Don't fire her because she's beautiful

I don't think the photos are helping her any...

Before anyone jumps on me, I say this as a woman who has been harassed in the workplace.  You just can't make yourself credible by publishing professionally lit glamour shots when you make this kind of complaint.

No, I didn't say she did anything untoward in her workplace at all.  I'm not blaming the victim.  If she was harrassed, the harrassers should be punished.

It's difficult, however, not to note the professionally shot and made up photos peppering the article and wonder why she would want to mix the message.  Were they right to be so distracted?  Of course not, but the photos almost ask that for you.  Muddy waters aren't going to help your case.

Not a smart thing to do, that's all.

Hmm, how much control do you think she had over those photos?  I assume if she wanted the article published she had to put up with the publisher.

jrootham wrote:

Hmm, how much control do you think she had over those photos?  I assume if she wanted the article published she had to put up with the publisher.

 

At what point?  In makeup?  Choosing wardrobe?  Getting dressed?  Posing?  Signing off on the proofs?  Signing the release for the publisher?  That she had no idea that the shots of the off the shoulder mini-dress might be construed as sexy?  Come on.  She's 33 years old, to say that she's had no control over any of that article or the photos is utterly infantilizing. 

Actually, I also found it weird that the article was accompanied by so many glamour shots of her.  I didn't really understand what was up with that, or why the glamour shots were relevant in the least to the article.

There was one shot of her in a business suit.  That was the one I thought was relevant.  But then, the whole article had a somewhat salacious, objectifying tone to it, even though it was sympathetic to her.

"Salacious"? Geez, Michelle. This is an informal discussion board.

Of course there are mixed messages.  The editors at the Voice saw an opportunity to run both sides of the street at the same time.  As in "Hey, guys, we can write an article about discriminating against women and put up pictures of a hot babe to illustrate it.   WOOT!"

She gets the choice of going with that flow or not having the article published.

That might have been a tough call.  But it is not infantilizing to say that was the choice.

I'm getting the impression some think she shouldn't dress like this?  I don't get the criticism of Lorenzana.  Perhaps she felt or was even counselled this is the best way for her to get a fair settlement.  Isn't that her perogative and why is it worthy of criticism if it was?

I'm pretty sure that the off the shoulder mini dress was not work wear.  If it was, then yeah, HR should have told her to tone it down.  Some places have different standards for management and other staff, or different departments, too.  So maybe she was pushing the limit a bit at some point.

However, that's not the impression I get of this woman.  It sounds like she's a bright, savvy person.  What puzzles me is that she would have even given the Voice the glam photos. 

It also bothers me that there is an assumption that she has been duped, twice victimizing her.  Maybe she was given poor advice, maybe she didn't think about it, we don't really know.  But I don't want to make the assumption that the poor pretty little thing was just not clever enough to make her own decision.

Timebandit wrote:

remind wrote:

she is not giving mixed messages at all, full stop!

How so?

There's no mixed message.  You have no idea why those photos are out there.  You seem 100% that she's controlling the message.  Maybe they were bought from a modelling agency she worked for in the past.  Anything wrong with that? 

Dudette's been fired, perhaps she needs money and agreed to a National Enquirer-esque story to pay her bills?  You going to fault her for that to fight this?

Or maybe she just enjoys her sexuality, is that not um-kay?

My thought is the real reason she was fired is because she wouldn't fuck the bosses.

Why would you think that, RevolutionPlease?  She's saying that the reason she was fired was because her male bosses told her that her looks were distracting them, even though she was wearing normal business attire.  If she was fired because she wouldn't fuck the bosses, I'm sure she'd have said so in her lawsuit and the article.

Lots of people enjoy their sexuality.  That's not the point.  The point is, glamour shots of her in revealing clothing don't have anything to do with the story, which is that her bosses found her BUSINESS WEAR too revealing. 

Therefore, the story IS putting forth a mixed message.  The story is about a woman who was fired because her male bosses thought she looked too beautiful or "hot" in proper business attire.  Then they run the story with a bunch of glamour shots of her wearing skin-tight, cleavage busting evening wear.

Is the reader intended to think that these pictures are examples of what she wore to the office?  If not, then there are mixed messages being put forth to the reader. 

I am also thinking that she likely wasn't the one who gave them the photos of her.  The writer of the article claims that her lawyer took a bunch of photos of her wearing business clothes, but then they ran only one of those photos with the article (stating explicitly that, "This photo, unlike the others, was arranged by her lawyer for her suit").

So my question is, why would the publication do that?  I'm not convinced that she was in on it.

Michelle, the fucking the bosses comment was a bit flippant but it can be very subversive. 

I was concerned with Catchfire giving credit to Timebandit's commentary when Timebandit was directly blaming the victim while I think Catchfire was trying to catch the nuance.   They're leaving the impression that it is the victim giving mixed messages not the media.

Um, Timebandit was NOT "directly blaming the victim".  She's saying that running the glam photos with the article isn't helping her case.  That's certainly not the same thing as "blaming the victim" for being sexually harassed.  It's saying that there are mixed messages being sent to the readers of the article.  Not to the bosses.

People are just so ready to jump down each other's throats and assume the very worst about whatever people write.  It's so tiresome.

Quote:

Do you have a problem with that?

Do you have a problem with women in this thread voicing their opinions about this article?

Michelle wrote:

Quote:

Do you have a problem with that?

Do you have a problem with women in this thread voicing their opinions about this article?

I'm sorry Michelle but I'm confused.  Timebandit directly implied that Lorenzana is controlling the story.  I'll shut up now.

Michelle wrote:

Why would you think that, RevolutionPlease?  She's saying that the reason she was fired was because her male bosses told her that her looks were distracting them, even though she was wearing normal business attire.  If she was fired because she wouldn't fuck the bosses, I'm sure she'd have said so in her lawsuit and the article.

Lots of people enjoy their sexuality.  That's not the point.  The point is, glamour shots of her in revealing clothing don't have anything to do with the story, which is that her bosses found her BUSINESS WEAR too revealing. 

Therefore, the story IS putting forth a mixed message.  The story is about a woman who was fired because her male bosses thought she looked too beautiful or "hot" in proper business attire.  Then they run the story with a bunch of glamour shots of her wearing skin-tight, cleavage busting evening wear.

Is the reader intended to think that these pictures are examples of what she wore to the office?  If not, then there are mixed messages being put forth to the reader. 

I am also thinking that she likely wasn't the one who gave them the photos of her.  The writer of the article claims that her lawyer took a bunch of photos of her wearing business clothes, but then they ran only one of those photos with the article (stating explicitly that, "This photo, unlike the others, was arranged by her lawyer for her suit").

So my question is, why would the publication do that?  I'm not convinced that she was in on it.

Okay, so I was curious what the provenance of the photos was and how other publications were spinning the story (the Voice most definitely had a doozy of a spin...) and looked further.  It would appear that the photos of Lorenzana in business attire - and yes, they're somewhat sexy business outfits, but nothing I wouldn't have worn in my late 20s and early 30s in an office environment) were taken by Saswat Pattanayak.  Here's a link to a story with those photos featured in a gallery you can click to at the bottom of the page:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20006646-504083.html

The glam photos are credited to Carrie Schechter -- I thought I had a link that said "for the Village Voice", but at any rate, if you look on Schechter's website, the Voice is listed as one of her clients.

So it would appear that the glam shots were done specifically for the story.  Was it coercion?  Could be, but we really don't know.  She probably could have said, no, too racy, dial it back a notch.  Obviously, the whole set up was to tittilate on the Voice's side.  I think it's probable she gave them the business attire photos and the Voice only used one.

We also don't know if her side of the claim is 100% accurate, either, since we don't have anything to go by but her interview and complaint.  Assuming that there was harrassment, the Village Voice is not on this woman's side.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

RosaL wrote:

I predict she'll have a playboy spread in short order. 

 

Good for her if she had to put up with that shit.  Do you have a problem with that?

Oh dear god.  Not the "nudie spread for jerkoff mag is empowering to women" trope...  Because, you know, it's so much better to make your money on your back.  I think I'm going to puke.  Listen, hon, only little boys believe that fairy tale.  Grow up.

What Catchfire said.

And also, ick.

Women making the news because of what we do and don't look like is part of what Bitch magazine calls a SMS, Sexist Media Stunt. Their analysis is that as the medium of print nosedives, SMS's are easy and quick ways to generate fake bullshit "controversies" and readership.

Obsessing over what women wear, what women do when we wear what we wear, and our effect (or not) on men who are helpless to control themselves in the face of such gorgeousness, is nothing new.

Cripes, this is Feminist Critique of Pop Culture 101, people!

Yawn.

And apparently, it's working. And eliciting sexist comments like alan smithee's at post #21. 

Timebandit wrote:

Assuming that there was harrassment, the Village Voice is not on this woman's side.

I assume there was harassment, and I agree, the VV is absolutely not on this woman's side. They want to sell papers and/or advertising, and women considered  "sexy and hot" by society's standards do that for print. No matter what the content of the story.

And there are double standards everywhere.

Quote:

 Everything about Debrahlee Lorenzana is hot. Even her name sizzles.

Interesting that nobody has pointed out the obvious racist exoticization aspect of the sexism. The breathless prose about her racial background, and her own use of the word "spic" to describe herself, as well as describing how women in her "culture" do their nails to go to the corner store, all serve to reinforce racist/sexist tropes about women of colour in general, and Latina women specifically.

.....

Fotheringay-Phipps wrote:

 But once again we can thank our lucky stars for our boringly conservative banks where executives wear thornproof tweed skirts, munitions-grade woollen twinsets, and waterproof sensible shoes suitable for stamping out small brushfires. And don't get me going about what the women wear. 

Oh baby.

And if I wasn't joking, skdadl? 

Are you saying the thread's been salvaged?

This article... just wtf.

This is a serious issue, for this woman and for the larger number of women out there who deal with the same problem. However, the article doesn't attempt to be serious - it's written as a fantasy soft-core pornography piece.

Everything about Debrahlee Lorenzana is hot. Even her name sizzles. At five-foot-six and 125 pounds, with soft eyes and flawless bronze skin, she is J.Lo curves meets Jessica Simpson rack meets Audrey Hepburn elegance-a head-turning beauty.

Where did the New York Times find this writer? Was he laid off by the erotic fiction publishing industry? I noticed that at right at the start of the article they have links to more pictures of the woman!

I am finding it very annoying, in general, as a man, to get this kind of patronizing media treatment. The idea is that by plastering pictures of beautiful women all over the text, you can get more male leaders, like putting cheese on a mousetrap. How about trying to get male readers by writing some well-written stories? This is also an issue in mainstream television. A lot of shows I watch, even when they have talented writers as can be seen from the broader storylines, bring on "special guest stars" every third episode and contrive storylines to have them walk around in their underwear. Another one that's bad is the Huffington Post, soft-core porn all over that website.

The other aspect is the background description of the men in the story as having no free will and being solipsists. Yes, beautiful women are distracting... deal with it. The truth is most men do. I think in these minds of these banking managers there have to be two kinds of women in the world, unattractive (to them) women who work for them and women they have sex with. I'm thinking at some point Lorenzana turned one of them down for sex, that's when she became "distracting".

I'm wearing a tweed jacket today Maysie and sensible shoes.

If you think the topic sucks then you shld engage in condescending and annoying thread diversions rather than use your powers as moderators to close the thread.

Interesting how, generally speaking, it's the men in this thread who are the most outraged.  For women, this sort of thing is business as usual.

Do Doc Martens count as sensible shoes?  If you're in Toronto and you see a woman in Docs, poo-brown corduroy pants, and a baggy batik print shirt, be sure and say hi

Hey 500, I was being silly.

And technically, Fotheringay-Phipps started the tweed drift. I just ran with it. And added an unexpected salacious aspect to it, in tune with the tone of the OP.

I actually feel there are some good things being discussed, beyond the drift.

And yo, Caissa and Catchfire, whatchoo guys doing, a bi-coastal coordinated effort to bring mental images of tweed fetishes into my head that I'd prefer not to be there? 

Where the hell's bagkitty?

Yeah, 500--actually, I realy enjoyed your post, I was going to suggest you could write for Jezebel! You had a similar reactio to the piece I quoted upthread.