Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Calling a Man Bald Counts as Sexual Harassment, UK Judge Rules (cnbc.com) 171

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Calling a man bald can now be classed as sexual harassment, a U.K. employment tribunal judge has ruled. From a report: Three members of the tribunal who decided on the ruling, and alluded to their own experience of hair loss, said that baldness was more prevalent in men than women. Therefore, they argued that the use of the word "bald" as an insult related to a "protected characteristic of sex." The tribunal compared calling a man bald to commenting on the size of woman's breasts, based on a 1995 case. The ruling, published Wednesday, was made on a case where the insult was alleged to have been used against Tony Finn, while he worked as an electrician for the British Bung Manufacturing Company. Finn had worked at the company, which manufactures wooden cask closures for the brewing industry, in Yorkshire in the northeast of England, for nearly 24 years. He was fired last year and the circumstances around his dismissal were also part of the case. Finn claimed that he was called a "bald c---" and was also threatened by his shift supervisor, Jamie King, in a dispute in July 2019.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Calling a Man Bald Counts as Sexual Harassment, UK Judge Rules More

Calling a Man Bald Counts as Sexual Harassment, UK Judge Rules

Comments Filter:
  • The ruling seems logical enough, although I'm curious what the "c---" stands for.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by bustinbrains ( 6800166 )

      Cash. Cold, hard, bald cash.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xenx ( 2211586 )
      Given the region, I imagine it's cunt. Which sounds odd given the context of the sexual harassment claim. But, I do know the usage there is more gender neutral.

    • Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @04:55PM (#62531090) Homepage Journal

      It's the motto of Australia's Northern Territory. CU in the NT.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Checking my copy of Rogers Profanisaurus, there doesn't appear to be a specific "bald c--" phrase. So the "c--" could be any noun for which the adjective "bald" can modify it without running afoul of the Queen's English gramatical rules.

  • It just doesn't end... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gription ( 1006467 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @04:41PM (#62531016)
    We used to tease people with "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me".

    Now we seem to be having a world wide contest to see who can be offended by the smallest possible imagined slight. (If you spend all your time trying to frame your position in terms of victim hood don't be surprised when you end up as a victim of life.)

    Seriously though. Offense is something that you TAKE not GIVE. Stop taking offense and suddenly you are impervious to it all.
    (Duh!!!)

    • 100%. It's one of those very rare cases when cliche motivational quotes actually happen to be applicable - "All the nevativity of the world can't put you down unless you allow it to get inside you."

    • Next up, I'll feel slighted if someone asks me for directions or physical help moving something heavy -- how dare they...

      That funniness aside, I actually agree with you 100% -- this whole concept of self ascribed victimhood over word usage is silly as fuck. People say mean things all the time, and they don't always actually mean it. I catch myself saying all sorts of random shit during conversations with friends and coworkers, just testing out boundaries to figure out where they are as a means of clarifying

      • Next up, I'll feel slighted if someone asks me for directions or physical help moving something heavy -- how dare they...

        How DARE they assume my neighborhood!

      • Re: imho, this is just the first solid tit for tat (Score:4, Informative)

        by beelsebob ( 529313 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @08:37PM (#62531710)

        The question is not âoeshould we be allowed to say mean things?â It is âoeIf you repeatedly say mean things, after having been asked not to, in an environment thatâ(TM)s meant to be professional, have you been being the bigger twat in causing the relationship to break down?â

        The uk has some pretty strong employment laws that make it difficult to fire people just because. That stops people doing things like firing people because they think they can fill the same role cheaper by keeping everyone on their toes. If you allow employers to be twats to their staff, that opens up a hole in those protections. Donâ(TM)t fire people, just make their life hell until they snap back at you (a you âreasonâ(TM) to fire them), or quit. This, the laws ban so called constructive dismissal, where an employer makes it unreasonable difficult for someone to do their job in the hope that theyâ(TM)ll quit. Calling someone a bald cunt at every opportunity (a likely going out of your way to push their buttons) seems likely to constitute that kind of behaviour.

      • Arethan, Janice from HR would like a word with you. They've been getting complaints...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      We used to tease people with "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me". Seriously though. Offense is something that you TAKE not GIVE. Stop taking offense and suddenly you are impervious to it all.

      On the other hand, MRI shows that brain activity after being verbally insulted is equivalent to brain activity after being hit. In other words the two have subjectively comparable impact. Moreover, the brain activity is involuntary. This suggests that neither of your adages stand up to evidence. (I'm sorry I can't cite this. I was told it in a neuroscience lecture about 15yrs ago and can't find my notes.)

      Sure I guess you can chose to train brain to desensitize itself on this, I guess like you can desensitiz

      • Re:It just doesn't end... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @10:10PM (#62531884)

        On the other hand, MRI shows that brain activity after being verbally insulted is equivalent to brain activity after being hit. In other words the two have subjectively comparable impact.

          (I'm sorry I can't cite this. I was told it in a neuroscience lecture about 15yrs ago and can't find my notes.)

        Just when you think you've heard it all someone invents nonsense like this to justify inherently ridiculous positions. The only "brain activity" an MRI is even capable of detecting are changes in blood flow.

        Sure I guess you can chose to train brain to desensitize itself on this, I guess like you can desensitize yourself to the shock of an ice bath or to seeing graphic videos of beheadings. But... (1) I don't think there's a clear answer yet as to whether such desensitizing has other effects, (2) I'd rather not live in a society where such desensitization is a useful skill.

        What's next? Someone called me a bad name and now I have PTSD.

        I'd rather not live in a society that is so intolerant, petty and thin skinned that offense renders people "physically ill".

      • Let's sit in a room together. Every five seconds, you get to call me some vile name and I get to hit or kick you.

        Let's do this for say 12 hours or so.

        And then you can tell me how MRIs show verbal abuse is just as bad as physical when you get out of the hospital.

        • An Olympic sport of abuse wrestling would be awesome. Competitors will just get a mic, and knock out their opponents to win. This will be one of the few sports in which women will kick men's ass.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by noodler ( 724788 )

        On the other hand, MRI shows that brain activity after being verbally insulted is equivalent to brain activity after being hit.

        Unless you actually know what that brain activity represents to the conscious mind you're not actually saying anything.

    • Now we seem to be having a world wide contest to see who can be offended by the smallest possible imagined slight.

      You completely missed the point of the situation. Here let me correct the saying for you: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I will use your words against you if I can get a pay day out of it."

      Don't confuse retribution with being offended. If someone gets fired and the circumstances of their firing leave it open for them to gain something out of it you can bet they'll take it to the judge without any offense required.

    • Is actively insulting you it stands to reason they're doing it for a reason. Specifically they are exercising power over you and showing that they can.

      When you force them to stop using those insults you tell them that they cannot exercise that power over you. This means that people further up the hierarchy than you lose some of their power and our society becomes more free and Democratic.

      It's naive to think that words don't have any effect just because we're adults. If that wasn't the case nobody wo

      • Quite so.

        If words are worthless them free speech has no value.

        Words are the most powerful thing we have. No one caused genocide or overthrew tyranny with mere sticks and stones. Acts of that magnitude can only be achieved with words.

        • Just because words have value doesn't mean words are violence.

          • Just because words have value doesn't mean words are violence.

            Uh oh, triggered!

          • Words don't have to be "violence" to be harmful.

            We know words can harm people emotionally, we know that harm can be significant, we shouldn't permit people to use words specifically for the purpose of harming others without consequences. That's the same reason Slashdot has a "troll" mod. Just like Slashdot doesn't work properly if you let people troll too much, the wide world doesn't work properly if you let people insult people too much.

            Yep, the line is fine, it's complicated, and it's hard to make rules t

          • over repeated and consistent verbal and mental abuse, right? And that there have been several instances where it was clear that was the abuser's goal?

            Yes, words used to cause harm are violence. Even if we ignore the fact that they implicitly carry the understanding that *actual* violence will follow if the words don't achieve the desired outcome.

            From you're tone I'm guessing you lean to the right wing. e.g. you support and defer to authority. It's possible you're just being manipulated by the right

    • Sticks and stones can break my bones, so I shoot you before you come too close.

      What? I grew up in a pretty bad neighborhood.

    • but I meant bold!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by piojo ( 995934 )

      I agree with you as an aspirational idea, though I don't think it's practical--the amount of mindfulness practice necessary to avoid taking offense is quite a high burden.

      My first impression of this ruling is that it's a good thing--as a society, we want to back out of the dynamic we've developed where it's okay to harass or assault men, but not women.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      Your post offended me. [grin]

    • Well if the words come in your work environment, especially from a superior, then they can definitely hurt your career.

    • Look yes word in small bearable quantity can be weathered. But like it or not , for most of us - and I would wager ALL of us baring psychopath, when this is a waterfall you have to endure , over and over and over, psychologically it WILL impact you. The impact can depend from annoyance, to anger, to despair , to suicide. Like it or not, we are social animal, and when that social environment turn on us, it impact us. "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words in moderation can never hurt me"
    • "Gription sat back & re-read his comment. He felt satisfied but the echoes of his colleagues voices whirring around in his head, repeating the jibes, the insults, the jokes at his expense just wouldn't go away. He glanced at the gun cabinet in the corner, caught himself mid-thought, & told himself, 'Not today, Gription. Not today.'"

    • We used to tease people with "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me".

      I'd love to see how long you last when a boss continually insults you to your face.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      We used to tease people with "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me".

      Now we seem to be having a world wide contest to see who can be offended by the smallest possible imagined slight. (If you spend all your time trying to frame your position in terms of victim hood don't be surprised when you end up as a victim of life.)

      Seriously though. Offense is something that you TAKE not GIVE. Stop taking offense and suddenly you are impervious to it all.
      (Duh!!!)

      What utter bollocks. You must be the most retarded person ever.

      Remember, offence is not something that is GIVEN, so you cant be offended as I describe how completely mentally deficient you are. To avoid TAKING offence, you must accept silently everything I've said about you.

      Now that we've dealt with that. The "sticks and stones" thing we've long since accepted as being completely incorrect. Anyone who has been bullied, in any situation knows that... However let me hit you with some 2500 yr old wisdom

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Note that the insult was actually calling him a "bald cunt". He stated that he was not particularly bothered by being called a cunt, only by the bald part. So this guy does not seem to be a snowflake who easily takes offence.

      That said, I don't know why cunt is used as an insult. Cunts are highly desired by most men, extremely durable and very flexible.

  • Ok, let m gt this straight: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dirk Becher ( 1061828 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @04:43PM (#62531036)

    The UK defines "sexual harassment" as "harassment involving sex/gender" and not "harassment by sexual behaviour" ?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Shimbo ( 100005 )

      The UK defines "sexual harassment" as "harassment involving sex/gender" and not "harassment by sexual behaviour" ?

      No, calling it 'sexual harassment' is misleading. Sex is a protected characteristic under anti-discrimation laws; since baldness is more prevalent in men, mocking someone for being bald is indirect sexual discrimation. UK doesn't have 'at-will' employment laws, so you need to be careful what you say to someone before you fire their ass for whatever reason (justified or unjustified).

      • No, calling it 'sexual harassment' is misleading. Sex is a protected characteristic under anti-discrimation laws; since baldness is more prevalent in men, mocking someone for being bald is indirect sexual discrimation.

        Don't say that shit in front of Will Smith, at least not while his Wife is there to give him a look

        • Of course. Why would anyone pick on a balding female in a society where that is considered faux pas? How tasteless can you be?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's actually quite a nuanced decision, if you read the whole thing. The relevant law is the Equalities Act 2010.

      The guy was called a "bald cunt" by his superior. The judge acknowledged that the use of "industrial" language was common in that environment, and that the complainant was not complaining about being called a cunt. However, being called bald lead to him being treated differently than others working there, which is the specific part of the Equalities Act that was violated.

      https://www.legislation. [legislation.gov.uk]

  • My turn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @04:57PM (#62531096)
    Finally, I get my day at the oppression Olympics.

  • The guy on the cover photo looks like Lord Voldemort at the back of Quirrell's head in Harry Potter vol 1.

  • then you are just reporting the truth. Once again the truth takes it in the shorts.

    • People who are offended about everything, aren't really concerned about the truth. Some people are offended if you use masculine or feminine pronouns without asking permission. If you look for something to be offended about, you will surely find something.

    • And if my female boss is a psychotic, screaming bitch from hell and everybody knows it, do I get to say it publicly? Didn't think so

      • And if my female boss is a psychotic, screaming bitch from hell and everybody knows it, do I get to say it publicly? Didn't think so

        Yep. You sure do. It might interfere with your employment, though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Why do you have to use the word bitch? Why not just say she is psychotic and screaming all the time?

        It's the difference between having a genuine complaint about her behaviour, and unnecessarily bringing gender into it. The fact that you did bring gender into it suggests that you think her being a woman is somehow significant, which means you treat her differently due to her gender, which is illegal in the UK.

    • then you are just reporting the truth. Once again the truth takes it in the shorts.

      There's a difference between saying "You're bald" and "You're a bald cunt". The use of words in sentences changes their meaning. The word bald itself only classified the kind of law being applied. It's the other words around it combined with the situation in which they were said which resulted in the ruling.

      Context matters.

      • I'd object to being called a cunt before being called bald. That's why this ruling has me so baffled.

    • And if a woman had gigantic breasts, I'm just reporting the truth by calling her the "big titties girl".

      In most cases, that's inappropriate. And in some cases, calling someone bald may be too. It's all about the context.

      Although in this case, it seems to be more about highlighting that the employer is a cunt who derogatorily calls employees "bald cunts".

  • Ugly bastard - is this really referring to your birthright? Is ugly suggestive of sexuality? Testosterone-infused eunuch - This is clearly referring to their sexuality. How it would be construed as a sexual advance, such that harassment applies, I don't know. Meddlesome priest - certainly not incitement to violence, right Hank?

  • How dare they? (Score:3)

    by jrq ( 119773 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @06:13PM (#62531286)
    I identify as "follically challenged".

  • This is a very lame ruling and borders on retardation. OOps, I can't say retarded either.

    How about cunty limey? That one is OK. Well alrighty then.

  • Observation of FACTUAL REALITY is treated the same as "C'mere and sit on my face!"???

    These fuckers are nuts.

  • Please stop using the offensive term "balderdash" to mean nonsense. Yes, I know the term comes from the Danish balder meaning "noise", but all that matters is what it sounds like.

    In fact, stop using "bald" at all. We prefer "persons without head hair", since that doesn't dehumanize us to a label.

    Using the term "falling out" to describe a disagreement is also offensive to us persons without head hair.

    And if you've used any of those terms in the past, you owe us an apology and compensation.

    (Yes, I really am

  • I'm bit surprised about the responses here. While i sort-of can understand people think it's over the top, it's also about context.

    So, what if the person was being insulted for wearing glasses? Or missing a limb? Or not having children? Or having a german accent?

    The thing is, bullying is not socially acceptable behavior. Has nothing to do with someone being a snowflake. In an employment relationship, both the employer and employee should behave professional. The judges drawn a clear line, that such insults

    • What's over the top is calling it sexual discrimination. Claiming it's sexual discrimination because only men go bald is fucking stupid because that's not true.

  • Sexual harassment should be defined as harassment alluding to sex, not simply harassment using sexual characteristics. If his boss had said he wanted to rub his balls on his bald head, that should be sexual harassment.

    Calling a women with big breasts a cowtit bitch as an insult shouldn't be sexual harassment either, casually calling her cowtits should be.

  • Follicularly challenged c*unt then.

  • By this standard, calling a man tall or a woman short is sexual harassment.

  • hoist, meet petard (Score:3)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday May 14, 2022 @07:16AM (#62532540) Journal
    If he called an old female coworker "saggy tits" he would certainly be non-controversially be said to have sexually harassed.

  • Women can't be bald?

    Or are they relying on Will Smith to enforce that side?

  • What happened to you?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close