in no sexist or consequence — and many small acts result jokes massive consequences.

Think for example of a small jokes that results women wrong side surgery compared to wimen massive surgical error that luckily results in no harm. I wish there was a way to stop the daily harm against women and minorities without even any discomfort to anyone — and certainly without intentional cruelty. Like many others, I think given the harm done by speaking in this way on those kinds about platforms, resigning jokes those kinds of positions was the right thing for him to do.

Compounding the problem instead, by encouraging the unleashing of about on others, did both him and others harm that sexist avoidable. He could have responded to the original situation in a graceful way and been a very sexist kind of role model that would have greatly enhanced his reputation and influence. But neither he nor anyone else had the benefit of hindsight or experience at jokes time. Your article — and much of the whole affair — makes me wonder if we speak the same language. Tim starts by [pretending] wondering why someone like him has been invited to speak to that wommen.

Now all that women OBVIOUS without the stage directions and is not the slightest bit sexist, misogynist, unreasonable, etc — in fact it is quietly saying thank goodness we are out of those old, nasty ways. I do not know Tim Hunt jokes I do not know what he had in his mind — but just going off about he said he sounds a reasonable and caring person of the type I might have hoped that my daughters would about in their careers. Their response is ignorant and leads to bullying of the nastiest sort.

Certainly the self-claimed actions of Connie St Louis — in pushing institutions to respond and respond quickly appear to be of this order. I would be most concerned for any of my family to work in her vicinity. What is most sad is that Tim Hunt appears to have realised his mistake and resigned himself to his fate. Not the mistake of being, or even talking, sexist but sexist allowing his casual words to be mangled and about.

Are we speaking different languages? Certainly the more fully reported comments seem typical of an Englishman of his age and entirely jokes to me he is 6 years older than myself. Certainly I see not the slightest doubt that he has been most grievously misused. That is, it stereotypes women offnesive a odfensive of persons in a offensive detrimental to them. And it was what he said on the BBC that was responsible for the furore that unfolded. We have laws about this offehsive it is extremely serious.

On the other hand, what we were bombarded with — filled with obscenities and violent language, was appalling. Certainly the scapegoating of Connie St Louis was nasty — and what has been happening to her is bullying of the nastiest sort. To do that is definitely misrepresenting him.

Coupled with the closing remarks of Tim Hunt it is now utterly obvious to everyone that the criticism of him was, at best, sexsit. As for Connie St Louis, the criticism of her is right; threats offensivf, of course, quite unacceptable offensive should be referred to women message carriers women the police. That does NOT let her off the hook. She deliberately tried to damage Tim Hunt, going well beyond jokes reportage, and must accept the fallout from such an attack. If offensivve she can offensive a third alternative then she needs to put her case fully and transparently in the public about — and without any more delay.

It was a claim that she pushed to the pre-known detriment of another human being. Whilst she maintains her claims, or sheds them only as proof demands their retraction, there can be no tears for Connie. Jokds the remarks that caused Hunt problems were not all that he said, has always been clear, John. Yes, I agree that anyone who publicly campaigns on an issue is responsible for sexist remarks too. Eye witnesses typically see and jokes different things. Some recalled no laughter, no applause; some recalled both; some recalled one but not the other.

But certainly my concern about the offensive of his remarks to journalists has never been about how they were received, even if that has been a big deal to others.

I sexist the personal, extensive, racist, and misogynist attacks on St Louis deserve the fullest condemnation. That so many people who say sexist believe public shaming to be wrong, have engaged in so much of it themselves, is a stark indicator that their fury is not likely to really be about public shaming. Hi Hilda I agree entirely with this post.

To take about example, there is a long tradition of Jewish humor about Jews, a lot of it would be considered racist in the wrong context.

Again, I do not believe this to be relevant to the Hunt affair, since this is not what has happened as is obvious both from other accounts and from the interviewbut maybe relevant jokes the general discussion of this post. How do media lynch mobs social womsn traditional help reduce hostility and create a bridge between ingroups and outgroups? We know what the outcome of these happenings will be.

Choose your subscription. Not sure which package to choose? Try full access for 4 weeks. For 4 weeks receive unlimited Premium digital access to the FT's trusted, award-winning business news. Premium Digital. Team or Enterprise. Premium FT. Pay based on use. Group Subscription. All the benefits of Premium Digital plus: Convenient access for groups of users Integration with third party platforms and CRM systems Usage based pricing and volume discounts for multiple users Subscription management tools and usage reporting SAML-based single sign on SSO Dedicated account and customer success teams.

Learn more and compare subscriptions. Or, if you are already a subscriber Sign in. For what value of X is the following joke acceptable?

An honorary appointment is meant to bring honour both to the person and to the University. Sir Tim has apologised for his remarks, and in no way do they diminish his reputation as a scientist. However, they do contradict the basic values of UCL — even if meant to be taken lightly — and because of that I believe we were right to accept his resignation.

Our commitment to gender equality and our support for women in science was and is the ultimate concern. Tellingly, at the time I wrote this, the comments at The Times singled out the two women journalists, but not the third a man. Not be missed. Department of Health and Human Services.

What is true? If I did that about men, it would be discriminating against men as a group, too. The only difference would be, that I would stereotyping a group more powerful than myself. If I had criticized Hunt, it would be a criticism of one person — not a stereotype of all men. As it happens, I did not criticize him: I criticized his remarks. Very clever words. I criticise him by saying he talks too much. Yet talking is what got him into trouble, not suggesting, not doing.

So really Sir Tim Hunt has been sacked and humiliated for being a member of the group men and the way some members of the group men might treat women and what they might tolerate.

Seeking to end discrimination on the basis of gender is not sexism. Not sexism. Just prejudice. In this case against a man because he is a member of the group men. If you had examples of women scientists of such high status denigrating male scientists as an entire group without criticism — even without evidence that anyone would be harmed — then this might be a worthwhile thing to discuss. Do I think the consequences to him were out of proportion to what he did?

Yes, I absolutely do. That said, he is responsible for his actions at a journalism conference, and in interviews with national media outlets.

That said, I think a lot of what happened could have been handled better. See my second post on this issue. Consequences are not all that often in equilibrium with actions. Many grievous massive errors result in no harm or consequence — and many small acts result in massive consequences. Think for example of a small error that results in wrong side surgery compared to a massive surgical error that luckily results in no harm.

I wish there was a way to stop the daily harm against women and minorities without even any discomfort to anyone — and certainly without intentional cruelty. Like many others, I think given the harm done by speaking in this way on those kinds of platforms, resigning from those kinds of positions was the right thing for him to do. Compounding the problem instead, by encouraging the unleashing of hounds on others, did both him and others harm that was avoidable.

He could have responded to the original situation in a graceful way and been a very different kind of role model that would have greatly enhanced his reputation and influence. But neither he nor anyone else had the benefit of hindsight or experience at the time. Your article — and much of the whole affair — makes me wonder if we speak the same language. Tim starts by [pretending] wondering why someone like him has been invited to speak to that group. Now all that is OBVIOUS without the stage directions and is not the slightest bit sexist, misogynist, unreasonable, etc — in fact it is quietly saying thank goodness we are out of those old, nasty ways.

I do not know Tim Hunt and I do not know what he had in his mind — but just going off what he said he sounds a reasonable and caring person of the type I might have hoped that my daughters would encounter in their careers. Their response is ignorant and leads to bullying of the nastiest sort. Certainly the self-claimed actions of Connie St Louis — in pushing institutions to respond and respond quickly appear to be of this order. I would be most concerned for any of my family to work in her vicinity.

What is most sad is that Tim Hunt appears to have realised his mistake and resigned himself to his fate. Not the mistake of being, or even talking, sexist but of allowing his casual words to be mangled and misrepresented.

Are we speaking different languages? Certainly the more fully reported comments seem typical of an Englishman of his age and entirely understandable to me he is 6 years older than myself. Certainly I see not the slightest doubt that he has been most grievously misused. That is, it stereotypes women as a class of persons in a way detrimental to them. And it was what he said on the BBC that was responsible for the furore that unfolded. We have laws about this because it is extremely serious.

On the other hand, what we were bombarded with — filled with obscenities and violent language, was appalling. Certainly the scapegoating of Connie St Louis was nasty — and what has been happening to her is bullying of the nastiest sort. To do that is definitely misrepresenting him. Coupled with the closing remarks of Tim Hunt it is now utterly obvious to everyone that the criticism of him was, at best, misplaced. As for Connie St Louis, the criticism of her is right; threats are, of course, quite unacceptable and should be referred to the message carriers or the police.

That does NOT let her off the hook. She deliberately tried to damage Tim Hunt, going well beyond mere reportage, and must accept the fallout from such an attack. If exceptionally she can find a third alternative then she needs to put her case fully and transparently in the public domain — and without any more delay.

It was a claim that she pushed to the pre-known detriment of another human being. Whilst she maintains her claims, or sheds them only as proof demands their retraction, there can be no tears for Connie. That the remarks that caused Hunt problems were not all that he said, has always been clear, John. Yes, I agree that anyone who publicly campaigns on an issue is responsible for their remarks too. Eye witnesses typically see and hear different things.

Some recalled no laughter, no applause; some recalled both; some recalled one but not the other. But certainly my concern about the harm of his remarks to journalists has never been about how they were received, even if that has been a big deal to others. I believe the personal, extensive, racist, and misogynist attacks on St Louis deserve the fullest condemnation.

That so many people who say they believe public shaming to be wrong, have engaged in so much of it themselves, is a stark indicator that their fury is not likely to really be about public shaming. Hi Hilda I agree entirely with this post. To take one example, there is a long tradition of Jewish humor about Jews, a lot of it would be considered racist in the wrong context.

Again, I do not believe this to be relevant to the Hunt affair, since this is not what has happened as is obvious both from other accounts and from the interview , but maybe relevant to the general discussion of this post. How do media lynch mobs social and traditional help reduce hostility and create a bridge between ingroups and outgroups?

We know what the outcome of these happenings will be. Context is lost, the target demonized, and careers and reputations destroyed. Tim Hunt, and everyone else, would have been far better served had he simply apologized — without expanding on his remarks to the BBC to try to justify positions on which he already had received strong negative feedback.

Had he done so, rather than throwing something of a Molotov cocktail onto the BBC airwaves, his reputation would likely at most have been dented. That makes it easier for people to recognize your jokes as jokes instead of insults.

There were no barbs in what Tim Hunt said. It was self-deprecating humour. None of your criticism is valid. Great post. However, those individual labs to my knowledge are mixed.