THE IOWA Supreme Court has upheld a dentist’s decision to fire his assistant because she was highly attractive and wore tight, revealing clothing. The dentist claimed that working alongside the asssistant was a threat to his marriage.

— Comments —-

Terry Morris writes:

So the case went all the way to the State Supreme Court, eh? What a waste of public resources! I suppose the plaintiff will now appeal to the federal appeals Court based on her “right” to work anywhere, and clothed any way she darn well pleases.

Relatedly I once had a highly attractive woman (who was also in the habit of dressing revealingly) ask me for a job. I basically told her that I didn’t think that was something I should try. My wife would never have simply gone along with it in any event, and I did not care to cause contention between us. So I declined to hire her at the outset. And there isn’t a court in this country powerful enough to force me to hire anyone in any case. So there ya go.

Michael S. writes:

Nowhere in the news story do I see any mention of whether Iowa is an “at-will employment” state.

And the commenters are all agog about what a “pig” this guy is. It’s called “separating yourself from temptation.” What a concept!

Lawrence Auster writes:

Michael S. wrote:

And the commenters are all agog about what a “pig” this guy is. It’s called “separating yourself from temptation.” What a concept!

 This shows that it’s not just the revealingly dressed women themselves who seek to control men in an unnatural way, but liberals as such. As I wrote four years ago:

The way many women dress today, with half their breasts exposed, is an expression of total disrespect for men. Men are left with three possible responses. To grab the woman, which is illegal; to ogle the woman, which is socially unacceptable; or to affect not to notice the woman at all, which is emasculating. A culture that normalizes such female behavior—i.e. not only not noticing or objecting to it, but prohibiting any objection to it—is extremely sick.

Fred Owens writes:

My father owned his own small business, publishing a fishing magazine. He hired a series of personal secretaries over the course of his career and they were all noticeably homely, as we were taught to say. Maybe it helped my Dad to focus on his work. Mom was pretty good-looking herself and not inclined to be jealous, so that was no concern. Well, maybe it just made life easier for everyone, and I’ll bet the homely women were glad to have the work.

 Perfesser Plum writes:

I don’t see the ruling as supporting family values or the masculinity of the dentist.

Quite the contrary.

He and the assistant were “exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired.” Ah, ha! Sounds like dress was secondary.

So, Knight the dentist was acting inappropriately, but instead of manning up and stopping, his wife gets angry and stopped it for him. Beta male episode #1.

Then, instead of telling the assistant that her dress was inappropriate in a medical office (“Hey, wear something that closes at the top, wouldya? Teenage boys come in here. They don’t need peep shows in my office.”), he yields to his wife and fires the woman. Beta male episode #2 with a side order of cowardice.

But that’s dentists for you.

As for the all-male court? One hundred percent henpecked. They probably use their robes to hide the peck marks.

“And just how did YOU vote, Henry?”

“Oh, I voted against that lewd woman, dear. Intolerable. The very idea! That poor man at the mercy of that woman’s cleavage.”

“Good, Henry. I would expect nothing less.” [pat pat and a doggie treat.]

Sickening.

Laura writes:

Interesting. I guess the underlying story here is that he was a bad boy until his wife stepped in. Did he ever tell the assistant that she should have dressed more appropriately? That’s not clear from the news reports.

Mr. Morris writes:

It sounds to me like a significant part of the underlying story is that the Lamborghini’s husband had better get her under control before she allows someone to take her for a test drive. Maybe he needs to try harder to satisfy her sexually, I don’t know (it appears she thinks so). But she crossed a line that should never be crossed when she shared personal sexual information with her male employer. If her husband does not take appropriate corrective action immediately he is an utter fool.

Mr. Auster writes:

Based on Prof. Plum’s further information about what was happening here, I retract my own comment. As a general point, my comment is valid, but not in relation to this case.

Please follow and like us: