Rate this!
David Price
Member - 50 posts
Surley The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, is Guilty of Sexual Discrimination it'self.
Why does the ammended section assume that the harrassed person is a woman and not a man?
So it should read "A person subjects a Man or a woman to harrassment if he or she engages in unwanted conduct that is related to his or her sex or that of another person and that has the purpose or effect of violating his or her dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him or her.
We need to see that it is not just women who can be sexually harrassed, so why is it still looked upon that if it happens to a man he won't complain, he will enjoy it?
Why are we still living in the dark ages in relation to this kind of thing. Before you know it the Govenment will be telling us that all Disabled people go around in wheel chairs.......
Rate this!
Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts
Good point David.
The EOC always refers to claimants in the feminine but states clearly that the term refers to both male and female.
Where the female gender has been adopted the EOC stresses that it is "merely to avoid the cumbersome use of him/her and s/he within the text"
Rate this!
David Price
Member - 50 posts
I don't think it is because it is cumbersome, I feel it is because it is cheeper to add updates than it is to reprint the whole document correctly. There is no reason that it could not have references to both male and female.
It's stops any confusion of staff thinking that a section only applies to just a woman, when it applies to both sexes.
0 (0)
