Tweet
What century are we in…talk about heading for Sharia Law. Oh wait, we just went through an election cycle that produced pols bleating that pregnancies from rape are a “gift from God” and that women should put an aspirin between their knees as birth control, so why should we be surprised that an all-male Iowa Supreme Court decided in a ludicrous ruling that a female employee deemed too sexually attractive (but did not behave inappropriately or flirtatious in the office; she simply gave her boss a woody) can be fired. (AP):
The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an “irresistible attraction,” even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.
Is it me, or is the Iowa Supreme Court saying that men are so controlled by their penises that they cannot control themselves in the workplace? If so, perhaps men are so weak that they shouldn’t be in leadership positions lest they get a woody if someone too “hot’ is in close proximity to them. This is UNREAL:
“These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires,” said attorney Paige Fiedler. “If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”
Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
Does this man need to be neutered or something? Well, perhaps a few gals out there would be satisfied with that outcome.
10 Comments
I guess we ARE Monkeys after all.
Revolting. A 53-y/o guy (that’s me, too), an upstanding Christian (not me), blames a younger female employee for his erections (again, not me), and believes his faith and his marital commitment are too brittle to prevent being hurtled into a sexual affair.
This sets small business owners up perfectly to hire young, attractive employees and rotate them out every 2-3 years because they got too horny or the owners’ marriages are going badly.
It’s also bizarre that Iowa precedent allows termination simply because a family member of the owner finds the employee disruptive to the family. So, it could also be used if this guy’s wife got pissed off at a male employee who became her hubby’s drinking buddy, and they were texting too much about their favorite sports team.
The whole sick mess just ends up privileging the business owner. He isn’t responsible for setting professional boundaries with his employees (no more texting, for example) and then sticking to them like ethical professionals do. He doesn’t have to create reasonable boundaries between his business and family life, asserting himself to his wife and pastor that a competent, loyal employee should stay while he mans up about his own boners. He just gets to say, Whoops! Boners! Pastor! Wife! Bye!
I’ve got two words for this: Bull. Shit.
If a man can’t keep it in his pants, he needs counseling.
I vote for neutering him. That’ll prevent him from breeding too.
Neuter the court — they’re the ones who need to be kept from breeding. Although it’s probably too late.
It’s standard Christian fundamentalist thinking. They may not require women to wear burkas, but they sure place a huge amount of emphasis on so-called “modesty”. Girls are trained from early on to never wear anything that may cause boys to “stumble” (they really use that word. All the time). Even the youngest girls are sometimes trained to worry about their “future cleavage”. And anything can be arousing. An exposed shoulder or even the way girls walk. It’s ridiculous and extremely damaging in the long run. It leads to a bad body image and some women even develop eating disorders.
That boys are taught that uncontrollable sexual predators isn’t helping either.
—-
If it weren’t for pro-gay decisions by the Iowa Supreme Court, you’d think they were typical fundies. But some of that thinking has seeped into mainstream culture too.
I hope someone appeals this stupid decision. I’d really like to see the US Supreme Court reprimand this court for making a mockery of justice.
It’s a state supreme court. There is nowhere else to appeal it to. They’d have to start a whole new lawsuit in federal court. And find a federal law that’s being broken first.
This ruling was horrible in a moral sense, but not in a legal sense. Courts don’t make the law; they just interpret it. The fact that there’s nothing in Iowa state law to prevent this sort of discrimination isn’t the Iowa Supreme Court’s fault, it’s the fault of the Iowa legislature (and many other state legislatures) who don’t do enough to protect workers from unfair labor practices. Unless you have a contract which specifically states the circumstances under which you can be fired, you can pretty much be fired for anything in this country. In most of the U.S. you can still be fired for being queer. Worker protections are not even on the political radar. So write to your congressperson or organize a union, but don’t blame the courts.
Very sensible.
Is this the guy whose WIFE demanded the lady be fired? Because I don’t see that mentioned anywhere…