Gothic.net Community

Gothic.net Community (https://www.gothic.net/boards/index.php)
-   Spooky News (https://www.gothic.net/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Dental Assistant Fired For Being Too Attractive (https://www.gothic.net/boards/showthread.php?t=31290)

Jaye Jang 12-23-2012 12:44 PM

Dental Assistant Fired For Being Too Attractive
 
http://gma.**********/blogs/abc-blogs/dental-assistant-fired-being-irresistible-devastated-151724600--abc-news-topstories.html[/url]


When I saw this, my first reaction was, "What country did this happen in?" When I found out it was America, my jaw dropped. (Okay, Iowa isn't exactly the Big Apple, so that helped), but then I found out that, "Yes, you can be fired in America for being too attractive, even if you're a guy -- or for being too unattractive).

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor..._he_break.html

My brain is still reeling. :confused:

Btw original article is at news.y*h**.c*m

Renatus 12-24-2012 03:23 AM

You think thats bad, in Michigan they just passed "right to work", and as a result from what I hear, they can legally fire you for literally anything now.

BourbonBoy 12-24-2012 07:50 AM

I read that article on y*hoo and thought the exact same thing. Iowa's one of the "right to work" states like where I live, which basically says that worker's can be fired with little to no reason, unions have no power while also giving less benefits, lower wages and increased hours (which includes overtime that disappears when you go to collect it). If I was that woman, I'd take that shit to the Supreme Court of the U.S. or have it refiled under something else with a different set of lawyers, hopefully the ACLU who can take the case beyond Iowa to the federal level.

Here's the original y*hoo article: http://gma.**********/blogs/abc-blog...opstories.html

ape descendant 12-24-2012 10:07 AM

I think the circumstances are pretty fucked up, though I don't know if this one can be fixed with legislation or litigation. :(

In reality it is gender discrimination, given the general attitudes in our culture, women are generally judged and held responsible for how they "make" men feel, especially if those feelings are arousal and in these cases instead of acting like adults men are expected to act like mindless, sex obsessed jerks with no self-control.

Its not about her being attractive, its about her being an attractive woman. Funny how it wasn't a problem for 10 friggin' years, till he noticed her, he harassed her about her clothing choice, he hit on her, and his wife "found out" (about some text messages, not even an actual affair *eyeroll*).

This is one of the reasons we have laws about sexual harassment, one's group of employees is not a dating pool. *barf* Sometimes I feel like we're hurtling back in time, instead of going forward.

BourbonBoy 12-24-2012 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ape descendant (Post 709341)
This is one of the reasons we have laws about sexual harassment, one's group of employees is not a dating pool. *barf* Sometimes I feel like we're hurtling back in time, instead of going forward.

If it were up to several members within society, we would be going back in time regarding gender roles. I do think that this is something that can be fixed with litigation by bringing it to the forefront and by making people aware of it. By just saying, "Oh, this is fucked up, nothing else we can do about it" is not the way to fight it.

I think the dentist went to his lawyer and said, "Look, my wife's gonna leave me because I have the hots for my assistant. How can I get rid of her without breaking any laws and making it obvious that I do have the hots for her?"

He found the only possible loophole he could use, exercised it, and now the Iowa Supreme Court has basically declared open season for anyone to pull similar crap on anyone within the state of Iowa. The ramifications alone are what make me shudder, because now every state that has the "right to work" laws in affect can pull this without any ramifications by pointing at this case in Iowa.

Miss Absynthe 12-24-2012 10:58 AM

Court sanctioned victim-blaming, with a smattering of slut-shaming.

Nice.

Renatus 12-24-2012 11:47 AM

Reminds me of the reason for laws requiring hijabs in the middle east, that they think men will lose control if women are seen without them. Perhaps we should publicly compare these assholes with terrorists, that would certainly get their panties in a bundle.

Miss Absynthe 12-25-2012 04:51 AM

There is so much wrong with that statement that I can't even...

Jaye Jang 12-25-2012 09:54 AM

Ren,

The 'blame the victim' mentality doesn't start in the Middle East, and unfortunately does not end in Iowa...


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa...653129706.html

Acharis 12-26-2012 05:22 AM

Apparently the dentist decided to fire this woman to save his marriage, yet legally it wasn't 'gender discrimination' because he replaced her with another female employee.

Never mind his remarks to the fired "too attractive" employee that her infrequent sex life was ''like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it'', or that ''if his pants were bulging she should take it as a sign that her clothes were too revealing''. (Too tired to find the source for that again right now, but I can if needed.)

And apparently her looks weren't a problem in her job for ten years until he started noticing her.

Acharis 12-26-2012 05:30 AM

Also Swaziland? *facepalm*

The only thing that could make 'arresting women for "inviting ****" by wearing certain styles of clothing' more fucked up than it is... is to then turn around and make this exception.

Quote:

However, the ban does not apply to traditional costumes worn by young women during ceremonies like the annual Reed Dance, where the ruling King Mswati III chooses a wife.

The monarch already has 13 wives.

During the ceremony, beaded traditional skirts worn by young bare-breasted virgins cover only the front, leave the back exposed. Underwear is not allowed.


...If anybody needs me, I'll be in the angry dome.

Renatus 12-26-2012 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaye Jang (Post 709359)
Ren,

The 'blame the victim' mentality doesn't start in the Middle East, and unfortunately does not end in Iowa...


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa...653129706.html

Never said it begins with the middle east, just that it's comparable, and I'm guessing based on the variety of ignorance, these are the sort of people who really don't like the concept of being compared with the middle east. Comparing somebody with somebody they hate, can have the effect of causing someone to change their ways, if only for the sake of being able to say "I'm not like them". I also hope I didn't make you think I was saying everyone in the middle east is a terrorist or has laws like that

Miss Absynthe 12-26-2012 07:05 AM

Making statements comparing the two perpetuates the hatred and does nothing to address the misconceptions and xenophobia.

Jaye Jang 12-26-2012 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renatus (Post 709380)
Never said it begins with the middle east, just that it's comparable ...

Wasn't suggesting that you did, Ren. Just making an ironic observation that discrimination against women goes on everywhere, and isn't limited to just here or the Middle East. Sometimes, as in the Iowa case, the results are unfair or, as in the case below, they can be tragic.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=18062521

Acharis 12-27-2012 01:17 AM

Ren's right in a way (that the misogyny and sexism in both countries come from the same root), but there can't really be a parallel between the cultures. And I don't think that comparison to terrorism would have any effect, but rather be written off as hyperbole.

Same thing, different expressions and levels of enshrinement in law.
It's that the men involved in these situations want control of women and their sexuality. Either suppressing it by the threat of r@pe or arrest - or treating womens bodies/sexuality as up for grabs by r@ping, imposing an unwanted sexual context or getting them to expose themselves for a powerful guy.

You can see by the hypocritical exception for the traditional nudie wife-selection dance that it's not about choosing one set of morals or the other (puritanical vs hedonistic), but that the men involved find it important to call the shots over women to their own advantage.

ie. Women can't exert free will over their bodies or how they dress or have sex. (Or in some countries, even have an anti-r@pe protest.)


Back to the original topic of the firing and the dentist. This is the article I read the comments from.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2348381.html

In this case it's not overt groping or open punishment for her clothing, but the dentist has imposed an unwelcome sexual context and made the fired employee responsible for his inability to control his sexual feelings.
(With a large dollop of victim blaming shite and the ability to legally discriminate against women if you're sufficiently sneaky about it.)

CuckooTuli 12-29-2012 05:03 AM

What the actual fuck?? So... basically, he was a creep incapable of the amount of self-control required not to be creepy... and during a global recession with a shitty job market, this was considered a good enough reason for a woman who had done absolutely jack-shit wrong to lose her job. Awesome.

I never fail to be astounded by the quasi-religious reverence that society shows the male sex drive. You see it every time someone suggests that legalizing prostitution would lessen incidences of ****, every time a woman whose partner cheats on her is automatically assumed to have been 'withholding the goods', every time a **** victim gets slut-shamed... Cos it's not about violence, structures of oppression & entitlement, or any of that boring shit, right? - it's a force of nature, that we can't possibly expect men to control. Instead, we should construct society around it. It's the ONLY WAY to protect the womens from its awesome & primal might.

*joins Acharis in the angry dome*

AshleyO 12-29-2012 02:54 PM

Off with that fucker's head.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:34 AM.