A comedian, on stage in a comedy club, can say whatever they like.
A representative of Dell, standing in front of Dell employees, should not be telling a chunk of those employees that they are worth less because of their gender.
A representative of Dell, standing in front of Dell employees, should not be telling a chunk of those employees that they are worth less because of their gender.
If you have to hire someone and tell them not to use their trademark humour then why are you hiring them in the first place?
MC, however despicable, just did his thing as advertised.
Moreover, since when are we supposed to interpret what a comedian says so literally? The comment that seems to be most offensive is "Thank god there's so few women in this business, keep up the good work!" Taken sarcastically, that very statement would become an indictment of the tech industry for failing to maintain a gender balance. I am certain that if the same line had come from a lady, no one would have found it offensive.
Now, I am not saying that the comedian in question isn't misogynist. I know nothing about his personality. I am simply trying to play the devil's advocate. I just want to highlight that context and intention matter. Otherwise, Russel Peters would be in jail by now.
Also, why I am being downvoted to oblivion for raising a pretty reasonable point of discussion? In my mind, downvotes shouldn't be used as a tool for censorship, or to restrict discussion. It should be used for quality control more than anything else.
Well yes, because context matters. When you have a power disparity, comedy only goes one way - if a member of a majority group makes disparaging remarks about a minority group, that's not funny, it's straight-up bigotry.
For example, when I was working in India, I mentioned that my friend's babymomma (the mother of his child, to whom he was not married) was visiting me. The ladies in the office gave me a rather shocked and horrified reaction. In the US, you'd get the same reaction if you made a joke about Gujus.
My suggestion is that if you are in the US, play along with it and just accept it as a weird Americanism. In much the same way, Indians constantly asking me about my family is just a funny cultural thing I play along with.
The jokes made about me when I worked in India were along the lines of "no American jokes - he'll sue."
It does extend a bit beyond the US, but it's not remotely universal. Similarly, my remarks about Indian perception of babymommas and family values aren't restricted to India, but are certainly representative of a big cultural gap between India and the US.
Pretty much any logical justification one could provide would be hopelessly based on other cultural practices and ideas, though I'd love to hear you try to cook one up that isn't (you might surprise me).
Acceptance is not the same as acceptability.
This is simply a statement of a moral value. The fact that a certain group of people tend to agree with such a statement is a cultural thing.
You should choose your words more carefully. "Ignorant" implies a lack of knowledge, I believe "immoral" is actually the word you were looking for.
I didn't say anything about unwed mothers.
Once again, acceptance is not the same as acceptability. Just because sexist comments are accepted in India doesn't make such comments acceptable from a normative moral standpoint. The same thing can be said about your unwed mothers statement. Such a statement might be accepted somewhere, but shouldn't be acceptable.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make about cultural things - you seem to be advocating some sort of moral relativism, is that correct? If so, then okay, but then we need to look at the context for the original comments, which is at a Danish Dell professional event, not India, or anywhere else. It's an environment where sexism and racism is not generally accepted, and where it is considered unacceptable, which is a good thing, from a moral evolution standpoint.
Perhaps India and its casual acceptance of sexism and racism has something to learn from its more morally enlightened neighbours.
What relevant facts do you believe I am unaware of, and how do those facts invalidate my reasoning?
Note that accusations of ignorance without actually demonstrating it usually fall into the realm of ad-hominem (i.e., a logical fallacy).
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make about cultural things - you seem to be advocating some sort of moral relativism, is that correct?
I'm not advocating any particular moral beliefs, you are.
I'm suggesting that the best way to understand these American attitudes on jokes/etc is to merely treat them as an American/western cultural/moral value rather than look for a logical basis for them. I.e., the same thing I'd suggest to Americans asking about Indian attitudes towards unwed mothers.