Liberation From Temptation

Now there's an interesting proposition.  Women who are too physically appealing for their own good - in the sense that their physical attributes compel the notice of men and potentially complicate social or business relationships - have seen their rights compromised.  Women who are beautiful - as well as competent and intelligent - should be expected to know when a business environment requires a discreet presence.

Modestly in dress as well as comportment, in other words, goes a long way to evening out the playing field.  If a woman deliberately chooses to dress herself in an obviously flamboyant and provocative manner in a business setting, should she expect to be taken seriously as a professional?  When feminism was in its infancy women took great care to shield their femininity in competing with men for positions in what were then considered to be men's fields of employable expertise.

Proprieties were observed, women chose to dress in a manner that would not bring attention to their gender; they wore suits, classically and simply designed to deflect attention from their physical appearance and reflect that of men's.  And in that setting they felt comfortable displaying their abilities to match men's on an even level of accomplishment and proficiency, whether technical or cerebral resulting from their academic and practical experience.

In fighting for enlightened equality women had to overcome institutionalized biases against women in a culturally patriarchal society.  Another dimension to that was women resisting the societal impulse to declare women who dressed in a provocative manner as being themselves responsible for unwanted attention by males.  Whenever women experienced gender-related violence and the violation of rape, their mode of dress was discussed and held against them, the implication being they were partially responsible.

Having surmounted that societal bias, we now come up against another.  This one, however, places men on the side of the apes and women on the side of lapsed angels.  The all-male Iowa State Supreme Court brought down quite the ruling on Friday.  To the effect that a dentist acted legally by firing a female assistant based on her appearance and her mode of dress.  Both the dentist and his spouse viewed this long-time employee as a potential threat to the stability of their marriage.

Melissa Nelson had worked for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight for a decade as a professional, possibly as a dental technician.  She was described by her employer as a stellar worker.  However, her tight clothing, he felt, was distracting.  He had once, fairly crudely, conveyed that information to her.  Her too-revealing clothing appealed to his baser animal instinct toward procreation.  And this was evidently not an emotion that he felt he wanted to pursue with his 32-year-old employee.

His solution, to ensure he felt more comfortable in his professional practise, and in his intimate relationship with his wife, was to take steps to remove temptation, irritation and the potential for disaster from his immediate environment.  And the court agreed that his was the correct course of action, ruling 7 - 0 (would have been interesting to see if there was a minority position if the court had been comprised of both genders) that employers are justified in firing employees they view as an "irresistible attraction", regardless of whether or not said employee had behaved with impropriety.

"Even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behaviour or otherwise done anything wrong.  Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender", wrote Justice Edward Mansfield.   Another instance where grief and nasty conclusions could be avoided with a little practical common sense.