Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

So Iowa just ruled that a woman who was fired for being "too irresistible" is not sex or gender based discrimination.

Short story. Dentist hires woman, dentist and woman begin to flirt and text, Dentist's Wife gets pissed, woman gets fired.

LarryC wrote:

It seems obvious to me that boys who turn into men without any contact with women would not know how to relate to them or act around them once they're grown, simply by dint of lack of experience. Practice makes perfect. Do we need a study to tell us that? If you never have any exposure to playing basketball, the smart money says you're going to suck hard.

The problem with this line of thought is that it's propagating the idea that interacting with women is a separate and distinct skill from interacting with men.

Which.
Is.
Bullsh*t.

Interacting with people is a skill. If you're a dickbag to women, the smart money says that you're a dickbag to dudes too.

Jonman wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It seems obvious to me that boys who turn into men without any contact with women would not know how to relate to them or act around them once they're grown, simply by dint of lack of experience. Practice makes perfect. Do we need a study to tell us that? If you never have any exposure to playing basketball, the smart money says you're going to suck hard.

The problem with this line of thought is that it's propagating the idea that interacting with women is a separate and distinct skill from interacting with men.

Which.
Is.
Bullsh*t.

Interacting with people is a skill. If you're a dickbag to women, the smart money says that you're a dickbag to dudes too.

Interacting with people who are the gender you find sexually desirable? While there isn't really a difference between men and women, as a human being, there generally is a difference talking to someone whom you are interested in and someone you are not. How you handle that attraction in your interactions with them is something I think a lot of people screw up (myself included for quite some time) on.

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

Not to get all sexist apologist here, but I think that the notion of mocking the people in power equates to less of an offense has something to do with that. Is there less of a problem with women treating men with civility, or do we just not care and/or gloss over more instances of it happening, since it's less harmful?

SixteenBlue wrote:

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

Really?

You've never interacted with a woman who treated you disrespectfully?

Would any of the forum ladies like to give SixteenBlue a new experience? :p

Demosthenes wrote:

Interacting with people who are the gender you find sexually desirable? While there isn't really a difference between men and women, as a human being, there generally is a difference talking t someone whom you are interested in and someone you are not. How you handle that attraction in your interactions with them is something I think a lot of people screw up (myself included for quite some time) on.

I bolded the part I like a lot, and I think you can clarify a lot of discussion here and on the other thread. It explains partly why Nice Guys can often be generalized as men trying to earn sexual favors from women who don't consider said Nice Guy attractive - because we've sold that whole "it doesn't matter how astonishingly ugly you are, it's what's on the inside that counts" a little too well. Ever wonder why the Nice Guy's definition of assholes and douchebags always have sick abs and/or don't smell like old pizza?

This is a crude description, of course, but I do think that Nice Guy behavior is intended to overcome a lack of physical attraction from the targeted individual.

Jonman wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

Really?

You've never interacted with a woman who treated you disrespectfully?

Would any of the forum ladies like to give SixteenBlue a new experience? :p

Haha, obviously we're talking in generalities. Definitely not saying never.

Bloo Driver has a good point though, but I still think sexual desire has nothing to do with the ability to interact or treat people with respect.

All you ever need to know about women and courtship you can learn from Jimmy Stewart in Shenandoah.

Seth wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Interacting with people who are the gender you find sexually desirable? While there isn't really a difference between men and women, as a human being, there generally is a difference talking t someone whom you are interested in and someone you are not. How you handle that attraction in your interactions with them is something I think a lot of people screw up (myself included for quite some time) on.

I bolded the part I like a lot, and I think you can clarify a lot of discussion here and on the other thread. It explains partly why Nice Guys can often be generalized as men trying to earn sexual favors from women who don't consider said Nice Guy attractive - because we've sold that whole "it doesn't matter how astonishingly ugly you are, it's what's on the inside that counts" a little too well. Ever wonder why the Nice Guy's definition of assholes and douchebags always have sick abs and/or don't smell like old pizza?

This is a crude description, of course, but I do think that Nice Guy behavior is intended to overcome a lack of physical attraction from the targeted individual.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/BntB_zps36f42197.jpg)

There's a terribly thin line between a romantically persistent courter and a stalker/sexual harasser, which can make things confusing for men.

My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He worked with my sister and repeatedly asked her out before she agreed. While they can look back on that as the romantic story that's led to 16 years of marriage and two lovely boys, the reality is that he was one email to HR away from things going very differently.

I might add a handsome beast at that! (Seriously both in the old series and the new one, the beast is pretty damn handsome.

IMAGE(http://www.big13.net/Achorman%20photos/Burgandy.jpeg)

....I am not a furry.

Seth wrote:

I might add a handsome beast at that!

Love.

Love never changes.

Thing is, his most "handsome" features weren't his looks. His best feature was his ability to keep a promise.

It's like I told my mom recently. I don't need Prince Charming. I need Ulysses.

momgamer wrote:

Thing is, his most "handsome" features weren't his looks. His best feature was his ability to keep a promise.

It's like I told my mom recently. I don't need Prince Charming. I need Ulysses.

Ulysses S. Grant? Well, I think all of the available US Presidents (that one's dead, by the way) are taken, so you'd need a cheating President, I'd suggest starting with Bill.

(Before anyone says it, yes I know, different Ulysses, I'm bored and felt the need to make a joke.)

No joking allowed here, Valentine Wiggin.

Seth wrote:

No joking allowed here, Valentine Wiggin. ;)

And that officially makes you the first person to make that joke. Congrats! Only took... 9 years and 11 weeks for something to make the reference.

Demosthenes wrote:
Seth wrote:

No joking allowed here, Valentine Wiggin. ;)

And that officially makes you the first person to make that joke. Congrats! Only took... 9 years and 11 weeks for something to make the reference. :D

Ender's Game Over, Man!

Well, it had me spitting marbles.....

Demosthenes wrote:
momgamer wrote:

Thing is, his most "handsome" features weren't his looks. His best feature was his ability to keep a promise.

It's like I told my mom recently. I don't need Prince Charming. I need Ulysses.

Ulysses S. Grant? Well, I think all of the available US Presidents (that one's dead, by the way) are taken, so you'd need a cheating President, I'd suggest starting with Bill.

(Before anyone says it, yes I know, different Ulysses, I'm bored and felt the need to make a joke.)

Well considering that the other Ulysses was a king who hung out with gods, a mere President might actually be easier to come by.

gore wrote:

Well considering that the other Ulysses was a king who hung out with gods [color=red][size=18]IN SPACE[/color][/size], a mere President might actually be easier to come by.

IMAGE(http://animespin.com/ulysses31-3.jpg)

Come for the feminism, stay for the hideously obscure geek references.

Jonman wrote:
gore wrote:

Well considering that the other Ulysses was a king who hung out with gods [color=red][size=18]IN SPACE[/color][/size], a mere President might actually be easier to come by.

IMAGE(http://animespin.com/ulysses31-3.jpg)

I'm confused. I thought he was stuck on an ISLAND with Clypso?

kazooka wrote:

Come for the feminism, stay for the hideously obscure geek references.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/SmallChanges_zps0f3b82e0.jpg)

KingGorilla wrote:

So Iowa just ruled that a woman who was fired for being "too irresistible" is not sex or gender based discrimination.

Short story. Dentist hires woman, dentist and woman begin to flirt and text, Dentist's Wife gets pissed, woman gets fired.

Just wanted to clarify this: she had been working at the office for ten years, and the dentist flirted with her, not vice-versa. (Unless talking to someone you've worked with for ten years about your family suddenly counts as flirting.)

Goddammit you guys, I was sitting at work DESPERATELY trying to stifle laughter reading the last 15 or so posts.

Jonman wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It seems obvious to me that boys who turn into men without any contact with women would not know how to relate to them or act around them once they're grown, simply by dint of lack of experience. Practice makes perfect. Do we need a study to tell us that? If you never have any exposure to playing basketball, the smart money says you're going to suck hard.

The problem with this line of thought is that it's propagating the idea that interacting with women is a separate and distinct skill from interacting with men.

Which.
Is.
Bullsh*t.

Interacting with people is a skill. If you're a dickbag to women, the smart money says that you're a dickbag to dudes too.

I've probably read things on the internet I disagree with more than this statement, but none come to mind.

Hypatian wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

So Iowa just ruled that a woman who was fired for being "too irresistible" is not sex or gender based discrimination.

Short story. Dentist hires woman, dentist and woman begin to flirt and text, Dentist's Wife gets pissed, woman gets fired.

Just wanted to clarify this: she had been working at the office for ten years, and the dentist flirted with her, not vice-versa. (Unless talking to someone you've worked with for ten years about your family suddenly counts as flirting.)

Outraged columnists are still talking about an Iowa Supreme Court ruling issued before Christmas that tossed a lawsuit by a woman who says her boss fired her because he considered her an irresistible attraction.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 21 that the firing of dental assistant Melissa Nelson did not amount to unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Columnists for the Kansas City Star, A Better Iowa and Courthouse News Service are criticizing the decision (PDF).

Dentist James Knight had fired Nelson after Knight’s wife learned her husband and Nelson had been trading texts on work and personal matters, some of them involving updates on their kids’ activities and “other innocuous matters,” the court said. One of Knight’s texts, however, was sexual in nature (Nelson says she didn’t reply), and he had complained occasionally in the office that Nelson’s clothing was too tight and “distracting.”

The wife considered Nelson a threat to the marriage and demanded her termination, according to the opinion. Knight fired Nelson, a 10-year employee in his office, after consulting with his pastor. Knight later told Nelson's husband that Nelson was the best dental assistant he ever had, but he feared he would try to have an affair with her if he did not fire her.

Nelson had contended she was fired based on her gender, but the Iowa Supreme Court disagreed. “The civil rights laws seek to insure that employees are treated the same regardless of their sex or other protected status,” the court said. “Yet even taking Nelson’s view of the facts, Dr. Knight’s unfair decision to terminate Nelson (while paying her a rather ungenerous one month’s severance) does not jeopardize that goal. This is illustrated by the fact that Dr. Knight hired a female replacement for Nelson.”

The Kansas City Star and A Better Iowa say Knight’s justification for the firing has long been used to keep women out of certain jobs. “Law enforcement, the military, firefighting, construction—any number of fields have used this argument to exclude women,” the Kansas City Star says. “Just what were the justices thinking?”

A Better Iowa goes further with its analogy. “To accept that it is impossible for a man to control himself around women is to accept that sexual harassment, and maybe even rape, can result from uncontrollable urges, too,” the columnist says. “It is to accept the Taliban’s justification for keeping females out of schools and work sites: Those temptresses are just too much of a distraction.”

Wow, that's all kinds of f*cked up.

MrDeVil909:

Agreed. The entire thread is predicated on the observation that people treat other people differently based on gender. Dickbaggery focused on only women is pretty much the thread's reason for being.

I hope she fares better than the Woman fired from Citi. But chances are the lady from Citi will get 7 figures to pose for playboy, and will take it. Pro tip for anyone who is fired for dressing in a distracting way in the office, try not to parlay that into a chance to get hundreds of glamour shots taken of you. And don't make it public that you had your breasts enlarged to "Look like tits on a stick" to attract a man like George Clooney.

LarryC wrote:

MrDeVil909:

Agreed. The entire thread is predicated on the observation that people treat other people differently based on gender.

Precisely my point.

What you've missed is that the fact that treating each other differently based on gender has a name. It's called sexism. Turns out it's even in the thread title!

Ideas like "if you went to a boys school you don't know how to interact with women", and "interacting with women is different from interacting with men" promote and normalize sexism. They suggest that it's expected and business-as-usual to treat women differently.

Which.
Is.
Bullsh*t.