Sexual Harassment

Running head : SEXUAL HARASSMENTSexual Harass work forcet[Author s Name][Tutor s Name][Class]AbstractNumerous theorists were searching for the roots and explanations of informal anguish . Yet , the number and variety of knowledgeable molestation theoretical frameworks accommodates the issue even more complicated . This examines the sociological perspectives in researching familiar torment .Sexual HarassmentIntroduction From a legal vantage point , informal worrying is a form of sex discrimination composed of two forms of mien : quid pro quo badgering and hostile environment torture . Quid pro quo harassment involved sexual threats or bribery hostile environment harassment captures sexual jokes , comments , touching , etc (Gerdes , 1999 . It seems that the definition of sexual harassment is rather conk and understandable , but why do we still face considerable difficulties in defining what sexual harassment means ? Trying to relieve the roots of sexual harassment , we still employ various theories and perspectives and lack clear and understandable criteria (determinants ) which would classify it . We still refuse to admit that sexual harassment is the by-product of our social environment and try to let off it within the limited biological perspective . Thesis educational activity : Until we realize that it is impossible to produce universal approaches to sexual harassment and until we reject gender stereotypes in researching sexual harassment we forget not be able to cease it - biology or sociologyWhen we discuss sexual harassment , we constantly make a significant mistake : we use to transfer the notion of sexual harassment from sociological into legal perspective . However , and this is unambiguous , that legal definitions of sexual harassment stem from more sociological and less biological explanations . From the sociological viewpoint theoretical gaps and misconceptions make it impossible to properly identify what sexual harassment is . other substantial mistake is in that we turn sexual harassment into the purely biological instinct protecting it and factually do it legal .

The conjunction of these two issues throws persistent contradictions when we try to create effective tools of eliminating or at least minimizing the number of sexual harassment cases Biological perspective holds that men are biologically programmed to be sexual aggressors and that sexual behavior is one human face of this biological inheritance (O Donohue , 1997 . As a consequence , biological explanations of sexual harassment imply that sex is its ultimate terminal In reality , sexual harassment is a broader gist of specific personal conduct , and it is easier evaluated through sociological , than biological perspective . The word combination sexual harassment implies recess or crossing socially determined standards of human behavior . As a result , biology can uncomplete fully justify sexual harassment , nor can it explain its roots . The popular implication that men remain men and that their sexual instincts are traditionally stronger than those of women is misleading . With the development of the new-sprung(prenominal) societal structure in which women are equal to men , sexual harassment stops being the women s prerogative - the change magnitude number of males experience sexual harassment , too (Uggen Blackstone , 2004In this confounding theoretical environment , professionals find themselves unable to create any single basis for explaining sexual harassment . In this...If you hope to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .