Judge rules that calling women "birds" is sexist

[Grave_n_idle]

How many of these same people complaining about women being compared to birds would then turn around and call men "dogs" or "pigs"?

I'm assuming that's a question you don't actually have an answer for.

It seems unlikely it's used in the same cavalier fashion as 'bird', in this context, doesn't it?

We're all sexist.

No. Nice self-own.

There's no such thing as a gender-neutral mind. The legal system has no business policing language,

The legal system has business policing language when there are laws.

We all have to deal with shit we don't like at work, some of which constitutes reckless endangerment, but I don't think a little annoying language crosses that line.

Complete strawman.

If it bothers you, find another job. I'm sure there are those out there who don't mind it anywhere near as much and will accept it in exchange for not having to handle hot oil for making french fries.

No. Workers have a right to try to make their workplace better, even if there isn't risk to life and limb.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

More pay with worse hours and worse work isn’t a long term solution to getting good work.

It's not, but for some people it's too good to pass up. Sometimes they think they can handle it and they can't. Sometimes they think they'll just have to handle it and they can't. You tell yourself you'll quit next year but then the bonuses roll in.

A lot of people don't listen to themselves and their own body enough, and then the question becomes if the state should step in and step in for them. I can't say if that's what happened in this case.

I generally believe companies should just stop almost literally throwing money at a problem like the situation my friend's in (and perhaps it applies to this story too). A lot of people clearly do not have the wherewithal to resist it and ignore other very important facets of their lives, and that's how you end up with burnouts - people that overestimate themselves and underestimate the important (sometimes little) things that keep them sane and healthy.

Well, if they don't know their own mental health, how could the government possibly know it?

Actual, verifiable, physical hazards lend themselves better to being objectively analyzed than vague, subjective "emotional" ones. Let individuals work out what works best for them.

[Ethel mermania]

Maybe if a job gives people anxiety then the people in it are being overworked.

Hence the pay. I've got a friend who has a massively emotionally devastating job and the company's solution is to almost literally throw more money at them, as finding additional people to balance the workload is proving to be very difficult.

I've talked about it with her and she's not quitting, the pay is too good.

Some jobs pay enough for a healthy cocaine habit.

[Heloin]

Hence the pay. I've got a friend who has a massively emotionally devastating job and the company's solution is to almost literally throw more money at them, as finding additional people to balance the workload is proving to be very difficult.

I've talked about it with her and she's not quitting, the pay is too good.

Some jobs pay enough for a healthy cocaine habit.

I solve all the worlds problems by getting people hocked on cheaper drugs so they can work less.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

It seems unlikely it's used in the same cavalier fashion as 'bird', in this context, doesn't it?

Does that matter? It focuses on parallels between one sex and a species of animal, while putting aside the differences without outright denying them. It's still essentially invoking the same kind of thing.

No. Nice self-own.

Define "non-sexist," then. I'll wait.

The legal system has business policing language when there are laws.

In what other context would it be considered legitimate to police speech?

No. Workers have a right to try to make their workplace better, even if there isn't risk to life and limb.

That's what collective bargaining is for. You have the right to make your own workplace better, as defined by your own colleagues at your own workplace. You do not have a right to impose your ideas of what your people at a place you don't even work at can and can't say through government force.

[Esternial]

It's not, but for some people it's too good to pass up. Sometimes they think they can handle it and they can't. Sometimes they think they'll just have to handle it and they can't. You tell yourself you'll quit next year but then the bonuses roll in.

A lot of people don't listen to themselves and their own body enough, and then the question becomes if the state should step in and step in for them. I can't say if that's what happened in this case.

I generally believe companies should just stop almost literally throwing money at a problem like the situation my friend's in (and perhaps it applies to this story too). A lot of people clearly do not have the wherewithal to resist it and ignore other very important facets of their lives, and that's how you end up with burnouts - people that overestimate themselves and underestimate the important (sometimes little) things that keep them sane and healthy.

Well, if they don't know their own mental health, how could the government possibly know it?

Actual, verifiable, physical hazards lend themselves better to being objectively analyzed than vague, subjective "emotional" ones. Let individuals work out what works best for them.

Just because it's harder to identify and correct does not mean we shouldn't make an effort to.

Fortunately society still contains individuals and organizations that don't just settle for average scores in their commitments.

[Grave_n_idle]

Does that matter? It focuses on parallels between one sex and a species of animal, while putting aside the differences without outright denying them. It's still essentially invoking the same kind of thing.

Yes it matters. If it's not an actual parallel, it's a strawman.

Next question.

Define "non-sexist," then. I'll wait.

You can wait all day. I have no interest in playing your hijack games.

In what other context would it be considered legitimate to police speech?

You do know we're talking about UK laws, right?

That's what collective bargaining is for. You have the right to make your own workplace better, as defined by your own colleagues at your own workplace. You do not have a right to impose your ideas of what your people at a place you don't even work at can and can't say through government force.

You are wrong. You absolutely do have that right, as this case confirmed.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

You can wait all day. I have no interest in playing your hijack games.

In other words, you can't prove the terms you're invoking are definable at all.

You do know we're talking about UK laws, right?

So what if they're British laws? Christopher Hitchens was British and he saw the merits of freedom of speech better than many Canadians. You either see value in going where the philosophy of free speech takes you or you don't. You shouldn't need a damn law to remind you of its merit.

You are wrong. You absolutely do have that right, as this case confirmed.

Legal right, maybe. Moral right, no.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

She figured it was better to play it safe rather than sorry when he pressed on with being unfunny. I see no problem with that.
As for the poll question, I don't think using such figurative language serves to, in every context, advance the subjugation of women or promote the idea. But in the context of Miss Lacatus, it surely felt like it did.

[Gravlen]

According to the info you provided. She was required to do the work additional work load like everyone else. Carrying it was an expected requirement of the job. Working overtime is an expected requirement of the job.

Clearly I am missing something here
Doing less work for the same money isn't considered an accomodation.

It sounds like she and her colleagues should band together and demand that management hire more people as they are considerably understaffed.

Also, if you're working more than your contracted hours, you generally receive overtime pay. She's probably not getting the same as her colleagues who work overtime.

The contract expressly deals with the question of payment for overtime.
The relevant provisions say:

‘Overtime:
It is a condition of your employment that you work in addition to your
normal hours of work as needed to meet Barclays business
requirements. You will not receive any additional remuneration or time
off in lieu for work performed in addition to your normal hours of work.’

It's quite insane. You are expected to work 35 hours a week, but at the same time you're also expected to work overtime - in this case for "an average of between 40 and 48 hours" - basically for free.

Some would call this wage theft.

[Ethel mermania]

It sounds like she and her colleagues should band together and demand that management hire more people as they are considerably understaffed.

Also, if you're working more than your contracted hours, you generally receive overtime pay. She's probably not getting the same as her colleagues who work overtime.

The contract expressly deals with the question of payment for overtime.
The relevant provisions say:

‘Overtime:
It is a condition of your employment that you work in addition to your
normal hours of work as needed to meet Barclays business
requirements. You will not receive any additional remuneration or time
off in lieu for work performed in addition to your normal hours of work.’

It's quite insane. You are expected to work 35 hours a week, but at the same time you're also expected to work overtime - in this case for "an average of between 40 and 48 hours" - basically for free.

Some would call this wage theft.

Aren't you an attorney? Don't most first year attorney's work ridiculous hours till they make partner?

[Saiwania]

It's quite insane. You are expected to work 35 hours a week, but at the same time you're also expected to work overtime - in this case for "an average of between 40 and 48 hours" - basically for free.

Some would call this wage theft.

This is more or less how the private sector (especially offices) have always worked. Some examples are Japan during the 1980s. The expectation is that employees arrive at work before the CEO or important executives do and don't leave for home until after the CEO or higher ranking people do. No matter how long this might take.

It sucks but it is what it is. People who take vacation time or leave work earlier, will be seen as less committed to their job than people who're workaholics. If you don't work as long as coworkers, the boss will more or less want to replace you for someone else who will work longer hours, unless you have skills/expertise that no one else has and you're effectively not disposible.

It is often a matter of: know your place, know your role. Suffer the grind unless or until you've actually moved up in the world.

[Keira]

It's quite insane. You are expected to work 35 hours a week, but at the same time you're also expected to work overtime - in this case for "an average of between 40 and 48 hours" - basically for free.

Some would call this wage theft.

This is more or less how the private sector (especially offices) have always worked. Some examples are Japan during the 1980s. The expectation is that employees arrive at work before the CEO or important executives do and don't leave for home until after the CEO or higher ranking people do. No matter how long this might take.

It sucks but it is what it is. People who take vacation time or leave work earlier, will be seen as less committed to their job than people who're workaholics. If you don't work as long as coworkers, the boss will more or less want to replace you for someone else who will work longer hours, unless you have skills/expertise that no one else has and you're effectively not disposible.

It is often a matter of: know your place, know your role. Suffer the grind unless or until you've actually moved up in the world.

I'd turn into a Stalinist if I was subjected to this bullshit.

[Stellar Colonies]

this is new


sorta

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The issue is not the term itself but rather that the accused was asked politely not to use it when referring to the woman in question and he kept at it.

[Ethel mermania]

This is more or less how the private sector (especially offices) have always worked. Some examples are Japan during the 1980s. The expectation is that employees arrive at work before the CEO or important executives do and don't leave for home until after the CEO or higher ranking people do. No matter how long this might take.

It sucks but it is what it is. People who take vacation time or leave work earlier, will be seen as less committed to their job than people who're workaholics. If you don't work as long as coworkers, the boss will more or less want to replace you for someone else who will work longer hours, unless you have skills/expertise that no one else has and you're effectively not disposible.

It is often a matter of: know your place, know your role. Suffer the grind unless or until you've actually moved up in the world.

I'd turn into a Stalinist if I was subjected to this bullshit.

What if they gave you a 5,000 £ as a sign on bonus a
75,000 £ a year salary, an additional bonus if its a good year, and an advancement path?

[Krasny-Volny]

An expectedly soy-fuelled reaction from NSG. There isn't anything wrong with nicknames in the workplace.

Nicknames in the workplace are unprofessional, unless they're established by mutually implied consent (ie you're dating your coworker).

I'll admit I never cared one way or the other about nicknames until I started working in supervisory positions. Then it gradually sunk in that when you're the boss, it changes things. You can't just go around calling people what you want; they (meaning both the employees and management) hold you to a much higher professional standard.

Couple of exceptions to the rule - off work. Nicknames for coworkers are OK when you're off the job, outside the workplace, interacting socially. But that's where they should end. Again, they should never interfere with professional conduct at the workplace.

[Krasny-Volny]

It sucks but it is what it is. People who take vacation time or leave work earlier, will be seen as less committed to their job than people who're workaholics. If you don't work as long as coworkers, the boss will more or less want to replace you for someone else who will work longer hours, unless you have skills/expertise that no one else has and you're effectively not disposible.

Agreed, but the key is to be there long enough that you acquire those skills/expertise and become indisposable. Then you are free to push that envelope a lot further without having to worry about just being fired due to your expendability.

[Keira]

The issue is not the term itself but rather that the accused was asked politely not to use it when referring to the woman in question and he kept at it.

Excatly. People keep mixing up the two.

However, OP did post this because he wanted to discuss the level of sexist-ness of "birds", so it's not like people are wrong (or off-topic, or spammy, or whatever) for discussing sexism/misogyny.

I'd turn into a Stalinist if I was subjected to this bullshit.

What if they gave you a 5,000 £ as a sign on bonus a
75,000 £ a year salary, an additional bonus if its a good year, and an advancement path?

At the moment, as a NEET, I'd still say no. It's degrading and dehumanising, and not even in the way I enjoy! All that stress and self-destruction is not worth the money. I'm / I'd be perfectly fine with having an enjoyable minimum wage job.

I'm just a mere dainty flower, I can't handle all these ultra-competitive masculine things! *faints and rolls off the staircase*

[Ethel mermania]

The issue is not the term itself but rather that the accused was asked politely not to use it when referring to the woman in question and he kept at it.

Excatly. People keep mixing up the two.

However, OP did post this because he wanted to discuss the level of sexist-ness of "birds", so it's not like people are wrong (or off-topic, or spammy, or whatever) for discussing sexism/misogyny.

What if they gave you a 5,000 £ as a sign on bonus a
75,000 £ a year salary, an additional bonus if its a good year, and an advancement path?

At the moment, as a NEET, I'd still say no. It's degrading and dehumanising, and not even in the way I enjoy! All that stress and self-destruction is not worth the money. I'm perfectly fine with having an enjoyable minimum wage job.

I'm just a mere dainty flower, I can't handle all these ultra-competitive masculine things! *faints and rolls off the staircase*

Heh, fair enough

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's quite insane. You are expected to work 35 hours a week, but at the same time you're also expected to work overtime - in this case for "an average of between 40 and 48 hours" - basically for free.

Some would call this wage theft.

This is more or less how the private sector (especially offices) have always worked. Some examples are Japan during the 1980s. The expectation is that employees arrive at work before the CEO or important executives do and don't leave for home until after the CEO or higher ranking people do. No matter how long this might take.

It sucks but it is what it is. People who take vacation time or leave work earlier, will be seen as less committed to their job than people who're workaholics. If you don't work as long as coworkers, the boss will more or less want to replace you for someone else who will work longer hours, unless you have skills/expertise that no one else has and you're effectively not disposible.

It is often a matter of: know your place, know your role. Suffer the grind unless or until you've actually moved up in the world.

IIRC, nowadays, such companies are deemed black companies and people are cautioned not to work there. Office culture in Japan seems to be changing, albeit slowly.

https://www.tofugu.com/japan/japanese-black-companies/

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The issue is not the term itself but rather that the accused was asked politely not to use it when referring to the woman in question and he kept at it.

Excatly. People keep mixing up the two.

However, OP did post this because he wanted to discuss the level of sexist-ness of "birds", so it's not like people are wrong (or off-topic, or spammy, or whatever) for discussing sexism/misogyny.

I'm not saying the term can't be seen as sexist. I personally find ''babe'' (unless it's my husband or really close friends) or ''chick'' to be distasteful ways to refer to women, especially in a professional setting. But before anything, the points in this particular case should be understood. It's not the term itself but the situation in which the term was used.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Oh, since 2017, even the Japanese government has been actively denouncing black companies for employment abuse since it has become a common practice there.

Just a parenthesis. Never mind it.

[Keira]

Excatly. People keep mixing up the two.

However, OP did post this because he wanted to discuss the level of sexist-ness of "birds", so it's not like people are wrong (or off-topic, or spammy, or whatever) for discussing sexism/misogyny.

I'm not saying the term can't be seen as sexist. I personally find ''babe'' (unless it's my husband or really close friends) or ''chick'' to be distasteful ways to refer to women, especially in a professional setting. But before anything, the points in this particular case should be understood. It's not the term itself but the situation in which the term was used.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were even expressing an opinion on the word. I'm just saying it's a valid discussion to have since that's what OP wanted.

I wouldn't think less of you if you thought it wasn't sexist, since I don't think it is.

(The tone of my posts may come across as more negative/strict due to our past interactions, but I can assure you I'm being neutral in tone)

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm not saying the term can't be seen as sexist. I personally find ''babe'' (unless it's my husband or really close friends) or ''chick'' to be distasteful ways to refer to women, especially in a professional setting. But before anything, the points in this particular case should be understood. It's not the term itself but the situation in which the term was used.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were even expressing an opinion on the word. I'm just saying it's a valid discussion to have since that's what OP wanted.

I wouldn't think less of you if you thought it wasn't sexist, since I don't think it is.

(The tone of my posts may come across as more negative/strict due to our past interactions, but I can assure you I'm being neutral in tone)

I'm not reacting negatively nor do I think you are being combative, fyi. I agreed with you that the discussion is valid. What I was expressing in my initial post is that when it comes to this case, it wasn't the term in itself that was the problem per se but the situation in which it was repeatedly used. Nothing more.