Discrimination and Abercrombie & Fitch

[shanek]

Abercrombie & Fitch is now facing a discrimination lawsuit because their advertising cultivates "an all-white look" and that that "Abercrombie discriminates against blacks, Hispanics and Asians by enforcing a nationwide corporate policy of preferring white employees for sales positions, desirable jobs and favorable work schedules."

I'm sure the usual anti-Libertarian bigots on this board will just take one look at the source and fall on their usual tactic of claiming bias (with no evidence at all) and thus not have to actually examine the issue, but here's an article on Mises.org that I think brings up some of good points on this issue:

"If you look at the material they put out, they are cultivating an all-white look," said Thomas Saenz, vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "It is difficult to understand why, given that their target age demographic is even more heavily minority than the rest of the population, they would choose to do this."

In other words, Abercrombie and Fitch, a constant winner in the voluntary "dollar-vote" elections of the market, is accused of being an intensely racist company in both its employment practices and its product marketing.

Regardless of the intentions and supposedly prejudice nature of Abercrombie and Fitch's corporate policies, and the steps it may or may not take in making employment and marketing decisions, the lawsuit brought against the company is an embodiment of either misunderstanding or old-fashioned ignorance.

Clearly, this case is characterized by the same absurdity that all discrimination lawsuits and legislation share, a failure to recognize the nature of individual preference and the harmonizing activities in the free market.

Although many individuals will not hesitate to deny it, everyone discriminates on a daily basis. The fact of the matter is that discrimination is nothing more than the active demonstration of preference. Human interaction has been composed of discriminatory actions since the dawn of the race. Individuals make decisions and act on those decisions based on what they perceive to be most beneficial to them at a specific point in time.

One may choose coffee over tea, or enroll in an economics class over a sociology class based on their preference, clearly discriminating against the other. Likewise, an individual may wish to apply for employment with a particular company while a decision-maker of a company may wish to hire a particular individual corresponding to their perceived benefits. Discrimination is the fundamental exhibition of liberty, an individual's ability to make decisions and act out in accordance with those decisions.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the Abercrombie and Fitch discrimination case would no doubt bring many more lawsuits of the like before the courts. The fact of the matter is that there would be no difference between this particular case and a case brought by a Caucasian against FUBU for its "all-black" look, or a male against Victoria's Secret for catering to women, or an elder against The Gap for not favoring the elderly. Basically, discrimination is in no way, shape, or form criminal, rather, it is nothing more than the exhibition of preference, which is legal in a society that calls itself free.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1278

 

[Goshawk]

Basically, discrimination is in no way, shape, or form criminal, rather, it is nothing more than the exhibition of preference, which is legal in a society that calls itself free.

Right, but that's in the abstract, in an ideal world. In the real world, however, most upscale clothing retailers realize that "diversity" is "in", and even if you know that the only people who buy your stuff are WASPs, still it looks good to have your advertising be multi-ethnic.

I don't shop at A&F and so am not aware of their ad campaigns, but if the charges are true, it betrays an extraordinarily poor grasp of the social issues and forces at work today.

Even Bergner's understands this.

http://www.bergners.com/style/default.jsp?dept=01&prodID=0102

http://www.bergners.com/style/default.jsp?dept=03

 

[Tony]

The real racists are the people bringing the lawsuit.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm sure the usual anti-Libertarian bigots on this board will just take one look at the source and fall on their usual tactic of claiming bias (with no evidence at all) and thus not have to actually examine the issue....

I'm sure your point would be received better, if you would not exhibit the very same bigotry and bias you accuse your imaginary enemies of.

 

[Ed]

A&F (the old A&F that was REALLY elitist) used to have a gun room on the 4th floor of their NY store (treir only store at the time). Thousands of guns and a sterling plated 20mm deck cannon.

The party ended when some dickweed brought a cartridge in, asked to see a gun, loaded it and blew his head off.

BTW I can advertise to whoever I wish. I only have to answer to my Board.

 

[DavidJames]

"discrimination is in no way, shape, or form criminal, rather, it is nothing more than the exhibition of preference, which is legal in a society that calls itself free."

I'm glad I don't live in a country that believes such nonsense.

 

[corplinx]

Believe it or not, dark-skinned people and fair skinned people look better in different colors. For instance, a mustard colored shirt will much better favor the dark-skinned person. There are stores in my town that cater to black fashion. So why should it be any surprise that a store sells mostly "white" fashions? I don't know if the allegations are true, but even if they are I could care less.


Discimination in employment practices is a much different issue though.

 

[shanek]

Right, but that's in the abstract, in an ideal world. In the real world, however, most upscale clothing retailers realize that "diversity" is "in", and even if you know that the only people who buy your stuff are WASPs, still it looks good to have your advertising be multi-ethnic.

Which makes the lawsuit even more nonsensical. If they really are racist, let the b@$7ards shoot themselves in the collective foot.

 

[EvilYeti]

I'm sure the usual anti-Libertarian bigots on this board will just take one look at the source and fall on their usual tactic of claiming bias (with no evidence at all) and thus not have to actually examine the issue, but here's an article on Mises.org that I think brings up some of good points on this issue:

No need, this is yet another perfect example of why Libertarianism is a fundamentally flawed philosophy.

The federal government isn't suing A&F, its private citizens. In a Libertarian society citizens would be free to do the same, this has very little to do with the government.

The only difference would be in the Libertarian courts the process would not be regulated and the plaintiffs could sue for a hundred billion dollars and win, as long as the jury awards the damages.

The Libertarian society would be LESS free as lawsuits would either bankrupt businesses or force astronomical price inflation to cover the litigative expense.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Discrimination and Abercrombie & Fitch

I'm sure your point would be received better, if you would not exhibit the very same bigotry and bias you accuse your imaginary enemies of.

Have you ever actually READ the responses I get to the threads I make? Pretty much the only ones where I don't get jumped on for spouting "liberarian propaganda" from "biased sources" are the ones where I call these people out from the start. And even that's no guarantee.

If you find it so distasteful, then why don't you call out others whenever they do thta instead of rebutting the actual arguments? Or is it because all you want to do is take down me, and support anyone who is trying, and you're willing to deny any such tactice by your side in the process?

 

[shanek]

I'm glad I don't live in a country that believes such nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? If it is nonsense, then that means you don't discriminate in any way at all.

So, do you go eat at Burger King and Wendy's every time you eat at McDonalds? Preferring one over the others would be discriminating, you know! Do you have as many friends that are believers in the moon hoax, psychic powers, or Q-Ray bracelets as skeptics? Better make sure; wouldn't want to discriminate any. And I'm sure you've bought a book by John Edward for every one of Randi's that you own, right?

 

[EvilYeti]

Why is it nonsense? If it is nonsense, then that means you don't discriminate in any way at all.

So, do you go eat at Burger King and Wendy's every time you eat at McDonalds? Preferring one over the others would be discriminating, you know! Do you have as many friends that are believers in the moon hoax, psychic powers, or Q-Ray bracelets as skeptics? Better make sure; wouldn't want to discriminate any. And I'm sure you've bought a book by John Edward for every one of Randi's that you own, right?

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

 

[Tony]

EvilYeti, your proud ignorance is starting to border on parody.

 

[Tony]

I'm glad I don't live in a country that believes such nonsense.

You're glad you dont live in a country that believes in free thought and free-association? Hmmm... I thought that is what america was about.

 

[DavidJames]

"You're glad you dont live in a country that believes in free thought and free-association? "

I must congratulate you on not using the term bed wetter.

"Why is it nonsense? If it is nonsense, then that means you don't discriminate in any way at all."

 

[EvilYeti]

EvilYeti, your proud ignorance is starting to border on parody.

Tony,

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

 

[kittynh]

well as far as I can tell A&F sell to 12-18 year old little white girls, and a few gay guys and boy bands.

It screams, "I'm a teenager wearing my teenager uniform and have no creativity or ability to think for myself! Please tell me what to wear, I will wear anything with your logo on it!"

Teens love it as mom won't be caught dead in it. No use wearing Tommy or Ralph if mommy is wearing it too.

But, I think GAP makes money, and talk about diversity in advertising! Hey, put all whites in your ads, but you have to hire fairly. That's a law.

A&F is about safety and security. It's the Leonardo De Caprio of clothing.

 

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Victoria's

So are they going to sue Victoria's Secret next for catering exclusively to females?

Face it; people are not all exactly identical, but certain aspects are similar enough that the market becomes open for specialties. In some cases, it is gender, in some cases it is colour. You won't find a white model on the box of afro-sheen, and you won't find many black men wearing bras in the window of Victoria's. Most of America's sub-cultures are race-oriented, and the fashion market will target these sub-cultures as readily as they'll target the elderly with their advertisements for Depends.

Is it really that bad that whites should get their own fashion? Every other race has theirs, so why not whites as well?

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Discrimination and Abercrombie & Fitch

Have you ever actually READ the responses I get to the threads I make? Pretty much the only ones where I don't get jumped on for spouting "liberarian propaganda" from "biased sources" are the ones where I call these people out from the start. And even that's no guarantee.

If you find it so distasteful, then why don't you call out others whenever they do thta instead of rebutting the actual arguments? Or is it because all you want to do is take down me, and support anyone who is trying, and you're willing to deny any such tactice by your side in the process?

Is it possible to blame you for anything? Seems not.

 

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

A&F doesn't have a sign on the door that says "White customers only"; they produce a product that is intended to appeal to a particular group. You don't have to be in that group to buy their merchandise.