It's my human right not to wear a bra, says B.C. woman fired for doing just that

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 18, 2016
777
31
18
Oak Bay, Victoria
A B.C. woman who says her previous employer fired her for not wearing a bra has filed a human rights complaint, saying the requirement was unjust and discriminatory.

"I have nipples just like the men," Christina Schell told The Current's Anna Maria Tremonti.

"Who outlined what exactly is considered professional [and] why breasts sitting maybe a half an inch lower on my chest is unprofessional?"

Schell argues her termination from her job at the Osoyoos Golf Club is a human rights issue because male employees are not required to wear any specified underwear, yet women are.

"I found it difficult initially because I just felt like it was my right as a human being to decide the undergarments that nobody can see," she explained.

"It's one sex versus the other. If it did say all employees had to wear an undershirt, I couldn't qualify it as sexual discrimination. But I would definitely be fighting my right to choose my own undergarment."

A hearing date for Schell's human rights complaint, which was filed on June 21, has not been set.

The 25-year-old server started working at the club in May. Weeks later, a new dress code mandated she wear a bra or undershirt under her uniform shirt.

Schell refused, and said she was fired as a result.

"I've signed multiple uniform agreements and I've served at another establishment in the town of the Osoyoos. I've served the same men and women … without a bra," Schell told her then-general manager Doug Robb.

Schell said Robb told her that the rule was for her protection, saying: "I know what happens with alcohol and golf courses."

The Current asked the Osoyoos Golf Course for a comment but they declined, citing privacy issues.

Not wearing bra 'made me so much happier'
Since her preteen years, Schell never liked wearing a bra. They made her feel miserable and uncomfortable.

Since going braless more than two years ago, it's helped her health, too — she's had less trouble sleeping and has better posture.

"I feel like I breathe better. It's just overall made me so much happier," she said.

Fashion historian Alison Matthews David explains no bras were burned in the 60s Miss America protest.

Feminists in the 60s protested the Miss American pageant by throwing items that symbolized 'idealized femininity' into what was called the freedom trashcan. But fashion historian Alison Matthews David explains no bras were lit on fire. 1:01
Bras have always been political, says fashion historian Alison Matthews David.

"Women have always wanted to dispense with sometimes this somewhat uncomfortable undergarment," she said.

Matthews David, who is also an associate professor at Ryerson University's school of fashion, says we're in a time of extreme gender polarization — and the bra is part of that.

People are rightfully claiming they should not be forced to wear bras, Mathews David explained, at least partly because it can be hard to find a simple bra without underwire or extra padding.

"Not all women are comfortable wearing them. It should not be an obligation and yet it's this time where there's also so much pressure coming from the media for example, and from music ... popular culture, stressing the opposite that women should hyper-feminize themselves," she said.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent...b-c-woman-fired-for-doing-just-that-1.4846679
 

badbadboy

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2006
9,576
277
83
In Lust Mostly
It should be a woman's choice not a rule. People need to update their pre 1970's thinking. In my book it's also like shaming a mother discreetly breast feeding her child in public.
 

take8easy

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2014
4,528
721
113
One of my 60+ male co-worker has man boobs. His nipples show thru his shirts clearly. Our company never asked him to wear a bra so why would we ask females to wear them.

My point is that such discrimination should be 'nipped' in the bud.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
Schell said Robb told her that the rule was for her protection, saying: "I know what happens with alcohol and golf courses."
And there's the crux of the problem right there: the wrong-thinking that says that "protection" means the woman needs to capitulate for her safety, rather than removing the threat. We're not even talking about some shapeless threat here like "lock your doors" or "don't walk down a dark alley." This guy is saying that, in a confrontation between an unruly drunken customer and one of his staff, the solution is "don't tempt the beast" rather than "we don't tolerate that sort of behaviour from our clientele."
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
789
8
18
And there's the crux of the problem right there: the wrong-thinking that says that "protection" means the woman needs to capitulate for her safety, rather than removing the threat. We're not even talking about some shapeless threat here like "lock your doors" or "don't walk down a dark alley." This guy is saying that, in a confrontation between an unruly drunken customer and one of his staff, the solution is "don't tempt the beast" rather than "we don't tolerate that sort of behaviour from our clientele."
The former is an exercise in logic. The latter is an exercise in idealism.

Fundamentally, it's inane to tell unto others what they cannot do whilst rejecting being told that you have the responsibility of self-preservation.

I don't see people going to Syria in droves screaming "The fucking ISIS guys aren't allowed to bomb me because we don't tolerate this type of behavior! Bombs and bullets are obligated to dodge me!". It certainly hasn't prevented any deaths or stopped any killing. Telling people what to do has never and will never work. Neither standards in morality nor legal framework will stop a serial killer from wanting to murder, or some horny ass freak from assaulting a woman. Human nature is an unstoppable force, but you can choose not to stand on the traintracks.

Also, the HR Commission can't exactly rule on this - Private enterprises are allowed to impose their rules as they see fit regarding workplace attire. However, what the man said can be ruled upon otherwise.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
It doesn't matter what the "rule" says, someone will always decide their right to ignore it over-rules anything else.

If she was ordered to NOT wear a bra, because me don't wear them, guess what would happen?

Also, if she got some drunk fired up seeing her nipples, and got groped, "not accepting that behaviour" isn't going to stop it, and she'd end up suing the employer for not protecting her adequately.

It's a no-win situation for the employer.
 

NEbaD

Regular Person
Mar 15, 2016
592
88
28
Lesser Vancouver
The former is an exercise in logic. The latter is an exercise in idealism.
First, this.

Second, men's and women's chests aren't the same, therefore, it is not a double standard. It amazes me how people always confuse this issue.

Woman have breasts, actual mammories, unlike a fat man with moobs. Breasts have been sexualized for basically ever, insofar as anyone currently alive in western culture is concerned. Because of this, women cover them, while men need not do so.

Men have chests which, while their pectoral muscles may be attractive to women, do not have a history of sexualization in the same manner as women's breasts. I would more closely compare a man's nice chest being viewed similar to how a woman with nice legs may be seen by those attracted to women.

To follow the line of thinking commonly presented here, if women needn't wear bras, they needn't wear shirts, and if they needn't wear shirts, then when a bunch of impressionable 15 year old girls decide to assert their rights and go shirtless down Main street, say, tomorrow afternoon, I suppose everyone would be in support of that?

Naturally, there would be the contingent to say, "of course I would support that!" to whom I would suggest reading the rest of that which I quoted at the outset, in particular the third paragraph.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
The former is an exercise in logic. The latter is an exercise in idealism.

Fundamentally, it's inane to tell unto others what they cannot do whilst rejecting being told that you have the responsibility of self-preservation.

I don't see people going to Syria in droves screaming "The fucking ISIS guys aren't allowed to bomb me because we don't tolerate this type of behavior! Bombs and bullets are obligated to dodge me!". It certainly hasn't prevented any deaths or stopped any killing. Telling people what to do has never and will never work. Neither standards in morality nor legal framework will stop a serial killer from wanting to murder, or some horny ass freak from assaulting a woman. Human nature is an unstoppable force, but you can choose not to stand on the traintracks.

Also, the HR Commission can't exactly rule on this - Private enterprises are allowed to impose their rules as they see fit regarding workplace attire. However, what the man said can be ruled upon otherwise.
You're missing the distinction that a golf club is a closed environment and transgressors can be kicked out or banned. Besides, (a) it's called self-preservation because you get to decide for yourself. Firing her for "taking the risk" is hardly the same thing as expecting there's no risk, (b) your argument is still no justification for the owner to shirk responsibility for actually protecting his employees by ejecting threats and thus serving as a deterrent for that sort of behaviour.
 

UhOh

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2011
1,971
294
83
The tips were a lot bigger when the bra came off. No wonder she's pissed.
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
789
8
18
You're missing the distinction that a golf club is a closed environment and transgressors can be kicked out or banned. Besides, (a) it's called self-preservation because you get to decide for yourself. Firing her for "taking the risk" is hardly the same thing as expecting there's no risk, (b) your argument is still no justification for the owner to shirk responsibility for actually protecting his employees by ejecting threats and thus serving as a deterrent for that sort of behaviour.
My argument was to counter your statement about people should tell other people what to do rather than take responsibility for their own actions.

I neither condoned nor supported the owner for his actions, nor do I care. I quote Throppled:

CockThroppled said:
It's a no-win situation for the employer.
But as you say so yourself, since the golf club is a closed environment, the employer should be allowed to do whatever he wants. Either he can fire the employee as he sees fit for whatever reason he wishes, or he can't. And if he doesn't have a choice at running his business the way he wants, then why does the woman have the choice of not wearing a bra?

Like I said. There's no logic in telling people that they can't do something while not accepting being told what to do. That's a shitty double standard. And that's why the HR Commission will not be able to rule on this, nor will this be fundamentally a case usable in our common law system, because it's flawed thinking.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
Let's break this down in simple terms: Pretend you are the boss of a company that does not yet have a dress code regarding bras, and have not yet seen any incidents.

One day a grievance is brought to your attention: a female employee who wasn't wearing a bra is inappropriately groped by a male employee who saw her attire as an invitation.

Which one should you discipline?

Is there really room for debate on that? Fine, you might argue she was leaving herself open to the possibility, but all the same are you going to absolve the guy of responsibility while disciplining her for her alleged naivety?

My opinion the boss should advise her of the risk and leave the choice up to her, but still back her up if someone crosses the line.

What's so wrong with that?

All I'm arguing is the owner is misguided in firing her "for her own protection".

As to why some can be told what to do and not others, it simply comes down to what the law allows. I'm not actually going to comment on whether he's allowed to or not, because that's the commission's job. I just think the owner's argument is misguided.
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
789
8
18
Let's break this down in simple terms: Pretend you are the boss of a company that does not yet have a dress code regarding bras, and have not yet seen any incidents.

One day a grievance is brought to your attention: a female employee who wasn't wearing a bra is inappropriately groped by a male employee who saw her attire as an invitation.

Which one should you discipline?

Is there really room for debate on that? Fine, you might argue she was leaving herself open to the possibility, but all the same are you going to absolve the guy of responsibility while disciplining her for her alleged naivety?

My opinion the boss should advise her of the risk and leave the choice up to her, but still back her up if someone crosses the line.

What's so wrong with that?

All I'm arguing is the owner is misguided in firing her "for her own protection".
Your argument is based on dealing with consequence. I argue based on cause. If you have a fever, treating the symptoms with tylenol is at best a temporary solution. If you don't kill the germs giving you pneumonia, you'll die.

YOUR argument postulates that you should shoot and kill all the people that are sick rather than wash your hands and disinfect after every contact with a stranger, despite running a raging fever.

I wouldn't discipline either in your scenario, becase it is already too late. The woman didn't wear a bra. Some jackass groped her. I'd tell her to move on, wear a bra next time. And if she doesn't want to wear a bra, bring a fucking gun. Disciplining HIM doesn't mean he'll stop doing it. Disciplining her will just make things worse.

If discipline worked, no one on this board would be seeing escorts because it's ILLEGAL. Humans have very little control in exercising their urges.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
Your argument is based on dealing with consequence. I argue based on cause. If you have a fever, treating the symptoms with tylenol is at best a temporary solution. If you don't kill the germs giving you pneumonia, you'll die.

YOUR argument postulates that you should shoot and kill all the people that are sick rather than wash your hands and disinfect after every contact with a stranger, despite running a raging fever.

I wouldn't discipline either in your scenario, becase it is already too late. The woman didn't wear a bra. Some jackass groped her. I'd tell her to move on, wear a bra next time. And if she doesn't want to wear a bra, bring a fucking gun.

If discipline worked, no one on this board would be seeing escorts because it's ILLEGAL.
Ok. You have a different outlook, but don't put words in my mouth.

My approach is what it is with my kids: "you thinking of doing something stupid? Ok. Here are the consequences/risks. Still planning on going through with it? Well, that's on you." But that doesn't mean if, say, they break their arm climbing that wobbly tree I'm not going to take them to the hospital.

We're not talking life or death here. If someone gets groped, lesson learned. And we kick out the perp. He maybe learns to keep his hands to himself next time too. Or he gets banned. Consequences for everyone.
 

Jethro Bodine

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2009
4,368
1,356
113
Beverly Hills. In the Kitchen eatin' vittles.
The tips were a lot bigger when the bra came off. No wonder she's pissed.
Years ago I used to get my hair cut by a certain lady at a local salon.
She had some nice C's and never wore a bra. And her nipples were like pencil erasers constantly. While cutting my hair she was constantly brushing her boobs (and nipples) in my face. I'm convinced she knew exactly what she was doing.
Needless to say I always left her a sizeable tip. :)
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,712
572
113
Upstairs
It's great telling people about to embark on something that might have negative outcomes to say, "Okay, but you have to accept the consequences." IF people accepted the consequences of their actions, but in our society it almost never happens unless they are outright killed.

Most people look for ways to blame someone else when they do something stupid, or become outright belligerant when called on their actions.

Ever honk at a pedestrian looking at their phone, who steps into traffic without looking? Nine times out of ten they'll give you the finger.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,282
14
38
Vancouver
Look, whether the guy has the right to tell her to wear a bra or not is up to the commission to determine.

I'm just saying that firing her "for her own protection" seems like a stupid argument. If he just said "that's our dress code and she didn't comply" then I'd sit back and wait for the judgment. I'd accept an argument about business image more readily than the one he made.

On a basic level maybe a bra might help but it's not a magical anti-harassment device. Presumably the "alcohol and golf club" effect is still there with or without the bra, but he's speaking like all he has to do is make his female employees wear a bra and his job is done.

Even strip clubs will kick people out for groping the strippers. Try telling the bouncer discipline doesn't work as he drags you out by your ear.
 

sevenofnine

Active member
Nov 21, 2008
2,018
8
38
seriously

you guys don't like a braless women, I don't get why your not sticking up for her more furiously
its a no brainer,

fuck even if she was naked and spread eagle you don't have the right to touch her, its wrong with out her agreement or permission
do you grope stripers,

fuck,
even an escort you paid,
no means no,

you can look, you might even make a mild comment, as nice or great something not dirty,

but if she wants me looking at her nipples im ok with that,

shit in this day an age,
we have guys wearing a dress and panties and bra, with a beard to boot,
and you can't stop them its there right,

seriously,
 

nightswhisper

Member
Feb 20, 2016
789
8
18
seriously

you guys don't like a braless women, I don't get why your not sticking up for her more furiously
its a no brainer,

fuck even if she was naked and spread eagle you don't have the right to touch her, its wrong with out her agreement or permission
do you grope stripers,

fuck,
even an escort you paid,
no means no,

you can look, you might even make a mild comment, as nice or great something not dirty,

but if she wants me looking at her nipples im ok with that,

shit in this day an age,
we have guys wearing a dress and panties and bra, with a beard to boot,
and you can't stop them its there right,

seriously,
No one debated about her rights. The debate has been about whether or not he's right.

As in, no one is debating human rights, but rather the violation thereof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vancouver Escorts