I'm terribly sorry but... I've seen enough girls get hired BECAUSE they were hot, over better qualified men, where I work. One of them had an affair with her boss, and she drove a BMW 3-series brand new- and other managers who were way above her used to joke that they couldn't afford anything like that ("one can only dream!") Quite often I've seen attractive looking women strutting around in spikey heels who all were hired by this same guy, and work under him. I was passed over for a job 5 years ago- they hired a cute bubbly 22 year old redhead instead. (it ended up being a blessing, I found a better paid position in the same dept months later ) And I know that outside of my single office in North Carolina, that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women have their jobs because they looked hot. And I didn't even mention the porn industry
So, my question for you is: If hundreds of thousands of women can be HIRED because they're hot, how the fuck should it be illegal to FIRE one for the same reason?
What makes you think it's any better that a woman is hired solely on her appearance? That's still sexism, and it's not the woman's problem or fault. It's the fault of the man who hired her. Men in positions of power also pass up absolutely qualified women in favour of "hot" women. Not to mention, there are just as many women who are not hired due to being attractive for all sorts of ridiculous reasons. Her appearance shouldn't be a factor. "Strutting around in spiky heels" also doesn't mean squat. So long as her attire is deemed work appropriate ( and often, heels are a part of what's deemed acceptable at work, often being looked down on if they DON'T wear them). I'm curious how you know the "cute bubbly redhead" was hired in place of you just because she was "cute and bubbly?" Unless you were in the interview/
There have been studies that show some appearance based discrimination in hiring practices, there have been a few studies done. I'd link one but dA keeps telling me my comment is spam. If you google "obesity discrimination hiring" you'll find a bunch (granted, they are about obesity and not "hotness" but weight is so often considered as a deciding factor between the two that it's still fairly relevant).
And it hits men too, not just women. Traditional attractiveness may be downplayed some, but men are still expected to be reasonably fit, at least plain-looking, well-groomed, etc.
Especially if they're working in a position that requires personal presence dealing with customers. Someone is far more likely to want to buy from a decent-looking, fit, young, polished salesman, than a short, fat, sweaty, comb-over, wrinkly salesman.
Well on the start, I don't believe I ever suggested it's a woman(s) fault for being hired due to looks, or have anything against attractive women in general- in fact i'd say there is no doubt that the single manager I have in mind passed up multiple women who were better qualified. I didn't specify whether his hiring hot women was discriminatory against males or females in particular- just that I know that several girls in my dept were hired for their looks. And made the point that if doing so is acceptable (which it is- I've never heard anyone object to this) then why is firing a single one in the country any different.
Firing or hiring based on a physical attribute of no consequence to the job really should not be allowed, ideally. If we don't allow other forms of discrimination, then this certainly shouldn't be allowed.
I don't see how the law is sexist. If a female boss found a male worker so attractive that it impaired her work it would be legal to let him go too. What can they really do? Sure if it's some low level management you can move people around but it's more difficult to do that the higher it goes. At some point the attractive employee is going to hinder productivity more than their job placement is worth. There should be some very comfortable pay outs if someone has to be let go like this though, because it's really no fault of their own, it's shitty that it happens but sometimes what's best for the business isn't always nice or fair.
He needs to fire his wife because she seems like a control freak. If you can't accept the fact that your husband has to work surrounded by other people, some of which are female, then you need to take a break from your marriage.
Why are people saying this is sexist? He didn't fire her because she was a woman or because of her gender. He fired her because was attracted to her, and because his own wife said to as well. Gender had nothing to do with it because if it had been another man, the result would have been practically the same.
He was attracted to this woman, and attraction can be a powerful, frightening things. He can be faulted for his lack of self control, but at the same time he's only human. It's not her fault, but if she's so distracting he can't focus or work properly that could eventually lead to mistakes, possibly permanent ones. In many ways he's a bad guy, but he's also good for having spotted and dealt with a problem before it got any worse. Before his own behaviour, and his own one-sided attraction got any worse too.
I would have preferred it if he had left and sought employment or a new business elsewhere, yet he was also the boss, and had the right to fire anyone he liked. He should have at least tried to secure a job for her somewhere else.
Hah. Having been to the building where he works myself (looong time ago, could have changed) I think the patients are safe (that is, it is very open with lots of people always coming in and out) but that did cross my mind too
The woman lost her case because she filed it as a discrimination suit, not a sexual harassment suit. There was a big break down on the legalese about the case on one of the 'news' channels. She wasn't dismissed based on gender. So there is no discrimination.
The dentist asked her how frequently she orgasms! Mentioned bulges in his pants. Sexual harassment would have won the day.
I think she was discriminated against based on her gender.
If she didn't want to have to file sexual harassment, she shouldn't have had to. That part didn't bother her. Why sue someone for something they did if it didn't bother you? To get revenge on him for something else entirely? Sounds like a broken system
Well, looking at cause and effect, it's the firing which prompted the dispute. Firing can be construed as a lot of things, but not harassment. The woman was fired directly because of her physical appearance. It's really the same if she were fired for being "ugly".
She wasn't, though, since the man didn't fire all women or act like women in general were a temptation for him. Only that specific woman. The exact same issue might have cropped up if he was gay (or closeted gay) and found a man attractive, or if the boss had been a woman who found a man or woman attractive. The problem was her attractiveness, not her gender.
As such, like it or not, it doesn't count as discrimination against gender. It may qualify as discrimination for other reasons, but it's not a gender issue.
Uhm, nope, since, like I already said: "since the man didn't fire all women or act like women in general were a temptation for him." In fact, he apparently hired another woman right after he fired her. Clearly the fact that she was a woman was not the issue, hence, not sex discrimination.
It's like I already explained that, and you totally ignored it while replying. Huh.
That strange world is called "how the legal system works in the real world", hon. If you're not discriminating against someone because they're a woman, it's not gender discrimination.
It's always kind of morbidly hilarious how whenever people find out reality doesn't match their mental worlds, they accuse reality of being the fantasy and the people who understand how reality works of being "dumb" and "strange". As opposed to the more intelligent and sane response of, "Oh, huh, I didn't know it worked that way, and I had it wrong all this time. Learn something new every day."
No way a person has a perfectly capable mind to tell if a another person has a influence on them from the first few moments of meeting them. If her boss fired her for that she never should of had the job in the first place. What is wrong with men? Can they respect women without being forced to and with some dignity ?
Oppressed? Please. If she doesn't like the job (and obviously, though not enough for some people, if the owner is going to fire her over her looks, it's not a job she would probably be happy with), she has the option of getting a different one; the owner can't prevent her from doing that. Save the "oppressed" label for when someone's actually oppressed.
There is no right to a job and there is no right to the property of another person. Like it or not, the owner of the property in question has a right to be an ass about how he runs it so long as he isn't using force against others.
Life isn't fair, chum, and people are gonna be assholes no matter how much other people whine about it.
If you don't like how a business treats women, say so to them and pass the word out. Organize a protest or a boycott. But as distasteful as I find discrimination for any reason, the indisputable fact is that a person has a right to be as discriminating as they please with their own property. The right to property is the right to use and disposal, and as I stated before, the only thing off limits in the exercise of one's right to control their property is the initiation of force.
Laws are meant to protect people's rights from actual threats to their life, not force behavior on people.
And as I've said time and time again, when someone benefits (or thinks they benefit) from an immoral act, it really shouldn't be any surprise they see no problem with doing it. I'm fairly certain you wouldn't like someone using the law to force you to behave in a manner you didn't like, so it would be wise not to encourage it be done to others.
Laws are meant to protect their constitutional rights.
And you're right, I don't particularly like paying taxes and sometimes I wish I could beat the hell out of someone else just because why not. But that would infringe on their rights, so I have to behave. And I see no problem with this.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, while good, were made by fallible human beings, hence they are no excuse for one to shut off one's own ability to think. Do not think that just because the Constitution and Bill of Rights say something is a right automatically means it is. Logic and reason, not man, decide what is and is not a right.
And there's nothing remotely similar to beating up someone and not sharing your property with them.
Humans can control themselves. The real problem here is, that until recently men didn't have to. Society is making less and less excuses for them nowadays and so now the perverts try to come up with their own. The dirty guy with the lousy excuse worries me less than the fact a surpreme court actually bought it.
Wife was jealous, she and the minister convinced the guy firing the woman was the right thing.
The assistant was with him for thirteen years. Their families were close from what I read. The dentist and her were talking about family issues as well.
He told her, from what I read, "If I have a bulge in my pants, it means you're shirt is too tight."
She never took his words to be anything other than "jokes" and saw him as a father figure.
She was never attracted to him and would never cheat as she was happily married.
Apparently she wore only scrubs, according to an interview she gave to CNN.
The entire situation reeks. And don't give this "He can hire/fire whoever he wishes" BS. Not only was she fired from her job for no reason, but the man hired another woman right after. It's just un-freakin-real that this happened, but then again, people can be fired in the US for really stupid reasons and get away with it. Thankfully they can't here in Canada, or the employee can at least take it to the labor board.
So attractive women (or people for that matter) can lose their jobs because they are...attractive? This is a good example of sex discrimination - the quality of attractiveness is purely suggestive...err subjective and the ruling is wrong.
Yes, that man is an asshole on so many levels and the world is full of such and worse people. The real problem is that the court *validated* his shitty behavior. If the law cannot judge fairly and blatantly encourages such actions is it any wonder more assholes will crop up and this might become the norm? "Hey, girl, be sexay but not too sexay and act the way *I* want you too" you know what I mean?