Sunday Sexism Blues: The Lorenzana Saga
6 June 2010
Read this story at the Village Voice about Debrahlee Lorenzana, who was fired from her job at Citibank. They say it was due to her work performance. She says it was because “her bosses told her they couldn’t concentrate on their work because her appearance was too distracting. They ordered her to stop wearing turtlenecks. She was also forbidden to wear pencil skirts, three-inch heels, or fitted business suits,” according to the Voice. There is an extraordinary record of her complaints to the company’s HR department — she called them three or four times a day to report the harassment by her managers — which accomplished nothing.
The result? As Twisty Faster notes succinctly on her blog, the one relevant question in the case — was Lorenzana discriminated against? — is completely lost, while everyone from journalists to bloggers to the trolls who comment online turns her case into questions about:
- “Lorenzana’s Christian Louboutin heels
- Lorenzana’s point on the sexbot continuum
- Lorenzana’s aspirations to fame and fortune
- That Lorenzana unlikeably tried to save herself by ratting out some women tellers for wearing hooker outfits
- Whether Lorenzana chooses to emit porn rays, or whether her natural self merely happens to conform precisely to pornulated beauty ideals.”
There’s nothing more depressing to me than the fact that this central question has been lost in everyone’s eagerness to hate the hot chick. The uneasily sympathetic Voice essay offers a slideshow of photos showing how hot she is. Jezebel turns it into a question of whether Lorenzana committed “girl-on-girl crime” by pointing out that the other women in the office wore far more provocative clothes than she did. (Surely someone should note, here in the midst of the pile-on about Elena Kagan’s clothes, that women are encouraged to look sexy at work — that is, until they look as hot as Lorenzana?) Some jackass at the Daily Mail makes fun of her name and accuses her of spending too much money on clothes. WE MUST PUNISH THE HOT LATINA, AND THEN LOOK AT MORE PHOTOS OF HER CURVES.
Is she hot? IT DOESN’T MATTER. What matters is that she was harassed on a daily basis and her complaints ignored. Remember Anita Hill’s case of nearly 20 years ago, when we were shown that a woman could describe daily harassment at the workplace and senators insisted she was crazy?
It’s not that we haven’t been talking about sexual harassment. My job requires me to take a compliance test on a regular basis that reminds me how to deal with harassment issues. Lorenzana’s case makes me question seriously what would happen if I came forward with such a case. Feminists have been so thoroughly sidelined in our media that this story simply becomes a vehicle for more attacks than she’s already received.
In my dream feminist world, Lorenzana would co-host a new version of CNBC’s “Equal Time” (ah, the early 90s…) with another female co-host on issues women face in the workplace. They would give serious attention to sexual harassment cases like hers, discuss pay equity and the mommy track, single motherhood (Lorenzana is a single mother), the class-action suits by women against huge corporations like Wal-Mart and Merrill Lynch, and approach the subject of gender inequity in many fields, including academia. In short, she would become a kick-ass feminist who takes no prisoners. I can see the feminist comic-book superhero version of her now.