It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sexist Female Oppression? Cleavage In The Workplace

page: 37
24
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kailassa
 

i think you're confusing two different articles. one is the lady that worked at the bank, who i wasn't referring to in the second part of your quote, which was about the lane bryant article. the lane bryant lady who wrote a op-ed about her experiences at a house party, the commentary made by her counterparts regarding the appearance of a breasty woman wearing a v-neck with cleavage....at a party and how it seemed to suggest that it wasn't the clothing that was the problem but the body type, which was characterized as an inherently obscene body type. the bigger the breasts, the more attention they get, regardless of how well they are covered. just the fact they exist, causes trouble. showing cleavage of such breasts, accentuates it even more, creating a startling effect that shocks the viewer no matter what venue they appear in, proving that the issue is internal, in the viewer, not exterior on the woman. otherwise, we have to assume sexy hair needs to be cut. sexy necks covered. sexy buttocks, covered, and pretty soon, the lady has become the invisible woman, having been consumed by her own clothing


Well, sorry about the confusion. I was discussing Debrahlee Lorenzana, the subject of a You Tube vid you'd recently posted.

Regarding Lane Bryant's story, the guys she's complaining about sound like some bitchy gays I've met in the television industry. Red-blooded men would be talking to her, not gossiping about her in cute pairs.

I would, by the way, suggest that sexy buttocks, in fact, any buttocks at all, also should be covered in most workplaces.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


if there is no gender, why are women singled out for being too sexy, even while fully dressed? i mean some of these ladies have more clothes on than they did 100 years ago.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Traydor
 


who cares wether their showing off bits while they work or not, long as the job is done eitherway, showing off some cleavage is extra
edit on 19-12-2010 by Gren because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


i edited my post to further define that what i meant is, buns covered in slacks, if they are still sexy, will need to be covered by even more fabric, as pants would not be enough to keep them from being stimulating for people that are attracted to that part of the anatomy.

this also brings up the spectre of how this is dealt with in an office environment where gay men may find each other's attire stimulating and distracting, and not have anyone else notice there's anything going on at all cause we're too accustomed to overtly inappropriate attire, being all about women's anatomy and clothing choices, exclusively.
edit on 19-12-2010 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

if she's telling the truth, they didnt fire her because of her clothing, they fired her because of her body type, which is what i've been trying to explain this entire time. you can wear appropriate clothing and still end up being categorized as a "bimbo" just for having large breasts (and her case, long legs and a pretty face to boot).


I'm sure Debrahlee "Tits on a Stick" Lorenzana wouldn't dream of lying about her dismissal or using it to gain publicity. . .

Like to see her a few years previously, getting her second breast enlargement?
Btw, "Tits on a Stick" were her words, describing what she wanted to be.




Debrahlee Lorenzana and the Rogue Client

And that is why the case is a 100% loser. If the client is found to be a liar — and it doesn’t really matter too much what she lied about — why would anyone trust her words on the substance of the suit? In the original Village Voice article, obviously done in conjunction with Tuckner, she said:

“Are you saying that just because I look this way genetically, that this should be a curse for me?”

And she also said this:

“It’s so tiring,” Lorenzana tells the Voice. “My entire life, I’ve been dealing with this. ‘Cause people say, ‘Oh, you got a job because you look that way.’"





posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
always thought tat people by now would have outgrown the whole focus on how someone appears, wether it's 'proffessional' or not, apparantly the majority haven't grown out of it yet



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


yikes. this is scary to me, how all this was timed to sort of play off each other. first we have a lady no one really knows, suddenly being featured in breast augmentation/plastic surgery special, and then, losing her job for being too sexy (which she was cultivating, in the first place, based on her own words!).

oy, i dunno, i'm not thinking too clearly atm, but THAT'S weird.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Kailassa
 

i edited my post to further define that what i meant is, buns covered in slacks, if they are still sexy, will need to be covered by even more fabric, as pants would not be enough to keep them from being stimulating for people that are attracted to that part of the anatomy.

this also brings up the spectre of how this is dealt with in an office environment where gay men may find each other's attire stimulating and distracting, and not have anyone else notice there's anything going on at all cause we're too accustomed to overtly inappropriate attire, being all about women's anatomy and clothing choices, exclusively.

Undo, you keep returning to the slippery slope fallacy.

There is no more reason to believe making an effort to cover cleavage at work will lead to everyone having to wear purdah than there is to believe burning incense will lead to you becoming a heroin addict.

No-one in this thread wants you to be discriminated against for having large boobs. The thread is not about modestly covered boobs of any size. It's about women showing an uncovered area of breast at work, and the reactions of employers/co-workers to that display.

Obviously your waitressing experience, and being called Jugs, had a bad effect on you. But there's no reason to believe any of the guys here would treat you like that. Men already have to dress with far more disgression in the workplace than women do. There's no reason why we should not show them a little consideration.

Think about it. Knowing now that your husband is vulnerable to displays of exposed, pretty breasts, would you want buxom female co-workers displaying their decolletage around him when he's trying to work?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Weird? Sudden?
The surgery documentary was 2003.
The sacking was 2009.

But now you're suggesting she was sacked over the video?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


true, if we are wearing more covering on our bussoms than we did a few hundred years ago, and less covering our bottoms, it doesn't seem to be heading straightway into abaya territory. but to be honest, the videos on how to dress for the corporate world are extremely disconcerting. the women are depicted as flat chested, the clothing, for flat chested women, with nothing colorful or artistic or feminine about it at all. in fact, most of it looks decidedly male, drab, and featureless.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


no, i mean i wouldn't have noticed or seen the video of her plastic surgery if it weren't for the fact she was made infamous by her lawsuit against the bank.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brood
reply to post by undo
 


Are you really upset that someone was denied a modeling job based on a part of their body? That's female oppression? I'm sorry there are standards for corporate photography and anyone who has been in the business will tell you that. I was in male modeling when I was young, they constantly told me I was too short for my age, being a boy and all, and that my thighs are unproportional to my body, eyes are too far apart, etc.... "OHNOES
, they said things about my appearance in this job that is based on my appearance -- big surprise
. Good thing I'm making $115/hour smiling in front of an oversized piece of white paper or I would pretend to get upset about it."

Surely they stopped hating women like you feminazis say they do to hate on the boys for a while. Wow, these people sure hate a lot of different genders.

I'm sorry, you would have to be blissfully ignorant to think this is a gender-specific incident and complain as if it's a conspiracy against women's bodies..

I'm sorry this "walk in her shoes!" nonsense you speak of is something I have done already in my lifetime and it's not awful so your crusade for boobie sympathy falls short of the reality spectrum.


What are you commenting on? Let me guess, you went to see the Le Briant's ad that was banned from the air, saw the pretty, big chested, girl, drooled, and forgot what was even being discussed? Or is it possibly that you didn't even read the article at all, or anything Undo has said, because your thoughts were lost booby heaven?

It was not about the model not getting the modeling job. It was about two major networks not refusing to air the Le Briant's underwear ads because the model's were big chested, and therefore seen as more obscene. When in fact the Victoria Secrets ad who usually have small chested, rail thin models, and much more racy ads were aired.

Therefore the discrimination against larger breasted women seen as more obscene than their smaller counter parts. Which seems also to reflect in the work place. The larger breasted the women, the more they are expected to cover up, because the boss or male co-workers may drool over them more, and the other ladies may get envious of them. Larger breasts tend to be more objectified, and the woman seen as less intelligent because of it.

Assume you have two women the same weight, height, and waste line. The only difference is that one has a small B cup, and the other has a DD cup. Women with small breasts can get away with wearing clothes that reveal their little bit of cleavage. While a larger breasted women, especially a gorgeous one, will be villainized and slutized if she even show just the smallest amount of cleavage at the top. The one youtube spot that showed what to wear and not to wear for the larger breasted woman also showed how difficult it is to completely cover up, look half way decent, and look professional. While other women can wear practically any professional attire they want, because they have smaller chests.

Even if the larger breasted woman completely covers up her cleavage, she is still in trouble since her breasts will protrude much more than the smaller breasted woman. The clothing will show the shape and outline of her breast. If her clothing does not show the shape of her dress, any waste line she has will be lost as shown in the youtube video mentioned above. If the waste line is completely lost, she will be seen as much fatter than she actually is. Which would mean she will be looked down upon because of her perceived non-existent weight issue.

What Undo is arguing is if those two women with everything else being equal except their chest size, the larger chested woman would be more likely passed over for promotion, because she has a larger chest and what it supposedly represents. For the same reasons Fox and ABC refused to air the larger busty models, because the networks saw the larger breasts as obscene while their smaller counter parts were not obscene. The obscenity in the net works eyes laid in the bust size of the model and not in the raciness of the ad. Carry that over to the corporate business world, larger busted women will more likely be seen as sluttier than their counterparts by both men and women. This was also shown in an article I posted early Is this woman too hot to be a bank teller. If what she is saying is correct and she wore appropriate clothing, no matter how much she covered up, or what she wore was always seen as provocative in the boss's eyes.

You can't tell me men don't look, and women don't get jealous. Yes, I am big in the chest. I just happened to wear the wrong top to a church function. I was covered completely up to the neck, but not as baggy as I usually wear. No one said anything, but I saw the looks from the ladies. It was mostly the women bringing their kids to have fun for family fun night. Interestingly enough, I would get complements about my clothes from those same ladies when I wore sweaters or a baggy top. During an assembly job interview, I was told if I was hired I needed to wear solid color tops. Fine, ok, no problem. Then he went on to state that I could wear sweatshirts as long as the sleeves would not get caught in the equipment. I didn't even ask about wearing sweatshirts or even long sleeve shirts. Talk about a serious hint. I never would wear sweat shirt outside the house.

I can completely see where Undo is coming from. She subtly turned the question around from is it appropriate to show cleavage to is it ok to discriminate against bigger breasted women because they are almost automatically seen as slutty when they show just a tiny bit of cleavage unlike their counterparts, and they are still objectified and looked down on even when they hide their cleavage since their breasts are still protruding.

Hopefully you were able to keep up with all of this, and can debate and/or give your opinion without your mind getting all twisted around and confused just by thinking about boobs.


edit on 19-12-2010 by Mystery_Lady because: Now I need to go back and read the rest of the thread from your comment on.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Cleavage IS exposing your breasts. Wearing a short skirt is exposing your thighs. Wearing a tank top is exposing your arms. Wearing flip-flops (thongs) is exposing your feet. Is it really so hard to understand why these types of clothing are not allowed in the vast majority of workplaces?

It's like me saying well my fat gut hanging out the sides of my shirt isn't exposing my stomach, when clearly it is. Sorry if you cannot see this because it is crystal clear for most people in this thread. If you can't handle having people staring at your breasts or seeing the frown on your employers face at your current dress, change your attire. The world will not change for you.

-------------

reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Why don't you read which reply of yours I was addressing. You complained in that post that "anti-women" sentiment is prevalent throughout ATS and mentioned other threads as showing this. I was merely stating this is completely inaccurate and misleading. ATS is not flooded with Pro-Feminist ideology like the media is. THAT is why people are permitted to criticise women instead of always blaming men for everything that goes wrong.


edit on 20/12/2010 by Dark Ghost because: combined replies into single post



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Is it fair to penalize a woman for wearing a particular type of clothing if it is not stated in the dress code that those clothes are prohibited, that certain body parts are to remain covered, or if the code leaves it up to each manager so no one really knows exactly what is inappropriate or not? One manager could find a V neck suit that shows just a little bit of cleavage at the top not a problem. The next day a different manager comes in and finds it entirely inappropriate. I'm talking about just where it forms.

Example: Image A

If it isn't in the company code of dress, or the code of dress isn't cut and dried, doesn't the worker have it within their right to decide wear a particular item of clothes? Doesn't the woman have the right to decide to wear something that shows a little bit of cleavage?

Secondly how much is too much?

Image A above

Image B

Image C

or something even more revealing?

Let the debate move forward with the images I linked to of various cleavage states in office attire.

I'll be back on tomorrow sometime. I need to get to bed for now.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Mystery_Lady
 


Is it right to penalise anyone for wearing something if the dress code doesn't prohibit it? Forget women for a moment because your argument can be applied to both sexes. If a man turns up at work in a tshirt and jeans then that guy is going to be explaining to the boss why he's not dressed properly. As for the images you posted well the boss would simply have a word if he/she found it inappropriate and the employee would be expected to change their clothing, are you telling me this is an unfair thing to do? It's the employers business so i don't see the problem.

The idea that people need to be told what is and is not appropriate for a workplace is ridiculous, if a person can't figure out what is appropriate attire then they probably aren't smart enough to deserve a promotion. If it's a borderline outfit and they are told to please change it and they refuse then it is their own fault if they get passed over for a promotion.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee
 


what i'm noticing in this thread is alot of people who want women exclusively, to consider the comfort of others, while demanding that women, exclusively, go to great lengths and great expense (and in some cases, life threatening surgeries) to make sure everyone is comfortable with the natural attributes of women, exclusively.


I know exactly what you mean here undo. A woman I know wanted me to help her reestablish the comfort zone last summer when her airconditioning went out. She knew that I had an air conditioning certification. She was worried about her lack of comfort but didnt have the monies to pay professional rates. She did not ask what kind of risk/life threatening dangers I would be taking in carrying out these repairs. She also did not ask whether I was working 12 hour nights....which I am even unto this day. What she wanted was instant gratification at someone elses RISK and expense. She wanted everyone to be comfortable but me....exclusively. She wanted me to Flashdance her through this problem.

I told her ..no.. get someone else.
As we've had no contact since..I dont know if or how she got it repaired.

I am not particularly attracted to women with big boobs..nor breast reduction as I was startled and unprepaired for the first experience with this kind of thing.
But this inconvenience/exclusive thing you describe is not exclusively a female problem...undo.
The most lacking natural attribute I find to get from most women is Peace..not Piece.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


People need to grow up...SAVE THE TATAS...Now I will be the first to admit I am a breast fanatic however, this does not detract from my responsibilities to be professional in the work place. The fact is some women are so endowed that it is difficult to hide their cleavage and others use their chests to enhance their confidence. On a more serious note my mother had a double mastectomy 15 years ago and over that time her self esteem slowly dropped. Recently she received a double implant and almost overnight her esteem grew to where it was prior to the cancer. My point is there is more to the female chest than men take for granted. That is not to say that some women use their sex to move however, they are few and far between unless they fall into another business.

Just remember we are all subject to and of the feminine.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Annee
 


if there is no gender, why are women singled out for being too sexy, even while fully dressed? i mean some of these ladies have more clothes on than they did 100 years ago.


Who are you talking about? Be specific.

A person of either gender can also put out sexual vibes - - whether they are fully clothed or not. Those vibes are not accidental. Anyone who claims they do not realize they are giving off sexual vibes is Lying.

Let's stop being childish about this. People know when they are flirting - giving off sexual vibes - etc. ANYONE can neutralize their behavior/vibes.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bkfd54
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


People need to grow up...SAVE THE TATAS...


LOL - - my hubby is definitely a breast man. He got me a "SAVE THE TATAS" (breast cancer awareness) sticker for my car.

However - as he puts it: "distraction in the work place - is distraction in the work place" - - whether it be tatoos - loud shirts - flirting - inappropriate language - too tight pants (both men and women) - personal radio playing Opie and Anthony - short skirts - or too much cleavage.

I don't think we are talking about an inch of cleavage here.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Hey you just raised a rather brilliant point about tattoos.

When i was driving to various offices doing computer support i once got talking to a guy while i was fixing something, just general chat to pass the time while he was waiting for me to be done. Anyway in the course of it i discovered he was wearing makeup, this wasn't a secret everyone knew and the reason he did it was because he had a tattoo on his face. He had a lot of trouble finding work because of it and so had to cover it to get a decent paying job.

Now a tattoo is hardly offensive or sexual, it wasnt a rude tattoo or anything like that but to be taken seriously he had to cover it. So why are women so upset about covering their breasts when this guy was covering a tattoo he really liked?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join