There's always going to be inequality on a marginal scale. Employees who are recognized as more productive, more valuable, or perform better in the workplace can and should get a larger compensation for what they put into their jobs.
The point of the income inequality conversation is the fact that taking the average of all male incomes in the US, and pairing it to the average of all female income in the US for like jobs, it comes down to women, on average, for similar jobs, making roughly 25% less than men in similar jobs.
The only argument you could possibly make against that would be that "well, then maybe women aren't worth as much as men in the workplace", which would clearly out you as a bigot and an asshole. Maybe you want that, but I thought I'd lay it out for you so you might actually glean some knowledge from those who understand more about the state of the world than you do.

I'm extremely happy that Videosift has a marginally higher-than average collective of intelligence and discourse than the rest of the internet, and because of that I would kindly, seriously, and humbly suggest that you up your level of knowledge and world-view if you want to actually contribute to the discussion here.

I miss Chingalera's trolling, because at least his stupid fucking rants had a kernel of sense to them.

Lots of interesting conversation on this video. I always thought that the gay stereotype was used as a social cue to kind of announce that one was gay. I'm not saying any particular person had to act that way just that it helped to identify as part of a certain group. The flamboyance of the character for me is annoying, but tolerable. Cock props, a-hole pictures, TMI on the lover definitely cross the line for me in the workplace regardless of gender / orientation.

I was uncomfortable with this video because I was afraid that it would be used as fuel for homophobia.

I upvoted because really, it is the most anti-homophobic thing out there. It dares to treat gay people as people. Fully, 100% people with a range of personalities.

As a woman, I wasn't offended by the "gayness" of the character, I was offended by the blatant sexual nature of his comments. All this chatter about gayness completely misses the point about what is appropriate behavior in the workplace. And in fact, all this chatter disturbs me deeply -- it is misdirection from the true "crime" here.

Equality is asking everyone to be treated EQUALLY. You don't talk about sex in the workplace like this -- not if you are gay or straight.

Having said that -- my male boss and I are completely inappropriate with each -- but NOT around anyone else. We have bawdy senses of humor and we crack each other up. As he said early on in our working relationship -- it isn't sexual harassment if it is UNWANTED sexual attention.

This guy's co-worker was plain in his language that he was uncomfortable and didn't want to hear sexually explicit stuff, and he wasn't homophobic in his comments. He was ignored. That was not okay.

The point was brought home by making him happily and openly gay and letting the chatty one have a moment of self-truth. Because yeah, he was an asshole.

Explaining comedy and social commentary is so boring.

You dismissed as offensive humor targeting the vast majority of relatively inconspicuous gay men. You also suggested that we were "supposed to" interpret the character as straight... As though a normal gay man ought be surprising.

For the record being transgendered in the workplace is a completely different thing. Expressing your gender identity is normal. Expressing your sexuality is inappropriate for the most part.

Well how else are we supposed to read it? The sympathetic character looks and acts "normal", and the viewer is led to assume that he is straight, with the twist at the end being that he's gay too, albeit a kind of gay that straight people won't find threatening, i.e. just like any other average guy except for whom he dates. After this revelation, the unsympathetic, annoying, obnoxious, flamboyant gay guy turns to himself and says "I'm not oppressed: I'm just an asshole!" In other words, gay people allegedly don't experience oppression and those that feel that they do are probably just obnoxiously flamboyant, like this guy, and hence deserve any negative reaction they get.

Don't get me wrong. I'm well aware that this is just a comedy sketch, and likewise anything even approximating the flamboyant man's behavior would be completely inappropriate in the workplace. But that said, I find it deeply disturbing that the implied messaging here is "if gay people just looked and acted like straight people, except in the bedroom, no one would have any problem with them."

@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

This is nothing new especially. There's a lot of literature about social engineering. That if you spend a little money on things like childcare for your employees they'll work harder for you. Same with making the workplace just more enjoyable. They'll work harder and have an investment in their workplace so it makes sense to treat them nicer. Make them feel like they belong with significant things rather than just propaganda about how we're all a corporate family bullshit. People don't fall for that, unless they're already really indoctrinated.

In many cases though corporations won't do something like that even though it'll make them more money. Why? Because there would be giving up some control. It's not all about money, it's also about controlling your workforces.

George Monbiot's latest in the Guardian:

The infantilising diktats of the workplace destroy our self-respect. Those who end up at the bottom of the pile are assailed by guilt and shame. The self-attribution fallacy cuts both ways: just as we congratulate ourselves for our success, we blame ourselves for our failure, even if we have little to do with it.

So, if you don’t fit in, if you feel at odds with the world, if your identity is troubled and frayed, if you feel lost and ashamed – it could be because you have retained the human values you were supposed to have discarded. You are a deviant. Be proud.

NEVERMORE!

I am pretty sure it is a raven based on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guBwMUAWAJI video.

My workplace has a new family, with a nest, outside behind my cubicle. The adults are sure noisy and like to make noises at us especially near me! See http://aqfl.net/node/10939 for the details.

All I have are my experiences. Before I discovered the torturing effects of what is called "The Loop" (a period of time before and after being moved to court for arraignment and the period leading up to being housed in a jail cell) I perceived justice as possible. After I was wrongly put through this system, I have discovered that Justice is possible but not probable; or rather, your probably of justice increases with the amount of money you're willing to put into the justice system when it comes knocking.

I did not have money to put up, so I was put through a near 24 hours of waiting, moving from holding pin to holding pin to holding pin, with only concrete and the beleaguered advice of my new peer -- the criminal -- as my companion. Robbed of your sense of time and perception of beginning to end. When will it be over? How long have I been here? What is the purpose of these events? Am I guilty? Am I in jail? Who are these hardened criminals surrounding me? Am I a criminal now as well?

I was a boy with a bright future and I've struggled to reintegrate myself into society ever since. No one gets it. Depression and a sense of constant injustice are my companion. I wasn't an alcoholic before these events and I never did drugs, but afterwards I have struggled with alcoholism, depression, suicide attempts, all of my personal relationships failed until recently (and still it is a struggle to care about... anyone or anything), drug abuse, and I'm only barely past my yearly, near monthly visit to jail or the drunk tank.

Honestly, I know personal responsibility is important, but I was a fucking clueless child put into a den of thieves. I learned their ways and my nihilistic conclusions are the only bit of optimism that seem apparent in any system. Chaos; anarchy -- my only desires.

But this understanding of the the defects in any and all systems is what has given me an edge in my workplace where we invent new systems every day. That gives me hope, but it is a hope based on the purposeful destruction of systems. I'm good at it. And it protects the powers that employ me.

All forms of government and religion; rules and regulations; city planning and software design -- ALL of it easily manipulated and quick to topple -- like my innocence and sense of JUSTICE...

You're right - it's a British institution if we're to take the books as they come. But let's look at it from a J K Rowling point of view - from a brief scan of wikipedia, she went to an average british school with presumably average british children probably around 30 years ago - vastly different from the stats quoted above in 2011. There weren't many africans, pakistanis, etc. nor were there many gay, bi, transgendered people when i went to school about 20 years ago (1 black girl and everyone was "straight"). What she wrote came from imagination based on her own experiences and why on earth would people chastise her for the sheer happen-stance of her life experiences? She didn't write a book to exclude people, she wrote a book that just happened to not include every type of person in a fantasy world where there existed entirely different sorts of people. Are we to expect another video from professional-offence-takers about how JRR Tolkein - another FANTASY writer - didn't represent the diversity of humanity in any of his books?

And that's selling her short; there are elements of the books that make allusions to homophobia, racism, etc. - "Mudblood," is a xenophobic term used by characters in the book and it's not accepted by any of the extended main characters, and people really should think long and hard before placing their own expectations and values on other people and judging them for it.

Whether you like the books or not, they are popular and i think their popularity stems from the belief she has in her characters and story. Sure, she could have replaced Ron with an albino lesbian transgendered midget who would have lived happily ever after with Hermione, but would the books have been as good with a character that didn't come from Rowling's heart, someone that Rowling felt like she understood? What if she wrote a gay part for someone and got it wrong, is she then liable to take an ear bashing from the gay community for misrepresenting gay people? Where do you draw the line? Do we - at the expense of the story - put one gay person in and then suddenly we're taking abuse for including a "token" gay person?

It should not be the responsibility of anyone to compromise their art to appease someone else's sense of right or wrong, especially when it seems that their right or wrong is balanced on "is there someone like me in there?" In my opinion, if you come away from a story like Harry Potter with the burning question "Where were all the gay/whatever people?" then it's probably you that has the problem with diversity.

I say this - homophobia and racism are dead when no one even considers the issue any more. Now you can't do that in the workplace and stuff, because there are genuinely racist people out there who we try and keep in check. But this is the absolute worst place to direct your anger - no one was hired or fired based on their creed, no one did anything wrong here, all this woman has done is draw attention to what i consider to be her own contradiction. We want to encourage the idea that "Everyone is equal; there is no black or white, straight or gay, everyone is simply the same - we're just people!" And quickly follow that up with "Hey, where are all the GAY people in this fictional story?"

And finally, how the fuck does she know that every character in the book was straight? Isn't it a bit strange (i want to say homophobic) for her to expect gay people to act differently to the degree that she can spot them in a crowd? 95% of the people in Huffelpuff could be single and gay for all anyone knows. The main 3 characters are straight, all of their parents had to be straight for them to be their parents, but all the rest of them we never need to know about their sexuality, so why should they stand out, why should we even discuss it in a kids book anyway? There's only about 4 relationships in 7 books and some of them happen to the same characters.

These are just some of the problems i have with this nonsense and i've written an entire page.

probably *nsfw for all but the most tolerant workplaces.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Daily Show, TDS, Workplace, NFL' to 'Daily Show, TDS, Workplace, NFL, Richie Incognito, Jonathan Martin, miami dolphins' - edited by eric3579

I like that idea, but then again, I remember having a Quake (original) LAN game night in the computer lab at my High School. Somebody from the school newspaper showed up, took photos for 5-10 minutes, and then left. None of us knew that she had even been in there until we saw the photos in the school paper the next week (imagine a couple rows of 5-6 slack-jawed, open mouth nerds staring intently at computer screens and you've got the idea).

Pretty funny, and perhaps says a lot that none of us noticed an attractive female there to take photos of us. A boss might find less humor in a similar workplace scenario though...

Those were the days! That used to be the way it was in the UK as well, but not any more, unfortunately.

There are so many adverts on TV over here now, trying to get people to sue each other, their workplace or the local council.