Fascinating legal story coming out of Chicago in recent weeks: A restaurant over in the south suburbs called Twin Peaks had a complaint filed with the EEOC against them by several former female waitresses alleging that they were “forced” to wear sexually suggestive clothing that made them uncomfortable and submit to certain physical fitness standards to work there. The workers go so far as to cite the MeToo and TimesUp movements as “inspiration”.
But the thing is, Twin Peaks (much like the Hooters franchise) is well known for having “sexy waitresses” and targeting a male clientele. Moreover, those women signed an agreement before starting employment at the restaurant, agreeing to do the things of the very nature filed in the complaint. They knew they would be held to certain looks standards, and required to wear sexual costumes. Now they say those things were degrading, and that they should be monetarily compensated for them beyond the employment wages.
It’s not hard to do an image search on google and see exactly what they were signing up for.Their argument fundamentally boils down to: “we no longer want to be held to the agreement we signed in the first place”.
To my original question at the beginning of the article, if this were simply an economic agreement, there would be no issue. Signed contract with clear stipulations that both sides agreed to. But here the agreement relates to female sexuality. Thus, the real problem that we are dealing with here relates to the Economics of Female Sexuality.
And to that I would posit one simple adage we all know well in this capitalist era: Sex sells.
That is particularly true on the female side, and given the strong visual orientation of male sexual desire. There is intrinsic value in female appearance. The Twin Peaks employee handbook even explicitly states that “the essence of the role is based on female sex appeal.”
In short, one cannot disentangle female sexuality from its economic value. Yet the women think they should be able to use their sexuality to sign one deal, but later renegotiate it to their liking. In other words, Bait and Switch.
For a Classical Liberal, that is a fundamental problem. The notion of individualism and the emphasis on individual endeavor depends on having sound property and contractual rights. If I can’t be guaranteed to receive the rewards for my efforts, why should an individual make that effort? The system breaks down at that point.
Such Bait and Switch tactics are rife throughout female sexuality, both in humans and other animals. Female bird mating practices often entail deceiving one male into thinking the child is his and getting him to invest resources into nest building and food gathering, all while illicit mating occurs on the side. Chimpanzee females and other social primates use a similar strategy of “reproductive obfuscation” so that individual males are unsure whose children are whose. Both examples are resource extraction strategies – a transfer of resources from males to females in exchange for sexual and/or reproductive access. Or in essence, economic transactions.
In the era of MeToo, human females want to pretend like their sexuality is distinct from the economic transactions that underlie human society. We see this in the modern no-fault divorces, the after-the-fact redefinitions of “sexual consent”, pink taxes, the gender tax gap, continual push for government support of single mothers, and now (as the case above show) even in signed legal employment agreements. Such a trend does not bode well for the persistence of the classical liberal principles the West was built upon.
An interesting fact about the recent Bill Cosby sexual assault case (in which Cosby was found guilty) – at one point during jury deliberations the jury came back to the courtroom to ask what the legal definition of sexual consent was. The judge told them there was not one, and that the jury would have to “make up” their own.
The point here is not whether Bill Cosby is guilty or not, maybe he is maybe he isn’t. The issue is that juries should not be coming up with their own extrajudicial definitions of things outside the normal legislative process and then using those concepts to convict people. At the very least, judges should set a precedent definition for the jury that can then be taken up in an appeals court.
Due Process is one of the fundamental principles of classical liberalism, but without clear legally agreed upon definitions of terms, due process is impossible. We cannot have women or others redefining things after-the-fact. Imagine if a judge told a jury to “make up” the definition of murder during a trial.
Just another example of how the feral Bait and Switch mechanics of female sexuality unleashed by modern feminism leads down the slippery slope of illiberal outcomes.