The above make me want to shout from the mountain tops about the inequalities and injustices that women in our country and around the world face at every moment of every day. The above make me want to talk about the ever-present glass ceiling, the gender wage gap, access and education... 

Mostly though, I find the above to be frightening. The speakers of such phrases are so disillusioned, blind to the reality of the state and status of women in our society. 

In the wake of a "not guilty" verdict, news and social media have come alive in a fit of frenzy and fury. Sparked with the who, what, when, and where of the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman decision - conversations on 'race relations' are alive and trending. 

When talking about feminist theory it isn't uncommon to hear the above. When talking about race or racial conflict it isn't uncommon to hear mere echoes of the same sentiments. When talking about class disproportion... 

While many lanes of feminist theory will ardently disagree with me. I believe that it is impossible to unpack gender relations, sex, and sexuality, without two other fields being highly relevant to the conversation. I believe that when it comes to social commentary in the United States, race, class, and gender, are without a doubt the pillars to which all social issues find themselves attached. This is a notion contrary to what many first-wave feminist would believe or the products of such had experienced. Flipping through ye olde feminist discourse, you'll see this standard changes again and again. What it mean to "be a woman" in the the 1960's meant something totally different than to "be Black" and "be a woman." Feminism was for the middle class white female facing the woes of oppression. To "be poor" or "to be Black" were different notions and ideas - they had their own fighters and their own movements. Women had to choose between identifying with their race, class, or gender in order to participate. 

I've found myself frustrated during the course of the Zimmerman trial. Frustrated at those around me. Frustrated at the news and mass media. Frustrated by the social media legal analysts we've all been subject to (which I know is ironic since I'm subjecting you to my own analysis now). 

I am frustrated by my peers, my fellow Americans for the seemingly mass confusion and disillusion. These issues aren't new. This isn't a revitalization of racial conflict or race-centered conversation. Just as the dealing of women and equality are not old news, they haven't gone away! 

I'm afraid that when my peers say that "feminism is already over" or "there is no need to talk about Civil Rights," they are doing so not because it's true - but because it's easy. 

It's easy to avoid conversations that invoke feelings of discomfort or fear. It's easy to change the channel or tune out the sounds of social injustice. 

It is far easier to call an individual a "liberal troll" or a "tea bag bigot" and walk away than it is to unpack all of the realities we face regarding these issues. 

With race, class, and gender as the primary colors of social commentary - any social issue or humanitarian action falls on the spectrum in between. We need to recognize that it still means something to "be Black" in America. It still means something to "be a woman" in the Western World. It still means something to "be poor" from the moment you're born.  To engage in, or allow for the ignorance of such to become convention, is to do our generation a great disservice. 

When we don't recognize the need for dialog regarding all of these fields together, we cannot fully or effectively address any of them independently. 

Why in 2013 are only 41% of low-income students graduating in 5 years or less from colleges and universities? 

Why are women still make 77 cents to every man's $1? 

Why did we even have to question if race was a factor between Trayvon and Zimmerman? 

So, now I shout form my digital mountain top: 

Equal opportunity didn't end with Plyler.

Civil Rights didn't end in 1964. 

Feminism didn't end with the 19th Amendment.

The (all-male) Court ruled that Knight was acting within his legal rights and not within the byline of sex discrimination to fire Nelson from the dental assistant position which she has held for more than 10 years. While she had been noted as a "stellar" employee, Knight's wife believed his attraction to her was affecting their marriage. As a result, Nelson was let go.

While this is the baseline story, there was a lot of other stuff going on. 'Stuff' that makes this decision so much more than that of a husband and wife discussing faith and loyalty within their marriage, so much more than a stint of female jealousy. 

Now, there are a lot of other details to consider in this particular case... 

Nelson had been employed for ten-plus years at Knight's office - where his wife was also employed. 

Both Knight and Nelson were married with children, both had family lives and responsibilities. 

During the last several months of Nelson's employment, Knight and her had begun to exchange text messages - some regarding work, and others mundane personal updates such as the happenings of their children. 

Their 10-year professional relationship, and familiar text communication soon came to an end. 

Knight admitted to asking Nelson to wear a lab coat to "cover up" her "irresistible" body, which he found distracting - "If you see my pants bulging, you know your clothing is too revealing." 

Nelson recalled a text she received from Knight inquiring "how often she experienced an orgasm." 

Nelson claims that she had never engaged in any inappropriate or flirtatious behavior, that these text messages (a common contemporary form of communication) were not a gateway for sexual activity. 

Knight's lawyer was quoted as saying: "Our position has always been Mrs. Nelson was never terminated because of her gender, she was terminated because of concerns her behavior was not appropriate in the workplace. She's an attractive lady. Dr. Knight found her behavior and dress to be inappropriate." 

Hmmmmm... 

If Nelson wasn't engaging in flirtatious behavior why didn't she report the violating text message? 

Good point, Self. While it is possible that Melissa Nelson didn't report the text message because she was engaged in such inappropriate behavior, there are some other issues to explore. First, who would she have reported the sexual misconduct to? Her boss? Oh snap. Secondly, having been his employee for ten years how could she be assured her job security had she not tolerated such commentary?

What about the fact that Melissa Nelson worked with Mrs. Knight - would she not have been friendly and professional with her during her 10 year term? Would Mrs. Knight not have acted sooner if Nelson's dress or behavior were inappropriate? 

While we may never know if Nelson truly engaged in any sort of inappropriate behavior or not, we do know for sure that Dr. James Knight most definitely did. We know that Knight repetitively made commentary regarding Nelson's gender, sexuality, and body. We know that Knight engaged in behavior that crossed the proverbial line.


And yet what I find to be most disturbing isn't the obvious notions of sexual harassment, but the decision of the Court that could potentially serve as a gateway to the rejuvenation of sexual harassment without any framework for quantifiable protection for its victims.

The Iowa Court in their decision noted: "whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction." 

The Court ruled on feelings; because of Knight's feelings he was within his rights to terminate Nelson.

Nelson had filed the lawsuit as a result of what she believed was a violation of her civil rights. She believed she was fired because she was a woman. 

No no, Nelson... you weren't fired because you're a woman. You were fired because you're an attractive woman. Iowa says it's different. 

The Court put forward that had Knight fired Nelson for her gender-specific characteristics, then it would have been a violation of her civil rights. However, his mere attraction to her gender-specific characteristics - which resulted in her loosing her job - were not enough to cite discrimination. 

Here is where my head begins to spin. By the Iowa Court ruling with "feeling" not once, but twice since December on this case, they have created a precedent that should scare the living daylights out of professional women across the country. 

The Court gave the nod that sexual harassment isn't a civil rights issue when backed by feelings of attraction. The "attraction" of an employer to their subordinate isn't a matter of gender - it just simply happens. They also preserved that this "feeling" is enough to act on - regardless if the feeling is mutual. Regardless of actions or lack-there-of by the employee.

The problem with using attraction as a baseline (besides the fact that it's stupid) is that we can neither measure or anticipate it. Attraction is a completely arbitrary notion. It can change, or develop over time. A good personality can make-up for physical features you found initially unattractive, or a bad attitude can make a Greek God look like a total tool. 

This ruling paves the way for employers to fire employees for all sorts of reasons. Iowa employers can fire employees they've sexually harassed and then cite "overwhelming attraction" to no regard. White employers can fire black employees because "the exotic temptation" tried their at-home relationships. What about the employer who fires an un-expecting employee for their lack of attractiveness? Do we protect them?

The worst part about this ruling is that Nelson, in her physicality, was doing exactly what society would want her to. She is a young attractive woman, married with two children. She is, by all conventional standards, beautiful. She is educated, and was employed. 

As women we have been so heavily socialized to be beautiful or to strive to attain beauty. We are never thin enough, or have long enough legs. Our lashes aren't thick enough, and our skin is never the perfect tone or tan. 

Yet, every day, and every image pushes the notion of conventional beauty on us. This is what is expected from us. Now conventional beauty isn't just a social pressure, it adversely is a risk to our employment. The ever-changing immeasurably arbitrary notion that attraction may get you fired may make you think twice about engaging in our very own beauty culture. 

But remember, at the end of the day: you can not get fired because you're a woman or because of your gender-specific characteristics. You can get fired because straight men tend to be attracted to women, and because the fact that you have a vagina may prove too much of a temping distraction to your boss.