This looks like startlingly neo-Victorian paternalism: Mild suggestive remarks, not directed either at an individual woman or at women in general, are presumed so offensive to women as to warrant swift retribution. Of course, no one who has worked in a mixed-sex environment seriously believes that women don’t make sexual jokes or comments in work settings. But that’s where the double standard comes in: Unlike the Victorian lady, the modern feminist who demands such protections needn’t shun bawdy humor herself. Richards has made male anatomy jokes on her Twitter feed, which she uses professionally. But apparently when men make such remarks, it’s a female-excluding assertion of male privilege.

The logic here is similar to that of the outcry over Obama’s “gaffe”: Since our culture has a history of demeaning women by reducing them to sex objects, the slightest whiff of sexuality or sexual speech in the workplace disempowers women and creates a hostile environment. But this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of female fragility: Women cannot be accepted as equals if their special sensitivities require constant protection — whether those sensitivities are seen as the product of nature or culture.

Both of these much-ado-about-nothing episodes also reinforce the worst stereotypes of feminists: as humorless, speech-policing puritans intent on keeping men on a tight leash. Feminists may sneer at men who think it’s their sacred right to tell dirty jokes in a professional environment, but how many women would be pleased to find themselves pilloried for “inappropriate” banter within the earshot of an offended male? When did stripping the workplace of all personal, friendly, even frivolous interaction — particularly in an age of increasing work-life overlap — become progressive?