With the present awareness on gender sensitivity issues, we now address somebody by chairperson and not as chairwoman, if she happens to be one. The gender issues are the rage so we must be really sensitive; otherwise we will realize we're no longer updated.
For unaccountable language we now are asked to say as directly as possible "he did the crime" instead of "crime was done" which is really vague on who really did the wrong act. We must avoid, as they say, stating that a "crime was committed" into "he committed the crime" or "the man raped her" rather than "she was raped", or "child was abused" instead should be "parent abused the child" and so forth.
Initiators of the movement believe that the one responsible are protected by unintentionally concealing his identity with such nomenclature. They also believe that the offensive deeds or the vicious acts committed seemed minimized if such terms were used to describe what was performed.
If pronounces with such languages often used, the crime appears to be equally shared by the aggrieved party rather than with the one who is actually and solely liable. The burden of proof has to be passed on the person victimized by the maltreatment, fraudulent or offensive act done by the other fellow. At times, they say, it seems to appear there is reciprocal sharing of the act on both the victim and the one who did the nasty or manipulative behavior if accountable languages are not used.
The movers contend that the aggrieved party is not protected because the perpetrator's responsibility towards the committed wrongdoing is greatly underrated which should not be case.
Even during court proceedings, law enforcers seem to favor the abusers because the respondent in a case need not be held liable until the aggrieved party have proven that something was really done against the person.
0 comments: