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....
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....
Nelson filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, arguing she would not have been terminated if she was male. 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.
२२ डिसेंबर, २०१२
Firing a woman because you find her "irresistably attractive" is not sex discrimination.
Said the Iowa Supreme Court (unanimously).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४३ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 243 पैकी 201 – 243This is particularly a problem of the Left in Western society, because in the funk of nihilism and the denial of the possibility of knowledge, it makes moral absolutism more likely, or it can make a faith out of say, environmentalism, or like many progressives do: a kind of faith out of science and technology.
It's also a broader problem, because the alternative has been logical positivism, or a kind of endless chopping of logic and a philosophical preoccupation with riddles in the wake of the Sciences.
That should be a noogy. To be clear, you know the head rub thingy.
So is morality inherent in us as we discover the natural laws of the universe?
The only thing keeping you from killing your neighbor and becoming the optimum procreation machine by screwing every woman you see...is physics?
Is it something else?
Weren't all you ladies fired for being too hot at one time or another? Doesn't this happen all the time? Thereafter you put on forms
Last position: Dental Assistant
Reason for leaving: Fired for being too hot
Then the interviewer nods knowingly, looks up, above the rim of his glass and sadly acknowledges, "That happens." And then, "Yes, I can see that happening."
Because you're so hot.
Alex, I'm retired, I multi task, I take my iPad everywhere, what's it to you what I do with my life? Do you have a point or are you simply into gratuitous insults?
Inga - since all you do is spew drivel, why don't you log out of Blogger and spare us?
Alex, I see you want a bit of attention, how's this, go to hell.
Inga - go suck a lemon.
I think it WE who need to be spared from your daily Moby Dickness Alex, what is wrong with you? Don't you have principles, a standard you live by? You are a Moby for both sides, pick a side for once.
Alex, are you schizophrenic?
So is morality inherent in us as we discover the natural laws of the universe?
The only thing keeping you from killing your neighbor and becoming the optimum procreation machine by screwing every woman you see...is physics?
Ask OJ.
Or, more particularly, read up on Genghis Khan.
Though, with Genghis Khan, I think he generally did something fairly unusual in the animal kingdom, which was to rape women. I read at one point they even had developed a system to do it. I think he took advantage of evolutionary differences in women that allowed rape to occur.
I think the Romans did a lot of this too.
Note, I'm trying to understand the basis of your question. Social organizations arise because they yield survival. Sometimes these are taken advantage of.
For instance, I think it is anchovies that swarm, and dolphins take advantage of it by swimming around them to make a small, edible ball. Both use social methods to do this. Without the social things that keep dolphins from killing each other, the social cooperation would not be possible.
I said to the most liberal person that I knew at the time, "Dude, why be so judgmental?" And without a break, as if he had heard that before, it was startling actually how fast he snapped, "WHY NOT?"
And I stood there nonplussed, thinking, you know he has a good point.
And I stood there nonplussed, thinking, you know he has a good point.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence (at least I thought nonplussed meant confused, as opposed to understanding. Perhaps you meant you had a new idea).
In any event, if you want to make a discernible point, perhaps you could add more color.
For instance, this is important to what context? Well, it's a liberal, and that means different things to different people (still wishing Ann would define her terms "liberal" vs. "leftist".)
The general sense I get from your post is that the sense of "society" and "social norms" do not apply to him, because he (or she) can get away with it. The consequences of the behavior aren't severe enough to warrant a "because."
My assumption is the "judgmental" behavior you are describing implies a lack of circumspection or acceptance of legitimate or worthy points of view. To him it does not matter.
And the general thrust seems to be "Why not be destructive of others"? Perhaps this is implied in your post, but I'm projecting, no doubt, that to some extent, liberalism is exempt from circumspection somehow. Clearly, there is no reason to do anything without some kind of reward (cf BF Skinner), so the guy is getting a reward of some kind. And the reward, extending your thought beyond all basis, is that your liberal friend, and perhaps liberals in general, do not need a socially acceptable answer so long as the immediate reward is worth it.
We are equal in the eyes of God.
So where does this great idea come from? There is a prevalent belief nowadays that this, the crowning principle in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and of the American nation itself — to wit, that “All men are created equal” — was invented (or drawn from “natural law”) whole-cloth by the American founding fathers (or else, more vaguely, by “Christianity”) a bit over two hundred years ago. Not so. “All men are equal” was the creation of Stoicism-steeped Roman jurists, acting nearly two millennia ago.
Here's a passage (from a text on Roman slavery as it happens) that delves into this fascinating question in some detail [notes in square brackets are mine]:
“Over two centuries separate Varro [1st cent. BC] and Ulpian [3rd cent. AD], and in that period a growing tendency to respect the family relationships of slaves makes itself apparent. But, though such tendency is everywhere attested, in strict theory the position of the slave as regards family rights remains much where it had been under the Republic. Yet even the law adopts the language of usage; though the union of slaves can strictly be only contubernium, the jurists are as ready as the slaves themselves to speak of maritus, uxor, filius, parentes, pater within the boundaries of slavery. The ius gentium is triumphing over the ius civile, the claim of common humanity over arbitrary convention; and the moralist may find it interesting that the highest of human relationships, the bond of the family, used in part the self-interest of the master as the means of establishing its claim even upon the low level of slavery and amid a system antagonistic to it at that level. Thus spiritual values broke through the artificial disabilities which society in its initial blindness to those values was led to impose.
“If a reason is sought for this humane tendency of the law, it must be found, in part at least, in the influence of Stoicism on Roman jurisprudence. The theme is familiar and has been often handled; but it is worth while here briefly to indicate and account for this alliance, and suggest the result for slavery.”
Continuing….
“Ius gentium originally meant ‘the usage of the world, of all mankind,’ ‘such customs or usages as the Romans found in the experience which they would pick up away from Italy in war or commerce or travel, or in their intercourse with peregrini [foreign peoples] in Italy itself to be universally observed,’ and this is the meaning of the word throughout its history. To the jurists of the second century BC ius gentium was ‘formally distinguished from ius civile as universal, informal, often unwritten usage to special, formal, recorded enactments.’ But in the two centuries in which we are interested the ius gentium had acquired even greater significance. It had come to be regarded as the model, not yet perfect, which all actual law attempts to imitate. For this there were two chief reasons. The historic Greek controversy of φυσις [physis: ‘nature’] and νομος [nomos: ‘convention,’ which law was presumed to be] had drawn attention to the arbitrary nature of human regulations, and had set in distinction to imperfect and localized rules the conception of a universal code established by nature, simple and easy, but smothered by man-made convention, surrendered by man long ago, but still capable of recovery. On this distinction Greek Stoicism had fastened; and ‘to live according to nature’ sums up the same ideal as it was transferred to Roman soil, where it found, foreign as it was, a ready reception in conservative circles anxious to retain simple Italian manners in the face of foreign influences. Further, Rome had come into contact with civilizations and legal codes more highly developed than her own; the diversity of law and custom had been forced upon her notice as she tried to govern province after province. The edict of the praetor was, therefore, compelled more and more to enlarge its scope so as to include within it practices long established elsewhere but new to Rome.
“And so, in conservative and legal circles under the Empire, the belief was established that the formerly despised ius gentium, now so much enlarged, was really an approximation to the ius naturale, which mankind had lost sight of. It was the fate, therefore, of civil law to be gradually superseded by ius gentium as more of the ius naturale was recovered; and so the conception of natural law, as in philosophy, so in jurisprudence, had a simplifying, a unifying, and a levelling effect. The ground common to the lawyer and the philosopher is obvious; at the same time, the alliance is one of growth; the change in the lawyers' attitude to ius gentium was not instantaneous; Stoicism did not make an immediate convert, nor can philosophy claim the whole credit, for experience in world-government was a profound teacher. Nor, as Maine points out, is it wise ‘to measure the influence of Stoicism on Roman law by counting up the number of legal rules which can confidently be affiliated on Stoical dogmas…. The influence on jurisprudence of the Greek theories which had their most distinct expression in Stoicism consisted not in the number of specific positions which they contributed to Roman law, but in the single fundamental assumption which they lent to it.’ Further, it must be remembered that the body of Roman law was not evolved theoretically from a few Stoic first principles; Stoicism merely influenced the growth of a body born long before Stoicism was thought of, and still developing on its own lines. Therefore, when the Roman lawyer asserts that ‘all men are equal,’ he means, in Maine's words, ‘that under the hypothetical law of Nature and in so far as positive law approximates to it, the arbitrary distinctions which the Roman civil law maintained between classes of persons cease to have a legal existence.’”
Source: R. H. Barrow (Senior Scholar of Exeter College, Oxford; Classical Sixth Master at Sedergh School), Slavery in the Roman Empire, 1928, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1996; pp. 152-156.
It sounds like you are saying something interesting here. My view is slave holders knew the people they had were people, as evidenced by the white tinge in many blacks in America.
However, it's hard to follow the grammar of your words here.
Yet even the law adopts the language of usage; though the union of slaves can strictly be only contubernium, the jurists are as ready as the slaves themselves to speak of maritus, uxor, filius, parentes, pater within the boundaries of slavery. The ius gentium is triumphing over the ius civile, the claim of common humanity over arbitrary convention; and the moralist may find it interesting that the highest of human relationships, the bond of the family, used in part the self-interest of the master as the means of establishing its claim even upon the low level of slavery and amid a system antagonistic to it at that level. Thus spiritual values broke through the artificial disabilities which society in its initial blindness to those values was led to impose.
To wit, I'm not sure how you can go from Jurists (which you do not define, but I assume people sitting in judgement), use inherent social/natural terms to describe slaves, to "spiritual values." In fact, I can't parse your sentence at all, not that I'm not guilty of that. This sentence, along with others, are hard to follow. They have many relations packed into a single sentence, and it's hard to understand all the relations.
Oh.
Source: R. H. Barrow (Senior Scholar of Exeter College, Oxford; Classical Sixth Master at Sedergh School), Slavery in the Roman Empire, 1928, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1996; pp. 152-156.
That explains it. A scholarly work of some kind. It still doesn't help with the arbitrary jump to "spirituality," though.
Dante: here are a couple of follow-on paragraphs from Barrow's book, which for brevity I left out before, that detail some of the consequences of the new “humane spirit of Stoicism” for the slaves in the Roman Empire:
“‘The jurists who thus expressed themselves most certainly never intended to censure the social arrangements under which civil law fell somewhat short of its speculative type.’ Obviously they did not, for they define most clearly the barriers separating men. The main influence of Stoicism on law, therefore, is to be found not so much in special enactments of Stoic Emperors — and there it is clear — as in a certain broad spirit of interpretation by which older law, ambiguously expressed in the first instance or modified by later rule so as to become ambiguous, and cases unprovided for by rule, or hard and oppressive because of special circumstances, are dealt with in a sympathetic way which is biased in favour of humanity and liberty, because these are in accordance with the ideal ius naturale.
“Several cases of favor libertatis have been mentioned in the foregoing chapters; most occur in rather technical legal processes where Stoicism was able to insert itself between the chinks of the legal armour. Thus, under the lex Iunia Petronia, when the votes of the jury were equal in a causa liberalis, freedom was to be given. The child of a slave-woman is to be free if the mother is freed between conception and birth. The unborn child is to be regarded as born if it is to be for his good, as unborn if for his disadvantage. So, too, Hadrian abolished the rule under the SC. Claudianum, by which in special circumstances the mother might be free, but the child a slave. The disinclination of the lawyers to assume that a testator intended that the families of slaves should be broken up, has already been noticed, and the growing tendency to recognize slave-relationships as valid and permanent has also been observed. It is possible that here, in particular, the influence of Stoicism is to be traced, for Stoicism set the utmost value upon the unit of the family. The old law remained, however, in essentials; the slave was still a res [thing]; but whenever new law had to be made, or old law revised, the humane spirit of Stoicism crept in.”
Best is how she was "stunned" that 1) exchanging text messages like a flirting schoolgirl with her wealthy boss, 2) talking about her lack of sex in her life, and 3) wearing tight clothing that he told her made him aroused could be thought by him to lead to an affair.
After all, he was a "father figure" to her, lol.
What a lying little minx. Broads are so transparent. She was plotting her moves and got exposed, and now plays the "who, me? slutty? never!" card.
What a whore.
Well, I did factory work, and every once in a while they hired a hot, hot, hot chick. And every once in a while, usually in the summer, the hot chick would come to work wearing a tank top without a bra, or something else just as revealing. The person in charge of that department had no other option, but to send her home to dress more modestly. Men who had to work in close proximity to her would get absolutely no work done. Sex discrimination had nothing to do with it.
I always tried to date those women.
First, thanks for the extra context. I now see this as a struggle between what looks like two sets of principles, or rules of viewing humans and their lives. On the one hand, the laws governing slaves, perhaps a logically inconsistent set of rules designed to shield slaveholders from uncomfortable truths, and the other, a set of rules by which the Stoics lived their lives and viewed humanity.
The old law remained, however, in essentials; the slave was still a res [thing]; but whenever new law had to be made, or old law revised, the humane spirit of Stoicism crept in.
In my view, there are sensitive people in the world, and perhaps they band together sometimes, and touch the inner social core of others. Perhaps not during times of duress, or in times of excess.
If I were a spiritual type of person, I would say "May God Bless them," but I'm not, and so instead I say, Thank Goodness for all the sensitive, good people of the world. They help us to understand.
Unfortunately, I've had very bad experiences with groups, and as such have a very difficult time accepting that a collection of people could be so unified in such a positive endeavor.
If you don't agree with what he did, why not call Mr. King's office and leave a message? His number in Fort Dodge, IA is :
(515) 573-8251
Firing a woman because you find her "irresistably attractive" is not sex discrimination.
Firing a woman because you find her "irresistably attractive" is not the cause of a culture of violance.
Firing a woman because you find her "irresistably attractive" is not enough of a tax shortfall to create a "fiscal cliff".
Firing a woman because you find her "irresistably attractive" is the end of the world.
"All men are created equal”
Jefferson's point, I think, is that we are all born of a woman. Human sperm and human egg unite, and we are a human being. This is how people are created. Thus, his statement is literally true. All men are created equal. Our parents have sex. Woman gets pregnant and gives birth to a baby.
Of course, human beings are above animals. We have thoughts and ideas and have the capacity to become smarter. For instance, we have invented technology where we can now reproduce without sex.
Amazing!
So in the 21st century, Jefferson's statement is no longer literally true. Almost everybody is created the same way (through sex). But a few special people are created in a test tube.
Are they different? No. Test tube babies are the same as other babies.
One day we will have huge fights over cloned people. Are they people? Or are they weird aliens? And this fight will be done over our equal protection clause.
In Roe v. Wade, the first thing the Supreme Court had to do was dehumanize a baby in the womb. You are in the womb, so you are sub-human. Humanity had to be denied.
Indeed, unborn babies are beneath animals. After all, states can protect dogs and cats. But we can't protect an unborn human baby.
So abortion, like slavery, is a huge fight over human equality.
I suspect Thomas Jefferson merely wanted to compare himself, and other Americans, with King George. His point was to demolish the argument for royalty. That's all Jefferson was really trying to do.
King George had parents. And his parents had sex and created him. He was a crying baby who was shitting himself. Just like Jefferson, just like Washington, just like all people.
Our biological reality--our humanity--cannot be denied. It's a fact!
But Jefferson's rhetoric went beyond upsetting a monarchy. He's inspired the abolitionist movement, and also the pro-life movement. Indeed, I think Karl Marx took Jefferson's ideas and tried to warp them.
Socialists seek to impose an equality on humanity. We should all be equal! So socialists want to destroy the rich, for instance.
But socialists ignore that this utopian vision requires an all-powerful government, imposing rules from up above. Socialism requires a King George who will rule us with wisdom and grace.
In short, socialism requires a human being to play God.
Jefferson's point was to attack this. None of us are God. King George is not God. He's wiping his ass like all the rest of us.
Maybe one day we'll figure out some technology where we don't have to shit anymore. Shits annoy us--shits are a bad word--because they remind us of our animal side. We shit like dogs.
We are all members of a biological class, homo sapiens. We are half-animal and half-spirit, this weird animal with free will, a human being.
"He fires a woman because HE is tempted?! His own filthy thoughts are the woman's fault?"
This is the rationale for many religious strictures on what is appropriate and acceptable apparel for woman to wear, and for many beliefs about women being temptresses and sirens. Men cannot keep their willies under control so, obviously, the women are to blame!
What makes this case a tad chilling is the attorney's rationale that the decision is a victory for "family values."
Traditional Guy receives messages from space via the radio in his tooth filling:
"He made the right decision. When he hired another younger male dentist, Ms Jezebel would have likely gotten to him, and then her suit for a sexual harassing workplace would have been successful."
Hate women much, tradguy?
"Cant you be fired 'without cause' at a private workplace?
"I'm having a hard time understanding what the fuss is about."
Apparently there's much that you don't understand Lem, as this and your puzzlement over the meaning of Mencken's quote reveal.
"Firing a woman because you find her "irresistibly attractive" is not sex discrimination."
This is my nomination for a workplace discrimination that most Liberal women need never fear.
"...nothing special about humans other than they are the ultimate survival machines...."
Oh, it's far too soon to say this. We've been here but a fraction of the time the dinosaurs dominated the earth, and there's no guarantee we'll equal, much less surpass, the duration of their time on this mudball.
Oh, it's far too soon to say this
I think it's already clear that we are special. I am not much of a fan of people. I like some. But take, say, dogs --- and I like virtually all.
But one can say this about homo sapiens.
For the first time in its history, the planet has produced a species that may very well one day save ALL life forms on the planet from an asteroid extinction event.
And ironically, it will be our warlike nature that makes it possible. Had we not had the need to put maximum hurt on other humans, from as far away as possible, we would not have invented explosives and rocket delivery systems - the very kind of technology likely needed to put us into position to deflect asteroids.
This comes with a danger, of course. We could be the cause of an extinction event too. But . . . no lotus without a stem.
lol @ all the lefties with their "equalist" heads spinning.
A business should have the right to fire anyone for any reason and not have a law against it. Ditto for not hiring.
You should be able to fire someone/not hire someone for being black, gay, Jewish, female, ugly, pretty, handicapped, etc. ANY DAMN REASON.
Before the Civil Rights Act, many businesses chose to do this, and many did not. The country got along just fine.
Period.
Somebody probably already said this but, I guess this makes it ok to fire ugly people too. (I know that's not the most accurate reading of the suit but it is a response as to how it's being framed).
Also - as far as political agenda of the court, isn't this the same state supreme court to allow same sex marriage?
@ Cookie...My radio receieving filling was busy last night listening to a former Georgia Bulldog QB now on the Detroit Lions throw a passing record to a former Georgia Tech WR while the Atlanta Falcons won easily.
That was a trifecta.
As to women, I love them all, but the Jezebel ones need to be avoided in a professional's office.
This comes from experience rather than theory. Hiring seductive women with beautifully displayed breasts is probably going to result in the newest hired single stud attorney getting his tail in a crack with her.
At age 26 sex is still an indoor sport, but the Sexual Harassing Workplace rules give the Jezebel a lottery win if the poor young stud follows her lead.
We once lost a good young man that way. And he was so like me at that age that it was a real disappointment with the feeling you get in war of why do the good ones seem to get killed.
There are women who lie in wait and are coached by family members on how to take down a professional from an inside job at the office.
Loving women is great when done within safe boundaries.
They posted pics of her elsewhere. She was not *irresistibly attractive*. She was totally normal looking, maybe even a bit unattractive for a 32-yr-old since she was already very domesticated. She was married with kids, a good worker, and had absolutely no interest in him. After seeing pics, ppl theorized that he had hit on her and she refused, but the wife wanted her gone or he was covering up another affair.
I hope she finds another job and he gets branded as a creeper and has to pay any other employee a premium.
Are the people of Fort Dodge boycotting him and forcing him out of business?
If not, why not?
I don't think I'm advocating the party line for natural law and right, as clearly there could even be a connection to the Stoics, in "We The People"
For Dante, I was curious as to seeing if you morally judge OJ, or Genghis Khan, or say, Napoleon.
Why don't you do these things yourself? What holds you back?
Is it an understanding of the natural world through the physical laws?
Is it because you think that in the same biological and social roots of Darwinian nature itself, there is also morality? Realizing your duty to your children?
What keeps you, and other smart men from abandoning those duties say, if favor of conquest?
Does morality spring from our sentiment, or our emotions and to have moral thoughts about someone, we first must have some feelings (to put it crudely) as David Hume argued?
Also - as far as political agenda of the court, isn't this the same state supreme court to allow same sex marriage?
Institionally speaking, yes, but three--caveat: IIRC the #--of the judges who were serving therein at the time of that decision got the big "no" regarding retention when the question was posed on the 2010 elections ballot. Thus, it's not the same court in terms of the makeup of the court.
"He fires a woman because HE is tempted?! His own filthy thoughts are the woman's fault?" Sorry, but people have no sense. What should he do instead, exactly? Close his business? Let his marriage break up? Control his thoughts? He tried that one already, and it didn't work.
Ridiculous. He did the right thing. Probably not her fault at all, but so what. He's not obligated to risk his marriage for her job.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा