Abstract
Many researchers in the fields of law, sociology and psychology have already identified how sexist humor is connected with improper sexist behavior, leading to tolerance towards sexual misconduct and the exclusion of (mostly) women from the working community, among other results. However, scholars have yet to address the problematic nature of non-sexist sexual humor, which could potentially constitute sexual harassment. This paper seeks to address this gap in the scholarship by creating a distinction between two forms of humor-based sexual harassment. The first and the more familiar type is sexual harassment using sexist humor. The second type, which has been unaddressed to date, is sexual harassment using non-sexist sexual humor. Using a pragmatic-linguistic analysis of sexual humorous expressions, this paper argues that in some cases the use of even non-sexist sexual humor could be considered an inappropriate sexual advance, or a form of quid pro quo sexual harassment in the work place.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For more on the definition and characteristics of quid pro quo sexual harassment, see MacKinnon (1979).
For further investigation of sexual humor, examples and characteristics, see Legman (1968, 2007).
This historical-legal origin of this view can be found in Article 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intended to prevent workplace discrimination, and from which the legal concept of sexual harassment evolved. For more information on the history of this development in the United States, see Kamir (2004).
For more on sexist humor as sexual harassment, see Otsri (2016).
This joke is clearly not only sexual, but also sexist, especially due to the trivial way it refers to what is, in essence, a form of rape. Despite the presence of this element, its sexual traits will be discussed.
It is interesting to mention here the position of Harvey Sacks (1989) that sexual humor is used to convey information which is not sexual (p. 337). However, Mulkay, in his book, criticizes Sacks, claiming that Sacks’s theory is full of fallacies. One of Mulkay’s criticisms is that Sacks uses only one example to prove his theory and even that example seems to contradict his thesis. Furthermore, according to Mulkay, Sacks fails to present support for his assumption that young girls will perceive the joke differently. Finally, Mulkay contends that Sacks rejects the sexual interpretation as a misunderstanding of the joke. (pp. 127–131) However, Sacks’s approach represents an interpretational method which does not conform with sociological research methods, since, according to sociologists, if participants interpret a certain joke as sexual, their reading of it is legitimate and not a misunderstanding or a mistake.
The following examples are all taken from course materials in Sevi (2012, Part C).
This refers to the burden of proof in the literal sense, not the legal sense.
While it is theoretically possible for the woman to ignore the offer, this is not really a satisfactory solution. This is because even if the offer was made politely, a woman could still have a rational fear that ignoring it would be interpreted as a refusal which could lead to future repercussions due to the insult of the offeror.
References
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bell, D. M. (1997). Innuendo. Journal of Pragmatics,27(1), 35–59.
Bell, M. P., McLaughlin, M. E., & Sequeira, J. M. (2002). Discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling: Women executives as change agents. Journal of Business Ethics,37(1), 65–76.
Bergmann, M. (1986). How many feminists does it take to make a joke? Sexist humor and what is wrong with it. Hypatia,1(1), 63–82.
Boxer, C. F., & Ford, T. E. (2010). Sexist humor in the workplace: A case of subtle harassment. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Insidious workplace behavior (pp. 175–206). New York: Routledge.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, M. (2000). Only joking: Humor and sexuality. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society and feminism (Vol. 4, pp. 213–236). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Davies, B. L. (2007). Grice’s cooperative principle: Meaning and rationality. Journal of Pragmatics,39(12), 2308–2331.
De Sousa, R. (1990). The rationality of emotion. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dolitsky, M. (1992). Aspects of the unsaid in humor. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research,5(1–2), 33–44.
Duncan, W. J., Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1990). Humor and work: Applications of joking behavior to management. Journal of Management,16(2), 255–278.
Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,26(9), 1094–1107.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58)., Speech acts New York: Academic Press.
Guerin, B. (2003). Language use as social strategy: A review and an analytic framework for the social sciences. Review of General Psychology,7(3), 251–298.
Hassett, J., & Houlihann, J. (1979). Different jokes for different folks. Psychology Today,12, 64–71.
Hemmasi, M., & Graf, L. A. (1998). Sexual and sexist humor in the work place: Just “good fun” or sexual harassment? In Proceedings of decision sciences institute (pp. 455–457). Las Vegas: DSI.
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamir, O. (2004). Dignity, respect, and equality in Israel’s sexual harassment law. In C. MacKinnon & R. Segal (Eds.), Directions in sexual harassment law (pp. 561–581). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kamir, O. (2011). Types of sexual harassment. In L. Levanon (Ed.), Harassing words: Issues in verbal sexual harassment (pp. 71–81). Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute.
Kasher, A. (1976). Conversational maxims and rationality. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Language in focus: Foundations methods and systems (pp. 197–216). New York: Springer.
Kasher, A. (1986). Politeness and rationality. In J. D. Johansen, & H. Sonne (eds.), Pragmatics and linguistics: Festschrift For Jacob L. Mey (pp. 103–114). Odense, Denmark: University Press of Southern Denmark.
Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2015). Pragmatics. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 ed.). Retrieved May 11 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/pragmatics/.
Kotthoff, H. (2006). Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics,38(1), 4–25.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. N. (2016). Principles of pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Legman, G. (1968, 2007). Rationale of the dirty joke: An analysis of sexual humor. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Losco, J., & Epstein, S. (1975). Humor preference as a subtle measure of attitudes toward the same and the opposite sex. Journal of Personality,43(2), 321–325.
Love, A. M., & Deckers, L. H. (1989). Humor appreciation as a function of sexual, aggressive, and sexist content. Sex Roles,20(11–12), 649–654.
Mackinnon, C. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mackinnon, C. A. (1987). Difference and dominance: On sex discrimination. Feminism unmodified (pp. 32–45). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory,10(3), 310–331.
Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Mundorf, N., Bhatia, A., Zillman, D., Lester, P., & Robertson, S. (1988). Gender differences in humor appreciation. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 1(3), 231–244.
Neuliep, J. W. (1987). Gender differences in the perception of sexual and nonsexual humor. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,2(3), 345–351.
Otsri, M. (2016). Feminists have no sense of humor: Humor as a defense in cases of verbal sexual harassment. Hebrew. LLM dissertation. Law Faculty, Tel Aviv University.
Padilla Cruz, M. (2008). Three different approaches to the teaching of the (IM) politeness of phatic utterances in English. Language awareness in English and Spanish (pp. 131–152). Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.
Priest, R. F., & Wilhelm, P. G. (1974). Sex, marital status, and self/actualization as factors in the appreciation of sexist jokes. The Journal Of Social Psychology,92(2), 245–249.
Pryor, J. B. (1995). The phenomenology of sexual harassment: Why does sexual behavior bother people in the workplace? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,47(3), 160–168.
Quinn, B. A. (2000). The paradox of complaining: Law, humor, and harassment in the everyday work world. Law and Social Inquiry,25(4), 1151–1185.
Sacks, H. (1989). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,82(3), 401–415.
Sevi, A. (2012). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. London: Open University Press.
Smeltzer, L. R., & Leap, T. L. (1988). An analysis of individual reactions to potentially offensive jokes in work settings. Human Relations,41(4), 295–304.
Smuts, A. (2010). The ethics of humor: Can your sense of humor be wrong? Ethical theory and moral practice,13(3), 333–347.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Boston University Press.
Strawson, P. F. (1991). Intention and convention in speech acts. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 290–304). New York: Oxford University Press.
Unger, R. K., & Crawford, M. E. (1992). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Unger, R. K., & Crawford, M. E. (1993). Sex and gender: The troubled relationship between terms and concepts. Psychological Science,4, 122–124.
Unger, R. K., & Crawford, M. E. (1994). Gender issues in psychology. In A. Colman (Ed.), Companion encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1007–1027). London: Routledge.
Vakimo, S. (2015). In search of hidden sexuality. Old age and sexuality in the light of humorous narration. Etnološka tribina: Godišnjak Hrvatskog etnološkog društva,45(38), 108–121.
Walle, A. H. (1976). Getting picked up without being put down: Jokes and the bar rush. Journal of the Folklore Institute,13(2), 201–217.
Winick, C. (1976). The social contexts of humor. Journal of Communication,26(3), 124–128.
Woodzicka, J. A., & Ford, T. E. (2010). A framework for thinking about the (not-so-funny) effects of sexist humor. Europe’s Journal of Psychology,6(3), 174–195.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my deep gratitude to Asa Kasher and Menachem Mautner for offering their support, guidance and insightful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Shai Otzari, Roberto Refinetti and the editorial board of Sexuality & Culture for all their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Otsri, M. Non-sexist Sexual Humor as Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment. Sexuality & Culture 24, 94–112 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09627-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09627-1