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.
December 22, 2012
Firing a woman because you find her "irresistably attractive" is not sex discrimination.
Said the Iowa Supreme Court (unanimously).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
243 comments:
1 – 200 of 243 Newer› Newest»Really, wasn't it the wife who had her fired? Without the wife, the dentist loses this lawsuit, but probably wouldn't have fired her.
Did she change her clothing styles?
Did she wear less revealing stuff and then start wearing tighter stuff?
All women in the workplace ought to wear a burka and veil unless they want to risk being fired for being pretty.
During the last six months of Nelson’s employment, she and Knight started texting each other outside of work, frequently about child-related matters.
Seems the relationship had already moved from professional to personal.
Interesting that a dentist was her target. He is a stronger man than than most dentists are.
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.
I was thinking this was about Miss Venezuela
The world does not suffer from an excess of beauty. It may not have been a crime to fire his assistant, but it was certainly a "crime".
I mean, if not for yourself doc, think of your patients. They are more likely than not, in your office for a bit of (to them) unpleasantness. A comely assistant could help them cope and might give them reason to show more bravery.
I have no idea if the woman in this story dressed in a revealing manner or not, but in DC unprofessional dress by women is just epidemic.
I used to work back in the 80's with a (then) young woman who, on her way to the office, was told by another woman, a complete stranger sitting next to her on the metro, that "you look like a whore".
This, at 8:00AM in the morning.
Sadly, the stranger had good reason for her judgement call.
No photos or detailed descriptions of what overly alluring attire she wore? In a Dental Office did she have a nurse blouse that her unfettered boobs fell out of? Did she wear butt cheek revealing mini-skirt nurse attire? Or did she just wear clothes that fit, albeit tightly?
Please...you can't make this stuff up. A court case no less. Excuse me, but James Knight, DDS, is a weasel pussy little baby boy. All he needed to do was cease the personal emails, after hours no less.
He fires a woman because HE is tempted?! His own filthy thoughts are the woman's fault? F'ing A...this is beyond nuts. Best he check his pigeon sized balls for Low-T post haste.
The Clinton White House had the same rule. No woman prettier than Hillary Clinton could serve in the Cabinet. And Monica quickly got transferred to the Pentagon.
Upon learning of the firing president Obama said...
"Goodness, if this past week has done anything, it should just give us some perspective. I mean, if there's one thing we should have after this week, it should be a sense of perspective about what's important,"
He later asked Joe Biden to head up a task-force to come up with anti-firing suggestions.
The dentist sounds like a total tool.
No woman prettier than Hillary Clinton could serve in the Cabinet.
There was a Tyson lady.. at treasury I believe... good looking for her age.
If he asked her to stop wearing tight clothing and she didn't...well, why didn't she? It's not like sexy women aren't aware that they are sexy and what clothing is sexy on them.
Here she is... Laura Tyson.
Think Samson and Delilah.
Think the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Think every Femme Fatale movie ever made.
It's not like sexy women aren't aware that they are sexy and what clothing is sexy on them.
"No matter how happily a woman may be married, it always pleases her to discover that there is a nice man who wishes that she were not."
H. L. Mencken
I have never been married.. so I really have no idea what this is about... I'm a chickenhawk?
Dante,
How about, *think*, period.
He's a garden variety dipshit. We know this without knowing anything about the woman who was fired.
You're not a chickenhawk, Lem. You're not a chicken-anything. :)
I liked the quote, and I think it's true, however, if this woman wanted to keep her job, she should have worn appropriate attire.
We had a tactful discussion at my work about cleavage and that was the end of the cleavage.
My mind went immediately to Mr. Tudball and Mrs. Wiggins.
Remember them?
Thanks Darcy.
Lem, we could argue about cabinet v. cabinet level, but I would rank Hillary over Laura anyway. I concede you may not agree.
This tool Dentist, and incredibly dumb judges, just gave the SEIU great publicity if they seize upon it. AND...they'd be RIGHT! Rare I admit, but handed to them like candy to a baby. You can now be fired for merely being attractive because your boss has dirty thoughts? Unbelievable.
And I bet these guys think they're diligent righteous conservatives. How do you get a Dentist plus an entire Supreme court all composed of needle dick bug f**kers?
I would rank Hillary over Laura anyway
You gotta be kidding.
I assume you meant anyday.
What was it.. little hair? little on the butch side maybe?
"You can now be fired for merely being attractive because your boss has dirty thoughts? Unbelievable."
Ding ding ding.
can a woman be fired for sexually harassing her boss?
Cant you be fired "without cause" at a private workplace?
I'm having a hard time understanding what the fuss is about.
'...not sex discrimination.' (?) I have difficulty not being pedantic about that. Of course it's sex discrimination. Clearly she was fired because she was a sexy looking woman. But as Ms Nelson has found out, it's just not an illegal form of sex discrimination.
Aridog, one of the reasons I'm a Democrat. What's going on with some conservative men? Why so retrograde?
"I mean, if not for yourself doc, think of your patients. They are more likely than not, in your office for a bit of (to them) unpleasantness. A comely assistant could help them cope and might give them reason to show more bravery. "
My orthodontist had an assistant who was, shall we say, well endowed. When I had to have work done on my braces (I was 10), it was a pleasure to rest my head on her chest.
Aridog protests too much. I wouldn't think the dentist's problem was "low T."
Of course this type of firing is allowed. If it weren't, how many offices would end up being all male?
(A lot.)
Alley Oop. Did I miss something? How do we know he's a Republican? Because he works?
Inga, in your pursuit of freedom from the "retrograde," why the retrograde impulse to codify your beliefs into laws, policies, and a political party that will impose its beliefs upon everyone else?
Humperdinck, I'm just going by what Aridog said. I doubt he is a liberal.
Chrisnavin,
It appears that the retrograde employer used the law to allow his retrograde behavior in the workplace. So his employee was at the mercy of such retrograde employers, laws and courts. Hmmm.
"You can now be fired for merely being attractive because your boss has dirty thoughts? Unbelievable."
Did you read the article?
It had nothing to do with her clothing, or how pretty she was.
She worked in the office for 10 years, and his wife worked there too. So his wife knew exactly how pretty she was, and what she was wearing. That's not why she was fired.
His wife demanded that she be fired after she "found out about the messages."
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
Okay, clearly husband is flirting with girl. But what about her? How does he know about her "infrequent sex life" anyway? Did she tell him?
"I haven't had sex in a month!"
If she's volunteering that she's not having enough sex at home, isn't she flirting with him?
Nelson was stunned because she viewed the 53-year-old Knight as a father figure and had never been interested in starting a relationship, Fiedler said.
I'm sure they were just flirting.
Flirting is fun. I like flirting. But you ought to be aware of what you are doing, and how your spouse (and other people's spouses) will react.
He's a garden variety dipshit. We know this without knowing anything about the woman who was fired.
Like Bill Clinton, and who was that NY governor? I recall some feminist saying it was on account of too much testosterone, which one could determine by his high cheek bones.
Really, this is as old as man. The guy's predicament is natural and normal.
Put another way, are there any boundaries? Should the chick be able to come in to work with a string bikini?
Cant you be fired "without cause" at a private workplace?
Depends on the state. Some states are at will, other states you need cause.
From the article,
"...he complained that her tight clothing was distracting...".
Dr. James Knight is 53, Melissa Nelson is 32. All was well for ten years until she texts him and his wife finds out. At the behest of Mrs. Knight, the Good Doctor consults with his pastor who says in effect, "Fire the bitch!" So he did.
This case, IMHO, has nothing to do with tight clothing and everything to do with green eyes.
I cannot help but think that Melissa has a better chance of getting a judgement against the preacher man.
I don't like the position this puts the employee in, at all. We probably agree there.
But if you want to go and argue the appropriate case law in Iowa on the matter, and cast judgments on the entire culture and people who make it up, well, that's probably why you're here.
Clearly the courts have found in the past that there's some value in protecting the moral and religious interests of a man who defends what he thinks will be a good decision.
And then there's the wife...
That employee needs to get out of there anyways, maybe out of Iowa, or somewhere where hotness works in her favor.
If she's volunteering that she's not having enough sex at home, isn't she flirting with him?
It's seduction.
Who knows what her motives were? Maybe she wants his money, maybe she's bored, maybe she wants to harmlessly flirt. Maybe she wants to seduce him and feel powerful and bring him down and make him want her.
Maybe he's hitting on her and the wife hates it, and it's causing stress on the marriage and his business.
I don't this is what Jesus had in mind when he said:
" If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.
"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...."
For the same reason Muslim men put women in burka. In Iowa they only fire them. Where is ACLU when you need them?
Women will always be accused of being Jezebels, because men can't control their impulses, but in 2012 that a Supreme Court of all men unanimously agree it's not gender discrimination, well that is ......retrograde.
Backwards!
Maybe he needs to ignore the situation and handle himself better.
All he needed was to be hosed down with crushed ice once an hour.
Inga said...
Aridog, one of the reasons I'm a Democrat. What's going on with some conservative men? Why so retrograde?
Oop assumes he's a Conservative.
Usually, it's the Lefties that get somebody fired.
A former co-worker was recruiting female co-workers for a side-gig he had producing porn. The boss found out & she fired him.
Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level
Instead it was his schwantzstucker that rose.
Peter
Some women are jezebels, and some women lie about rape to get attention, and some women are home-wreckers, who go after a man because he's got money and is successful.
Some men denigrate women, all men objectify women, covet them and in an honor based society (like Islam) they severely restrict women's freedom, segregate them and sometimes stone them and punish them.
A mature man can handle his impulses, but I believe we all have an interest in producing good men, and some honor is involved and chivalry and humility and faithfulness that makes men mature, and good.
I can't say progressive men are really the model, nor want the feminists seem to want (some hardcore feminists don't want men at all).
If I'd ever had an employer tell me I dressed too provocatively, I'd have been mortified.
And once again we see the difference between liberals and the rest of us. It lies in the clear belief, unquestioned, that if something is wrong (in their eyes) it must therefore be illegal, and in fact can be presumed to already be illegal as long as a judge will simply say so, law or no law.
Some of the rest of us think that if we believe something is wrong, we need to then decide if it also should be illegal as a separate question, and having decided that, we need to actually pass a law making it so. We're such sticks in the mud.
There are laws against sexual discrimination, but the all male Supreme Court didn't see it that way, why? Could it be that this court had a political agenda?
Inga said...
Aridog, one of the reasons I'm a Democrat. What's going on with some conservative men?
Don't recall the article telling us what political bent the sissy boy was...but I figure that Bilbo Clinton getting blow jobs from chubby horny interns is okay with liberals, anything is, eh? General Petraeus was boinking his biographer...and he's no damn conservative. It seems to be as much a liberal affliction as any ones'.
It is immaterial to me if the widdle Dentist twat head was within his legal rights...he is exactly the kind of asshole that brought us unions in the first place. When you make "at will" mean if my mommy-wife surrogate tells me to fire you, then you are a walking dildo who doens't get the concept of "cause." He's the same kind of asshole who made trade guilds in to skilled trade unions, so that jerkwads like him couldn't evaluate journeymanship based upon personal affection.
And, no it is NOT gender discrimination...it just plain pussy whipped ass punk behavior by a man who can't control himself around an employee who was performing well (10 years on the job, eh) so he fires the employee instead of growing the fuck up.
I hope the little shit hits Chapter 7 sooner than lagter.
Inga needs something to believe, and politics is the belief system.
Of course, she doesn't realize her beliefs, much like the people she attacks (the immoderate moral absolutists) are beliefs she wants to impose on everyone else.
This is why so many liberals are not liberals anymore, and why progressives never were liberal.
Chris, i need something to believe? Politics is my belief system? How could you possibly know what my belief system is? I'm an anonymous commenter on a political blog, that's quite presumptive of you.
For all you know I could be a nun.
Inga, Iowa is a progressive highly unionized democratic state.
Oh, shit...now the thread goes personal and affronted. Fuck it. Later.
Yes, it always happens, it's uncanny. Why make personal assumptions (or gratuitous insults) based on preconceived ideas about what makes a liberal/ progressive, whatever you want to call us, tick? How does it add to any debate?
He fires a woman because HE is tempted?!
Emotions are powerful. There are some women I just have to avoid.
Best he check his pigeon sized balls for Low-T post haste.
No, it's the opposite. He's got a healthy sex drive (too healthy).
The judicial system in this country is a farce. I'll just go ahead and mention the whole university system as well. Any country that elects Zero as president has some large deficiencies in its education system.
And what is up with the husband of the dental assistant?
What do you think caused all this ruckus?
her infrequent sex life
She's hit 30, her sex drive is at its peak, and her husband is AWOL. Dummy!
This entire lawsuit is insane.
I can't imagine my wife going to court where she explains to the world that we're not having enough sex, and that her boss is calling her a Lambourghini that doesn't get out of the garage.
Oh my God.
You're going to say this in court? It's going to be in the newspaper? People are going to be discussing our lack of sex on the internet?
Wife needs a spanking. Wife needs some cunnilingus. Wife needs some orgasms. Wife needs some sexual attention, dummy.
And instead of giving his wife multiple orgasms for being such a bad girl, he's all "let's go and get some free money because this is an outrageous blow to feminism."
Meanwhile, his hot wife still can't get laid.
(The dentist) later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.
A man tells you he's worried that he's going to start an affair with your wife, what do you do?
I punch the fucker in the eye.
Dentist = way too honest
Dental assistant = I want to see a picture, damn it
Jealous wife = time for sit-ups
Husband = liberals are pathetic
St. Croix,
o_O
That's all I gotta say:)
Inga, you're so sweet to me!
Well, she could always go into porn or Hollywood, where the shallowness and bloated sense of entitlement exemplified by most American women can be indulged indefinitely. Or at least until their forties - when they are suddenly, and usually with great anguish forced to confront the the idea that life might revolve around more than just the upkeep of their own faces and figures.
Well, Inga, when you're ready to stop making insinuations about retrograde social norms, an all male court, males in general, conservative males when you're not discussing the facts of the case, then, I'd say the overall political ideas you come in here to espouse are fair game.
Saint Croix seems to have summed it up pretty well.
I found her picture on the internet. Now I feel kinda bad, cause she's a real person. Also the only job she could find was a waitress. That sucks.
She could figure out what she's not getting out of her marriage and choose not to work for a guy like that, either.
Legal recourse? Apparently not.
men can't control their impulses
That's a good point. If only men could learn from the deliberative manner of every social act that women ever go about committing to. The impulse to explore the world, much less to invent electricity and indoor plumbing, could have been substituted with a far more noble impulse to live in a grass hut while obsessing over the complex personal meaning of every emotion, facial expression, and vocal inflection, of their mate, neighbor and family member. Sweet!
Ritmo, now you're talking some sense.
Maybe the sexes are fundamentally different.
Well, she could always go into porn or Hollywood, where the shallowness and bloated sense of entitlement exemplified by most American women can be indulged indefinitely.
sheesh
The Iowa Supreme court looks to be made up of 3 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Since the ruling was unanimous, it is hard to see how this case adds to the "logic" of being a Democrat due to rulings like this.
When I visited a mosque, they were very gracious, but the women were entirely segregated behind a screen.
I realized it was probably the first time in my life I was in a situation where this was the case.
Human beings can well decide how they are going to organize and direct human nature itself, individuals and social life, as well as their institutions upon deep metaphysical doctrines and sometimes the thinking of just a few.
Ritmo, be nice to women.
Women will always be accused of being Jezebels, because men can't control their impulses, but in 2012 that a Supreme Court of all men unanimously agree it's not gender discrimination, well that is ......retrograde.
Backwards!
Forget about the Jezebels, that's natural too. Women want to attract as many potential mates as they can.
Consider a man who marries a woman, and he is the primary bread winner. That's clearly a foolish thing to do for the guy, since he will have to pay alimony, and who knows what. Yet, at least I did it for that love feeling. It's really foolish. Committing to one woman. Foolish men.
There are some differences, and then there are differences in the range of these differences from person to person.
It doesn't bug me much, probably because I'm inquisitive and introspective, and of a gender forced to confront its shortcomings and incapable of avoiding the result of its much greater glories.
If I was an American woman, however, things would be much worse. I'd be part of a club brought up to never be satisfied with anything, while being taught to incessantly belittle the material and financial comforts conquered by the men I thought so little of. If only they could be satisfied with nothing more than how they looked and made others immediately feel!, like me.
And then I'd hit reality in my forties and wig out.
But in the meantime, there would be plenty of parties, nights out and dating sites upon which to project my starlet sense of self. And chatter. And gossip. Endless gossip. And the knowledge that I was really awesome for using my body to incubate life, if I ever got the chance to, like my dear sweet pets do.
Yes, all these distractions would greatly help keep me from facing how shallow I was and how little I contributed to the historical progress of the world. Apart from that bit about never stopping to judge the men who do.
I realized it was probably the first time in my life I was in a situation where this was the case.
You must not pee much.
Yeah Ritmo.
In any case, the law is the law. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it ought to be illegal, or even more fancifully (if that is a word), that is must already be illegal.
Sorry, St. Croix. Character means a hell of a lot more to me than does politesse. And I'm an intractable egalitarian when it comes to assessing the value of that virtue.
Careful, Inga. Laws against stalking are gender neutral nowadays.
I hope I'm still getting spontaneous boners at the Dentist office @ 53 yrs of age.
"Whoops. Sorry!"
Ritmo? What is your problem?
I think Ritmo had a bad date tonight.
I never have bad dates. Just bad discoveries.
Ritmo, well you're talking some sense, anyways.
Much like the Philadelphia white soul rhythms Oates brought to the bass, and Daryl Hall's vocals gave to such hits as 'Maneater,' you seem to offer nuggets of wisdom.
For there are some women with the ruthless killing instinct of the jaguar, stalking their musician prey in dark nightclubs, ready to pounce upon their musician prey.
Thanks Chris.
One day the other conservatives will discover that their problem isn't with feminism, it's with entitlement. Chivalry codes are riddled with it.
Last time I defend you in any thread Ritmo.
Make your peace with women by finding a good woman, and loving her, and making yourself worth loving.
And cultivate your own garden.
My only problem is with people who think they're too good to ever examine their own behavior.
Last time I defend...
Yes. Because for you, everything's personal, and nothing's objective or just for the sake of justice.
I don't need the defenses of the dishonorable.
I think Ritmo is touching on quite a bit of truth.
I'm dishonorable ? Perhaps you have something to say to me privately, don't air your personal grievances with me here.
Thanks Darcy.
Like Chris notes, there are good women in the world. And even in America. They accept objectivity when they have to. Maybe conservative women are better at it.
I think it might come down to how important community is, and how much of it we lack in this country. Conservative women understand that, as do people in the smaller, more tightly-knit countries abroad.
But most others, unfortunately, don't. And they pay for it with the never-ending sense of need that is the equivalent in American women of the never-ending sense of discovery and freedom of American men.
Fine, Inga. I'll agree to delete my 8:41 comment (and this one) if you delete your 8:38 comment (even though it was probably just a joke), and your 8:42 and 8:46 comments.
Good lord.
It's called fairness.
Ritmo, ha! Trying to censor me?
Hey just lighten up Ok?
Stop acting entitled. You're exemplifying the point. I said something you didn't like, you said somethings I didn't like. The fairest and most reasonable response would then be something like the deletion procedure I just offered. But your response is anything but.
Oy, I don't know what is up with you Ritmo, what did say that bothered you so much, that made you think I feel entitled, as you say. Entitled to what?
Well, I think the American culture has steadily harmed the way men and women relate to each other, Ritmo. And a lot of it has to do with holding up women as if they can do no wrong. Selfishness, vanity and manipulative behavior by women are applauded as charming. Smart.
I agree, Darcy. And it's interesting to see how this complements the liberal critique. The 1960s devolved into a second-wave feminism that decried the lust that was felt to reduce women to sex objects. That's fine, if the complementary problem wasn't some sort of revenge after the materialistic 1980s of reducing men to objects of financial and material gratification. I guess that, in the end, we can't get away from these two extremes of how the genders degrade each other, unless we care to look at them more fully.
The first part got quite an airing, but the problem was that it didn't make sense unless the 2nd part did as well. It can, and it could, or else we could just take the conservative approach and say that all that is inevitable and results from failings that are much more personal than anything benefiting from the social or even socio-biological critique outlined above.
But I'm a bit of a biologist, so I suppose I might tend to do that.
But your criticism is just as reasonable, and much more succinct.
Smaller societies have the benefit of being closer to the individuals that must learn to relate to each other. That's why I bring other countries and cultures into the discussion that you might tend to see as one benefited by how individual men/women relate to each other.
At the end of the day, the gender wars are stupid. But ending them takes more thought and humanity than people assume.
Darcy, playing up to the idea that the male of the species can do no wrong, laying the blame for the way women and men relate to each other, squarely at the feet of women.
Ritmo, you need to go get yourself a conservative gal.
Oh look Ritmo & Inga are fighting! Get me some popcorn Agnes!
I at 12 cloves of garlic and I so wish I breath on Inga right now.
St Croix may be on to something.
It's bizarro world.
Ritmo, well said. It will take work.
Behind the 'personal is political' crowd is really just totalitarianism, or control. The kinds of people who will never be content to live their private lives as they see fit.
Call them weak-minded, or utopians, or moral absolutists, but the freedom they promise is not one of strength, or independence of mind. They have had a very harmful effect on our institutions, impossibly demanding those institutions do everything.
The vast majority of Americans, even when things were more culturally coherent, just wanted to spend extra time with their families, and maybe pursue a hobby outside of work if they were lucky.
Darcy, playing up to the idea that the male of the species can do no wrong, laying the blame for the way women and men relate to each other, squarely at the feet of women.
Well, instead of raging and declaring, "That's wrong!", my presumption is that her critique of what some men do wrong would be just as terse. And then not dwelled upon.
But I won't presume to speak for her. I'm just guessing.
@Ritmo
A generation of men saying "No" and "I'm not playing that game" to women would be a good start, I think. It sounds simple, but I mean it.
I've recently been exposed to my own manipulative, selfish behavior. It's both horrifying and fascinating. Because I haven't stopped. It's so deeply ingrained. That's no excuse for it.
Once again, men being played by women Darcy, really? Sheesh.
What's interesting about this case is that obviously it's "sex discrimination." He's aware of her sex, and she's aware of his sex. The two of them are discriminating on the basis of sex.
Which we all do, in any romantic encounter.
Homosexuals discriminate on the basis of sex, too. You'd have to be some weird kind of bisexual to be utterly oblivious to another person's sex.
So this standard, no sex discrimination, is kinda sexless and weird. We understand it, in non-sexual contexts. For instance, if you want to be a doctor or a lawyer or an astronaut or a cook, it's not relevant what your sex is.
Nonetheless, people are aware of each other's sex. You put women on a submarine, you're going to have pregnancies. Sex pops up.
So this legal standard, "no sex discrimination" is at odds with the reality of sex. Unlike race, which I'd argue is an utterly arbitrary and ridiculous classification, sex is highly relevant for mating and human reproduction.
Indeed, I think sex underlies a huge amount of behavior. So it's difficult--if not impossible--to say that "sex discrimination" is bad, while we simultaneously seek to form unions and reproduce.
I think the conservative idea that men and women are different--and those differences need to be respected--is ultimately healthier for relationships.
So, yes, they were discriminating on the basis of sex. But that's because they were flirting with each other, which human beings do.
I think this feminist obsession with equality is dehumanizing. It's like we're supposed to be sexless robots or something. It requires an ideological purity that utterly at odds with human reality.
Sex is important, pay attention to it.
Well, your honesty is refreshing, admirable and no less interesting to me, Darcy.
As for the first part, I've been doing a lot more of just that. Unfortunately, I've met a few more in recent years that left me with no choice. Maybe it was the economy, maybe it was just them and how much more naked and unrestrained their problems were. (I tend to think the latter).
Is the moon in retrograde?
Once again, men being played by women Darcy, really? Sheesh.
Inga, just out of curiosity, do you think you never do anything wrong, ever? Or at least, less than 100% admirable?
Sometimes I get the impression that you think that as long as you feel emotional enough about something, then you can't help but be right. The problem however, as Darcy notes, is that there are plenty of darker instincts still ingrained in baser responses like that. We have terms like "crimes of passion" for a reason.
I don't understand why you have a streak that is so disrespectful of logic. You say you don't like people who are unreasonable; why not prove that?
St Croix, I accept that they are different, but I won't accept that they aren't equal. I won't blame my own sex for the problems men and women have relating to one another.
Oh. Yeah. I sure do have a lot to say about men, as well. I've probably raised enough eyebrows for tonight, though. :)
The irony of these people is (like a church full of atheists) the fact that they totally overlook the limitations of their own ideas.
They love to criticize fundamentalists, because they too, are fundamentalists, just of the secular kind. All of the things being projected upon their political enemies are what they do.
In the wake of all these cultural changes that are being made in the name of greater freedom and equality, is a general lack of wisdom of human nature, the nature of power and the natural desire that individuals and groups have to accrue it for themselves.
Lots of change and not always good reasons for the change.
It'd be nice to at least have the classical liberals back, the Lockean liberals, those who defend liberty against REAL religious persecution and the corruption of earthly power.
The rest of these people are posers, the cultural chattering classes and gatekeepers.
Sex is important, pay attention to it.
Wow St. Croix. I know you're trying to research some deeper ideas here, so I'll try to refrain from dismissing too snarkily. But this was a bit of a funny conclusion.
Also, I don't blame men either, it's mutual, always has been.
While the rest of you are searching for deep truths, I'm just wondering if being surrounded by corn makes everyone in Iowa super-horny.
Ok, Inga, I'll bite.
What kind of moral reasoning will you use to argue we all need to make space in our culture and institutions for the pursuit of equality between the sexes?
Is is equality of outcome you want? Equality of opportunity?
Can you also tie this together with the individual conscience, and the freedom of individuals to pursue their talents?
I'm all ears.
Also, I don't blame men either, it's mutual, always has been.
Well, you're starting to get somewhere.
But the problem is that men have been in the position for the last few thousand years of civilization of having to be more up-front, out there and in the open in both their dealings with each other and, consequently, their shortcomings. Women have had the "advantage" (or disadvantage) of being a bit more behind the scenes.
Therefore, discovering the depths of one's depravities is a more trying discovery in that case. And still waters run deep. I respect Darcy for what she said.
"Honor" wasn't just about chivalry and gender relations. It was about how the men who ran these new, commercial civilizations could learn to trust each other in their transactions.
Until women either embrace that system, invent an alternative one, or learn to be just as up-front, open and honest in the psychology behind their interactions, then they will be behind, deprived, or just plain dissatisfied as many feel they are now.
I've thought about these things for at least a couple years. Glad to see they're finding a bit of an open audience (if an unexpected one) here.
St Croix, I accept that they are different, but I won't accept that they aren't equal.
Think about all the inequalities in the world. Some people are ugly. Some are beautiful. Some are rich. Some are poor. Fat, skinny, smart, old, ugly. We're all different.
Can you dunk a basketball? Some people can.
So we're not equal. In fact, when you focus on how unequal everybody is, it might be hard to see how we're equal.
What is the basis of human equality?
I think one answer is free will. Human beings are moral agents. We can all sin, or not sin. Every day you and I decide.
Do I lie or do I tell the truth? Do I steal? Do I kill somebody? We all have this choice.
It really doesn't matter if you're old or young, fat or skinny, ugly or beautiful. All of us can lie, and all of us can tell the truth.
So, as far as free will is concerned, we're all equal. We all have this choice, this freedom, to be good or bad. And the decisions we make will result in great inequalities.
So that's how men and women are equal. It's how everybody is equal. And it explains why there's so much inequality in the world. We are equal in our freedom, but our freedom will result in great inequalities.
So Ritmo, you like it that Darcy dissed women and then herself, that "spoke " to you. I see.
Sorry but I don't air my dirty laundry on a public forum. I found what she had to say bizarre.
St Croix, you're still describing difference, not equality.
We are equal in the eyes of God.
I found what she had to say bizarre.
It was self-aware.
I can see why you'd find that bizarre.
She is more honest about herself than you are comfortable being in public and that is a respectable thing.
As I say above, it's probably the necessary equivalent to the system of "honor" invented by men. Plumbing the depths of one's motivations will be pretty important in the era of unrestricted information.
Anyway, everyone's got the choice to determine how public they want to be about what. Personally, I would keep anything about my family as far away as possible from this public site. But that's just me. Others disagree.
You should examine yourself more deeply. Learn what Zeno said. He was at least as important as Xena. Probably a million times moreso.
Or just play the part of Xena. Whichever.
Wow, this is one of the few times I actually agree with Ritmo on something.
Well said.
Saint Croix:
One big question since the Enlightenment has been whether or not the natural laws, and the universe itself including the material world, is deterministic.
If so, then I do not have free will in such matters, generally speaking.
For most religious folks, and Natural Law and Right thinkers, our free will comes from God as God is free and we are cast in His image. They currently act like a bulwark against the growth of the State and for the idea that our rights are already granted, and can't be given or taken away by the government.
But this freedom comes with responsibilities, to follow the doctrines of the Church, and how can all the Churches and religions be correct?
I'll reflect on what St Croix said, that makes far more sense to me than what either you or Darcy said tonight.
My bad. The saying in mind at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi has been attributed to at least ten Greeks, but apparently not Zeno.
Here it is inscribed above another oracle's door.
It's all about having great tits.
The 1960s devolved into a second-wave feminism that decried the lust that was felt to reduce women to sex objects.
Do you have a reference for this? It seemed to me all the 1960s' free sex was great for the guys, but not aligned with female biological imperatives.
Was there a backlash to it?
Ok, you go do that, Inga.
Just don't let technology beat you to the punch.
Was there a backlash to it?
Yeah. They became prudes. That's exactly what 2nd wave feminism was. Google Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, for starters.
For women, sex is a political act. Who have they done it with, how many times, and what social gain will come of it? Some start to feel comfortable with the idea of actually enjoying it once they get into their thirties, and even fewer much sooner. But they are not the majority.
Anyways, you seem to like things simple so I'll stop digressing. Google those chicks and look at what astounding ideas they came up with in trying to ban pornography or define all sex as rape.
Until they were told about gay male sex and gay male porn. And still, they didn't relent.
Obsolescence was more their style.
I don't know quite what to make of this, but apparently she said that she viewed the dentist as a kind of father figure, as a way to explain her statement of "I have sex once a month."
It's hard to imagine a girl telling her Dad she isn't having much sex. It seems, wrong. Mom, maybe.
Having three boys, I don't know what I would say about a daughter telling me she isn't having enough sex. Somehow, I think it would be really difficult to see your innocent little girl grow up.
"Sex pops up." - St. Croix
Only if you rub on it a little (both genders).
And thanks, trucker and chris. And Darcy.
Keep going Ritmo! You're getting some conservative love tonight, too funny. Women haters unite, even liberal and conservative men can find happiness together.
At least Ritmo isn't that much of a dumbshit as to be into 2nd wave feminism.
Inga - what's the matter girl? Ritmo stray from his plantation?
I think one answer is free will. Human beings are moral agents. We can all sin, or not sin. Every day you and I decide.
Do you actually believe this? I'm not familiar with the Christian Ways, but my father once told me that as a child, he had to be chaste for a week, thinking no impure thoughts. As he, like I, hit puberty very late (> 16 for me), perhaps he was able to do it and not lie about it.
But I can't imagine my 12 year old, who has started puberty and masturbates about every chance he gets, could possibly get through it.
The same goes for all the impulses. You can try to manage them, but ultimately they are natural. I heard one woman once say "You can't control your emotions." I still don't have a good understanding of that.
One possibility is to subjugate our will to something else. But what happens if that's merely yielding to anothers will, making us tools?
Thanks St. Croix, at least he LIKES, or should I say LOVES women. Plus he makes sense.
Wow St. Croix. I know you're trying to research some deeper ideas here, so I'll try to refrain from dismissing too snarkily. But this was a bit of a funny conclusion.
I think a lot of people are oblivious to the power of sex over our lives. Sex affects a lot of behavior, and we're often oblivious to why we're acting a certain way.
For instance, in their 20's men think about sex all the time. I think this is biology. We want to reproduce. And yet many men are unaware of our biological desire to reproduce. We're just trying to get laid. We're aware of sex, and yet unaware, too.
In our 40's, we think more and more about money. Why? Because now we want to provide for our children. People in their 40's can talk about their yards, their house, tax policy, insurance. They can talk about incredibly boring stuff. A lot of this, I think, is in regard to reproduction, and taking care of our children.
Even things like women wanting to appear young. All the surgeries women do, and all the rest of it to appear young. Why? Because young women breed, and old women don't. Reproduction and the human family, it's so fundamental.
The only response I can come up with is that Inga is reverting to cavewoman!
Cavewoman?
You're welcome, Ritmo.
And I agree with you, St. Croix. All roads lead to Rome.
I think a lot of people are oblivious to the power of sex over our lives.
Uh, well, yeah ok if you say so. But I'm not. So you'll forgive me if my ideas seem to have been developed to the point of gaining a little more traction here tonight.
But you'll get the applause of at least one person here who can't see past her own political cheerleading and personal barriers. So, I guess that's something.
Adios Ritmo. Do good work.
Ah but Darcy agrees with St. Croix too Ritmo, so that's two of us and we are women!
In our 40's, we think more and more about money.
Personally, I'm thinking more and more about money because I make enough of it to no longer care for seeing it wasted on things and people who don't give a shit and also because I'm enamored of the idea of being independent of ever having to work for someone as annoying as my current boss ever again.
I think Ritmo and St. Croix were pointing out different things. Both had interesting insights.
We are equal in the eyes of God.
Yes, Inga, exactly right.
Ah but Darcy agrees with St. Croix too Ritmo, so that's two of us and we are women!
And if you get MacKinnon and the late Dworkin then that would be a whopping eight flapping vagina lips all applauding in unison! Yeay!1!!1
Must you make quotas out of and politicize every deeper thought? It's really boring.
St Croix, that is the ultimate truth and when women are at times treated as lesser than, it's an insult to how God created us, different, but equal.
Oh Ritmo quit trying to sound like Althouse with your boring quips.
And Ritmo, grow up.
For instance, in their 20's men think about sex all the time. I think this is biology. We want to reproduce. And yet many men are unaware of our biological desire to reproduce. We're just trying to get laid. We're aware of sex, and yet unaware, too.
Right, because there is no need to be aware. The genes are driving us to replicate.
One of the great changes in me was when I had a son. I had no idea I also wanted to be a father. I was certain that thing was for fun, but becoming a father was about the same change as going through puberty.
This feeling alone guides me to believe there are genetic components to fathering, and the family unit. Society, through it's own social evolution, has evolved to accommodate.
Religions, too, but they are societal reactions to the human condition.
You first.
St Croix, that is the ultimate truth and when women are at times treated as lesser than, it's an insult to how God created us, different, but equal.
Care to state how we are "Equal"? I think St. Croix stated we are equal because we are "moral" agents. I don't see that, at all. We are survival machines. Morality was invented as a way to keep us working when too many of these survival machines got together, and some of the survival mechanisms turned out to have some problems.
There is no god.
Uh, well, yeah ok if you say so. But I'm not. So you'll forgive me if my ideas seem to have been developed to the point of gaining a little more traction here tonight.
Old men might forget. We are the way we are because if we didn't replicate, we would not be.
Kind of like what's happening to Western Civilization right now. The west is not replicating, the rest of the world uses the tincture of Western magic pixie dust, and it's growing at amazing rates.
Morality is a part of being civilized, developing a conscience, it's what makes us human.
Personally, I'm thinking more and more about money because I make enough of it to no longer care for seeing it wasted on things and people who don't give a shit and also because I'm enamored of the idea of being independent of ever having to work for someone as annoying as my current boss ever again.
Jeez, get rid of the welfare state, then.
Jeez, get rid of the welfare state, then.
Can't speak for others, but it sure as hell isn't holding me back.
If morality was invented, then who invented it? Was it us? A few thinkers making supremely abstract rules and laws that everyone else just follows?
Why not just go out and kill someone, or why is it morally wrong for a defective reproductive machine to kill you or your children if the only appeal you have is to a bunch of other humans who are lawyers and judges?
What makes us human, and is there such a thing as a conscience?
You can't find human rights under a microscope. They came out of a few thousand years tradition of Christinaity and Enlightenment thinking.
Morality is a part of being civilized, developing a conscience, it's what makes us human.
Morality means never having to examine one's own moral agency, right?
What Croix said was true, but a bit more basic - and stripped of any moral implication. Is that why you lauded it?
So uncivilized tribes of people don't have morality, Inga?
Why that sounds a lot like pagan babies. Like in Libya, we'll have to to promote human rights and democracy as we see them to people who aren't ready to form their own governments.
We'll have to use force, or the threat of force to promote our values as well, just not the bad neocon, and Bush invasion force.
But the benevolent force, with the right ideas.
Ritmo, you are not my confessor, you don't know if I have or haven't examined my own soul. Perhaps you need some self reflection too.
All roads lead to Rome.
Not you, Darcy, you're on the high road.
Kind of interesting to peek at our profile views.
Freeman - 39000
Synova - 9000
Darcy - 8000
Inga - 6000
Saint Croix - 1000
Ritmo - 600
Garage - 66
My theory on this is that men like to look at women. Although I have to say those Garage numbers are kinda funny. Don't run for office!
Saint Croix:
By Jove, I think you've hit on something there.
If we try and sell a product, and we put an attractive woman on it, then, we'll sell more of it.
How about hot women and cars?
Gold.
Oh I was in the thousands too, before changing accounts.
Also, Freeman's been on here for a while and somehow gained the notoriety of being on YouTube with Michelle Malkin. Plus, she's better looking than Inga!
Sorry, Inga - but I know how much you love pitting others against each other in competition, so I couldn't help it. Turn-about is fair play! Or more simply, the golden rule.
Chris, I think their moral code is different than ours, theirs based on survival probably. I'm not making a judgment on their moral code because it's different than ours, we have had more time to develop a more sophisticated moral code based on much more than survival.
Morality is a part of being civilized, developing a conscience, it's what makes us human.
I think having a conscious is natural, and a part of our social nature. I see it in dogs too. They care for each other, licking each others wounds. Certainly chimps do it, grooming each other.
Same with lions, birds, and other animals that work together to reduce overall risk. Even fish do it.
At the bottom is a simple moral equation: this aids survival. But it doesn't always work, because other animals take advantage of those social traits.
Like humans stampeding Buffalo over a cliff.
The big deal is that religions have sprung up all over the world to try to deal with the individualistic survival mechanisms in a world in which we are no longer small bands. Like Marriage. And non religious mores too. Like Honor.
What's different today is that leftists reject the evolutionary nature of these traits, and instead of generated a large list of abstract (and need I say it, axiomatically inconsistent) ideas that are at odds with the societal evolution. They believe they can take these new abstract ideals and simply stamp them down on malleable human beings, and voila! A new social order. A better one, because the leftist morality is superior to our natural one, or at least the socially evolved rules.
From my viewpoint, it seems like a regression back to the days of kings and queens. A straight-jacketed approach based on what someones cortex tells you.
And, to St. Croix, not how our inner "morality" guides us.
Can't speak for others, but it sure as hell isn't holding me back.
You make so little money you don't have to pay for it?
Ritmo, you really are a child.
Whatever, Dante.
Yes Inga, I am! It's soooo fun.
I learned from the best.
My theory on this is that men like to look at women. Although I have to say those Garage numbers are kinda funny. Don't run for office!
Heh. Try this experiment. Put up a picture of a hot chick on your photo, and I'll bet your views go up too.
Yes, Inga's moral code is that she is above having it apply individually - it's outsourced to the society at large!
Yeay!
Sorry, I just can't help messing with you tonight.
;-)
Inga,
I'd submit, that you're espousing moral relativism at it's finest.
Moral relativism is doctrine that comes out of Europe, partially through the German philosopher Hegel, and which often people of the political Left tend to hold.
Of course, you make judgments every day, and so do I, and you've already judged their cultures.
It's an abstract ideal you can never live up to (it's so with all ideals, pretty much). It's like a box, in which you put your thinking. We've all got boxes.
Why so bitter Ritmo? Be happy and quit pissing me off, OK?
"Firing a woman because you find her "irresistably attractive" is not sex discrimination."
It's sex disintermediation.
Not bitter. I'm just getting a kick out of you tonight, and finding the stubbornness amusing.
You know I'm stubborn Ritmo, it should be no surprise to you.
Whatever, Dante.
What was it Hermann Cain said? The cost of a loaf of bread was $1.00 when it should be $.60? That's like a 60% raise.
Why so bitter Ritmo? Be happy and quit pissing me off, OK?
It's OK if you piss people off? Or do you accept your hypocrisy?
Ok, well the lengths to which it extends is what's amusing. Reminds me about Obama's comments about bitterly clinging to guns and such.
Why not examine? What are you so afraid of and why equate any personal admission with a religious process?
I just don't understand it. Don't answer or be annoyed by it, but I just can't understand why someone would call themselves a liberal and fear introspection so much.
I guess that's what I didn't get about you but do now. The stubbornness was so great that it's the reason for that.
Oh well.
The problem with moral relativism is that if all moral values and judgments are the same, then why is yours any better?
You're still judging, and you still hold certain moral lights aloft to guide your action.
Moral relativism can also erode civil society, because if all "values" are the same, and no one's moral lights are more valid then anyone else's, then there's not proper pursuit and defense of truth, or defense of Western society and its own ideas when the time comes.
It's a leveling force and deep in our culture, politics and public mind.
It can also lead to nihilism, or the belief in nothing, or the denial of knowledge itself. Much 20th century art, continental philosophy, the existentialists, Nietzsche, pop culture is infused with moral relativism and nihilism.
As I said earlier Ritmo, if you have something personal to say to me, perhaps it's better said elsewhere. No hard feelings, I still respect your intellect, you could work on softening up your rough edges a bit though. Hugs? Comeon, I love ya like a son, come'ere, I'll give ya noogy.
I'd submit, that you're espousing moral relativism at it's finest.
I don't believe in morality either, being an atheist (agnostic). It's all based on physics (in other words, nothing special about humans other than they are the ultimate survival machines, even though quite accidentally).
However, I do find tremendous value in the evolution of social mores, through religion, and other means.
I further believe the leftist ideas are anti-survival, in that they are destroying Western Civilization.
But, I suppose, time will tell.
Inga - do you even have a life? You're on here 24/7.
Post a Comment