FIRED BECAUSE SHE IS ATTRACTIVE

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously (they were all male judges) that it is legal to fire an employee if the boss feels attracted to her. This is what James Knight, a 53 year old dentist, did in Fort Dodge, Iowa, when he felt attracted to his employee, a 32 year old woman Melissa Nelson, who had been working for him for 10 years. They didn’t have a relationship, but Knight’s wife, who also worked at the clinic, thought Nelson was a threat to her marriage, and asked her husband to fire her.

“We believe this does not suppose an illegal discrimination” dictates the sentence. The court admits that this firing may not be fair, but does not suppose a violation of the Iowa’s Civil Rights law.

That this happened in the United States leaves us astonished, but it shows something we have insisted about for some time: when they talk about “women’s liberation”, not all that glitters is gold.

But what’s funny is that this 32 year old women was fired because she was too attractive, when the myth is the other way around: An attractive woman has more possibilities to find a job. Probably, both situations are true, the problem is that “looks” -and not abilities- is what counts when giving or taking a job.

There is little difference between this news, that leaves women as “a dark object of desire”, and what is written in the book, which we recommend here, “Vita Brevis” by Jostein Gaarder.

This book is a fiction story about the life of san Agustin’s lover, Fiora. In the book, Fiora recriminates the church’s “Saint” his abandonment, his treatment, and repudiation when, after having their love affair –they had a son-, he repudiates her because he feels that the desire he feels for her is not worthy of the holiness he aspires to…

After thousands of years, women are still considered as sexual objects, and what is worse:  they consider themselves that way. We just have to see all those beauty pageants, and endless situations that show how women –in general- still base their self esteem on their looks.

And what about men? Are they monsters who only think about sex? Maybe, during a long time, men have exacerbated their sexual capacity because of a need to reproduce. As a result, for centuries the “male-macho” has predominated.

But now, in the 21^st century, haven’t men had enough of that part? Don’t they have problems with their sexuality nowadays?

Women are starting to change their sexual roll because of the financial independence they are living right now. Having an economy of their own has liberated them of the sexual slavery in which they have lived. Although this only happens with a small portion of the women’s population, at least it is something we are starting to see. Women want to choose, and they prefer quality to quantity.

Why not think that these changes also affect men, and are leading them to reconsider their own sexuality as well? Why can’t we think men are tired of being the “Homus Erectus”?

What happens is that now it is easier for women –who have played the slave role- to change this role since they don’t economically depend on men anymore. As we said, women can choose now. It seems easier to go from slavery to liberation. However, to change the dominator roll –that has been the sexual roll played by men- to having to listen to a “NO”, it is not so easy. Men have, without doubt, a lot of work to do.

Sexuality is a matter of two. Both, men and women are in a time of redefining their economic, social, political, emotional, and of course, sexual rolls. Solidarity, agreement, clearness in affections, transparency in ideals, can make these two species go in new directions, and don’t see themselves doomed to a failure that they live separately.