Conference 7.286::digital

    Ray, profanity is an accepted norm in many conversational circles.
    Profanity in the work place is less acceptable.
    profanity in mixed company even less so.

    However, you may have gotten a better response from the person
    conducting the meeting you mentioned had you waited for a break and
    politely informed him at that time that you thought maybe some of the
    attendees were uncomfortable with the language. Anyone, especially a
    manager, takes public chastisement very poorly. Let it be known to your
    co-workers that you are uncomfortable with the language, but do so
    discreetly. one thing that you must not do is try to preach at/to them.
    No matter how well founded your intentions or how deeply religious you
    are, the vast majority of the people do not want to have moral or
    religious ethics jammed down their throat and that is just how an
    overzealous  reaction may be viewed.

    Just curious, why is profanity is mixed company less acceptable than 
    profanity in  the workplace...is there a difference ?
    
    Joan G.
    

Re .0: I'm not opposed to all uses of "profanity" in the workplace. Sometimes
a judicious and carefully chosen phrase can be effective and witty. However,
for anything other than discreet and very limited usage, I agree with you
that "it is uncalled for and shows a lack of respect for the moral beliefs 
of other people." It also, in my view, shows the speaker to be an abrasive,
unimaginative clod -- someone whom I'd be instantly disinclined to support
or encourage. And since the purpose of running most meetings is to win
support or encouragement, the use of profanity would also seem dumb.

Sounds to me like the guy in the incident you referred to was a jerk. If
I had been in the meeting with you, I'd probably have thanked you afterwards.

    I don't think it has anything to do with moral or belief issues.  It's
    a matter of politeness and respect for others.  It's a matter of social
    maturity.
    
    re .0, why didn't you go to personnel?

Guaranteed:  the manager could have twisted the situation so that personnel
would have taken his side, and the elevation to personnel would have been the
ultimate career limiting move.

/john

.1 probably had it right that taking it offline would have
made a big difference in the response.  Also, if you were to point
out that since some of the audience was getting "uncomfortable",
he was likely not being received very well.  If you could make the person
understane how it is to their benefit to change, they are much more likely
to change than if you embarrass them in front of others (and I've had some
managers who consider any hint of disagreement to be embarrassing).

Kevin

.0> My question is: is it really necessary to use profanity to get your
.0> point across?
    
    Bluntly, yes, sometimes I am not at all hesitant to use a good "hell"
    or a "damn" to get my point across.  Do you consider this profanity?
    I think that for the most part Mr. Rhet Butler made those words
    quite socially acceptable in 1939 (Gone With The Wind).
    
    There are times when I let the "F" word slip - I was raised
    on a farm and spent too much time in the USMC - you need only ask
    that I refrain from such language and I'll do my best...now...answer
    the above question please...I'm really interested in your perspective
    on this for, as I said, I rarely hesitate to use those two words.
    
    /Alex

    
    Using the "f" word in a mixed business meeting (assuming this was the
    case, I've seen it happen by a high level mananger) is a sexual
    harrassment act against women.  Saying nothing is not doing the right
    ethical thing.  Silence connotes acceptance.  Speaking up, then being
    put on verbal warning for insubordination is reprisal, repression,
    intimidation and does nothing to building harmony and teamwork to build
    a Digital greater than what is.
    
    One person standing up cannot, however, win.
    
    Only if the rules of how Digital works can both Digital as a
    corporation and all its employees win together.  All of us want the
    same thing: a chance to participate, to build something, to be
    rewarded, to have job security and not think the next word or idea out
    of our mouth is going to get us economically killed off.
    
    I think the greater issue here is NOT primarily the profanity (we all
    slip, unless it's excessive, then that's another story) but rather the
    MAIN issue is the reprisal, and that eternal FEAR, speak not, lest ye
    be making career limiting words and actions.
    

    Maybe some of the women who were offended by your manager's use of the
    'seven words you can't say on television' (or at least not before
    Married With Children) should have said something. If someone is
    doing/saying something that you don't want to hear, say something or
    leave. 
    It was nice of you to stick your neck out for their sakes. Too bad you
    have a J.O manager who is too worried about his own ego to pay
    attention to your intent. 
    
    I do agree...profanity in the workplace IS getting louder and more
    'socially acceptable' or at least 'socially tolerated'. And I'm as
    guilty as the next person. Sometimes I find myself (depending on the
    people I'm talking with) dropping back to my sailor days and talking
    like a sea bee...  Problem is, its' getting harder to turn off and on.
    I find myself spewing gutter words in very inappropriate situations...
    like a VERY crowded McDonalds after waiting in line for 20 minutes...
    how embarrassing...not only for me but for my husband (who was very
    patient with ME) but did point out that I was no longer in the Navy..
     and my KIDS....who hopefully didn't hear....
    
    I wonder if there is a 'cussers anonymous....
    
    But on the OTHER hand...they're only words...what's in a word? If we
    didn't DECIDE that they were BAD words, they'd just be words...
    and I could feel free to be me in SLOW fast food places...;-)
    but maybe NOT in the workplace??!!.
    
    just a thought.
                                      
    cathy

< Note 1006.9 by ODIXIE::CARNELL "DTN 385-2901 David Carnell @ALF" >
                -< Fear does NOT BUILD successful corporations >-

    
=>   Using the "f" word in a mixed business meeting (assuming this was the
=>   case, I've seen it happen by a high level mananger) is a sexual
=>   harrassment act against women. 

I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. I've heard members of both sexes
use the "f" word in mixed company. I don't think it's any more a harrassment to
women than it is to men. Actually I don't think it's harrassment of any kind.
I do think it may be inappropriate for particular environments, however.

Jim

I always thought there was a difference between profanity (as per the topic 
title) and swearing.

Profanity is offensive from a religous point of view and does not value 
differences in this respect.

Swearing is the use of vulgar (?) words only.

I do not see why either profanity or swearing are more offensive to women.

Dave.

    REF:  <<< Note 1006.11 by USRCV1::MICKOLJ "Member of Team Xerox" >>>

    =>   Using the "f" word in a mixed business meeting (assuming this was the
    =>   case, I've seen it happen by a high level mananger) is a sexual
    =>   harrassment act against women. >>

    <<I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. I've heard members of
    both sexes use the "f" word in mixed company. I don't think it's any
    more a harrassment to women than it is to men. Actually I don't think
    it's harrassment of any kind.>>
    
    Perhaps a noter or two could consult personnel, employee relations,
    legal, value differences committee, and Ken Olsen, and have their
    thoughts placed in here to answer the comment by USRCV1::MICKOLJ
    "Member of Team Xerox" that such verbal abuse is not an act of sexual
    harrassment.
    

       In answer to all of the previous replies, I am not an overly
    religious person and I am probably just as guilty of using cuss words
    as anyone else, but using the "F" word excessively when it is not
    called for or in meetings that contain both men and women that this
    kind of language offends is wrong.  Perhaps I should have waited until
    after the meeting to bring up the subject.  But one woman said "If he
    says that one more time I'm going to leave."  And others agreed with
    her.  
    
       As far as the verbal warning goes, he stated so that it appeared
    that I was questioning his authority to conduct meetings in any manor
    that he so desired.  My response to the warning was that I only
    objected to the use of sexually explicit language.  I was advised by
    personnel to let the situation go since the warning would eventually be
    removed from my file.  As far as I was concerned personnel was firmly
    on the side of the manager.  A couple of years later, after I had
    transfered out of the group, they guy was caught in a conflict of
    interest and walked out the door.  The word I had heard was that they were
    trying to find some reason to get rid of him.
    
       And, I often attend meetings where this same kind of language is
    used.  I still feel it is inappropriate and should not be used. 
    Perhaps being 50+ my set of moral values are outdated, but I still feel
    people should respect the values of those they must work with.
    
    Ray

Just Dave's opinion here....

In situations such as this where the meeting atmosphere  is,  for  some reason,
discomforting to me, I just leave.  This was common a few years ago when unkind
people continued to smoke after being asked to stop, often, others  followed me
out.  If the person running the meeting wants to know why,  I will, and usually
do, get asked later.  Either I stop getting asked to attend (often,  a benefit)
or the unsocial practice gets corrected.  

To  continue a practice that is obviously discomforting to members in a meeting
demonstrates a lack  of  manners.    To  continue  to use socially unacceptable
language (would you talk  to  your mother that way?) in mixed company is a lack
of good manners coupled with  a  narrow  intellect - presuming that the speaker
does not have a sufficient vocabulary to select acceptable words.

As far  as  the written "insubordination" goes, that situation would have ended
in Ken's office, if I did not get satisfaction before then.

FWIW

Dave

>>As far  as  the written "insubordination" goes, that situation would have ended
>>in Ken's office, if I did not get satisfaction before then.

This "theme" of protesting accusations of insubordination doesn't seem quite
right.  After all, in the dictionary, "insubordination" is defined as
"not submitting to authority".  So how can one protest such a thing without
being guilty of it?

-steve-

    The problem is that 'polite company' is on the endangered species
    list. The belief is 'hey! its just another word'. Our society today
    is bombarded with movies, stage shows, music, etc, that use foul and
    sexually explicit language. Society is becoming jaded by it, IE no
    longer shocked. Like after you've seen Friday the 13th Part xxx,
    blood and gore don't upset you anymore. Its not right, but its the
    way it is. The only way we can change it, is if we don't encourage
    it. Imagine the look of disbelief I get from a HS student when I
    tell them that I almost got thrown out of Chorus for telling someone
    else to be careful or they'd "get all screwed up".
    
    As for the mixed company thing, it has to do with the inbred chauvinism
    of society. If I tell an off-color joke to another guy and he doesn't
    like it, a manager or personnel rep will look upon his complaint as
    rather silly. If I tell that same joke to a woman, I will be read the
    riot act when she complains.
    
    Bob Mc

re Note 1006.16 by DECWIN::KLEIN:

> This "theme" of protesting accusations of insubordination doesn't seem quite
> right.  After all, in the dictionary, "insubordination" is defined as
> "not submitting to authority".  So how can one protest such a thing without
> being guilty of it?

        Aha!  The indefensible offense!  The unpardonable sin!

        Bob

    PROFANE:
    
    1. Debasing what is sacred; blasphemous.
    2. Not religious in nature or use.
    3. Irreverent or vulgar (as, profane language).
    
    -FANED, FANING
    
    1. To desecrate by treating contemptuously or irreverently; blaspheme.
    2. To put to an unworthy or degrading use; misuse.
    
    PROFANITY
    
    1. The quality or state of being profane. 
    2. a. Irreverent, abusive, or vulgar language.
       b. The use of profane language.
    
    
    SWEAR
    
    1. To declare solemnly under oath.
    2. To vow; promise.
    3. To use profanity; curse.
    4. To declare to be true while calling on God or something held sacred.
    5. To administer a legal oath to.
    6. To bind by or as if by means of an oath.
    
    Speaking as an early & thorough gutter-mouth, I suspect that all of the
    above implies little difference between swearing & profanity.
    
    I all too frequently refer to the Old Anglo-Saxon terms for kinship,
    bodily functions & parts, despite years of effort to the contrary. I do
    not appreciate the use of these terms, by me or by others, in mixed
    company. But I do it, and so do others. 
    
    If my abuse is pointed out, I will stop, take umbrage, and be prfoundly
    embarassed, all in the same emotional instant. This does not make me a
    better person to be around. But I will eventually appreciate the
    impulse motivating the pointer-outer. 
    
    Look folks, this culture swore (!) off morality, standards of behavior,
    and social custom and usage about 20 years ago. If you seriously want
    some of the old stuff back, you'd better consider the whole package. I
    personally would favor a bend in the direction of "traditional values",
    but I do not assume the right to stuff them in your face.
    
    And I support nobody else in their efforts to stuff, whatever &
    wherever.

    re: .19 (and others)
    
.19>                                                                       I do
.19>    not appreciate the use of these terms, by me or by others, in mixed
.19>    company.
    
    How/why does the presence of people of both genders alter the
    acceptability of certain terms?
    

    I have mixed feelings about this.   I'm old fashioned enough to
    appreciate a kinder and gentler language environment but I'm also
    afraid that we are also risking 'fern overload'.   I liked us [Digital]
    better when we had warts.   We used to have meetings where entire
    paragraphs were 'letter' words (pick one; f,g,s,p,c,.....).  We
    used to yell and scream at each other, go out for a beer, then come
    back to work into the wee hours, together.
    
    Now I'm here in my antiseptic mauve office (I didn't even know this 
    was a color until 1988) never swearing, never feeling any emotion
    really.   I think we spend far too much time being sensitive.
    No change ever comes without stress and I'm not sure that I want
    to work in an insulated bubble that never changes and never makes
    my blood boil.   I want stimulation.
    
    If we all achieve the ultimate fern bar environment here, we will
    have already witnessed Digital's last creative endeavor.

    Rather than get hung up over the difference between profanity and
    swears and oaths, or who might take more offense and why, think about
    profanity in the workplace in terms of efficient communication.  The
    speaker is trying to say something, and the listeners are trying to
    hear it.  If, instead, the listeners are distracted by "noise" in the
    communications channel, such as:
    
    o  Speaker is sweating profusely
    o  Speaker has unzipped fly
    o  Speaker has booger dangling from nose
    o  Speaker is whispering inaudibly
    o  Speaker is swearing incessantly
    o  Speaker is incoherent
    o  <You get the idea>
    
    Then the effect is that the message is distorted, degraded, or even
    lost.  That's not good for anyone.  (It's the same in written
    communication, by the way.  If I misspelled every other word, or swore
    in print, or you read this on a bad communications line, or I were
    incoherent, my message would be damaged as well.)
    
    Communication is a two-way street.  The speaker (transmitter) should
    take care not to introduce noise into the connection; the listener
    should pay attention and try to interpret what's being communicated. If
    the listener takes offense at profanity, it doesn't matter whether the
    speaker *intends* to offend or not -- the effect is the same.
    
    The situation outlined by the author of the base note, as he expanded
    it in a recent reply, included two women in a meeting with a man who
    used profanity.  I don't know what the profaner was trying to
    communicate, but what the women heard was profanity, and what they were
    thinking was, "If he says that again I'm leaving."  That's not
    effective communication!
    
    So, from a bottom-line business perspective, profanity in the workplace
    is only a good idea if you know it's not getting in the way of
    effective communication.  For many people, it clearly does get in the
    way, so it's a bad idea.

    re: .22  Effective Communication
    
    It's also true that to sit there and take it was equally bad
    'communication'.  By staying there they send the message
    that everything's cool.   I maintain that this comes from everybody
    being too nice.
    
    The women could have, and should have, stood up and declared their
    feelings.   They probably didn't because they were being nice, not
    wanting to hurt the perpetrators feelings.   This is what I maintain
    is the inevitable result of fern overload.   He slaps her in the
    face (figuratively), she turns her cheek, he thinks; "Oooh, she
    likes it".
    
    Maybe if they had stood up to the guy, he'd have bought them a beer
    or Perrier.
        

    re .22
    
    A #$#%^&* A(#$%*&#$) job!
    
    or without profanity
    
    Well said!! 

    Maybe we should replace the obsolete "Smoking by consensus only" signs
    in conference rooms with "Swearing by consensus only" signs.
    
    I think that the use of language should be driven by common sense. 
    That is KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.  I wouldn't purposely use bad language
    around a total stranger or people that I know would be offended.  It is
    too easy to make bad impressions by offending someone. I've seen cases
    where people are technical giants but very obnoxious and others just
    don't want to listen to what they have to say.  I really don't see
    language as a moral or gender related issue.  Good communication
    requires that you relate to those who you want to hear you on their
    terms.
    
    
    
    

My reaction to the base note was the same as Andy Leslie's - "that manager
should be escorted to the door, relieved of his badge, and sent the contents
of his drawer".

On thinking it over for a couple of minutes, that's overreaction. The right
thing would be for the manager to get a verbal warning, for two reasons:

	(1) Offensive behaviour in the meeting

	(2) Grossly unfair treatment of his subordinate

Ray Laforest (the guy who spoke out) should be commended for his honesty and
moral courage. The only pity is that everyone else in the meeting didn't
make it clear that they agreed with him. Thank you, Ray, for doing the
right thing!

The purpose of profanity is to offend. Think it through - both blasphemous and
vulgar expressions serve only to shock, and thereby to relieve the feelings of
the speaker. In almost no case do they add to communication. The only exception
is when they bring home how strongly one feels about something.

Swearing (in the broad sense) is not acceptable in "polite company", and for
any professional person that includes "in the workplace". ("Impolite company"
includes circles in which NOT to swear would invite contempt or distrust, such
as the navy). I am surprised that quite a number of replies to this topic
state that swearing is acceptable. In no way does it fit in with the Digital
philosophy.

One of life's worse experiences is to misjudge a situation and use profanity
when it is clearly NOT welcome or acceptable. On the other hand, we all make
poor judgments from time to time - the thing to do is grit your teeth and
apologise, and don't do it again. If you afford yourself the luxury of
frequent swearing, sooner or later you'll do it in front of a customer,
or Ken Olsen, or someone who will REALLY not appreciate it.

/Tom

    Thanks Tom, I agree with your thoughts.

    Re .9:
    
    > Silence connotes acceptance. 
    
    Upon seeing the above, I simply could not be silent.  Other people are
    not authorized to indicate what constitutes acceptance by me.  Let this
    be public notice that my silence in any matter does not connote
    acceptance. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    We used to have a sales support person who had a "million" jokes, most
    of them off-color.  He was great fun and was frequently invited to
    lunch and dinner with customers.  Well, at least one customer (and
    perhaps more) did not appreciate the language in some of his jokes and
    complained to management.  The moral of the story, know your audience.
    
    So out of respect for our customers, one should ask before using
    off-color language.  This same respect should be shown for every
    employee as well.  Because if it isn't part of your basic employee to
    empolyee philosophy, it will fall apart when it comes to employee to
    customer.  As has been mentioned previously, the effort should be
    towards better communication, not intimidation or shock value or
    "coolness."

    re: consensus...
    
    Do you mean there *are* such signs in conference rooms back east? Maybe
    you're just kidding!(I hope)

    .30: "consensus to smoke"
    
     These signs were quite popular in DEC facilities "back east" before
    the present "restrictive smoking policy" took effect.  Since now (in
    most US DEC facilities) you can only smoke in designated smokers
    lounges, the signs are being taken down.  
    
    					Nigel

    If profanity is okay in the workplace, could someone (NOT ME!!)
    enter a note here that is liberally sprinkled with explicit sexual
    and scatological words as a test?  I believe several of the moderators
    would risk RFIs in their haste to set the note hidden!! :^)
    
    As a personal experience, I once attended a very large meeting where
    the invited guest speaker was the head of a large, well-known
    consulting firm.  He began his remarks with an off-color and very
    sexist joke, a propos of nothing.  His firm will never get any business
    from me (nor will I EVER recommend it to anyone else).  BTW, nobody
    laughed (in an audience of over 300).
    
    Bill

    .32> would risk RFIs in the haste to set the note hidden!!
    
    Not to digress or rathole, but what does RFI stand for?
    
    Jon

At the risk of repeating the sound advice of several previous notes, if you
don't know the people with whom you're interacting well enough to know that
cursing is acceptable, then quite simply don't.  If you can't selectively use
profanity/obscenities/... then quite simply don't use them at all. 

Use of swear words is not unlike the telling of ethnic jokes, or for that
matter loud belching.  It is simply inappropriate in the work place, and in any
situation where the people involved are not implicitly in agreement with the
standard of behavior (eg; a college beer blast might be an acceptable situation
for a belching contest). 

Before anyone thinks "Dan must be an uptight prude," don't.  I simply believe
that it is socially and professionally unacceptable to make others
uncomfortable.  The world would be a better place if everyone remembered that
we all share this world with people who have different values than ours. 

    
    I think there is a time and place for everything and I am not a
    prude, but here is my situation right now.  I recently transferred
    into a new area.  The people are wonderful, but the way cubicles
    are set up you can't help but overhead others.  There is a guy who
    works in another group across the hall who has a VERY LOUD VOICE
    and swears ALL THE TIME using such profanity as Motherf***er and
    C*cksuc*er among the F word liberally.  I really  get sick of hearing
    it.   Someday I am really tempted to say something to him, but don't
    have the courage.  I have also thought of leaving a bar of soap
    (such as shield or lava) on his desk with a note telling him to
    use it to wash out his filthy mouth.  I have also thought of going
    to personnel about it, but don't want to come across as a prude
    or ruffle any feathers.
    
    Any suggestions ?

	I fully agree that in some/most cases profanity is inappropriate in the
work place. But I would be unhappy to see a forced morality of language ordered
upon me or anyone else This is censorship, plan and simple. Let me play the
devils advocate here and suggest that we outlaw from the work place words and
phrases that might offend someone. Here is a list that might offend me: 

	Merry Christmas		Conservative
	Liberal			"it's not my job"
	Right Wing		Left Wing
	"do lunch"		"virtual team" 
	"where the rubber meets the road/sky"
	Happy <fill in religious holiday>
	Christmas/Holiday Party

	etc. (you get the idea...there are no words that don't offend someone)
	
	I am not suggesting that everyone start using profanity but I am
suggesting is that a great number of people could use to be a bit less
thin skinned. We all need to learn to accept other peoples ideas, habits and
mannerisms that we do not like or approve of. 

Just My $.02....
tac

    Pu-leeese... Thin skinned?  Our society is made up of customs, morals,
    ethics, etc that are generally accepted as the way things are done. 
    You don't go to work in your underwear... You don't eat a spagetti
    lunch with your fingers... you don't p*ss in the bushes outside your
    office.  In my opinion, you don't swear in the workplace.  It is simple
    common courtesy, and totally unnecessary.
    

    Thinskinned indeed! What if that person a few replies back had his/her
    children visiting? Would that person be considered thinskinned by you?
    
    BTW: DEC considers it perfectly acceptable to have visitors in your
    work area during work hours,be they customers or relatives.(subject to
    your supervisor's approval,of course)

re.39:

You're right! I'd rather nobody mentioned Christmas in front of my 
children. But one has to be realistic...

Dave.

    WHEW!
    
    Haven't been in here in a coupl'a days, and was indeed stirred by the
    activity on this subject. I was tempted to do a "NEXT UNSEEN" on one or
    two occasions, but I stuck with it. Glad I did.
    
    Ahem...
    
    RE: .6 (Something about "would someone from personnel please tell us
    why this is sexual harassment" or something similar ... I think I'm
    close).
    
    The base note indicated that there were females present who were
    "obviously uncomfortable" with the use if the "F word" or some other
    profane statements. If anyone questions how this could be "sexual
    harassment" you need to take a course on "Sexual Harrasment in the
    Workplace" which is offered by DEC. (May not have the title right, but
    it's close.)
    
    What you will learn is:
    
    If you do ANYTHING, no matter how innocent in your own mind (Sexist
    example: "I only touched her on the arm."  Nonsexist example: " I only
    touched him/her on the arm.") AND the person you did this to is
    OFFENDED by what you did, it can be construed as sexual harrasment.
    
    All the offended party needs to do is tell offender:
    
    "I find what you just said/did to me to be very offensive. I would very
    much appreciate it if you never said/did that again."
    
    The offended party should then note this occurance in writing (just
    make a note to yourself) and if it happens again, the same  words
    should be repeated to the offender and the incident documented again.
    
    The offended party now has the right to go to Personnel and lodge a
    complaint on harassment.
    
    (Naturally, I anticipate responses which will say: something like ...
    "so if I eat peanut butter sandwiches at my desk and that bothers you, I
    can get nailed with a harassment charge?". I think that the law would
    differentiate between such a ridiculous example and someone who used
    profane language consistently or touched someone consistently after
    having been warned.)
    
    RE: .25 (I think)  Someone who indicated that silence on his/her part
    did NOT mean agreement.
    
    My answer may not apply itself directly to the base note or the
    circumstances under which you felt compelled to make this statement.
    However, I would say, that one of the BIG problems with DEC today is
    something that has been referred to as "The DEC Nod".
    
    Joe goes to a meeting, seeking typical "matrix approval" for his idea. 

    10 people listen to Joe's idea. 
    
    At the end, Joe says, "So what do you think?"
    
    All 10 people either say nothing, or say, "Yeah, sure. Good stuff." or,
    they just nod ... (The DEC Nod).
    
    Joe goes back to his management indicating "Unanimous approval" of his
    idea. "Nobody nad a single negative comment."
    
    After the meeting broke up, a hidden fly on the wall would have heard
    at least 7 out of 10 people make comments like:
    
    	"Hah! What a JERK!  My boss'd never go for that."
    
    	"What a waste of time."
    
    	"Yeah, sure, $300K investment for $2,000K in revenue ... based
    	  on THAT market research ... who's he kidding."
    
    Too many of us "stay silent". If this person's idea was stupid, the
    audience should have spoken up! If someone's language or actions
    offend you, YOU should speak up. Don't let people think that your
    silence means that everything's OK! It will cause you to accumulate
    "baggage", which sooner or later has to get dumped!
    
    
    As someone who frequently used "colorful language", (and admittedly
    still does), I've tried to make a concerted effort to be much more
    careful. About 5 years ago, I gave a presentation to an internal
    audience to "rave reviews", but one person wrote on her critique form
    that I was "obviously knowledgeable about the subject matter, a dynamic
    speaker, and it all went down the drain because of the speaker's
    constant use of four-letter words ... which I found very offensive".  
    
    I have never forgotten that experience, and it has made me think a lot
    more about what I say and do in front of various audiences. I
    frequently use this test:
    
    
    	1	Can't help, might hurt.      DON'T SAY IT/DO IT
    	2	Can't hurt, might help.	     WHY NOT?
    
    When dealing with customers, Rule 1 ALWAYS applies!
    
    Any manager who would call an employee into his/her office and read
    them the riot act for correcting their use of profane language is
    totally out of line. If it happened to me, I would ask that person to
    accompany me to personnel to discuss the issue. And, if the personnel
    representative had insufficient backbone to explain to the manager
    their obvious error in judgement, I would continue to push it up the
    ladder ... all the way to Ken if necessary ... to prove the point.
    
    However, I seriously doubt you'd have to take it very far.
    
    /se
    
    
    

	IMHO, it's sexist to assume that women are more offended by
	profanity than are men.

    
    re .42: IYHO (In Your Humble Opinion), is it sexist to base an assumption
    on lots of previous experience?
    

re .43:
>is it sexist to base an assumption on lots of previous experience? 

Yes!  (I know, it's not so humble an opinion all the time!)

A statement about personal experience (such as, "Most women I've known have
been offended by the use of profanity, and fewer men have.") is just a
fact, an observation.  But an assumption by its very nature is not based on
fact.  It's simply an unverified premise, you can't say it about someone
you haven't met, and all too often we use it to control or discriminate
against people.

What I got from some of the earlier comments was that certain women, or
women in general, needed to be protected from hearing this manly type of
language.  Or that to curse in front of a woman is to sexually harrass  her
(I'm not talking about lack of consideration). In either case, I don't get
it.  A word is just a word and offense is a  personal issue.  (How the word
might be used, of course, is a different issue.)  Anyone might be offended
by the simple use of profanity, or not;  and an assumption about a
particular woman or women in general is clearly based only on gender. 
That's a pretty basic definition of sexism, it doesn't have anything to do
with anything else and it's not a testable assumption unless you interview
a specific woman and in that case you've learned something only about one
person, not about all people in a particular class.  It just doesn't 
generalize.

To some extent sexism is a matter of how you define it, and you could use
intent as a metric, as in whether the purpose to demean, oppress,
patronize, or otherwise mistreat someone.  That tends to get pretty
subjective, or it can, so I tend to think it's better to avoid those kinds
of generalizations whenever possible.  I'm a man, what does that tell you
about my attitude towards profanity?  Nothing.  You could make an
assumption but it wouldn't have anything to do with me.

I'm not supporting swearing in inappropriate contexts; I just don't think
gender has anything to do with it and what if it were true?  It still
doesn't have anything to do with the issue.  It's sexist to bring it up
because we are introducing the issue or element of a woman's (or man's)
supposed sensibilities into a discussion which is simply about professional
behavior towards persons.
                 ^^^^^^^

    Is this sexism?
    
    Submitted for your approval...
    
    If a male manager uses profanity, it will not be a bar to further 
    advancement, especially if used in front of other male managers only.
    If a female manager uses profanity, it will be career threatening,
    especially if used in front of male managers..
    
    Just a thought..that old BOYS network is still alive and well..
    
    George

    Re: last few
    
    One of my former managers (a female) used to use profanity quite
    often.  She was obviously not offended by the F*** word or any of the
    other words previous replies had objected to.  Did it affect her
    career?  Not that I could tell.  She got good raises, went to the
    awards ceremonies and generally did pretty well.  Why?  Not because of
    the way she talked or didn't talk, but because she was damn good.
    
    So at least in some places in the company, people consider the type of job
    you are doing more important than the choice of words you use to
    express yourself.
    
    Dave

    By and large, use of profanity in the workplace is not necessary.
    It can also be inconsiderate, depending on circumstances.
    
    BUT. I insist on a total exception when using ELF V2 ...
    
    Mike Day
    

    In my experience, men who use profane and/or obscene language in mixed
    company often do so with the definite intention of excluding the women
    present from the discussion.  The assumption here (sexist or not; right
    or wrong) appears to be that the women will be so busy being "grossed
    out" by the language that their ability to participate will be
    seriously hampered.
    
    -dave

    sigh.
    
    Ability to communicate is a skill.  Somehave learned it some have
    not.  Ability to miscommunicate is also a skill, some have learned
    it some have not.  The ability to exclude others from communication
    is also a skill.  Most people I've met have learned it.
    
    I cannot fault someone for failing to learn how to communicate
    effectivily.  People who use inapproperate language in a given
    circumstance fall into this catogory.  This is a passive crime,
    often committed out of ignorance.  Swearing is only one example
    of this type of act.
    
    People who miscommunicate information are committing an active
    deception.  For this I have little tolerence.  These people rarely
    swear.  This crime is much more serious.
    
    People who communicate to exclude tend to use a contrived methophor
    of common clique conception (ugh!).  Technical terms, obscure phrases,
    colloqueisims, regional phrasing, "business lingo," private jokes,
    off color langauge, etc.  All of them annoying, but in most cases
    these people have little or nothing to say, so the only harm I suffer
    is that they waste a lot of my time not saying it.

    I cannot see a sexist bias in the first catogory.  The swearing
    is moot.
    
    If the miscommunication were targeted toward deception soley of
    a given group, I can see a bias.  The use of the langauge is not
    at fault.
    
    The latter is almost always oriented in a biased sense.  Techies
    with their bits and bytes details talking to sales people, marketing
    with the assorted misuse of nouns as verbs, modified by trite phrases
    and the word strategic, jocks and the sports methophors, off color
    jokes derogitory comments and perverse langauge as a sexist weapon,
    are all examples of catogory 3.
    
    Why are we all worried about the personal effects of anothers
    ignorance, or even a subset of the extreme case of exclusion when it
    seems that the problem most germaine to Digital is intentional (but
    very polite) miscommunication? 
    
    A number of notes back someone remembered a DEC where we had lots
    of rough edges, swore, screwed up, and both succedded and enjoyed
    working together.  I remember that DEC too.  The one I see spends
    a lot of time striving for conformance to mediocore standards of
    proper, polite and consistant behavior.
    
    I'd still rather hear 
    
    	"^&*^&*^& it, I ^&^&*^&*ed-up, but I ^&%& well intend to fix it!"
    
    instead of 
    
        "We misjudged the original scope of our committment, and though 
         we have succedded in meeting and in some cases exceeding our 
         objectives, we should strive to do the right thing and re-visit 
    	 the delieverables issue so that we can do an even better job in 
         the future."
    
    This reminds me of a short Vonnegut story from "Welcome to the Monkey
    House" 

-kevin        

>>    (Naturally, I anticipate responses which will say: something like ...
>>    "so if I eat peanut butter sandwiches at my desk and that bothers you, I
>>    can get nailed with a harassment charge?". I think that the law would
>>    differentiate between such a ridiculous example and someone who used
>>    profane language consistently or touched someone consistently after
>>    having been warned.)

I just have to respond to this.  I'm sure there will be those who disagree
with what I have to say, but I do represent one point of view that may be
just as valid as some of the others.  (In other words, I may be crazy, but
I'm not alone.)

---

After 10+ years of enjoying popcorn while I code I am now not
allowed to do so in my office because it offended someone in a nearby office.
The person said that the aroma (that isn't the word they used) was not to their
liking.  And believe me, that was a signal to me that DEC isn't a home to
"Real Programmers" anymore.  I miss not being able to munch while waiting
for a compile.

On the other hand, I can well imagine that the smell of peanut butter may
also offend someone.  In fact, there are some people who are VERY allergic
to peanut butter and who might have just cause to complain.

Suppose it was a liverwurst and onion sandwich.  Where do you draw the line?
Suppose someone didn't like your body odor?  I actually do have
trouble breathing sometimes after a particularly heavily perfumed person
passes my office.  And the smell of fingernail polish being applied in
a nearby office make me sick.  But there doesn't seem to be a law against
it, even though it is probably more harmful than smelling someone's
occasional cigarette.  And all the people who attack me with
volatile fingernail polish solvents happen to be of the same sex.
Does this constitute sexual harassment?

I guess the point of this reply is that I believe that everything harasses
someone somehow and that we all have to live together and bear it.  The
Golden Rule has worked very well for a long time and I don't think that
the corporation should spend a whole lot of $s or time trying to deal with
petty personal disagreements.  We should each take our own personal relations
into hand and deal with them.   The Corporation does not exist to babysit
the employees.

I believe that there are some exceptional cases where someone's immediately
personal safety has been threatened, and in these cases legal action may be
needed.  It is not clear however that the Corporation's lawyers should be
involved in these cases.  After all, DIGITAL is not a legal firm, we build
and sell Computers.  If you feel you have a legal case of harassment against
someone (co-worker, neighbor, store-keeper, anyone), take them to court.
And get your own lawyer.  Include your legal fees in the judgment.  If
you win, fine.  If you lose, well, you probably didn't have a case.  That's
the way the legal system works.  Don't expect DIGITAL to pay the lawyers.

Let's get DIGITAL back on track - doing our business rather than spending
lots of time worrying about who touched whom on the arm.  Remember, when
there is physical contact, the plaintiff may have a valid assault case.  If it
doesn't fall into the category of an assault, then try to handle it
on your own.  If it is an assault, and you can't handle it yourself,
then take them to court.

-steve-

    Re .50
    
    Steve, that's the spirit I agree with you totally.
    
    To be honest I'm someone that doesn't like the smell of popcorn from
    other people's offices. But NEVER would I dream of trying to get
    Digital to force this person to stop making/eating popcorn.
    
    This company seems to have moved away from being a computer software
    company. The goal nowadays seems to be 'How many touchy feely programs
    can we implement, the more the better'.
    
    I hope Digital doesn't fall into the Roman Empire syndrome.
    
    Dave

    re: .50
    
    Bravo!
    
    I was beginning to think that the grownup shortage in the company had
    reached a critical point.  (It may still be the case, but at least
    there's hope.)
    
    -joe tomkowitz

       
       
       	RE: .48
       
       	Bull. Absolute Bull. Most of the women I know in Digital can curse
       with the best of them IF NEEDED. To say that men curse in mixed
       company to exclude women from a discussion is a seriously sexist
       statement IMHO. *I* curse only because I do. I certainly don't just
       to exclude a woman from a conversation. Geeez...
       
       	Sometimes I wish we would just stop with this division of sexes
       and just say "People".
       
       							mike

    Re .50:
    
>> After 10+ years of enjoying popcorn while I code I am now not
>> allowed to do so in my office because it offended someone in a nearby office.
>> The person said that the aroma (that isn't the word they used) was not to their
>> liking.  And believe me, that was a signal to me that DEC isn't a home to
>> "Real Programmers" anymore.  I miss not being able to munch while waiting
>> for a compile.
    
    Unless they've removed all those little bags of microwave popcorn from
    the vending machines where you work, and have declared a site-wide
    corn-popping ban (except for designated and independently ventilated
    corn-popping rooms), and have set up work shops to help you get through
    your fresh-popcorn addiction, then I suspect you've become a victim of
    >>>>SNACKUAL HARASSMENT<<<<. You owe it to all other corn-poppers in
    this corporation, indeed the world over, to fight this vile harassment
    toothe and nail.
    
    And we all owe you our help in your battle. I propose that we set
    up a support group whose members will stop by your office at regularly
    scheduled intervals with fresh, hot and aromatic popcorn and offer to
    share it with you.
    
    We _must_ nip snackual harassment in the kernal!
    

    re .53:
    
    Damn right, Mikey. ;^)
    
    Grins

       Isn't it amazing how far away from the subject the replies can
    drift?
    
       I am beginning to think that the opinions of the origional subject
    are a wide and varied as those that express them.  
    
    Ray

    Ray, re .1:  I'm going to guess that you called your manager on his use
    of profanity in front of a group of people.  That was using poor
    judgement.  You should have "taken it offline". 
    
    Yes, using the F word as a substitute for every adjective in the
    dictionary is lazy, but I don't believe it is harassment. Women are
    every bit as capable of using/hearing profanity as are men.  In my 26
    years in business, I've seen varying levels of use of profanity, but
    I've never been in a group where profanity was banned. The obvious
    exception is where customers are present.  Also, someone
    brought up the question of a child within earshot.  If children are
    brought into the workplace, they'll occasionally be subjected to things
    they wouldn't be on Sesame Street.  If they happen to be around when
    there's a sudden power outage, they'll hear a ripple of expletives. 
    That's the risk you take.
    
    IMHO.
    Marge

    
    re. 57
    	Marge, you may have been in the work-force for a while (26 years).
    Well I have been in it for 51 years, and I STILL DO NOT USE PROFANITY.
    I have served in the Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the
    United States Air Force. 
    I do not believe that the use of profanity is required in any Company.
    I have, in meetings, asked the speaker to refrain from the use of the
    F--- word, and to date, have only recieved an apology. If anyone dared
    to try and put me on warning, I would not hesitate to go up the ladder
    as far as necessary to have the situation rectified.
    
    	Excuse me for exploding, but, I am absolutely fed up hearing how it
    is OK in todays society to use such language. BALDERDASH!!!!!!!!!
    
    George.  

    I agree that most profanity is gratuitous.  On the other hand, one
    doesn't get to be an adult in this society without having heard those
    words before and making a big deal out it, simply gives it more value
    or importance than it deserves.
    
    However, I will tell you what I consider to be discriminatory and
    offensive.
    
    When someone (male) uses profanity in a meeting, then stops,
    looks pointedly at any women in the room, and says "If you'll pardon
    my expression."
    
    IMHO,
    
    Susan

    re: .58
    
    Before you actually explode in a hissy fit of self-righteousness, try to
    understand that one person's "balderdash" is another's "bullshit" (a
    word that MUST be OK to use because I heard it on TV the other night).
    
    If you want to "draw the line" for acceptable behavior/language, I
    suggest you do it for yourself and allow others the same option.
    
    -joe tomkowitz

re: .60

    I agree, as I have always maintained, you can not legislate morality.
    However, if we are to draw the line for ourselves then speakers should
    not be surprised or upset if people get up, politely excuse themselves
    and leave. IMHO this is exactly what should have happened in .0's case. 
    If people take exception to a speakers choice of words but sit there and 
    do nothing, then they deserve their fate. Nobody can make you feel
    uncomfortable without your consent, at least not for too long.

    - George

    re: .60
    
>									(a
>    word that MUST be OK to use because I heard it on TV the other night).
    
    So, TV has become our authority and guide for appropriate behavior?
    I find such a statement curious, especially when compared with the
    sentiments expressed in your personal name ("Question authority").
    
    No personal attack intended, Joe -- I just don't buy it!
    
    If use of certain language is inappropriate for business situations
    with clients, then it is likely inappropriate for business situations
    which do not involve clients -- I believe that anything less than that
    is to show a degree of contempt for coworkers whose opinions on the
    matter are not known.  Now, if the speaker is addressing coworkers who
    are also _friends_, the matter is no longer solely a business situation
    and other considerations may apply.
    
    -- Russ

re: .58,
    
>    	Excuse me for exploding, but, I am absolutely fed up hearing how it
>    is OK in todays society to use such language. BALDERDASH!!!!!!!!!

	I agree!  The use of the the word "BALDERDASH!!!!!!!!!" is utterly
    obscene and uncalled for!  ;^)
    
	Seriously, common sense would indicate that given the freedom of
    speech in this country, the manager was perfectly justified in using
    whatever language he deemed approriate in the meeting, and, on the same
    token, the offended person in question was equally justified in voicing
    his objections to the use of such language.  Beyond that, I don't see
    that either the manager or the offended employee are justified in pressing
    the issue of either one's insubordination, or the other's use of profanity.

				    -davo

    I guess I might as well throw my 2 cents in...
    
    I feel that there is no need for profanity in a business situation. 
    In a business situation I do not discuss abortion, tell racial jokes, 
    cut my nails, burp, discuss religion, etc.
    Am I a "stuffy" person?  My friends don't think so.  When a customer gets
    angry I'm the one that goes in and calms them down.  My boss knows that
    I am easy to get along with and will make them feel comfortable.
    I like people.  I respect differences.  It would be a very boring world
    if everyone was the same.  I don't mind sacrificing a little to make a
    situation more tolerable.  Unfortunately there are others that don't
    believe in trying to make other people comfortable in a given situation.
    They would call my values "unadult" or "unmature" because 
    "people on T.V do it".  I get my values from something better than a 
    broadcast media that uses nelson ratings for it's values.
    If you want to shout vulgar language at your children and tell
    off-color jokes to your friends, then have fun.  But when you are
    forced into a business situation at work please try to think about what
    others may be sensitive to.
    
    It sure would make life easier for the rest of us.
    
    Barry

    I guess it is time to update the orange binder.  We needed to have
    policy in effect to control our "free expressions" in conferences which
    resides on Digital systems.  I believe the time has come to have another
    policy which will control our "free expressions" at Digital work-place,
    be it in a meeting or in our cubicle.
    
    - Vikas

    Perhaps we should have a cussing room in each facility?  For those who
    must deal with job stresses and need an outlet.
    
    *sigh*
    Marge

    
    ... And for those of you working with kernels, 
    
        a popcorn room.
    jc 

      No, all we need is a bunch of moderators to conduct the meetings.

    .68>      No, all we need is a bunch of moderators to conduct the meetings.
    
    I don't know about you,but,any moderator who tried to delete *me* would
    get clobbered with my cane!

>    I don't know about you,but,any moderator who tried to delete *me* would
>    get clobbered with my cane!
    
    I bet you are not the type of person who would use profanity in
    meetings or conferences, either electronic or personal.  But if you
    do, it will NOT be tolerated in MY meeting/conference :-)
    
    - Vikas

Um, I'm reasonably sure that "Balderdash" is a reference to the Norse god 
Balder and is therefore a curse.  Of course, "gee" and "golly" are also both
curses.

    Only read part of this topic and a DIR x.*.
    
    Ever try to find a book on the pyschology of swearing?  If you do, go
    to a BIG library and good luck!
    
    Someone mentioned "harassment" in a reply title (Early?).  I think of
    public use of such language even more harshly: it is pure intimidation
    and a direct effort at control.  An indication of proof is in .0's
    private after-meeting with his boss.  Another example = barracks
    language (Eisenhower knew how to use it effectively).  It certainly is
    a part of human nature (the male side at least).
    
    I did the library thing on this subject because I have children past
    the adolescent stage and I often wondered why some (many/most/all?)
    young women adopt this behaviour and at the same time rally to the cry
    against rape, sexual discrimination, etc.  Its got to be wrong
    headedness or forked-tongue'ness.  Maybe I just do not understand.
    
    If one uses words "FOO you" to me, I get the drift; but, at least in the
    old fashioned sense of the way things used to be done in Intercourse,
    (Pennsylvania, of course), and being of the male gender ... well, I
    guess I do not understand.  Anyone care to take a stab at the answer to
    that?
    
    Nuff said, Fred ... no too much.

re .58:

Well said, George, I absolutely agree that the use of profanity is NEVER
required. At most, in certain restricted situations it may give you s
slight extra edge, but the risk outwieghs the potential gain.

As all manuals of public speaking say, to start your speech with a dirty
joke is terribly dangerous. The win is that you're seen as a "good guy".
The loss is that you turn most of the audience off stone cold from word one.

As George says in .58:

>>> If anyone dared
>>> to try and put me on warning, I would not hesitate to go up the ladder
>>> as far as necessary to have the situation rectified.

Now, everyone, just ask yourself - if that happened and it went all the way
up to Ken Olsen, who would come out smelling like roses? The employee who
objected publicly to the use of foul language, or the the manager who
used foul language and then put his report on warning for objecting?

I may be wrong here, but I believe that manager would be catching up to
Voyager in about 3 weeks...

/Tom

Heck, as adults we shouldn't be surprised at anyone swearing.  It's pretty
common place these days.  It may be more rare to find a large percentage of
adults that "don't" swear.  If a person is bothered by it, they must have lived
a pretty sheltered, old timey, life style.  

I'm sure that many "big wigs" at DEC swear, both male and female.  Doctors
swear, policeman swear, fireman swear, senators swear, bankers swear, and
even the president of the United States swears.  It's not just the little,
ill-mannered, uneducated, impolite, hill billy-looking, moron, that swears.
Heck, I've heard of priests even doing it!  I was in the Air Force.  I
heard it there... by enlisted and officer alike!  Coaches swear.  Bobby
Knight wouldn't be "who he is" if he didn't swear.  Knight can out-do Eddie
Murphy! What if Dwight Eisenhower didn't swear, or Patton???  Or what if
Rhett Butler said, "Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a hoot."  What I'm
getting at is it's "who these people are."  It's their personally traits. 
I'm sure they probably exercise  some caution, especially in the presence
of women, but I'm sure there were times when occasions arose that demanded
it then.  I'm not going to try to analyze these people.  I'll leave that up
to you folks with the psychology training and let you get it wrong!  :^)

Me?  I swear.  It's just the way I am.  I try to exercise common sense too,
realizing that there are a lot of folks that will either be offended, or
pretend to be offended.... but I swear.  Some people cry, "Value my
differences.  I don't like it so don't do it."  OK. Fine.  But "value" mine
too, bud.  

I don't like a lot of things too.... like the way some folks dress, or the
perfume of an Avon user, or a dog peeing on my tire, or cat hair, or perhaps a
person's own, natural, body order, or a woman that wears trout lures in her
ears, or a man that lets his wife pick out his ties, or a dinner date that
turns out to be a shy, quiet, salad-eating, water-drinking..... etc., etc.  But 
hey, that's what makes people different and interesting.

-dwight

I don't think Fred's question about what a particular common epithet really
means needs to be answered here; I have sent him a private reply.

/john

    I don't feel that the point of the whole matter is the use of
    profanity. It's the manager's misuse of his authority that will get him
    the marching order, for sure!