On 20 May 2014 19:09, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
No, then you clearly misunderstand the facts.
The problem with how sexual harassment, in Federal public service at least, is termed is that it doesn't require /actual/ sexual harassment, all it takes is for the female to /feel/ sexually harassed, that's all, it's the female's perception that counts regardless of the male's intentions or actions .... and that is ridiculous to say the least.
<... anecdotal justification of thinly veiled misogyny removed for brevity ...> Please check your own facts, what you've said above is merely opinion based upon flawed logic. Since you've incorrectly paraphrased the definition of unlawful harassment for your own straw man argument. "Under federal and state legislation, unlawful harassment occurs when someone is made to feel intimidated, insulted or humiliated because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin; sex; disability; sexual preference; or some other characteristic specified under antidiscrimination or human rights legislation . It can also happen if someone is working in a ‘hostile’ – or intimidating – environment." [1] Despite what you may believe, and despite your ridicule; the claimed intent of the perpetrator's actions does not define the reasonableness of their conduct, the prime consideration must be the effect of their conduct on the recipient. [1] – https://www.humanrights.gov.au/what-workplace-discrimination-and-harassment