Spheres of argument: When does one’s body no longer belong to oneself?

In the controversy about whether or not Hooters should have fired Cassie and Leanne, CBS (May 2010) did a news story entitled, “Too Fat for Hooters? Will Cassie Smith Lose Her Short Shorts? (PICTURES),” which featured a short story as well as 23 pictures of Cassie as a way in which to spur discussion about the on-going case.  In a later blog post, I will discuss the visual aspects of this story, but for now I want to focus on the type(s) of argument being advanced.

At the end of the article, the news writer asked the public to comment, with the following questions: “The question remains...how big is too big at Hooters?  What do you think? Did Hooters have the right to fire her for her weight?”  In this way, the public audience is asked to comment on the situation. 

There are a few ways in which they can engage the question, privately, publically or technically (based on Goodnight’s spheres of argument piece).  To argue based upon the private sphere deals with personal matters, where one can simply say that they think so in order to “win” an argument.  The technical sphere involves a specialized form of reasoning, including jargon and community norms.  It limits evidence and judgment to a particular field.  For example, scientists often use particular terminology to discuss the effects of global warming.  The public sphere includes public issues, where the goal is public deliberation and engagement on civic issues.  Each of the different spheres demonstrates a different grounding for argument.  Now, even though the discussion occurs on an online site, the place or site of the argument does not determine if it is private, public or technical.  Additionally, the open ended nature of the question offers an opportunity to see how people will ground their arguments, and as a way to test out Goodnight’s spheres. 

Absent from most of the discussion is a focus on the technical.  No discussion of BMI (body mass index), what the government, scientists, or nutritionists suggest as an appropriate body weight.  Additionally, very little discussion focuses on the legality of the issue.  One comment by Focused2010 does include an argument by analogy, where the poster compares the ongoing case to the airline industry: “When you get hired on at Hooters, you know the rules...it is about appearance. If the company thinks you are too fat and offer to pay for a gym -- take it -- that is if you really want the job. Since the airline industry standards for their stewardess went to h..., many of the now stewardess are way over weight. If you don't want to be scrutinized about your appearance, don't go into occupations or jobs that have a very high standard and not much tolerance. And yes, she could lose about 10 pounds...I used to be an instructor at a gym - she could lose 10 (with proper exercise and healthy eating) and look better.”  Here the technical sphere, including the legal norms and case law regarding weight, combines with argument from authority, where Focused2010 quickly uses his/her experience as a gym instructor to make judgments about Cassie and her weight. 

However, this particular type of comment is rare among the total number of comments on this particular story.  Most of the comments do not focus on any legal issues at all, but instead focus on two issues: whether or not Cassie is fat and whether or not Hooters serves good or bad food.  These types of comments emerge from the personal sphere, whereby the posters bring their personal notions of what constitutes fat and/or beautiful or what is good or bad food.  (For the purposes of my interests here, I am focusing only on Cassie’s appearance.)    

For example, several posts argue that she is unattractive in some way.  For example, shirleyvince states: “Cassie looks great, not fat at all, but I think those pictures must be Cassie's mom because she looks 45 not 20. Her neck, eyes and thighs are clearly over 40 or she's been living hard. 132 is very thin for 5'8'' but I would guess her weight at at least 145. The numbers just don't jive with the pictures.”  Similarly, pak31 again notes how the pictures and the words just don’t match up, and don’t add up to a beautiful person: “I am NOT a superficial person by any means, but this girl is not attractive in her face at all. As far as her figure is concerned, I find it hard to believe that she is 5'8" and 132. It's possible but I think more than anything she's out of shape. Her body is not what I would expect to see at a Hooters restaurant. I'd say her body is average.”  Combining his/her personal reading of Cassie’s photos to make the argument Hooters is not the right place for Cassie, longtree-2009 wrote: “for a 20 y/o, she's got some kind of a little belly going on judging from the array of pictures provided. one shows the back of her thighs and they seem to already be like cottage cheese, the beginning of it. 132 is too heavy for 5'8" female. hooters should have every right to hire slim women since it is, after all, hooters. hooters has got to keep up its image and this girl is not it by a long shot.”  Each of these comments, even though written in a public forum, stems from a personal conviction, a personal notion of what is beautiful (and thus the personal sphere).  In the last comment by longtree-2009, the grounds for Hooters being able to employ slim women is based upon the writer’s previous description of what constitutes a beautiful woman, and since Cassie did not live up to his/her standards, Hooters was in their right to fire her.  Thus, even though the public sphere was somewhat present here (Hooters has a right to employ people based upon an image standard), the basis for the argument still first developed from the personal sphere.

On the other side of the debate, the comments again were drawn from personal conviction or experience.  bigreddog222 simply stated: “What's the problem? She is HOT.”  In a similar vein, daniellejudith argued: “i remember when i was 5'6" and 125lbs. i felt so skinny. they are saying that she is too fat at 132 and 5'8"? insane.”  Finally, lizannrand rejects super thinness by stating: “She is far from fat. 132 lbs is not fat at all. I think the problem is because she isn't wafer thin and look like a bone bag walking there's an issue. Whatever happened to curves? UNREAL.”  All of these again stem from one’s personal beliefs about what is beautiful and what is not. 

So, what’s the matter if all these arguments are based in the personal, rather than public, line of argument?  In a public controversy, no one can win when ground or an argument from the personal sphere; after all, it could simply just be someone’s opinion.  Therefore, CBS might be trying to advance public deliberation by asking for direct feedback from the public about the issue.  However, simply discussing Cassie’s body in a public forum (ala the internet, news story, etc.) does not engage in public deliberation.  Although people have a right to their own opinions about whether or not Cassie is beautiful, the question, “Did Hooters have the right to fire her for her weight” should elicit public policy concerns, such as whether or not weight should be a protected category, the role of lawsuits within society, whether or not beauty standards can or should be codified into law/policy, etc. 

Thus, these posts (overall) demonstrate how Cassie’s body no longer functions as a private body but as her body becomes publicly displaced, the arguments blends the private/public spheres, justifying comments on whether or not she “actually” weighs 132 pounds. 

Who needs to prove their case?

An ongoing controversy involves the case of two former Michigan Hooter waitresses, Cassandra “Cassie” Smith and Leanne Convery, who were both constructively fired for being “too fat” to represent Hooters and the image of a Hooters server.  Before I go into more specifics about the case, a few important pieces of background information.

First, Michigan is the only state which prohibits discrimination based on weight.  Currently, state and federal law prohibits against discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, but overall, protection has not been extended to include weight-based discrimination.  In 1976, Michigan passed the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) to include weight as a protected category.  Following Michigan’s lead, a few cities have enacted similar legislation, including San Francisco, CA; Santa Cruz, CA; Urbana, IL; Washington, D.C.; and Birmingham, NY.  Thus, part of the on-going controversy with Smith and Convery involves the legitimacy of the ELCRA, and whether or not weight should be a protected category against discrimination.

Second, Hooters requires all servers (which they only employ women to fill those roles) to maintain a particular image standard.  Of course, the primary part of a Hooters girl includes the standard issued uniform, which includes: “White Hooters tank top, orange shorts, suntan hose, white socks, solid white shoes, brown Hooters pouch, name-tag and of course...a smile! The Hooters Girl uniform cannot be changed or altered in any way.” Additionally, as all servers need to be “camera ready,” the company also provides additional guidelines regarding the Hooter girl appearance.  These include: wearing natural looking makeup (including mascara and lip gloss or lipstick), doing one’s hair, and practicing good skin care (including, removing makeup, drinking water, and eating fruits and vegetables).  These additional requirements, along with the uniform, regulate how Hooters girls can look, as Hooters wants to maintain a particular kind of image, that of an “All-American Cheerleader” or “Surfer-Girl-Next-Door” look. 

Now, more about the particular case.  Currently, the legal case in Macomb County, Michigan is underway.  For the legal case, legal precedent determines who needs to prove their case, or those who have the burden of proof.  For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with prosecutors to prove that the defendant committed a crime (because defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty).  Within this specific court case, Hooters of Roseville, Inc. and Hooters of America, Inc. will need to defend their actions as not violating the ELCRA.  Thus, within the legal context, the company has the burden of proof to demonstrate that they committed no wrong. 

However, in the court of public opinion, many people have weighed in on their thoughts about the issue and they are not adhering the legal standard of burden of proof.  Rather than focusing on Hooters as a corporation doing wrong or focusing on the specifics of the ELCRA, media focuses on the bodies of Cassie and Leanne and constructs arguments about the case where the former servers need to prove that they were not too fat to serve; thus, the burden of proof rests with the servers and not the company. 

Although many stories focus on their bodies as proof, for the purposes of this blog entry, I am focusing on a specific media story about Cassie.  A local FOX news story interviewed Cassie about her situation.  The piece focuses on Cassie’s body and whether or not she constitutes someone who is “fat.”  Using video footage of Cassie twirling in her uniform, pictures of Cassie over her two years of service, and a ruler to demonstrate the skimpyiness of the orange shorts, the focus revolves around Cassie and her body.  Indeed, the voice-over during the visual displays of Cassie’s body tells the viewer that she is 5’8” and only 132 pounds.  And, according to the Body Mass Index (BMI), Cassie’s weight is considered normal for her height (see the calculator here).  Even though the BMI category does not adequately address lots of social issues and contains many issues, it does demonstrate one aspect in which her weight meets a social, cultural, or public burden of proof regarding what is deemed “appropriate.”

Thus, rather than focusing on the legal issues of the ELCRA or on why Hooters should need to be the one to defend itself, the argument shifted to what constitutes appropriate weight for a Hooters girl.  Indeed, even when the reporter takes it upon herself to attempt to interview the local Hooters restaurant where Cassie worked, she does not ask about why Hooters violated the ELCRA, but rather asks why they thought Cassie was “too big” to serve for them.  Thus, the media framing has effectively shifted the argument from a legal context where the company is on the defensive to a public context where Cassie must defend herself. 

The “essence” of the female body: Part 2

I know that last week I said that this post would be about Hooters waitresses.  However, before I get to the specifics of that case, I came across something that deserves critical attention: baby high heels.

As one of my friends recently had a beautiful baby girl, I was thinking about what to give her as an appropriate baby gift.  Somehow, I stumbled across a website entitled “Heelarious: her first high heels.”  For $25, you can buy a baby girl a pair of shoes that look like heels.  The website advertises the product as a “Pink satin heel with zebra satin lining for infants size 0-6 months” (see promotional photo below).  Also, one should not be worried about the safety of the shoes.  The creators of the website state: “The shoes are not intended for walking and the heels actually collapse if any little ones try to put weight on them. Heelarious, her first high heels, are not intended to harm children in any way- they are intended to be hilarious!”

After my initial shock wore off, I began to think of the ways in which babies are socialized into various gender roles and norms.  Judith Butler, and others, states that the process of gendering begins with the naming the newly born child either a girl or a boy.  Balloons stating “It’s a girl” typically come in pink, whereas “It’s a boy” balloons typically are blue.  These gendering processes continue throughout childhood.   A trip down the children’s toy aisle will see a clear diving line between pink/purple (girl’s toys) and red/blue/brown/black (boy’s toys).  Thus, clearly babies and children exist as gendered beings.    

However, I think that baby high heels deals with a different aspect of gendered identity: the essence of a woman.  As baby girls are younger versions of women, they can, and should, exhibit qualities of a woman in a smaller fashion.  Not only is the essence of a woman to be thin (see my previous blog post), but she also should be wearing heels.  Thus, as smaller versions of women, infants should be able to wear “safe” heels.  Many times, in order to look (or feel) sexy, a woman dons a pair of heels.  Heels can range anywhere from the business-like pump to the stiletto. 

What is it about heels that are so alluring to women?  Numerous studies have proven that heels are bad for one’s health (including such things as: bunions, hammer toes, leg problems, knee problems, back problems).  After my own bunionectomy at the age of 25, I had to drastically reconsider the types of shoes that I wear for my own personal health.  Even so, sometimes I still long to wear a pair of modest two-inch heels, but at the end of the day, I remember why I typically wear my sneakers, or sometimes, my flats.  My aching feet remind me of how social norms can manifest in material ways.  Even after knowing that heels are bad for me, I’m still struck by my desire to feel sexier by wearing a heel.  The notion “beauty as pain” comes to mind.

So, when we as a society are putting babies (remember, they’re only made for infants 0-6 months) in high heels, the expectation is that they will grow up to wear real high heels, as part of the expected essence of femininity and womanhood.  The name of the website is telling here: “Her first high heels,” which implies the first in a long line of heels.  These baby heels exist as part of a gendering practice built on the presumption of what constitutes an appropriate female form, and exist as one part of the socialization process. 

For me, I decided baby heels would never make an appropriate baby gift, and instead decided to get my friend and her baby a book.  Books can stir the imagination, and dream of new worlds to come (and hopefully a world without baby heels).  

For others’ take on baby heels and/or sexualization of youth, take a look at the following:

Salon

MSNBC

Menstrual Poetry

Professor, What If