We're not talking about criminalizing the behavior, so freedom of speech doesn't enter into the matter. The author is trying to change the market response to the behavior, by pointing out that it has a destructive aspect that many people (particularly men, who dominate the tech industry) may not be conscious of. One reason that we have freedom of speech is that it permits challenges to orthodoxy, and in this case the orthodox position being challenged is that sexist jokes are OK at professional conferences.
"I'm sorry you feel that the rules of basic human decency are trampling on your first amendment rights."
I don't have first amendment rights, as I'm not American. And the cliches and Prudishness of one specific society do not universal "basic human decency" constitute.
Or, as Bernard Shaw put it: "Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."
I'm not sure that understand that freedom of expression is about gov't censorship, and not about professional conduct. You aren't going to be arrested for "political incorrectness."
I never understood why "political correctness" has to be political. Almost all of the words that aren't PC, are must more entrenched in the social, societal sphere than in politics. If a politician says something non-PC, they get in much more trouble than a lay person. A person who is an expert at being PC...will probably succeed as a politician, tip-toeing strategic thinker...
>I never understood why "political correctness" has to be political. Almost all of the words that aren't PC, are must more entrenched in the social, societal sphere than in politics.
It's not about "politics" as in the narrow sphere of political affairs (democrats, republicans, voting etc).
It's about "political" in the wider sense (that is "trying to be tactful", not to annoy various sides, etc).
> It's about "political" in the wider sense (that is "trying to be tactful", not to annoy various sides, etc).
No, that's a false etymology. The term "politically correct" in its modern usage came from leftist movements in the 70s to describe politics (not in the broad sense of "tact"). Think of it as a synonym for "ideologically sound". The civil rights movement was definitely about politics, not tact. The term "politically correct" was then appropriated by the same leftist movements and used sarcastically to parody themselves.
It's not about etymology. It's about usage. The term has a long history and differing uses. The etymology does not matter (it rarely does, and if it does it's mostly for historical reasons).
I'm not advocating politeness, I'm advocating for an egalitarian society. Women have historically been less free to express themselves, and sexist jokes and other discriminatory language continue to silence them. Douche was not the correct term, you are a coward. Rather than defend the freedom of those who have had to fight for it, you hide behind your own narcissistic conception of freedom and unexamined privilege.
I'm even _more_ for an egalitarian society. And far more actually than merely getting some "bikini slides" off of tech presentations or ensuring women make the same as men.
I don't want women and men being paid less than other men and women and being treated as trash in the first place. That is, i'm a pro-left, in the marxist tradition. Now, do I get to call you a "coward" or a "capitalist pig" if you don't agree with me in this issue?
Furthermore, is a place full of actual and wannabe startup founders/millionaires, the place to accuse me of "hiding behind my own narcissistic conception of freedom and unexamined privilege"?
I find gagging on the gnat of "sexist slides" while digesting the camel of economic inequality hypocritical and counter-productive.
Bosses don't pay women less because they are sexist. They pay them less because they can (e.g talking advantage of the fact that women get maternal leave, or are better at work-life balance than men, and thus deemed less "devoted" to the company and such BS). If they could, they would pay anyone less (and when they can, they do). It's not about making them less "sexist" (there are women bosses that also pay women employees less). It's about making LAWS to force them to give equal pay for the same job description.
I'm a marxist as well, so you're preaching to the choir there. I also happen to be an anarchist, and rather than putting laws in place (which would be impossible to enforce), I think the first step to changing these issues is to change the culture.
"Freedom of expression" is another, though.