MCGREGOR Some of our laws are gender specific; that is, they either protect or penalise one sex. Some of them may even be described as being biased. However, views tend to vary widely as to whether the time is ripe for them to change. Consider these provisions:
The Women (Employment of) Act states that, "No woman shall be employed in night work" except in certain specific circumstances or in such trade or profession as ordered by the minister. Women may work as nurses and health care providers, pharmacists and bartenders at night, but not as security guards or service station attendants.
In reality, there are many female security guards and service station attendants who work at night. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to amend the law than to risk the prosecution of a woman who is merely trying to earn an honest living?
A female worker who has been employed for at least 52 weeks prior to the date on which she gives birth to her child is entitled to a maximum of 12 weeks' leave pursuant to the Maternity Leave Act. However, if she is a domestic worker she is not entitled to leave with pay.
This act does not adequately address pregnancy discrimination. If the employer does not allow the worker to take maternity leave or pay in accordance with the act, he/she may be convicted before a Resident Magistrate to a maximum fine of $500 or four months' imprisonment. This is hardly a deterrent.
Should men be entitled to paternity leave?
The Employment (Equal Pay for Men and Women) Act is intended to ensure that men and women who are employed in the same establishment and doing the same work are given equal pay. However, the fine for breaching this act is a measly $200 or 12 months' imprisonment, and the employer will not even be prosecuted unless mediation was first attempted and failed to settle the dispute.
Some aspects of criminal law are also gender specific.
The crime of infanticide can only be committed by a woman and no woman can commit the crime of rape. With regard to the latter, it is also true that rape can only be committed against a woman. However, based on the bill to amend the Offences against the Person Act, this could soon change, as the proposed new definition of rape will mean that both men and women can commit rape or be the victims of rape.
In terms of social legislation, compare the new Maintenance Act, 2005, with the old law that provided for a man to maintain his wife whether she was capable of maintaining herself or not. Under the new law, spouses are equally obligated to maintain each other. This means that a man is entitled to apply to the court to obtain an order for his wife to maintain him. How welcome was this move?
There is often a call for the playing field to be leveled as between men and women; but I am yet to identify the woman who has embraced the prospect of having to pay maintenance to her husband.
A wife would only get back her property if her husband predeceased her.
Sherry-Ann McGregor is partner and mediator with the firm Nunes, Scholefield, DeLeon & Co.What is et ux?
One of this week's guest editors, Carmen Tipling, brought the term et ux to my attention and asked that it be explained for readers.Answer: et ux is the abbreviation for et uxor - a Latin expression which literally means 'and wife'. It is often seen on conveyance documents where the wife and husband are purchasing property together or where they are co-claimants or co-defendants in a law suit.
As far as I know, there is no current law which describes a woman as a man's property. Prior to the 1882 Married Women's Property Act, a wife was not considered a separate legal person from her husband and she could not own or dispose of property, even if she had inherited it. As soon as she got married, any property to which she might have been entitled would become her husband's property.
