Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century, is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women. It is also called male and female chauvinism.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sexism against women
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
Ageism · Caste
Classism · Racism
Religious intolerance
Reverse discrimination
Sexism · Homophobia
Speciesism · Xenophobia
Transphobia
Specific forms
[show]Social
Ableism · Adultism · Biphobia
Anti-homelessness · Elitism
Ephebiphobia · Eugenics
Gerontophobia · Heightism
Heterophobia · Heterosexism
Homophobia · Lesbophobia
Lookism · Mentalism
Misandry · Misogyny
Pediaphobia
Sizeism · Transphobia
[show]Ethnic
Albanian · American · Arab · Armenian
Blacks · Canadian · Catalan
Chinese · English · European · French
German · Igbo · Indian · Iranian · Irish
Italian · Japanese · Jewish · Korean
Malay · Mexican · Native Americans
Polish · Portuguese · Quebec · Roma
Romanian · Russian · Scottish
Serbian · Spanish · Turkish · Ukrainian · Whites
[show]Religious
Atheism · Bahá'í · Catholicism
Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism
Mormonism · Islam · Neopaganism
Protestantism
New religious movements
Shi'a Islam
Manifestations
Blood libel · Eliminationism
Ethnic cleansing · Ethnocide
Gendercide · Genocide (examples)
Hate crime · Hate speech
Lynching · Pogrom · Race war
Religious persecution · Slavery
Movements
[show]Discriminatory
Aryanism · Hate groups · Iconoclasm · Ku Klux Klan · Neo-Nazism · American Nazi Party · South African National Party · Supremacism · Black supremacy · White supremacy
[show]Anti-discriminatory
Autistic rights · Abolitionism
Children's rights · Civil rights · Consumer/Survivor Movement · Digital Freedom · Disability rights (Inclusion)
Father's rights · Feminism · freedom of choice and/or thought (drugs) (Cognitive liberty) · LGBT rights
Masculism · Men's / Women's rights · Mother's rights
Women's / Universal suffrage · Youth rights
Policies
Discriminatory
Racial/Religious/Sex segregation
Apartheid · Group rights · Redlining
Internment · Ethnocracy
Numerus clausus · Ghetto benches
Anti-discriminatory
Emancipation · Civil rights
Desegregation · Integration
Equal opportunity · Universal access
Related
All-women shortlists
Affirmative action · Group rights
Racial quota · Reservation (India)
Reparation · Forced busing (US)
Employment equity (Canada)
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
Other forms
Adultcentrism · Androcentrism · Anthropocentrism ·
Colorism · Cronyism · Ethnocentrism ·
Economic · Genism · Gynocentrism
Linguicism · Nepotism · Triumphalism
Related topics
Bigotry · Diversity ·
Eugenics · Oppression
Political correctness · Prejudice
Stereotype · Tolerance
Portal.svg Discrimination portal
This box: view • talk • edit
See also: Women's suffrage
See also: Coverture
The view that men are superior to women is a form of sexism. The term 'sexism' is sometimes used by itself to mean sexism against women.[5] When expressed by men, sexism against women may be called male chauvinism. Related terms are misogyny, which implies a hatred of women, and gynophobia, which refers to a fear of women or femininity.
The idea that men benefit from certain rights and privileges not available to women is referred to as male privilege.
Historically, sexism against women has taken a number of forms.
[edit] Stereotypes
[edit] Legal status
U.S. and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, whereby "[b]y marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage."[6]
Not until 1875 were women in the U.S. legally defined as persons (Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162),[7] and women did not receive the vote in the U.S. until 1920[7] and in the U.K. until 1918.
[edit] Domestic violence
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, women are more likely than men to experience "nonfatal intimate partner violence." [8] Women are more likely to be killed by intimate partners; 30% of female homicide victims are estimated to have been killed by intimate partners, as opposed to 5% of male homicide victims.[8]
[edit] Rape
Analysis of perpetrators of rape against women has been argued to reveal a pattern of hatred of women and pleasure in inflicting psychological and/or physical trauma, rather than sexual interest. According to Mary Odem and Jody Clay-Warner, feminists and social scientists have argued that rape is not the result of pathological individuals, but rather of systems of male dominance and from cultural practices and beliefs that objectify and degrade women.[9] Odem and Clay-Warner, along with Susan Brownwiller, consider sexist attitudes to be propagated by a series of myths about rape and rapists.[10][11] They state that contrary to these myths, rapists often plan a rape before they choose a victim,[9] and that acquaintance rape is the most common form of rape rather than assault by a stranger.[12][13] Odem also states that these rape myths propagate sexist attitudes about men by perpetuating a myth that men cannot control their sexuality.[9]
[edit] Sexual objectification
It is argued that sexual objectification is a form of sexism.
[edit] Sexism in language
See Gender-neutral language.
Sexism is revealed in the English language, as well as most world languages, in many ways. Language studies have concluded that language "discrimination is usually covert and difficult to be noticed without conscious awareness." [2]. Gender analysts warn that the danger of continuing sexist language is that sexist language tends to perpetuate gender stereotypes and reinforce biases against women [14]. We note that sexist language may also perpetuate male stereotypes as well.
Specific examples of sexist language are numerous, and include the use of the word "man" to represent the entire human race. ie. "Man moved out of Africa and migrated to Europe." While use of "man" may have been conventional and familiar, newer texts would instead read, "Humans moved out of . . ." or "Human beings moved . . " "Humanity began its trek out of Africa . . ." etc.[3]
The most common use of sexist language is revealed in this sentence: "Anyone can earn a college degree if he really works at it."[4] Clearly, the use of "he" excludes the fact that women too can earn college degrees. Defenders of convention claim it is simply easier to use the pronoun "he", as it is short and simple. More progressive writers understand that even simple convention places images and ideas in people's heads, if only subconsciously. Therefore, the sentence written today would most likely read, "Anyone can earn a college degree if he or she really works at it." [[5]] The sentence could also be written as: "With hard work, anyone could earn a college degree." [6]
There have been sexist terms for many occupations, such as Policeman, Fireman, Businessman, Repairman etc. The use of these terms places specific images and ideas in people's heads that these occupations were only for men. Hence, sexist language discouraged many young girls from believing they could become a police officer or a firefighter, for instance. To combat this, these terms and many similar types have been replaced by: Police Officer, Firefighter, Businessperson, and Repairer respectively. [7] Consider as well that a sexist term like "gunman", places the idea in our minds that violent shooters are and can only be men.[15] A term like "gunman" is now frequently replaced by "shooter".
Another form of sexist language is the use of "Mrs." and "Miss" for married and unmarried women respectively. These terms are viewed as sexist because equivalent terms are not used for men. A man will be Mr. Smith before he is married, and Mr. Smith after he is married. No clue is ever given in language as to a man's marital status. The same had not been true for women, as women's marital status used to be advertised by their title, Miss Smith for unmarried and Mrs. Smith for married. The past few decades have seen the use of "Ms." as the acceptable title for women, ie. Ms. Smith. "Ms." does not denote whether the bearer is married or unmarried, thereby putting the title on par with the male equivalent "Mr.". In fact, the use of Miss and Mrs was banned by the European Union in early 2009, which claimed the terms were too sexist for use in Parliament and public discourse.[8], [9], [10], [11]. Modern etiquette in the United States dictates that a woman should be called "Ms. Smith" upon first meeting, and referred to as "Ms." unless she requests to be called "Miss" or "Mrs."
Sexist language is also revealed in the categorization of women according to their age. Use of "Miss" and "Ma'am" are the examples of this. "Miss" is commonly used to address a 'younger' woman ie. What can I get for you today, Miss? Convention had previously taught that 'older' women be referred to as "Ma'am". However, there is no commonly used younger/older term for men. The address for men is always "Sir". ie. What can I get for you today, Sir? Women in the millennium have become increasingly aware of this discrepancy, and increasingly vocal regarding thier distaste of it. [12][13][14][15]. As a consequence, the use of both Miss and Ma'am is becoming more and more obsolete in common use. To avoid awkwardness or offense, many in the service industry are simply dropping the "Miss" or "Ma'am" from the end of their sentences. ie. Hi. Did you find everything you were looking for today? [16]
There is the role of sexist language in reinforcing social stereotypes and roles. An example would be the use of "mother" in the following newscast: "A newborn baby was found alive behind St. Catherine's Church today. Authorities are still trying to locate the mother." The use of "mother" here implies that the only parent responsible for the child is the mother. This linguistically puts the entire responsibility for babies and children on mothers only. In recent stories, you can hear that newscasters are more likely to report that "authorities are looking for the parents of the newborn."
Further Reading: - Language and Gender (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) by Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet - Language and Gender: A Reader by Jennifer Coates - Language and Gender (Intertext) by Angela Goddard and Lindsey Mean (Paperback - Jan 20, 2009) - Language and Gender: An Advanced Resource Book (Routledge Applied Linguistics) by J. Sunderland - Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language (3rd Edition) by Jennifer Coates - Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse (Language and Gender Studies) by Mary Bucholtz (Editor), et al. - Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language) by John J. Gumperz (Editor), Stephen C. Levinson (Editor) - Language and Power (Language in Social Life) by Norman Fairclough
[edit] Education
Women in the past have been excluded from higher education.[16] When women were admitted to higher education, they were encouraged to major in subjects that were considered less intellectual; the study of English literature in English and U.S. colleges and universities was in fact instituted as a field of study considered suitable to women's "lesser intellects."[17]
Research studies have found that discrimination continues today: boys receive more attention and praise in the classroom in grade school,[18] and "this pattern of more active teacher attention directed at male students continues at the postsecondary level."[19] Over time, female students speak less and less in classroom settings.[20]
[edit] Professions
Women have been excluded from participation in many professions. When women have gained entry into a previously male profession, they have faced many additional obstacles; Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive an M.D., and Myra Bradwell, the first female lawyer, are examples.
Discrimination continues today, according to studies done by Cornell University and others.[21][22]
A 2009 study of CEOs found that more men occupying the position were overweight or obese than men in the general population, while the reverse held true for female CEOs.[citation needed] The leader of the study stated that the results "suggest that while being obese limits the career opportunities of both women and men, being merely overweight harms only female executives -- and may actually benefit male executives."[23]
[edit] Gender wage gap
Main article: Income disparity
See also: Male–female income disparity in the United States
Women have historically earned less than men; the reasons for the current wage gaps are also the subject of controversy.
In the 19th century and for much of the 20th, women were paid less than men for the same work. In the United States, this eventually led to the passing of the U.S. Equal Pay Act in 1963. At that time, women earned approximately 58 cents to a man's dollar.[24]
Today, women in the United States are estimated to earn roughly 75 percent of the income of men.[24][25] However, unmarried women without children may earn 15 to 20 percent more than males in the same situation, depending upon geographical location in the US.[26][27]
Women are less likely to negotiate raises, and when they do negotiate, they are less likely to receive them.[28]. David R. Hekman and colleagues found that women are less likely to negotiate because they are less valuable in the marketplace than equally well performing white men [29] Hekman et al. (2009) found that customers who viewed videos featuring a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the white male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance. This despite that all three actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in the exact same location with identical camera angles and lighting. Moreover, 45 percent of the customers were women and 41 percent were non-white, indicating that even women and minority customers prefer white men. In a second study, they found that white male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally-well performing women or minority doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that employers are willing to pay more for white male employees because employers are customer driven and customers are happier with white male employees. They also suggest that what is required to solve the problem of wage inequality isn't necessarily paying women more but changing customer biases. This paper has been featured in many media outlets including The New York Times,[30] The Washington Post,[31]The Boston Globe,[32] and National Public Radio.[33] Perhaps because women are less valuable to customers than men, women are more likely to work part-time, to take more time off for their children, and join lower status professions.[34][35]
A report published by the White House in 1998 argued that a gender pay gap remains even after taking into account such factors as relative experience, part-time vs. full-time work, differences between professions, and taking time off to have children.[24] Other research has found that even after accounting for parenthood status, education, job title, and other factors, there is still a significant income disparity in men's favor (Blau and Kahn 1997, Wood et al. 1993). Research done at Cornell University and elsewhere indicates that mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women with otherwise identical resumes, experience, and qualifications, and, if hired, are offered on average $USD 11,000 a year less than women without children.[36] Exactly the opposite form of discrimination is indicated for men; those without children earn, on average, $7,500 less than men with children.[34]
Studies done show that transsexual men earn an average of 1.5% more after their transition, whereas transsexual women earn an average of 32% less.[37]
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
Ageism · Caste
Classism · Racism
Religious intolerance
Reverse discrimination
Sexism · Homophobia
Speciesism · Xenophobia
Transphobia
Specific forms
[show]Social
Ableism · Adultism · Biphobia
Anti-homelessness · Elitism
Ephebiphobia · Eugenics
Gerontophobia · Heightism
Heterophobia · Heterosexism
Homophobia · Lesbophobia
Lookism · Mentalism
Misandry · Misogyny
Pediaphobia
Sizeism · Transphobia
[show]Ethnic
Albanian · American · Arab · Armenian
Blacks · Canadian · Catalan
Chinese · English · European · French
German · Igbo · Indian · Iranian · Irish
Italian · Japanese · Jewish · Korean
Malay · Mexican · Native Americans
Polish · Portuguese · Quebec · Roma
Romanian · Russian · Scottish
Serbian · Spanish · Turkish · Ukrainian · Whites
[show]Religious
Atheism · Bahá'í · Catholicism
Christianity · Hinduism · Judaism
Mormonism · Islam · Neopaganism
Protestantism
New religious movements
Shi'a Islam
Manifestations
Blood libel · Eliminationism
Ethnic cleansing · Ethnocide
Gendercide · Genocide (examples)
Hate crime · Hate speech
Lynching · Pogrom · Race war
Religious persecution · Slavery
Movements
[show]Discriminatory
Aryanism · Hate groups · Iconoclasm · Ku Klux Klan · Neo-Nazism · American Nazi Party · South African National Party · Supremacism · Black supremacy · White supremacy
[show]Anti-discriminatory
Autistic rights · Abolitionism
Children's rights · Civil rights · Consumer/Survivor Movement · Digital Freedom · Disability rights (Inclusion)
Father's rights · Feminism · freedom of choice and/or thought (drugs) (Cognitive liberty) · LGBT rights
Masculism · Men's / Women's rights · Mother's rights
Women's / Universal suffrage · Youth rights
Policies
Discriminatory
Racial/Religious/Sex segregation
Apartheid · Group rights · Redlining
Internment · Ethnocracy
Numerus clausus · Ghetto benches
Anti-discriminatory
Emancipation · Civil rights
Desegregation · Integration
Equal opportunity · Universal access
Related
All-women shortlists
Affirmative action · Group rights
Racial quota · Reservation (India)
Reparation · Forced busing (US)
Employment equity (Canada)
Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
Other forms
Adultcentrism · Androcentrism · Anthropocentrism ·
Colorism · Cronyism · Ethnocentrism ·
Economic · Genism · Gynocentrism
Linguicism · Nepotism · Triumphalism
Related topics
Bigotry · Diversity ·
Eugenics · Oppression
Political correctness · Prejudice
Stereotype · Tolerance
Portal.svg Discrimination portal
This box: view • talk • edit
See also: Women's suffrage
See also: Coverture
The view that men are superior to women is a form of sexism. The term 'sexism' is sometimes used by itself to mean sexism against women.[5] When expressed by men, sexism against women may be called male chauvinism. Related terms are misogyny, which implies a hatred of women, and gynophobia, which refers to a fear of women or femininity.
The idea that men benefit from certain rights and privileges not available to women is referred to as male privilege.
Historically, sexism against women has taken a number of forms.
[edit] Stereotypes
[edit] Legal status
U.S. and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, whereby "[b]y marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage."[6]
Not until 1875 were women in the U.S. legally defined as persons (Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162),[7] and women did not receive the vote in the U.S. until 1920[7] and in the U.K. until 1918.
[edit] Domestic violence
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, women are more likely than men to experience "nonfatal intimate partner violence." [8] Women are more likely to be killed by intimate partners; 30% of female homicide victims are estimated to have been killed by intimate partners, as opposed to 5% of male homicide victims.[8]
[edit] Rape
Analysis of perpetrators of rape against women has been argued to reveal a pattern of hatred of women and pleasure in inflicting psychological and/or physical trauma, rather than sexual interest. According to Mary Odem and Jody Clay-Warner, feminists and social scientists have argued that rape is not the result of pathological individuals, but rather of systems of male dominance and from cultural practices and beliefs that objectify and degrade women.[9] Odem and Clay-Warner, along with Susan Brownwiller, consider sexist attitudes to be propagated by a series of myths about rape and rapists.[10][11] They state that contrary to these myths, rapists often plan a rape before they choose a victim,[9] and that acquaintance rape is the most common form of rape rather than assault by a stranger.[12][13] Odem also states that these rape myths propagate sexist attitudes about men by perpetuating a myth that men cannot control their sexuality.[9]
[edit] Sexual objectification
It is argued that sexual objectification is a form of sexism.
[edit] Sexism in language
See Gender-neutral language.
Sexism is revealed in the English language, as well as most world languages, in many ways. Language studies have concluded that language "discrimination is usually covert and difficult to be noticed without conscious awareness." [2]. Gender analysts warn that the danger of continuing sexist language is that sexist language tends to perpetuate gender stereotypes and reinforce biases against women [14]. We note that sexist language may also perpetuate male stereotypes as well.
Specific examples of sexist language are numerous, and include the use of the word "man" to represent the entire human race. ie. "Man moved out of Africa and migrated to Europe." While use of "man" may have been conventional and familiar, newer texts would instead read, "Humans moved out of . . ." or "Human beings moved . . " "Humanity began its trek out of Africa . . ." etc.[3]
The most common use of sexist language is revealed in this sentence: "Anyone can earn a college degree if he really works at it."[4] Clearly, the use of "he" excludes the fact that women too can earn college degrees. Defenders of convention claim it is simply easier to use the pronoun "he", as it is short and simple. More progressive writers understand that even simple convention places images and ideas in people's heads, if only subconsciously. Therefore, the sentence written today would most likely read, "Anyone can earn a college degree if he or she really works at it." [[5]] The sentence could also be written as: "With hard work, anyone could earn a college degree." [6]
There have been sexist terms for many occupations, such as Policeman, Fireman, Businessman, Repairman etc. The use of these terms places specific images and ideas in people's heads that these occupations were only for men. Hence, sexist language discouraged many young girls from believing they could become a police officer or a firefighter, for instance. To combat this, these terms and many similar types have been replaced by: Police Officer, Firefighter, Businessperson, and Repairer respectively. [7] Consider as well that a sexist term like "gunman", places the idea in our minds that violent shooters are and can only be men.[15] A term like "gunman" is now frequently replaced by "shooter".
Another form of sexist language is the use of "Mrs." and "Miss" for married and unmarried women respectively. These terms are viewed as sexist because equivalent terms are not used for men. A man will be Mr. Smith before he is married, and Mr. Smith after he is married. No clue is ever given in language as to a man's marital status. The same had not been true for women, as women's marital status used to be advertised by their title, Miss Smith for unmarried and Mrs. Smith for married. The past few decades have seen the use of "Ms." as the acceptable title for women, ie. Ms. Smith. "Ms." does not denote whether the bearer is married or unmarried, thereby putting the title on par with the male equivalent "Mr.". In fact, the use of Miss and Mrs was banned by the European Union in early 2009, which claimed the terms were too sexist for use in Parliament and public discourse.[8], [9], [10], [11]. Modern etiquette in the United States dictates that a woman should be called "Ms. Smith" upon first meeting, and referred to as "Ms." unless she requests to be called "Miss" or "Mrs."
Sexist language is also revealed in the categorization of women according to their age. Use of "Miss" and "Ma'am" are the examples of this. "Miss" is commonly used to address a 'younger' woman ie. What can I get for you today, Miss? Convention had previously taught that 'older' women be referred to as "Ma'am". However, there is no commonly used younger/older term for men. The address for men is always "Sir". ie. What can I get for you today, Sir? Women in the millennium have become increasingly aware of this discrepancy, and increasingly vocal regarding thier distaste of it. [12][13][14][15]. As a consequence, the use of both Miss and Ma'am is becoming more and more obsolete in common use. To avoid awkwardness or offense, many in the service industry are simply dropping the "Miss" or "Ma'am" from the end of their sentences. ie. Hi. Did you find everything you were looking for today? [16]
There is the role of sexist language in reinforcing social stereotypes and roles. An example would be the use of "mother" in the following newscast: "A newborn baby was found alive behind St. Catherine's Church today. Authorities are still trying to locate the mother." The use of "mother" here implies that the only parent responsible for the child is the mother. This linguistically puts the entire responsibility for babies and children on mothers only. In recent stories, you can hear that newscasters are more likely to report that "authorities are looking for the parents of the newborn."
Further Reading: - Language and Gender (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) by Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet - Language and Gender: A Reader by Jennifer Coates - Language and Gender (Intertext) by Angela Goddard and Lindsey Mean (Paperback - Jan 20, 2009) - Language and Gender: An Advanced Resource Book (Routledge Applied Linguistics) by J. Sunderland - Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language (3rd Edition) by Jennifer Coates - Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse (Language and Gender Studies) by Mary Bucholtz (Editor), et al. - Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language) by John J. Gumperz (Editor), Stephen C. Levinson (Editor) - Language and Power (Language in Social Life) by Norman Fairclough
[edit] Education
Women in the past have been excluded from higher education.[16] When women were admitted to higher education, they were encouraged to major in subjects that were considered less intellectual; the study of English literature in English and U.S. colleges and universities was in fact instituted as a field of study considered suitable to women's "lesser intellects."[17]
Research studies have found that discrimination continues today: boys receive more attention and praise in the classroom in grade school,[18] and "this pattern of more active teacher attention directed at male students continues at the postsecondary level."[19] Over time, female students speak less and less in classroom settings.[20]
[edit] Professions
Women have been excluded from participation in many professions. When women have gained entry into a previously male profession, they have faced many additional obstacles; Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive an M.D., and Myra Bradwell, the first female lawyer, are examples.
Discrimination continues today, according to studies done by Cornell University and others.[21][22]
A 2009 study of CEOs found that more men occupying the position were overweight or obese than men in the general population, while the reverse held true for female CEOs.[citation needed] The leader of the study stated that the results "suggest that while being obese limits the career opportunities of both women and men, being merely overweight harms only female executives -- and may actually benefit male executives."[23]
[edit] Gender wage gap
Main article: Income disparity
See also: Male–female income disparity in the United States
Women have historically earned less than men; the reasons for the current wage gaps are also the subject of controversy.
In the 19th century and for much of the 20th, women were paid less than men for the same work. In the United States, this eventually led to the passing of the U.S. Equal Pay Act in 1963. At that time, women earned approximately 58 cents to a man's dollar.[24]
Today, women in the United States are estimated to earn roughly 75 percent of the income of men.[24][25] However, unmarried women without children may earn 15 to 20 percent more than males in the same situation, depending upon geographical location in the US.[26][27]
Women are less likely to negotiate raises, and when they do negotiate, they are less likely to receive them.[28]. David R. Hekman and colleagues found that women are less likely to negotiate because they are less valuable in the marketplace than equally well performing white men [29] Hekman et al. (2009) found that customers who viewed videos featuring a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the white male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance. This despite that all three actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in the exact same location with identical camera angles and lighting. Moreover, 45 percent of the customers were women and 41 percent were non-white, indicating that even women and minority customers prefer white men. In a second study, they found that white male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally-well performing women or minority doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that employers are willing to pay more for white male employees because employers are customer driven and customers are happier with white male employees. They also suggest that what is required to solve the problem of wage inequality isn't necessarily paying women more but changing customer biases. This paper has been featured in many media outlets including The New York Times,[30] The Washington Post,[31]The Boston Globe,[32] and National Public Radio.[33] Perhaps because women are less valuable to customers than men, women are more likely to work part-time, to take more time off for their children, and join lower status professions.[34][35]
A report published by the White House in 1998 argued that a gender pay gap remains even after taking into account such factors as relative experience, part-time vs. full-time work, differences between professions, and taking time off to have children.[24] Other research has found that even after accounting for parenthood status, education, job title, and other factors, there is still a significant income disparity in men's favor (Blau and Kahn 1997, Wood et al. 1993). Research done at Cornell University and elsewhere indicates that mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women with otherwise identical resumes, experience, and qualifications, and, if hired, are offered on average $USD 11,000 a year less than women without children.[36] Exactly the opposite form of discrimination is indicated for men; those without children earn, on average, $7,500 less than men with children.[34]
Studies done show that transsexual men earn an average of 1.5% more after their transition, whereas transsexual women earn an average of 32% less.[37]
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sexism Against Men
The view that women are superior to men is another form of sexism, and when expressed by a woman may be called female chauvinism or misandry. The hatred of men is called misandry, while androphobia refers to the fear of men or masculinity.
Several aspects of society have been viewed as forms of sexism against men, such as the systemic preference in Western societies to give mothers more rights than fathers over both children and unborn fetuses and injust child custody, child support, and alimony laws.
Stereotyping
Wendy McElroy refers to male stereotyping when she argues that in some "gender feminist" views, all men are considered irreconcilable rapists, wife-beating brutes, man haters, and useless as partners or fathers to women. McElroy and Camille Paglia argue that certain feminists they refer to as "gender feminists" view women as innocent victims who never make irresponsible or morally questionable choices.
Other feminists, such as Kate Fillion, have questioned the idea that women are always innocent victims and men always the guilty victimizers when the interests of each collide with those of the other.
Marginalization
In 1997, the Canadian Advertising Foundation ruled that a National Ad campaign featuring Nicole Brown Simpson's sister Denise with the slogan, "Stop violence against Women," was in fact portraying only men as aggressors, and that it was not providing a balanced message and was contributing to gender stereotyping. (The murder of Nicole Simpson also included the murder of Ronald Goldman).
Domestic Violence
The U.S. Center for Disease Control in conjunction with the American Psychiatric Association found that of heterosexual relationships involving violence, 50.3% involve non-reciprocal violence, and of that 50.3%, women were the instigators 70.7% of the time, although "physical injury was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal." Men have no laws such as VAWA or Violence Against Women Act that afford them equal protection under the law. Linda Kelly states in her thesis, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State in the Florida State University Law Review, that domestic violence is equally the province of women.
Mandatory Military Service
Many countries around the world make it mandatory for males to join the military, but not females. Men at 18 years of age in the United States are required to register for military conscription to be drafted to war or military service. Women are not required to register with the Selective Service System and have no obligation to serve in the military in the case of a draft.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The view that women are superior to men is another form of sexism, and when expressed by a woman may be called female chauvinism or misandry. The hatred of men is called misandry, while androphobia refers to the fear of men or masculinity.
Several aspects of society have been viewed as forms of sexism against men, such as the systemic preference in Western societies to give mothers more rights than fathers over both children and unborn fetuses and injust child custody, child support, and alimony laws.
Stereotyping
Wendy McElroy refers to male stereotyping when she argues that in some "gender feminist" views, all men are considered irreconcilable rapists, wife-beating brutes, man haters, and useless as partners or fathers to women. McElroy and Camille Paglia argue that certain feminists they refer to as "gender feminists" view women as innocent victims who never make irresponsible or morally questionable choices.
Other feminists, such as Kate Fillion, have questioned the idea that women are always innocent victims and men always the guilty victimizers when the interests of each collide with those of the other.
Marginalization
In 1997, the Canadian Advertising Foundation ruled that a National Ad campaign featuring Nicole Brown Simpson's sister Denise with the slogan, "Stop violence against Women," was in fact portraying only men as aggressors, and that it was not providing a balanced message and was contributing to gender stereotyping. (The murder of Nicole Simpson also included the murder of Ronald Goldman).
Domestic Violence
The U.S. Center for Disease Control in conjunction with the American Psychiatric Association found that of heterosexual relationships involving violence, 50.3% involve non-reciprocal violence, and of that 50.3%, women were the instigators 70.7% of the time, although "physical injury was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal." Men have no laws such as VAWA or Violence Against Women Act that afford them equal protection under the law. Linda Kelly states in her thesis, Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State in the Florida State University Law Review, that domestic violence is equally the province of women.
Mandatory Military Service
Many countries around the world make it mandatory for males to join the military, but not females. Men at 18 years of age in the United States are required to register for military conscription to be drafted to war or military service. Women are not required to register with the Selective Service System and have no obligation to serve in the military in the case of a draft.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sexism and Sexual Expression
The expression of sexual intimacy is a part of the human condition. However, various aspects of human sexuality have been argued as having contributed to sexism.
During the sexual revolution, there was a change in the cultural perception of sexual morality and behavior. The sexual revolution has been known as the sexual liberation by feminists since some saw this new development in the West as a leveling ground for females to have as many choices concerning their sexuality as males—hoping to eliminate the problematic virgin/whore dichotomy of traditional Western society.
Ariel Levy argues that the current state of commercial sexuality has created a "Raunch Culture". She argues that there has been a commercialization of the sexual objectification of women; a cultural, largely Western development that she criticizes as being limiting for men and women. Some feminists argue that rather than being liberating, that a "pornification" of Western society has reduced and equated the scope of feminine power to sexual power only. They argue that women are themselves objectifying other women by becoming producers and promoters of the "Raunch Culture".
Some masculists posit that prior to the sexual revolution, the idealized male was expected to be virile while the idealized female was expected to be modest. They argue that after the sexual revolution, women were given more liberty to express virility while the reverse has not been true for men, who have yet to be given a choice to be non-virile. They argue that the dual identity of hypersexuality and asexuality is a luxury and special status that only exists for women. However, many feminists argue that the virgin/whore dichotomy has existed since long before the sexual revolution and that it entails unrealistic categories imposed on women by men, not chosen voluntarily. This dichotomy allows men to condemn women for their sexuality whether it is seen as modest or virile, a no-win situation and a double standard since they argue that this does not apply to men.
Radical feminists hold the view that pornography contributes to sexism, arguing that in pornographic performances for male spectators, actresses are reduced to mere receptacles—objects—for sexual use and abuse by men.
Radical feminists argue that prostitution is a sexist practice, which exploits women and which is the result of the existing patriarchal societal order. Hence the laws from Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, where it is illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute). These feminists believe that the assumptions that the bodily integrity and sexual pleasure of women are irrelevant, that women exist for men's sexual enjoyment, and that men cannot control themselves and are entitled to sex at any time, underlie the whole idea of prostitution, and make it an inherently exploitative, sexist practice.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The expression of sexual intimacy is a part of the human condition. However, various aspects of human sexuality have been argued as having contributed to sexism.
During the sexual revolution, there was a change in the cultural perception of sexual morality and behavior. The sexual revolution has been known as the sexual liberation by feminists since some saw this new development in the West as a leveling ground for females to have as many choices concerning their sexuality as males—hoping to eliminate the problematic virgin/whore dichotomy of traditional Western society.
Ariel Levy argues that the current state of commercial sexuality has created a "Raunch Culture". She argues that there has been a commercialization of the sexual objectification of women; a cultural, largely Western development that she criticizes as being limiting for men and women. Some feminists argue that rather than being liberating, that a "pornification" of Western society has reduced and equated the scope of feminine power to sexual power only. They argue that women are themselves objectifying other women by becoming producers and promoters of the "Raunch Culture".
Some masculists posit that prior to the sexual revolution, the idealized male was expected to be virile while the idealized female was expected to be modest. They argue that after the sexual revolution, women were given more liberty to express virility while the reverse has not been true for men, who have yet to be given a choice to be non-virile. They argue that the dual identity of hypersexuality and asexuality is a luxury and special status that only exists for women. However, many feminists argue that the virgin/whore dichotomy has existed since long before the sexual revolution and that it entails unrealistic categories imposed on women by men, not chosen voluntarily. This dichotomy allows men to condemn women for their sexuality whether it is seen as modest or virile, a no-win situation and a double standard since they argue that this does not apply to men.
Radical feminists hold the view that pornography contributes to sexism, arguing that in pornographic performances for male spectators, actresses are reduced to mere receptacles—objects—for sexual use and abuse by men.
Radical feminists argue that prostitution is a sexist practice, which exploits women and which is the result of the existing patriarchal societal order. Hence the laws from Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, where it is illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute). These feminists believe that the assumptions that the bodily integrity and sexual pleasure of women are irrelevant, that women exist for men's sexual enjoyment, and that men cannot control themselves and are entitled to sex at any time, underlie the whole idea of prostitution, and make it an inherently exploitative, sexist practice.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Anti-sexism
Anti-sexism is opposition to sexism, and an anti-sexist is one who opposes sexism. Some forms of feminism and some forms of masculism are considered anti-sexist.
Sexism and Language
It has been argued that sexual dichotomies exist in language, though it is disputed whether certain language causes sexism, sexism causes certain language (see the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), or that they are both caused by something else.
Sexist and Gender-Neutral Language
Nearing the end of the 20th century, there is a rise in the use of gender-neutral language in Western worlds. This is often attributed to the rise of feminism. Gender-neutral language is the avoidance of gender-specific job titles, non-parallel usage, and other usage that is felt by some to be sexist. Supporters feel that having gender-specific titles and gender-specific pronouns either implies a system bias to exclude individuals based on their gender, or is as unnecessary in most cases as race-specific pronouns, religion-specific pronouns, or persons-height-specific pronouns. Some of those who support gender-specific pronouns assert that promoting gender-neutral language is a kind of "semantics injection" itself. Some opponents dismiss this trend as "political correctness gone mad" and protest against what they see as censorship. Others like misandry researchers Nathonson and Young see the term 'gender' as a biased "front" for what they call "ideological" feminism.
Anthropological Linguistics and Gender-Specific Language
Unlike the Indo-European languages in the West, for many other languages around the world, gender-specific pronouns are a recent phenomenon that occurred around the early 20th century. As a result of colonialism, cultural revolution occurred in many parts of the world with attempts to "modernize" and "westernize" by adding gender-specific pronouns and animate-inanimate pronouns to local languages. This ironically resulted in the situation of what were gender-neutral pronouns a century ago suddenly becoming gender-specific. (See for example Gender-neutrality in languages without grammatical gender: Turkish.)
Reappropriation and Reclamation
Reappropriation (aka reclamation projects) describe a cultural process by which certain groups reclaim or re-appropriate terms, symbols, and artifacts that were previously used to discriminate. Within the English language, terms like 'bitch' and 'slut', which had been historically used as pejorative sexist remarks against females, have since been used to refer to a "strong, independent, unattached female" and a "sexually liberal, hypersexual female". Similarly, terms like 'girlie men' and 'tranny', which have been historically used as pejorative sexist remarks against transsexuals, have since been used to refer to the varying degrees of transexuality for "pre-operation" and "non-operation" as to whether they had undergone or will undergo sex reassignment or not. The success of these cultural processes has been disputed.
On the flip side, the word 'dude' as a pejorative has crossed the sexes and is being applied to males. In politics, the term 'girlie men' has also been used by Governor Schwarzenegger to attack his political opponents, who are not transsexuals. This has led to Schwarzenegger being accused of being sexist.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Anti-sexism is opposition to sexism, and an anti-sexist is one who opposes sexism. Some forms of feminism and some forms of masculism are considered anti-sexist.
Sexism and Language
It has been argued that sexual dichotomies exist in language, though it is disputed whether certain language causes sexism, sexism causes certain language (see the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), or that they are both caused by something else.
Sexist and Gender-Neutral Language
Nearing the end of the 20th century, there is a rise in the use of gender-neutral language in Western worlds. This is often attributed to the rise of feminism. Gender-neutral language is the avoidance of gender-specific job titles, non-parallel usage, and other usage that is felt by some to be sexist. Supporters feel that having gender-specific titles and gender-specific pronouns either implies a system bias to exclude individuals based on their gender, or is as unnecessary in most cases as race-specific pronouns, religion-specific pronouns, or persons-height-specific pronouns. Some of those who support gender-specific pronouns assert that promoting gender-neutral language is a kind of "semantics injection" itself. Some opponents dismiss this trend as "political correctness gone mad" and protest against what they see as censorship. Others like misandry researchers Nathonson and Young see the term 'gender' as a biased "front" for what they call "ideological" feminism.
Anthropological Linguistics and Gender-Specific Language
Unlike the Indo-European languages in the West, for many other languages around the world, gender-specific pronouns are a recent phenomenon that occurred around the early 20th century. As a result of colonialism, cultural revolution occurred in many parts of the world with attempts to "modernize" and "westernize" by adding gender-specific pronouns and animate-inanimate pronouns to local languages. This ironically resulted in the situation of what were gender-neutral pronouns a century ago suddenly becoming gender-specific. (See for example Gender-neutrality in languages without grammatical gender: Turkish.)
Reappropriation and Reclamation
Reappropriation (aka reclamation projects) describe a cultural process by which certain groups reclaim or re-appropriate terms, symbols, and artifacts that were previously used to discriminate. Within the English language, terms like 'bitch' and 'slut', which had been historically used as pejorative sexist remarks against females, have since been used to refer to a "strong, independent, unattached female" and a "sexually liberal, hypersexual female". Similarly, terms like 'girlie men' and 'tranny', which have been historically used as pejorative sexist remarks against transsexuals, have since been used to refer to the varying degrees of transexuality for "pre-operation" and "non-operation" as to whether they had undergone or will undergo sex reassignment or not. The success of these cultural processes has been disputed.
On the flip side, the word 'dude' as a pejorative has crossed the sexes and is being applied to males. In politics, the term 'girlie men' has also been used by Governor Schwarzenegger to attack his political opponents, who are not transsexuals. This has led to Schwarzenegger being accused of being sexist.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Rather than fretting over government rules about sex discrimination, do the following:
Take a video of a woman's body dissection from the internet and show it to employees annually. Show them how a woman sits on a toilet. Show a list of diseases related to women. After watching this video and all the other material, they will never think of women as a tool for sex. Their perception of a woman's body will change. Once their perspective changes, their behavior will also change. I will send a video link of a women's postmortem.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Take a video of a woman's body dissection from the internet and show it to employees annually. Show them how a woman sits on a toilet. Show a list of diseases related to women. After watching this video and all the other material, they will never think of women as a tool for sex. Their perception of a woman's body will change. Once their perspective changes, their behavior will also change. I will send a video link of a women's postmortem.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Amrita, what is this article about? I don't know, but it's vague! Especially regarding your discussion of dissecting a woman's body and sitting on a toilet seat to oppose sex discrimination in the workplace. Also, including links to a postmortem site is very morbid. I surely hope you are not part of any company's HR team :)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Only topics related to sex, women, affairs, and illegal relationships get attention and will be branded in the top 10.
Till this moment, no one can understand the reason for the post, the motive behind the post, and the objective for the same.
Great going for this forum!
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Till this moment, no one can understand the reason for the post, the motive behind the post, and the objective for the same.
Great going for this forum!
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
i have write all this in hurry i will explain all in detail this is one of the unique way to learn people how to reduce unexpected sex desire while working in company........
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Buddy, nowadays, since the government has worked too much on equality for both men and women, and also on the upliftment of women by providing reservations, etc., one should not talk much about these topics. If you really want to work on them, conduct some research on discrimination in the workplace based on a person's sexuality. We will find that it is happening in many parts of the world. Additionally, when we talk about India, it is still a taboo in our society. We should work to make our system understand these issues as some Western companies do take care of it.
Regards, Sachin
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards, Sachin
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please DO EXPLAIN..... Whatever you have posted appears bizarre... and ghastly... Do share your own experiences in the light of your posting; that would be relevant and useful for members.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You seem to have some thoughts in your mind, but you have not been able to put them together and present them in an organized manner. You have also put them in pieces on a thread. It seems you want to write an article.
I suggest, first, give proper thought to the structure of your article. Type it in a Word format. Read it again and again, and refine it until your thoughts are properly presented. Then, post it in the 'Articles' section of citehr, not as a thread.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I suggest, first, give proper thought to the structure of your article. Type it in a Word format. Read it again and again, and refine it until your thoughts are properly presented. Then, post it in the 'Articles' section of citehr, not as a thread.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From the article:
"What would have been a landmark federal gender-discrimination trial turned into a landmark settlement yesterday when Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $54 million just before opening arguments were set to begin.
The giant investment house faced charges from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it had discriminated against women on promotions and pay as far back as 1995. The settlement means that Morgan Stanley neither denies nor admits guilt. However, the brokerage will have to take measures to prevent sexual discrimination, a practice that critics have said pervades the culture of Wall Street, where fewer than one in five top-level managing director jobs are held by women.
The settlement comes amid a long history of harassment allegations on Wall Street by women, who have complained about the locker-room atmosphere at more than a few investment firms. Other major brokerages that have settled harassment cases include Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney. The latter was involved in a notorious 1996 Garden City case known as the "boom-boom room." A lawsuit alleged male workers drank, propositioned, and groped female co-workers, to whom they referred in obscene terms. Women from other Smith Barney offices nationwide joined the lawsuit, eventually covering about 23,000 employees and resulting in a $100 million settlement."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"What would have been a landmark federal gender-discrimination trial turned into a landmark settlement yesterday when Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $54 million just before opening arguments were set to begin.
The giant investment house faced charges from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it had discriminated against women on promotions and pay as far back as 1995. The settlement means that Morgan Stanley neither denies nor admits guilt. However, the brokerage will have to take measures to prevent sexual discrimination, a practice that critics have said pervades the culture of Wall Street, where fewer than one in five top-level managing director jobs are held by women.
The settlement comes amid a long history of harassment allegations on Wall Street by women, who have complained about the locker-room atmosphere at more than a few investment firms. Other major brokerages that have settled harassment cases include Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney. The latter was involved in a notorious 1996 Garden City case known as the "boom-boom room." A lawsuit alleged male workers drank, propositioned, and groped female co-workers, to whom they referred in obscene terms. Women from other Smith Barney offices nationwide joined the lawsuit, eventually covering about 23,000 employees and resulting in a $100 million settlement."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Understand sex discrimination legislation.
Sex discrimination against employees or job applicants can result in employment tribunal claims for unlimited compensation. Both employers and individuals can be held liable. Discrimination can also result in bad publicity, poor morale, and damaged business potential where, for example, promotion is granted on the basis of sex rather than ability.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) covers England, Scotland, and Wales and applies to both men and women. It makes sex discrimination unlawful and prohibits the following:
- discrimination on the grounds of gender
- discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment
- discrimination against married persons
- victimization
Direct sex discrimination Direct discrimination is when one person is treated less favorably than another on the grounds of their sex.
Sexual harassment is a form of direct discrimination. The SDA does not define harassment, but a European Commission code of practice defines it as "unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of men and women at work. This can include unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct". Harassment is defined under the Harassment Act 1997.
Under the Equal Pay Act 1970, pay and conditions should not differ for men and women of a similar standing in the workplace.
Victimization Many may be deterred from lodging a sex discrimination complaint for fear that they may be victimized by their employer. It is unlawful for an employer to victimize a person because they have brought a discrimination claim, or given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
Indirect sex discrimination Indirect discrimination is less obvious and usually inadvertent. It occurs where an employer applies a requirement or policy, which appears to have nothing to do with gender but in practice has effects that disadvantage one sex. For example, a requirement for all job applicants to be over six feet tall indirectly discriminates against women. To be considered discrimination it must be proved that the condition in question:
- is applied equally to both sexes
- limits the proportion of one sex who comply compared with the other
- disadvantages an individual
- cannot be objectively justified
Exceptions Employers are exempt where single-sex training is given to equip men or women with skills in an area where their gender is under-represented. This is known as positive action. Positive discrimination is otherwise unlawful in the UK.
The SDA does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation but European law requires that EU countries must implement legislation banning such discrimination by 2 December 2003.
Complaints Sex discrimination and equal pay claims are brought in employment tribunals. Sex discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the discrimination taking place.
There is no minimum length of continuous employment required to bring these claims or no financial limit to sex discrimination compensation.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sex discrimination against employees or job applicants can result in employment tribunal claims for unlimited compensation. Both employers and individuals can be held liable. Discrimination can also result in bad publicity, poor morale, and damaged business potential where, for example, promotion is granted on the basis of sex rather than ability.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) covers England, Scotland, and Wales and applies to both men and women. It makes sex discrimination unlawful and prohibits the following:
- discrimination on the grounds of gender
- discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment
- discrimination against married persons
- victimization
Direct sex discrimination Direct discrimination is when one person is treated less favorably than another on the grounds of their sex.
Sexual harassment is a form of direct discrimination. The SDA does not define harassment, but a European Commission code of practice defines it as "unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of men and women at work. This can include unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct". Harassment is defined under the Harassment Act 1997.
Under the Equal Pay Act 1970, pay and conditions should not differ for men and women of a similar standing in the workplace.
Victimization Many may be deterred from lodging a sex discrimination complaint for fear that they may be victimized by their employer. It is unlawful for an employer to victimize a person because they have brought a discrimination claim, or given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
Indirect sex discrimination Indirect discrimination is less obvious and usually inadvertent. It occurs where an employer applies a requirement or policy, which appears to have nothing to do with gender but in practice has effects that disadvantage one sex. For example, a requirement for all job applicants to be over six feet tall indirectly discriminates against women. To be considered discrimination it must be proved that the condition in question:
- is applied equally to both sexes
- limits the proportion of one sex who comply compared with the other
- disadvantages an individual
- cannot be objectively justified
Exceptions Employers are exempt where single-sex training is given to equip men or women with skills in an area where their gender is under-represented. This is known as positive action. Positive discrimination is otherwise unlawful in the UK.
The SDA does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation but European law requires that EU countries must implement legislation banning such discrimination by 2 December 2003.
Complaints Sex discrimination and equal pay claims are brought in employment tribunals. Sex discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the discrimination taking place.
There is no minimum length of continuous employment required to bring these claims or no financial limit to sex discrimination compensation.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Summary of the Law on SEX DISCRIMINATION
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status in employment, education, transport, and the provision of goods and services. This booklet is solely concerned with the employment aspects of the SDA.
DIRECT DISCRIMINATION, INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION, VICTIMISATION, HARASSMENT, TRIBUNAL CLAIMS, REMEDIES
Who does the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) apply to and when?
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) applies to all discrimination in the workplace, such as, selection for a job, training, promotion, work practices, dismissal, or any other disadvantage such as sexual harassment. If a worker is discriminated against in their contractual terms of employment, then the Equal Pay Act applies.
Whilst this booklet refers to women in the majority of examples, it should be noted that the law applies equally to both men and women.
Who is liable?
Responsibility for sex discrimination usually lies with the employer, but if another employee or worker is found to have discriminated, then the employer will be "vicariously" liable for them as well.
This covers not only incidents of discrimination occurring in the actual workplace but may also extend to out-of-work activities such as Christmas parties and drinks in the pub after work. If the alleged discrimination is about the conduct of another employee, then it’s a good idea to name them on the Tribunal application as well as the employer.
What is direct sex discrimination?
Direct sex discrimination is when an employer treats a woman less favorably than a man because of her sex or marital status. It is also direct discrimination to treat a woman less favorably because she is pregnant or has taken maternity leave. This includes a pregnancy-related illness.
The employee bringing the claim has to make a comparison between how she was treated and how a man (either actual or hypothetical) would have been treated, except for cases of alleged pregnancy and maternity discrimination when a comparator is not required. It is irrelevant whether or not the employer intended to discriminate against them.
Once the person has shown that the employer did discriminate against them directly, employers cannot offer a defense as there is none for these claims.
The following situations and examples could give rise to a claim for direct discrimination:
- In an interview for a job, the employer only asks female applicants about their domestic circumstances
- A man with inferior qualifications and/or less experience than a woman is appointed to the job or the promotion for which they both applied
- A woman is told that she would not be considered for a job because it is "dirty work" or because there is "a lack of decent toilet facilities"
- A woman who takes time off for pregnancy or maternity leave is demoted when she returns to work
- A woman is not encouraged to meet clients or invited to social events to meet them. Instead, a mainly male group is.
What is indirect sex discrimination?
Indirect discrimination applies to policies and practices which, in reality, disadvantage one gender considerably more than another although on the face of it, they seem to apply to both sexes equally. For example, a requirement to work full time might be more of a bar for women than men.
To prove indirect discrimination, Tribunals have to consider four questions:
- Has the employer imposed a provision, criterion, or practice?
- Does it put women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men?
- Does it disadvantage that woman?
- Can the employer show that the provision, criterion, or practice is proportionate to the aim they are trying to achieve?
Employers can defend indirect discrimination, but they have to show that the provision, criterion, or practice:
- Can be objectively justified on grounds other than sex
- Corresponds to a real need on the part of the employer
- Is appropriate to meeting that need
- Is necessary to meet that need
Despite this clear and fairly stringent test, the courts have set out further tests, including the requirement to balance the needs of the employer and employee. These tests are not always easy to reconcile, and anyone wanting to bring a claim will need specialist advice.
Examples of indirect discrimination are:
- Age bars, which can indirectly discriminate against women who often have taken time out from work to bring up children and therefore may acquire their qualifications later than men
- Any benefit resulting from length of service may work against women who have taken time out from work to bring up their children
- Mobility clauses may discriminate. Often, women are less able to relocate than men because of their family commitments or a reliance on their partner's income as the primary wage earner
- Height or weight requirements which favor men rather than women
- Work that requires unsocial hours or a requirement to work full time may work against women with childcare commitments
What is harassment?
There are three grounds that constitute unlawful harassment under the Act:
The first is when an individual is subjected to unwanted conduct relating to their sex that has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Even if that individual is not the butt of the unwanted conduct but feels that their dignity has been violated or that an offensive environment has been created as a result, they are also protected by the legislation.
The second is when someone engages in unwanted verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
The third is when someone treats the woman less favorably because she rejected the unwanted conduct. "Conduct" is only regarded as harassment when all the circumstances are taken into account (including the perception of the woman at the receiving end of it) and if it is reasonable to conclude that it could have had that effect.
Examples of sexual harassment include the following:
- Physical harassment
- Unwanted sexual comments or personal comments about a woman's appearance
- Non-verbal harassment such as unwanted gestures or displays of pornographic pictures
The victim does not have to demonstrate any financial or other specific loss, such as a threat of dismissal. It is enough that her working environment has become intimidating, hostile, or offensive.
In one case, a school laboratory assistant was subjected to constant suggestive remarks and conduct by two male colleagues as part of a campaign to persuade her to leave.
The Tribunal decided that the woman did not have to produce evidence of a man having been treated differently, since the treatment that she received was clearly discriminatory by reason of its sexual character.
Single incidents can constitute harassment, though generally speaking, a one-off incident would have to be more serious.
The law also says that employers who fail to take reasonably practical steps to protect employees from harassment by someone else if they knew it had happened on at least two other occasions will be liable for those acts.
What is victimisation?
Some women may be deterred from exercising their rights under the SDA or from supporting others who wish to exercise their rights in case they are victimized by their employer.
The Act guards against this by making it unlawful for an employer to victimize an individual because she has brought a discrimination claim, given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
To succeed in a victimization case, the person has to show that they were treated less favorably than someone who had not taken any of these steps, and that their treatment was because they had pursued a discrimination case, had given evidence, or had made allegations of discrimination.
Employers can defend a complaint of discrimination if they can show that they took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the discrimination occurring. It is rare for employers to succeed with this defense. But even if they do, the person who feels they have been victimized can pursue a claim against the individual employee.
Are there any exceptions?
There are three main circumstances when the Act does not provide protection against discrimination:
- The genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
- Positive action
- Employment for the purposes of religion
Genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
Employers are allowed to discriminate under the Act when a person's sex is a "genuine occupational qualification" (GOQ) for the job. For instance, if the job needs either a man or a woman for reasons of authenticity, perhaps for a job as an actor or a model.
Or, for reasons of decency or privacy, either a man or a woman may be needed if the job involves physical contact or people may be undressing (say, in a changing room). Or the job may involve providing personal services such as rape counselors.
A GOQ exception will not apply if an employer already has enough staff of the other sex who could take on the duties of the job without too much inconvenience.
Positive action
Positive action means giving preferential treatment to an individual or group of people to prevent or compensate for past disadvantages suffered by that individual or group. It is not the same as positive discrimination, which involves treating people more favorably on grounds of sex and is unlawful.
The SDA states that employers can:
- provide training to people of a particular sex which would fit them for particular work if in the preceding 12 months there were none (or very few) of them doing that sort of work, or
- run a discriminatory recruitment campaign to encourage members of a particular sex to apply for certain kinds of work, as long as there were none (or very few of them) doing that particular kind of work in the preceding 12 months
Employment for the purposes of religion
Sex discrimination is also lawful in relation to employment for the purposes of an organized religion, where employment is limited to one sex so as to comply with "the doctrines of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers."
This exemption is limited effectively to employment by religious organizations such as churches or mosques.
Is it easy to prove a claim?
Proving sex discrimination is not straightforward. A woman complaining of discrimination has to prove, on the balance of
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status in employment, education, transport, and the provision of goods and services. This booklet is solely concerned with the employment aspects of the SDA.
DIRECT DISCRIMINATION, INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION, VICTIMISATION, HARASSMENT, TRIBUNAL CLAIMS, REMEDIES
Who does the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) apply to and when?
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) applies to all discrimination in the workplace, such as, selection for a job, training, promotion, work practices, dismissal, or any other disadvantage such as sexual harassment. If a worker is discriminated against in their contractual terms of employment, then the Equal Pay Act applies.
Whilst this booklet refers to women in the majority of examples, it should be noted that the law applies equally to both men and women.
Who is liable?
Responsibility for sex discrimination usually lies with the employer, but if another employee or worker is found to have discriminated, then the employer will be "vicariously" liable for them as well.
This covers not only incidents of discrimination occurring in the actual workplace but may also extend to out-of-work activities such as Christmas parties and drinks in the pub after work. If the alleged discrimination is about the conduct of another employee, then it’s a good idea to name them on the Tribunal application as well as the employer.
What is direct sex discrimination?
Direct sex discrimination is when an employer treats a woman less favorably than a man because of her sex or marital status. It is also direct discrimination to treat a woman less favorably because she is pregnant or has taken maternity leave. This includes a pregnancy-related illness.
The employee bringing the claim has to make a comparison between how she was treated and how a man (either actual or hypothetical) would have been treated, except for cases of alleged pregnancy and maternity discrimination when a comparator is not required. It is irrelevant whether or not the employer intended to discriminate against them.
Once the person has shown that the employer did discriminate against them directly, employers cannot offer a defense as there is none for these claims.
The following situations and examples could give rise to a claim for direct discrimination:
- In an interview for a job, the employer only asks female applicants about their domestic circumstances
- A man with inferior qualifications and/or less experience than a woman is appointed to the job or the promotion for which they both applied
- A woman is told that she would not be considered for a job because it is "dirty work" or because there is "a lack of decent toilet facilities"
- A woman who takes time off for pregnancy or maternity leave is demoted when she returns to work
- A woman is not encouraged to meet clients or invited to social events to meet them. Instead, a mainly male group is.
What is indirect sex discrimination?
Indirect discrimination applies to policies and practices which, in reality, disadvantage one gender considerably more than another although on the face of it, they seem to apply to both sexes equally. For example, a requirement to work full time might be more of a bar for women than men.
To prove indirect discrimination, Tribunals have to consider four questions:
- Has the employer imposed a provision, criterion, or practice?
- Does it put women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men?
- Does it disadvantage that woman?
- Can the employer show that the provision, criterion, or practice is proportionate to the aim they are trying to achieve?
Employers can defend indirect discrimination, but they have to show that the provision, criterion, or practice:
- Can be objectively justified on grounds other than sex
- Corresponds to a real need on the part of the employer
- Is appropriate to meeting that need
- Is necessary to meet that need
Despite this clear and fairly stringent test, the courts have set out further tests, including the requirement to balance the needs of the employer and employee. These tests are not always easy to reconcile, and anyone wanting to bring a claim will need specialist advice.
Examples of indirect discrimination are:
- Age bars, which can indirectly discriminate against women who often have taken time out from work to bring up children and therefore may acquire their qualifications later than men
- Any benefit resulting from length of service may work against women who have taken time out from work to bring up their children
- Mobility clauses may discriminate. Often, women are less able to relocate than men because of their family commitments or a reliance on their partner's income as the primary wage earner
- Height or weight requirements which favor men rather than women
- Work that requires unsocial hours or a requirement to work full time may work against women with childcare commitments
What is harassment?
There are three grounds that constitute unlawful harassment under the Act:
The first is when an individual is subjected to unwanted conduct relating to their sex that has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Even if that individual is not the butt of the unwanted conduct but feels that their dignity has been violated or that an offensive environment has been created as a result, they are also protected by the legislation.
The second is when someone engages in unwanted verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
The third is when someone treats the woman less favorably because she rejected the unwanted conduct. "Conduct" is only regarded as harassment when all the circumstances are taken into account (including the perception of the woman at the receiving end of it) and if it is reasonable to conclude that it could have had that effect.
Examples of sexual harassment include the following:
- Physical harassment
- Unwanted sexual comments or personal comments about a woman's appearance
- Non-verbal harassment such as unwanted gestures or displays of pornographic pictures
The victim does not have to demonstrate any financial or other specific loss, such as a threat of dismissal. It is enough that her working environment has become intimidating, hostile, or offensive.
In one case, a school laboratory assistant was subjected to constant suggestive remarks and conduct by two male colleagues as part of a campaign to persuade her to leave.
The Tribunal decided that the woman did not have to produce evidence of a man having been treated differently, since the treatment that she received was clearly discriminatory by reason of its sexual character.
Single incidents can constitute harassment, though generally speaking, a one-off incident would have to be more serious.
The law also says that employers who fail to take reasonably practical steps to protect employees from harassment by someone else if they knew it had happened on at least two other occasions will be liable for those acts.
What is victimisation?
Some women may be deterred from exercising their rights under the SDA or from supporting others who wish to exercise their rights in case they are victimized by their employer.
The Act guards against this by making it unlawful for an employer to victimize an individual because she has brought a discrimination claim, given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
To succeed in a victimization case, the person has to show that they were treated less favorably than someone who had not taken any of these steps, and that their treatment was because they had pursued a discrimination case, had given evidence, or had made allegations of discrimination.
Employers can defend a complaint of discrimination if they can show that they took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the discrimination occurring. It is rare for employers to succeed with this defense. But even if they do, the person who feels they have been victimized can pursue a claim against the individual employee.
Are there any exceptions?
There are three main circumstances when the Act does not provide protection against discrimination:
- The genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
- Positive action
- Employment for the purposes of religion
Genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
Employers are allowed to discriminate under the Act when a person's sex is a "genuine occupational qualification" (GOQ) for the job. For instance, if the job needs either a man or a woman for reasons of authenticity, perhaps for a job as an actor or a model.
Or, for reasons of decency or privacy, either a man or a woman may be needed if the job involves physical contact or people may be undressing (say, in a changing room). Or the job may involve providing personal services such as rape counselors.
A GOQ exception will not apply if an employer already has enough staff of the other sex who could take on the duties of the job without too much inconvenience.
Positive action
Positive action means giving preferential treatment to an individual or group of people to prevent or compensate for past disadvantages suffered by that individual or group. It is not the same as positive discrimination, which involves treating people more favorably on grounds of sex and is unlawful.
The SDA states that employers can:
- provide training to people of a particular sex which would fit them for particular work if in the preceding 12 months there were none (or very few) of them doing that sort of work, or
- run a discriminatory recruitment campaign to encourage members of a particular sex to apply for certain kinds of work, as long as there were none (or very few of them) doing that particular kind of work in the preceding 12 months
Employment for the purposes of religion
Sex discrimination is also lawful in relation to employment for the purposes of an organized religion, where employment is limited to one sex so as to comply with "the doctrines of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers."
This exemption is limited effectively to employment by religious organizations such as churches or mosques.
Is it easy to prove a claim?
Proving sex discrimination is not straightforward. A woman complaining of discrimination has to prove, on the balance of
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Five Ways To... Multitask at the Workplace.pdf
Crafting an Expressively Healthy Workplace.doc