News Flash: Too Hot?

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/04/too-hot-in-the-workplace-it-can-cost-you-your-job.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/11/debrahlee-lorenzana-a-double-take-on-those-double-ds/            

         It is no secret that the United States was founded and currently exists on capitalistic principles. With capitalism comes the need to consume goods and products that we do not need, but simply desire. These products can range from: clothing, shoes, cell phones, cars and houses. Although the scale of these products differ (some being much more expensive than others) they all represent and symbolize our status in society. People are constantly being scrutinized and evaluated on the products that they “display” and many times this has a serious impact on their lives. In order to obtain these top shelf products that are so coveted by society, one needs money and lots of it. Some people inherit large sums of money, but most find an occupation that allows them to afford such prestigious social statuses. Unfortunately, women face many obstacles and discrimination when it comes to finding and/or excelling in the workforce. The media and large corporations spend billions of dollars to influence the general public’s train of thought. Specifically, they tell women to empower themselves via buying products that make them look sexy and attractive to men. We are told that being attractive is one of the main components to being successful. However, Jessica Bennett’s article Too Hot in the Workplace? It Can Cost You Your Job, disputes this claim by citing the current case of Debrahlee Lorenzana. Throughout my discussion I want to explore the ways in which women are made to live up to impossible standards and once we finally meet them, what the consequences are.

            The case surrounding Debrahlee Lorenzana is both complicated and intricate. Ms. Lorenzana is a single mother who was recently fired from Citibank for poor work performance. However, she is filing a suit against the corporate giant on the grounds of discrimination, “alleging that her bosses told her that ‘as a result of the shape of her figure, [her] clothes were purportedly too distracting’ for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear.”(1) Before her dismissal she was barred from wearing pencil skirts, three-inch heels, turtlenecks and fitted business suits. Although other women in her office wore similar clothing, her body was said to be “different” from the others and too distracting for the work place. The case is relevant to our class because it calls into question the role of appearance and beauty in the workplace. As Bennett points out, it has already been proven that prettier people have several advantages. She explains that resumes are viewed in a more favorable light when thought to belong to an attractive person. Similarly, attractive students usually receive more attention from their professors than other students in the class. Astonishingly, and to be frank quite ridiculously, attractive women are paid four percent more and men five percent more than their less attractive coworkers.

This statistic speaks a lot to the values of our society and therefore it is important to ask why this statistic is true. Our culture has grown to value looks and appearance above all. We are constantly flooded with images and ideals that we are supposed to aspire to become. Susan Douglas discusses the growing trend in advertising, where companies are now targeting younger generations of girls. The main message that is being sent is to value your looks in order to impress and attract men. Sadly, body image is quickly becoming one of the major issues for teenage girls. This should come as no surprise, when we examine the television shows and movies young girls are watching. Makeover shows are rampant and glamorize dangerous surgeries. Channels such as MTV promote hyper sexuality and feature bombshells with large breasts. So, if us women are supposed to aspire to be like these women we see in advertisements, why was Ms. Lorenzana punished for becoming what society wanted her to be?

Investment banking and Finance are extremely lucrative careers and thus it makes sense that both are very heavily male dominated fields. In 2008 women earned approximately seventy-seven cents of every man’s dollar. Therefore, it is really important for women to gain a stronger foothold in these large corporations, such as JP Morgan, Citibank and Goldman Sachs. Recently, these companies have come under scrutiny for sexist policies and “mommy tracking.” Mommy tracking occurs after a female employee becomes pregnant. Usually, companies will demote the employee upon her return and eventually terminate her for ‘poor performance.’ This phenomenon relates to Ann Critenden’s article The Mommy Tax. In the article she discusses Virginia Daley who worked for Aetna. Despite being at the company for ten years and numerous positive performance reviews, she was fired after getting pregnant and trying to arrange a more flexible schedule. This connects to Lorenzana because both instances feature a male dominated profession and work space, where a woman is penalized for fulfilling her “societal duties.” By this I mean women (Daley) are expected to have children instead of stay at work. Those who chose work over children are often seen as irresponsible and frigid. Additionally, women are also supposed to have amazing bodies (Lorenzana) in order to please men. Yet, both women were punished because they posed a threat to the boys club. If we look at the statistics, women in coveted professions still earn significantly less than their male counterparts. It’s as if men allow women to get a taste of being in the boys club, but then swiftly remind them who is in charge. As women we are facing a double-edged sword, in which we lose if we are too attractive or not attractive enough. Women who are too attractive are constantly having their competence and intelligence questioned. Thus it seems that there is very little women can do to combat this prejudice.

Aside from discrimination, women still face harassment in the workplace. Lorenzana accounts that in 2003 she was named sales rep of the month by Municipal Credit Union. This would seemingly be a prestigious award, in which any professional should be proud of. However, she goes on to say that she was called into the manager’s office to review a picture. On the computer screen was an image of his penis. Not only is this a disgusting display of chauvinism, but it also undermines all of her hard work and effort in relation to the company. Now, she must question whether she received the award because of merit or because the male manager wanted to have sexual relations with her. Harassment in the workplace has become much more covert than in previous times. Men can no longer slap women on the butts or call them ‘baby’. But, it is clear that harassment and discrimination is still prevalent.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my post, this story is not as clear-cut or black and white as it would appear to be. A subsequent article written by Helena Andrews titled Debrahlee Lorenzana: A double Take on Those Double D’s discusses the authors desire to support Debra, but gives reasons as to why she cannot. Andrews discusses the new type of covert sexual harassment that I previously described. Her support for Debra mainly extends to the fact that she drew attention to workplace sexual harassment. However, a recently discovered video featuring a 26- year old Debra has drastically altered the sympathy of the public and media. The video was originally made for a Discovery Health documentary titled “Plastic Surgery New York Style.” The documentary was made to highlight the outcomes of plastic surgery. Ms. Lorenzana had her first operation and received D-cup implants. Her rationale for a second operation to increase to DD-cups is, “I know men have the fantasy of having a Playboy playmate…That’s what I want to be, tits on a stick.”(2) To me this is proof of the strength of media and advertisements. They had succeeded in ingraining this beauty standard into Ms. Lorenzana’s mind. Although I do not agree with her statements, is it fair of us to penalize her for becoming everything that the media wanted her to be? It was her personal choice to get these operations and although her motives were questionable, we do not penalize men for getting hair implants to impress women. Yes, these operations are on very different spectrums, but they can still apply. Women are expected to be beautiful, or else they are outcast, yet when they are as beautiful as the stereotype they are punished. Thus, once again women must walk the societal tightrope of what they are expected to be and what society can handle them to be. 

1. Jessica Bennett. http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-human-condition/2010/06/04/too-hot-in-the-workplace-it-can-cost-you-your-job.html Nov. 4 2010. 

2. Helena Andrews. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/11/debrahlee-lorenzana-a-double-take-on-those-double-ds/. Nov. 4 2010.

Despite being totally covered up, Ms. Lorenzana was told not to wear turtle necks and pencil skirts. To me this outfit looks very acceptable, especially since she is not revealing anything.