What We Missed
A young woman employee at Abercrombie & Fitch was "banished to work in the storeroom for not fitting with their 'look' policy," according to the f word. Why? She has a prosthetic arm.
From The New York Times: A City Team's Struggle Shows Disparity in Girls' Sports (Want to help girls in NYC play sports? Check out Girls for Gender Equity.)
The Houston Chronicle takes on feminist weddings (full disclosure: I'm quoted).
From The CS Monitor: Who was really cheated in Iran's vote? Women.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14365
Referring to the A and F story:
My friend knew someone that was pregnant and had to work in the stock room because they didn't fit the "look policy" either. Supposedly secret shoppers come into the store and judge people based on how attractive they are and send a report back to the headquarters. I can't believe companies still can hire/fire in this manner.
I've worked at Hollister, a A&F company. I got put on Impact Team(the ones that stock before it open and rearrange). I suspect it is because I'm pale, don't wear makeup, had short hair and at the time was -gasp- a shockingly fat 128lbs, 6'. Their shirts flat out did not fit me even at that size.
The only reason I didn't care was because I needed the job and I didn't want to work with customers anyway.
They can still hire and fire like this, or indeed in any way or in no coherent way at all, because the rights that let an employer terminate employment at will are the exact same rights that let an employee terminate employment at will. They are merely two sides of the same transaction between two people with the same rights. You would not say that someone should be required to continue working for someone because their reasons for quitting aren't "legitimate," so likewise do not say that someone should be required to continue paying for labor they do not want because you don't like their motives.
Or, to focus purely on the buyers side, A&F is entitled to stop buying a persons labor for arbitrary reasons in the same way that anyone is entitled to stop buying from Wal'Mart without having to justify their decision to society, and certainly without running the risk that they might be forced to keep shopping their for no other reason than having shopped there before.
I really hope that you are just explaining, and not defending this. Under that line of thought, blatant racism within the workplace would be legal. Or almost anything, for that matter.
Well, I certainly am defending that it be legal, since, as I've said, to do so is also to defend the legality of changing your shopping habits, if we imagine for a movement that the legal system is consistent. It's just occurred to me that the system actually is somewhat consistent, as any of the recent bailouts to failing businesses essentially constitutes mandated continued employment of them by the American consumer.
Under that line of thought, blatant racism within the workplace would be legal. Or almost anything, for that matter.
Yes, the right to associate with who you want and for whatever reasons should extend to people who also happen to operate businesses. Some social problems have solutions other than the army, you know.
Just so you know, employers legally MUST have a reason to fire an employee. Remember that, in this case, they didn't fire the employee, they just moved her to the stockroom because they didn't deem her "fit" to be seen on their floor. There's a difference. A&F, and other stores, do hire on the basis of physical appearance--which does bring into legality issues regarding anti-discrimination laws. However, they would need an actual reason to fire an individual. I'm not saying that companies can't (or don't) fabricate reasons to fire, but employers cannot arbitrarily fire employees the same way we change our shopping habits. We're consumers, they're employers bound by labor laws. There is a difference.
In at will states employers are not required to have a reason for termination. The law states that you can be terminated for any reason or no reason, just not for an illegal reason (race, sex, religion)
To be denied unemployment benefits requires that you have been fired for a specific reason. It's typically three things that can cause you to miss out on unemployment. Quiting, doing something illegal, employee misconduct. Misconduct seems like it's a pretty broad term, however in labor law misconduct is specifically defined as conduct that was carried out with evil designs aginst the employer. Lacking the evil motive behind your actions, the conduct does not meet the requirements of being labeled "employee misconduct."
Well regardless of the state, if A&F had chosen to fire an employee for the reasons stated (in the posted story, prosthetic arm; in a response pregnancy) it would be illegal. Alice was saying that firing for these reasons would be legal--and that's not true.
I think the point is that some employers (A&F in this example, but I am positive they aren't the only ones) treat their employees differently based on appearances. They can't legally fire an employee for becoming pregnant or for losing an arm (I'm pretty sure on that last one anyway) but they can stick them in the back where no one can see. That, in my opinion, is a problem. A&F can, legally, hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. They can also legally place employees in whatever department. But that doesn't make it ethical. It's indicative of how our society places so much importance on a certain ideal, and that's what was wrong with this story.
I agree. It's long past time that physical appearance and body weight were added to human rights codes as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Society's prejudice against people who don't fit certain criteria of attractiveness is blatant, and there should be legal checks on it.
"frothy, expensive and patriarchal wedding trappings"????
Frothy I get for some of them (like the big poofy dresses some women like).
Expensive, well, just mention the "w" word, and the price goes up.
Patriarchal, though? Maybe once upon a time, but one wedding I went to was ALL about the bride, and she wanted everything, and it had to be EXACTLY what and how she wanted. She really was a bridezilla.
For myself, well, my husband and I worked out the details together. I re-used my mothers gown, having it altered to more my style. He wore his stepfather's old dinner suit. Both parents walked me down the aisle to Pachelbel's Canon in D.
Weddings these days are what you make them. If you want tradition, go with tradition. If not, then don't. Simple :)
I suggest you do a search of this site for wedding-related stories and how even if they're all about the bride (which they normally are) they are still steeped in patriarchal traditions. Jessica has posted a lot about this seeing as that she is engaged and thinking a lot about concepts such as "giving the bride away," how women are supposed to take their husbands' names, the bride wearing all white, etc...
If you are the same Sonja that I think you are you really do have a lot lot lot to learn about feminism and the patriarchy. I suggest searching for a good feminism 101 site and doing some reading.
Yes, a lot of the traditions originate from a time when women were treated differently to what we are now.
We have the option to ignore these traditions if we so choose.
Anyone saying otherwise is just not worth listening to.
And I have tried reading sites which 'explain' feminism. They're either not very straightforward about it, or on reading several, conflict one another. That's why I'm here - to see what it's all about from the posts here rather than trying to read a definition.
It's not a definition...I think katemoore on another thread pointed you to a good feminism101 site. I really think that you just don't want to get it, did you search for those posts about wedding traditions on this site like I recommended? Probably not because, like I said, you are content not getting it. But I'm not going to derail this thread with you like you derailed that other thread in the community.
Hi, sorry to continue a thread that seems to have concluded. As a young woman with as yet unformed opinions of most things, I can't help but wonder about your answer on this question:
Do traditions from patriarchal times still have the same potency in their original meanings? (Also, should they be completely avoided just because they stemmed from patriarchal times?)
I'm new to Feministing (started reading a couple of weeks ago) and have not read Sonja's other posts, so I don't understand why you were a little abrupt in your replies. In fact, I do agree with her that the traditional wedding format is not necessarily "bad" and that women do have the option of ignoring bits if they want to. Say if I don't change my surname but do want to wear white (say I still like the connotation of "purity", without an association to virginity) and have my parents walk me down the aisle because they are an integral part of my life. Say I still want to wear a ring because it's pretty (he gets one too) and hubby and I still want to throw a big reception for our friends because I like seeing them having fun and celebrating with me. I don't see which of these actions demeans me as a woman. Sure someone could put their own interpretation on my actions and conclude that i'm bound by the shackles of patriarchy, but as long as my hubby and I know why we do these things, does it matter?
Thanks for the Witty Women link. I've been thinking a great deal lately about about funny women, and how to do comedy as a woman, a feminist, and a queer. I've been watching quite a lot of contemporary UK sketch comedy, and like in North America the dominance of men is suffocating. In almost every case women are supporting players: nurses, wives, waitresses, or girlfriends.
The worst offender I have seen is Big Train, who for the second series replaced two brilliant and under-used women (Amelia Bullmore and Julia Davis) with two other brilliant and under-used women (Rebecca Front and Traci-Ann Oberman). The message is clear - this is a boy's club, and women are generic and replaceable.
Even with a duo like David Mitchell and Robert Webb, who have shown a great deal of loyalty to their female co-performers (Olivia Coleman only left the sketch show That Mitchell & Webb Look after she was advised by her agent she was becoming too closely associated with Mitchell & Webb, as she also is in their sitcom Peep Show), it is clear the show is about them.
Still, there are some incredibly talented women working in comedy in the UK (beyond French and Saunders!). Smack the Pony had its last series in 2003, but is worth seeking out on DVD. I sometimes found it uneven, and I found myself watching it through the filter of trying to understand how difficult it must have been to make a network sketch comedy show starring three women. It does highlight the challenge of being a comedian and a feminist: The creators of Smack the Pony explicitly stated the show was not feminist, but you must wonder how much of that is response to a sexist market. Still, it makes having role models as a female comedic performer so difficult. Should I feel guilty if I still enjoy their work?
I'm not even sure where I am going with all this beyond saying this has been on my mind a bit, so it is good to be reminded there is a long history of witty women. Perhaps I will make sense of my thoughts and put it into a community post at some point: I hope it is possible to be creative and funny but honest to my politics and identity.
(Oh, since I've been shamelessly plugging artists, I have to mention Laura Solon. I have become such a fan of hers - her wit is so sharp, and her command of character reminds me of Jennifer Saunders or Tracy Ullman. Her Talking and Not Talking is hilarious.)
The author of "Just Like Family: Inside the Lives of Nannies, the Parents They Work for and the Children They Love" is interviewed by Salon. It's a great article about immigration, women of color, and women's work. Intersectionality ftw!
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/06/08/like_family/index.html
Can I link a story in here ?
I blogged about this at my site. You can just read this horrid story over at newsweek.
Im literally choking as I read this. :(
http://www.newsweek.com/id/202008/page/1
Proceed with caution...
hint the name of the piece: "love me, love my money"
S
They don't know what they're talking about. Marriage works because of compatibility, not cash.
My grandfather had 4 daughters. 3 married for money, 1 for love. My mom (the 1 for love) is still happily married. The other 3, destitute after 3 awful divorces (it turns out that the ones girls marry for money tend to be determined to not share any of it after divorcing, and relish watching their ex-wives struggle even after spending 20 years raising children and caring for the house). But then, this is just personal experience.
I fear for the woman who follows this advice.
i married for love. really smart starving-artist type. we were relatively young, struggling at first, you know the drill.
the problem with marrying a starving artist is the starving. my perfectly reasonable salary wasn't enough to support us once he got fired multiple times, and spent what we had on musical instruments and cigarettes instead of food and rent. now, after we've been divorced for years, he's almost 40, and still living with his mom.
i figured out after being with him for four years is that in some ways, being married is like co-owning a business. even if you love your best friend, you might not start a business with her/him, and marriage is no different.
it might sound unromantic, but shared values re: limited resources are vitally important to the success of a relationship. that doesn't mean i'm endorsing gold-digging by any means, but "compatibility" is a very loose term. in some ways, my ex and and i are very compatible; we still talk about music and art, our two passions, often. but in terms of our views on money---NOT compatible.
I agree so much, I mean, it is all fine and dandy to say "money doesn't matter, only love!" but money does on some level matter to most people, and being compatible with that is very important. If everyone was okay with starving, being kicked out of places, etc. that'd be another story. It is different when one side is doing the "responsible" income thing and the other is blowing it off. And I don't mean that you can't have a loving relationship with disparate incomes, but if one person isn't happy with the disparity, there can't be happiness. I have a lot of sympathy with men and women who finally leave lovers/spouses who can't get it together regarding money.
absolutely.
since divorcing my ex, i've been able to go back to graduate school. i wasn't able to before, because all the money i would attempt to save would end up having to be used to keep us afloat. i've been able to pay off my car, which i bought when we were together after the one i had got totaled. and so on.
without money, we cannot create lives or realize our dreams. therefore, i see NOTHING wrong with telling young women this, though the "love me, love my money" title of the piece is silly. again, i'm not endorsing gold-digging. but the societal expectation seems to be that romantic love is so wonderful and all-encompassing that it can make a relationship survive through all troubles. there needs to be some honest discussion about what it really takes to make a life happen, and i think it's ***smart*** for young women to look for someone who has similar values about careers and education and saving/spending and investing.
The authors already admitted that like marries like in the vast majority of cases. Even when it comes down to social status and incomes.
I think the issue is at the extreme ends of the spectrum. And even then women are rational actors here. For example, for women who are in the lowest income brackets supporting a husband and taking care of a child doesn't even make sense.
The way to further decrease the reliance of income or potential income as a partnering criteria is to increase male parental investment (time not money). This is already happening, but slowwwwly...
I don't know if it's intentional or bias or whatever but these article about money and marriage are missing a bigger point. Money isn't the problem. Instead it's values when it comes to how to spend the money. There are a lot more ways to blow money than there are to make money, lol!
For example my Dad was a gambler (mostly stock market) back in the day, and it put a lot of stress on my parents marriage. They were a dual income couple from similar social background, just like the stats say is the norm. Yet they had money troubles anyway. How many times do we see couples where 1 partner spends more on frivolous things or what not, adding stress to the relationship? This is what needs to be studied to actually give both men and women some better advice.
"For lower-income women, though, money is still critical. One recent study of single mothers, for example, concluded that many would have married the father of their children—if he'd had a job. But a man without a paycheck? No way."
I think this phrase was a little illuminating. We're not talking about men with a different economic scale, the scenario isn't that female doctors aren't marrying those male nurses... We're talking about women not wanting to marry men who are just not working. And I doubt they're referring to husbands that are receiving disability, I'm going to guesstimate we're talking about men who just don't see any necessity in being gainfully employed, even when there are children to support. And I think that if modern couples are wising up to this and not jumping in with those who can't even support themselves, much less a family, more power to them.
Regarding A&F: I remember in high school having friends who worked there and hearing stories about how they take into account the person's appearance when determining to hire or not - and that their superiors would actually inquire about this from the hiring manager before approving. I am sad to see this crap is still going on. That is why my bf and I boycott them, in addition to their soft-porn CLOTHING magazine which i personally find disgusting.
I loved reading the Houston Chronicle article on the feminist weddings. It was something I thought about around 4 years ago, and had actually come up with so many of those same ideas - it's really cool knowing my thoughts about the wedding are echoed. Unfortunately my bf has wanted a large traditional wedding, but i think over the time we've been together he is starting to realize that maybe he wanted those things because his family would want him to have the traditional wedding. I think we're going to be able to compromise. I've even told him I would be open to just going to the court house & then having a reception (a.k.a party) for the family, or even eloping in Vegas with a couple friends.
But if we stay around here, it's going to be LOW budget, and I'm refusing any financial support from anyone for 2 reasons: 1, I don't like relying on anyone else and refuse to burden someone else with paying for a ceremony for me and my SO, 2 because I'm afraid if his family puts money in, they will feel they then have a say in what we do with our wedding.
I want either no engagement ring, or also an engagement ring for him (i'm not going to be the only one 'advertising' my relationship) and both parents to walk behind me & the bf down the aisle (a display of support, not giving away) as I would like to walk WITH my bf down the aisle, not TO him. I also want only my sister to stand up with me, and I would call her the Best Woman, not maid of honor (if there's a best man, there's a best woman!). I, too, have struggled with the white dress thing, loving how white looks on me period, but it's actually been a tradition on my mom's side NOT to wear white: she wore blue, one aunt wore yellow, another wore red or pink, can't recall exactly. So I've even thought about wearing black with other colors (such as a white ribbon or lace), because black can look so stunning. And I would like our own vows and none of the traditional religious vows. Plus I refuse to marry in any church. I also am adopting the no bouquet toss idea as well. Those are just some of my ideas.