( CNN ) -- Just when you think we 're becoming civilized and smarter about our knowledge of gender , you get a stupid decision such as the one from the Iowa Supreme Court and you wonder whether sanity will ever reign . I thought we had decided the issue that men 's `` uncontrollable lust '' was indeed controllable , and if they did n't control it , they were going to be charged and convicted of sexual harassment , rape , frottage -- well you get the idea . So now the all-male Iowa Supreme Court has said , albeit in a new way , that men are so controlled by their gonads that they can fire an employee at will for being able to incite attraction , sex , love , whatever . No matter that she is just going about her job or being a stellar employee ; if she 's got a cute butt or a nicely turned nose , her job is history . If you have n't heard , the court stood by an earlier ruling that a Fort Dodge dentist acted legally when he fired his dental assistant -- even while acknowledging she had been an excellent employee for 10 years -- because he and his wife were afraid he would try to start an affair with her and ruin their marriage . The employee had sued for sex discrimination . But the court said firing an employee for being too attractive , despite no inappropriate behavior on her part , is not sex discrimination because gender is not the issue . Feelings are . Do n't tell me this has nothing to do with gender . I do n't see women firing men because they ca n't control themselves . Is this because they do n't have manly kind of urges ? Or is it because they do n't have access to the same excuses , such as uncontrollable attraction and desire ? Either way , it 's a gender issue . And if a woman is denied employment because of her gender , that is a protected legal status . But the Iowa Supreme Court guys did n't see it that way . By the way , Iowa women : Is this enough to motivate you to get some women on your Supreme Court ? The guys saw the issue , at least in part , as protecting the institution of marriage rather than an infringement on a woman 's right to work . Let 's be real honest here : If the only way this man and woman could protect their marriage is to remove an attractive woman from their midst , then I 'd say this marriage has a lot more problems than just an attractive dental assistant . What is this dentist 's wife going to do -- put blinders on her husband like a race horse ? Do employees have to pass an ugliness test ? Do they pick the couples in their extended friendship network according to whether the wife is curvaceous ? Women have been at risk because of their looks for a long time . There are online sites where women are evaluated like so many heifers on whether they are `` Hot or Not ? '' Words such as `` dog '' `` sow '' `` and needing a `` paper bag over her head '' have been thrown at us as a part of male bravado . Beautiful women get cat-calls , sometimes really rude and threatening gestures and unwanted commentary on their looks . Talk about women being between a rock and a hard place . Insulted and not hired if they are n't attractive , fired if they are too attractive . Could someone tell us just exactly how we should look ? More important , could we have some continuing education for the courts around the nation so that they realize looks are a gender issue -- and therefore protecting women from being fired because of them is appropriate . If another case like this goes through the judicial system , I hope a very different conclusion will be reached . Otherwise , all kinds of firings may arise that use this excuse to get rid of women employees . Why , this could even spread to the courts -- male judges might ban some women lawyers from presenting cases because , gosh darn it , they are just too lovely . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Pepper Schwartz .
Iowa court rules it 's not sex discrimination for a man to fire a woman because she 's attractive . Pepper Schwartz thought we 're at the point that if a man ca n't control his lust , it 's illegal . Comment: Saving your marriage by firing an employee for her looks is a gender issue , she says .