Context is Everything

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. marilyn weske says:

    Thought provoking take. Each ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation can identify words which, if directed at it, could rightfully be considered harassment.

  2. Token Brit says:

    It’s worth remembering that even words Americans would consider clearly gendered or otherwise offensive are not always that way in other countries, and vice versa. For example, in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia, C**t is used more often to refer to a man.

    There is, of course, also the vast British slang lexicon, with its own share of racist, sexist or homophobic terms (e.g., http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml and http://www.effingpot.com/people.shtml)

  3. Enid Kraus says:

    Yes, women have used it amongst themselves, as is pointed out here. Occasionally, men have been observed to use the term amongst themselves, also, often supposedly humorously. But in the workplace, from a male supervisor to a female under his supervision, all of that becomes irrelevant.

  4. A.J. Sutter says:

    I’m not clear on the difference between discrimination and harassment. And aren’t there some other pertinent factors independent of specific words, such as power relationships, menace, etc.?

    First, take the prima facie innocuous word “Jew”. (In these examples, suppose all speakers are non-Jewish.)

    A1. My boss, or someone else higher on the org chart than I am, says to someone else in my presence, “That file? Give it to the Jew,” indicating me.

    A2. Similar to A1, but the person who says this is is someone much lower in the org chart than me.

    A3. I hear my boss explain to someone else, indicating me, “He’s a Jew, so he’s going to be taking some days off in late September.” His tone of voice is resentful or sarcastic.

    A4. Same as A3, but his tone is matter-of-fact, or even supportive.

    A5. Someone brings a bunch of multi-colored cupcakes into the office. One and only one has a blue-and-white topping. A colleague with whom I also socialize says, with a friendly smile to me, “Ah, that’s for the Jew.”

    A6. Similar to A5, but it’s my boss who smiles and says it.

    Next, consider B1-6: same as above, but with “kike” used instead of “Jew.”

    Which, if any, are cases of unlawful discrimination, and which are harassment? Are the B-cases always worse than the A-cases? Do any of the above cases depend on the power relationships? It certainly seems to me that some of the A-cases, such as A1, A3 and A6, would be pretty creepy.

    Finally, suppose I were an ultra-orthodox kipa-wearing Jew, and the speaker in each case were a more assimilated Jew: could any of the above comments or actions constitute discrimination/harassment?

  5. PrometheeFeu says:

    I respectfully disagree. Upon hearing the word ‘bitch’, I will readily assume that the speaker intensely dislikes the subject of conversation and that the subject of conversation is female. This does not mean that one of those facts has anything to do with the other. The phrase “I have nothing but contempt for her.” clearly is gendered, and is clearly derogatory, but in and of itself is not indicative of sexism. I believe ‘bitch’ can be used similarly: As an insult which just happens to be only applicable to women.

    Of course, “bitch” can be sexist in some contexts. As mentioned above, it’s highly context-dependent.

  6. Context matters, sure, but that’s a question that should be argued to the jury, not decided by a judge. The 7th Cir., noting that the dictionary defines “bitch” as a sexist insult, stated that “[a]dditional evidence that ‘bitch’ is ‘sex based’ for purposes of establishing gender-based harassment is not necessary.”

    The point is that a plaintiff — as a matter of law — should not be required to present additional evidence of a sexist context to establish that the word “bitch” was used in a sexist way (though as a practical matter, a plaintiff may want to do so to persuade a jury and establish the apporpriateness of punitive damages). Although there can be a bona fide argument in specific cases that context has neutralized the sexist impact of the word, that’s a fact question.

    A judge should not be deciding that additional evidence of context has neutralized the use of the word, because there is no way to reach that conclusion without weighing evidence of sexist word-meaning against evidence of a potentially non-sexist context.