Anyone paying attention to this latest anti-Wall Street news? I think this kind of nonsense helps no one, from investors who'd like to see the markets bounce back and their portfolios return to pre-crash levels (and keeping Goldman alive and healthy is part of the mix), to women who don't like being cubbyholed as whiny bitches.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-15/goldman-sachs-sued-over-alleged-gender-discrimination.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/business/16bias.html
I just opined about this case on BlogHer.com. Wonder if I'll get positive or angry responses to my view that it sounds like a crap case, and makes those of us women who worked our butts off to get where we are --without making stupid complaints about not going to golf outings or joining the guys at strip clubs -- look bad.
http://www.blogher.com/whats-goldman-sachs-sex-discrimination-case
According to The New York Times, the same law firms are representing the plaintiffs in another Wall Street gender bias case, that one against BOA Merrill. Guess they're looking forward to making some nice fees.
So I'll add another group that doesn't benefit from bs lawsuits: us lawyers. Makes us look bad, too.
Grrrrrrrrr. Lordy, this kind of stuff REALLY bugs me.
Hey Terri. I haven't been following this although I heard that Goldman was getting sued for discrimination...it does happen in some of these firms that women are kept out of the boys clubs. And men respond differently to women in the workplace in these big banks and corporations sometimes. You can't put on a pair of mid-level heels without somebody thinking you want his penis. Which is fine. Penises were created to be wanted. My big thing is, what is it about the corporate culture and Wall Street, etc, that seems to bring out this machismo and sexist alpha behavior in men? Wall Street (Goldman and establishments like that) are really men's world. They rule. Testosterone is oozing out the windows. So I can't totally dismiss these women's claims. I have to read up on the case before I make a judgment on this. Would I personally sue about not being able to play golf with the boys? No, because I dont' give a shit about golf. Rather worse with strip clugs. But you have to understand that a lot of business gets done at these types of outings. And if women are routinely left out becuase they are girls, then they are not going to get ahead as quickly and as much as the boys. This is reality. But is there discrimination? I don't know. Guess a jury will have to decide.
ReplyDeleteJeannie Golstein
www.divorcesaloon.com
Nah, Jeannie, take a look at the claims.
ReplyDeleteTotal crap, IMHO. Smiling at your penis comment, though! :<)
Terri, funnily enough, a reporter from the Daily Beast contacted us yesterday about this Goldman case. She's writing about it and she wanted our take on some things. I basically still feel the way I do. I haven't read the claims. But I wouldnt' be surprised if there IS a systemic old boys club atmosphere at Goldman. I heard that their top echelon managers, etc are pretty much all male. How does that happen? What, women are not smart? They can't hack it? Maybe. But maybe there is also an insiduous discrimination going on based on gender (and god knows what else) and, as I said, these outings are the way business is done. How do you think Mark Hurd got that job with Oracle so quickly after being fired for some sexual harassment mess over at Hewlett Packard? He plays tennis with Larry Ellison that's how. They are tennis buddies.
ReplyDeleteIMHO it is possible these women could be on to something...
Jeannie
Yeah,Jeannie, I saw that contact- nice! :<)
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you about business-getting techniques like golf-- But you really need to see the claims first.
I saw an interesting (mostly male)thread about the GS suit on the Above the Law blog and posted the following comment:
Wall Street, along with BigLaw, has had a notorious glass ceiling. No denying that. But these kinds of claims are simply ludicrous and belittle the real discrimination that truly exists. I can't say I blame any of the guys here for their comments (some are actually pretty funny).
I am annoyed, though, that such a bs case has been brought, especially when there are probably some good cases out there that could have - maybe - led to some serious revamping of the "good ol' boy" ways. (Remember the old adage: bad cases make bad law...)
Consider, too, an even bigger stigma - being in a wheelchair. It's the kiss of death, believe me. Totally sucks, being a woman in a wheelchair...
Shuriken, I'm wondering: if what you say is true, things sure have changed since 'back in the day' when all of us - men and women alike - were busting our asses all the time. If what you say is true, maybe you've also seen men spending all day checking sports scores online instead of working? Just saying...the Internet isn't just a lure for one gender... :<)
Bottom line: Title VII, the ADA - nice concepts, but reality is another story.
Well, I don't know...I clicked the NYT link. There were some things like men doing push ups and the scanty clad girls at the christmas party...was that a part of the complaint? I doubt it. But this idea that she only made $800K I realize it's hard to sympathize. But you have to think of it within the context of that world. Most men at Goldman make a lot more than $800K bonus, never mind flat salaray. In their world, it's peanuts and so, look, I am not their unpaid defender over here. But I'm saying there probably is something there and we shall wait and see what the arguments are.
ReplyDeleteOMG Jeannie, you are giving me SUCH a hard time!
ReplyDelete:<)
Here's the pdf link to the full complaint: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Goldmansummonses091510.pdf
Among the many problems I see with this case are the DATES of the alleged wrongdoing: The most recent incidents range from 2005 to mid-2008, depending on the plaintiff.
Sorry, Jeannie, I'm not buying into these specific plaintiffs' stories. Like I said before, if there were REAL problems, let's hear 'em. I'm sure there were/are, although I have to defer to Janet Hanson of 85 Broads (14 years as a GS executive) on this.
But this case? No, this isn't the case to test out the waters.