Hooters, the American restaurant chain, whose ‘trademark’ are scantily dressed waitresses (men need not apply), has lodged a licensing application in Cardiff. ITV reported that the plans were “voraciously” (how about ‘vehemently’?) opposed by the Cardiff Feminist Network who are against its “promiscuous clothing” (how about ‘undignified’?). Leaving aside the unfortunate use of words, should a restaurant/bar be blocked because of its uniforms?
Some of my fellow lib dems don’t think so and don’t see the fuss, after all if you don’t like it, don’t go there. Indeed, but what about the members of staff? When the ban on smoking in public places was being discussed, an important point was made about the staff: they couldn’t choose. Some might be fortunate enough to turn down a job, but not all and especially now. Shouldn’t the law ensure dignity at work?
I must declare my ‘interest’: I’m not a member of the Cardiff Feminist Network although I’m an ‘associate’, so to speak. I’m on the Facebook group and have received tons of messages in the last few days. Mind you, when I asked a question and was ignored. I’m also a fairly active member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, although I retain complete autonomy over my thinking as you can tell from my blog.
This has nothing to do with party policy, it's liberal philosophy. I feel that the comments made by some lib dems betray a shallow liberalism that ignores issues of power, equality and morality. Let me explain.
Let’s imagine a restaurant where the waiters are all black people wearing worn out clothes and fake chains around their ankles. Would that be objectionable? After all, people still participate in ‘slave auctions’ for charity. Nobody gets really sold to anyone else, it’s just a bit of fun. Except the fake slave auctions make you forget that people are traded every day. As it has been pointed out, trafficking is a far more pressing concern for feminism, but that fails to see the connection of trafficking with a culture where women are sexual objects. It is this culture, where scantily dresses waitresses are just a bit of fun, that makes you forget of the dignity of human beings and sustains trafficking.
Sexy clothing, however, is not necessarily exploitation. Sex is not just political, it’s also personal. If people want a vulgar display of nudity, it is for them to decide. That's the ambiguity of sex, which makes any judgement a possible threat to private sexual mores. However, there's nothing private about a restaurant. Furthermore, because sex is not just about power, this issue is not just about women, but all of us. It’s about the society we want.
A fundamental principle of liberalism, which I hold dear, is the freedom to express oneself even if it offends. We should not impose our morality on others; yet liberalism is not neutral. A liberal society is one where the dignity of individuals is preserved.
To turn a blind eye to undignified working conditions is to let the powerful impose their social norms on us. I don’t understand why it’s all right for Hooters to impose their view of human beings on their staff, while it’s not all right for the law to ensure that employees are treated fairly. It is no longer all right to make racist comments because we have 'imposed' the idea of equality on our society. Yet, it seems that the ‘pornification’ of society is still ‘all right’. I, for one, beg to differ.
12 comments:
Do you remember (or perhaps you don't know about) the public protests mounted by some Sikh activists complaining about a play that they felt mocked their religion?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm
I got into a furious row around the Council table of my synagogue over my assertion that they should be opposed because people should be free to insult whomever they wish. The only argument raised in opposition to my position was 'what if it had been Judaism that had been insulted? How would you feel then?' When I said that I was perfectly prepared to have my Judaism insulted I was accused of being a lunatic liberal. At least they were correct there.
Yes, but this is not about being offensive and that's why I said nothing about the public or customers. It's about respecting the dignity of employees. You could say that it's up to them, but I'm sure you realise that it's nonsense. That's why we have legislation protecting employees from exploitation (working hours, health and safety etc.).
On a basic level, Hooters fails the 'test of harm', which limits freedom. It also establishes a culture of contempt for women and that's hegemony (Gramsci). We could pretend we are all equal but we are not.
Liberalism is about empowerment. Whilst I think Hooters bar is distasteful, it is not liberal to proscribe a legal business model. Although the Working Time Directive has been mentioned as a way of protecting vulnerable workers from exploitation, I do not think it provides a clean analogy. The WTD protects employees from gradually being pushed into working for longer and longer periods of time. This stops an employer tempting in vulnerable employees with a 39hr contract, only to expect them to work far in excess of that.
That practise would deny empowering the individuals because they did not have the facts to make an informed choice. Hooters bar does not hide its light under a bushel; individuals applying for employment there will be fully aware of the expectations upon them. They are empowered to make the decision. It is not for me to decide for them.
If a ‘slave bar’ were to open up with black individuals notionally dressed as slaves, as suggested, then I am confident that it would fail. It should be allowed to fail because individuals are empowered to make the choice.
It is up to liberals to educate and debate, not to proscribe and ban.
customers may have a choice, staff haven't. It's very much like the smoking ban argument. At a time of recession, people are willing to make sacrifices to be able to work. Of course Hooters is also discriminating against men by not allowing them as waiters.
This is straightforward paternalism, not liberalism. If, as you suggest, individuals are willing to make a sacrifice, then they are exercising their autonomy and making a choice. Citing the recession is a double-edged sword. Although it may force people into less-desirable jobs, it is their decision. Liberals should not deny people the opportunity to work based on a personal distaste. Also, the recession argument also implies that during times of growth, Hooters could be allowed because there are more jobs to go around.
Most certainly NOT paternalism. If the conditions are not fair, your choice is not simply limited, it is putting up with lack of opportunity. This shallow liberalism of 'do as you please' denies freedom and equality. It is certainly not the liberalism of John Stuart Mill.
I respect the individual to make a choice. As long as that choice is informed, then I feel uncomfortable denying them the competency to decide. Empowerment is the key to opportunity and freedom. If you deny empowering someone, even if it is ‘for their own good’, you move away from liberalism and into paternalism.
I find the concept of Hooters base and I came to that decision myself. Do I now have the right to deny others self-determination?
Hooters are not a concept! They are a private company whose employment practices violate human rights. I shall post again soon.
Which human rights do you think are being violated here? [I note from your profile that you hold an LL.B]
I share the reservations of other commenters, and I dislike this pejorative "shallow liberal" tag you have invented to undermine those who disagree with you.
I was always slightly uncomfortable with the particular argument you resurrect from the smoking ban debate (i.e. the staff have no choice) as I don't really agree with it. I am now saddened to see it rolled out again in order to ban, proscribe and dictate.
Fundamentally, I just do not believe you are putting fwd a liberal position. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, of course, but you follow a depressingly paternalistic line of argument, not a liberal one.
That said, surely this bar is in contravention of laws on equal treatment of men and women in recruitment. If I was a cllr I'd be happy to vote against any application on that basis.
quite agree, Chris!
I have the same problem with feminism, it doesn't really speak to men. It lacks a programme that includes all. I want a more equal and fairer society for all. Women are still, however, those who bear the brunt of inequality, especially so in 'developing' countries.
Post a Comment