Little Shop of (anti-feminist) Horrors…

 steve martin lsh

In this article from the Seattle Times, we read that a married Iowa dentist was within his legal rights as a business owner to fire his assistant because she was “irresistible.”  Apparently, the Iowa Supreme Court was privileged to hear the case, and ruled in favor of dentist James Knight, stating that this had nothing to do with gender discrimination and everything to do with seeing the female assistant as an “irresistible attraction.”

“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.

I absolutely love this!   As soon as the all-male Supreme Court made public their ruling, the Feminazi lawyer for the plaintiff was waiting in the wings to discredit it, based upon the men just “not understanding” how poor, wittle wimminz are already so tewribbwy discriminated against in the workplace!

“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.”

Let me see if I understand:  this woman, Ms. Nelson, who had worked for Dr. Knight (and his wife who also worked in her husband’s office) for a decade, refused to take heed to Dr. Knight’s very straightforward warnings that her dress was inappropriate for the office environment.  Ms. Nelson, a married woman with children, continued to wear this “irresistible” attire to the office of Dr. Knight, and eventually, the two began texting each other.  Surprise!

Then, when Mrs. Knight discovers the texts being exchanged between her husband and Ms. Nelson, she demands that Ms. Nelson be fired immediately.  Dr. and Mrs. Knight even confer with their pastor, who counsels them to terminate Ms. Nelson.  Sounds logical thus far, correct?

No!  Rages the feminist lawyer.  You can’t do that to a WOMAN!  Just because she is a WOMAN!  Let’s not forget:  she’s a WOMAN!  Oh, it doesn’t matter that the remainder of Dr. Knight’s staff is composed entirely of women – this must mean that Dr. Knight HATES women!  This is the flavor of what came out of the mouth of Ms. Nelson’s lawyer.

Apparently, Paige Fielder doesn’t believe that women should have any personal accountability in the workplace.  It should all fall upon men –  even if a female employee decides to dress like a woman of the night in the workplace, in full view of her boss (who has told her in very blunt terms that it is inappropriate):

But in the final months of her employment, he (Dr. Knight) 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.

Oh, I see.  She is not responsible for how she dresses, but Dr. Not-a-White-Knight is responsible for getting aroused (a physiological response) if she dresses like a whore.  Okay.

Further, he is responsible if she “seduces” him emotionally in his own office, in full view of his wife working there, by way of her dress and physical appearance.  Shame on him.  He should have known better than to be a…Man.

seymour-little-shop-of-horrors-21344771-120-120

As far as I am concerned, this is victory for men everywhere (particularly in Iowa!).  I find it absolutely refreshing that an all-male group of influential members of legislature have taken a firm stand against classifying every little thing that occurs in the workplace with a woman as “gender discrimination.”

May they inspire more men to act accordingly, unafraid of the female verbal backlash.

Blessings!

songtwoeleven

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Little Shop of (anti-feminist) Horrors…

  1. Saw this on yahoo as well, here’s a piece from it –

    “Although people act for a variety of reasons, it is very common for women to be targeted for discrimination because of their sexual attractiveness or supposed lack of sexual attractiveness. That is discrimination based on sex,” Fiedler wrote.
    http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/dental-assistant-fired-being-irresistible-devastated-151724600–abc-news-topstories.html

    Because of attractiveness, or because of lack or attractiveness. Sounds kinda like trying have it both ways, doesn’t it?

    But what I wonder is if this lawyer has ever sued to get someone removed from a job because they were hired due to being attractive. That’s discrimination too.

  2. Steve Martin rocks.

    Got a question though – whatever happened to the concept of free association? If person A doesn’t want Person B around, and it’s Person A’s property, why should Person B be allowed to stay? But laws don’t take his into account anymore, apparently.

    If they had gotten into an affair, would that make her a Knight Rider?

    • Ah, yes…Paige Fielder, Esq.

      Because:

      “Although people act for a variety of reasons, it is very common for women to be targeted for discrimination because of their sexual attractiveness or supposed lack of sexual attractiveness. That is discrimination based on sex,” Fiedler wrote. “Nearly every woman in Iowa understands this because we have experienced it for ourselves.”

      Yikes.

  3. It’s also a victory for marriage. The marriage was protected by ousting the whore.

    Dr. and Mrs. Knight even confer with their pastor, who counsels them to terminate Ms. Nelson.

    Thank you for not saying “consult with”!

    • “The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.”

      This is the direct quote from the article. Apparently, subconsciously, I was tracking 100% with YOU and just couldn’t write the word “consult”…ha!

      Yes, thank you for mentioning that this is a fantastic victory for traditional marriage!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s