The Double Standard in Workplace Banter: Where Do We Draw the Line?
I stumbled across an interesting discussion online the other day that made me pause mid-sip of my latte. Someone was asking whether they could join in on the workplace banter about attractive celebrities, seeing as their female colleagues were openly discussing Jason Momoa in the team chat. The twist? They wanted to share their own list, which included… well, let’s just say it escalated from Margaret Qualley to some rather specific fantasies involving WWE wrestlers and, bizarrely, Pauline Hanson.
Look, I’ll be honest—my first reaction was to laugh. The internet does love a good absurdist question. But the more I thought about it, the more I realised this touches on something genuinely complicated about modern workplace culture and the way we navigate gender dynamics.
Here’s the thing: there absolutely is a double standard at play in most workplaces when it comes to this kind of banter. I’ve witnessed it myself in various IT departments over the years. A group of women can chat about how attractive they find some actor or musician, and it’s generally seen as harmless fun. But if a bloke pipes up with equivalent comments about women, suddenly there’s a different energy in the room. The temperature drops a few degrees, and everyone’s hyper-aware that we might be venturing into dodgy territory.
One person in the discussion made a really good point about the distinction between saying someone is attractive versus explicitly discussing wanting to “bang” them. That’s a crucial line. There’s a world of difference between “Chris Hemsworth is gorgeous” and graphic descriptions of sexual acts. The former is a simple aesthetic observation; the latter creates an uncomfortable sexual atmosphere that can feel inappropriate or even threatening, depending on the power dynamics at play.
The reality is that context matters enormously here. Women have historically been objectified and subjected to unwanted sexual attention in workplaces—and frankly, still are. When women chat about finding a male celebrity attractive, it typically doesn’t carry the same weight of systematic harassment or make male colleagues feel unsafe. That historical and social context shapes how these conversations land differently depending on who’s doing the talking.
That said, I do think we need to apply consistent standards. If we’re saying it’s not appropriate to sexualise people in professional settings, then that needs to apply across the board. Several people in the thread mentioned instances where they felt there was genuine hypocrisy at play—one mentioned being slapped on the bum by a female colleague at a Christmas party, noting that if the genders were reversed, it would likely result in termination and possibly criminal charges. They’re not wrong to point that out.
I’ve seen this tension play out in my own workplace. A few years back, during a particularly stressful project deployment, some team members started sharing memes and having increasingly off-colour conversations in our Slack channel. It was mostly harmless, but I noticed one of our younger colleagues seemed uncomfortable. When someone eventually raised it with management, the response was inconsistent—some behaviour was called out, other similar behaviour was ignored, seemingly based on who was doing it rather than what was actually being said.
The solution, I reckon, isn’t to create some elaborate matrix of what’s acceptable based on gender. It’s to recognise that professional spaces should maintain a certain level of professionalism. Radical idea, I know. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your grandmother or your company’s CEO, maybe keep it out of the work chat. That applies to everyone, regardless of gender.
There’s also something to be said about knowing your audience. Some teams have a culture where this kind of banter is part of the chemistry, and everyone’s genuinely comfortable with it. But even then, there’s usually an unspoken understanding about boundaries—you can appreciate someone’s attractiveness without getting graphic about what you’d like to do with them. And the moment someone joins the chat who isn’t comfortable with that dynamic, the culture needs to adapt.
What frustrates me is when we pretend these double standards don’t exist. They do. Acknowledging them isn’t about whining or playing the victim; it’s about being honest about the complexity of human interactions and the baggage we all bring to them. The person who pointed out that offence lies in the eye of the offended had it right—but we also need to acknowledge that some people are more likely to cause offence (or to be perceived as offensive) based on historical patterns of behaviour.
My advice to anyone navigating this? Err on the side of professionalism. If your female colleagues are having a conversation that makes you uncomfortable or that you feel crosses a line, you have every right to say so—just do it constructively. And if you’re tempted to join in with your own contributions, ask yourself whether you’re adding to a genuinely equal and comfortable environment, or whether you’re just testing boundaries for the sake of it.
The fact that someone felt compelled to include Pauline Hanson on their list suggests they were more interested in getting a reaction than genuine conversation, which kind of proves the point. When we’re just being provocative for its own sake, we’re not really contributing to a healthy workplace culture—we’re just making things weird for everyone.
Maybe the real question isn’t whether you can say something, but whether you should. And in most cases, when it comes to detailed discussions of your sexual preferences in the work chat, the answer is probably no—regardless of your gender.