Hassan Rouhini, the Iranian president to replace Ahmedinijad (sp?) two weeks ago, is considered to be more moderate than his predecessor. He has gone as far as to question whether mandatory hijabs are truly effective at retaining Iran's cultural modesty (read: stop women from being skanks), which is surprisingly, to our western understanding on the debate of modesty, truly progressive for a government body as torqued on the haunches of patriarchy as Iran is. But while Rouhini is indeed the President, he submits to the rule of a "Guardian Council", who in turn submits to the rule of the "Supreme Leader" (ignore the irony in this contrast of "modesty"). For all the talk of Iranian presidents, there's actually a man who runs the show for the man who theatrically runs the show, that remains behind the curtain. Judy Garland knew this man as Oz, while the rest of the world know him as Ayatollah Kahmenei. And all of this is mentioned because across the vast waters, where people wear really weird clothes, have unpronounceable names, and inferior gods and prophets, one of the comparisons our country could make with regard to women are soberingly somber. In Iowa, the state supreme court has held up a ruling that found a dentist justified in firing an assistant on the basis that his assistant is irresistably sexually attractive. I know it took a while for me to get to my point, but I guess it's also taking a little longer for women to be completely free of the institutional practice of discrimination, so get over it. Melissa Nelson was an assistant for dentist James Knight who fired her after his wife became worried a potential romantic relationship could develop between the practitioner and assistant.
As reported: "The all-male court had previously ruled against Nelson, finding that employees who are seen as an “irresistible attraction” by their employers can be fired in such circumstances." According to testimony, the type of relationship shared between Melissa and James is a point of contention. Melissa, who is married and about 15 years James' junior, never reported any acts of harassment and allegedly saw her boss as a father-figure. James, who employed Melissa for 10 years before firing her, did so after fearing his attraction to her would lead to infidelity. Whether Melissa would ever engage her employer sexually is worth questioning, but beside the point. This case is essentially whether an employer has the right to terminate an employee based on his sexual attraction to his employee. And thus far, the State Supreme court of Iowa has decided the answer in cases that jeopardizes a family unit is 'yes'. If an employer is a horndog or simply finds himself in a morally dubious relationship, is that employer protected by the law to simply fire an employee? Do workplace comments by Melissa on her lack of sex life permit James to state suggestively how her body is like having a Lamborghini and not being able to drive it? Once again just as in Iran, vagina must be regulated because men, left to their own devices cannot be held accountable for the own behaviors or desires. We cannot hold them responsible for what they might do with their penises...or at least that's what James suggested to Melissa at one point in time when he made a comment about using his bulging pants to determine whether Melissa's clothes were too revealing or not. The below picture is her alleged work attire. What should she wear to work instead? A nuns habit?
It's reported that James and his wife "really agonized" about their decision. They didn't want to terminate Melissa. But James just couldn't help texting Melissa to ask how often she experiences orgasms, could he? Totally apart of the degenerative male penis. A repeat victim to the billions of unregulated vagina's trying to sabotage the happily married, moral purity of men everywhere. Tiger Woods, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton (who enjoys celebrity status while Lewinsky has been slut shamed into oblivion), all victims of unregulated vagina...poor fellas.
We're not very far off from Iran. Whether you're Moradi who's being put out of city council in Iran or Melissa, you're both victims of a dominating patriarch society. Both of their bodies are scrutinized by men (Moradi usurped by an all-male council; Nelson's 7-man jury was, well, a jury of 7 men). Both are viewed as a disturbance in the work place for simply being sexually attractive to their male peers. And both are seen as a threat in the work place for having female anatomy. Maybe Iran has it right and we have it wrong. Women may not have to worry about being fired for distracting men in work places if we institute mandatory burqas or niqabs...for the women, of course. This issue passively shares parallels with rape culture as well. You know, the mindset of "look what she was wearing, she was askin' for it" kinda ham-fisted bullshit? James didn't want to have sex with Melissa and defile his marriage. He even consulted his priest to make sure everything's good with God. The decision was apparently unanimous to everyone except Melissa; it's all her fault. Man's desires and deeds are irreproachable when a woman is there to place blame.
What happens when a patient is gassed and unconscious while he's performing a root canal and he suddenly can't control his licentious dispositions? Maybe this man should simply be committed to rehab. Maybe he and his wife need to examine their marriage.
Why Melissa would bring up her sex life in a work environment is beyond me. Sounds like some workplace flirtation may have occurred OR they had a close 10 year relationship where most topics were simply on the table. Sounds like there were instances where both parties may have acted inappropriately. And at-will laws have grey areas on whether her termination is legal or illegal. It all depends on the courts, and an all-male jury decided that, yes, the individual relationship between the two is grounds for the employer to legally terminate the employee, gender aside. Is that ok? With a 7-0 vote, either these jurors are secret members of the National Coalition of Men (a real organization), or they genuinely believe that if a man cannot physically resist compelling notions of having sex with someone then they are not the problem; the object of attraction is. I don't see how an employee could ever be protected from an employer who fires them based on how bulging their pants become. We all practice our own individual agency. Why are men running the world when we're constantly reminded how easily infantilized we are by vagina and how our dumbed down, slack-jawed states free us of any personal responsibility to how we MIGHT behave.
"This is a man's world...but it'd be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl." -James brown, putting to words what Iran lives, and what many of us have been taught to believe most of our life. In Genesis, a book written by men, it was Eve. The conniving seductress who Adam found too tempting and irresistible to deny. God, his noun modified to represent masculinity throughout the bible, nearly isolated all punishments for Eve and her granddaughters. Swelling stomachs for 9 months, painful child birth, nursing infants, menstruation and hot flashes. Men were simply inconsequential to everything else. There is nothing I endure that any woman doesn't aside from cultural stigmas. Eve's curse has a long consequence of after effects for many women throughout the world. If there is a war on women, it's an antediluvian indictment spanning from present day back to the first woman ever by the creator himself. But now is not the time to debate religion or metaphysics.
Right now we need to decide if the chick with the bazooms across the street should be arrested for the latest traffic accident.
No comments:
Post a Comment