Abercrombie and Fitch-discrimination or capitalism?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maverick74, Dec 7, 2003.

  1. Maverick74


    Ok, here is something a little different to discuss yet still a little political. Tonight on 60 Minutes they did an expose on clothing retailer Abercrombie and Fitch. A&F has decided years ago to restore their image and increase sales by promoting a very all american look. All their advertising and most of the sales force in their stores are generally all white, blonde hair, blue eye people. guys typically look like jocks and the girls are all tall and thin.

    Some minorities are crying discrimination because they are not hiring blacks, asians, latinos, or ugly people. The store maintains that they have a right to project whatever image they want and they believe its important to their bottom line to project this image. The minorities are saying that's not fair and they should have a right to work there as well.

    Now clearly there are many examples which they used tonight on 60 Minutes where certain companies are projecting their own images i.e. Hooters only hiring big breasted women and the BET cable network where its mostly run by african americans.

    I contend that A&F has a right to market their clothes to whoever they want and project whatever image they want to project. Clearly what they did has been very effective towards their bottom line as their sales are through the roof and they are considered one of the trendiest clothing retailers for the under 25 crowd.

    Why should A&F have to meet some kind of quota and go out of their way to hire ethnic groups that they believe might hurt their brand name and their sales. Can you force them to do something that would hurt their sales all in the name of political correctness? I don't think you can but the minorities are sueing them. Of course there are plenty of liberal lawyers jumping all over this case to set some kind of example.

    So what say you, discrimination or capitalism?
  2. i agree with you.

    btw, i have seen black models in their catalogs.
  3. Pabst


    One of the problems with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and it's various legal interpretations/judicial expansions is the failure to distinguish between public and private standards of prejudice. While I belive government can neither legally nor morally discriminate in hiring, servicing, and providing rights to anyone based on color, creed, gender, or sexual preference: I belive individual's and businesses have a right to discriminate.

    A shopkeeper shouldn't have to serve a patron that he chooses not to allow in his store, a landlord should be able to turn away a renter for his/her own reason's. The NBA shouldn't feel pressured to play white man Pabst at shooting guard, nor should a team feel discriminatory at not interviewing a black for a coaching job. I'm not saying that we would go back to Jim Crow. The social stigma is too pervasive for most institutions or establishments to be accused of blatant bias. Look at the Denny's suit. I think Denny's has the right to not serve blacks, but that policy is probably not great for business. However if we had true liberty and choice, this whole A&F story would be no more bizarre than disputes over private club memberships, the races of DJ's on ethnic programming radio, or wondering why a family with an extra room to rent might cringe at having a gay, transgender, racially mixed couple living under their roof. If I want to be prejudiced, it's my business not Big Brother's.
  4. Likewise, as an informed consumer, I have a right to discriminate against Abercrombie by not spending my money in their store. One of the benefits of living in a very capitalistic society is being able to encourage or discourage this sort of practice by spending my money elsewhere.

    I've never bought anything from that store. In my opinion, people who wear and purchase things from that store are trying to hard. Why would I shell out $60 on a shirt that has Abercrombie written on it? I'm going to pay THEM *my* money to be a walking advertisement for THEIR store?
  5. Absolutely, ANF should have the right to hire who they want in the running of their business. ANF belongs to ANF shareholders, period. It does not belong to the government, it does not belong to 'the people', and it certainly does not belong to the ADL & Rainbow Push. Enslaving everybody to each other is not freedom.

    If the offended minorities don't like ANF's hiring policies, they have every right to go and create their own clothing retail franchise. Of course they never will, because the type of person the sits around whining about discrimination is not the type of person who ever gets off his ass and takes some constructive initiative. It's much easier to destroy than to build.
  6. If racism is profitable, then a capitalist who can make money off of racism will do so if his social consciousness is subordinate to his money consciousness.

    However, just because it is legal for a private party to be racist, does it make it morally right?

  7. It clearly <b>isn't</b> legal for a private party to engage in racial prejudice. Even if it were legal, It <b>would</b> be morally wrong.
    However, it's even more morally wrong for government to force people into business transactions against thier will.
  8. Regrettably this policy is starting to be directed toward their customer base - I was recently denied entry to their Las Vegas store. They claimed that my very casual summer attire did not conform to their dress code, but anyone with half a brain could see that it was really because I'm very ugly.
  9. i've been buyin their jeans and some of their pants for like 5 years. their jeans rule, imo...they don't have a brand name written all over them. i don't usually wear stuff with hugely visible brand names either.

    btw, as for their catalog, they can put people f*cking in them and i wouldn't care. i like how they're testing limits...this "nudity is bad" stuff is BS anyway.
  10. #10     Dec 8, 2003