The story of Debrahlee Lorenzana seems to be everywhere on the Internets at the moment, for any number of reasons. Aside from an excuse to closely examine pictures of an attractive woman, Lorenzana’s story represents a man-bites-dog case of workplace discrimination. As New York’s Village Voice explains, she is suing her previous employer, Citibank, for firing her because she fills out otherwise unremarkable business attire in ways that distracted her male coworkers. As this Maureen Dowd column points out, it’s attracted attention because it’s an inversion of the usual way of things, where the physically unattractive are discriminated against. It doesn’t in any way invalidate the basis of her claim. If her claims are accurate, it’s yet another example of the attitude that men are somehow unable to control themselves in the presence of an attractive woman, and it is the responsibility of the woman to make allowances for the infantile behaviour of such men.
But there’s another twist here. Lorenzana, after the article and subsequent appearances on various talk shows, has apparently been told to avoid further media appearances by her current employer, JPMorgan Chase, because she has “violated an employee code of conduct that prohibits employees from bashing the financial industry as a whole.”, and been threatened with being sacked, again, if she doesn’t.
Would such broad restrictions on an employee’s right to contribute to public debate be possible under Australian law?
“Would such broad restrictions on an employee’s right to contribute to public debate be possible under Australian law?”
Yes. Obvious examples are sports professionals, executives and public servants. To be enforceable the restriction would just have to be explicit (eg in a policy) and reasonably linkable to the area of employment. Reasonable linkage would be broadly read: eg employer interest in corporate image, assuming the employee was in a professional role, or in keeping industry reputation up. Unreasonable would be a restraint on say political speech by private employees, or on those employed to have opinions (media, academics) but even the latter can be held to a duty of loyalty to their particular employer.
You might succeed in arguing unfair dismissal if a low-ranking employee were sacked rather than disciplined. A Mackay journalist was running a story on one such case involving a council employee this year. Those types of cases can also raise whistleblowing protections and the implied freedom of communication about governmental matters.
“Would such broad restrictions on an employee’s right to contribute to public debate be possible under Australian law?”
Yes. Obvious examples are sports professionals, executives and public servants. To be enforceable the restriction would just have to be explicit (eg in a policy) and reasonably linkable to the area of employment. Reasonable linkage would be broadly read: eg employer interest in corporate image, assuming the employee was in a professional role, or in keeping industry reputation up. Unreasonable would be a restraint on say political speech by private employees, or on those employed to have opinions (media, academics) but even the latter can be held to a duty of loyalty to their particular employer.
You might succeed in arguing unfair dismissal if a low-ranking employee were sacked rather than disciplined. A Mackay journalist was running a story on one such case involving a council employee this year. Those types of cases can also raise whistleblowing protections and the implied freedom of communication about governmental matters.
Everything about this entire story is ridiculous, from the cheesey poses in those photos up to and including the entire US banking industry.
Everything about this entire story is ridiculous, from the cheesey poses in those photos up to and including the entire US banking industry.
I scanned the articles for actual evidence of male co-workers of Ms L being too distracted to work productively.
Nothing.
Does this evidence exist?
Otherwise, could this be a case of middle-management projection?
I scanned the articles for actual evidence of male co-workers of Ms L being too distracted to work productively.
Nothing.
Does this evidence exist?
Otherwise, could this be a case of middle-management projection?
She would certainly not be fired if she worked at Channel 9.
She would certainly not be fired if she worked at Channel 9.
I’m amazed by stories like this. In my experience this sort of behaviour was wiped out over twenty years ago, but I know from a female friend it still lives on in at least one company here in Melbourne.
I’m amazed by stories like this. In my experience this sort of behaviour was wiped out over twenty years ago, but I know from a female friend it still lives on in at least one company here in Melbourne.
I was going to say it amazed me, too- what a dreadful story and what does it say about a defacto Stalinist culture at work at those very bastions of free enterprise, the New York banks.
Katz’ response will do, but am slightly disturbed that Graeme should have been able to find any justification in the process described, given that the womans behaviours represented no reasonable breach of such conditions as he described.
They are entitled to expect a fair exchange for your labor; not the handing over of your very soul,particularly for the relative pittance paid in return.
I hope she makes a motza and that that employers (again) are forced to consider the difference between workers and slaves.
I was going to say it amazed me, too- what a dreadful story and what does it say about a defacto Stalinist culture at work at those very bastions of free enterprise, the New York banks.
Katz’ response will do, but am slightly disturbed that Graeme should have been able to find any justification in the process described, given that the womans behaviours represented no reasonable breach of such conditions as he described.
They are entitled to expect a fair exchange for your labor; not the handing over of your very soul,particularly for the relative pittance paid in return.
I hope she makes a motza and that that employers (again) are forced to consider the difference between workers and slaves.
Honestly, doesn’t this woman know the meaning of the word ‘appropriate’? One can be too pleased with one’s looks – pride goes before a fall, that’s what I always say.
Honestly, doesn’t this woman know the meaning of the word ‘appropriate’? One can be too pleased with one’s looks – pride goes before a fall, that’s what I always say.
“Would such broad restrictions on an employee’s right to contribute to public debate be possible under Australian law?”
Absolutely. They apply to public servants. It’s all in the ‘bringing into disrepute’ bit. Anyway, they can always just never promote/extend the contract, the way it’s normally done.
“Would such broad restrictions on an employee’s right to contribute to public debate be possible under Australian law?”
Absolutely. They apply to public servants. It’s all in the ‘bringing into disrepute’ bit. Anyway, they can always just never promote/extend the contract, the way it’s normally done.
“it still lives on in at least one company here in Melbourne.”
Would you like to name names?
“it still lives on in at least one company here in Melbourne.”
Would you like to name names?
I suspect this is actually a case of masterful self-promotion.
I suspect this is actually a case of masterful self-promotion.
Most companies shiny new “social media” policies prevent the use of your own name in discussions that might be even slightly related to their business.
Your own name: not yours.
How this is even possible (in a massive extension of what used to be limited to media appearances) has gone completely unnoticed. That the lady in question is being gagged about talking to the media about the financial services industry as part of her employment contract is merely par for the course now.
In fact, I would suggest the second gagging is far worse in implication than the original sacking for most people as it directly affects everybody who is employed.
Most companies shiny new “social media” policies prevent the use of your own name in discussions that might be even slightly related to their business.
Your own name: not yours.
How this is even possible (in a massive extension of what used to be limited to media appearances) has gone completely unnoticed. That the lady in question is being gagged about talking to the media about the financial services industry as part of her employment contract is merely par for the course now.
In fact, I would suggest the second gagging is far worse in implication than the original sacking for most people as it directly affects everybody who is employed.
This is bloody ridiculous. If the guys couldn’t handle it they should’ve gone and got themnselves bromide prescriptions. Men are mad.
This is bloody ridiculous. If the guys couldn’t handle it they should’ve gone and got themnselves bromide prescriptions. Men are mad.
I’m with Laura on this one. This story is ridiculous and has been set up by a celebrity agent of the Max Markson kind. Though in this case, the American version also doubles as her lawyer.
I’m with Laura on this one. This story is ridiculous and has been set up by a celebrity agent of the Max Markson kind. Though in this case, the American version also doubles as her lawyer.
Can you name some examples? Undoubtedly there are some that just don’t understand social media and react out of fear, but many others are handling it well. For example, here are Intel’s guidelines:
http://www.intel.com/sites/sitewide/en_us/social-media.htm
The smarter companies understand they have a lot to gain from their employees participating in social media. There are downsides to it though – and the general media will link a person’s bad behavior to their employer even if the employer had no influence or responsibility.
Can you name some examples? Undoubtedly there are some that just don’t understand social media and react out of fear, but many others are handling it well. For example, here are Intel’s guidelines:
http://www.intel.com/sites/sitewide/en_us/social-media.htm
The smarter companies understand they have a lot to gain from their employees participating in social media. There are downsides to it though – and the general media will link a person’s bad behavior to their employer even if the employer had no influence or responsibility.
Does anyone else suspect she was fired for not sleeping with her boss?
Does anyone else suspect she was fired for not sleeping with her boss?
Uh-oh, another female employee gets “boned”. Different side of the Pacific, same attitude.
BTW, among a random group of Wall Street dicks, how can they distinguish whether the source of the “distraction” is nearby female bosomyness, or just the usual everyday background level of coked-up frenzy?
Uh-oh, another female employee gets “boned”. Different side of the Pacific, same attitude.
BTW, among a random group of Wall Street dicks, how can they distinguish whether the source of the “distraction” is nearby female bosomyness, or just the usual everyday background level of coked-up frenzy?
I’d like you help you with the particularly offensive one i have to operate under Chris, but that’d breach the policy.
I’d like you help you with the particularly offensive one i have to operate under Chris, but that’d breach the policy.
So people should be able to dress and pose in sexually provocative ways at work then?
So people should be able to dress and pose in sexually provocative ways at work then?
So, you read the article then Desipis?
Might have been a good idea before cracking out the prejudice.
So, you read the article then Desipis?
Might have been a good idea before cracking out the prejudice.
Now look here, this is the kind of feminism story I’ll come back to over and over again. The photos are magnificent, and certainly back up the young lady’s claims of …. umm …. and The “Village Voice” is so respectful of her as a human being.
Now look here, this is the kind of feminism story I’ll come back to over and over again. The photos are magnificent, and certainly back up the young lady’s claims of …. umm …. and The “Village Voice” is so respectful of her as a human being.
That’s it, Desipis, you make it all the woman’s fault.
I don’t much like the sound of her either, as a matter of fact, but what’s bothering me is the idea that someone would go around talking so very publicly and constantly about how hot she is. I mean she is indeed gorgeous, but you’d think just standing there would be enough to get the point across, no?
That’s it, Desipis, you make it all the woman’s fault.
I don’t much like the sound of her either, as a matter of fact, but what’s bothering me is the idea that someone would go around talking so very publicly and constantly about how hot she is. I mean she is indeed gorgeous, but you’d think just standing there would be enough to get the point across, no?
Ute Man – yes if the social media policy is secret that’s a pretty bad sign. I’d dispute that it’s a problem with most companies though.
Ute Man – yes if the social media policy is secret that’s a pretty bad sign. I’d dispute that it’s a problem with most companies though.
you’d think just standing there would be enough to get the point across, no?
You’d think so, Pav, but you’d honestly be surprised how often I find myself forced to tell people, even when I’ve been posing for hours. Hotness is obviously harder to get across than popularly supposed.
you’d think just standing there would be enough to get the point across, no?
You’d think so, Pav, but you’d honestly be surprised how often I find myself forced to tell people, even when I’ve been posing for hours. Hotness is obviously harder to get across than popularly supposed.
FDB: I don’t see your point.
PC: The point is that things that may seem innocuous to some (such as certain jokes, behaviours or in this case dress styles) make others feel very uncomfortable. Sexual harassment rules/laws are meant to ensure people make changes to their personal actions/choices to prevent such discomfort from occurring to create a work environment equally accessible to everyone; I don’t see why women shouldn’t have that responsibility too.
Of course her employer cited work performance, so all this may be a sob story anyway.
FDB: I don’t see your point.
PC: The point is that things that may seem innocuous to some (such as certain jokes, behaviours or in this case dress styles) make others feel very uncomfortable. Sexual harassment rules/laws are meant to ensure people make changes to their personal actions/choices to prevent such discomfort from occurring to create a work environment equally accessible to everyone; I don’t see why women shouldn’t have that responsibility too.
Of course her employer cited work performance, so all this may be a sob story anyway.
Actually Chris, I don’t think it’s unusual at all. A lot of media policies govern the expression of your personal opinions even outside of company time. This kind of makes sense if your job is in media relations, but is a massive intrusion that has largely taken place by stealth:
Look at Coca Cola
My opinions on my own time – not mine. Not unusual or even noteworthy any more. This is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Imagine if a company were allowed to vet your conversations down at the pub?
To get back to the original post – I think there is a huge risk of using policies like these which seem innocuous, but will allow employers to effectively gag all kinds of whistleblowing, opening oneself up to civil lawsuits over contract breaches. Great way to cover up illegal corporate behaviour, don’t you think?
Actually Chris, I don’t think it’s unusual at all. A lot of media policies govern the expression of your personal opinions even outside of company time. This kind of makes sense if your job is in media relations, but is a massive intrusion that has largely taken place by stealth:
Look at Coca Cola
My opinions on my own time – not mine. Not unusual or even noteworthy any more. This is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Imagine if a company were allowed to vet your conversations down at the pub?
To get back to the original post – I think there is a huge risk of using policies like these which seem innocuous, but will allow employers to effectively gag all kinds of whistleblowing, opening oneself up to civil lawsuits over contract breaches. Great way to cover up illegal corporate behaviour, don’t you think?
Desipis: the point is that – according to her – the same clothing was being worn by other people in the office who weren’t being criticized by the boss.
Desipis: the point is that – according to her – the same clothing was being worn by other people in the office who weren’t being criticized by the boss.
Robert Merkel,
According to wikipedia, the US has a definition of sexual harassment that includes:
What matters is the effect of what she is wearing, which may be very different depending on body type and other personal factors, not the particular articles of clothing.
Robert Merkel,
According to wikipedia, the US has a definition of sexual harassment that includes:
What matters is the effect of what she is wearing, which may be very different depending on body type and other personal factors, not the particular articles of clothing.
Oh come on desipis, a turtle neck sweater does not unreasonably interfere with work performance. Don’t be silly.
Oh come on desipis, a turtle neck sweater does not unreasonably interfere with work performance. Don’t be silly.
Casey,
I agree that the turtle necked nature of a sweater would not be see as interfering with work performance, however neither would it prevent an otherwise skin-tight shirt from interfering with work performance.
Casey,
I agree that the turtle necked nature of a sweater would not be see as interfering with work performance, however neither would it prevent an otherwise skin-tight shirt from interfering with work performance.
God no, i’d Be liable if i did something that Crazy.
God no, i’d Be liable if i did something that Crazy.
Ute Man – Coca Cola’s stated principles for employees when they’re unofficial but related to Coca-Cola could be pretty much summarised as “don’t be stupid”. When people post to twitter, facebook etc the intended audience may be quite small, but the resultant one be quite large. I think point 5 in their principles summarises it quite well:
Pre-internet, if you took a classified ad out in the local newspaper criticising your employer (especially if it could be interpreted as unfair criticism) you could expect that to be a career limiting move. Social media isn’t any different. And as people have discovered, slamming a fellow employee through social media, even on your own time may be interpreted as harassment and your employer may well feel obliged to intervene (or be sued themself).
The guidelines don’t talk about not using your own name – I think that would be pretty unusual for social media guidelines. Most companies encourage you to use your real name when talking publicly about things related to their products. Otherwise they could be accused of astroturfing.
I don’t think it has a significant impact on whistleblowing. Most people are under confidentiality clauses anyway so the social media guidelines don’t change the situation. What we really need is decent whistleblower protection legislation.
Ute Man – Coca Cola’s stated principles for employees when they’re unofficial but related to Coca-Cola could be pretty much summarised as “don’t be stupid”. When people post to twitter, facebook etc the intended audience may be quite small, but the resultant one be quite large. I think point 5 in their principles summarises it quite well:
Pre-internet, if you took a classified ad out in the local newspaper criticising your employer (especially if it could be interpreted as unfair criticism) you could expect that to be a career limiting move. Social media isn’t any different. And as people have discovered, slamming a fellow employee through social media, even on your own time may be interpreted as harassment and your employer may well feel obliged to intervene (or be sued themself).
The guidelines don’t talk about not using your own name – I think that would be pretty unusual for social media guidelines. Most companies encourage you to use your real name when talking publicly about things related to their products. Otherwise they could be accused of astroturfing.
I don’t think it has a significant impact on whistleblowing. Most people are under confidentiality clauses anyway so the social media guidelines don’t change the situation. What we really need is decent whistleblower protection legislation.
Desipis, I can’t work out whether you genuinely don’t get it or whether you are being deliberately obtuse. If a man is too busy ogling a woman to get his work done, that is not the woman’s fault. An ‘effect’ is in the eye of the beholder.
As for this –
– I think you’ll find that paragraph refers more to the kind of thing that once happened to me at a former workplace, a university no less, when a colleague came up behind me in the tearoom and plonked a large sheet of paper down in front of me on the table, saying ‘What do you think of that?’
“That” was a sheet of small individual photographs, like a proof sheet. All the photographs were of different naked men, waist to thigh only, with penises (uniformly large but otherwise surprisingly diverse) in various stages of erectitude.
This man didn’t particularly like me and he certainly didn’t find me “attractive”, so the only possible conclusion was that he had the purpose of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. And I can just imagine what would have happened if I had complained to the head of the department that I couldn’t get my lecture written in time because people kept sneaking up on me and unexpectedly showing me photos of naked penises.
That’s sexual harassment in the workplace. Forgive me if I think the proximity of a nice rack in a tight jumper is not.
Desipis, I can’t work out whether you genuinely don’t get it or whether you are being deliberately obtuse. If a man is too busy ogling a woman to get his work done, that is not the woman’s fault. An ‘effect’ is in the eye of the beholder.
As for this –
– I think you’ll find that paragraph refers more to the kind of thing that once happened to me at a former workplace, a university no less, when a colleague came up behind me in the tearoom and plonked a large sheet of paper down in front of me on the table, saying ‘What do you think of that?’
“That” was a sheet of small individual photographs, like a proof sheet. All the photographs were of different naked men, waist to thigh only, with penises (uniformly large but otherwise surprisingly diverse) in various stages of erectitude.
This man didn’t particularly like me and he certainly didn’t find me “attractive”, so the only possible conclusion was that he had the purpose of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. And I can just imagine what would have happened if I had complained to the head of the department that I couldn’t get my lecture written in time because people kept sneaking up on me and unexpectedly showing me photos of naked penises.
That’s sexual harassment in the workplace. Forgive me if I think the proximity of a nice rack in a tight jumper is not.
Perhaps she offended against that modern management commandment: thou shalt always display team spirit. In walks Debrahlee every morning displaying, well, Debrahlee, and the other women there feel like hags. No team spirit.
PC,
Option C) I disagree with you. If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.
Perhaps she offended against that modern management commandment: thou shalt always display team spirit. In walks Debrahlee every morning displaying, well, Debrahlee, and the other women there feel like hags. No team spirit.
PC,
Option C) I disagree with you. If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.
Maybe she should wear a burqa then Desipis?
Maybe she should wear a burqa then Desipis?
Desipis, now you sound like Sheik Hilaly. Do you endorse the Sheik’s views on uncovered meat then?
Desipis, now you sound like Sheik Hilaly. Do you endorse the Sheik’s views on uncovered meat then?
What does it mean to “sexually provoke” someone with clothes Despy?
What does it mean to “sexually provoke” someone with clothes Despy?
“If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.”
So, they were actually doing her a favour, or the men would have had no choice but to act on that provocation and rape her.
“If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.”
So, they were actually doing her a favour, or the men would have had no choice but to act on that provocation and rape her.
In my experience when a woman with her looks has been driven out of her job (or sacked) it has not been done by men.
In my experience when a woman with her looks has been driven out of her job (or sacked) it has not been done by men.
“If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.” “Maybe she should wear a burqa then?”
Aha! You see? And so it all comes right back round again to the beginning!
I knew reality was circular!
Please tell me you didn’t cheat by reading just the first and last pages…
“If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.” “Maybe she should wear a burqa then?”
Aha! You see? And so it all comes right back round again to the beginning!
I knew reality was circular!
Please tell me you didn’t cheat by reading just the first and last pages…
SATP – it’s proving quite hard to push this along towards 800 comments, isn’t it?
Ah, the gulf between men and women – I’m just reading the latest Spectator and find this lovely explanation of Berlusconi’s behaviour from his former undersecretary for culture Vittorio Sgarbi : ‘The thing you have to understand about Silvio is that unless he gains sexual satisfaction he cannot govern properly’. So simple, and didn’t take a whole Quarterly Essay to get out.
SATP – it’s proving quite hard to push this along towards 800 comments, isn’t it?
Ah, the gulf between men and women – I’m just reading the latest Spectator and find this lovely explanation of Berlusconi’s behaviour from his former undersecretary for culture Vittorio Sgarbi : ‘The thing you have to understand about Silvio is that unless he gains sexual satisfaction he cannot govern properly’. So simple, and didn’t take a whole Quarterly Essay to get out.
SATP, in my experience as a woman who needed a breast reduction because of the spinal pain (but the relief from slack-jawed ogling was a much welcomed side effect) it wasn’t other women who didn’t take me seriously in the workplace.
SATP, in my experience as a woman who needed a breast reduction because of the spinal pain (but the relief from slack-jawed ogling was a much welcomed side effect) it wasn’t other women who didn’t take me seriously in the workplace.
Also relevant to our topic from the Spectator: “In a particularly hard-fought battle in the north-west, a certain Labour candidate had the advantage of beauty. Recount followed recount as the votes were tallied. Then they came to the spoilt ballots. The usual nutty invective was scrawled across most of the papers. Until they came to one voting slip which bore the legend, ‘Get your baps out!’, closely written next to said candidate’s name. Quick as a flash, her election agent argued this was clearly a vote in her favour and should be added to the tally. The returning officer ungallantly demurred”
Also relevant to our topic from the Spectator: “In a particularly hard-fought battle in the north-west, a certain Labour candidate had the advantage of beauty. Recount followed recount as the votes were tallied. Then they came to the spoilt ballots. The usual nutty invective was scrawled across most of the papers. Until they came to one voting slip which bore the legend, ‘Get your baps out!’, closely written next to said candidate’s name. Quick as a flash, her election agent argued this was clearly a vote in her favour and should be added to the tally. The returning officer ungallantly demurred”
su: There’s a huge range of clothes between tight fitting and burqa.
Casey: In so far as certain visuals have a demonstrable impact on thought patterns, yes. I’m not sure what else he was inferring by that metaphore, so I cannot (dis)agree further.
Fine: I never justified any inappropriate reaction by the men. Rather I was supporting their right to work in a workplace free of sexualised imagery.
su: There’s a huge range of clothes between tight fitting and burqa.
Casey: In so far as certain visuals have a demonstrable impact on thought patterns, yes. I’m not sure what else he was inferring by that metaphore, so I cannot (dis)agree further.
Fine: I never justified any inappropriate reaction by the men. Rather I was supporting their right to work in a workplace free of sexualised imagery.
Chris wrote:
You see, this provision right here (which is very similar to the one I now have to operate under) is nothing like taking out a classified ad. It may or may not be just a statement of opinion and shows no intent of harm to my employer, unlike taking out a classified ad which is a far more pre-meditated act with genuine intent.
You see “don’t be stupid” and sure, that’s part of it, but it’s glib apologising along the lines of “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.
The lady in the original article may well be a vain, posing, royal pain who spends her life challenging others with stares to confirm her own attractiveness and reviles at the consequences, but that doesn’t give her employer a pass to intrude beyond reasonable measures into stupid things like what you wear, what you smell like, how many inches above your ankle your dress should be, whether you are a rastafarian, libertarian, raving communist or collect My Little Ponys to an extent that your employer is embarrassed.
It’s none of their damn business. My name is mine. I am not a number, just forced to be for a while. If there was comparable employment available right now I would be gone.
Chris wrote:
You see, this provision right here (which is very similar to the one I now have to operate under) is nothing like taking out a classified ad. It may or may not be just a statement of opinion and shows no intent of harm to my employer, unlike taking out a classified ad which is a far more pre-meditated act with genuine intent.
You see “don’t be stupid” and sure, that’s part of it, but it’s glib apologising along the lines of “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.
The lady in the original article may well be a vain, posing, royal pain who spends her life challenging others with stares to confirm her own attractiveness and reviles at the consequences, but that doesn’t give her employer a pass to intrude beyond reasonable measures into stupid things like what you wear, what you smell like, how many inches above your ankle your dress should be, whether you are a rastafarian, libertarian, raving communist or collect My Little Ponys to an extent that your employer is embarrassed.
It’s none of their damn business. My name is mine. I am not a number, just forced to be for a while. If there was comparable employment available right now I would be gone.
Dr Cat @ 32, that’s vile. Makes me ashamed to be a bloke.
There seems to be a lot of ‘uncovered meat’ critiques of this woman about. She may well be an unashamed self-promoter, but that’s hardly the point.
Dr Cat @ 32, that’s vile. Makes me ashamed to be a bloke.
There seems to be a lot of ‘uncovered meat’ critiques of this woman about. She may well be an unashamed self-promoter, but that’s hardly the point.
Ute Man said:
I guess I just see that part of the provision as statement of the obvious rather than assertion of rights by an employer. Employees taking public stances which are completely counter to those of their employer is going to cause conflict. Commenting online is very public and more akin to a classified advert than it is to having a chat with a friend in the pub (unless you’re unlucky enough to get recorded doing so and end up on YouTube). In the web 2.0 world we’re all mini publishers.
FWIW I have seen employees make statements critical of their employer publicly through social media. Where they’ve done it in a thoughtful, constructive manner they haven’t been penalized – but it is still kind of risky – you have to have reasonable management.
I think its very bad policy to attempt to forbid employees from using their own name when commenting on issues related to their company. The norm I’ve seen is to in those sorts of cases just to make it clear that you don’t represent the company. I’d feel pretty uncomfortable working under those sorts of conditions you describe and I think its a sign that the management doesn’t understand social media.
There are some circumstances where employees are not allowed to talk (eg market sensitive information) but then the company and even employees do have legal obligations whether they want them or not.
Ute Man said:
I guess I just see that part of the provision as statement of the obvious rather than assertion of rights by an employer. Employees taking public stances which are completely counter to those of their employer is going to cause conflict. Commenting online is very public and more akin to a classified advert than it is to having a chat with a friend in the pub (unless you’re unlucky enough to get recorded doing so and end up on YouTube). In the web 2.0 world we’re all mini publishers.
FWIW I have seen employees make statements critical of their employer publicly through social media. Where they’ve done it in a thoughtful, constructive manner they haven’t been penalized – but it is still kind of risky – you have to have reasonable management.
I think its very bad policy to attempt to forbid employees from using their own name when commenting on issues related to their company. The norm I’ve seen is to in those sorts of cases just to make it clear that you don’t represent the company. I’d feel pretty uncomfortable working under those sorts of conditions you describe and I think its a sign that the management doesn’t understand social media.
There are some circumstances where employees are not allowed to talk (eg market sensitive information) but then the company and even employees do have legal obligations whether they want them or not.
Desipis, below are the actual clothes from that slideshow that depict the designer business outfits she wore to work (the publication has muddied the waters by including other PR images of her in other designer outfits which are not business wear, but a little bit of attention paid to the captions shows which is which) – now which exactly of these outfits below do you view as inappropriate-for-the-workplace sexualised imagery?
I see a slim woman who happens to have large breasts wearing clothes which are standard fitted-but-cover-the-modest-bits business wear. I don’t blame her for squeezing every drop of publicity from this that she can – TV pays better than middle management – but what exactly about any of these outfits is sexually provocative other than it’s obvious that she does indeed have breasts under there?
Desipis, below are the actual clothes from that slideshow that depict the designer business outfits she wore to work (the publication has muddied the waters by including other PR images of her in other designer outfits which are not business wear, but a little bit of attention paid to the captions shows which is which) – now which exactly of these outfits below do you view as inappropriate-for-the-workplace sexualised imagery?
I see a slim woman who happens to have large breasts wearing clothes which are standard fitted-but-cover-the-modest-bits business wear. I don’t blame her for squeezing every drop of publicity from this that she can – TV pays better than middle management – but what exactly about any of these outfits is sexually provocative other than it’s obvious that she does indeed have breasts under there?
What a reaction to a daffy Yankee story.
My original post condoned nothing: was just responding to the IR query about Australian law. (I agree the common law of contract gives employers excessive scope to pre-empt employee speech).
As for work dress: Oz law does give broad scope to ‘reasonable’ dress codes. She hasn’t breached any conceivable code. But this case – assuming it’s not a beat up or revenge (and the proliferation of her images in the press imply it is a farce) – isn’t Australian. It’s Yankee.
Most private sector jobs there are ‘at will’. Meaning next to no notice and no unfair dismissal rights; so the employee has to dress up (pun unintentional) her grievance as a discrimination claim.
What a reaction to a daffy Yankee story.
My original post condoned nothing: was just responding to the IR query about Australian law. (I agree the common law of contract gives employers excessive scope to pre-empt employee speech).
As for work dress: Oz law does give broad scope to ‘reasonable’ dress codes. She hasn’t breached any conceivable code. But this case – assuming it’s not a beat up or revenge (and the proliferation of her images in the press imply it is a farce) – isn’t Australian. It’s Yankee.
Most private sector jobs there are ‘at will’. Meaning next to no notice and no unfair dismissal rights; so the employee has to dress up (pun unintentional) her grievance as a discrimination claim.
re the pictures at 48: good grief. Not that it matters (or should matter) what I think, but all those outfits are totally professional, perfectly reasonable, and rather stylin’, really. Can’t see what this is about, unless there’s some hidden angle.
Heavens, I’ve worked in plenty of offices (high-pressure stuff full of very serious-minded people) where lots of the women wore things that would make those clothes look positively dowdy, and nobody batted an eye. Actually, us chaps thought it was kind of a nice perk, mostly. “You mean we get paid for this? And there’s no cover charge?”
re the pictures at 48: good grief. Not that it matters (or should matter) what I think, but all those outfits are totally professional, perfectly reasonable, and rather stylin’, really. Can’t see what this is about, unless there’s some hidden angle.
Heavens, I’ve worked in plenty of offices (high-pressure stuff full of very serious-minded people) where lots of the women wore things that would make those clothes look positively dowdy, and nobody batted an eye. Actually, us chaps thought it was kind of a nice perk, mostly. “You mean we get paid for this? And there’s no cover charge?”
Heh reminds of when wearing bike pants in the office all day got banned at one place I used to work at after someone decided they didn’t have to change after cycling in. And this place had a very relaxed attitude to clothing.
Heh reminds of when wearing bike pants in the office all day got banned at one place I used to work at after someone decided they didn’t have to change after cycling in. And this place had a very relaxed attitude to clothing.
Just messed up a post so can say JPZ just beat me to it.
#48, It’s such a conservative collection, very classy, demure…
No boss should have the right to sack people, male or female, on the basis of such flimsy grounds and convoluted repressed, warped and weird thinking as has been employed in this case.
Talk about “Serf/NoChoices”!!
Just messed up a post so can say JPZ just beat me to it.
#48, It’s such a conservative collection, very classy, demure…
No boss should have the right to sack people, male or female, on the basis of such flimsy grounds and convoluted repressed, warped and weird thinking as has been employed in this case.
Talk about “Serf/NoChoices”!!
From a(n evolutionary) psychology perspective, I’m intrigued by the notion that (sexual) signaling displays, perceived or real, in observable spaces should be deemed a priori to have no effect on participants behaviours or performances, and not just in relation to immediate interactions between those persons. I doubt, somehow, that a mature analysis of a context would ever blithely turn an ought into an is by rendering any such consideration of context as ‘juvenile’ or apt for rationally discounting away to nothingness. I’m not sure where the idea that cultural reinforcement or enlightened ideology naturally trumps pre-rational, sociobiological factors creeps in: it seems like magic thinking. Katz, at comment two, at least attempts a search for ‘evidence’.
From a(n evolutionary) psychology perspective, I’m intrigued by the notion that (sexual) signaling displays, perceived or real, in observable spaces should be deemed a priori to have no effect on participants behaviours or performances, and not just in relation to immediate interactions between those persons. I doubt, somehow, that a mature analysis of a context would ever blithely turn an ought into an is by rendering any such consideration of context as ‘juvenile’ or apt for rationally discounting away to nothingness. I’m not sure where the idea that cultural reinforcement or enlightened ideology naturally trumps pre-rational, sociobiological factors creeps in: it seems like magic thinking. Katz, at comment two, at least attempts a search for ‘evidence’.
The Village Voice article mentions that her Citibank branch required her, as a business banker, to seek out new clients but would not give her the training to process those new clients accounts (she was not even authorised to issue a debit card), and thus she had to hand those clients over to male colleagues. One result of this, according to the article, was that her official sales record was the worst in the branch.
If true, then it appears that her bosses were using her (and her looks) to artificially increase their own personal client registers.
Yes, “too hot to be a banker” makes for a good, attention-grabbing headline. But it appears to me (just going by the article, of course) that in with-holding necessary training from her, her managers prevented her from performing her job to the best of her abilities.
The Village Voice article mentions that her Citibank branch required her, as a business banker, to seek out new clients but would not give her the training to process those new clients accounts (she was not even authorised to issue a debit card), and thus she had to hand those clients over to male colleagues. One result of this, according to the article, was that her official sales record was the worst in the branch.
If true, then it appears that her bosses were using her (and her looks) to artificially increase their own personal client registers.
Yes, “too hot to be a banker” makes for a good, attention-grabbing headline. But it appears to me (just going by the article, of course) that in with-holding necessary training from her, her managers prevented her from performing her job to the best of her abilities.
Desipsis @ 34
Desipsis @ 44
Yes, you did. Not 10 comments earlier. Is it doublethink with you, or do you know that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth? As PC said at 32: “Desipis, I can’t work out whether you genuinely don’t get it or whether you are being deliberately obtuse.”
I think the solution for you Desipsis may simply be to own who you are and make a stand an out-and-proud misogynist (they come in both male and female flavours too, you know). It would be much more honest and refreshing, and you’ll feel less conflicted, which might have the happy side-benefit of reducing your compulsion to spray your repressed misogyny around here.
Cry me a friggin’ river. Your monomania about “sexualised imagery” puts you right on the fringe, Desipsis. In your long and largely one-note history of comments on this site, you have amply demonstrated that you and Sheik Hilaly make excellent ideological bedfellows, pun absolutely intended.
Desipsis @ 34
Desipsis @ 44
Yes, you did. Not 10 comments earlier. Is it doublethink with you, or do you know that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth? As PC said at 32: “Desipis, I can’t work out whether you genuinely don’t get it or whether you are being deliberately obtuse.”
I think the solution for you Desipsis may simply be to own who you are and make a stand an out-and-proud misogynist (they come in both male and female flavours too, you know). It would be much more honest and refreshing, and you’ll feel less conflicted, which might have the happy side-benefit of reducing your compulsion to spray your repressed misogyny around here.
Cry me a friggin’ river. Your monomania about “sexualised imagery” puts you right on the fringe, Desipsis. In your long and largely one-note history of comments on this site, you have amply demonstrated that you and Sheik Hilaly make excellent ideological bedfellows, pun absolutely intended.
Okay Desipis, here’s a little fable for you.
Once upon a time there was a young man who worked in, you know, a workplace. The general consensus among the female staff was that he was hot as.
Fully aware of how attractive he was, and of his effect on women more mature than he, our hero would play this up because they were usually senior to him as well and therefore in a position to do him workplace favours. He didn’t actually walk around with his shirt off or anything, but he was a stylish, charming lad, broad-shouldered and slender-hipped, who wore his t-shirts tight and his jeans very very nicely indeed, and walked with a confident, young-man swagger. The ladies in my story found his very presence almost unbearably sexually provocative.
I wonder whose ‘fault’ you think that was. And I wonder whether, had their preoccupation with this hot little number at any point interfered with their work, who it was who would have been sacked.
Okay Desipis, here’s a little fable for you.
Once upon a time there was a young man who worked in, you know, a workplace. The general consensus among the female staff was that he was hot as.
Fully aware of how attractive he was, and of his effect on women more mature than he, our hero would play this up because they were usually senior to him as well and therefore in a position to do him workplace favours. He didn’t actually walk around with his shirt off or anything, but he was a stylish, charming lad, broad-shouldered and slender-hipped, who wore his t-shirts tight and his jeans very very nicely indeed, and walked with a confident, young-man swagger. The ladies in my story found his very presence almost unbearably sexually provocative.
I wonder whose ‘fault’ you think that was. And I wonder whether, had their preoccupation with this hot little number at any point interfered with their work, who it was who would have been sacked.
Desipis, I recall asking on a another thread what exactly your problem was. You didn’t respond of course, but don’t worry, I think I’ve worked it out for myself.
Desipis, I recall asking on a another thread what exactly your problem was. You didn’t respond of course, but don’t worry, I think I’ve worked it out for myself.
Tigtig: The two in the top right, and its generally the fitting (not the style) that is the issue. But then it’s not my workplace, not yours, so neither of us get to set the standard required.
Mercurious: No I didn’t. You’re misreading what I’ve said and quoting it out of context. The “fault” in that statement is for the distraction/discomfort of men, not their actions.
Perhaps I’m just responding to the blatant misandry that’s in plentiful supply.
PC: “Fully aware of how attractive he was, and of his effect on women more mature than he, our hero would play this up” – His fault. If he tried to use the help he got from others as evidence of his performance then I probably wouldn’t give him a particularly good performance review.
Tigtig: The two in the top right, and its generally the fitting (not the style) that is the issue. But then it’s not my workplace, not yours, so neither of us get to set the standard required.
Mercurious: No I didn’t. You’re misreading what I’ve said and quoting it out of context. The “fault” in that statement is for the distraction/discomfort of men, not their actions.
Perhaps I’m just responding to the blatant misandry that’s in plentiful supply.
PC: “Fully aware of how attractive he was, and of his effect on women more mature than he, our hero would play this up” – His fault. If he tried to use the help he got from others as evidence of his performance then I probably wouldn’t give him a particularly good performance review.
Re 48
That woman would look hot if she was wearing a potato sack.
Also, I think desipis is extracting the urine.
Re 48
That woman would look hot if she was wearing a potato sack.
Also, I think desipis is extracting the urine.
Desipis – OTHER WOMEN IN HER OFFICE WERE WEARING THE SAME OR MORE PROVOCATIVE CLOTHING AND WERE NOT SANCTIONED.
Please respond to the onvious implications of this for your position that it was her fault men were distracted.
The only way to maintain your conclusion would be to argue that either:
1) It’s her fault that men find her unusually attractive
or
2) She can’t help being hot, but should be expected to dress more demurely than other women for the sole reason that men find her unusually attractive
Desipis – OTHER WOMEN IN HER OFFICE WERE WEARING THE SAME OR MORE PROVOCATIVE CLOTHING AND WERE NOT SANCTIONED.
Please respond to the onvious implications of this for your position that it was her fault men were distracted.
The only way to maintain your conclusion would be to argue that either:
1) It’s her fault that men find her unusually attractive
or
2) She can’t help being hot, but should be expected to dress more demurely than other women for the sole reason that men find her unusually attractive
Apropos of not much, I had a comment in last year’s (anonymous) student evaluations to the effect that my clothes are distracting.
I am just enjoying the idea that this daft posing and poncing around in nine inch Louboutin heels and tight white skirts (a recipe for VPL if ever there was one) could bring the entire banking industry into disrepute, not like giving executives huge bonuses for doing such a good job in the GFC or anything of that kind.
Apropos of not much, I had a comment in last year’s (anonymous) student evaluations to the effect that my clothes are distracting.
I am just enjoying the idea that this daft posing and poncing around in nine inch Louboutin heels and tight white skirts (a recipe for VPL if ever there was one) could bring the entire banking industry into disrepute, not like giving executives huge bonuses for doing such a good job in the GFC or anything of that kind.
Ah, universities.
I am wondering how the blokes who were supposedly distracted by Ms. Lorenzana would go working at one. There are literally thousands of young women wandering around them, in lectures and tutes, some of them exceedingly physically attractive, and often wearing considerably more revealing clothing than Ms. Lorenzana’s elegant but unremarkable business attire.
But, funnily enough, men manage to get their work done on university campuses.
(Not to say for a moment that universities don’t have their own issues with sexual harassment – they do).
Ah, universities.
I am wondering how the blokes who were supposedly distracted by Ms. Lorenzana would go working at one. There are literally thousands of young women wandering around them, in lectures and tutes, some of them exceedingly physically attractive, and often wearing considerably more revealing clothing than Ms. Lorenzana’s elegant but unremarkable business attire.
But, funnily enough, men manage to get their work done on university campuses.
(Not to say for a moment that universities don’t have their own issues with sexual harassment – they do).
Apropos of even less, I also had a comment to the effect that it was stupid of me to have scheduled the first week’s classes at 10 in the morning on the day after the first campus Bar Night for the semester.
I guess my point there is that plenty of people in the world have absolutely no concept of personal responsibility (which is why the phrase ‘that’s a YP not an MP’ is such gold and so useful.)
I guess Desipis ought to be honoured with a general vote of thanks for providing a note of improbable comedy relief around the place. S/he aside, it’s patently obvious that sacking someone because other people find them attractive is a total fail. None of which takes away from the fact that the lady’s subsequent excessive smouldering and voguing in the name of her personal freedom to be the hotness is also a total fail.
Apropos of even less, I also had a comment to the effect that it was stupid of me to have scheduled the first week’s classes at 10 in the morning on the day after the first campus Bar Night for the semester.
I guess my point there is that plenty of people in the world have absolutely no concept of personal responsibility (which is why the phrase ‘that’s a YP not an MP’ is such gold and so useful.)
I guess Desipis ought to be honoured with a general vote of thanks for providing a note of improbable comedy relief around the place. S/he aside, it’s patently obvious that sacking someone because other people find them attractive is a total fail. None of which takes away from the fact that the lady’s subsequent excessive smouldering and voguing in the name of her personal freedom to be the hotness is also a total fail.
But again, no evidence has been adduced that Ms L has actually distracted fellow bankers.
It appears to be a case of biblical motes and beams to me.
But again, no evidence has been adduced that Ms L has actually distracted fellow bankers.
It appears to be a case of biblical motes and beams to me.
Its not only what you wear, its how you wear it.
Did she flirt with her ogling co-workers or fix them with the Julie Bishop laser death stare as she moved around the office with businesslike efficiency.
Its not only what you wear, its how you wear it.
Did she flirt with her ogling co-workers or fix them with the Julie Bishop laser death stare as she moved around the office with businesslike efficiency.
“But, funnily enough, men manage to get their work done on university campuses.”
They also try, and sometimes succeed, to get into the pants of the female students. And if they don’t succeed, then victimise said students. (I know can recite you cases chapter and verse.) Even worse, the men get older, but the female students don’t. (What’s more pathetic than a 40 year old academic trying to seduce 20 year old female students? When 10 years later, he’s 50 and still trying to seduce 20 year old female students.)
“But, funnily enough, men manage to get their work done on university campuses.”
They also try, and sometimes succeed, to get into the pants of the female students. And if they don’t succeed, then victimise said students. (I know can recite you cases chapter and verse.) Even worse, the men get older, but the female students don’t. (What’s more pathetic than a 40 year old academic trying to seduce 20 year old female students? When 10 years later, he’s 50 and still trying to seduce 20 year old female students.)
“If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.”
“I never justified any inappropriate reaction by the men. Rather I was supporting their right to work in a workplace free of sexualised imagery.”
I’ve never seen such rapid back-peddling. If it’s her fault that when men are provoked, then logically that excuses them, at least to a degree? And she’s no a piece of ‘sexualised imagery’. She’s a woman wearing a suit to work.
What do you want desipis? Seeing as she’s wearing quite ordinary clothing, do you want there to be some sort of equation worked out detailing the relationship between a woman’s breast size and how tight her clothes are allowed to be? Do you want the office manager to come out with the tape measure to check on appropriate tightness, or do you think they should just use their generalised judgement on this issue of tightness in relation to breast size?
This reminds me of high school when we always had to wear our badly cut school blazers on public transport because the sight of teenage breasts was just to much for other tram users.
“If a women dresses or behaves in a way that sexually provokes others it is her fault.”
“I never justified any inappropriate reaction by the men. Rather I was supporting their right to work in a workplace free of sexualised imagery.”
I’ve never seen such rapid back-peddling. If it’s her fault that when men are provoked, then logically that excuses them, at least to a degree? And she’s no a piece of ‘sexualised imagery’. She’s a woman wearing a suit to work.
What do you want desipis? Seeing as she’s wearing quite ordinary clothing, do you want there to be some sort of equation worked out detailing the relationship between a woman’s breast size and how tight her clothes are allowed to be? Do you want the office manager to come out with the tape measure to check on appropriate tightness, or do you think they should just use their generalised judgement on this issue of tightness in relation to breast size?
This reminds me of high school when we always had to wear our badly cut school blazers on public transport because the sight of teenage breasts was just to much for other tram users.
Agreed, as I alluded to in my original post. It remains a serious problem.
But the idea that academics could use the mere presence of attractive members of the appropriate gender as an excuse for lack of productivity wouldn’t get past the laugh test.
Agreed, as I alluded to in my original post. It remains a serious problem.
But the idea that academics could use the mere presence of attractive members of the appropriate gender as an excuse for lack of productivity wouldn’t get past the laugh test.
the idea that academics could use the mere presence of attractive members of the appropriate gender as an excuse for lack of productivity wouldn’t get past the laugh test.
They don’t need to use that excuse because they have so many other excuses they can use.
Speaking of sex in the workplace, I see that the Virgin Blue workers who were sacked for (allegedly) distributing porn by email claim that porn viewing is part of the culture there, in that Virgin Blue was sold to them as a “sexy” place to work.
I know that Virgin Blue young and attractive hosties are an an important part of that airline’s marketing but that excuse must be the clubhouse leader in the Agincourt long bow award.
the idea that academics could use the mere presence of attractive members of the appropriate gender as an excuse for lack of productivity wouldn’t get past the laugh test.
They don’t need to use that excuse because they have so many other excuses they can use.
Speaking of sex in the workplace, I see that the Virgin Blue workers who were sacked for (allegedly) distributing porn by email claim that porn viewing is part of the culture there, in that Virgin Blue was sold to them as a “sexy” place to work.
I know that Virgin Blue young and attractive hosties are an an important part of that airline’s marketing but that excuse must be the clubhouse leader in the Agincourt long bow award.
Graeme@49 would appear to have solved the mystery here. It is the whole American workplace system, that the Liberals are doing everything they can to impose here, that creates perversion.
Because this woman was unfairly dumped, she is now required to run down an obscure legal path, partly drawing the same kind of attention that was creepy in the first place, to get a kind of justice.
Graeme@49 would appear to have solved the mystery here. It is the whole American workplace system, that the Liberals are doing everything they can to impose here, that creates perversion.
Because this woman was unfairly dumped, she is now required to run down an obscure legal path, partly drawing the same kind of attention that was creepy in the first place, to get a kind of justice.
Academics are surrounded by beautiful young adult bodies of both genders. Some figures are swaddled under layers of clothing and some display their assets.
A principle tenet for life is do not take advantage of those who are powerless to resist. That’s why seigneurial rights were wrong and why academics should not cavort with students whose future they hold in the balance.
Academics are surrounded by beautiful young adult bodies of both genders. Some figures are swaddled under layers of clothing and some display their assets.
A principle tenet for life is do not take advantage of those who are powerless to resist. That’s why seigneurial rights were wrong and why academics should not cavort with students whose future they hold in the balance.
FDB: #2.
Fine: “If it’s her fault that when men are provoked, then logically that excuses them, at least to a degree?”
If a man show sexually explicit pictures to a female coworker and she picks up a pair of scissors and stabs him in the eye blinding or perhaps killing him, should her actions be excused? Does that have any impact on the appropriateness of the man showing the pictures in the first place?
FDB: #2.
Fine: “If it’s her fault that when men are provoked, then logically that excuses them, at least to a degree?”
If a man show sexually explicit pictures to a female coworker and she picks up a pair of scissors and stabs him in the eye blinding or perhaps killing him, should her actions be excused? Does that have any impact on the appropriateness of the man showing the pictures in the first place?
Sam @ 69 – I think its a reasonable mitigating factor if the culture really was as they describe, where many people did it and was ignored by management and then they were sacked without warning. If they were warned but then continued doing it then its quite reasonable that they were sacked.
At one of my previous jobs a strongly worded email was sent around by the owner warning against use of company resources for porn. The owner then came around to the programmers later and told us he really didn’t care what we did, just don’t get caught. This was back in the days where not many people had internet access at home so he probably viewed easy access to free porn as workplace perk.
Sam @ 69 – I think its a reasonable mitigating factor if the culture really was as they describe, where many people did it and was ignored by management and then they were sacked without warning. If they were warned but then continued doing it then its quite reasonable that they were sacked.
At one of my previous jobs a strongly worded email was sent around by the owner warning against use of company resources for porn. The owner then came around to the programmers later and told us he really didn’t care what we did, just don’t get caught. This was back in the days where not many people had internet access at home so he probably viewed easy access to free porn as workplace perk.
Sam people confuse “sexy” with Richard Branson’s obsession with the attractiveness of youthful, taut bodies. Virgin Blue cabin staff uniforms look great on slender athletic bodies and cruelly highlight any extra pounds, especially tummies that are not flat.
Sam people confuse “sexy” with Richard Branson’s obsession with the attractiveness of youthful, taut bodies. Virgin Blue cabin staff uniforms look great on slender athletic bodies and cruelly highlight any extra pounds, especially tummies that are not flat.
Desipis, have you ever heard of a woman stabbing a man in the eye because he showed her sexually explicit photos? I refer you back to PC @ 32 in which she experienced exactly what you described.
As people keep pointing out to you, this is a case of a woman wearing ordinary office clothes, as worn by other women in the office. I’m not sure what your point is, but I wish you’d return to Reality Land.
Desipis, have you ever heard of a woman stabbing a man in the eye because he showed her sexually explicit photos? I refer you back to PC @ 32 in which she experienced exactly what you described.
As people keep pointing out to you, this is a case of a woman wearing ordinary office clothes, as worn by other women in the office. I’m not sure what your point is, but I wish you’d return to Reality Land.
Fine, it was a hypothetical analogy to get my point across that labeling something as inappropriate does not excuse any reactions to it. Care to answer the questions I posed?
Fine, it was a hypothetical analogy to get my point across that labeling something as inappropriate does not excuse any reactions to it. Care to answer the questions I posed?
Desipis, but you didn’t label it as inappropriate. You said that if a woman provokes a man sexually it’s her fault. These two statements are completely different from each other.
And can you please explain how this woman was dressing inappropriately, in any case?
And I wouldn’t excuse a woman for stabbing a man in the eye for showing her sexually explicit photos. But what has that got to with anything?
Now, would you care to answer my questions?
Desipis, but you didn’t label it as inappropriate. You said that if a woman provokes a man sexually it’s her fault. These two statements are completely different from each other.
And can you please explain how this woman was dressing inappropriately, in any case?
And I wouldn’t excuse a woman for stabbing a man in the eye for showing her sexually explicit photos. But what has that got to with anything?
Now, would you care to answer my questions?
Fine, it’s inappropriate because it’s sexually provoking the men.
It was a rebuttal of the line I quoted in #72. In my scenario, the man is at fault for showing inappropriate material however that doesn’t excuse any reaction by the woman. The same goes for the dress standard, the woman is at fault for being sexually provoking however this does not excuse any reaction by the man.
Fine, it’s inappropriate because it’s sexually provoking the men.
It was a rebuttal of the line I quoted in #72. In my scenario, the man is at fault for showing inappropriate material however that doesn’t excuse any reaction by the woman. The same goes for the dress standard, the woman is at fault for being sexually provoking however this does not excuse any reaction by the man.
Again I ask you (and I suspect this is a waste of my time), how is she being sexually provoking by wearing standard office clothes?
Again I ask you (and I suspect this is a waste of my time), how is she being sexually provoking by wearing standard office clothes?
If what defines provocative or inappropriate is the reaction of the viewer Desipis then anything can be provocative. Most illogical. You really don’t have a handle on responsibility for self do you? If I should have a kink for pinstripe suits it would be the fault of the wearers of said suits by this logic and I would be within my rights to insist they all wear cords to work or something. Or shorts with long socks and sandals, that ought to dampen my rampaging desire for a bit and how about mandated tonsures for all, yeah that ought to make the workplace far less distracting. I do admire your tenacity but this idea is teh stoopid Desipis.
If what defines provocative or inappropriate is the reaction of the viewer Desipis then anything can be provocative. Most illogical. You really don’t have a handle on responsibility for self do you? If I should have a kink for pinstripe suits it would be the fault of the wearers of said suits by this logic and I would be within my rights to insist they all wear cords to work or something. Or shorts with long socks and sandals, that ought to dampen my rampaging desire for a bit and how about mandated tonsures for all, yeah that ought to make the workplace far less distracting. I do admire your tenacity but this idea is teh stoopid Desipis.
su,
So what does define provocative or inappropriate in the workplace?
su,
So what does define provocative or inappropriate in the workplace?
What if women (or men) in uniform are a turn on for some?
Do they get a special dispensation in desipis world?
What if women (or men) in uniform are a turn on for some?
Do they get a special dispensation in desipis world?
Still, haven’t answered my questions, desipis.
Still, haven’t answered my questions, desipis.
When Desipis turned up here after his improbable and narrow escape from retribution at the claws/beak of Tig Tog and Pavlov’s
Cat the other day, I nearly fell off my chair in surprise.
“Crazy-brave”, I thought admiringly to meself, as he road off, Quixote-like into battle, tilting against the Windmills, with his gear about it being a woman’s fault for others peccdilloes as to her sartorial tastes. This time he was well-spotted early and swatted by such an assembled coalition of feminists and/or, unionists and civil libertarians, yet returns groggily today for more.
The remains were last spotted shredded between the canines of a fleeing Fine, with the following pack ripping shreds off where possible.
Desipis, why do you persist?
Had you been treated like this, how would you feel; its a simple test; do nothing to others you would not have done to yourself?
btw, itlooked a n extensive wardrobe. Who would pay for the replacement?
The mugs who cavilled at her fairly conservative wardrobe were going to therefore offer to pay for a replacement?
I mean it.
Go back to Tig Tog’s photos and ask yourself what the cost of a set of outfits like those would cost, all up. Classy gear,clearly chosen carefully by an employee eager to look the part for her bosses, and this is the way she was treated, mucked about by her fascist prigs of bosses in return?
When Desipis turned up here after his improbable and narrow escape from retribution at the claws/beak of Tig Tog and Pavlov’s
Cat the other day, I nearly fell off my chair in surprise.
“Crazy-brave”, I thought admiringly to meself, as he road off, Quixote-like into battle, tilting against the Windmills, with his gear about it being a woman’s fault for others peccdilloes as to her sartorial tastes. This time he was well-spotted early and swatted by such an assembled coalition of feminists and/or, unionists and civil libertarians, yet returns groggily today for more.
The remains were last spotted shredded between the canines of a fleeing Fine, with the following pack ripping shreds off where possible.
Desipis, why do you persist?
Had you been treated like this, how would you feel; its a simple test; do nothing to others you would not have done to yourself?
btw, itlooked a n extensive wardrobe. Who would pay for the replacement?
The mugs who cavilled at her fairly conservative wardrobe were going to therefore offer to pay for a replacement?
I mean it.
Go back to Tig Tog’s photos and ask yourself what the cost of a set of outfits like those would cost, all up. Classy gear,clearly chosen carefully by an employee eager to look the part for her bosses, and this is the way she was treated, mucked about by her fascist prigs of bosses in return?
desipis said
Then
I’m so relieved that I’ve found an ally! You see, there’s this woman at work who wears open shoes. The shoe is allowed in my workplace which is exceptionally rude considering my foot fetish: it’s exceptionally hard for me to function at work as I have a constant erection, and simply am unable to concentrate.
So I’m going to tell her exactly what you said; that it’s her fault for wearing shoes that sexually arouse me.
desipis said
Then
I’m so relieved that I’ve found an ally! You see, there’s this woman at work who wears open shoes. The shoe is allowed in my workplace which is exceptionally rude considering my foot fetish: it’s exceptionally hard for me to function at work as I have a constant erection, and simply am unable to concentrate.
So I’m going to tell her exactly what you said; that it’s her fault for wearing shoes that sexually arouse me.
I really sympathise with the lady in question.
Every-day I would evoke (almost) uncontrollable lust in the hearts of all the my female co-workers.
I found this to be an almost impossible situation that has followed me from workplace to workplace over the past 50 years or so.
For many years I thought it to be the normal state of affairs. Fortunately the pressure has come off over the poast few years and I now find myself less pressured and more at ease.
I am somewhat unsure of what has brought about this change but I suspect it may have something to do with my newly acquired mullet hairdo and the blue singlets that I now wear in the office, as well as the rubber boots and skimpy shorts.
Ah well
Huggy
I really sympathise with the lady in question.
Every-day I would evoke (almost) uncontrollable lust in the hearts of all the my female co-workers.
I found this to be an almost impossible situation that has followed me from workplace to workplace over the past 50 years or so.
For many years I thought it to be the normal state of affairs. Fortunately the pressure has come off over the poast few years and I now find myself less pressured and more at ease.
I am somewhat unsure of what has brought about this change but I suspect it may have something to do with my newly acquired mullet hairdo and the blue singlets that I now wear in the office, as well as the rubber boots and skimpy shorts.
Ah well
Huggy
Desipsis, I have a burqa fetish.
Discuss.
Desipsis, I have a burqa fetish.
Discuss.
@ Mecurius – scientists are working on a solution.
@ Mecurius – scientists are working on a solution.
Huggy is also Fred!
Huggy is also Fred!
Speaking about women in uniform, don’t know what desipis would do about Skyhooks. Was it only 35 years ago?
Speaking about women in uniform, don’t know what desipis would do about Skyhooks. Was it only 35 years ago?
Someone on this thread revealed she had breast reductions and was relieved that men didn’t ogle her anymore. Meanwhile, thousands of women all over Australia are having silicon implants so that men will look at them!
Women are not easy to please!
Someone on this thread revealed she had breast reductions and was relieved that men didn’t ogle her anymore. Meanwhile, thousands of women all over Australia are having silicon implants so that men will look at them!
Women are not easy to please!
Please, no…
Please, no…
Adrain, 91, indicates the new direction the thread is taking. Power suits,
Demi Moore and Dominatrixia.
Open Shoe and Burqa fetishes and male “hotties”, courtesy of PC!… it now has it all!
Personally, I’d commend the opportunity for a bit of chair-sniffing…
Adrain, 91, indicates the new direction the thread is taking. Power suits,
Demi Moore and Dominatrixia.
Open Shoe and Burqa fetishes and male “hotties”, courtesy of PC!… it now has it all!
Personally, I’d commend the opportunity for a bit of chair-sniffing…
Correction Joe2, he was Fred, but now he is Fred.
Correction Joe2, he was Fred, but now he is Fred.
Aww, all those beautiful Border Collies.
Aww, all those beautiful Border Collies.
I don’t recall this sort of being a problem in my many workplaces even in my later years. Occasionally one had an issue with a younger teacher who wanted to wear the sort thing that was verboten to girl highschoolers who generally were required to wear uniform. I do now though as I write recall in the bra-burning era one particularly determined young woman whose breasts were lusciously round and firm with prominent nipples who drove the boys to distraction and the girls to loathing her. I just couldn’t understand why she didn’t ‘get it’ and kept protesting that her t shirts were not tight or low cut. Perhaps that’s why I didn’t feel much sympathy for Debrahlee and not inclined to comment here. Reading the thread as it grew my feeling is that there is no really strong support for her here. We all dress in different ways for different reasons at different times, but I would think that even the most beautiful of women could find a comfortable way to dress that did not draw undue attention to her in work hours. It’s not so much that I think she is to blame for unwanted male attention as that I’d think that holding down a job she enjoyed and could concentrate on would drive her to find some way to resolve the issue of her appearance without having to wear a sack. Mind you I remember the ‘sack’ and how great it was if you had good legs!
I don’t recall this sort of being a problem in my many workplaces even in my later years. Occasionally one had an issue with a younger teacher who wanted to wear the sort thing that was verboten to girl highschoolers who generally were required to wear uniform. I do now though as I write recall in the bra-burning era one particularly determined young woman whose breasts were lusciously round and firm with prominent nipples who drove the boys to distraction and the girls to loathing her. I just couldn’t understand why she didn’t ‘get it’ and kept protesting that her t shirts were not tight or low cut. Perhaps that’s why I didn’t feel much sympathy for Debrahlee and not inclined to comment here. Reading the thread as it grew my feeling is that there is no really strong support for her here. We all dress in different ways for different reasons at different times, but I would think that even the most beautiful of women could find a comfortable way to dress that did not draw undue attention to her in work hours. It’s not so much that I think she is to blame for unwanted male attention as that I’d think that holding down a job she enjoyed and could concentrate on would drive her to find some way to resolve the issue of her appearance without having to wear a sack. Mind you I remember the ‘sack’ and how great it was if you had good legs!
To be fair, Pavlov’s Cat explained that the rationale concerning her reduction was to do with health and physical stress issues rather than any desire to be attractive to blokes. Its not an isloated problem for women,those he we thinkof of as “generously endowed” will always tell you of the curse behind the dubious blessing.
I remember my poor old mum home from a long day on the floor in a fashion shop, sadly complaining about the various aches and pains inflicted by her own anatomy or the sort of footwear, etc that people her job had to wear, despite the excruciating discomfort.
To be fair, Pavlov’s Cat explained that the rationale concerning her reduction was to do with health and physical stress issues rather than any desire to be attractive to blokes. Its not an isloated problem for women,those he we thinkof of as “generously endowed” will always tell you of the curse behind the dubious blessing.
I remember my poor old mum home from a long day on the floor in a fashion shop, sadly complaining about the various aches and pains inflicted by her own anatomy or the sort of footwear, etc that people her job had to wear, despite the excruciating discomfort.
If men cannot work efficiently around beautiful women in normal workplace attire they deserve pity, contempt and early retirement.
Fucking dinosaurs.
If men cannot work efficiently around beautiful women in normal workplace attire they deserve pity, contempt and early retirement.
Fucking dinosaurs.
Actually, PW, that was Tigtog, though I too am aware of the issues you mention and have discussed them on the thread I believe you’re referring to. Tigtog and I are two quite different people. But I’m sure she would be as grateful as I if you would stop with the personal comments, particularly the insulting ones, because it’s getting a little bit tedious.
In the meantime, I propose a Godwin’s Law of Breasts. First person to mention them loses the argument and the thread is over.
Actually, PW, that was Tigtog, though I too am aware of the issues you mention and have discussed them on the thread I believe you’re referring to. Tigtog and I are two quite different people. But I’m sure she would be as grateful as I if you would stop with the personal comments, particularly the insulting ones, because it’s getting a little bit tedious.
In the meantime, I propose a Godwin’s Law of Breasts. First person to mention them loses the argument and the thread is over.
FDB, I guess all men should retire then.
FDB, I guess all men should retire then.
I knew I was wasting my time. *shrugs*
I knew I was wasting my time. *shrugs*
Now Fine@ No 96,
that’s why some sheep dogs get the sack. They just can’t keep their minds on the job
I liked the Border Collies!
I liked the Border Collies!
I was too busy looking at the gumboots. Phwoooaaar!
Nasty stuff, PC!
was just making aa point that another poster may have missed, as regards aspects of a womans life that a male might not be fully aware of.
But maybe some people are just not worth the sympathy.
But if I ever get remotely as “personal” as yourself, I hope certainly, I will be “Godwinned”, even tho I despise Godwin on b—-ts or modern history, as merely a means for discouraging a civil conversation..
Nasty stuff, PC!
was just making aa point that another poster may have missed, as regards aspects of a womans life that a male might not be fully aware of.
But maybe some people are just not worth the sympathy.
But if I ever get remotely as “personal” as yourself, I hope certainly, I will be “Godwinned”, even tho I despise Godwin on b—-ts or modern history, as merely a means for discouraging a civil conversation..
What….what a brown skinned Hispanic?
But I thought the US was going through a pogrom of ethnic cleansing because of the racial contempt for Hispanics held by the majority whites (ethnic Germanics) in the USA, especially in those states annexed from Mexico? Typical of the USA I guess invidious racial deprecation on one hand and ardent ravishing sexual desire on the other!
Of course if the lovely lady happens to be a model, actress or of some such public persona, this would be an ideal publicity contrivance in gaining free exposure to sway public opinion and create popularity amongst the targeted clientele. Ahh…..a classic example in the routine US ritual of “spin”.
What….what a brown skinned Hispanic?
But I thought the US was going through a pogrom of ethnic cleansing because of the racial contempt for Hispanics held by the majority whites (ethnic Germanics) in the USA, especially in those states annexed from Mexico? Typical of the USA I guess invidious racial deprecation on one hand and ardent ravishing sexual desire on the other!
Of course if the lovely lady happens to be a model, actress or of some such public persona, this would be an ideal publicity contrivance in gaining free exposure to sway public opinion and create popularity amongst the targeted clientele. Ahh…..a classic example in the routine US ritual of “spin”.
Patricia WA, there has been plenty of support for the woman on this thread, but I think Tigtog’s pictures *demonstrating* that her workplace attire was completely appropriate said it all. Just because the word count might be less… aaargh, I give up.
And no bra was burnt in the second wave feminist era. I’m sick of this cliche. Read some history.
Patricia WA, there has been plenty of support for the woman on this thread, but I think Tigtog’s pictures *demonstrating* that her workplace attire was completely appropriate said it all. Just because the word count might be less… aaargh, I give up.
And no bra was burnt in the second wave feminist era. I’m sick of this cliche. Read some history.
Indeed, why weren’t a couple of the blokes disciplined or dismissed for being immature, easily-distracted, knuckle-dragging twerps?
Indeed, why weren’t a couple of the blokes disciplined or dismissed for being immature, easily-distracted, knuckle-dragging twerps?
Don’t you know anything Mercurius?
That would have been a clear breach of their constitutional right to oggle. If you look closely enough, it is embedded in the very word “constitution”.
Don’t you know anything Mercurius?
That would have been a clear breach of their constitutional right to oggle. If you look closely enough, it is embedded in the very word “constitution”.
The point is that the distraction is an involuntary biological response. Actions taken as a result of that distraction can be the result of social conditioning, however the distraction itself is not. Essentially you have someone’s voluntary actions resulting in an involuntary and undesirable response in others.
The point is that the distraction is an involuntary biological response. Actions taken as a result of that distraction can be the result of social conditioning, however the distraction itself is not. Essentially you have someone’s voluntary actions resulting in an involuntary and undesirable response in others.
Anybody seen that Bingo card?
Anybody seen that Bingo card?
Damn, must check all clothing carefully before leaving house. In danger of triggering involuntary response. Is cardigan too tight? ZOMG!
Damn, must check all clothing carefully before leaving house. In danger of triggering involuntary response. Is cardigan too tight? ZOMG!
And Fine, when you get to work you must make sure that you don’t get so involuntarily biologically distracted by some hot young lad that you’re unable to concentrate on your work. Because guess who’ll get fired if you do.
And Fine, when you get to work you must make sure that you don’t get so involuntarily biologically distracted by some hot young lad that you’re unable to concentrate on your work. Because guess who’ll get fired if you do.
110 – Tell me this isn’t a Poe.
I’m not going to be able to work today as my mind boggles at the thought that someone could truly believe this.
An involuntary biological reaction, perhaps?
110 – Tell me this isn’t a Poe.
I’m not going to be able to work today as my mind boggles at the thought that someone could truly believe this.
An involuntary biological reaction, perhaps?
I tried and failed to post this yesterday. It is even more relevant to today’s thread, however, if that’s possible.
I tried and failed to post this yesterday. It is even more relevant to today’s thread, however, if that’s possible.
Aww, PC can’t I be involuntarily distracted, pleease?
Yes, Dutch women with big boobs must never be punished.
Aww, PC can’t I be involuntarily distracted, pleease?
Yes, Dutch women with big boobs must never be punished.
The comment at 110 just gave me an involuntary biological response (ROFLMAO) that has resulted in coffee all over my desk. I’m sending Desipsis the bill for my monitor, keyboard and mouse, because Desipsis’ voluntary actions have resulted in an involuntary and undesirable response in me.
The comment at 110 just gave me an involuntary biological response (ROFLMAO) that has resulted in coffee all over my desk. I’m sending Desipsis the bill for my monitor, keyboard and mouse, because Desipsis’ voluntary actions have resulted in an involuntary and undesirable response in me.
Hi Helen – you’re right, of course, bras were symbolically trashed some time in the sixties along with a lot of other ‘feminine’ useless paraphernalia but not burned when women everywhere were responding to Friedan, Greer et al. Someone used the phrase likening it to that other major resistance movement of the era, pacificism and the burning of draft cards, and it caught on. The burning of bras is not for me a derogatory term and I used it in my comment to refer to the spirit of the times, which I thoroughly approved of then and still do.
As an active feminist from the fifties on, teacher, unionist and school principal I don’t need to read any more of the literature or history than I already have – I lived it on a personal level and still am living it through my family, particularly from the perspective of my daughter.
The fact that this issue still comess up socially, legally and politically and is debated amongst fair minded people with variable opinions shows that it’s still not resolved, probably never will be, and is probably a lot more complex than I finally made up my mind to judge it.
Most of us though do know sexual harassment when we see it or experience it. We also recognise
provocation subtle or flagrant. Then of course as Adrian reminds us with the reference to the Skyhooks song we all as humans go on responding to each other sexually in multifarious ways, happily most of the time warmly appreciative of each others’ difference.
Hi Helen – you’re right, of course, bras were symbolically trashed some time in the sixties along with a lot of other ‘feminine’ useless paraphernalia but not burned when women everywhere were responding to Friedan, Greer et al. Someone used the phrase likening it to that other major resistance movement of the era, pacificism and the burning of draft cards, and it caught on. The burning of bras is not for me a derogatory term and I used it in my comment to refer to the spirit of the times, which I thoroughly approved of then and still do.
As an active feminist from the fifties on, teacher, unionist and school principal I don’t need to read any more of the literature or history than I already have – I lived it on a personal level and still am living it through my family, particularly from the perspective of my daughter.
The fact that this issue still comess up socially, legally and politically and is debated amongst fair minded people with variable opinions shows that it’s still not resolved, probably never will be, and is probably a lot more complex than I finally made up my mind to judge it.
Most of us though do know sexual harassment when we see it or experience it. We also recognise
provocation subtle or flagrant. Then of course as Adrian reminds us with the reference to the Skyhooks song we all as humans go on responding to each other sexually in multifarious ways, happily most of the time warmly appreciative of each others’ difference.
Provocation, like irony, is defined by the intention of the alleged provoker or ironist, and that’s something it’s impossible to either prove or regulate. As the counsellor types are always saying, you can’t control what other people do, but what you can control is your own reactions to it. Surely that’s what being an adult means.
Provocation, like irony, is defined by the intention of the alleged provoker or ironist, and that’s something it’s impossible to either prove or regulate. As the counsellor types are always saying, you can’t control what other people do, but what you can control is your own reactions to it. Surely that’s what being an adult means.
Well, you have all come down like brick outhouses on Desipis, #110, but his proposition re biological responses is worth a second look.
Normal enough for the boys and girls to “notice” each other, despite what the prigs say.
Mercurius suggests it should be her workmates that are to blame, but I think the problem rested in the authoritarian personality of the boss who made the decision against this woman. This boss should have felt some responsibility for the separate issue to, altho connected with, the general sexist tone of that office, because it was for the bosses to set the tone whereby the all the workers in that office could get along as a team.
In that much, Mercurius’ response is correct: they left the woman unprotected by not encouraging the right attitudes in underlings in the first place. A normal appreciative glance at an attractive woman was allowed to develop to overt ogling then harrassment, because a line wasn’t drawn quick enough, then the woman was scapegoated when things got out of hand.
Well, you have all come down like brick outhouses on Desipis, #110, but his proposition re biological responses is worth a second look.
Normal enough for the boys and girls to “notice” each other, despite what the prigs say.
Mercurius suggests it should be her workmates that are to blame, but I think the problem rested in the authoritarian personality of the boss who made the decision against this woman. This boss should have felt some responsibility for the separate issue to, altho connected with, the general sexist tone of that office, because it was for the bosses to set the tone whereby the all the workers in that office could get along as a team.
In that much, Mercurius’ response is correct: they left the woman unprotected by not encouraging the right attitudes in underlings in the first place. A normal appreciative glance at an attractive woman was allowed to develop to overt ogling then harrassment, because a line wasn’t drawn quick enough, then the woman was scapegoated when things got out of hand.
“Actions taken as a result of that distraction can be the result of social conditioning”
So, if it is the result of social conditioning it can be altered by re-conditioning
“however the distraction itself is not”
No, the distraction is the result of physical attributes that cannot be (easily) changed, ie physical attributes
“Essentially you have someone’s voluntary actions resulting in an involuntary and undesirable response in others”
I think you have that back to front – it is the ‘distraction’ ie her physical attributes that is ‘involuntary’ and cannot be changed while the reaction to those attributes is voluntary and CAN be changed by re-training and social conditioning.
“Actions taken as a result of that distraction can be the result of social conditioning”
So, if it is the result of social conditioning it can be altered by re-conditioning
“however the distraction itself is not”
No, the distraction is the result of physical attributes that cannot be (easily) changed, ie physical attributes
“Essentially you have someone’s voluntary actions resulting in an involuntary and undesirable response in others”
I think you have that back to front – it is the ‘distraction’ ie her physical attributes that is ‘involuntary’ and cannot be changed while the reaction to those attributes is voluntary and CAN be changed by re-training and social conditioning.
At my former employee, we were specifically asked not to ever talk personally to the media, but to direct them to the office.
This story plays one way in the media, but reads another. Deborahlee refuses to cooperate with specific direction on attire appropriate to her position within a global company in a high profile office, with a dress code. She has a problem because the managers giving her direction were male. She cites that employees who are in lesser positions (she compares herself, a business banker, to the tellers) aren’t required to meet the dress code in the same manner. She cites her culture and femininity as justification. She can’t afford it – a poor excuse for someone in her position, who routinely wears the brand labels she wears. Perhaps in the short term, certainly not in the longer term. She shops where everyone else shops. The supposed reactions of her male colleagues aren’t substantiated by much more than inferences on what motivated her managers to request changes to her style of dressing. She doesn’t change her style of dressing, yet complains that every day her manager takes issue with it. It is somewhat telling that in her transferred position, she is given the job of telemarketer.
Other things in her story don’t make sense – the Chrysler bank branch was recently opened, yet an employee says it has a ‘history’ for hiring pretty girls.
It is difficult to tell from the story what has actually been said, and what is being inferred by Deborahlee and her lawyer to make a case/story. Certainly there is little enough evidence, all told, to say whether it’s more than a storm in a D – sorry, tea cup.
At my former employee, we were specifically asked not to ever talk personally to the media, but to direct them to the office.
This story plays one way in the media, but reads another. Deborahlee refuses to cooperate with specific direction on attire appropriate to her position within a global company in a high profile office, with a dress code. She has a problem because the managers giving her direction were male. She cites that employees who are in lesser positions (she compares herself, a business banker, to the tellers) aren’t required to meet the dress code in the same manner. She cites her culture and femininity as justification. She can’t afford it – a poor excuse for someone in her position, who routinely wears the brand labels she wears. Perhaps in the short term, certainly not in the longer term. She shops where everyone else shops. The supposed reactions of her male colleagues aren’t substantiated by much more than inferences on what motivated her managers to request changes to her style of dressing. She doesn’t change her style of dressing, yet complains that every day her manager takes issue with it. It is somewhat telling that in her transferred position, she is given the job of telemarketer.
Other things in her story don’t make sense – the Chrysler bank branch was recently opened, yet an employee says it has a ‘history’ for hiring pretty girls.
It is difficult to tell from the story what has actually been said, and what is being inferred by Deborahlee and her lawyer to make a case/story. Certainly there is little enough evidence, all told, to say whether it’s more than a storm in a D – sorry, tea cup.
PC,
So if a man was wearing a cologne to work that caused irritation, allergic reactions or nausea in a woman (or women), is it reasonable to ask him to change colognes or should the woman just suck it up and control herself?
PC,
So if a man was wearing a cologne to work that caused irritation, allergic reactions or nausea in a woman (or women), is it reasonable to ask him to change colognes or should the woman just suck it up and control herself?
keep digging, eventually you’ll reach molten rock.
keep digging, eventually you’ll reach molten rock.
“So if a man was wearing a cologne”
that he could easily choose to change – unlike the woman’s physical appearance. There is nothing to say that if the woman wore other than professional business attire that the reactions of male colleagues would have been any different.
“that caused irritation, allergic reactions or nausea in a woman”
physical reactions that they cannot help having as opposed to reactions “the result of social conditioning” which could probably be re-learned
“is it reasonable to ask him to change colognes”
yes.
You aren’t really very good at analogies are you?
“So if a man was wearing a cologne”
that he could easily choose to change – unlike the woman’s physical appearance. There is nothing to say that if the woman wore other than professional business attire that the reactions of male colleagues would have been any different.
“that caused irritation, allergic reactions or nausea in a woman”
physical reactions that they cannot help having as opposed to reactions “the result of social conditioning” which could probably be re-learned
“is it reasonable to ask him to change colognes”
yes.
You aren’t really very good at analogies are you?
Provocation. Lovely. So going to work in the appropriate office-y attire pictured upthread consitutes provocation. And a woman gets the sack for it. But that’s all necessary for our happy, happy, warmly appreciative funfeminist society!
Provocation. Lovely. So going to work in the appropriate office-y attire pictured upthread consitutes provocation. And a woman gets the sack for it. But that’s all necessary for our happy, happy, warmly appreciative funfeminist society!
It’s interesting that the idea of women choosing to wear burqas (as opposed to having them thrust upon them) is so suprising to the majority of Australians. Have some commenters (*cough*) stopped to consider that their notion of men being totally unable and unwilling to control their lusty urges in the face of unbearable female *provocation* (being alive and posessed of female attributes and being under 30) is cut from exactly the same cloth as the Arab male idea of ditto ditto. Of course Ms Lorenzana is not about to adopt a burqa anytime soon, but if she did, the same people would be frothing and saying how “offensive” it is to them. And they’d probably claim it was still affecting their work.
It’s interesting that the idea of women choosing to wear burqas (as opposed to having them thrust upon them) is so suprising to the majority of Australians. Have some commenters (*cough*) stopped to consider that their notion of men being totally unable and unwilling to control their lusty urges in the face of unbearable female *provocation* (being alive and posessed of female attributes and being under 30) is cut from exactly the same cloth as the Arab male idea of ditto ditto. Of course Ms Lorenzana is not about to adopt a burqa anytime soon, but if she did, the same people would be frothing and saying how “offensive” it is to them. And they’d probably claim it was still affecting their work.
The answer of course is to wear no clothes. Let’s be as we are, warts and all. Clear plastic garments could be worn should it be raining or cold.
Since humans started wearing clothes we have adopted airs and graces that are at odds with our genetic heritage and base instincts. We kid ourselves we are cerebral creatures, some more so than others (as this thread proves).
Look at monkey and ape groups. They exist quite happily without clothes and engage in nookie when the mood takes them.
I envy their uncomplicated lives.
The answer of course is to wear no clothes. Let’s be as we are, warts and all. Clear plastic garments could be worn should it be raining or cold.
Since humans started wearing clothes we have adopted airs and graces that are at odds with our genetic heritage and base instincts. We kid ourselves we are cerebral creatures, some more so than others (as this thread proves).
Look at monkey and ape groups. They exist quite happily without clothes and engage in nookie when the mood takes them.
I envy their uncomplicated lives.
Monkeys, though, David G, are covered in hair and usually live in tropical and sub-tropical climes, where they don’t have to endure cold winters.
Un-neutered tom cats more properly describes the behaviour of these men.
Monkeys, though, David G, are covered in hair and usually live in tropical and sub-tropical climes, where they don’t have to endure cold winters.
Un-neutered tom cats more properly describes the behaviour of these men.
No one is asking her to change her physical body, just the clothes she puts on it which are as easy to change as cologne.
Do you have any evidence that the impact on male thought processes is not a biological reaction and rather “the result of social conditioning?”
Then why is it not reasonable to ask her to change her clothing style?
No one is asking her to change her physical body, just the clothes she puts on it which are as easy to change as cologne.
Do you have any evidence that the impact on male thought processes is not a biological reaction and rather “the result of social conditioning?”
Then why is it not reasonable to ask her to change her clothing style?
Paul, there’s only one answer then: a mass migration to coral islands where we can cavort about naked and show our wares regardless of whether nature has been kind to us or not.
In our society there is a lot of deception. A lot of people are not what they pretend to be. That applies to physical appearance as well as the cerebral dimension. This latter area is open to the most abuse!
Paul, there’s only one answer then: a mass migration to coral islands where we can cavort about naked and show our wares regardless of whether nature has been kind to us or not.
In our society there is a lot of deception. A lot of people are not what they pretend to be. That applies to physical appearance as well as the cerebral dimension. This latter area is open to the most abuse!
But it’s been demonstrated that the clothes she put on were such things as turtlenecks and tailored suits. Eminently reasonable officewear. What would you suggest? A boiler suit?
But it’s been demonstrated that the clothes she put on were such things as turtlenecks and tailored suits. Eminently reasonable officewear. What would you suggest? A boiler suit?
Ahh, but Helen I’ve asked the charming desipis that question several times. And never received an answer.
Ahh, but Helen I’ve asked the charming desipis that question several times. And never received an answer.
“A boiler suit?”
Presybterian, presumably.
“A boiler suit?”
Presybterian, presumably.
A Physical Education teacher acquaintance of mine was barred from the staff room by the school administration until he put on trakkie daks over his sport shorts.
Some female colleagues had taken offence at the alleged prominence of his testicles.
I am informed that other, allegedly less bulging chaps, continued to be permitted to wear their sport shorts to morning coffee.
A Physical Education teacher acquaintance of mine was barred from the staff room by the school administration until he put on trakkie daks over his sport shorts.
Some female colleagues had taken offence at the alleged prominence of his testicles.
I am informed that other, allegedly less bulging chaps, continued to be permitted to wear their sport shorts to morning coffee.
Clothes that aren’t tight fitting (yes I realise some of the clothes shown aren’t tight fitting).
Using some form of fragrant deodorant or cologne is also reasonable for an office environment. If someone was over using it to the extent it bothered their co-workers, would point out that others wear the exact same cologne be an adequate excuse to continue their behaviour?
Clothes that aren’t tight fitting (yes I realise some of the clothes shown aren’t tight fitting).
Using some form of fragrant deodorant or cologne is also reasonable for an office environment. If someone was over using it to the extent it bothered their co-workers, would point out that others wear the exact same cologne be an adequate excuse to continue their behaviour?
Hi Helen, me again! Not to comment on your latest remarks so much as indulge myself a little more in the past, and to be more honest with you. Invoking my half decade of running a school as somehow qualifying me to some authority on this issue was rather pompous, and perhaps irrelevant. Much as I enjoyed those years they did end ingloriously with a major stoush with authority over what I considered a matter of principle about aboriginal education which we happened to be dealing with very well and innovatively, somewhat to the annoyance of racist elements in the local community. Gender had never been a problem in my own career I thought since getting more women to seek promotion to many vacant positions was the challenge for both department and union in those days. After my unwillingly premature retirement in due time I found my way into a happy and successful corporate life inter-state. I didn’t hang around for a post-mortem on why my career had gone bung, though at the time I had hoped that ‘my day in court’ would bring the scandalous state of aboriginal educational disadvantage to general public awareness. I was out-manoevred on that. Looking back now I can see that by then my gender was clouding the broader and more important issue of race. Had I been ‘one of the boys’ I would have been treated very differently and my ‘friends’ in the union would not have cooperated so willingly with the department to usher me off centre stage. Perhaps it was just as well that did not occur to me, since invoking my femaleness wouldn’t have helped all those years ago. And although by no means ‘senex et horribilis’ the idea that my own looks and dress style could have been discussed as well is quite bizarre.
I don’t think this focus on dress and gender in the workplace helps now either. Surely competence is the only criterion by which ultimately one would want to be judged, and for men too competence involves some compatibility in working with others and general self-presentation. ‘Pretty boys’ too sharply dressed and wearing too much cologne don’t go down that well in the promotion stakes and nor do scruffy, unshaven types with BO. Women who by nature (not nurture?) take more care of their appearance than men and who want to hold down a job they love successfully can surely work out what promotes their best interest professionally?
Hi Helen, me again! Not to comment on your latest remarks so much as indulge myself a little more in the past, and to be more honest with you. Invoking my half decade of running a school as somehow qualifying me to some authority on this issue was rather pompous, and perhaps irrelevant. Much as I enjoyed those years they did end ingloriously with a major stoush with authority over what I considered a matter of principle about aboriginal education which we happened to be dealing with very well and innovatively, somewhat to the annoyance of racist elements in the local community. Gender had never been a problem in my own career I thought since getting more women to seek promotion to many vacant positions was the challenge for both department and union in those days. After my unwillingly premature retirement in due time I found my way into a happy and successful corporate life inter-state. I didn’t hang around for a post-mortem on why my career had gone bung, though at the time I had hoped that ‘my day in court’ would bring the scandalous state of aboriginal educational disadvantage to general public awareness. I was out-manoevred on that. Looking back now I can see that by then my gender was clouding the broader and more important issue of race. Had I been ‘one of the boys’ I would have been treated very differently and my ‘friends’ in the union would not have cooperated so willingly with the department to usher me off centre stage. Perhaps it was just as well that did not occur to me, since invoking my femaleness wouldn’t have helped all those years ago. And although by no means ‘senex et horribilis’ the idea that my own looks and dress style could have been discussed as well is quite bizarre.
I don’t think this focus on dress and gender in the workplace helps now either. Surely competence is the only criterion by which ultimately one would want to be judged, and for men too competence involves some compatibility in working with others and general self-presentation. ‘Pretty boys’ too sharply dressed and wearing too much cologne don’t go down that well in the promotion stakes and nor do scruffy, unshaven types with BO. Women who by nature (not nurture?) take more care of their appearance than men and who want to hold down a job they love successfully can surely work out what promotes their best interest professionally?
Which one has BO?
Which one has BO?
This is the link that was supposed to accompany comment @139.
http://www.anarkhos.org/images/400_mister-and-misses-ape.jpg
This is the link that was supposed to accompany comment @139.
http://www.anarkhos.org/images/400_mister-and-misses-ape.jpg
Style tips for the tragically attractive (oh, to have such problems!)…
http://www.artrabbit.com/all/events/event/9960/sean_henry_arbs_sculpture
Hey, wait, I think she already rocked this look… but also,
http://www.artrabbit.com/all/events/event/9960/sean_henry_arbs_sculpture
somebody said up above,
“So going to work in the appropriate office-y attire pictured upthread consitutes provocation. And a woman gets the sack for it.”
If I understand the issue right, it’s that she *claims* she got the sack for it; but that claim has been disputed, so we don’t yet know what’s what. It could be a nuisance suit, we don’t really know. From my own experience of American corporate practice and HR policy, firing a person for dressing in what most agree is an eminently reasonable and professional manner would expose the company (!! as it were) legally, this issue could be foreseen, and so my guess is it would be unlikely. American HR policy these days is really quite a labyrinth, I have a hard time believing anyone who wanted to keep their VP-HR job would fire her over those grounds, but I guess ya never know. There’s often all sorts of weird subtext and unspoken stuff in these matters, so it’ll at least be interesting to see how this plays out in court, if it gets there.
Style tips for the tragically attractive (oh, to have such problems!)…
http://www.artrabbit.com/all/events/event/9960/sean_henry_arbs_sculpture
Hey, wait, I think she already rocked this look… but also,
http://www.artrabbit.com/all/events/event/9960/sean_henry_arbs_sculpture
somebody said up above,
“So going to work in the appropriate office-y attire pictured upthread consitutes provocation. And a woman gets the sack for it.”
If I understand the issue right, it’s that she *claims* she got the sack for it; but that claim has been disputed, so we don’t yet know what’s what. It could be a nuisance suit, we don’t really know. From my own experience of American corporate practice and HR policy, firing a person for dressing in what most agree is an eminently reasonable and professional manner would expose the company (!! as it were) legally, this issue could be foreseen, and so my guess is it would be unlikely. American HR policy these days is really quite a labyrinth, I have a hard time believing anyone who wanted to keep their VP-HR job would fire her over those grounds, but I guess ya never know. There’s often all sorts of weird subtext and unspoken stuff in these matters, so it’ll at least be interesting to see how this plays out in court, if it gets there.
Oops, linked the same pic twice; the second link was supposed to be this, re boiler suits….
http://www.seanhenry.com/exhibition_detail.php?id=16
The artist (who I obviously like a lot) once did a great drawing of a person in an actual boiler suit, which is what I was looking for, but alas couldn’t find.
Oops, linked the same pic twice; the second link was supposed to be this, re boiler suits….
http://www.seanhenry.com/exhibition_detail.php?id=16
The artist (who I obviously like a lot) once did a great drawing of a person in an actual boiler suit, which is what I was looking for, but alas couldn’t find.
@Patricia WA, I missed this comment of yours yesterday:
The HUGE thing that has been lost in the cultural distortion of this event is that what was dumped in the Symbolic Trashcan were padded bras, not ordinary bras. It was the padding that was the useless paraphernalia.
@Patricia WA, I missed this comment of yours yesterday:
The HUGE thing that has been lost in the cultural distortion of this event is that what was dumped in the Symbolic Trashcan were padded bras, not ordinary bras. It was the padding that was the useless paraphernalia.
I’ve been just dipping into this thread after having read the first 100 or so comments. My information is just from personal observation, but I was there in the 1960s and I can report that some women, even in conservative Brisbane, threw away their bras entirely. Just didn’t wear them. Most I think returned to the practice after a while, but one woman we employed in our office has not, as far as I know, worn them ever since. Always tastefully dressed.
On occasion it went further than that. I remember on Saturday morning in a supermarket in Station Rd. Indooroopilly, before Westfield, seeing a topless young woman shopping. Ditto in Townsville, but that time dancing on a counter. Both in the 60s. But things seemed to settle down a bit thereafter.
I’ve been just dipping into this thread after having read the first 100 or so comments. My information is just from personal observation, but I was there in the 1960s and I can report that some women, even in conservative Brisbane, threw away their bras entirely. Just didn’t wear them. Most I think returned to the practice after a while, but one woman we employed in our office has not, as far as I know, worn them ever since. Always tastefully dressed.
On occasion it went further than that. I remember on Saturday morning in a supermarket in Station Rd. Indooroopilly, before Westfield, seeing a topless young woman shopping. Ditto in Townsville, but that time dancing on a counter. Both in the 60s. But things seemed to settle down a bit thereafter.
japerz,
you’re right, there has been quite a bit said about Debrahlee. A former colleague said on the Village Voice blog that it was her work performance, dress didn’t come into it. She has had some augmentation of the chestal area. So what. Laura said upthread that neither the idea of sacking for appearance or Debrahlee’s comportment since appealed to her particularly much. I agree. I don’t know if Debrahlee’s complaint is genuine or not (agree with you there), but the principle seems clear.
So I think that’s it. Even if Lorenza was not the ideal employee, dress is not an excuse. No-one has to like her, nor does she have to be the perfect person. That’s why I like the system in Australia (for medium to large business) in that warnings need to be given with cause. Despite that, many people are marginalised in workplaces and so choose to leave. Gender is so often the reason for that marginalisation.
Your point that it may come out in hearings is perhaps true, but … JPMorgan Chase, who she now works for are threatening to sack her for bringing the finance system into disrepute if she keeps talking to the press. I mean – GFC, fees, government bailouts, golden parachutes!!? What extra disrepute could she bring?
So irrespective of the specific behaviour of the complainant in this case, bein’ too sexy is not a sackable offense. And the officewear shown by tt @48 is completely appropriate in any case.
Unrelated but a colleague was sacked last year and took action. I thought it was unfair and wrote to the largest newspaper in that country saying so (it was printed). Months later the hearing was held and the sacking upheld. I read the judgement and concluded my colleague didn’t have a leg to stand on (unfortunately ’twas sad but true).
japerz,
you’re right, there has been quite a bit said about Debrahlee. A former colleague said on the Village Voice blog that it was her work performance, dress didn’t come into it. She has had some augmentation of the chestal area. So what. Laura said upthread that neither the idea of sacking for appearance or Debrahlee’s comportment since appealed to her particularly much. I agree. I don’t know if Debrahlee’s complaint is genuine or not (agree with you there), but the principle seems clear.
So I think that’s it. Even if Lorenza was not the ideal employee, dress is not an excuse. No-one has to like her, nor does she have to be the perfect person. That’s why I like the system in Australia (for medium to large business) in that warnings need to be given with cause. Despite that, many people are marginalised in workplaces and so choose to leave. Gender is so often the reason for that marginalisation.
Your point that it may come out in hearings is perhaps true, but … JPMorgan Chase, who she now works for are threatening to sack her for bringing the finance system into disrepute if she keeps talking to the press. I mean – GFC, fees, government bailouts, golden parachutes!!? What extra disrepute could she bring?
So irrespective of the specific behaviour of the complainant in this case, bein’ too sexy is not a sackable offense. And the officewear shown by tt @48 is completely appropriate in any case.
Unrelated but a colleague was sacked last year and took action. I thought it was unfair and wrote to the largest newspaper in that country saying so (it was printed). Months later the hearing was held and the sacking upheld. I read the judgement and concluded my colleague didn’t have a leg to stand on (unfortunately ’twas sad but true).
RJ — I think you misunderstand me; my supposition is that it’s at least possible she was sacked for some other reason, perhaps unspecified, whether just or unjust I have no idea, and that it’s possible she’s brought the complaint about dress for strategic reasons. No way to know of course until it comes to court, if it ever does.
But this,
“…dress is not an excuse… bein’ too sexy is not a sackable offense…”
would be irrelevant in that scenario. It’s what we’d take for granted; what the facts of the case really are, as established by a jury, is another issue entirely.
This,
“I mean – GFC, fees, government bailouts, golden parachutes!!? What extra disrepute could she bring?”
is emotive argument, not reasonable argument. If they have cause, then they have cause, and if they don’t, then they don’t. Guilt by association is a species of hysteria; you oughta know better.
RJ — I think you misunderstand me; my supposition is that it’s at least possible she was sacked for some other reason, perhaps unspecified, whether just or unjust I have no idea, and that it’s possible she’s brought the complaint about dress for strategic reasons. No way to know of course until it comes to court, if it ever does.
But this,
“…dress is not an excuse… bein’ too sexy is not a sackable offense…”
would be irrelevant in that scenario. It’s what we’d take for granted; what the facts of the case really are, as established by a jury, is another issue entirely.
This,
“I mean – GFC, fees, government bailouts, golden parachutes!!? What extra disrepute could she bring?”
is emotive argument, not reasonable argument. If they have cause, then they have cause, and if they don’t, then they don’t. Guilt by association is a species of hysteria; you oughta know better.
Japerz,
I was agreeing with you and adding the opinion that whatever she did or didn’t do is irrelevant to the general point that’s been brought up – which is that if dressing to distraction is the reason in any particular instance, wher th dress in question is similar to that shown above, that’s not reason enough – that I think you agree with.
These stories come up and the first time it seems so so then the twists start coming… But there is still often a principle or two involved. The complainant’s actions shouldn’t invalidate the principal but it may affect its application to their own particular actions.
I fail to see how discussing this case (Lorenzo vs Citibank) could bring the finance industy into further disrepute, though
Japerz,
I was agreeing with you and adding the opinion that whatever she did or didn’t do is irrelevant to the general point that’s been brought up – which is that if dressing to distraction is the reason in any particular instance, wher th dress in question is similar to that shown above, that’s not reason enough – that I think you agree with.
These stories come up and the first time it seems so so then the twists start coming… But there is still often a principle or two involved. The complainant’s actions shouldn’t invalidate the principal but it may affect its application to their own particular actions.
I fail to see how discussing this case (Lorenzo vs Citibank) could bring the finance industy into further disrepute, though
Correction. Dress does not have to be an excuse. Dress can be a reason, and a good reason for sacking someone. If that someone refuses to conform to acceptable dress standards it is right that the someone be disciplined and ultimately dismissed.
However, Ms L, it appears from the facts, conformed to acceptable dress standards. Yet her alleged lubricity was deemed to be a sackable offence. If this offence were simply a pretext for getting rid of her for some other reason, then the behaviour of the corporation is all the more reprehensible.
I may be going out on a limb here but it is worth remembering that Hispanic women are deemed by mainstream ethno-racial stereotypers to have a certain sexual persona — hot, passionate — that renders them more suitable for jobs not connected with financial markets. Perhaps they’d be better house servants or hotel chambermaids.
It would be more difficult for a US corporation to justify sacking a blonde Swede for the same alleged infractions as those purportedly perpetrated by Ms L.
Correction. Dress does not have to be an excuse. Dress can be a reason, and a good reason for sacking someone. If that someone refuses to conform to acceptable dress standards it is right that the someone be disciplined and ultimately dismissed.
However, Ms L, it appears from the facts, conformed to acceptable dress standards. Yet her alleged lubricity was deemed to be a sackable offence. If this offence were simply a pretext for getting rid of her for some other reason, then the behaviour of the corporation is all the more reprehensible.
I may be going out on a limb here but it is worth remembering that Hispanic women are deemed by mainstream ethno-racial stereotypers to have a certain sexual persona — hot, passionate — that renders them more suitable for jobs not connected with financial markets. Perhaps they’d be better house servants or hotel chambermaids.
It would be more difficult for a US corporation to justify sacking a blonde Swede for the same alleged infractions as those purportedly perpetrated by Ms L.
This thread demonstrates what everyone knows: heterosexual men covet a hot-looking chick and less attractive women hate them.
All the rest of the commentary is merely hot air!
This thread demonstrates what everyone knows: heterosexual men covet a hot-looking chick and less attractive women hate them.
All the rest of the commentary is merely hot air!
DavidG, can you show any evidence in this thread that less attractive women hate hot chicks. Dull, stupid stereotype again.
DavidG, can you show any evidence in this thread that less attractive women hate hot chicks. Dull, stupid stereotype again.
Fine, as I commented at #39, in workplace dynamics this envy is very noticeable.
Stupid it is, agreed, but prevalent nonetheless. I’ve spent the last umpteen years working surrounded by women, and the knives come out in one form or another for any new female who is attractive, this is exacerbated if she is dynamic or is popular with the public.
Note to all bitter feminists whose fingers are even now hovering over the keyboard: No need to produce an anecdote of a person or workplace this has never happened to, one swallow a summer does not make. And for heaven’s sake, don’t make a goose of yourself by posting something that ties female attractiveness to large breast size.
Fine, as I commented at #39, in workplace dynamics this envy is very noticeable.
Stupid it is, agreed, but prevalent nonetheless. I’ve spent the last umpteen years working surrounded by women, and the knives come out in one form or another for any new female who is attractive, this is exacerbated if she is dynamic or is popular with the public.
Note to all bitter feminists whose fingers are even now hovering over the keyboard: No need to produce an anecdote of a person or workplace this has never happened to, one swallow a summer does not make. And for heaven’s sake, don’t make a goose of yourself by posting something that ties female attractiveness to large breast size.
Yes, I’ve heard all about how women are bitchy and competitive. Some are. Some aren’t. But stop with the ‘bitter feminist’ shit. It’s ignorant and meaningless. And I could come up with equally ignorant lines about no-nothing pub habitues/owners. But I’m far too nice a feminist to bother with that shit.
You may also need to improve your reading skills. DavidG said this thread demonstrates that: “heterosexual men covet a hot-looking chick and less attractive women hate them.” I asked him to show where in this thread it was illustrated. That question hasn’t been answered.
Yes, I’ve heard all about how women are bitchy and competitive. Some are. Some aren’t. But stop with the ‘bitter feminist’ shit. It’s ignorant and meaningless. And I could come up with equally ignorant lines about no-nothing pub habitues/owners. But I’m far too nice a feminist to bother with that shit.
You may also need to improve your reading skills. DavidG said this thread demonstrates that: “heterosexual men covet a hot-looking chick and less attractive women hate them.” I asked him to show where in this thread it was illustrated. That question hasn’t been answered.
Steve, as you would know, human behavior is often stupid, irrational and predictable regardless of the gender. Only the very stupid would claim it wasn’t.
Steve, as you would know, human behavior is often stupid, irrational and predictable regardless of the gender. Only the very stupid would claim it wasn’t.
Actually David G, human behaviour is even stupider and more irrational than you suggest!
Fine, I am sure you could come out with ignorant lines aplenty.
Actually David G, human behaviour is even stupider and more irrational than you suggest!
Fine, I am sure you could come out with ignorant lines aplenty.
Swallow at the Pub:
So eager are you to get one off at the bitter feminists that it has escaped you that we are also engaged in a defence of men against their stereotyping as bestial beings quite unable to wrench their gaze from a fine set of norks in order to get some work done.
Gratuitous picture of a bestial being quite unable to wrench his gaze from a fine set of norks.
Swallow at the Pub:
So eager are you to get one off at the bitter feminists that it has escaped you that we are also engaged in a defence of men against their stereotyping as bestial beings quite unable to wrench their gaze from a fine set of norks in order to get some work done.
Gratuitous picture of a bestial being quite unable to wrench his gaze from a fine set of norks.
Su, Swallowing is for bitter feminists (according to a straw poll conducted just now in the bar). I’m not interested in “getting one off” at bitter feminists, besides they are a tad thin on the ground here (in IRL). Just that critical thought isn’t their strong point, nor is empirical evidence. Knee jerk reactions, however, they are more prone to.
As opposed to regular (non-bitter) feminists. Er.. you DID distinguish between them before you read this very sentence, didn’t you?
Su, Swallowing is for bitter feminists (according to a straw poll conducted just now in the bar). I’m not interested in “getting one off” at bitter feminists, besides they are a tad thin on the ground here (in IRL). Just that critical thought isn’t their strong point, nor is empirical evidence. Knee jerk reactions, however, they are more prone to.
As opposed to regular (non-bitter) feminists. Er.. you DID distinguish between them before you read this very sentence, didn’t you?
Botticelli has endowed that centaur has a fine set of knackers. But there is no evidence at all of tumescence despite the propinquity of norks. Perhaps divine norks were deemed to be exempt as objects of sexual excitement.
By the by, there is not one scintilla of evidence of female envy, whether feminist or not, in this thread.
Botticelli would have painted that argument as a gelding.
Botticelli has endowed that centaur has a fine set of knackers. But there is no evidence at all of tumescence despite the propinquity of norks. Perhaps divine norks were deemed to be exempt as objects of sexual excitement.
By the by, there is not one scintilla of evidence of female envy, whether feminist or not, in this thread.
Botticelli would have painted that argument as a gelding.
If what you say is true, Katz, then it seems extraordinary.
Perhaps females on this thread are saying what they think they should say and not what they really think. After all, envy is a very common human trait!
If what you say is true, Katz, then it seems extraordinary.
Perhaps females on this thread are saying what they think they should say and not what they really think. After all, envy is a very common human trait!
Well Katz, I’m no art historian but it is meant to portray the victory of wisdom over sensuality. The allegory just seems to be slightly undercut by having sensuality gazing so fixedly at wisdom’s sensual bits.
Well Katz, I’m no art historian but it is meant to portray the victory of wisdom over sensuality. The allegory just seems to be slightly undercut by having sensuality gazing so fixedly at wisdom’s sensual bits.
Given that Athena is carrying a battle axe, perhaps the painting is in fact an allegory of prudence over over impetuosity.
Given that Athena is carrying a battle axe, perhaps the painting is in fact an allegory of prudence over over impetuosity.
A woman’s charms has brought down many a good man as the link shows! And, doubtless, many men have been responsible for the downfall of lots of hapless, ecstatic maids.
Our lusty, animal behaviour cannot be denied!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/media/Samson-and-Delilah.jpg
A woman’s charms has brought down many a good man as the link shows! And, doubtless, many men have been responsible for the downfall of lots of hapless, ecstatic maids.
Our lusty, animal behaviour cannot be denied!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/media/Samson-and-Delilah.jpg
She was the goddess of war, Katz, hence the weapon, but also of wisdom and civilisation. Which says it all really. As a strategist she avoided war and violence whenever possible. Interestingly she remained a virgin, well childless anyway. Wise really in a position like that. A role model for Elizabth I? I’ve sometimes thought that Julia has a certain Elizabethan poise……
She was the goddess of war, Katz, hence the weapon, but also of wisdom and civilisation. Which says it all really. As a strategist she avoided war and violence whenever possible. Interestingly she remained a virgin, well childless anyway. Wise really in a position like that. A role model for Elizabth I? I’ve sometimes thought that Julia has a certain Elizabethan poise……
Hah, being the cynical, skeptical person I am, I’d attribute it all to something much simpler. Senior’ish guy hits on her and was knocked back (to be fair on her she might not even have noticed, could have been a std chat up thing).
Then he creates, through always willing intermediaries (sadly too many of them female), some justification to get rid of her.
Hah, being the cynical, skeptical person I am, I’d attribute it all to something much simpler. Senior’ish guy hits on her and was knocked back (to be fair on her she might not even have noticed, could have been a std chat up thing).
Then he creates, through always willing intermediaries (sadly too many of them female), some justification to get rid of her.
This whole thread has avoided the real issue which is human sexuality. It is common to most humans and makes us largely stereotypical.
Genetically, we are programmed: men to impregnate, women to conceive and give birth. All else is frippery, intellectual wanking, denial.
The following link tells it as it is.
http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/imgx/5/2/6/5/2/0/1/orig-5265201.jpg
This whole thread has avoided the real issue which is human sexuality. It is common to most humans and makes us largely stereotypical.
Genetically, we are programmed: men to impregnate, women to conceive and give birth. All else is frippery, intellectual wanking, denial.
The following link tells it as it is.
http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/imgx/5/2/6/5/2/0/1/orig-5265201.jpg
I’m not sure how it looks up there in your world David, but in my reality you can’t actually SEE the people you’re talking to on the internet.
I think there should be some kind of rule, a la Godwins’s, that anyone making the (very juvenile) “feminists are only feminists ‘cos they’re ugly” argument must post a genuine photo of themselves or send one to the mods to be embedded in the post. So we can, like, assess your suitability to speak up based on your rootability.
I’m not sure how it looks up there in your world David, but in my reality you can’t actually SEE the people you’re talking to on the internet.
I think there should be some kind of rule, a la Godwins’s, that anyone making the (very juvenile) “feminists are only feminists ‘cos they’re ugly” argument must post a genuine photo of themselves or send one to the mods to be embedded in the post. So we can, like, assess your suitability to speak up based on your rootability.
The allegory was meant for the moral improvement of a noted brute, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici, and Pallas is not only the principle of wisdom but also his new wife: Link. Desipis is following in a long and ignoble tradition of seeing women as both sexually passive, being not themselves prone to any distraction apparently, and also responsible for controlling the impulses of others. Not to mention that the prospect of men and women being ‘distracted’ by members of their own sex doesn’t seem to figure in this view of the workplace.
Oh me too Patricia WA – not just for the red hair but for the public anxiety about her marital status and lack of offspring. In fact I have the perfect portrait ready for photoshopping upon her ascension but I haven’t found the right picture of Julia yet because this is an early portrait where the young Elizabeth is absolutely front on to the viewer and looking them squarely in the eyes and photographers are so fond of the 3/4 view.
The allegory was meant for the moral improvement of a noted brute, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de’ Medici, and Pallas is not only the principle of wisdom but also his new wife: Link. Desipis is following in a long and ignoble tradition of seeing women as both sexually passive, being not themselves prone to any distraction apparently, and also responsible for controlling the impulses of others. Not to mention that the prospect of men and women being ‘distracted’ by members of their own sex doesn’t seem to figure in this view of the workplace.
Oh me too Patricia WA – not just for the red hair but for the public anxiety about her marital status and lack of offspring. In fact I have the perfect portrait ready for photoshopping upon her ascension but I haven’t found the right picture of Julia yet because this is an early portrait where the young Elizabeth is absolutely front on to the viewer and looking them squarely in the eyes and photographers are so fond of the 3/4 view.
Helen, I have not mentioned the word ‘feminist.’ Don’t create straw-men!
Helen, I have not mentioned the word ‘feminist.’ Don’t create straw-men!
Heh.
Heh.
“Fine, I am sure you could come out with ignorant lines aplenty.”
Of course I could if I chose to. But I don’t. You choose to constantly. Or maybe, you don’t any choice in the matter.
As you said, ‘Don’t make a goose of yourself’.
“Fine, I am sure you could come out with ignorant lines aplenty.”
Of course I could if I chose to. But I don’t. You choose to constantly. Or maybe, you don’t any choice in the matter.
As you said, ‘Don’t make a goose of yourself’.
If that is the case, David G, then why are you sitting at the computer peddling inane misogynist stereotypes from the Dark Ages instead of out prowling the streets looking for nookie? Hop to it, man, the night is young.
If that is the case, David G, then why are you sitting at the computer peddling inane misogynist stereotypes from the Dark Ages instead of out prowling the streets looking for nookie? Hop to it, man, the night is young.
DavidG, good to see that you’re not confining yourself to intellectual wankery.
As always, the far left and the far right meet in the far centre.
DavidG, good to see that you’re not confining yourself to intellectual wankery.
As always, the far left and the far right meet in the far centre.
Personally, the presence of a woman I find attractive (whether that be her body, her mind or both) makes me work harder. Cause I figure that might impress her. I think that probably more than cancels out any loss of productivity from distraction.
Presumably this doesn’t work in the finance industry.
I say this with some trepidation, lest desipis et al use it as an excuse for not hiring unattractive women – “oh we had to sack her, she wasn’t attractive enough to make the men more committed”.
Personally, the presence of a woman I find attractive (whether that be her body, her mind or both) makes me work harder. Cause I figure that might impress her. I think that probably more than cancels out any loss of productivity from distraction.
Presumably this doesn’t work in the finance industry.
I say this with some trepidation, lest desipis et al use it as an excuse for not hiring unattractive women – “oh we had to sack her, she wasn’t attractive enough to make the men more committed”.
Adrian, some people think that because they have a few bits of paper from a university that they know everything and that they can be judge and jury in all matters.
How foolish they are!
Adrian, some people think that because they have a few bits of paper from a university that they know everything and that they can be judge and jury in all matters.
How foolish they are!
While I understand the temptation for some folks to have this reaction
please keep it balanced with one of the founding principles of the internet, folks
While I understand the temptation for some folks to have this reaction
please keep it balanced with one of the founding principles of the internet, folks
When people resort to name-calling and infantile insults, they expose their immaturity as well as their inability to engage in a rational debate.
When people resort to name-calling and infantile insults, they expose their immaturity as well as their inability to engage in a rational debate.
For the same reason he’s not out prowling for an animal to kill and eat. He’s been learnt that he can get food out of the fridge or from the supermarket, but I’m sure if he was hungry and there was a nice hot juicy steak sitting right in front of him he’d be a bit distracted.
For the same reason he’s not out prowling for an animal to kill and eat. He’s been learnt that he can get food out of the fridge or from the supermarket, but I’m sure if he was hungry and there was a nice hot juicy steak sitting right in front of him he’d be a bit distracted.
Fascinating! Sexual Stakhanovism. Aleksei Grigorievich got the the Soviet Medal for Labour Valour. I wonder if he got nookie too.
Fascinating! Sexual Stakhanovism. Aleksei Grigorievich got the the Soviet Medal for Labour Valour. I wonder if he got nookie too.
Ooh look, uncovered meat! Sheikh Hilaly, come on down!
What a very unfortunate analogy that is, desipis. Does that mean that you regard women who don’t actually require to be chased and raped (which is the equivalent that your ‘killed and eaten’ analogy requires) as either refrigerated or supermarket fare, or, even more unfortunately, both?
Like somebody said upthread, you really seriously need to stay away from analogies. Not only do you not understand how they work, but they reveal far too much of what’s actually going on in your mind.
(Sorry about feeding time, TT, but the alternative is to leave, and I don’t like being irritated/bored/disgusted away from company that, for the most part, I enjoy so much. Happy to abide by the rules and depart, if I have to make a choice.)
Ooh look, uncovered meat! Sheikh Hilaly, come on down!
What a very unfortunate analogy that is, desipis. Does that mean that you regard women who don’t actually require to be chased and raped (which is the equivalent that your ‘killed and eaten’ analogy requires) as either refrigerated or supermarket fare, or, even more unfortunately, both?
Like somebody said upthread, you really seriously need to stay away from analogies. Not only do you not understand how they work, but they reveal far too much of what’s actually going on in your mind.
(Sorry about feeding time, TT, but the alternative is to leave, and I don’t like being irritated/bored/disgusted away from company that, for the most part, I enjoy so much. Happy to abide by the rules and depart, if I have to make a choice.)
Ths nsltng gm frm PC rvls mch. t shws clrly tht thr s n xclsv, ‘t clvr by hlf’ clq n LP wh cht wth ch thr, slly gr wth ch thr, nd wh try t xcld dssntng vcs by vrs mns ncldng nslts, bckstbbng, rfsng t rply t cmmnts, tc. t sms t mnly nvlv fmls bt nt xclsvly.
s smn wh hs bn trtd s n tsdr n mny ccsns nd nsltd n thrs, fl tht ths s nt gd fr LP whch shld srly b n nclsv frm, n whch ncrgs dvrsty f pnn.
f sm ppl wnt t frm thr wn xclsv clb, why dn’t thy st p thr wn blg thn thy cn pt ch thr n th bck ll thy lk?
f thy dd, thn th rst f s cld dbt frly wtht bng sbjctd t cnstnt, bsd, ngtv sttc.
P.S. ‘m srry tht ths sn’t n tpc bt, gvn th wy ths thrd s gng, flt t ws tpc tht shld b rsd.
Ths nsltng gm frm PC rvls mch. t shws clrly tht thr s n xclsv, ‘t clvr by hlf’ clq n LP wh cht wth ch thr, slly gr wth ch thr, nd wh try t xcld dssntng vcs by vrs mns ncldng nslts, bckstbbng, rfsng t rply t cmmnts, tc. t sms t mnly nvlv fmls bt nt xclsvly.
s smn wh hs bn trtd s n tsdr n mny ccsns nd nsltd n thrs, fl tht ths s nt gd fr LP whch shld srly b n nclsv frm, n whch ncrgs dvrsty f pnn.
f sm ppl wnt t frm thr wn xclsv clb, why dn’t thy st p thr wn blg thn thy cn pt ch thr n th bck ll thy lk?
f thy dd, thn th rst f s cld dbt frly wtht bng sbjctd t cnstnt, bsd, ngtv sttc.
P.S. ‘m srry tht ths sn’t n tpc bt, gvn th wy ths thrd s gng, flt t ws tpc tht shld b rsd.
PC,
The point is that as humans we are a combination of behaviours learned through our civilised culture and raw biological urges. Just because we have learned to behave in a civilised fashion doesn’t mean we can ignore our own biological instinct, or the way we can cause internal conflict in others, pitting their rational civilised side against their biological instinctive side.
Analogies only work if you make an attempt to understand them. No analogy holds up to deliberate misreading, so I guess I should avoid them in discussion with such closed minded people.
PC,
The point is that as humans we are a combination of behaviours learned through our civilised culture and raw biological urges. Just because we have learned to behave in a civilised fashion doesn’t mean we can ignore our own biological instinct, or the way we can cause internal conflict in others, pitting their rational civilised side against their biological instinctive side.
Analogies only work if you make an attempt to understand them. No analogy holds up to deliberate misreading, so I guess I should avoid them in discussion with such closed minded people.
“if he was hungry and there was a nice hot juicy steak sitting right in front of him he’d be a bit distracted.”
Perhaps, but would that be the steak’s fault?
“if he was hungry and there was a nice hot juicy steak sitting right in front of him he’d be a bit distracted.”
Perhaps, but would that be the steak’s fault?
To be consistent Desipis, you’d have to argue that a less inherently attractive plate of food might quite blamelessly get to lie there in front of DavidG sans burqa, as it were – say, some mediocre macaroni cheese, or a mortadella and salad roll – but a steak should have more consideration than that for poor DavidG’s concentration.
To be consistent Desipis, you’d have to argue that a less inherently attractive plate of food might quite blamelessly get to lie there in front of DavidG sans burqa, as it were – say, some mediocre macaroni cheese, or a mortadella and salad roll – but a steak should have more consideration than that for poor DavidG’s concentration.
“If some people want to form their own exclusive club, why don’t they set up their own blog then they can pat each other on the back all they like?”
Actually some people did set up their own blog and called it LP. One of those people was tigtog.
Others of us find rape apologists such as desipis and DavidG, offensive. I realise that you don’t consider yourself one, but you are and sadly, you’re not willing to listen and learn.
Whinging because people are calling you out about your behaviour isn’t a good look.
“If some people want to form their own exclusive club, why don’t they set up their own blog then they can pat each other on the back all they like?”
Actually some people did set up their own blog and called it LP. One of those people was tigtog.
Others of us find rape apologists such as desipis and DavidG, offensive. I realise that you don’t consider yourself one, but you are and sadly, you’re not willing to listen and learn.
Whinging because people are calling you out about your behaviour isn’t a good look.
Jeez, I stay away for a day almost and when I come back there’s a Godalmighty stoush. I enjoy reading it, but I sure asa hell ain’t gonna join in. btw, I’m on the side of the women in this one, and I’ve stoushed a little bit with a few of them over the years.
Jeez, I stay away for a day almost and when I come back there’s a Godalmighty stoush. I enjoy reading it, but I sure asa hell ain’t gonna join in. btw, I’m on the side of the women in this one, and I’ve stoushed a little bit with a few of them over the years.
Wll, th frst f th clq hs spkn.
Sh hs clld m rp plgst vn thgh hv nvr mntnd th wrd ‘rp’ nc n ths thrd!
Thn sh hs th rrgnc t clm tht ‘m ‘nt wllng t lstn nd lrn’ whch s, f crs, pt-dwn fr m nd dmnstrts th rrgnc f th clq.
Thnks Fn fr cnfrmng my thss.
Wll, th frst f th clq hs spkn.
Sh hs clld m rp plgst vn thgh hv nvr mntnd th wrd ‘rp’ nc n ths thrd!
Thn sh hs th rrgnc t clm tht ‘m ‘nt wllng t lstn nd lrn’ whch s, f crs, pt-dwn fr m nd dmnstrts th rrgnc f th clq.
Thnks Fn fr cnfrmng my thss.
Yes we can, we may still feel that instinct but we can and do ignore its promptings where acting on instinct is inappropriate. You seem to think that het men (not women and not homosexual men as far as I can tell from your arguments) should be saved from feeling anything in the first place.
Yes we can, we may still feel that instinct but we can and do ignore its promptings where acting on instinct is inappropriate. You seem to think that het men (not women and not homosexual men as far as I can tell from your arguments) should be saved from feeling anything in the first place.
DavidG: if you believe a woman is to blame for men around her being distracted by her good looks – that it’s her “fault” – then please explain how and why this culpability would not extend to a situation where a woman is raped.
DavidG: if you believe a woman is to blame for men around her being distracted by her good looks – that it’s her “fault” – then please explain how and why this culpability would not extend to a situation where a woman is raped.
David G, I thought PC’s paragraph beginning “What a very unfortunate analogy that is, desipis” was fair comment and not insulting at all. And I can quite understand her not wanting to go another round on this, but not wanting to let it stand either.
FWIW I think depisis’ approach has two problems. First, it sees civilisation as a thin veneer covering a base human nature, which is essentially animal which is essentially bad if not held in check. Where the goodness of civilisation is supposed to come from is interesting. If not from God it tends to be a ‘superior’ class of people who happen to own property and wealth or those supposedly having greater rationality by virtue of their eduction.
This is a very conservative view which I for one reject.
The other is that we are victim of our base animal urges and can do nothing to coach ourselves to habitually having different, more prosocial emotions in given situations. This too I reject.
But by and large I don’t see blog threads as an appropriate context for having fruitful discussions on these topics. You do learn more, I think, when your interlocutors have a compatible value frame of reference. If you don’t have basic respect and the possibility of genuine intersubjectivity (sorry about the term) it will end badly in my experience.
But almost inevitably you get someone who sits down in the middle of the sandpit and throws sand in everyone’s eyes. Then complains when they get a bit back.
That’s how I feel about it.
David G, I thought PC’s paragraph beginning “What a very unfortunate analogy that is, desipis” was fair comment and not insulting at all. And I can quite understand her not wanting to go another round on this, but not wanting to let it stand either.
FWIW I think depisis’ approach has two problems. First, it sees civilisation as a thin veneer covering a base human nature, which is essentially animal which is essentially bad if not held in check. Where the goodness of civilisation is supposed to come from is interesting. If not from God it tends to be a ‘superior’ class of people who happen to own property and wealth or those supposedly having greater rationality by virtue of their eduction.
This is a very conservative view which I for one reject.
The other is that we are victim of our base animal urges and can do nothing to coach ourselves to habitually having different, more prosocial emotions in given situations. This too I reject.
But by and large I don’t see blog threads as an appropriate context for having fruitful discussions on these topics. You do learn more, I think, when your interlocutors have a compatible value frame of reference. If you don’t have basic respect and the possibility of genuine intersubjectivity (sorry about the term) it will end badly in my experience.
But almost inevitably you get someone who sits down in the middle of the sandpit and throws sand in everyone’s eyes. Then complains when they get a bit back.
That’s how I feel about it.
@PC,
You’re not one of the people I had in mind when I put up my “feeding time” comment. Revolting comments that only just skate within the comments policy deserve to be called out.
@PC,
You’re not one of the people I had in mind when I put up my “feeding time” comment. Revolting comments that only just skate within the comments policy deserve to be called out.
FDB, I never said that: ‘I believe a woman is to blame for men around her being distracted by her good looks.
Brian, I never said anything about Disipis’s analogy or PC’s comment about it.
Paul, what is it that you are backing on the women’s side?
How about we deal with facts for a change?
FDB, I never said that: ‘I believe a woman is to blame for men around her being distracted by her good looks.
Brian, I never said anything about Disipis’s analogy or PC’s comment about it.
Paul, what is it that you are backing on the women’s side?
How about we deal with facts for a change?
Hear hear, Brian.
@179 and @185 – go ahead DavidG, make this discussion all about you, the usual last resort of the misogynist. I doubt you’ll find many takers willing to join you in your pity party. Which will, in your eyes, confirm your poor-bugger-me, “outsider” status and further serve to confirm the nefarious nature of the “clique” that ostrascises dissent and dominates the LP hivemind. Yada yada, yawn.
Hear hear, Brian.
@179 and @185 – go ahead DavidG, make this discussion all about you, the usual last resort of the misogynist. I doubt you’ll find many takers willing to join you in your pity party. Which will, in your eyes, confirm your poor-bugger-me, “outsider” status and further serve to confirm the nefarious nature of the “clique” that ostrascises dissent and dominates the LP hivemind. Yada yada, yawn.
Poor old animals, always getting a bum rap.
Only humans rape. And only humans are civilised.
Coincidence, or not. You decide.
Poor old animals, always getting a bum rap.
Only humans rape. And only humans are civilised.
Coincidence, or not. You decide.
Brian,
a) I disagree that I’m presenting civilisation as a thin veneer, I’m just arguing that as civilised people we need to be considerate of others’ base human nature.
b) I never claimed all of our base instincts are “bad”, rather that some drive us in directions contrary to a purely rational behaviour. I’m not excusing actions based on those instincts but thing it unethical to unnecessarily force someone to be burdened with them.
Do you have any scientific basis on which to reject that, or are you rejecting it on the basis of ideology?
Probably true, although I’m sure I call it completely fruitless.
Brian,
a) I disagree that I’m presenting civilisation as a thin veneer, I’m just arguing that as civilised people we need to be considerate of others’ base human nature.
b) I never claimed all of our base instincts are “bad”, rather that some drive us in directions contrary to a purely rational behaviour. I’m not excusing actions based on those instincts but thing it unethical to unnecessarily force someone to be burdened with them.
Do you have any scientific basis on which to reject that, or are you rejecting it on the basis of ideology?
Probably true, although I’m sure I call it completely fruitless.
FDB:
You do understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary reactions right?
FDB:
You do understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary reactions right?
Fine:
Serious, where the fuck did I excuse rape? Using straw-men is one thing, but that’s another level of insidious commentary all together.
Fine:
Serious, where the fuck did I excuse rape? Using straw-men is one thing, but that’s another level of insidious commentary all together.
“You do understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary reactions right?”
Yes, I do. I consider sacking somebody to be a voluntary one.
The involuntary reaction of being unable to work efficiently around sensibly-dressed beautiful women, I consider (at risk of repeating myself) to be pissweak, and deserving of pity and contempt.
“You do understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary reactions right?”
Yes, I do. I consider sacking somebody to be a voluntary one.
The involuntary reaction of being unable to work efficiently around sensibly-dressed beautiful women, I consider (at risk of repeating myself) to be pissweak, and deserving of pity and contempt.
@desipis, quoting Brian;
Desipis, have you never heard of Behavioural Science? There are some very famous experiments on behaviour modification, including desensitisation to stimuli. This is *old* stuff.
@desipis, quoting Brian;
Desipis, have you never heard of Behavioural Science? There are some very famous experiments on behaviour modification, including desensitisation to stimuli. This is *old* stuff.
One doesn’t have to use the word ‘rape’ to be an apologist for it desipis. You’re basically using the same analogy that Hilaly used when her referred to women as ‘uncovered meat’. You have consistently said that if a woman sexually provokes a man then it’s her fault. You’re making a woman culpable for a man’s behaviour.
You disingenuously then try to claim that you’re making a distinction between voluntary and involuntary responses. But men have used the excuse of ‘I couldn’t help myself’, ‘what do you expect when she was dressed so sexily’, ‘she was drunk’, ‘she was obviously asking for it’ etc, etc. for excusing rape for years.
You genuinely may not want to see yourself as a rape apologist, but your using exactly the same arguments that a rape apologist uses.
One doesn’t have to use the word ‘rape’ to be an apologist for it desipis. You’re basically using the same analogy that Hilaly used when her referred to women as ‘uncovered meat’. You have consistently said that if a woman sexually provokes a man then it’s her fault. You’re making a woman culpable for a man’s behaviour.
You disingenuously then try to claim that you’re making a distinction between voluntary and involuntary responses. But men have used the excuse of ‘I couldn’t help myself’, ‘what do you expect when she was dressed so sexily’, ‘she was drunk’, ‘she was obviously asking for it’ etc, etc. for excusing rape for years.
You genuinely may not want to see yourself as a rape apologist, but your using exactly the same arguments that a rape apologist uses.
@desipis quoting Brian
As I navigate the world, I am continually confronted by people who provoke the base animal response within me of wanting to gouge out their eyes and/or rip out their kidneys and hold them triumphantly aloft for the edification of les autres. I’m certain that I am not alone, and that in fact for most of us these violent impulses are inspired by the people we meet every day far more often than they inspire dreamy sexual fantasies. Yet what do most of us do when this happens? We simply push those thoughts immediately away from the front of our minds, because we know that they are unacceptable (because continual behavioural modification as part of our childhood socialisation against instinctual violence has worked on us).
So, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to read your newsletter: if is it unethical that the world does nothing to ease my burden of violent instinctive responses to the continual parade of intemperate fools and inconsiderate arsehats, then what is the remedy?
@desipis quoting Brian
As I navigate the world, I am continually confronted by people who provoke the base animal response within me of wanting to gouge out their eyes and/or rip out their kidneys and hold them triumphantly aloft for the edification of les autres. I’m certain that I am not alone, and that in fact for most of us these violent impulses are inspired by the people we meet every day far more often than they inspire dreamy sexual fantasies. Yet what do most of us do when this happens? We simply push those thoughts immediately away from the front of our minds, because we know that they are unacceptable (because continual behavioural modification as part of our childhood socialisation against instinctual violence has worked on us).
So, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to read your newsletter: if is it unethical that the world does nothing to ease my burden of violent instinctive responses to the continual parade of intemperate fools and inconsiderate arsehats, then what is the remedy?
When I was a kid I used to lash violently out at my siblings when they disagreed with me, or had something I wanted, or were just being annoying.
Not any more.
When I was a kid I used to lash violently out at my siblings when they disagreed with me, or had something I wanted, or were just being annoying.
Not any more.
FDB, do you still occasionally feel the impulse, and have to stifle it in the interests of family harmony? Or have you successfully managed to modify your behaviours so that you’re not even that sensitised to such disagreements/envies/annoyances any more?
FDB, do you still occasionally feel the impulse, and have to stifle it in the interests of family harmony? Or have you successfully managed to modify your behaviours so that you’re not even that sensitised to such disagreements/envies/annoyances any more?
Fine,
The “it” is the distraction of the man’s thoughts, not any of his actions.
No. I’m not.
Again, I’m not excusing any actions on the part of the men. The reason I use a food analogy is that its something that almost everyone will have experienced: attempting to concentrate and complete some work while a person near you has some nice smelling food that gets your mouth watering and stomach acid pumping. Pointing out that the person with the food is triggering that biological response is not the same thing as justifying you hitting them over the head and taking their food.
No, I’m using a similar analogy to make a different argument.
Fine,
The “it” is the distraction of the man’s thoughts, not any of his actions.
No. I’m not.
Again, I’m not excusing any actions on the part of the men. The reason I use a food analogy is that its something that almost everyone will have experienced: attempting to concentrate and complete some work while a person near you has some nice smelling food that gets your mouth watering and stomach acid pumping. Pointing out that the person with the food is triggering that biological response is not the same thing as justifying you hitting them over the head and taking their food.
No, I’m using a similar analogy to make a different argument.
Here’s another clue, desipis. A woman is not a piece of food.
Why does anyone bother?
Here’s another clue, desipis. A woman is not a piece of food.
Why does anyone bother?
Fine,
I’m not saying a woman is a piece of food. Just that both can trigger biological reactions in men.
Fine,
I’m not saying a woman is a piece of food. Just that both can trigger biological reactions in men.
Good because asking her to adhere to a different dress code to the rest of the female staff and sacking her are both actions and they are indeed inexcusable.
Have you not heard of habituation? If instinctive response was as unvarying and unrestrainable as you say then noone would get any work done ever. How do bar workers manage, surely they should be lolling pale and wraithlike at their stations every evening, prostrate with desire.
Good because asking her to adhere to a different dress code to the rest of the female staff and sacking her are both actions and they are indeed inexcusable.
Have you not heard of habituation? If instinctive response was as unvarying and unrestrainable as you say then noone would get any work done ever. How do bar workers manage, surely they should be lolling pale and wraithlike at their stations every evening, prostrate with desire.
Okay, desipis, tell me this: would you admit that men can likewise trigger biological reactions in women? (Hmmm, this may explain my friend D’s habit of referring to an attractive man as ‘that little meaty-bite over there’. Or that wonderful line from one of Roddy Doyle’s Irish women characters: ‘I wanted to go over there and bite him.’ Which Sylvia Plath did in fact do to Ted Hughes, the first time they met. Oh I think I’m onto something here.)
And if you would, would you agree that it is therefore men’s responsibility to be deliberately less attractive to women so that they can concentrate on their work?
See, I can tell you it doesn’t work in practice: you are saying some staggeringly unattractive things here, and yet I keep coming back to see how much deeper you’ve dug since the last time I looked, instead of getting on with my work.
Okay, desipis, tell me this: would you admit that men can likewise trigger biological reactions in women? (Hmmm, this may explain my friend D’s habit of referring to an attractive man as ‘that little meaty-bite over there’. Or that wonderful line from one of Roddy Doyle’s Irish women characters: ‘I wanted to go over there and bite him.’ Which Sylvia Plath did in fact do to Ted Hughes, the first time they met. Oh I think I’m onto something here.)
And if you would, would you agree that it is therefore men’s responsibility to be deliberately less attractive to women so that they can concentrate on their work?
See, I can tell you it doesn’t work in practice: you are saying some staggeringly unattractive things here, and yet I keep coming back to see how much deeper you’ve dug since the last time I looked, instead of getting on with my work.
(opens another can of peanuts)
I on the other hand think that the lot of yez have a long, long way to go before yez can possibly hope to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion to this highly critical dispute.
By all means, continue.
(opens another can of peanuts)
I on the other hand think that the lot of yez have a long, long way to go before yez can possibly hope to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion to this highly critical dispute.
By all means, continue.
PC,
Of course.
If the men were wearing skin tight clothing, I’d consider it reasonable to request a change.
PC,
Of course.
If the men were wearing skin tight clothing, I’d consider it reasonable to request a change.
TT – the latter. The socialisation I recieved (via consistent, fair, reasonable parenting) and the obvious sense it then made to take these lessons and explore other avenues than violence at school, in the community and at work.
Curiously, one of the only things that makes me feel violent today is the spectacle of an enraged (almost invariably) man, who thinks that whatever circumstances they find themselves in justify their feelings, and they can act out all their basest urges with impunity because of the provocation that supposedly surrounds them. Screaming abuse at parking inspectors, ranting about the family court, threatening someone over whose challenge is up on the pool table, raping women for being attractive… that kind of thing.
TT – the latter. The socialisation I recieved (via consistent, fair, reasonable parenting) and the obvious sense it then made to take these lessons and explore other avenues than violence at school, in the community and at work.
Curiously, one of the only things that makes me feel violent today is the spectacle of an enraged (almost invariably) man, who thinks that whatever circumstances they find themselves in justify their feelings, and they can act out all their basest urges with impunity because of the provocation that supposedly surrounds them. Screaming abuse at parking inspectors, ranting about the family court, threatening someone over whose challenge is up on the pool table, raping women for being attractive… that kind of thing.
“If the men were wearing skin tight clothing, I’d consider it reasonable to request a change.”
What if they weren’t particlularly attractive though?
[in case you haven't guessed, I'm not letting this one go. Perhaps you could address it?]
“If the men were wearing skin tight clothing, I’d consider it reasonable to request a change.”
What if they weren’t particlularly attractive though?
[in case you haven't guessed, I'm not letting this one go. Perhaps you could address it?]
FDB,
How I put it generically for you: If anyone is doing something it is both easily changed and bothers others to the extent it impacts on work performance or environment, then I think that its reasonable (but not mandatory) for an employer to request the change be made.
For your specific question: yes.
FDB,
How I put it generically for you: If anyone is doing something it is both easily changed and bothers others to the extent it impacts on work performance or environment, then I think that its reasonable (but not mandatory) for an employer to request the change be made.
For your specific question: yes.
David G,
Their objections to men treating them like pieces of meat. In my experience what’s between the ears is far more important than what’s between the legs in relastionships between people.
David G,
Their objections to men treating them like pieces of meat. In my experience what’s between the ears is far more important than what’s between the legs in relastionships between people.
I’m just reminding myself that Debrahlee Lorenzana, as illustrated by tigtog @ 48 dressed well within the norms of what any reasonable office could expect. That should be the end of it.
I believe that individuals also should be able to push the boundaries to some extent with impunity. Lorenzana was not even close to that point.
I’m just reminding myself that Debrahlee Lorenzana, as illustrated by tigtog @ 48 dressed well within the norms of what any reasonable office could expect. That should be the end of it.
I believe that individuals also should be able to push the boundaries to some extent with impunity. Lorenzana was not even close to that point.
tigtog and FDB, when I was 7 my sister, with the subtlety of a 9 year-old, pointed out to me that I had a filthy temper. I understood that she was right and tried to do something about it. That began a 50-year journey. I reckon I could have done with a bit of help along the way. I had to learn new habits in a variety of settings. But I always took responsibility for my own behaviour.
I recall an employee telling me that he had a temper he couldn’t control, so it would have to be our problem rather than his. So I had to explain to him that that wasn’t how things worked in our office and he’d have to change if he wanted to stay.
One of the last frontiers was road rage. Tailgaters particularly drove me mad and I used to take actions showing my displeasure. Some people close to me pointed out that I was risking getting myself maimed or killed. Partly that had an effect but the moment of truth came one day when a tailgater turned left at a “Y” junction while I went right. I found myself disappointed that the miscreant was no longer there. In other words I was enjoying being angry.
I decided in the end that my job was to get from A to B as safely as possible and it was not my job to teach people road manners. At times I just pull over to let them past, or whatever seems best in terms of my revised mission.
Now I’m often astonished by what goes on but I contemplate it all with equanimity.
BTW it was helpful studying stress in a management course when it was pointed out that middle management (most of us) is inherently stressful. But in many cases the only thing we can change is how we perceive our situation, how we feel about it and what our responses would be.
Also in a yoga class, when the teacher said not to spend emotional energy on regretting failure but save our emotional effort for what we can do to change the future.
Emotions can be a resource.
Then there is all that stuff about emotional intelligence. Some people seem to have a gift for feelings that promote well-being in others as well as themselves. But those who don’t can learn.
I remember hearing one bloke who was autistic and didn’t experience emotions in social situations tell how he worked out how to mimic sympathetic behaviour. He had worked out that such behaviours manifestly generated to better outcomes, and avoided trouble.
tigtog and FDB, when I was 7 my sister, with the subtlety of a 9 year-old, pointed out to me that I had a filthy temper. I understood that she was right and tried to do something about it. That began a 50-year journey. I reckon I could have done with a bit of help along the way. I had to learn new habits in a variety of settings. But I always took responsibility for my own behaviour.
I recall an employee telling me that he had a temper he couldn’t control, so it would have to be our problem rather than his. So I had to explain to him that that wasn’t how things worked in our office and he’d have to change if he wanted to stay.
One of the last frontiers was road rage. Tailgaters particularly drove me mad and I used to take actions showing my displeasure. Some people close to me pointed out that I was risking getting myself maimed or killed. Partly that had an effect but the moment of truth came one day when a tailgater turned left at a “Y” junction while I went right. I found myself disappointed that the miscreant was no longer there. In other words I was enjoying being angry.
I decided in the end that my job was to get from A to B as safely as possible and it was not my job to teach people road manners. At times I just pull over to let them past, or whatever seems best in terms of my revised mission.
Now I’m often astonished by what goes on but I contemplate it all with equanimity.
BTW it was helpful studying stress in a management course when it was pointed out that middle management (most of us) is inherently stressful. But in many cases the only thing we can change is how we perceive our situation, how we feel about it and what our responses would be.
Also in a yoga class, when the teacher said not to spend emotional energy on regretting failure but save our emotional effort for what we can do to change the future.
Emotions can be a resource.
Then there is all that stuff about emotional intelligence. Some people seem to have a gift for feelings that promote well-being in others as well as themselves. But those who don’t can learn.
I remember hearing one bloke who was autistic and didn’t experience emotions in social situations tell how he worked out how to mimic sympathetic behaviour. He had worked out that such behaviours manifestly generated to better outcomes, and avoided trouble.
Shorter Brian: I’m a grown-up!
Shorter Brian: I’m a grown-up!
Helen, yes, growing up is a lifetime project, but if I’m brutally honest it may be in large part a reducing supply of testosterone in my system.
Helen, yes, growing up is a lifetime project, but if I’m brutally honest it may be in large part a reducing supply of testosterone in my system.
And on that note, I officially declare this thread closed.
And on that note, I officially declare this thread closed.