Ship of Fools: But she's pretty! Oh, so pretty!

Thread: But she's pretty! Oh, so pretty! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024246

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

So he fired her. He's an upstanding family man, after all. What else could he do? His pastor agreed that firing her was a grand idea, even though she had never so much as flirted with him.

And the Iowa Supreme Court decided that was just dandy.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Wow. That's the kind of case I expect to find on Ally McBeal or Harry's Law, not real life.

That really is tremendously close to the philosophy that allows a rape victim to be blamed for having worn a nice dress.

Men apparently just can't help themselves, and the solution isn't to tell men to pull it together, it's to punish the woman?

Putting aside the possible solutions of 1. Resist, Dammit or 2. Face the consequences of your own actions, there's also the rather worrying notion that everything depends on his will, not hers. So suppose he really, truly finds her "irresistible". She's just going to roll over and say "ooh, yes please", is she? She's not going to have any choice when he flirts but to roll over and giggle? No chance that she has the option of saying no, she's not interested?

The other slightly odd idea is that it wasn't because she was a woman. Assuming that this guy is heterosexual, clearly being a woman put at a risk of this kind of outcome that a male staff member wouldn't have faced.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Ye gods. This is right up there with the theory that if kids don't learn, it's the teacher's fault -- a prime tenet of the No Child Left Behind Act.

When did we all suddenly become responsible for other people's behavior?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I had thought that the patriarchal view of marriage was that the woman of the marriage had to submit to all of her husband's sexual needs. Clearly his wif was at fault, since he had an "infrequent" (quote) sexual action.

If his wife had accepted her true role, he would not have been thinking about breaking the tenth (or whichever number it is today) commandment.

Of course, if he were a practising Christian or Jew, he wouldn't have been thinking of breaking that commandment anyway, but, hey, men aren't liable for their own thoughts, so why not blame the woman, as usual. Nothing like a truly traditional avoidance of any responsibility.

Is he alos a member of the NRA, speaking of avoidance of responsibility?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The dentist should be reported to his professional college. I suspect there's a code of conduct that covers discrimination and sexual harassment, which this clearly is. Professional college complaints generally make life extremely unpleasant for the professional, result in thousands in legal bills, bad publicity and a lot of suffering to the misbehaving professional whether validated or not. They don't depend and are decided on separate ground to lawsuits. The person who lays the complaint is always shielded from legal action for laying the complaint.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Is this decision a consequence of a male-dominated legal profession? If so, isn't that sexual discrimination.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I am suspicious of a man who comments to his female junior colleague on the likelihood of his getting an erection, fires a competent member of staff on the grounds of his own sexual incontinence and yet still chooses to have an all female staff team ...

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I do hope all ofthe dentist's patients leave his practice to avoid tempting him while being so close to his physical presence and bulges.
Since he claimed there was no gender discrimination, both his male and female patients should help him in this way in order to save his marriage.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

If I understand it correctly, the Supreme Court justices in Iowa are appointed, but then have to stand for election to keep their post. In the past, judges always won their retention votes. That changed after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal -- the next three judges to stand for retention votes lost.

It would be interesting to see whether the women of Iowa find this ruling offensive enough to vote against any of their judges in the next retention election.

Weirdly, Talking Points Memo reports that federal courts have pretty consistently held that "my wife is jealous" is a valid reason to fire an employee. I would have thought that the disparate impact on female and male employees would have made that argument extremely hard for a court to accept.

And for a pastor to accept the argument is just incomprehensible to me. You don't deal with your own sins by sinning against someone else.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am suspicious of a man who comments to his female junior colleague on the likelihood of his getting an erection, fires a competent member of staff on the grounds of his own sexual incontinence and yet still chooses to have an all female staff team ...

If you read the decision, the fact that the defendant hired a woman to replace the plaintiff might have saved him. The law at issue was based on title VII of United States law, and apparently to have a claim under title VII, you have to be able to show that you were fired because you were a woman. In this case, the defendant claimed that he didn't fire the plaintiff because she was a woman, but because his wife asked him to, so the court was reluctant to grant the plaintiff relief.

You will see in the decision that the court wasn't particularly impressed with the defendant. Its' take is that you don't necessarily have a claim under Title VII just because your boss had a terrible reason to fire you.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Did he hire an ugly woman?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Did he hire an ugly woman?

According to the Queen of Bashan, that is essentially the plot of the ABC cult hit Ugly Betty.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And for a pastor to accept the argument is just incomprehensible to me. You don't deal with your own sins by sinning against someone else.

I've known more than one Christian minister advise someone to break off an opposite sex friendship because it was 'too' emotionally intimate, or aroused a partner's jealousy, or was a cause of malicious gossip.

If Iowa's employment law allows dismissal for personal (rather than professional) reasons as long as those reasons don't fall into strictly defined classes of unlawful discrimination, I don't find it incomprehensible for a pastor to take this view. Wrong, certainly, but not incomprehensible.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

But it's one thing to ruin a friendship. It's quite another to take away someone's livelihood. The law doesn't get involved in our decisions about who we'd prefer to spend our social time with, but it's well established that employment relationships involve rights in terms of how people are treated.

And firing someone who has shown no sexual interest in YOU whatsoever because your wife has noticed that YOU appear to have fantasies about a much younger woman is inflicting consequences on entirely the wrong person. The person who actually might have done something wrong happily keeps his business. The person who did nothing wrong is out of employment in a country with a badly struggling economy.

Even if it's considered legal, it is clearly a moral injustice.

[ 22. December 2012, 10:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Knight is a very religious and moral person.

Then why doesn't he act like it?

Disgusting behaviour from both Knight and the jury. Also correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this mean that a boss can fire anyone for no reason as long as they are happy to claim they fancied them in court?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Eek!]

It is clearly true - the Lunatics have indeed taken over the Asylum.

Ian J.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Does Iowa have any specific employment laws? Would that be a federal or a state matter - i.e. does this vary depending on which state you're working in?

Here, we would class this as a matter of employment law, not civil rights. IMHO this would fall very squarely within what we would call 'unfair dismissal'. Mrs Nelson would have a claim for very substantial damages and quite possibly a right to be reinstated.

Telling a female colleague that she gives you an erection, would also almost certainly be interpreted as sexual harassment.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Telling a female colleague that she gives you an erection, would also almost certainly be interpreted as sexual harassment.

Bingo.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I noticed that as well and wondered how she could say she declined to file a sexual harassment lawsuit.

quote:
She did not allege sexual harassment because Knight’s conduct may not have risen to that level and didn’t particularly offend her, Fiedler said.

WTF? The comments he made that were quoted are sexual harassment,
Her being female is an integral part of his reasoning so how could it not meet the legal requirement? ISTM, this does show the mentioned bias of the Iowa court.

[ 22. December 2012, 13:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

Earlier example of blaming a woman for your own weakness:

Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

It's all Eve's fault - ask any judge in Iowa!

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Like others I am surprised that what happened could be legal, and also agree that the comments he reportedly made to her are way out of bounds. Like others I would expect that they would have been grounds for a legal complaint. I'm sure i just don't understand the specific laws and details.

Still, I expect that most men would sympathize about the situation itself.

Or maybe not?

And is it different for women?

My own thought is that attractive women have an effect on men that is different than the effect that attractive men have on women. Naturally I don't know for sure. But I think that it is common for men to experience serious fogginess when they are within 50 feet of some women.

In any case I am grateful for customs that discourage situations where men are alone with women, especially young women.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

This is a bit of a head scratcher for me. That one notices another's attributes is natural.
But attraction is more than the physical, more than those endearing personality traits one likes. Indeed, more than the sum of those. If one is in a committed relationship and feels an attraction for another that may cause lack of control, surely this indicates a problem with the way said individual views their partner, views the relationship.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one is in a committed relationship and feels an attraction for another that may cause lack of control, surely this indicates a problem with the way said individual views their partner, views the relationship.

Whereas I would think that virtually any male, no matter how committed and in love with his wife, would experience discomfort in prolonged close proximity to a very attractive female.

Most men can and do transcend that discomfort, and perhaps many don't even experience it. But I think that it is a fact of life for most men that they routinely deal with in a way that is different from the experience of women. Still, I could be wrong because I am not a woman and don't know what women experience.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Most men can and do transcend that discomfort, and perhaps many don't even experience it. But I think that it is a fact of life for most men that they routinely deal with in a way that is different from the experience of women. Still, I could be wrong because I am not a woman and don't know what women experience.

Got news for you, Freddy. It's a fact of life for most women as well. And we have to deal with it just as much.

It's just that we're less likely to have people making excuses for us about it, so we have to actually push past our attraction to random men and behave like sensible grown-ups.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Did he hire an ugly woman?
According to the Queen of Bashan, that is essentially the plot of the ABC cult hit Ugly Betty.

Only in Hollywood is America Ferrera ugly. [Disappointed]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Still, I expect that most men would sympathize about the situation itself.

Or maybe not?

Sympathy? For that arsewipe? Uhhhh no?

quote:
Naturally I don't know for sure. But I think that it is common for men to experience serious fogginess when they are within 50 feet of some women.

Fogginess?

quote:
In any case I am grateful for customs that discourage situations where men are alone with women, especially young women.

I'm sure it's not your intention but thats the kind of statement that sounds like you don't think women are human/think women are evil tempters.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

There are a lot of myths about female sexuality. It seems to be a fairly recent discovery that the internal structure of the clitoris makes it about the same length as an erect penis, when erect.

Recent research indicates similar response times in female sexual arousal to male arousal - please note following wiki link is not worksafe - wiki on sexual arousal.

It is likely, that the idea that men are much more sexually driven than women is a cultural artifact. There is no demonstrated biological basis for the idea - and it is probably derived from the fact that male sexual arousal is easier for others to observe. It is sometimes argued that because women have lower testosterone levels they will have a lower sex drive, but in fact I think progesterone serves to promote sex drive in women.

It is probably the case that there is more variation between individuals than between sexes.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is probably the case that there is more variation between individuals than between sexes.

This. 100%.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'm sure it's not your intention but thats the kind of statement that sounds like you don't think women are human/think women are evil tempters.

You're right that this is not my intention. Women are human and are not evil tempters. My statement is just about my understanding, or misunderstanding, of human nature.

I'm interested in the opinion that men and women are not different when it comes to their attraction to attractive members of the opposite sex.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And for a pastor to accept the argument is just incomprehensible to me. You don't deal with your own sins by sinning against someone else.

I would bet that to the pastor, the female employee wasn't so much a person as a mere temptation - as women often are in the male mind.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

It is likely, that the idea that men are much more sexually driven than women is a cultural artifact. There is no demonstrated biological basis for the idea - and it is probably derived from the fact that male sexual arousal is easier for others to observe.

I would add that, in the majority of human cultures, it has been acceptablefor men to lust openly. Women being property and all.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

I agree that Melissa Nelson was treated shockingly but I can see that the fact that she was replaced by a female speaks against discrimination on gender grounds which is what was claimed in court. In other words the scum-bag employer has got away with it on a technicality.

So now I have to ask myself on what grounds was the dismissal illegal?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Did he hire an ugly woman?
According to the Queen of Bashan, that is essentially the plot of the ABC cult hit Ugly Betty.
Only in Hollywood is America Ferrera ugly.

I think that was one of the jokes of the show- she wasn't actually ugly, but by the standards of her peers in the fashion world, she was considered ugly.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I agree that Melissa Nelson was treated shockingly but I can see that the fact that she was replaced by a female speaks against discrimination on gender grounds which is what was claimed in court. In other words the scum-bag employer has got away with it on a technicality.

So now I have to ask myself on what grounds was the dismissal illegal?

I take it unfair dismissal is not illegal in that state ?

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

From what I read the claim was for unfair dismissal because of gender. The dismissal was unfair, certainly, but because of what? The court appears to need something more specific than generally unfair.

I have no idea what the usual practice is in Iowa but here in the UK there are employment tribunals who specifically have experience in employment issues. This is intended to be cheaper, more informal and more useful than a full court hearing. I think that this kind of tribunal would have a more rounded view and not limit itself to the specific case brought. I don't claim to know this system perfectly so I may not be completely correct.

Was Melissa Nelson poorly advised before the hearing? Should the claim have been something other than gender discrimination?

[ 22. December 2012, 21:50: Message edited by: The Rogue ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

She should have claimed for sexual harassment, but probably didn't because she feared slurs on her reputation if she did so. Would be my guess.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

She said that she didn't feel offended by the activity that went on so if she were to be honest about it then harassment wouldn't have worked.

Of course, exactly why she claimed as she did is unlikely to hit the public domain so we can only speculate. As, indeed, you point out.

[ 22. December 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: The Rogue ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If one is in a committed relationship and feels an attraction for another that may cause lack of control, surely this indicates a problem with the way said individual views their partner, views the relationship.

Especially if one has been working with that other person for ten years .

What I found really odd reading the article is the assertion that:

quote:
The decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman

Surely if she was not a woman, her employer would not have been attracted to her and his wife would not have been jealous and she would not have been fired. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was not just because she was a woman?

(Never mind that talking about "terminating her" rather than "her employment" sounds as if he went for a more drastic solution than firing her.)

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Whereas I would think that virtually any male, no matter how committed and in love with his wife, would experience discomfort in prolonged close proximity to a very attractive female.

I've heard many men talk like that, as well as some that went much further along the "men can't help it" track. But as a male myself, that certainly isn't my experience of the world. I've worked with attractive men and women, single and partnered, in various combinations. I didn't have any problems whether I was single or not.

There may be other aspects that make me uncomfortable - heavy perfume, for example, or annoying behavior traits, or those who think that decolletage is an adequate substitute for competence and getting the work done. But not merely being attractive.

I'm convinced it must be a learned response, perhaps from listening to "guy talk" about women. It appears to be based upon a very selfish view of the world: that a woman is somehow being attractive for your benefit, rather than just because she is. It is part of respect for others: I might think that they look attractive (or not), or find them to be enjoyable company, or whatever, but that has nothing to do with how we work together, and certainly doesn't justify any inappropriate behavior, thoughts or fantasies about some sort of relationship between us.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
I didn't have any problems whether I was single or not.

I have to say that fortunately this has been my experience as well, despite having worked with many women young and old over the years.

However I once had a married friend that I respect very much confide to me that one of the young women he worked with was a struggle for him. There was no bad behavior involved and nothing ever happened. But when I saw and interacted with her I was thankful that I didn't work there - she was that beautiful. There was nothing at all inappropriate or to criticize about her dress or actions, she was simply sweet and beautiful. Shortly, however, she married and moved away.

The point is that this is not that unusual a situation, and normally nothing is said or happens.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
I agree that Melissa Nelson was treated shockingly but I can see that the fact that she was replaced by a female speaks against discrimination on gender grounds which is what was claimed in court. In other words the scum-bag employer has got away with it on a technicality.

So now I have to ask myself on what grounds was the dismissal illegal?
I take it unfair dismissal is not illegal in that state ?

There may well be the facility for unfair dismissal claims in Iowa's employment laws, but they would appear to be woefully inadequate and full of loopholes. The simple reality that this case managed to make it up to the Iowa Supreme Court on appeal shows the inadequacy of those laws and those who drafted them. Writing legislation well is just as important as making sure the legislation exists at all, the case in Victoria of the law against leaving broken glass on a road comes to mind (leaving = putting it there, or leaving = ignoring it once it's already there?).

As I understand it, most US states' employment laws work on the assumption that (outside of fixed-term contracts) the employer chooses to offer further work rather than the choice being to dismiss the employee. The rest of us would generally only be comfortable with that sort of situation applying to casual workers, of whom it could be said (making a major simplification) that they are sacked at the end of every shift and then (maybe) re-employed at the start of their next shift.

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
(Never mind that talking about "terminating her" rather than "her employment" sounds as if he went for a more drastic solution than firing her.)

That's an Americanism that is also unfortunately creeping into Australian use thanks to the cultural imperialism of the USA. Since it's not immediately understood by an English reader like you, I wonder if it needs to join "ranga" on the Ship's list of forbidden words/phrases?

[ 23. December 2012, 01:43: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Did he hire an ugly woman?
According to the Queen of Bashan, that is essentially the plot of the ABC cult hit Ugly Betty.
Only in Hollywood is America Ferrera ugly.
I think that was one of the jokes of the show- she wasn't actually ugly, but by the standards of her peers in the fashion world, she was considered ugly.

The braces and fondness for really tacky accessories and clothing choices didn't help.
She was hired because the publisher's father did not want his son seducing his secretary. I believe Ugly Betty is a remake of a Mexican telenova.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Surely if she was not a woman, her employer would not have been attracted to her and his wife would not have been jealous and she would not have been fired. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was not just because she was a woman?

I think you've hit upon a key point, here, and it may well depend on precisely what the relevant laws in Iowa say.

Because some anti-discrimination laws only apply if the discriminatory criterion was THE reason, or the dominant one, whereas some other laws apply if it was ONE of the reasons.

For the latter kinds of laws, saying that it wasn't just because she was a woman would be no answer to a claim. But if a law only applies when action is taken primarily because of gender, then demonstrating other reasons is enough to excuse the conduct.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
There are a lot of myths about female sexuality... It is likely, that the idea that men are much more sexually driven than women is a cultural artifact.

And one of fairly recent vintage. In medieval Europe it was a commonplace that women were the more sexually driven gender (read Chaucer or Boccaccio), and there is an Arab saying that women have "nine parts of desire" (to men's one).

I think this has less to do with the dentist's feelings than with the fact that his wife was getting suspicious. However, I always thought Iowans had more common sense (Oh, BTW, most US states have "at will" employment, meaning that employees can be fired for any or no reason, as long as it's not race, religion, national origin, or sex).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
(Oh, BTW, most US states have "at will" employment, meaning that employees can be fired for any or no reason, as long as it's not race, religion, national origin, or sex).

Not an expert on the relevant laws, but as I understand American "at will" laws, they are not usually completely such. Meaning there are standards, as interpreted by the courts, to which they must adhere. And these are not necessarily limited to the conditions you mention.

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
and there is an Arab saying that women have "nine parts of desire" (to men's one).

Because there seems only one male "part" which appears to matter to men?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Surely if she was not a woman, her employer would not have been attracted to her and his wife would not have been jealous and she would not have been fired. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was not just because she was a woman?
I think you've hit upon a key point, here, and it may well depend on precisely what the relevant laws in Iowa say.

Because some anti-discrimination laws only apply if the discriminatory criterion was THE reason, or the dominant one, whereas some other laws apply if it was ONE of the reasons.

For the latter kinds of laws, saying that it wasn't just because she was a woman would be no answer to a claim. But if a law only applies when action is taken primarily because of gender, then demonstrating other reasons is enough to excuse the conduct.

Presumably this judgement would mean that in Iowa you could be fired because you have become pregnant, if they replace you with a woman. In that, they are not firing you because they won't hire women - just because you are pregnant.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Depends on the detail of their laws again: I know that the federal Australian law on sex discrimination lists pregnancy and breastfeeding as separate grounds, precisely to avoid this kind of issue.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Presumably this judgement would mean that in Iowa you could be fired because you have become pregnant, if they replace you with a woman. In that, they are not firing you because they won't hire women - just because you are pregnant.

State law wouldn't matter in that case, because the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act prevents employers over a certain size from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy. It was passed in the late 70s or early 80s -- okay, just checked Google, and it was passed in 1978.

Of course, discrimination against pregnant women still happens.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
State law wouldn't matter in that case, because the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act prevents employers over a certain size from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy. It was passed in the late 70s or early 80s -- okay, just checked Google, and it was passed in 1978.

This probably wouldn't cover a small dental practice, since companies covered by this particular federal act have to have at least 15 employees.

Federal-state law in so many matters are complicated by the need of Federal legislation to justify itself as dealing with a problem involving "interstate commerce." I was surprised, when I followed your lead to the Wikipedia article, to find that the federal law comes into play at such a small company size. Most federal legislation preempting state law applies only to much larger companies that this.

This case is another example in which the law itself does not provide a legal remedy for every injustice.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

What's needed here is a law about discrimination on the basis of projection:"I can't stop verbalizing my sexual attraction for this employee either to my wife or the employee herself; therefore, she is at fault and must be fired."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0