The One Where I Become an Angry Feminist

I'm interrupting this humerous blog because I AM SO OUTRAGED!

LIKE SO FURIOUS I HAVE TO SAY MY BIT RIGHT NOW!

Here is my disclaimer though: To my knowledge I have never been cheated on. But I have never cheated on anyone ever. Chris and I have had many discussions about infidelity and what it would mean to us (death) and I feel like this should be said:

YOU MARRY OR PARTNER WITH YOUR FUCKING PARTNER, NOT THE THIRD PARTY!
YOUR PARTNER PROMISED TO LOVE AND HONOR YOU, NOT THE THIRD PARTY!

Ugh. Sorry for the screaming. But my mood is elevated. Here is why:

Last week I read all the articles about the Iowa Supreme Court saying it is legal to fire a person who you or your spouse deem a threat to your marriage. I read this article while in bed with Chris and I read the HuffPo article to him and we both agreed it was total bullshit. Dr. Knight and his wife have used Mrs. Nelson as a scapegoat for what is clearly Dr. Knight's problem. We were both pretty incredulous about this situation. I followed the news story for a few days and was happy to see that most people saw this as an outrage. My faith in humanity and womenkind were restored. Until now.

Keli Goff, a blogger who wrote this article for the HuffPo has my blood boiling. Not since Ginia Bellafonte have I been so furious. Click on the article if you want to read her article, Why Most Women Agree With the 'Irresistibly Attractive' Ruling (Even If They Won't Admit It) without my ad lib.

I'm going to deconstruct this article piece by piece. Bear with me here.

"Every now and then there is an embarrassingly backwards judicial ruling so steeped in prejudice that years later it still haunts our collective conscious as a stain on our nation's history. The 1857 Dred Scott ruling in which the Supreme Court found that all people who look like me -- black Americans -- were not actual American citizens at all and therefore could be enslaved comes to mind. Another is the 1892 Plessy versus Ferguson decision which upheld the "separate but equal" fallacy that allowed legalized segregation to remain the law of the land.
And apparently in the eyes of some outraged bloggers and commenters, a ruling that allowed a woman to be fired because her boss and his wife deemed her too attractive is another.
For those of you who have actually been enjoying the holidays with your families and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, allow me to catch you up. Iowa's high court ruled that dentist James Knight did not violate the law in firing a woman he found attractive, and his wife, who also worked in his dental practice, deemed a threat. I can definitely see the parallels between this case and other landmark discrimination cases. (That was sarcasm in case you missed it.)
What I find baffling about this ruling is not that it is steeped in Dred Scott levels of discrimination. (It's not.) But that it is getting any news coverage at all. "

Really? You are surprised that it is getting any coverage at all? For real? This case sets a precedent that men are biologically unable to control themselves and that we as women are responsible for their actions or in this case, feelings. Let's just add that to our Womenly To Do List. Right after Make sure you look attractive at all times. We will just add in *but not too attractive. It's easier for the men. Oh and comparing this to landmark racial discrimination cases? Get over yourself. There is more then one type of discrimination as a black women, you should understand at least two.

Here's the dirty little secret most of us don't want to admit. Many of us wonder about the attractiveness of the people our significant others work closely with and many of us inquire about it too (either blatantly or covertly, and yes Facebook snooping counts), and with good reason. According to the experts, nearly half of all affairs begin at work.
But the other thing I find surprising is that anyone is attempting to make a legitimate argument that this case has anything at all to do with gender discrimination. Attractiveness discrimination perhaps, but in case you haven't heard being cute or hot is not a protected class. (Sorry all you supermodels.)

I will give you that Keli. I know that most people wonder about the attractiveness of their spouses coworkers. I don't. You know why? Because I know my husbands coworkers! I don't have to wonder. And guess what? They are attractive. He works with several attractive and smart women and one of them has a very similar personality to me AND is attractive (dear god!). But you know what they aren't?

Succubi

Nope. Just regular ol' garden variety women who go to work to do a job. They are not evil demons out to give my husband impure thoughts and lead him into temptation. I do not want any of them fired. I don't mind when my husband goes on business trips with them. If my husband ever wanted to have an affair with them, it's a sign of weakness on his part. Not because of their magical vaginal prowess.

For all of those outraged that a man would have the audacity to fire a woman who his wife deemed a threat, let me ask you this. Would you feel the same way if it was a woman doing the firing? What if the employee in question had been a live-in nanny, and the wife fired her? Because newsflash, this happens all the time. In light of the number of celebrities, from Jude Law, to Ethan Hawke who have gotten cozy with the help, an article from the New York Daily News, highlighted some of the steps some women take to protect their marriages from the family's nanny. You may be utterly shocked to discover that some of those precautions include hiring and firing nannies based on -- wait for it -- their looks! Shocking, I know.

Whoa whoa whoa. HELL YES, I would be upset. I would be MORE upset if the wife was able to fire her. How can women say this stuff about each other? I just don't get it. Oh and you can't say in light of the numbers of celebrities... and then list two notorious womanizers.

But if the New York Daily News writes an article about something you know it must be true. They must be onto something. It's not the gays, the cheaters or the polyamorous that are ruining the institution of marriage. IT'S THE NANNIES! Curse you Nannies! You evil husband stealing succubi! You pretend like you are earning money to pay for college but we know what you are really after, our husbands. You drive our mini vans around, take our kids to tap/football/french class, you make their snacks and give them tylenol when they are sick and it's all part of your evil scheme to steal our men. Little nanny whores. All of them. You know which ones are the worst? The ones that come from third world countries. Those nannies have some serious commitment to stealing our men. They could come to our homes in sweat pants sans make up and cut the crust of our kids sandwhiches for us but no. They come into our homes in comfortably fitting clothes, do our grocery shopping for us and woo our husbands with their domesticity and extra attractiveness. They take advantage of our busy blow out and manicure schedules and weasel there way into our homes and our husbands pants. They must be fired.

(Hey Keli, that was sarcasm in case you missed it).

There's a reason that Lifetime Movie Network is filled with tale after tale of relationships thrown off-balance by a hot nanny or even hotter assistant or a hot male tennis instructor, because plenty of real-life relationships have been -- making it one of the ultimate fears of plenty of women, and men -- a fear that is not entirely unfounded. As I have written before, we as a society discriminate based on looks all the time. More attractive people routinely get paid more, so do taller men. But the downside is occasionally a threatened spouse may have Ms. Good-lookin' or Mr. Tall fired. Do I think this is unfair? Sure. Just proves life's not 100 percent fair for anyone even beauty queens. That's life.

I can't. I just can't. I have no response to any one who uses "facts" from the Lifetime Movie Network as a credible source in their argument.

But did you ever stop to think that the propagnda of the Lifetime Movie Network is what plants all these fears in our heads in the first place?

I think the real reason the Iowa case has captured national attention is because when most of us find out our boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife is working or maybe even traveling regularly, with someone who makes us feel insecure either because of his or her super-good looks or because of an emotional connection we sense our significant other is developing with that person, we are powerless to do anything about it. We may complain to our girlfriends or our moms, and cross our fingers and say a prayer that the person we are in a relationship with is as honest, and trustworthy as we have always hoped. And then maybe we hit the gym a little harder or try to spice things up at home a little more. But this wife did something most of us don't have the power to do. She had the woman fired. It may have made her ripe for national ridicule but guess what? Her marriage is still in tact. I wonder how many women -- from Sienna Miller to the countless others who have found themselves usurped by an attractive person, male or female -- who worked super close with a significant other would rather be ridiculed and still coupled, versus the alternative.
The fired dental assistant certainly has my sympathies. But if she's as attractive as the dentist, his wife and the seven justices seem to think she is, then she will be fine professionally. Now if she weren't "irresistibly attractive" she might have more to worry about. Further proof that life is not fair, but not everything that is unfair warrants a lawsuit.

I'll be the first to say it. Her marriage is NOT intact. You are wrong. Her marriage is just a piece of paper. The seed of infidelity is not in the third party. It's in her husband. I do not want the power to fire my husbands attractive coworkers. I want my husband to have power over his emotions about them. I'm not stupid. I know that he rocognizes he works with pretty women. He can find them pretty. It's allowed. What is not allowed is whether he chooses to do something about it. I often wonder what it is like to do crystal meth. But I have never done it. It's all about him and the choices he makes. He made the promise to be faithfull and love me and HE would be the person breaking that promise. Dr. Knight told his wife he had impure thoughts. They decided to deal with that the way wrong way. They placed the blame on a third party so he wouldn't have to take responsibility.

Okay I am supposed to be blogging about this article not the supreme court case. It's horrible. Horrible. I could not be friends with this woman. Honestly, she seems a little bitter about people who are deemed more attractive than her. I think what bothers me most is that she seems to support the idea that as women, we are in control of how men think of us. Or even how other women see us. She even seems to support the idea that all women (besides ourselves naturally) are evil succubi and we should protect our men from them. Sisterhood? Feminism? Equality? Fairness? Does she know any of these words? Should I stop wearing make up to work so my coworkers wives are more comfortable with my presence? No. I can only be myself in personality or appearance and I shouldn't have to dumb either one down to make other people happy. I'm not going to wear a Burkha so men will be free from my wanton vixenness!

Okay. Feeling calmer.