Agreed, my point was probably worded poorly in that respect. It was simply that she still at least to needs to demonstrates her claim and at least in respect of the article has offered absolutely nothing.
Time to time? Shegirl, honey, don't sugarcoat it. It happens a LOT. The only reason you don't hear about it frequently is that most women choose to quit on their own and find a less horrible work environment instead of parade a company through the newspapers as a sexist organization. And I'll give you smart gentleman one guess as to why more women choose to remain silent instead of speaking out. Hint: The reason is totally found all over this thread.
So, it's the woman's fault that some socially inept asshole can't focus on the task at hand instead of fantasizing about her? That's along the lines of placing the blame on the girl who gets raped. "Well, you shouldn't have worn such a short dress or looked at me a certain way every time I saw you." The only reason action was taken and this woman was allegedly fired for being "too hot" is because unfortunate-looking, jealous harlots who actually had someone important's ear complained. Women are terrible to each other. I know someone who was fired because some older, snaggletooth women thought she was just a little too confident and a little too cute. Alt-focus: I don't think women should have to put effort into being less attractive, but doing so probably makes things easier. It's a fine line. We are judged on level of attractiveness, but we can't be TOO attractive. When I waited tables I made more money when I put less effort into my appearance. Older women weren't as threatened by someone wearing little to no makeup, and it turns out men didn't really care how much makeup I wore. They tipped about the same. With my last job we didn't have a uniform, it was a medical environment with professionals, and on several occasions I caught both my boss and a superior unabashedly scoping me out. It made me feel really uncomfortable and I never wore those clothes to work again. For the record they were business casual and appropriate, but they were a little more fitted than what I usually wear to work. I hate these cases.
Actually if anything this thread seems to be most male posters saying 'let's just wait and see when all the facts come out' with female posters running off the handle and instantly assuming what the lady making the lawsuit is saying has to be true. No one in history has been sleighted by being fired and launched a frivolous suit in return. Never. I don't know if what she is saying is true and I don't really care but based off that article there is no way anyone could claim she is telling the truth and she has offered very little to support her case.
I'm a libertarian, so I view businesses as a type of free association and thus believe employers can hire and fire anyone they like for any reason, as long as they stay within the bounds of the contracts they sign with said employees. That being said, if Citibank was too stupid to find a way to use this woman to addle the minds of competitors and clients instead of their own workforce, that may go a long way towards explaining the banking crisis.
I think the turtleneck thing is because a lot of turtleneck shirts are made of stretchy material that conform to every curve and make your breasts really stand out. I had one that I eventually got rid of because I never wore it to work - I felt too self-conscious. With my average build I am able to find work clothes that look attractive without calling attention to my curves, but for someone like this woman it would be hard. She'd have to wear a muumuu. I think I remember seeing an article about Jessica Simpson one time that talked about how she stopped singing gospel songs because it was so difficult for her to downplay her boobs.
And this case is technically not going to either. Per the article: As a prerequisite to employment, all Citibank employees are required to sign a contract stating that they wave the right to go to civil trial, with all complaints instead going to an independent arbitration process. The burden of proof is that she must prove that it is "more likely than not" that Citi created a sexually discriminating environment. Which seems sort of fucked up (should a firm be able to require such a contract?), but that's what she signed.
Actually, if anything this thread seems to be men posters assuming that A) ample documentation of harassment is common B) there is more reason to look at her claims askance than with sympathy. In absence of documentation, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong) that her case is factless and by default the company is "right". Perhaps in a court of law (which she won't ever get to see the inside of because of her arbitration clause) but in REALITY that isn't the case. Also, based off that article, you can't tell if Citibank is telling the truth either. The truth lies in undocumentable conversations between a woman and her supervisor about the inappropriateness of her attire. The female posters are "running off the handle" and "instantly assuming" that she's true only because we're all women and have experienced this particular type of harassment several times before. You know, that pesky thing called "personal experience/anecdotes" dealing with the situation? You'll never have it, so forgive me for "running off the handle" and "instantly assuming" that your opinion about this is anything less than completely full of male privilege and ignorance of workplace discrimination against females. Because, you know, it is. And no one in history has ever tried to prove that they've been treated badly by an employer but been fucked by the undocumentable nature of subtle harassment. Never.
Technically Citibank hasn't said anything. They just gave a form response amounting to "no comment." You seem to be asserting that the solution to bias is bias, essentially replacing male privilege (looking back at them, my posts reeked of it) with 'sympathy.' The existence of workplace discrimination, which is pretty undeniable, does not imply that her claim is true. Or that it isn't.
No, all I am simply saying is that so far we have a company saying no comment and the former employee claiming discrimination. To prove her point she felt the need to do a 'sexy photo shoot' in her lawyers office. I can't say with any certainty she is lying, as per before I don't overly care. If I had to make my guess I would say she is. What is more disingenuous, my reading the article and finding it a bit strenous or your reading the article and taking the view that because you have experienced similar disincrimination every other female who claims it has to be telling the truth. Instant presumptions of guilt always lead down a rocky road.
No. I'm asserting that male privilege blinds a fairly large amount of dudes from seeing the reality of this situation--that, regardless of this partular woman's claim, this type of discrimination is common. Beyond common, even--expected. If you have a vagina and you don't look like you fell from the Ugly Tree, you will run across this at least once in your professional career. GUARANTEED. And once is a very, very conservative estimate. And since this lady is as far from the Ugly Tree as Shegirl is from joining Maltob and Chater in a moddy threesome, it is not difficult to see that her claim of harassment is more valid than a your claim of "frivolous lawsuit". So, blind one, can you "see" that your insistence upon "waiting for the facts" (when workplace harassment rarely gets documented) and leaping to the assumption that she is making it all up is (when all of attractive womanhood has experienced this and been told that protesting without documentation will earn you nothing but derision from those who will say that you're making it all up), at the very least, highly offensive? EDIT (only because I missed something MC edited after I replied, the sneaky darling): The undeniable existence of workplace discrimination means nothing in terms of her claim. But the undeniable prevalence does.
Extraordinary? Not really. Something more than her own personal testimony? Definitely. She'd need coworkers to corroborate her story on paper or on tape. She'd need proof that the company didn't take any corrective action despite repeated complaints. She'd need some sort of solid evidence that criticism of her looks was evident and pervasive. According to the article, she doesn't have any of that. She's got three complaint emails she sent to HR and two executives, and some photos of other women in the office. You're right, it does happen, and it is bullshit. What also happens is this: women who under-perform or are terminated for legitimate reasons get pissed and then figure out that they can haggle a payday out of a company who only has to do a simple cost-benefit analysis to figure out whether it'd be cheaper to cut her a check at a negotiated price, or move forward with the litigation. Many times, they cut the check and everyone goes their merry way. If they do move forward, there's often a line these companies will draw when their legal bills or the loss of their executives to depositions and other proceedings exceeds the cost of settlement. So, all these plaintiffs have to do is keep the suit alive, wait them out, and hope they cave before it comes to trial. It's a hustle I've seen dozens of times. Christ, I helped prepare some of the lawsuits. The fact is that we don't know all the facts. To assume either side is lying at this point is unreasonable. I understand why female posters are up in arms about this, but I've seen women file sexual harassment claims who've had better evidence of misconduct than this person does, and who have still been admittedly full of shit. If it turns out that she can prove their culpability, I'll definitely join you in your outrage. Right now, it seems you're taking her side not because she has solid proof, but because she said it happened to her, and because you've seen it happen to other people. That's kind of an odd correlation when you break it down.
You have worked in the wrong fields. My entire career in Finance attractiveness was nothing but an advantage for females.
So far what I've seen here is a few women saying "if she's telling the truth, its bullshit and Citi should be slapped with a huge lawsuit. I've had that same sort of shit happen to me and it sucks." And I've seen a few guys say "Yeah, well I don’t know if it's true or not, she has to bear the burden of proof...but it's probably not true in the first place." It's pretty clear why women are reading some posts, and reacting the way they are. I've worked in the environment she's talking about. I work for a fairly large bank in the US (not Citi) for 13 years. I've held the job of managing women in her position. I've seen many things, which is one of the reasons I could see this from either side. I've seen the hot and bitchy ones who are a total pain in the ass, and could easily picture one of them making up something like this. They tend to have the behavior of "I'm hot. That should be enough. What do you mean, make my numbers? Helllloooo! Hot girl!" If that doesn't work they'll cry and play the helpless female. On the flip-side, I've also hugged the hot (very intelligent) crying ones because "no one takes her seriously, all they do is stare at her tits and ass, and disregard what she says because if she's pretty she's dumb". Those same ones, indecently, HATE the hot bitchy ones with a fiery passion. More so than the less than hot jealous ones, because the bitchy ones propagate the stereotype. I'm not getting all women’s liberation movement here, or anything, but this type of shit really does happen. I know it does. And not only to the pretty ones.
What if you were fired for being too fat? Is that OK? Hooters Server Cassie Smith Says She's on Weight Probation