Reading the comments led me to a different, and hopefully more interesting, set of questions. I view Ms. Rotella as an intelligent and hard working woman who earned a STEM degree and a certificate in meteorolgy. She is now working in her chosen field and apparently thriving. She has moved around, as broadcasters do, to reach better markets and bigger audiences. Good for her I say.
But as I mentioned in my previous post, she has gained tremendous notoriety for reasons beyond her technical skills or on-air performance. There are guys who record her broadcasts every day and upload them to YouTube and Reddit. They verbally drool over how hot she looks and what's she's wearing.
My first thought is, "You boys leave her alone. She's doing a job here and you're harassing her. She seems like a nice person and underserving of your abuse." It doesn't seem fair. They would never do this to a dude.
My second thought is, "Michelle is neither stupid nor oblivious. She selects the clothes she wears on camera. She knows they are revealing." I believe she is well aware that she attracts an audience segment who doesn't care about the weather. The station must also understand because they regularly shoot her from the knees up.
My third thought is, "How dare you blame the victim?" If a woman (God forbid) is attacked, do we blame her for how she was dressed? No, we wouldn't and we shouldn't. She has every right to wear what she likes and if it advances her career, that's all the better.
My fourth thought is "Victim? Really?" Michelle seems like she's doing fine. I published a different post last week entitled Butts Sell, and so they do. Genetics provided this lovely woman with bountiful assets. Why shouldn't she use every tool at her disposal to differentiate herself from hundreds of other local TV weathercasters?
My fifth thought is, "OK, I guess, but that's not a choice I would ever make." Except that I believe I have in a somewhat different context.
Back in the 1990s, we started an event at work called "Dress Down Fridays." On that one day each week, we were able to deviate from the corporate dress code. Most Fridays, I wore my favorite comfortable faded blue jeans and a casual top. This was quite a departure from the conservative skirts or dresses, blouses, jackets, and pantyhose I wore other days.
As a senior technical writer, my place in the corporate hierarchy is beneath the mostly male engineers. My role is necessary and important, but by no means prestigious or respected. I am useful and feel needed, and that's good enough. I was surprised when all manner of team leads and executives started dropping by my office on Fridays. They wanted to know whether I needed anything. They offered to walk with me to get a cup of tea. They brought me cookies. They asked my opinion. Sometimes, more than one would show up at the same time!
Michelle is not dumb, and neither am I. I knew these guys wanted to ogle me. I allowed it to happen because I thought it bought me access I would not otherwise have enjoyed. Does this make me a bad person? I hope not. I try to use my superpowers only for good.
Now that we're working from home, everyday is dress down day. I still see many of those same men occasionally, but they view me only from the neck up. Apparently, it wasn't my face that interested them on Fridays. But they all know my name and ask for me to join their project teams. Who's exploiting whom here? Or is this simply how the world works?
In any case, rock on Michelle!
13 comments :
I get your quandary, but outsized success and attention based on physical assets is just kind of a fact of life, right? It's hard to blame people who use what nature was kind enough to give them.
As Deadpool, played by Ryan Reynolds, said, "Think Ryan Reynolds got this far on his superior acting method?"
I did pretty well in my profession, but I know plenty in it who are dumb as a post but look the part. I've also always said that if I had a choice between three or four more inches of height or 30 more IQ points, if my goal is bigger business/financial success, I'd take the extra height every time.
Are you saying Michelle is manipulating men to get higher viewership?
If so, more power to her.
Hi Bonnie,
Some interesting points and good questions. Maybe the guys at your work initially just wanted to oagle, the fact they continue to ask for you to join their projects etc proves they now see far more.
Hugs
Roz
Dan - You make an interesting point. Most of us wish that life were fair, but we're not beyond using advantages when they arise.
RP - Yes, I believe that's the bottom line, and I agree.
Roz - I agree. They pretended they weren't staring. I pretended I didn't notice. They got an eyeful of curvy denim. I got connections. I didn't feel exploited. If I had, I would gone back to wearing skirts.
One could argue that I was objectified and disrespected, but the result from a practical standpoint was more credibility not less. I gained opportunities to prove what I can do and access to decision makers. As you note, the benefits continue to this day.
Very interesting topic of conversation. You bring up some good questions and make some great points to ponder further.
People are free to do what they wish........to a degree (and I'll get back to that in a minute) but being free to dress provocatively because it gets a person more attention, may be a smart choice with some, but not with me. Dressing neatly and smartly is fine, but when I see someone intentionally pushing it into more of the realm of what is more appropriate for a sexy date than a work environment, I tend to lose respect. Employing this tactic in the workplace tells me about a person, what they're willing to do for success, and it's not flattering. Michelle is obviously such a person.
Now, back to 'free': is a guy equally free to do this? Women's fashion has consistently been more revealing, and given that women occupied a status of nonprofessional, potential mates and wife/mothers, it makes sense that their 'uniform' would be designed to entice a mate rather than impress a client. Now, their professional status has broadened, but the fashion STILL remains more skin-revealing. Why is it accepted that at any event a man will be in a suit, but a woman will have almost as much skin showing as if she was at the beach? It's a double-standard. Imagine a weather MAN, who looks like the old Fabio guy, showing up to do the weather in an open, billowy pirate shirt.
As for fashion blame? I agree on one hand and disagree on another. No woman should be raped regardless of her attire, BUT if one is going to dress provocatively, it is also ridiculous to use that to claim victimhood for ogling or objectification. I worked with a woman years ago who looked like the human model for Miss Piggy and dressed just as revealingly at work, routinely wearing tops that displayed ample cleavage. I had to work with her and as attraction goes would have preferred Miss Piggy to her. She was very short and I am 6'3" so whenever we interacted, and I looked at her face, her breasts were just behind her chin. AND, this woman would then grab her top closed as if I was leering at her like a pervert! I would leave our encounters furious! How dare she wear something like that and then act violated ......even if I was looking, which I was not. It got to the point where I just would not look at her at all when we spoke. I resented that such a situation was something that took place at work.
If a person exposes themself life this, then don't complain if someone looks. Because if it is somehow up to the others around these people to be obliged NOT to look, then why not let everyone walk about naked? You can't arrest them for exposure because they aren't 'exposed' unless someone looks at them. Let's blame the looker not the flasher, right?
Anyway, good-looking people will always get away with more and have to be less competent to succeed. I've seen it throughout my career with men and women, and it's bullshit, BUT again, I blame people for making it this way. If such behavior was not encouraged or rewarded it would change. Frankly I don't care if my doctor, lawyer, etc,., looked like Frankenstein's Monster if they were all brilliant in their fields.
PS: As for Michelle specifically? In the photo provided I think she looks like too much sausage and not enough casing. ;-)
Terps - Thanks. It's always great to hear from you!
KD - I can only speculate about Michelle's motivations, but she works in a business that is driven by ratings, and by that measure, she appears to be successful. We can apply a value judgement that she should not appear dressed as she is on television, but like so many things, there is a monetary component. In local television news, higher ratings yield more advertising revenue and happy investors.
In my own example, I was taken by surprise initially when I wore a pair of comfortable jeans to work for Casual Friday. I didn't consider my coworkers' response because these were just my jeans that I wore on weekends. I had absolutely no intention of attracting anyone.
When these management types started hanging out around my little office on Fridays, it didn't take long to make the connection. I was unnerved at first, but they were respectful, beyond the covert sightseeing, and they helped me gain access to people and resources that might not otherwise have been available. I never asked for any of this.
I find this experience morally ambiguous. That's why I raised it as a potential lens through which I might view Michelle. Her actions are more purposeful than mine, but the outcomes are somewhat comparable. I make no claim to the ethical high ground, but I think I have some relevant insight to share.
BTW, I would be delighted to watch the Fabio weather dude, and I think plenty of women would agree.
KD - There are at least 50K YouTube viewers who appreciate both sausage and casing.
Bonnie: I am a minority in most things. So let the rest have their sausage. ;-)
BTW, I actually ran this past my Rosa at lunch today and she had a very unflattering take on 'intentionally' dressing to use sexuality as leverage in the workplace. (And BTW, I did not say I put you in the same category as Michelle, since you clearly said 'casual jeans' and I hardly consider that the same as a plunging neckline.) Anyway, Rosa said that it is ironic that her fellow women will battle-cry: "Empowerment" and then do something like this which clearly sends a message to men that expecting a co-worker to be sexy and provocative is what they all should be doing, thereby taking credibility away from competent women who don't play the sex angle. It seemed like "empowering women" to these ladies really means, "I am a woman, empower ME! Screw the rest."
Truly a lot to think about.
Bonnie, I'm curious whether any other women in your office also started wearing jeans on Fridays and whether they received a similar increase in attention? Personally, I've always believed wearing jeans in a more dressy environment is a power move, for a man or woman. While not always the case, it is very often the case that the guy dressing down the most at any business gathering is the "big deal" in the room. When I used to spend time in Silicon Valley I used to joke that if you went into any bar there, the guy in suit or blazer was the corporate lawyer, the guy in khakis and loafers was the CFO and the guy in holey jeans, t-shirt and flipflops was the billionaire founder.
KD - For me, empowering women means allowing us to make our own choices, even when those choices don't align with what others might wish. When I elect to submit to my husband, it's entirely different from non-consensual subjugation by the patriarchy despite any superficial similarities. I enjoy a broader range of options than our foremothers did. For that I am most grateful.
If I wear something sexy (or not), allow my husband to spank me (or not), or whatever, I decide and accept the outcomes. That's empowerment. Telling me that I can't be empowered unless I make the "correct" choice feels like something less than empowerment.
Dan - For a while, most employees wore jeans on Fridays. I don't recall others experiencing what I did, but it's quite possible they did.
Bonnie: Sorry, i didn't realize that you responded to my last comment. I guess with all the new posts, it didn't occur to me to look. But now that I have seen your comment......
You say that you decide the outcomes, but in my example citing Rosa's concerns, some decisions don't just affect oneself. While merely making a decision one wishes for themselves might seem like empowerment, without taking responsibility for what that decision may mean for others is just self-indulgence.
So while what you do or don't do with your husband likely affects no one but yourselves, yes, even deciding to submit IS a form of autonomy and therefore empowerment. But dressing to use sexuality in the workplace is also a choice, and may also benefit the person doing it, it also sends a message that empowers men to assume that "well, if so-and-so doesn't have a problem being sexy at work, why doesn't the new girl?" In this case, while the provocateur is certainly acting with personal autonomy, they aren't being very responsible if they believe empowerment should apply to everyone. Their action is going to disempower another woman whose own autonomy is that she shouldn't HAVE to dress sexily for work and merely needs to be competent in their job.
In this case, it comes down to a simple question: Is 'empowerment' personal or societal, meaning if a person's personal choice empowers them but disempowers others who think differently, is it still "empowerment"?
Post a Comment