That all depends what her job is. You seem to be assuming that her job is simply to plonk food down on a table. In some restaurants this is the case. In others it is not. I am not hung up on physical appearance, I just expect my waiter or waitress in a more expensive establishment to be suitably dressed, groomed, well mannered, polite, and well spoken. That's part of what I pay for. If a person's job is merely to plonk food down on the table, then hair is irrelevant. That alone is not what most waiters and waitresses are expected to do though. They are expected to look and sound right while doing it. That is part of the job. An unspoken part perhaps because of stupid discrimination laws, but you can't beat the markets and as someone else said - if one place offers service by a whole load of skinhead girls, and another place offers service by pretty girls with nice hair, all other things being equal, most people will go to the latter. Of course, if you want every restaurant to be McDonalds with better food that's your choice. I do not. Eating out is not just about the food. Eating out is about an experience and wait staff which conform to the expectations the customers have of that experience are part of that whole thing. As you said, opinions differ. You obviously have different requirements than me when you eat out. That's fine, there's room in the world for the sorts of places I like to eat and the sorts of places you like to eat at the same time. I might be off the money here, but perhaps I can provide an explanation. Few people will object to a woman wearing a skirt. Some, a very small number perhaps, but some people might object to a woman being in trousers. They might feel a firm has the traditional values they're after if they see all the women dressed in the manner they'd like women to be dressed in. One doesn't have to like it, or even agree with it - but in business the aim not just to attract customers but to avoid repelling them, and if you can avoid repelling one group while making no difference to another group you do it. Oh come on Nexxo - tying sociocultural norms to apartheid? Why not just jump to Godwin? Democracy has nothing to do with capitalism, neither does state enforced apartheid in the public and private sector have anthing to do with both parties in a free society being able to choose whether or not they want to conduct business. Except society makes things a level playing field by bearing force against individuals to make them do that which they do not choose. By forcing a racist man to serve a white man in his shop, you provide positive liberty to the white man and at the expense of the negative liberty of the black shop owner. Just because you swap things around so that the party who's normally getting screwed is now doing the screwing, doesn't make things free.
Spec, I do agree with you that a business owner should have the freedom to pick and choose their clientele under the law. I guess I was not clear on that... However, where I live conducting business in this manner will only lead to a huge drop in sales, no matter what class they cater to. Yes, that would be voluntary financial suicide. I for one am glad to live in a place where petty differences are ignored. Yes the owner had a right under the law to dismiss her for the summer if this hair thing was in her employment agreement, but that does not make his decision morally right. Saying that it's just the way the world is is the easy response. The world is what we choose it to be. Just about any incident can be seen in a negative or positive light depending on how you look at it. I for one would have let it be known to the customers what a great thing she did for a good cause, even if it was against the dress code. Rules, as the word of law, should never be black and white because things are never as clear cut as that in "the real world". I suspect that anyone who would be appalled at her appearance, after knowing the circumstances, should have their head examined. But perhaps I am just a silly Canadian, surrounded by many other silly Canadians.
Agreed. I live in a similar place . I prefer the idea of a shop owner being able to turn away all the black men who come to his store if the shopowner chooses to, but I'm glad I live in a society where if a shopowner did this he'd soon go out of business. I'm not so sure I agree. You don't have to like it, but people are hired partly on the basis of the way they look and sound and communicate. If they can't perform adequately they're not doing their job, and if they've chosen not to do their job they should expect what they'll likely get: dismissal. The thing is, when I'm forking out a significant sum of money, honestly I don't care why the girls hair is wrong - I just care that it's wrong. Perhaps that seems barbarous to you, but I don't care about the people who serve me any more than I care about someone on the street, I don't care about their personal lives, and I don't care about reasons. I pay for what I want, and I expect to get it. I would say "that's life" - the beauty of a free market economy is that if folks like you dislike that you can simply choose not to support any establishment which bases employment partially on appearance (good luck finding many though, frankly). Meanwhile, I can continue to support them because I like to have certain standards for certain things. Yes, yes you are.
Sorry spec but i have to really disagree with what you say because your argument is seriously flawed. As mentioned - Comparing a girl who got her head shaven (regardless of the reason/charity or not) doesnt compare to having **** you tattooed on your head and working in a primary school - Thats quite a poor example because well firstly, its common sense not to use such words around kids, the role is to teach them values/morales at schools too and educate them and you dont have to be a genuis to learn that having a tattoo saying that will cause problems. Doing what you want with your hair however is totally up to you aslong as you dont shave something thats going to discriminate against others. Dye your hair purple, pink whatever - shave it off thats up to them but the thing is there are people that are bold - should they be discriminated against? what about women suffering from cancer and going through chemotherapy resulting in hair loss - should they be fired from there jobs simply because they dont fit in? Its not their fault now is it? My girlfriends mother has lost her hair due to chemo, you think this was her choice? or that she isnt going through a tough time as it is that she needs her employers on her back now over things she cant control? You can see what this can lead to from one example. This has no bearing and means nothing to you im sure but, I actually thought you were cool before i read that post of yours, Im sure your a fine guy but I have to say personally iv lost some respect for you after that remark especially in relation to disabled and people suffering from illnesses.
You're free to disagree with me, but you havn't shown me any flaws in my argument Similarly, you don't have to be a genius to realise that getting your shaved head when you work in a restaurant will likely cause problems. This is correct. It is totaly up to you what you do with your hair. Similarly, it is totaly up to an employer who they give their job to. Why not? That's different, no-one chooses to get cancer. People do choose to shave all their hair off for charity though. Choice is the key thing here. And just why shouldn't they discriminate? If I'm crap at my job, I should be fired for someone who is better than me. That is discrimination. We all discriminate a thousand times a day and it's perfectly normal, healthy, and acceptable. What is deemed morally unacceptable is discriminating against people for something they have no choice in, illnesss, race, disability - things like that. Don't think that because society dislikes discrimination of that kind, that all discrimination is bad - far from it. Well that's nice of you to say - but you need to understand there is a very big difference between discriminating against choices people have made, and discriminating against circumstances people can not control. You will find me to be very willing to defend people from discrimination against something they have had inflicted upon them. However coming from my own personal position of having been ill myself for over 5 years now, I do not have much patience for people who inflict something upon themselves and then complain about it or the consequences of it. Everyone has a mind and everyone makes choices in life - you can't complain just because the choice you desire conflicts with something else you desire. That's life.
Out of curiosity, I wonder how many wealthy female clients would continue to do business with a company if they found out that the women were not allowed to wear pants. If the clientel still holds on to old fashioned values like that, then why stop there? Are the shoes limited to high heels only, or are pumps allowed? I would think that a person savvy enough to build a high net worth would be able to see past that kind of facade. -monkey
That's the beauty of it. People who're modern enough to have no problem with women wearing trousers mostly won't care whether the company mandates it or not, because they'll be concerned about the bottom line and not the cloth liberation of the people who work at a company they hire. This goes in the same vein as most politicians being christian, but not too christian. Being an avowed atheist turns off all the christians because as far as they're concerned, only christians are right. But atheists by and large won't look into the religion of a candidate, it won't be a key issue, and they won't vote based on it. Hence most leaders tend to be christian, but often not _that_ christian. Just enough to keep the fundies happy, and not enough to actually be objectionable to the normals.
There are no dress codes, or none that im aware of anyways, that say your hair should'nt be bold or shaven. If the woman dressed accordingly to the dress code and I highly doubt it says "not to shave your head" then she has'nt done anything wrong. Well you mentioned its about choice - Whether people choose to do something or not - That remark by me said people that are bold shouldnt be discriminated against and you ask - "why not?" well for one many men cant choose what happens to their hair, its out their hands which is infact what your point goes on to make, things people control and things they dont and if they cant control something then they shouldnt be discriminated against for it. Yet I dont understand why you contradicted yourself here? saying its ok to discriminate against people that have gone bold when it wasnt their choice? : Just wondering whether you actually read what i wrote correctly or simply assumed? Moving on, Yes your right however that we dont live in a perfect society and discrimination happens everyday but its knowing where the line is drawn. Your example of someone doing a crap job compared to someone doing a better job with the first being discriminated against - well that has no bearing really because were not talking about ability here of individuals but appearance. But I dont understand, why a woman being bold is considered so "against the social norm" for you. Yes women are not generally bold but it happens? its not that strange? It is up to the employer who they give their job to; this one infact knew she was going to get her head shaven apparently and said nothing about it or had any issues with it until it happened. Now once the job is given to someone certain rules are put in place to protect individuals and discrimination is one of them - not discrimination of ability like you compared but religion, beliefs, disability gender oh and yes physical appearance (unless stated before hand by the employer) Ability is different, people that are disabled may come for an interview for a job but wont get it simply because they feel they may not do as well - if they felt the person did they would get hired. This is what the recruitment process is like, if a disabled person had a great CV with great education compared to someone that doesnt, they would then get hired and iv seen it happen. Now the employer can lay out rules before hand saying they dont want people with tattoo's or those with piercings but if they dont then once employee's are hired they are within their right to exercise their freedom which is what this woman has done - There wasnt any rule about her hair? Why should she have been sent home if it was the employers fault for not telling her they may have a problem with it before she did it?
Oh can we just let this thread die, or renamed it to "specofdust 'n' Co vs MaximumShow 'n' Co" The fact of the matter is, she probably broke something in her contract which stated she needed to look a certain way, this way is determined by the management. The management were well within thier rights to fire her. They had enough sence to let her off pretty lightly because it was for charity. Whether that is right or wrong, moral or immoral. That is what happened and that is life.
I was quickly reading that part and had assumed you were rather oddly attributing people with brightly dyed hair or skinheads to be bold people, therefore shouldn't be punished. The word I think you were wanting was "bald", but "bald" and "bold" are too very different things (spellchecker perhaps?) Looking and sounding professional is an ability. Like I said, looking and sonding professional is an ability. Not everyone is able to be a better doctor, and so should be fired if a better doctor is available. Similarly, not everyone is able to look and sound more professional, and therefore should be fired if someone who can is available - all other thing being equal. Physical appearance is considered for the bulk of jobs - in some it's more or less important, and in the service industry it is definitely important. Well, true enough sometimes a contract may be used as a way out of being fired for people like this - but as far as I'm aware it doesn't need to be in the contract that if someone isn't performing their role in a job they can be fired.
Well, DUH! Apartheid is about sociocultural norms. So is fascism, racism, religionism and whether or not we find shaved heads, employees wearing ties or jeans and women wearing pants acceptable. A free market can only exist in a relatively free society (think about it). Apartheid was state enforced, but it was also a societal norm. Societal norms influence what customers find acceptable and what employers cater to. Think racial segregation in the US. What changed society's (and hence, customers' ) expectations was a (State-enforced, incidentally) change in societal norms. That is bollocks, sorry. They choose to be a member of society. That inherently comes with compromises. If they do not want to play along, they can go somewhere else.
I'm not sure you've taken my point. Let's scoot over to your Apartheid South Africa for a good example. In the bad old days a black man entering the store of a white man would be told to leave (at best). Now, a black man enters a white mans store and he can not legally be refused service on grounds of race. Beforehand, one party had their choice removed from them. Now, the other party has their choice removed from them. It's only incidientally a more free system, morally nothing has changed. Only when both parties are free to turn down a transaction, and it is totaly consensual, are things truly free. I don't disagree. But it was state enforced. That's the difference. Read the thread ffs. I'm tired of having to explain to people repeatedly that there's a difference between choosing to shave your head and losing your hair. Also, refer to my "**** YOU" tattoo example earlier on as to why charity should not give one carte blanche to do whatever one wants in the workplace.
I agree with you on that, but I also think that we have to be careful about what norms and values we cater to. Occasionally people do not have choices. For instance you reasonably exclude the waitress losing her hair involuntarily, like through illness. Well, some people fail to meet other people's certain standards not through their own choice. Some people are just ugly, deformed, dumb, their particular gender or ethnic group or whatever. In some other scenarios, like e.g. in health care, we cannot reasonably turn people away and deny them a service. I like to think that the service provider makes choices too, when they decide to enter a certain line of business, and accepts the compromises that involves.
Well, you know my politics well enough these days that you could probably predict this response, but: We shouldn't cater to norms and values. We should create a society where people are free to follow their own ones and let people do what they choose to do. Not in the public sector, no - because they've already paid for the service. In the private sector? Perhaps not legally but from the perspective of maximum liberty - yes you can turn someone away even if they're about to die. The point at where society can kick in and do it's moral thing is where everyone turns around and stops supporting the doctor who shuns someone who they could otherwise save the life of, simply because that person is ugly. But that's up to individuals to decide for themselves, not for society to dictate.
I'm saying that the function of society is to be moral and mutually supportive; you're saying that society should morally regulate itself. I'm getting the scary feeling that we are as crazy idealistic as each other.
Nah, not a chance. You actually hope to achieve your ideals, I just use mine as an excuse to hate everything. I agree in a limited fashion with you, dependant on what we mean by "society" - if we mean the state, the power of the majority, then I disagree. The state should be amoral. If you mean society as in the individuals that compose a country then I agree it should be moral and mutually supportive in my opinion. If someone elses opinion differs then they need offer neither morality nor support to what we term "society". That is freedom. All you achieve when you thrust morality upon people is a decrease in state-wide morality. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor, if you understand me. To continue that analogy, although it may ensure the poor are fed, you deprive the rich an essential right (what to do with their money) so instead you have to leave things be and hope the rich choose to give to the poor, and if you yourself are rich you can make that decision. Similiarly, if you yourself are in a position to make a positive contribution to a moral and supportive society you can take that decision to do so, but you should not force others to do the same. This all said, I currently hold freedom to be the ultimate ideal - if you're operating from a POV that overall happiness should be the ultimate ideal then perhaps you are right. If you do though, I want a PM explaining how utilitarianism doesn't fall down
W00t! New signature slogan! I think of society in terms of community: a bunch of people living together. In a society/community that regulates itself, everything is balance and compromise between self-interests and the interests of the community as a whole --which, of course, comes back to self-interest in the end. It is a free choice --for a given value of "free"; i.e. one's personal dependence on the community. People can choose to opt out, of course, but that means opting out altogether. I'm not sure the two can be separated. Happiness is about having choices. I definitely do not subscribe to Utilitarianism. The end never justifies the means; I believe it works the other way around.
Ingredients for a good argument: spec nexxo controversial topic lol. I'll come back and give a proper reply once my exams are over.
