Abercrombie and Fitch-discrimination or capitalism?
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
I totally agree. I have no idea why the United States is so anti-nudity. It is perfectly acceptable to have images of explosions, maimed bodies and destruction all over television, billboards and movies but if you show a woman's breasts you are in deep shit? That makes a lot of sense.
It is another example of a socially accepted yet retarded group policy among people in our culture.
*high fives aphexcoil*
right on, dude.
as usual, RM knows what's up. no BS from him!
I don't get it. Where are all the liberals on this one? Come on guys step up. Minorities are getting laughed out of the store. Whatever happened to the democratic party and it's minority base? This is sad, hanging them out to dry huh?
I didn't see the interview but I find it hard to believe they actually said they only hire waspy good looking people. I'm pretty sure that would be illegal under various anti-discrimination laws. While I agree with some of the other posters that it is none of the government's business whom a private employer hires or fires, that is not the law. An employer does have a very narrow exception. If they can prove that a qualification is a "bona fide occupational qualification", they can discriminate against an applicant who lacks it. Having a law degree and passing the bar are bfoq's to be hired as a lawyer. I can't imagine that a retailer would even try to argue that having a "look" is a bfoq. That is the very definition of discrimination.
LOL. Actually they did interview many store managers and I'll try to give you some of the quotes during that interview but they may not be be 100% accurate since I don't have a transcript in front of me. One of the upper level executives walked into a store and told the local manager "we want you to hire people that look like this" he was pointing to a good looking white male jock pictured on the wall. Another line was when a philipino filled out an application they said "sorry we already have too many philipinos at this store". LOL. I'm serious they said this. Wait there's more. One executive told one of the store managers "we want you to cut back the hours of all the ugly people". I'm not making this up. LOL. There were even more I can't remember all of them.
Now back the question, is this really discrimination. A&F contends that they want to project a certain lifestyle with their clothes and if they want all white good looking people to promote it then that's their business.
They did mention that there is an african american store called BUFU or something like it in NY that only sells african american clothing and 100% of the sales staff is black people so isn't that discrimination?
It's not like A&F is the only clothing retailer out there. They have a right to make decisions that are in the best interest of their shareholders. Would you like it if they started hiring all minorities and suddenly the stock plummeted and you were a shareholder?
Come on man, where are all the ACLU liberals on this board? Speak up.
A&F is marketing to wasps; why should they not have wasps selling the merchandise?
I do not think morality has a place here. A&F is a corporation for profit and if they think this is the best route to go then so be it.
Minorities should stop whining and go create an A&F for themselves. This is like GG coming on here and bitching and crying when he should be trying to learn the game.
When is the last time BET hired a wasp to VJ their rap/hip-hop segments???
I do not think morality has a place here. A&F is a corporation for profit and if they think this is the best route to go then so be it.
Minorities should stop whining and go create an A&F for themselves. This is like GG coming on here and bitching and crying when he should be trying to learn the game.
When is the last time BET hired a wasp to VJ their rap/hip-hop segments???
Well, okay Mav. I'm not an "ACLU liberal", but I'll speak up.
As AAA pointed out, rejection of an otherwise qualified candidate based on their 'look', when 'look' refers to racial characteristics, is the very definition of discrimination. So, legally, if they have been going around admitting this, then to me they seem screwed.
Now, should a company be allowed to discriminate in this manner? That's the question.
While those who say the company should be able to do what the hell it wants certainly have good points, I think it's an equally good point to say that in light of the terrible consequances of racial discrimination throughout history through to the present day, and in light of the almost certainly negative ramifications it would have on inter-ethnic harmony and other social cocerns that it's really not too much to ask of employers not to discriminate in their hiring practices based on race.
As AAA pointed out, rejection of an otherwise qualified candidate based on their 'look', when 'look' refers to racial characteristics, is the very definition of discrimination. So, legally, if they have been going around admitting this, then to me they seem screwed.
Now, should a company be allowed to discriminate in this manner? That's the question.
While those who say the company should be able to do what the hell it wants certainly have good points, I think it's an equally good point to say that in light of the terrible consequances of racial discrimination throughout history through to the present day, and in light of the almost certainly negative ramifications it would have on inter-ethnic harmony and other social cocerns that it's really not too much to ask of employers not to discriminate in their hiring practices based on race.