> but for one to expect they'd never overhear anything that
> they would not discuss personally would be an unwarranted
> imposition on others.
If she'd walked by their table in a restaurant and overheard them, or eavesdropped on them by putting her ear up to a closed door? Okay, then they might be able to claim they never could have expected to be overheard.
But they were sitting directly behind her. Literally a few feet away. In chairs that were facing toward her. How could they not expect that their words would be audible to her?
They probably expected that she wouldn't be paying attention to them or just didn't think about her listening in. People talk about all kinds of stuff while on talks or other group situations all the time, and not every time they study the surroundings to see if somebody is listening or not. The point here the talk wasn't directed at her, and while it would be appropriate to point out to the guys that there are in a public space and can be heard, so they should tone it down or maybe go talk outside, blowing it into an incident of systemic misogyny and rampant sexism that is worth losing a job over seems to me way out of proportion. Not every time somebody behaves out of place or rudely it means he is $_-ist, $_-ist and $_-ist and probably loves Hitler. Sometimes it's just people not thinking about what they are doing too much and coming out as an oafs. Pointing it out usually quite enough and no escalation is necessary. Sometimes is is
> blowing it into an incident of systemic misogyny and
> rampant sexism that is worth losing a job over seems to
> me way out of proportion.
I agree: the response was out of proportion. I think literally every entity directly involved in this situation could have handled it better.
However, just because the response was out of proportion doesn't mean anybody needs to defend the men who were sitting behind her, or strain their credibility by pondering how - how? - these men could have possibly known that the person sitting directly in front of them, several feet away, could have heard their sexual jokes.
The point is that they did not intend it to be directed at her and probably were not regarding her as part of the conversation. Human perception is very selective, and you can literally look at things and not see them. There's nothing @-ist in this, it's just how the brain works. Should the guys be more aware when in public places? Yes. This can be handled by a gentle reminder, not by a public campaign. Of course, this does not produce a splashy effect of fighting @-isms and being on the forefront of the struggle for all good against all evil, but it is usually better for everyone involved. Which is the main point of it, and hopefully more people realizing it would be at least a little win in this huge heap of fail.
But they were sitting directly behind her. Literally a few feet away. In chairs that were facing toward her. How could they not expect that their words would be audible to her?