Muslim woman fired for not wearing revealing enough dress at work
Yeah, you heard it right. Apparently to be a cocktail waitress, you can't also be Muslim and wear what you want.
A Muslim cocktail waitress who claims she was sacked for refusing to wearing an 'indecent' red dress is suing a bar for £20,000.Fata Lemes, 33, said the figure-hugging scarlet dress made her look like a nightclub hostess and was 'physically revealing and openly sexual'.
Miss Lemes said bosses at the Rocket bar allowed customers to think that 'waitresses could be treated as prostitutes'.
She is suing for sexual harassment and sex discrimination.
Sounds like a classy place.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Muslim woman fired for not wearing revealing enough dress at work.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11085
When you work at Hooters, expect to wear the Hooters outfit. I doubt that this request should have come as a big surprise.
But this dress was not the "uniform" when she started working there. She said she was allowed to wear her own clothes to work, and then this dress was introduced. It's not the same thing. She clearly didn't start working at a place with a uniform she hated just to raise a stink.
The point is that as an at will employee working for a business that has a valid business reason for expecting certain behavior, you either conform or you get fired. There's a reason Hooters can hire all attractive (theoretically) women, make them wear a particular outfit, and not get sued. They have a valid business reason. A bar that wants attractive waitresses in more revealing cloths has the same interests. Without arguing whether it's right or wrong, it's legal. Or at least, it would be in the U.S., I don't know about the U.K.
Can you please show me where you found that this ISN'T illegal?
Under your interpretation of whatever law you found/made up - one of the attorneys in my office can be told to start wearing shorter skirts to meet with clients.
Hooters waitresses would also be able to refuse to wear new uniforms if they were given a thong instead of short shorts. The uniforms are required when they are hired and sign a contract. Changing the dress code and firing an employee for refusing to abide by it on religious/moral grounds is very much illegal. And, for the record, wrong.
Specifically relating to Hooters, their business license calls them an "entertainment venue" not a actually a "restaurant." This is how they get away with having requirements about how their employees look. So for Hooters, they can change the uniforms just like Disneyland can change the costumes.
This other restaurant most likely has a business license that calls itself a "restaurant" and not an "entertainment venue." That would make the rules different regarding acceptable expectations for employees.
Ooh, that answers a question I was wondering about. So the waitresses there are in fact considered "entertainers." That makes sense.
Was she a contract employee?
I'm not going to write a legal essay on this.
You work in a law office, here are some important concepts.
Contract vs. At-will employment.
Legal discrimination vs. illegal discrimination.
Exceptions to legal discrimination based on Title Vii.
I never really understood how Hooters can get away with that, actually. They're legally allowed to turn down applicants because of breast size?
But anyway, does that mean she must have taken this job with the expectation of wearing what she considers sexy clothing and having customers come onto her strongly? (She claims the management's intention is to make the staff seem sexually available.) If this was outlined for her at the time of her hiring you'd be right.
"Apparently to be a cocktail waitress, you can't also be Muslim and wear what you want." - I love this ala carte application of religious beliefs when it fits the feminist agenda. It's okay to have firm practice of ones religion in this case, but it's certainly not okay to have firm religious beliefs when one is a pharmacist, or a pharmacist clerk... being uncomfortable distributing morning after pill, etc. Yet it's applicable to many religions that one shouldn't distribute such pills.... but if the article had read, "Apparently to be a pharmacist, you can't also be a XXX and exercise your beliefs." Many would be like, "Why are you in such a line of work if you knew this was part of the job?"
It's so obviously hypocritical.
Not really the same thing. Insisting that YOU personally don't have to show your body to male customers is not the same thing as telling women THEY can't have pills or whatever that have been prescribed by their doctor because YOU don't think the women should have them.
"Not really the same thing. Insisting that YOU personally don't have to show your body to male customers is not the same thing as telling women THEY can't have pills or whatever that have been prescribed by their doctor because YOU don't think the women should have them."
It is, actually, pretty much the same thing. It's refusing to do the job you're being paid to do. The pharmacists don't go around grabbing birth control out of people's hands, they simply refuse to do their assigned and paid role in distributing them. The cocktail waitress, likewise, refuses to dress like a cocktail waitress, and yet still expects to be paid as a cocktail waitress by the cocktail bar she's refusing to follow the rules of as a cocktail waitress.
But if the job description changed after she was already working there, then she does seem to have a point. I think most people would be more sympathetic to pharmacists who, based on their religious convictions, had chosen to work somewhere that didn't even offer BC and then the policy of their employer changed. That's the more appropriate analogy here.
She may have a point that this is unfair or not cool or some other description of things we don't like; but that doesn't mean that she is legally entitled to money damages.
I don't think that people would be very sympathetic to a pharmacist who refused to fill prescriptions for drugs that were introduced after he was hired.
OK, but my point remains, comparing this case with the "conscientious" pharmacists is not a good analogy for a number of reasons. Argument by analogy only works if there's a very close fit between the things being compared.
You're probably right, of course, but just one more? I'm Jewish. If a restaurant I work for adds pork to the menu, do they owe me $40,000?
Would they require you to eat it? Was eating pork a job requirement that you were made aware of during the hiring process? Is it written down as a job requirement in black and white? Your analogy would work if she refused to serve the customers their food for religious reasons, which has happened. There are cases of Muslim cab drivers refusing to take drunk people home, and of cashiers making people scan their own bacon. In those cases, I think those people should be fired, ESPECIALLY the cab drivers. This case is different. While I don't agree with the amount of money she's asking for, she's well within her rights to refuse to wear that. Most jobs require you to look clean and presentable. Unless it's mentioned as a requirement when she got hired, wearing a tight, sexy outfit has NOTHING whatsoever to do with her job.
She has every right to refuse to wear that. The question is whether she has the right to work that job without . . . doing the duties of that job.
I think the bigger question isn't just "Is this legal?" but rather whether a good employer SHOULD. Can the boss fire her? Fine. Is the boss a decent person for doing so? Uh... no. I'm also fairly sure male employees aren't required to wear such revealing things.
Not a bar I patronize.
I'm sorry, but since when is the job of a cocktail waitress to wear tight and revealing clothes? I don't remember that being part of the job description when I was one. I remember my job description being to SERVE COCKTAILS!. So the proper analogy here would be if she was hired to serve cocktails but was offended by certain kinds of cocktails she was supposed to serve and therefore refused to serve them to some patrons. That would be the same as the pharmacists. Not her thinking the outfit was revealing.
I don't usually bother to reply to comments that start with a sneering "I'm sorry", but if the cocktail bar is going for sex appeal and glamour, and the dress code reflects that, then it is part of the job to obey the dress code. Why not serve cocktails completely naked, or wearing rags, if a bar is suddenly only about the drinks and nothing about the atmosphere.
Yes, there are some bars that go for sex appeal. Some don't. I'm worked at both. But the thing is, the analogy still does not work because the actual JOB of a cocktail waitress is to serve drinks. Not to dress provocatively. Unless that was actually stated in her specific job description when she was hired...then it would be another story. And the JOB of a pharamist is to dispense medication. This is where the analogy falls apart.
I'm not saying that I think this woman has a right to sue this establishment, I'm not sure about that yet. I would just say she should quit really. Tell her employers that she thinks it's offensive and find another job (at least that's what I would do). But I just don't think you're analogy makes sense.
The job of the serving staff are to make customers enjoy the bar, spend their money, and want to come back to spend more. The management has decided that the way to do that is to tart up the waitresses. The waitresses, one assumes, can quit.
Why are you assuming that all customers are straight men? (And, at that, straight men with no brains or respect for women...) Every last goddamn thing that you and doubleb have written in this thread rests upon the assumption that all customers are straight men, or, at the least that the most desirable customers are straight men; most women would not feel comfortable as customers in this type of environment. Just because you enjoy going to bars to perve on a bartender who you assume is a good person because she's beautiful doesn't mean that I deserve to have a more limited range of employment options than you simply because of bigots like yourself. I applaud what Fata is doing, because if she succeeds hopefully it will be at least a small impediment to the trend of sexualizing the already-crap work that women in service industries do.
Also, how is it okay for employers to have different uniform standards for women and men? What if they were making black men and other men of color wear degrading uniforms while white men wear a standard, comfortable, respectable uniform? I mean, sure, there are people, especially in more racist areas who would patronize restaurants like that, but AFAIK nothing like that exists in the US or UK. So why is it okay to always do this shit to women? Just because people are willing to pay for something doesn't mean it should automatically be allowed. I mean, fine, have your degrading little costumes for employees, but make both women AND men wear them. And if the dumbass rich idiots who go to this place don't like seeing men degraded in the way they're accustomed to seeing women degraded, well, maybe it'll make them think for a change. And if it doesn't and they're still pissed, well, tough. Women's needs for equal employment opportunities and treatment is more important than those guys' desire to have a fuck object in their view at all times.
Also, having been in food service for a long time myself, these costumes are also bullshit because it's obviously going to be a lot harder to move around in those stupid dresses, thus creating an environment where male employees can more easily do their fucking jobs than female employees.
But as I understand it, a pharmacist's job is to distribute pharmaceuticals. I don't believe that a waitresses job is to be sexually attractive to her customers.
I'm also unsure of whether this is an issue of religious freedom per se, rather than simple sexual harassment.
Being sexually attractive to customers can be part of a server's job description. If a business owner thinks there's a market for a bar that features attractive female servers, and there are women willing to work at that bar, then he's free to hire them and set up that environment. Think of it like a strip club. No one would suggest that strippers shouldn't be required to be naked to work there. If servers being dressed suggestively is part of this bar's business model, the business is free to discriminate among people willing to comply.
But if she was originally allowed to wear her own clothes, and this expectation wasn't communicated to her, then it wasn't originally a part of the job description.
Employers can change the job description for at-will employees at any time. Basically to have any rights beyond basics you need a contract.
I work in an office, with no contract. Can they make me come in a swimsuit tomorrow?
Exactly. If an employer in an office required their female employees to wear bikinis while the men wore business attire they could most certainly be sued for hostile environment sexual harassment. In the US. Most people think that sexual harassment is limited to propositioning, inappropriate touching, etc. but most sexual harassment is actually hostile environment. You could make a case that requiring female employees who are not strippers to wear clothing that revealed their nipples/asscrack is a form of hostile environment harassment.
Not exactly. This is ridiculously different than the case at hand. Could an office make every person not under contract wear a swimsuit? Yes. It doesn't violate any laws because it doesn't discriminate, so there is no issue of different treatment of protected classes. But you said just women. Women are a protected class, you can't discriminate on that basis under Title VII. There's an exception for legitimate business interests that would necessitate that discrimination. For example, strip clubs, hooters, etc. Is it plausible to think there's some business interest served by having office workers work in swimsuits? No, that's absurd. Is it plausible to think there's a business interest served by having servers at a bar wear revealing clothing? Of course. Once again, see Hooters.
Maybe I just want to be clear whether everyone is trying to address this from a moral or a legal perspective, because those are two vastly different things, and I'm not seeing any differentiation.
I sort of doubt that their male employees are wearing these red dresses, and my point was concerning differential treatment that causes a hostile environment.
Yes, I think the legal/moral distinction is important, but since the article focuses on the lawsuit I assumed the conversation was about the legal issues involved. Obviously the fact that there are places like Hooters reveals deep cultural problems, but that would take another post (or several) to cover.
Here's the legal analysis I'm using.
Woman asked to X. --> Would a man be asked to X? No. --> Prima facie Title VII violation. --> Affirmative defense - legitimate business interest. --> Prima facie legitimate interest in female servers in a bar wear revealing clothing? Yes. --> No violation.
Now, if you disagree with the law part, we'd need to look at it. If you disagree with the substance of whether the dress is actually a legitimate interest, we can talk about that too.
To establish that this was a legitimate interest they would have to show that they were providing some kind of entertainment service, which most bars and restaurants are not considered to be doing. If you get hired at a dinner theater place, they can make you wear the cheesy renaissance costume because they are legally considered to be an entertainment establishment that also has a food license. But there's no indication that this is the case here, and in the dinner theater situation, all employees are required to wear the cheesy uniform, not just the women. And even at the dinner theater place if the women were expected to flash the customers or some ridiculous thing, they could still sue for hostile environment sexual harassment.
But the point still remains that this particular uniform was not in place when she started work. It is specifically an issue for the female employees (unless I missed something about the guys having to wear tight t-shirts). The rules suddenly changed to something she didn't and wouldn't have agreed with. I used hyperbole in my example - but I could understand how a much less extreme circumstance could still upset someone equally.
I thought this was in the UK. I don't know anything about their employment laws, but I do know that a lot of people assume that at-will employment in the US means that the employer can do anything s/he wants. I had several friends who were bartenders at the same place, and the owner had a thing for getting his female employees high and feeling them up. He thought if they didn't like it they shouldn't work there. When he started in on the ones who wouldn't get high with him, he found himself in the middle of a giant lawsuit - they were all law students at the time. His defense was that they had consented to this, as evidenced by the fact that they hadn't quit. Obviously this defense didn't work, and they won.
As a manager at Starbucks back in the day, we had all at-will employees, but management thought carefully about uniform choices, etc in order to avoid creating a sexist work environment. And believe me, there are a LOT of customers who come to Starbucks just to flirt with the female baristas.
I would describe the right not to be assaulted as pretty "basic". Do you think I was suggesting that one would need a contract not to be legally forced into sex?
The point is that he could have insisted everyone speak only in rhyme, or refer to each day as though it was the previous day, or wear only mismatching socks to work. These things would make him an idiot, but they wouldn't be illegal. I think people here are just generally poorly informed about the specifics of business law, and they think that hiring or firing based on arbitrary things like whose birthday is earliest in the year is illegal, but it's not. As long as it doesn't discriminate between protected classes or break other laws like sexual assault, it's fair game.
This isn't a legal response, I just wanted to point out how automatically grossed out I get when the exploitation of women for being women is referred to as "fair game", legal or not.
For the last time, yes, he could insist on some ridiculous thing like this, BUT if he only made his female employees act/dress/whatever in a ridiculous manner he could be sued for creating a hostile work environment, which is the most common form of sexual harassment. Assumably they covered this in your business law courses.
Most people think that groping/propositioning/threatening women in the workplace is the only form of sexual harassment, but in reality this only accounts for a very small percentage of successful sexual harassment suits. Most are hostile environment cases where women have received differential treatment that was humiliating, or meant to reduce them to nothing but a sex object and imply that they couldn't do their job, or which put them at a disadvantage in some way, etc. This is the kind of differential treatment that I'm talking about, so repeating examples of things that bosses could require ALL their employees to do seems kind of irrelevant.
There's legal and there's ethical. I think my point is rather about the latter.
As I noted above, if an establishment calls itself an "entertainment venue" as Hooters does, then it can decide that its employees need to be sexually attractive as part of its business plan. If it is just a restaurant, it cannot.
And a strip club is not equivalent to a restaurant in that same way- a strip club is an "entertainment venue" and as such employers can have physical requirements for employees. This is not true of restaurants.
Is there some legal classification that specifies that restaurants cannot hire based on appearance? Because I wasn't aware that we had moved past the standard categories of protected persons. I'm not trying to be condescending I'm really asking. I've had several business law classes in business school, and then covered some business law in law school and haven't encountered anything like you're talking about.
"Being sexually attractive to customers can be part of a server's job description."
But was it part of her job description when she signed on?
Does she have a contract guaranteeing that the nature of her job will never change?
I see what you're trying to say, but the other comments have the right idea-not distributing prescriptions implicates someone else's right besides your own. I think a pharmacist should expect to have to give out legal drugs, and I think a cocktail waitress should expect to have to wear the uniforms her employer gives her.
I wonder why she didn't just quit?
I wonder why she didn't just quit?
Asking why she is quitting after being sexually harassed is like asking a survivor of domestic violence why s/he didn't end the relationship. She didn't quit because that's not the point! She had a job, she accepted the job based, in part presumably, on her understanding of the dress code, and then the requirements for dress were changed.
Not to mention, have you seen the economy lately? It's not like it's raining jobs out there, especially depending on what city you you live in.
No, it's not. You don't have the same emotional reaction to a job that you do a relationship, generally. I didn't see anything in this article that could even be somewhat analogized to that sort of situation. The economy sucks, to be sure, but if you don't want to do a job because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, that's your choice to make.
I made this point below, but I'll say it again: what was the actual harassment on the part of the owners? Because she was propositioned by customers? That's not legally actionable in the United States, unless the owners participated in the harassment or made some sort of quid pro quo threat to her.
I don't know what the harassment laws in the UK are.
I also don't know what the waitress job market is like in the UK, but getting a job as a server isn't as hard as some more specialized positions: I did it for 10 years out of high school, off and on, so I have an idea of how these things go.
"I wonder why she didn't just quit?"
This could be asked of anyone who ever suffered any kind of harassment at a job.
What's the actual harassment she suffered though? I was propositioned at my own waitressing job, and yeah, it sucked, but it didn't rise to the level of sexual harassment.
I can't tell from the article what exactly the owners did, besides try and make her wear a stupid looking dress, that constitutes sexual harassment. If she was sexually harassed by the owners, bring a case; if you don't like the job requirements, quit. There's a difference. If you read something differently in the article, please let me know what your take on it was.
She claims that the owners required the girls to make themselves appear sexual available and were encouraging of the propositions they received on a regular basis.
I'm not sure whether or not that's true, but if it is, she has every right to sue.
That makes more sense, but again, from the vagueness of her complaints, it's hard to tell whether the owners actually did something legally actionable. They sound like a couple of douchebags who run a somewhat sleazy bar, but there's a huge difference between being sort of gross and encouraging or forcing your waitresses into prostitution. I do feel bad if she was so uncomfortable, and if they actually did try and force her to accept propositions, or if they refused to address issues she had with customers, then the situation changes. Without more info than what's in this article, I can't get too worked up over it, though.
But there are many kinds of sexual harassment that would come before "forcing employees to be prostitutes". If she feels she was pressured into a situation that was solely based on her biological sex, gender or her sexuality, then that constitutes sexual harassment.
Hey, sorry I didn't reply to you earlier. I think you're right, that is harassment, and it's not ok, but it might not qualify as legal sexual harassment you can sue for, especially if the employer has a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the policies at issue.
The laws aren't great for employees..
I'm curious as to what you mean when you say you were propositioned at your waitressing job but it didn't rise to the level of sexual harassment. Unless your definition of propositioning is completely different then the norm that is definitely sexual harassment.
Now, when it comes to this case, I think sexual harassment might be hard to prove. It's basically coming down to a dress. And it's hard to look at her employers making her wear a specific dress as sexual harassment. Unless the employers made it clear that the reason they wanted her to wear said dress was to look like a prostitute or whatnot. And that seems really hard to prove. The employers could easily say they were just going for a certain atmosphere, trying to make all the employees match, blah blah blah. It's tough.
Customers made comments to me about sleeping with me and paying for it. That's propositioning. it's not necessarily actionable sexual harassment against her employers. i could have pressed some sort of charge against the customers, maybe, but would it have stuck? Probably not.
I agree with your assessment of this case if her employers weren't forcing her to accept the propositions, or treating her negatively because she didn't like being asked for sex-that would be a hostile workplace.
A crappy workplace run by sleazebags is not necessarily a hostile workplace that you can sue for under Title VII. But maybe Britain's law's are different.
so you're pulling a Helen Mirren huh? you don't think women should bring charges against someone or about something that YOU don't consider to be sexual harassment? well different people have different thresholds for sexual harassment. this woman might have a hard time already proving sexual harassment, and comments like yours just make it more judgmental for her.
and i am curious, if "A crappy workplace run by sleazebags is not necessarily a hostile workplace that you can sue for under Title VII," then what is a hostile workplace? should i wait until i'm assaulted?
Nope. I'm saying that from what I read in the article, she doesn't say anything that sounds like an actionable hostile workplace charge that would make it past the summary judgment stage in an employment discrimination trial. The article didn't list anything specific beyond her being asked to wear a dress she didn't approve of that she didn't think she'd have to wear when she started working. Being propositioned by a customer probably would not rise to the legal level of hostile workplace.
What's the "Helen Mirren" comment supposed to mean? Did she say something about sexual harassment?
sorry, I didn't clarify this answer enough for you- a hostile workplace is when there is no legitimate business reason for the actions that a business is taking. A hostile workplace is considered a constructive discharge-co workers or the employee's supervisors/bosses must be taking actions that, all together, are so bad that the employee cannot work at the business anymore because of emotional distress or inability to do their job. The hurdle for hostile workplace charges in the US is fairly high, rightfully or wrongly, depending on your viewpoint. I'm not saying she can't bring charges, and I've worked on cases that seem much weaker, but it's honestly very difficult to win this kind of lawsuit against an employer unless they fold and settle out of court.
I thought of the pharmacist analogy too. My initial thought was that if you could see this was the required uniform in this place, seek employment elsewhere. But then again, the economy and layoffs being what they currently are, maybe jobs are scarce where she is and she had to take whatever position she could.
And of course as I mentioned before, I tend to dislike dress codes and uniforms anyway, unless they're there for safety purposes (firefighter's gear, a hazmat suit), or identification(a police uniform). I suppose one could argue that the waitresses' uniform is there to identify them as the servers, but couldn't that be done with a name tag or a bib or something?
So I guess I can see two sides of this issue.
I thought your analogy was pretty on point it terms of the rules of criticism change depending on what side of the argument we're on.
The analogy to the pill would work better if she was refusing to SELL slutty dresses to other women. Like say she started working at a store that sold only dresses she liked at first but then they started selling a slutty red dress, and she refused to ring up customers who wanted to buy it. THAT would be the same as pharmacists who don't want to give out the pill (except that I think medical care should be held to a higher standard than other professions).
In this case, its a tough call. If she took a cocktail waitress job with some sort of understanding that part of her job is to look attractive and be sociable with the customers and stuff, and that the management might introduce dress codes or uniforms, then she can't really complain. But if she took the job with the understanding that all she was doing was serving drinks and could definitely wear her own clothes, then it isn't ok.
For example, I took a job at Borders once and when I started they told me there was no particular dress code. A few weeks later they announced a rule that you couldn't wear sandals or tank tops at work (this was LA near the beach in the summer). That was annoying for me becuase I was most comfortable in sandals; standing up all day in "nicer" shoes was a pain. But I doubt I could sue them JUST becuase the job description changed slightly.
So in this case the issue isn't only that the job description changed (that happens a lot and you can't always sue over it) but that it changed in a sexually harassing way.
I think in the end I agree with her given the sparse information in the article, but remember, its completely different than her refusing to SELL a red dress to other women who want one.
I also don't think this should have anything to do with her being Muslim. If she took a job that did not explicitly rely on her looks (i.e., her job description did not include entertainment, or dancing, or stripping, or modelling, and there was no required uniform or anything like that), she shoudln't then be forced to wear something that makes her feel like a sex object, no matter what her religion is.
The pharmacist analogy is incredibly weak. The problem there is not just one of religious freedom- it's that their beliefs impede on the rights of others (specifically the right to use birth control). I don't see how not wearing a dress impedes on the rights of others. Would it be better if she objected on non-religious moral grounds? Is her claim less valid because she is Muslim?
I don't think that feminism & religion need to be mutually exclusive from each other.
P.S. For the record, I'm an agnostic.
It impedes on the boss' right to run a legitimate business. My favorite bar is my favorite, in part, because of an extremely beautiful bartender. Lots of people choose one place over others because of the sex appeal of the wait staff. The managers obviously think they'll have a more successful business if their cocktail waitresses dress the way cocktail waitresses usually do for some reason. They're probably right. Are they holding a gun to her head? Why should they give her $40,000, which these days could probably sink a lot of bars, because she doesn't want to dress like a cocktail waitress?
I didn't realize it was a requirement in all bars that female staff dress sexy or be beautiful.
I also didn't realize that all bars must have a sexy staff in order to stay open (since you claim that not wearing the dress impedes on their right to run a legitimate business.)
"Danyell replied to aleks :
I didn't realize it was a requirement in all bars that female staff dress sexy or be beautiful."
I didn't realize you wouldn't be able to figure out that no one said "it was a requirement in all bars that female staff dress sexy or be beautiful."
"I also didn't realize that all bars must have a sexy staff in order to stay open (since you claim that not wearing the dress impedes on their right to run a legitimate business.)"
I also didn't realize that for one bar to choose to play up the sex appeal of their staff must either make that bar illegitimate or else require the same of every bar.
Well, you said her not wearing the dress directly impeded their ability to run a legitimate business.
Can you please explain that without simply taking a sentence I wrote and adding a contrary statement in the middle? How does her refusing to wear a dress that she has an ethical problem with impede their rights as business owners in the same way a pharmacist refusing to sell BC to a woman with a prescription?
And I never said that a bar that plays up sex appeal is illegitimate. But you implied that having a beautiful and sexy staff is so crucial to running a bar, that refusing to act sexy is ultimately damaging to the company.
They are running an apparently legitimate business, part of the model of which involves sexy waitresses, because they seem to be under the impression that if their waitresses are sexy people will come and spend money. Go figure, huh? I didn't realize anyone was silly or disingenuous enough to somehow interpret that to mean "it was a requirement in all bars that female staff dress sexy or be beautiful", since I never said anything remotely like that. If I worked at a sports themed bar and refused to wear uniforms or talk about sports, I would be interfering with the business model and unfit for that job, yet it wouldn't somehow magically mean that it was a requirement in all bars that staff wear uniforms and express interest in sports.
Are they holding a gun to her head?
In a way they are.. if they fire her, she's unlikely to be able to find a new job at the point in time. She is essentially being forced to wear it.
That's . . . not at all the same thing. Of course they can fire her for not doing what they tell her. That's employment, not slavery.
i still don't see how a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control impedes my right to use it. it makes it less convenient, yes. but i'm still able to use the drugs i want. and there's no law on the books that says birth control has to be conveniently located. why oh why, if pharmacists refusing to sell birth control is such a horrible thing, aren't feminists trying to persuade pharmacy students that dispensing birth control is ethical and moral? sadly, i think some feminists have religion-hate.
Have you not read any of the posts on this website about the problems that lie in pharmacists refusing to dispense medications? In some cases it doesn't just make it inconvenient to get your meds, it makes it damn near impossible. In some states (I believe South Dakota is or was up until recently one) there is only one pharmacy or Planned Parenthood in the whole state that provides BC or emergency contraception. So for some less privileged people it's almost impossible to just go to another pharmacy. I'm lucky to live in a big city where there is a different pharmacy on almost every block, but I realize my privilege and that many others are not as lucky as me.
yes, i have, and i make similar comments on each of those posts. i don't believe it's right to legally force people to do things they don't agree with, including selling things they don't agree with. to me, that's a fundamental part of being in a free country. yes, sometimes that makes it difficult for others to get birth control. but people have choices. if you choose to live where services are inconvenient, then you either have to find ways around it (in this case, mail-order pharmacy), change your situation, or deal. i do, however, think it should remain legal for a business to terminate someone who doesn't do the job they're asked to do; walgreens should be able to fire a pharmacist who won't do the tasks walgreens requires. but if someone wants to open a no-birth-control pharmacy, i believe that should be legal. (i think that's a loser of a business model, personally, but that's their prerogative.) if feminists think that convenient access to services is a worthy goal (and i do), then i think the ethically correct course of action is to fund and staff pharmacies and clinics in those under-served areas with people who believe in the morality of providing those services, not to legally compel those who disagree.
Your comment reeks of privilege! If you live somewhere with only one pharmacy you should just move? What if you're incredibly poor? What if you're 16 and have to live where your parents make you live? What if you haven't been educated to know that you have other options? Mail-order pharmacy? Emergency contraceptives only work for the first 72 hours, how does that fit into your plan?
Here here. Add to that that the later you use emergency contraceptives, the less effective it is likely to be.
I would agree that to an extent religious beliefs should be respected, but NOT where they impact on the rights and HEALTH of other people. That stops it from being a personal belief and turns it into a public issue. Once it's a public issue, the separation of church and state dictate that religion should not be the decider.
Refusing to sell porn magazines does not impact on the rights and health of the men who would potentially buy them, for example. Refusing to sell birth control absolutely and directly impacts on the rights and health of a woman.
um, buy in advance? you know, like, plan ahead?
yeah, because i don't think one should use the law to compel people to commit acts they feel are immoral, i'm obviously privileged! (oooh, scary.)
look, life isn't fair. where i used to live, the only hospital housing a level one trauma center in the entire southern portion of the state closed. it's horrible. but the hospital isn't legally bound to stay open providing services just because other people want or even need them.
i want ALL the women's health services available everywhere just like everyone here. so i donate my money and time to this issue and others, because i think that's the better tactic in this debate.
societies that force citizens to do things in which they don't believe have historically been some of the most fascist and cruel. let's not slide any further down that slope, please.
Yes, let's tell all the girls that wind up pregnant with their rapists' babies that next time they should have planned ahead. Won't that make them feel better?
And how much should I have in my EC stockpile exactly? How do I plan ahead how many times I'm going to have unprotected sex? Should I have 2 packs of Plan B? 3? Oh right, they cost about $50 a pop...that might be tricky...
look, i friggin' agree with you. if i was a pharmacist instead of an architect, i would find it deeply immoral to not supply medication to someone. but separation of church and state means we have no official, legal moral code but the constitution. some people find it just as abhorrent to sell medication as i do NOT to sell it. as soon as we say that someone can face legal punishment (malpractice suit, or jail, or what have you) for doing something they feel is against their moral code, we've effectively elevated one moral code above another.
if you see someone choking, it's not illegal if you don't give them CPR. (i personally think you've just booked your bed in hell, but that's my feeling on the matter.) where would you draw the line? let's say there's one pharmacy in your town, and they carry EC. is it illegal for that pharmacy to close because they're not making enough money? no. let's say there's a pharmacy within 50 miles. but that's inconvenient for those without a car. is walgreens legally obligated to open a store within walking distance? of course not. or, a pharmacy opens, and they have zero demand for EC. are they obligated to carry a product they never sell? nope.
so, since i *do* have sympathy for those who find services inconvenient, i suggest planning ahead (getting EC and keeping it in your medicine cabinet like i do or ordering from an online pharmacy and having it fedexed). does it suck? yeah, no doubt. and as feminists, i think we should put our time and money into efforts that make those services available and convenient to everyone, and publicize them.
look, i friggin' agree with you. if i was a pharmacist instead of an architect, i would find it deeply immoral to not supply medication to someone. but separation of church and state means we have no official, legal moral code but the constitution. some people find it just as abhorrent to sell medication as i do NOT to sell it. as soon as we say that someone can face legal punishment (malpractice suit, or jail, or what have you) for doing something they feel is against their moral code, we've effectively elevated one moral code above another.
if you see someone choking, it's not illegal if you don't give them CPR. (i personally think you've just booked your bed in hell, but that's my feeling on the matter.) where would you draw the line? let's say there's one pharmacy in your town, and they carry EC. is it illegal for that pharmacy to close because they're not making enough money? no. let's say there's a pharmacy within 50 miles. but that's inconvenient for those without a car. is walgreens legally obligated to open a store within walking distance? of course not. or, a pharmacy opens, and they have zero demand for EC. are they obligated to carry a product they never sell? nope.
so, since i *do* have sympathy for those who find services inconvenient, i suggest planning ahead (getting EC and keeping it in your medicine cabinet like i do or ordering from an online pharmacy and having it fedexed). does it suck? yeah, no doubt. and as feminists, i think we should put our time and money into efforts that make those services available and convenient to everyone, and publicize them.
But we don't agree because I don't think there should be an opt out clause for pharmacists. You're arguing the slippery sloppe theory and that's the same thing crazy conservatives do when talking about gay marriage ("if we allow gays to marry next we'll have to allow people to marry more than one person...or animals!") and it's just a logical fallacy that doesn't work in an argument.
and you're arguing that the ends justify the means, which the republicans used to, uh, get us into an illegitimate war.
Filling a prescription for birth control is NOT the same thing as showing off your breasts, and requiring them for a job is incredibly different.
Do you have no sense of perspective?
'The reason for choosing the colour red was to indicate that the waitresses were sexually available, wasn't it?'
Excuse me? When did Red Dress become the code of sexual availability? I'm working with 3 women right now who are wearing red dresses and I don't think anyone is advertising their sexual availability.
Also, why is "Muslim woman" in the title? Why not use "Blonde woman" or "Bosnian woman." Both are equally accurate and equally tangential to the story. Honestly, why enflame a religious argument over a non-religious issue? Isn't it enough that she feels she was sexually harassed? Does her being a Muslim make it worse somehow?
She's a woman who is charging her employer with sexual harassment and discrimination. The fact that she's Muslim is not the defining point of this story. She's more modest than her co-worker and found the dress revealing. Fine. I bet that there are non-Muslim women who find the dress revealing. I bet there are Muslim women who don't find the dress revealing.
This isn't a question of religious freedom. She's not being attacked for being Muslim. She was fired (or quit) because she wouldn't wear the uniform that the restaurant/bar provided for their waitresses. She claims that the owners tried to make the waitresses into sex-workers although the article doesn't seem to provide any corroboration of that charge. Fine. Deal with those issues - the way men often assume that a waitress is on the menu, for example. Or the way that employers sometmes expect female employees to let themselves be harassed for business.
Red has been associated with prostitution for a long time and not just in our culture. When my mother was younger, she was in beauty pageants (yeah, I know). They weren't allowed to wear red in the evening dress competition because it was "the color of the night." This wasn't that long ago.
I do think this is an issue of religion. If someone just doesn't like the outfit an employer chose (especially when that outfit likely was standard when the employee was hired), then that's a personal issue and may or may not rise to the occasion of sexual harassment. When an employee believes she cannot wear the outfit because of her religious belief,s, then it's a separate issue entirely.
I'm sorry, how is it a "separate issue entirely"? Why is it that so many people have accepted the obvious conclusion that male or white privilege is unacceptable, yet privilege based on irrational beliefs which most likely resulted from indoctrination in childhood is A-OK? Are you saying that just because I happen to be an atheist, I'm not entitled to having my preferences in presenting myself respected, even if I can provide an explanation for them that actually makes sense, to the same extent as someone who is thoughtlessly repeating the teachings of her misogynistic religion and shaming her coworkers for not hating their bodies and considering them indecent?
I think she should be entitled to wear whatever she wants as long as it doesn't interfere with her job, and a sleeveless dress in no way enhances a person's ability to bring people cocktails. But I fail to see why she and her religion's misogyny should be granted special privilege.
If she had a problem with the dress for any other reason than religious, would you be so against her?
Um, have you actually read what I wrote? I think everyone is entitled to freedom of expression, and I specifically said in my comment that I think she should be able to wear what she wants as long as it does not impede her job. I was objecting to Brandi's unfounded assumption that religious people should be privileged. Perhaps you agree with her. In which case, you are welcome to provide a justification for this idea. I've yet to see one. But I think your bias is showing. You are blaming people here for not agreeing with this woman 100%, yet you are willing to cut her a huge slack for her backwards views. Not that I'm blaming her for having them, I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.
When did I say that people are wrong for "not agreeing with her 100%"? I'm only opposed to all the people who seem to disagree with her simply because she mentioned that she is a Muslim. Actually if you would read what I wrote I never actually specified if I agree with her 100%.
I don't know all the facts of the case, but I do agree she has a case. Whether or not she should win depends on many different factors that I'm not sure of. But one thing is for sure- I don't agree with what seems like feminists ignoring a woman's problem because her objection was partially on religious grounds.
FYI, all of her problems with the dress were for reasons other than religious ones.
Yes, but a great deal of the objections to her claims on this forum are due to the fact that she added "oh and btw, I was brought up as a Muslim." So, yes, I'm confused about why that is.
Religion is a personal issue, right? I mean, it's no different than any other personal issue that might stop a woman from wanting to wear a revealing dress to work.
I knew that red used to be associated with prostitution but the lawyer's question actually made me laugh out loud before I got angry. I know that the prostitute in Oliver Twist wears a red dress (probably the only prostitute in Victorian England to do so) but the fact that anyone could seriously ask that question in court boggles the mind.
mary_elizabeth - I know what you mean about English papers bringing up the religion of people like it matters in every story. It's usually part of the whole 'what's happening to the England of our youth!' thing.
Still, the title of the post was unnecessarily inflamatory. Also, this line:
"Apparently to be a cocktail waitress, you can't also be Muslim and wear what you want."
Really? You mean the owners of cocktail bars are responsible for the most common limiations on the dress of Muslim women? Really.
I think that the reason that her religion is brought up is probably because she brings it up herself as the reason for her objection - 'I was brought up a Muslim...'
Having said that however, English papers love to bring up Islam in their stories, especially in a case like this. I don't know if it was reported on this site, but there was a similar case a few months ago that caused massive controversy in the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027029/Hairdresser-ordered-pay-4-000-Muslim-woman-refusing-job-wears-headscarf.html
I agree that the title seems to be inflaming of religious issues. But I do take offense that since she is Muslim a lot of people here seem to be automatically against her. Some people think you're not allowed to take a feminist issue on religious grounds, and that's a lot of crap.
And yes, red is known by many to be the color of prostitutes, because that used to be true. And in many cultures, still is. I personally don't see it that way, but I can see how some might.
So
1. You're uncritically accepting as gospel truth the word and analysis of the situation of someone with a $40,000 stake in the lawsuit, and
2. You're applauding this woman for calling her coworkers sluts.
Classy indeed.
You're applauding this woman for calling her coworkers sluts.
No, she did not say that. She said: "waitresses could be treated as prostitutes." That is a statement about the customers and their treatment of the waitresses; not a judgment about the waitresses themselves.
I agree with jlw: the difference between the case of the pharmacists and the case of this woman is that pharmacists who refuse to fill medicine prescribed by a doctor not only enforce their morals upon others, they cannot do their jobs.
This woman only wants to exercise her morals upon her own body--not others. She does not have to wear a sexy red dress to do her job. In addition she is dispensing something that is against her religion--alcohol. So this is further evidence that she is more concerned about herself rather than making moral choices for her customers.
The owners of the bar obviously want to use her as a sexual prop to drum up business. If the uniform or clothing expectations changed from when she took the job, I think she has a case regardless of her religion. I think employers have a right to change job descriptions or expectations, however I do not think they have a right to demand that any person turn themselves into a sexual prop if that expectation was clearly not part of the job previously.
Please read Fata's blog if you are interested in the facts rather than the Tabloid's twisted take on it.
She was not pleased with the way the article was twisted to make it a Muslim issue, and the £20000 is a mandatory minumum amount of compensation.
http://fatafatafata.blogspot.com/
Please read Fata's blog if you are interested in the facts rather than the Tabloid's twisted take on it.
She was not pleased with the way the article was twisted to make it a Muslim issue, and the £20000 is a mandatory minimum amount of compensation.
http://fatafatafata.blogspot.com/
Thought I was going to get away with that sneaky spelling correction, dammit.
Thanks so much for that link. It certainly explains her position and fills out the details of her employment.
Tabloids are crap.
I just looked at the dress in the article. I would wear it to an evening party with my friends, but I wouldn't want to wear it at work while I have to serve food to strange men. It also looks like a dress that you can't realistically wear a bra under; so probably nipples would be poking. If I started a waitress job where I could wear what I wanted and then they asked me to wear that dress, I'd be annoyed and probably refuse to do it, but I'm not sure if the right thing to do is quit rather than suing. Its a tough call. I also don't think it has anything to do with religion, its a sexual harassment issue.
As for the idea of wearing the uniform for the job, I think it depends. Say a man took a job bagging groceries. They usually have a uniform. And then say the uniform was changed to tight short shorts and one of those Vneck shirts from the 70s that reveals the man's chest. Would you think that was fair?
I'd say if your job isn't stripping or modeling or something like that, you should be allowed to cover up as much as you want.
One more comment on the dress itself-- it looks like its made out of jersey (Tshirt material) or something equally thin. I can see panty lines in the photo already.
Is it reasonable to think that more people will come to a grocery store where the baggers wear that outfit? I doubt it.
Is it reasonable to think that more customers will come to a bar where the cocktail waitresses are dressed in a revealing way? I don't doubt it.
Servers are potential models depending on the establishment.
Actually, my dentist's practice is filled with gorgeous hygienists, RDAs, and receptionists, and I think that's part of the reason her clinic is so popular (aside from the fact that she and her associates are also excellent dentists). If she's going to increase business by making men feel like they're getting their teeth cleaned at a modeling agency, then she needs to be able to make physical attractiveness a criterion of hiring and firing.
Your dental office may be filled with beautiful staff, and that may be why you like it, but if the dentist can be proven to be hiring and not hiring based purely on how they look, then she is breaking the law. But the trick is proving it. Crafty employers would not be explicit about their reasons for hiring soley attractive employees.
I bet this is where the confusion comes in. It's totally not illegal to only hire attractive people. How do you think modeling agencies operate. You can hire only people who come to the job interview wearing a green shirt. You can hire only people who like cats instead of dogs. Unless specifically prohibited by law, private companies can do whatever they want.
doubleb, I will admit that all my law experience comes from staying at a Holiday Inn. So I am speaking without a degree, but I read an article a ways back about a lawsuit against a Hooters by a man who said he was discriminated against because they wouldn't hire him. According to the article, which I will try to find if I get the chance, the reason he lost was because it was an entertainment venue, which was hooters way of getting around sexual harrassment laws. So there is a good chance that someone with experience in law school knows more than me.
As for this particular case, the part about her not getting paid for work seems like the real issue, but I tend to agree with you that just the dress question is not enough for the lawsuit.
I meant he sued based on gender discrimination, I think, not sexual harrassment.
Entertainment industry jobs have different laws that apply to them (this again shows how places like Hooters get away with certain things and other restaurants could not). Regular jobs are not allowed to discriminate in the hiring process based on appearance. I'm not saying it doesn't happen anyway, but if it's obvious those companies can definitely be sued for it.
I dunno, maybe some people would come to the grocery store based on that outfit. Maybe the owner thinks they would anyway, even if they're wrong. Does it matter? Does an owner have to justify their decisions with research on focus groups?
laws about intent sometimes specify that a belief has to be "reasonable" in order for the law to apply. This is to get around people just claiming to be ignorant.
Right, because in a patriarchal culture, it's women who are systemically objectified=reduced to their appearance and sex appeal. Being told that your only value as an employee is your appearance in a job where the primary function (serving drinks) is not displaying your body to the male gaze could be construed as hostile environment sexual harassment.
That sort of implies that she "has it coming" for working in a bar in the first place.
Has what coming? The requirement to wear the uniform they provide? Because yes, she does have that coming if she wants to work there.
why does she have the requirement of displaying her body as a cocktail server? i'm sure if it was specified in the contract that she'd have to wear revealing dresses then she wouldn't have signed it. being sexually provocative is not a requirement for waiters or bartenders at a restaurant. you seem to not want to change anything about sexism in the workplace but instead tell women to expect and accept it.
What does this have to do with Lemes' particular religion, and why does this post mention it so prominently? Lemes herself barely mentions it: "I was brought up a Muslim and am not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes." It sounds like she's using "a Muslim" in that context to mean something like "in a straight-laced household," as she isn't making any religious discrimination claim; her blog, assuming it's actually hers, suggests the same. Of course the Daily Mail is plucking the Muslim bit for the headline, as it always does, but Feministing?
Even saying "you can't also be Muslim and wear what you want" suggests some homogeneity of Muslim women. For all we know, several of Lemes' coworkers were Muslim and wore what they wanted -- maybe even that god-awful dress.
Second, can any of the lawyers here familiar with British sexual harassment and discrimination law comment on this? I fully support Lemes' professed interest in putting her foot down against the constant sexualization of female service workers. However, judging by the awful article, I can't tell what exactly the legal claims are.
It sounds like Lemes wasn't verbally harassed by any of her coworkers; the propositioning came, judging by her comments quoted in the article, from patrons. Is her harassment claim against the club based on that or on the instruction to wear the dress, which she claims constitutes harassment itself? Also, I'm sort of confused about the claim that the bar was run "like a sex club" (perhaps I just don't know how sex clubs are run) and also the sex discrimination claim (given all the other women who seem to work there).
Third, I'll reiterate what others have said here: Why have the claims of her law suit been presented as a fait accompli in the post here? This is all just allegation, and I find it sort of sloppy for Feministing to write about complaints' claims as though they're fact.
I mention this because I've noticed this sort of discussion of litigation on the blog before. When crackpots like the dude who sued Columbia over women's studies program file suit, of course we all roll your eyes -- yet it seems that women's harassment and bias suits are taken as undisputed fact fairly often. As a reporter who writes mostly about litigation for a living, this has always bothered me. All it takes is a "...Lemes claimed" or "according to the complaint."
ll
I've been thinking about this and I guess it boils down to how much a person has a right not to get fired without a good reason. As I understand it most jobs are at will-- the employer can fire you even if you haven't done anything wrong, because they found someone the like better, they aren't making enough money, or any reason at all really. There are some exceptions to that though, right? I'm not sure of the details.
So, I think it sucks if you take a job under one condition and then they change. But doesn't the employer have a right to change the job conditions? What if someone has a normal restaurant and then they decide they want to turn it into a hooters? Don't they have the right to do that, even if it sucks for the employees? I really don't know the rules, do they have to give a certain amount of warning or something? I don't think they do.
So it sucks for her becuase I can totally understand why she wouldn't want to wear that dress (or why some people wouldn't mind-- I have a dress like that in fact, but I wouldn't be comfortable wearing it in all situations). But I don't think it necessarily gives her a right to sue them. I'm not sure of the law on this though, and I keep wavering back and forth.
It always sucks when someone loses their job, but isn't that the employer's right? There was a situation in my town where a bunch of people were living on month to month leases and were evicted with 30 days notice. Well, that sucks for them, but you were living on a month to month lease, you knew that was a possibility and you could have left the same way. Instead they sued, and I never understood why that was allowed. If I own property and I'm renting it out and then I want to use it for something else, I should be able to say I don't want to renew the lease when its up.
The only thing that makes this case a little different is the issue of whether it really does count as sexual harassment. Its hard to decide. If they really were encouraging customers to ask the waitresses for sex that's really bad, but if its just about the dress its a harder thing to decide.
Terabithia - would you really feel this way if for example it was Jews, who at first were allowed to hold jobs freely, then no, had to make sure they didn't wear anything "jewish", then, oh, had to wear Nazi symbols because hey, the Christian clientele thought these symbols were cool, or hot, then got fired because somehow, they objected????
READ MY COMMENT BELOW. The sexualization of women's work is becoming UBIQUITOUS. And the more this happens, THE LESS WE HAVE A CHOICE WHEN WE HAVE JOBS!!!! And what - we're supposed to roll over and take it??? THAT'S NOT WHAT FEMINISM IS ABOUT. WE ARE ABOUT FIGHTING INJUSTICE - AND THIS IS UNJUST.
Wow, you sure got to Nazi quickly.
Caps lock is cruise control for cool.
Also, I don't think that people are considering the slippery slope you're on. Who decides what businesses can and can't require of their employees? How much dress code is too much? It's fun to get really angry and type in all caps to feel like you're yelling, but I think reasonable arguments might work better than satisfying Godwin's law.
Have you read the rest of my posts? They make some points that you would probably agree with. You've jumped so quickly to a Nazi comparison it makes me think you're not really thinking about this issue at all.
She's having her revenge on you: http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/the-use-of-logical-fallacies-t.html
According to her blog, the woman who is the subject of the article didn't sue because she was fired for not wearing the dress. She sued because they refused to pay her for some of the days that she did work there, after she was fired.
Well that certainly changes things, doesn't it? Funny how that wasn't mentioned at all in the article.
Probably not sensational enough
i bet people wouldn't be arguing against her case if she was a conservative christian or jew. how much of the underlying issue here isn't feminism, but racism and ethnocentrism?
THANK YOU!
This is the 2nd recent post dealing with a Muslim woman where the general consensus seemed to be "Well, she's on her own. It's her own fault for belong to a misogynist religion."
Although, Idk if it has to do specifically with Islam or conservative religions in general (I think people would have said the same thing if she was a conservative Christian) - but I don't see why religion counteracts any part feminism can play in a situation! Can someone tell me when feminism and religion became mutually exclusive?
Maybe this is why so many religious groups hate feminism- because we don't find their beliefs and feelings valid as individuals because we have a core problem with misogyny within the religion. I'm ashamed that so many seem to feel this way. Women are women and when they get screwed over, it sucks that they can only turn to feminism when it comes to secular concerns.
-brought to you by an atheist-agnostic who just happens to believe in the rights of all people.
WORD. i'm part of what tucker carlson calls the annoying religious left, and i often feel that the posts/comments on this site are really hostile to religious belief, no matter what it may be. often, the tone is dismissive of my intelligence, as if believing in god means i obviously think all science is crap. or accusatory, as if having a faith makes me personally responsible for the misogyny of other members of the group, or that i'm trying to convert everybody to my own way of thinking.
the sad thing is, the only place where i encounter more religious prejudice than from feministing is from ann coulter. (but i read mostly liberal blogs.)
Yes, the big bad atheists are as bad as Ann Coulter. At least you get representation in Congress, there's even a Muslim Congressperson. The American public would accept a meth-addicted babboon as a Congressperson before they accepted an atheist, because we're too busy being morally questionable. Without the guidance of a several-thousand year-old book written by people unknown, well, who would know what to do at any given time?
I have never encountered any atheist on the threads that said that you may not practice your religion. But we have the right to voice objections to your religion, especially when people try to play the "Jesus was about peace" game. People of religious faith have been awfully nasty to atheists for centuries, maybe they're just uncomfortable that we're not being quiet about it.
Seriously, if you think we're as bad as Ann Coulter than; 1. You haven't been reading enough Coulter or you've caught her on a bad day and 2. You shouldn't visit Pharyngula because we're charming and pleasant compared to what we say about religious folk when we're on our own turf.
sure, object to my religion all you like, i don't give a good god damn (i'm christian, but yeah, i swear like a sailor) what you think of my faith. but many religious people, myself included, strongly believe in all humanist movements, some because we feel it's religously indicated, and some because, yes, we do actually open our eyes and look around and use our brains.
if feminism is only for athiests, have fun being a fringe movement that doesn't, you know, actually improve lives of the majority of women.
Who said that feminism is only for atheists or agnostics?
I have trouble logically wrapping my mind around the idea that people participating in authoritarian societies that do a great deal in promoting patriarchy can be feminists, but I'll not deny them the title. But having difficulty doesn't make me the feminist police and seriously, I wish some of the religiou folks would breathe when I voice my objections and then try to put themselves in my position.
Rep. Pete Stark from California is an athiest. Sheesh. No meth addicted baboons in that district I guess.
Did you read the Daily Mail story? She's white, and her complaints aren't of religious discrimination. Check out her blog, which somebody above linked, if you have any doubts that religion here was totally besides the point until the DM pretended otherwise.
The issue here is not what the colour of her skin is, and it isnt about what her case is about. I think the question here is, if the fact that she was Muslim was withheld, would people be so quick to condemn her?
We live in world where some of the most influential countries are treating people who practice Islam as second class citizens, and this shapes our perception of Muslim individuals. I am just really curious about the impact of disclosing her faith on the people who are reading this story.
I am also really startled by the way people are actually DEFENDING sexual harassment. It is unacceptable to harass your employees into wearing something that makes uncomfortable, in any situation. It is even more unacceptable not withhold pay because they refuse to "slut it up".
Becoming a sex object is not a requirement to be a cocktail waitress, and saying it is her fault for not conforming to a sexually revealing form of dress, we make it acceptable for women to continue to be valued as objects in the workplace, instead of as human beings.
I apologize for the typos and left out words. For some reason when I type in the comment box, the cursor doesnt keep up, so I miss mistakes sometimes!
Why is everyone saying she refused to do her job? She simply refused to let the business use her body to sell their products. "Legitimate" businesses don't do that, no matter how common the practice might be.
Yes they do. Legitimate doesn't mean you have to like it.
I agree with the Hooters argument. And I find it hard to believe she didn't know the dress policy coming into it, what had she never been there before? Its like with where they have baristas scantily dressed in some places, yeah its selling sex. If its bothersome get another job.
You probably wouldn't "know the dress policy coming into it" if they changed it after you were already working there, as the article claims.
LalaReina, I think you misunderstood the article. The policy changed WHILE she was working there. That wasn't the dress she was originally supposed to wear. So it's not like she came to apply for the job, so all the waitresses wearing that dress but assumed she'd be wearing something different. No one was wearing that dress. Then her employers changed the policy.
I'm completely shocked at some of the comments here. When did the objectification of women become acceptable as long as it was legal and had a market? When does firing a woman because she did not wish to play dress up for her boss become okay?
most of the comments have been discussing the legality of the issue, not the morality. i think it's important to draw those lines, because it helps us know how to combat the sexism.
morally, i think, most of us agree 100% that objectifying women is not okay.
Right.
To all the fucking non-feminist and therefore misogynist trolls out there - FUCK OFF, MORON. YOU'RE NOT FUCKING WELCOME. You're barking up the wrong fucking tree. Go waste your energy somwhere else. NO ONE HERE WILL FUCKING LISTEN TO YOU.
Now. For the actually intelligent genuine feminists here. Obviously, this is a case of rampant creeping sexualization an objectification of women, as is occurring everywhere. In Toronto just a few years back, we had a problem with fucking asshole strip joint fucking owners demanding that strippers do fucking lap dances when they only wanted to dance, or get their asses fired. So goes the whole society. Pretty soon a woman will NOT be able to get ANY kind of job without BEING A FUCKING WHORE. IT HAS TO STOP SOMEWHERE. STOP IT NOW. Thank you.
My feminism is the only feminism. My ideals are the only reasonable ideals.
Thanks for giving me a case in point example with that strip club though. You think that strippers shouldn't have to give lap dances if they don't want to. Why should they have to strip if they don't want to? Why should they have to wear revealing clothing at all? Strip clubs shouldn't be able to force women into simply being objects of male attention. I don't think you've really though a lot about what you're saying.
And really, sidestepping the whole issue of who you're deciding to judge as "fucking whores", you don't think that women have it better now than they have before? Or that women are losing progress in the workplace? I'm not saying that there isn't far to go, but suggesting that things are getting worse instead of better seems ludicrous.
So according to your logic, if *you* can't get a job without sucking your boss's cock then you surely have to go start your own business also. And hey, if that's the case, well it's better than 50 years ago so you're supposed to shut up and not express your opinion. I'm just throwing back your argument at you. I bet the fear of this happening to them is exactly why het guys men don't want to accept homosexuals. They don't want to get a taste of their own fucking medicine.
The benchmark is **not** how bad things were a hundred years ago. My god. There used to be slavery in the world. Of course anything is better than that. And absolutely still not good enough. The benchmark - i.e., the standard by which we compare our rights as women to what we must have - is the rights and privileges of white males now dominating society. Whatever they have and are allowed to do, that's what we have the right to have. Period. Nothing less. If they don't have to put up with crap like wearing a sexy red dress, or tight sexy red pants, neither should we.
if a woman can't get any sort of job without being a "fucking whore", she could, you know, open her own business.
why do i think that doesn't fit in with your little woman-as-victim rant there.....
So according to your logic, if *you* can't get a job without sucking your boss's cock then you surely have to go start your own business also. And hey, if that's the case, well it's better than 50 years ago so you're supposed to shut up and not express your opinion. I'm just throwing back your argument at you.
where were you working where you were asked to suck cock? i seem to have missed the fun. obviously, i've been working at the wrong places. damn. (sucking cock would have been preferable to some of the crap jobs i worked.)
i'm just sayin', if you don't like where you work, you have all the right in the world not to work there. you have rights — exercise them! work somewhere else! open a business! organize workers in protest! convince enough people to agree with you, and you've got yourself a change movement.
or you could turn on your caps lock key and throw around profanity and make "arguments" and see how far that takes you. best of luck w/ that.
So according to your logic, if *you* can't get a job without sucking your boss's cock then you surely have to go start your own business also. And hey, if that's the case, well it's better than 50 years ago so you're supposed to shut up and not express your opinion. I'm just throwing back your argument at you. I bet the fear of this happening to them is exactly why men don't want to accept homosexuals.
So according to your logic, if *you* can't get a job without sucking your boss's cock then you surely have to go start your own business also. And hey, if that's the case, well it's better than 50 years ago so you're supposed to shut up and not express your opinion. I'm just throwing back your argument at you. I bet the fear of this happening to them is exactly why het guys men don't want to accept homosexuals. They don't want to get a taste of their own fucking medicine.
Well said, Dominique.
A few points to counter some of the things that have been posted...
Yes, in many cases an employer can change the duties/uniform/nature of a job perfectly legally. But...that does not make it right.
Sadly, we live in world where capital is king, and workers rights get increasingly eroded.
The Daily Mail is a vile, borderline racist, anti feminist, right wing rag. It may use more sophisticated language, but, is little better than Fox News. If feminists (or any other progressive group) are reading the Daily Mail, then something is seriously wrong. To give just one example of just how bad the Daily Mail can be, there is this truly disgusting piece from Richard Littlejohn (WARNING - this will make your blood boil) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-423549/Littlejohn-Spare-Peoples-Prostitute-routine-.html
Workers rights eroded? I'm hoping you're talking about third world countries. Maybe that is true, but I don't see how it applies to modern countries where workers have more rights than ever and it only looks like they're going to keep increasing.
Yeah, those unions are alive and thriving. (sarcastic)
Yeah, this thread is long past any intelligible discussion.....
lol @ the "well said" comment directed at the capslocked profanity-ridden rant.
WHAT the fuck IS wrong with THAT? Can't YOU tell I'm being a REALLY EDGY feminist? /Sarcasm
Wow they allowed the male customers to think the workers are prostitutes? I'm pretty sure that'll put someone in danger in the long run.
That's the plaintiff's interpretation of the dress code.
But, of course, the underlying point is that anytime women are required to dress like this at a job, the implication is that they're sexually available to the male patrons. This isn't the kind of problem that can be addressed legally, but it certainly is a profound moral issue. I always think it makes the male patrons who seek this out seem really sad, desperate, and lonely. Once you start to feel sorry for someone it's hard to hate on 'em anymore.
"But, of course, the underlying point is that anytime women are required to dress like this at a job, the implication is that they're sexually available to the male patrons. "
I don't think that's true. I went to a strip club once (yuck) and those downright naked girls weren't "sexually available" to me. I don't think waitresses wearing revealing dresses implies that I get to have sex with them.
"I always think it makes the male patrons who seek this out seem really sad, desperate, and lonely."
No argument there. I don't go to sleazy bars. The strip club was 5 years ago when I broke up with a beloved girlfriend and a friend talked me into accompanying her. It was incredibly disgusting, and pitiful, and that's when I realized I had to stop letting people talk me into things.
Then why have them dress that way if that's not the illusion you wish to create? And of course, the implication may not be that each individual woman working there is available to each individual male patron, but more that women's bodies in general are public property and available to men, or at least to the so-highly-valued male gaze.
South Park did a great parody of Hooters awhile ago that highlighted this implication.
Oh sure, the point is that guys and some girls are going to stare at them. That's what pays their wages and their tips.
Another great feature of capitalism - the commodification of the female body. Yay patriarchal capitalism!
Wow they allowed the male customers to think the workers are prostitutes? I'm pretty sure that'll put someone in danger in the long run.
According to the article, the plaintiff worked at the bar for only a few days before they requested she wear the dress.
And as far as her being propositioned, that's entirely from her perspective. Many women who work in the service industry are propositioned regularly. Of course it's up to employers to kick out customers who harass employees, but an employer's failure to do so doesn't mean that the male customers are encouraged to think that the female employees are prostitutes.
And as far as her being propositioned, that's entirely from her perspective.
Umm, from whose perspective should this kind of thing be reported in order to be believable? Do the male patrons who propositioned her have to confirm it in order for us to believe her? Are a few other witnesses required? Seriously?
To me, this is a classic case of religious cherry-picking. She is serving cocktails, which obviously contain alcohol and are forbidden in Islam. Waitressing involves interacting with men and working outside the home, things that Muslim progressives ignore as being forbidden by Islam but that are against Islamic principles nonetheless. Additionally, she doesn't cover her head, which is the bottom-line modesty guideline in even the least fanatical version of Islam. She happened to have no religious objections to all those things that are against orthodox Islam, so why mention being Muslim when bringing up this dispute? Even if she didn't overemphasize the fact, why did she bring it up?